Wonderful video. God bless this great work and service to the English speaking youth. May God continue to grant blessing. Looking forward to more videos!
@apo.7898 Both Greek & Latin was spoken by the east. It was not called "Byzantine" - I hate when they ignorantly refers to the east as such - it was always the Roman Empire.
I think you should make a follow up video explaining the contrast between the Oriental Orthodox view of Original Sin defended by St. Severus of Antioch and the heretical view of Julian of Halicarnassus, who believed that sin was mingled with our human nature and inherited as a transmissible substance.
Yes it’s definitely not so black and white. I think this quote is what you’re referring to : "The sin of those who brought us forth, meaning the sin of Adam and Eve, is not mingled with our natures and essence...We are born mortal having been born of mortal fathers, yet we are not sinful because of our birth from mortal fathers. This is because sin has no substance and is not transmitted through childbearing from parents to their children. If the case was otherwise, no one born of a sinful father can become righteous no matter how great an ascetic he is because the attribute of nature would be unchangeable." - St. Severus
As a Protestant it was refreshing to hear that you agree that the early Church fathers taught penal substitutionary atonement. Both Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic as you said do deny this key doctrine.
Doesn’t matter Protestantism isn’t apart of apostolic orthodox Catholic tradition ( Greek east , miaphysite oriental orthodox , Latin west ) Pick your cake anything outside of that is falling away from AC
@fabbeyonddadancer That nature of disagreeing with any tradition is that you will be labled as outside of it. We came out from the Roman Church but this does not mean we are outside of Apostolic tradition. The church split long before the Protestant reformation but Protestantism was more radical due to how far the falling away from Apostolic truth at that time had become.
As a convert from Southern Baptist by way of Lutheran to Oriental Orthodox, the general Protestant understanding of the fathers led me to convert. Most Protestants just dont read the fathers or know the history, sadly true for most groups.
I'm a Baptist too, and that is true we just read the Bible mostly from Paul and we don't really know church history cause we see anything that's not protestant as heretical
True im pentecostal and i noticed it in my own church. They view it as not relevent and that its mere tradition. Hence why i want to be ethiopian orthodox
Confessional lutherans read the fathers,but it's the only branch of Protestantism I've found that do. Luther actually spent one month with an Ethiopian Orthodox named Michael. They came to agreement on the Trinity, Justification, The Lord's Supper and Baptism. Micheal lived with Luther for one month.
@@rjmckenzie4706 it wasn't a big role but evidence that Luther would probably just be an Oriental if alive today. Lutherans are the closest thing to Orthodox in the West, but still lacking considerably
Orthodox Church does not believe that appealing to the Patristic fathers is protestant, that is false. You have no argument, why did you break away from the unity of the faith in Chalcedon?
@chrismathew2137 Nestorius was condemned by my Church not anybody else's. Is that what they told you, that we are nestorians. The Assyrian church is Nestorian bucko, and it's not in communion with us. Never asked yourself why is that the case? If we share the same Christology why are we not in communion?
@chrismathew2137 Nestorian did not believe in the synergy of Christ's Divine and Human Will. He had a funny concept of what is meant by incarnation. If we share the same theology as him why do we refer to the mother of God as Theotokos instead of Christotokos? We believe these wills are in synergy as the human will is with God's will, same thing happens in Christ (God-man).
Love your page. I think PSA and Original Sin is more nuanced than you prob had time to get into with careful language of wrath and guilt. Like Cyril explicitly says we don’t inherit guilt several times. Severus says the same. Also it seems for us both topics are not dogmatized but important for how we view ourselves and God. Anyway again love your page I think citations and clarity will help. God bless brother. (One reference I’m referring to) "We must examine how the penalty of Adam, the first father, which he deserved due to his disobedience, was transmitted to us... From incorruption, he became corrupt and liable to death. When the fallen man began to beget children in death, meaning those who were born of him, we were born corrupt having been born of a corrupt one. In this manner, we inherit the curse of Adam. However, we were not punished because we were guilty with Adam nor because we disobeyed the sin which he committed. But, as I said, because man became dead, he transmitted the curse to the children he begat, meaning that we became mortal because we are born of one who is mortal... Thus, we can conclude that the universal and general curse of the disobedience of Adam is corruption and death.” - St. Cyril
Although St. Cyril does say the human race as a whole was guilty in Adam, just as a side note. Although these concepts are extremely important to have as foundations to understand what Christ truly did for us. And as history shows, without such fundamental doctrines and understandings it leads to a whole thread of various heresies. Some of which this video points out.
☦️"bro"? You Dyer zombies learn first how to speak like Christians, not as American secularists. His indictment against you is correct since you don't represent us traditional easterners who believe in all the infallible original doctrines of the fathers, not your later heretical innovators. That video is total destruction of you orthoclown cults!💥🥊
Dude admits defeat in the first 7 min. Admits the oriental broke away from the East. God is not the author of confusing. You left the one true church just like the Roman Catholics
Hmm well what about the Henotikon Era the whole EO adopted the Henotikon document which is a non chalchedonian leaning document and the catholics hence anathemetized the whole east
@ The Henotikon was an imperial attempt to heal divisions between Chalcedonian and non-Chalcedonian Christians, but it failed to satisty either side. For the Eastern Orthodox, it reflects an era of theological and political negotiation during the early Byzantine period, highlighting the complexities of maintaining doctrinal unity in a diverse and divided Church. The Eastern Orthodox saw it as a way to preserve Chalcedonian theology without alienating the non-Chalcedonian majority in the eastern provinces (e.g.,Egypt, Syria). The Pope of Rome (Felix III) rejected the Henotikon because it downplayed Chalcedon's authority. He viewed it as a betrayal of the council's definitive teaching on Christ's two natures. This led to the Acacian Schism (484- 519), a 35-year break in communion between the Church of Rome and the Eastern Orthodox Church. The schism ended in 519 when the Eastern Orthodox Church formally reaffirmed Chalcedon and abandoned the Henotikon.
@@elitecompany1878This doesn’t address anything. Its just an overview from the Google AI engine, not sure whats with all these EO laymen commenting on this channel
I was hoping that Bishop Raphael's ideas would remain locked forever in Arabic, unheard by the English-speaking world. Now that you are using him as the primary authority (you seem to copy everything he says), let me respond. 1) This idea of uniform theological thought in the entire church before schisms is a mere illusion. You only need to read patristic works to realise this. Fathers disagreed on many things and had conflicting views of many others. None of this meant that the word 'heresy' was thrown around like it sadly is today. 2) Quote-mining is absolutely a problem. There is no such things as "the sayings of the fathers" when you're building a theological outlook. Sayings are great for pastoral and spiritual aspects, but you cannot rely on them for theology. The neopatristic movement understood this well. No one is applying a double-standard to Pope Shenouda. In order to go ahead and do theology today we MUST understand the fathers. We must be so entrenched in their thoughts and works. It is a prerequisite to then go ahead, and through the Holy Spirit which we do possess, build upon them. This is something that simply was not available in Pope Shenouda's time due to a lack of translated patristic works. 3) Do you really think that these theologians were so naive as to contradict the Nicene creed regarding baptism and original sin? Baptism was originally for adults. Infant baptism was not practiced in the west up to the 3rd c. at least (Tertullian speaks about it, and is against it). It was only done on emergencies if a child is nearing death. Origen in the east also speaks of infant baptism where it was customary -- however never mentions this supposed sin of Adam as a reason. Check Everett Ferguson's discussion of this whole topic. 4) There is a genuine difference in how the east and the west understood original sin. The absolute proof of this is Severus of Antioch's and Julian's letters. Read Goerge Farag's translation of them in the book الخطية الجدية. In short: Augustine believed that there was an essential change in humanity's nature due to the first sin. And as Severus says "no one has taught this teaching in the fathers that taught in Greek" -- clearly identifying a difference in outlook between the Greek East and the Latin West. 5) The council of Carthage was a local council in the West that has nothing to do with the Coptic Church or the Oriental churches as a whole. What you hear Arabic-speaking people claim over and over that the council of Ephesus agreed upon all the decrees of the council of Carthage is false. Ephesus never decreed anything of the sort in its own decrees. The only thing was that a letter was sent to the Bishop of Rome agreeing with his decision to condemn Pellagius. Obviously, that is NOT the same as supporting the council's decrees. 6) I do agree that the idea of substitution is present in e.g. Athanasius' On The Incarnation and that that is a genuine critique of recent EO theology. However, the question of whether the incarnation were to occur if there was no sin has nothing to do with penal substitution. Where do we get this idea from you ask. From Irenaeus (Against the Heresies) and Athanasius (Both Against the Gentiles on On the Incarnation). For Irenaeus, Adam is a child, undisciplined in virtue and need to learn and grow (in fact, Adam falls away from God precisely because he is a child who does not understand what is good for him; he wouldn't have fallen away if he were perfect). This is even more clear in Athanasius: "And the cause why the Word of God really came to created beings is truly wonderful, and shows that things should not have occurred otherwise than as they are. For the nature of created things, having come into being from nothing, is unstable, and is weak and mortal when considered by itself" So Christ came to created beings not because of "original sin" but because of the very essence of created nature: weak, unstable, and in need of salvation, regardless of sin. 7) When it comes to punishment, we must distinguish between punishment that will lead to course-correcting and punishment that is just for the sake of "paying the bill". Origen establishes this distinction and rejects the idea that God punishes for the latter. This is what some theologians are saying. 8) Which brings me to the point that the neopatristic outlook is one thing, and Bishop Raphael's understanding of it is something else. His understanding of it is, at best, rudimentary. In fact, he thinks "neopatristic" means "new patristic" -- that is, something "new" that was not patristic. If you are going to critique something, read its actual sources. And read their sources. You need to be very well read in 1) patristics 2) the neopatristic writers themselves. 9) The idea that we are punishing ourselves by departing from God is very present in patristic works. Here is Anthony the Great for example: "God is good, dispassionate, and immutable. Now someone who thinks it reasonable and true to affirm that God does not change, may well ask how, in that case, it is possible to speak of God as rejoicing over those who are good and showing mercy to those who honour Him, while turning way from the wicked and being angry with sinners. To this it must be answered that God neither rejoices nor grows angry, for to rejoice and to be offended are passions; nor is He won over by the gifts of those who honour Him, for that would mean He is swayed by pleasure. It is not right to imagine that God feels pleasure or displeasure in a human way. He is good, and He only bestows blessings and never does harm, remaining always the same. We men, on the other hand, if we remain good through resembling God, are united to Him; but if we become evil through not resembling God, we are separated from Him. By living in holiness we cleave to God; but by becoming wicked we make Him our enemy. It is not that He grows angry with us in an arbitrary way, but it is our sins that prevent God from shining within us, and expose us to the demons who punish us. And if through prayer and acts of compassion we gain release from our sins, this does not mean that we have won God over and made Him change, but that through our actions and out turning to God we have cured our wickedness and so once more have enjoyment of God’s goodness. Thus to say that God turns away from the wicked is like saying that the sun hides itself from the blind. [On the Character of Men 150; Philokalia 1:352]" 10) No one is denying that heaven and hell are real. That is a strawman. What is being discussed is whether they are physical realities of e.g. actual fire that burns you. I will simply quote Basil the Great: "‘The voice of the Lord divides the flame of fire.’ [David] says that this miracle happened to the Three Children in the fiery furnace. The fire in this case was divided into two, so that while it was burning those outside it, it was cooling the Children, as if they were under the shadow of a tree. I believe that the fire prepared in punishment for the devil and his angels is divided by the voice of the Lord. Thus, since there are two capacities in fire, one of burning and the other of illuminating, the fierce and punitive property of the fire may await those who deserve to burn, while its illuminating and radiant part may be reserved for the enjoyment of those who are rejoicing. [On Psalm 28:6, PG 29:297A]"
As a Catholic I’m not here to hate, here to say loved hearing your perspective! Sorry for all the folks being rude in the comments, may God bless and keep you
Don't you get it? Scholars and historians cannot simply believe in and, worse, promote the same myth-making that you do! If your beliefs provide you meaning, fine! But other people are far, far more intellectually honest and rigorous and have different standards for establishing truth and investigating reality.
The Lion's Den brothers have effectively presented the OO perspective through their comprehensive 8-10 series on Sam's channel. Conversely, despite invitations extended by Sam for the EO representatives including Erhan and Dyer to present their viewpoints, they've consistently failed to appear - it has been 11 months and counting. Their absence suggests at an acknowledgment of the indefensibility of the tome of Leo and the dual-nature doctrine in contrast with that of St. Cyril's teaching. Yeah, after 11 months of avoidance, on Dyer's platform Dyer and associates attempted to advocate for the EO stance. However, when confronted by Agen, an OO apologist, Dyer repeatedly evaded engaging in a debate, sidestepping direct questions and ultimately expelling Agen from the discussion - even Dyer's listeners were very curious why he was not engaging. For substantiating evidence, please refer to the link provided below. th-cam.com/video/6rEhZW1vYLU/w-d-xo.html
Great video. As a catholic I also realized this when looking into the EO church. I realized that there view on original sin was extremely questionable and in many ways reactionary towards catholicism. They accuse the catholics of being overly legalistic in many areas but especially when it comes to original sin, but the bible itself literally uses legalistic language to explain baptism, the sin of adam and eve, and salvation. To try and act like you are above this is pretentious and has led them down a very strange path when it comes to original sin sort of causing them to pull the rug out from underneath their own fatih. God bless our church, I love the coptic church and pray we can be re-united.
The Catholic Church needs to stop confessing false gods. Do you believe Allah of the Quran who has no son and is not a father is the creator of the universe like your church teaches?
There are many mistakes. First of all the first important schism is the one that lead to the creation of the Church of the East. The Antiochian church was further north from the circle you made. The Malankara church was not 'Oriental Orthodox' but part of the Church of the East. (You are doing what some Roman Catholics do, project a present reality to the past)
@ruel762 Still the Malankara Church was not 'Oriental Orthodox'. The schism is conventionally dated at 431 AD and there were important developments before that date. (At 410 AD and 424 AD). Even the date for the 1054 schism is in part a convention that isn't exactly strictly true. I don't know what is supposed to have happened at 470 AD. Can you show me?
@@apo.7898 ironic our fathers refuted you before you came up with this argument Dionysius Bar Salibi (d. 1171) observes in his *Treatise on the Melkites*, while responding to a dyophysite argument (*Tenth Chapter*): > Further, how did you assert that all Christians believe in two natures except us and the Armenians, while the Egyptians, Nubians, Abyssinians, **the majority of the Indians**, and the country of Libya which in the time of Dioscorus was composed of one thousand and five hundred parishes, accept the faith of St. Cyril and St. Dioscorus, and of the great Severus?
@@Joshua_Burdono Someone can oppose the two natures doctrine from at least two opposing and antithetical viewpoints. If that wasn't true 'Non-Chalcedonian' would necessarily mean 'Oriental Orthodox' but this is not the case.
@@apo.7898 not when the premise is that professing 2 natures at all is subject to the same metaphysical result. even if one was to grant your line of thinking St. Dionysius would have also needed to mention the regions of which the church of the east had prevalence
Kievan Rus was not the same as Russia. 🙂 I think that you are overemphatazing the unity of the early church, yes there was only one church where everybody belokged to, but still there were huge variety on theological thought and liturgical tradition. I apreciate you for making this video, it is nice to hear opinons on the OO perspective.
It breaks my heart to see coptics behaving in this way. I really thought reunion was closer with them than with the RC but it seems papacy is closer home than the coptics, but why???
@@chrismathew2137 bro, if you don't believe that Christ's human nature/will is not overwhelmed or swallowed up into His Divine nature, then explain to us what you believe.
@@chrismathew2137 because the miaphysite position Is also problematic because there is an assumed synergy between natures and you destroy this position by creating a compounded nature that is neither divIne nor human(Divine cannot be mixed with human and human cannot be Divine without Theosis)
Today, I had a class on eschatology (grad level course), and the professor, who is a Coptic Christian, also discussed heaven and hell. He explained that hell is not a physical place but rather a state of being. According to him, when a person denies God through their free will, God's presence after death becomes a source of pain, suffering, fire, and gnashing of teeth for the sinner. Conversely, there is no specific, separate location for heaven or hell. Hell exists within God, as He is the ultimate being, and nothing is outside of Him. We create hell or heaven within our own hearts. The professor referenced the words of the Lord, who said, "The kingdom of God is within you."
@andrewbehery Hey man! I am a huge fan of the content and would love to see you to talk about the Coptic church's standpoint on evolution and maybe react to this video of a debate between these two protestants: th-cam.com/video/9EdHOmFrqO4/w-d-xo.html (Evolution Debate with Pastor Keith Foskey - Redeemed Zoomer)
Do we have same understanding of “Penal Substitution” as some Protestants? That Christ on the cross took upon God the Father’s wrath and actually was dissociated from the Trinity because He took upon all sin unto himself?
@@andrewbehery Do we believe that God The Father had to 'unleash His wrath' upon The Son in order to redeem humanity of sin, or is it rather that by suffering in place of us despite being utterly innocent Christ redeemed humanity of its sin?
Between God and man stands one great barrier, sin. For by sin man concracted in the worst bargin he ever made. A greater debt then he could ever pay. Only by the Son of God bring His infinite justice to our bankruptcy could the dept ever be aquitted. In becoming human, He declared His submission and obedience to the Father on behalf of us all. In fullfilment, He gave Himself to be lifted up on the cross to bear all the weight of the sins of the whole world.
@@haykloretsi7899mo is a do not understand Penal Substitution in this manner as the Protestants. Yes Christ came down to die instead of us and pay the penalty on our behalf, but He did not pay the ransom to the devil nor to fulfill the wrath of the Father, but rather gave Himself to the Divine Justice, as we pray in one of the Fractions.
*At the **7:35** time stamp, you portrayed Ethiopia as embracing Christ in the 4th century-that is a blatant lie. I hope this misrepresentation stems from ignorance rather than a deliberate intent to mislead your audience.* Ethiopia’s spiritual devotion to the God of Abraham predates the birth of Christ by a millennium (one thousand years). The fervent belief of Ethiopia in the God of Abraham positioned the nation on par with the Jews in divine favor and merit, as eloquently articulated by the prophet Amos in Amos 9:7: "Are you not as children of the Ethiopians unto me, O children of Israel?" Ethiopians then surpassed the Jews when they embraced Christ in 34AD, a pivotal moment marked by the conversion of an esteemed Ethiopian eunuch, a custodian of the queen's treasury, who became the first to embrace Christianity under the guidance of Apostle Philip, as chronicled in Acts 8:26-38. Furthermore, the accounts detailed by St. Irenaeus (130-202 AD) within his treatise "Against Heresies III.12.8" and the renowned "Ecclesiastical History: Book II" authored by St. Eusebius (260-339 AD) corroborate the narrative in alignment with Acts 8:26-38. *_St. Eusebius emphasizes how the Ethiopian eunuch, upon his return to his native land, diligently preached the Gospel to his fellow Ethiopians, thereby fulfilling the prophetic declaration that "Ethiopia shall stretch out her hand to God" (Psalm 67:32)._* The essence of my argument lies in the historical reality that Ethiopia's belief in the God of Abraham predates the monotheistic beliefs of Egypt, Western and Eastern Christian traditions - while you all were engrossed in the worship of idols and celestial bodies, such as the sun, moon, and stars, Ethiopia stood firm in the faith of Abraham's God, subsequently becoming the first to embrace Christ. Yes of course, the Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahido Church, learned structure and received bishops from Alexandria and closely monitored the evolution of Christianity, and adopted monastic practices from the Desert Fathers of Egypt through the disciples of St. Pachomius the Great and through meticulous scrutiny, assimilated teachings from St. Athanasius, the Cappadocian fathers, St. Cyril the Great, and others while also dismissing doctrines put forth by Arius, Nestorius, Eutyches, and later Leo’s two-nature doctrine post-Incarnation. While we've assimilated much from the Alexandrian Church, there are areas where we reject your conduct. For example, until recently, your were playing buddy buddy and cozying up with Catholics, with attempts at ecumenism. We steadfastly opposed your conduct and any notion of union with the EO and Catholics unless they renounce Leo and the two-natures doctrine post-union. Leo remains a heretic in our eyes. *_Anyhow, It is wise to learn before speaking and refrain from mischaracterizing the Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahido Church._*
@ አላናገርኩትም ግን If you’re trying to say that I’m assuming his intention, I could accuse you of doing the same thing… All he said was that the EOTC was established in the 4th century. This video isn’t even about the EOTC, so he’s not going to be concerned with explaining exactly how Christianity reached Ethiopia. There’s no need to worry about any “intention” he might have had because he’s not even trying to say one thing or another about Ethiopia. He just briefly mentioned the EOTC and that was it.
For everyone that doesn't know this, this guy said that nature necessitates person to critique two natures.... which is absurd and contradicts anthropology
You really should not set yourself up as a teacher of others on theological matters when you have so much still to learn. Hopefully people who listen to this will dig a little deeper and see that your knowledge is shallow and your statements are inaccurate. You are doing harm.
Wonderful video. God bless this great work and service to the English speaking youth. May God continue to grant blessing. Looking forward to more videos!
5:00 This is misleading. E.g. Irenaeus was a bishop in France and was writing in Greek.
Even in Rome the ealy Popes were using Greek.
@apo.7898 Both Greek & Latin was spoken by the east. It was not called "Byzantine" - I hate when they ignorantly refers to the east as such - it was always the Roman Empire.
Sources ?
@@fabbeyonddadancer You mean to tell me that guys think that Latin wasn't the language of the Roman Empire in the east originally? Are you kidding?
I think you should make a follow up video explaining the contrast between the Oriental Orthodox view of Original Sin defended by St. Severus of Antioch and the heretical view of Julian of Halicarnassus, who believed that sin was mingled with our human nature and inherited as a transmissible substance.
Yes it’s definitely not so black and white. I think this quote is what you’re referring to :
"The sin of those who brought us forth, meaning the sin of Adam and Eve, is not mingled with our natures and essence...We are born mortal having been born of mortal fathers, yet we are not sinful because of our birth from mortal fathers. This is because sin has no substance and is not transmitted through childbearing from parents to their children. If the case was otherwise, no one born of a sinful father can become righteous no matter how great an ascetic he is because the attribute of nature would be unchangeable." - St. Severus
God bless Brother, spreading Truth and sorry for these people hating in the comments.
"just because it's old doesn't mean it's true" my response is "Yes and what is apostolic orthodox and catholic is true"
I really enjoyed this video, especially the historical set up before the doctinal review
As a Protestant it was refreshing to hear that you agree that the early Church fathers taught penal substitutionary atonement. Both Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic as you said do deny this key doctrine.
Although we the Orthodox understand it a bit differently than you guys. We don’t say He paid the ransom to the devil.
Doesn’t matter Protestantism isn’t apart of apostolic orthodox Catholic tradition ( Greek east , miaphysite oriental orthodox , Latin west )
Pick your cake anything outside of that is falling away from AC
@fabbeyonddadancer That nature of disagreeing with any tradition is that you will be labled as outside of it. We came out from the Roman Church but this does not mean we are outside of Apostolic tradition. The church split long before the Protestant reformation but Protestantism was more radical due to how far the falling away from Apostolic truth at that time had become.
As a convert from Southern Baptist by way of Lutheran to Oriental Orthodox, the general Protestant understanding of the fathers led me to convert. Most Protestants just dont read the fathers or know the history, sadly true for most groups.
I'm a Baptist too, and that is true we just read the Bible mostly from Paul and we don't really know church history cause we see anything that's not protestant as heretical
True im pentecostal and i noticed it in my own church. They view it as not relevent and that its mere tradition. Hence why i want to be ethiopian orthodox
Confessional lutherans read the fathers,but it's the only branch of Protestantism I've found that do.
Luther actually spent one month with an Ethiopian Orthodox named Michael.
They came to agreement on the Trinity, Justification, The Lord's Supper and Baptism.
Micheal lived with Luther for one month.
@@christopherpollock6320 i know that history, before i never knew the Ethiopian church played a big role.
@@rjmckenzie4706 it wasn't a big role but evidence that Luther would probably just be an Oriental if alive today. Lutherans are the closest thing to Orthodox in the West, but still lacking considerably
Orthodox Church does not believe that appealing to the Patristic fathers is protestant, that is false. You have no argument, why did you break away from the unity of the faith in Chalcedon?
What unity of faith? Those who agreed with Chalcedon are heretics
Why does your church adhere to the same Christology as Nestorius
@chrismathew2137 Nestorius was condemned by my Church not anybody else's. Is that what they told you, that we are nestorians. The Assyrian church is Nestorian bucko, and it's not in communion with us. Never asked yourself why is that the case? If we share the same Christology why are we not in communion?
@chrismathew2137 Nestorian did not believe in the synergy of Christ's Divine and Human Will. He had a funny concept of what is meant by incarnation. If we share the same theology as him why do we refer to the mother of God as Theotokos instead of Christotokos? We believe these wills are in synergy as the human will is with God's will, same thing happens in Christ (God-man).
@@OrthobroSAIf you really believe those wills are unified, why don’t you confess a unified will?
Orthodox is the only and real way. Jesus is God.
You dont even venerate Maximus the Confessor.
@@BarbaPamino He wasn't Orthodox.
@@Corpoise0974 stop using our word. Think of some cool coptic word.
@@BarbaPaminoSaint Athanasius made the term Orthodox famous yet he was a copt 😂
@ruel762 are his letters written in coptic?
@@Corpoise0974He was
Love your page. I think PSA and Original Sin is more nuanced than you prob had time to get into with careful language of wrath and guilt. Like Cyril explicitly says we don’t inherit guilt several times. Severus says the same. Also it seems for us both topics are not dogmatized but important for how we view ourselves and God. Anyway again love your page I think citations and clarity will help. God bless brother.
(One reference I’m referring to)
"We must examine how the penalty of Adam, the first father, which he deserved due to his disobedience, was transmitted to us... From incorruption, he became corrupt and liable to death. When the fallen man began to beget children in death, meaning those who were born of him, we were born corrupt having been born of a corrupt one. In this manner, we inherit the curse of Adam. However, we were not punished because we were guilty with Adam nor because we disobeyed the sin which he committed. But, as I said, because man became dead, he transmitted the curse to the children he begat, meaning that we became mortal because we are born of one who is mortal... Thus, we can conclude that the universal and general curse of the disobedience of Adam is corruption and death.” - St. Cyril
This quotation is referring to his personal guilt. We do not believe in this nor do the roman catholics
correct.
Ya That’s what I meant by nuances like personal vs ontological guilt etc
Although St. Cyril does say the human race as a whole was guilty in Adam, just as a side note. Although these concepts are extremely important to have as foundations to understand what Christ truly did for us. And as history shows, without such fundamental doctrines and understandings it leads to a whole thread of various heresies. Some of which this video points out.
Bro, by your own admission the Orientals 'separated from the' Church.
☦️"bro"? You Dyer zombies learn first how to speak like Christians, not as American secularists. His indictment against you is correct since you don't represent us traditional easterners who believe in all the infallible original doctrines of the fathers, not your later heretical innovators. That video is total destruction of you orthoclown cults!💥🥊
Do we not separate ourselves from heretics?!?
@@pelagonianlion8276 Yes, but even they are more Orthodox than your fringe Dyer western cults who separated from Christianity.
@@kightsun Had you been a true OO you would not use a secularist dirty profile pic, that is unchristian.
@kightsun If you was Orthodox, you wouldn't have used that sick profile pic, get rid of it.
god bless our lovely church
John of Damascus is not a saint in the Oriental Orthodox tradition, he is a saint in the Eastern Orthodox tradition
And (Roman) Catholic
He’s a saint and commemorated by the Ethiopian church..
Why not? He’s Eastern Orthodox right?
@@kianis1206 No he's not
☦️And your St. Joannes of Nikius is not in our Church, but I love him, despite his miaphisite heresy.
Dude admits defeat in the first 7 min. Admits the oriental broke away from the East. God is not the author of confusing. You left the one true church just like the Roman Catholics
Hmm well what about the Henotikon Era the whole EO adopted the Henotikon document which is a non chalchedonian leaning document and the catholics hence anathemetized the whole east
@ The Henotikon was an imperial attempt to heal divisions between Chalcedonian and non-Chalcedonian Christians, but it failed to satisty either side. For the Eastern Orthodox, it reflects an era of theological and political negotiation during the early Byzantine period, highlighting the complexities of maintaining doctrinal unity in a diverse and divided Church.
The Eastern Orthodox saw it as a way to preserve Chalcedonian theology without alienating the non-Chalcedonian majority in the eastern provinces (e.g.,Egypt, Syria).
The Pope of Rome (Felix III) rejected the Henotikon because it downplayed Chalcedon's authority. He viewed it as a betrayal of the council's definitive teaching on Christ's two natures.
This led to the Acacian Schism (484-
519), a 35-year break in communion between the Church of Rome and the Eastern Orthodox Church.
The schism ended in 519 when the Eastern Orthodox Church formally reaffirmed Chalcedon and abandoned the Henotikon.
@@elitecompany1878This doesn’t address anything. Its just an overview from the Google AI engine, not sure whats with all these EO laymen commenting on this channel
@elitecompany1878 yeah basically you admit you broke off from west due to the henotikon and later reaffirmed chalchedon and broke of from OO 😂😂😂
I was hoping that Bishop Raphael's ideas would remain locked forever in Arabic, unheard by the English-speaking world. Now that you are using him as the primary authority (you seem to copy everything he says), let me respond.
1) This idea of uniform theological thought in the entire church before schisms is a mere illusion. You only need to read patristic works to realise this. Fathers disagreed on many things and had conflicting views of many others. None of this meant that the word 'heresy' was thrown around like it sadly is today.
2) Quote-mining is absolutely a problem. There is no such things as "the sayings of the fathers" when you're building a theological outlook. Sayings are great for pastoral and spiritual aspects, but you cannot rely on them for theology. The neopatristic movement understood this well. No one is applying a double-standard to Pope Shenouda. In order to go ahead and do theology today we MUST understand the fathers. We must be so entrenched in their thoughts and works. It is a prerequisite to then go ahead, and through the Holy Spirit which we do possess, build upon them. This is something that simply was not available in Pope Shenouda's time due to a lack of translated patristic works.
3) Do you really think that these theologians were so naive as to contradict the Nicene creed regarding baptism and original sin? Baptism was originally for adults. Infant baptism was not practiced in the west up to the 3rd c. at least (Tertullian speaks about it, and is against it). It was only done on emergencies if a child is nearing death. Origen in the east also speaks of infant baptism where it was customary -- however never mentions this supposed sin of Adam as a reason. Check Everett Ferguson's discussion of this whole topic.
4) There is a genuine difference in how the east and the west understood original sin. The absolute proof of this is Severus of Antioch's and Julian's letters. Read Goerge Farag's translation of them in the book الخطية الجدية. In short: Augustine believed that there was an essential change in humanity's nature due to the first sin. And as Severus says "no one has taught this teaching in the fathers that taught in Greek" -- clearly identifying a difference in outlook between the Greek East and the Latin West.
5) The council of Carthage was a local council in the West that has nothing to do with the Coptic Church or the Oriental churches as a whole. What you hear Arabic-speaking people claim over and over that the council of Ephesus agreed upon all the decrees of the council of Carthage is false. Ephesus never decreed anything of the sort in its own decrees. The only thing was that a letter was sent to the Bishop of Rome agreeing with his decision to condemn Pellagius. Obviously, that is NOT the same as supporting the council's decrees.
6) I do agree that the idea of substitution is present in e.g. Athanasius' On The Incarnation and that that is a genuine critique of recent EO theology. However, the question of whether the incarnation were to occur if there was no sin has nothing to do with penal substitution. Where do we get this idea from you ask. From Irenaeus (Against the Heresies) and Athanasius (Both Against the Gentiles on On the Incarnation). For Irenaeus, Adam is a child, undisciplined in virtue and need to learn and grow (in fact, Adam falls away from God precisely because he is a child who does not understand what is good for him; he wouldn't have fallen away if he were perfect). This is even more clear in Athanasius: "And the cause why the Word of God really came to created beings is truly wonderful, and shows that things should not have occurred otherwise than as they are. For the nature of created things, having come into being from nothing, is unstable, and is weak and mortal when considered by itself" So Christ came to created beings not because of "original sin" but because of the very essence of created nature: weak, unstable, and in need of salvation, regardless of sin.
7) When it comes to punishment, we must distinguish between punishment that will lead to course-correcting and punishment that is just for the sake of "paying the bill". Origen establishes this distinction and rejects the idea that God punishes for the latter. This is what some theologians are saying.
8) Which brings me to the point that the neopatristic outlook is one thing, and Bishop Raphael's understanding of it is something else. His understanding of it is, at best, rudimentary. In fact, he thinks "neopatristic" means "new patristic" -- that is, something "new" that was not patristic. If you are going to critique something, read its actual sources. And read their sources. You need to be very well read in 1) patristics 2) the neopatristic writers themselves.
9) The idea that we are punishing ourselves by departing from God is very present in patristic works. Here is Anthony the Great for example: "God is good, dispassionate, and immutable. Now someone who thinks it reasonable and true to affirm that God does
not change, may well ask how, in that case, it is possible to speak of God as rejoicing over those who are good and
showing mercy to those who honour Him, while turning way from the wicked and being angry with sinners. To this it
must be answered that God neither rejoices nor grows angry, for to rejoice and to be offended are passions; nor is
He won over by the gifts of those who honour Him, for that would mean He is swayed by pleasure. It is not right to
imagine that God feels pleasure or displeasure in a human way. He is good, and He only bestows blessings and
never does harm, remaining always the same. We men, on the other hand, if we remain good through resembling
God, are united to Him; but if we become evil through not resembling God, we are separated from Him. By living in
holiness we cleave to God; but by becoming wicked we make Him our enemy. It is not that He grows angry with us in
an arbitrary way, but it is our sins that prevent God from shining within us, and expose us to the demons who punish
us. And if through prayer and acts of compassion we gain release from our sins, this does not mean that we have
won God over and made Him change, but that through our actions and out turning to God we have cured our
wickedness and so once more have enjoyment of God’s goodness. Thus to say that God turns away from the wicked
is like saying that the sun hides itself from the blind. [On the Character of Men 150; Philokalia 1:352]"
10) No one is denying that heaven and hell are real. That is a strawman. What is being discussed is whether they are physical realities of e.g. actual fire that burns you. I will simply quote Basil the Great: "‘The voice of the Lord divides the flame of fire.’ [David] says that this miracle happened to the Three Children in the
fiery furnace. The fire in this case was divided into two, so that while it was burning those outside it, it was cooling the
Children, as if they were under the shadow of a tree. I believe that the fire prepared in punishment for the devil and
his angels is divided by the voice of the Lord. Thus, since there are two capacities in fire, one of burning and the
other of illuminating, the fierce and punitive property of the fire may await those who deserve to burn, while its
illuminating and radiant part may be reserved for the enjoyment of those who are rejoicing. [On Psalm 28:6, PG
29:297A]"
@OrthobroSA
As a Catholic I’m not here to hate, here to say loved hearing your perspective! Sorry for all the folks being rude in the comments, may God bless and keep you
Don't you get it? Scholars and historians cannot simply believe in and, worse, promote the same myth-making that you do! If your beliefs provide you meaning, fine! But other people are far, far more intellectually honest and rigorous and have different standards for establishing truth and investigating reality.
You should have a dialogue w Erhan or Dyer.
You should watch "Defending Oriental Orthodoxy" by The Lions Den
Why
@@Josedrivadeneira They addressed a lot of their claims already
Cool. I would love to watch that debate.
The Lion's Den brothers have effectively presented the OO perspective through their comprehensive 8-10 series on Sam's channel. Conversely, despite invitations extended by Sam for the EO representatives including Erhan and Dyer to present their viewpoints, they've consistently failed to appear - it has been 11 months and counting. Their absence suggests at an acknowledgment of the indefensibility of the tome of Leo and the dual-nature doctrine in contrast with that of St. Cyril's teaching. Yeah, after 11 months of avoidance, on Dyer's platform Dyer and associates attempted to advocate for the EO stance. However, when confronted by Agen, an OO apologist, Dyer repeatedly evaded engaging in a debate, sidestepping direct questions and ultimately expelling Agen from the discussion - even Dyer's listeners were very curious why he was not engaging. For substantiating evidence, please refer to the link provided below.
th-cam.com/video/6rEhZW1vYLU/w-d-xo.html
Great video. As a catholic I also realized this when looking into the EO church. I realized that there view on original sin was extremely questionable and in many ways reactionary towards catholicism. They accuse the catholics of being overly legalistic in many areas but especially when it comes to original sin, but the bible itself literally uses legalistic language to explain baptism, the sin of adam and eve, and salvation. To try and act like you are above this is pretentious and has led them down a very strange path when it comes to original sin sort of causing them to pull the rug out from underneath their own fatih. God bless our church, I love the coptic church and pray we can be re-united.
he said PSA was early church teaching.
that a joke
@ PSA stands for what now?
@@lionheart5078penile substitutionary atonement.
Said the Pharisees.....
The Catholic Church needs to stop confessing false gods. Do you believe Allah of the Quran who has no son and is not a father is the creator of the universe like your church teaches?
Read Byzantine Theology and Introduction to the Orthodox Church just to learn i had wasted my time 💀💀💀
You say that Augustine made mistakes but you have a problem when the "Neopatristics' say Augustine made mistakes. This is a contradiction.
There are many mistakes.
First of all the first important schism is the one that lead to the creation of the Church of the East.
The Antiochian church was further north from the circle you made.
The Malankara church was not 'Oriental Orthodox' but part of the Church of the East. (You are doing what some Roman Catholics do, project a present reality to the past)
You are the one who is making a mistake since the ACOE only schismed in 470's AD
@ruel762 Still the Malankara Church was not 'Oriental Orthodox'.
The schism is conventionally dated at 431 AD and there were important developments before that date. (At 410 AD and 424 AD).
Even the date for the 1054 schism is in part a convention that isn't exactly strictly true.
I don't know what is supposed to have happened at 470 AD. Can you show me?
@@apo.7898 ironic our fathers refuted you before you came up with this argument
Dionysius Bar Salibi (d. 1171) observes in his *Treatise on the Melkites*, while responding to a dyophysite argument (*Tenth Chapter*):
> Further, how did you assert that all Christians believe in two natures except us and the Armenians, while the Egyptians, Nubians, Abyssinians, **the majority of the Indians**, and the country of Libya which in the time of Dioscorus was composed of one thousand and five hundred parishes, accept the faith of St. Cyril and St. Dioscorus, and of the great Severus?
@@Joshua_Burdono Someone can oppose the two natures doctrine from at least two opposing and antithetical viewpoints. If that wasn't true 'Non-Chalcedonian' would necessarily mean 'Oriental Orthodox' but this is not the case.
@@apo.7898 not when the premise is that professing 2 natures at all is subject to the same metaphysical result. even if one was to grant your line of thinking St. Dionysius would have also needed to mention the regions of which the church of the east had prevalence
Kievan Rus was not the same as Russia. 🙂
I think that you are overemphatazing the unity of the early church, yes there was only one church where everybody belokged to, but still there were huge variety on theological thought and liturgical tradition.
I apreciate you for making this video, it is nice to hear opinons on the OO perspective.
Also I really have to ask: If death was the creation of Satan what would have been the point of. Christ dying on the cross?
It breaks my heart to see coptics behaving in this way. I really thought reunion was closer with them than with the RC but it seems papacy is closer home than the coptics, but why???
As long as they insult us by calling us monophysites, reunion will never happen
@chrismathew2137 true, and the guy doesn't even have an argument.
He represents a personal opinion, not the whole Coptic church opinion, besides he is just copying what someone else said.
@@chrismathew2137 bro, if you don't believe that Christ's human nature/will is not overwhelmed or swallowed up into His Divine nature, then explain to us what you believe.
@@chrismathew2137 because the miaphysite position Is also problematic because there is an assumed synergy between natures and you destroy this position by creating a compounded nature that is neither divIne nor human(Divine cannot be mixed with human and human cannot be Divine without Theosis)
Today, I had a class on eschatology (grad level course), and the professor, who is a Coptic Christian, also discussed heaven and hell. He explained that hell is not a physical place but rather a state of being. According to him, when a person denies God through their free will, God's presence after death becomes a source of pain, suffering, fire, and gnashing of teeth for the sinner. Conversely, there is no specific, separate location for heaven or hell. Hell exists within God, as He is the ultimate being, and nothing is outside of Him. We create hell or heaven within our own hearts. The professor referenced the words of the Lord, who said, "The kingdom of God is within you."
thank god you’re correcting all these problems with the EO
@andrewbehery Hey man! I am a huge fan of the content and would love to see you to talk about the Coptic church's standpoint on evolution and maybe react to this video of a debate between these two protestants: th-cam.com/video/9EdHOmFrqO4/w-d-xo.html (Evolution Debate with Pastor Keith Foskey - Redeemed Zoomer)
I know this is a deep topic and would love to see your input!
this is a great video idea! I've been wanting to see a coptic orthodox commentary on evolution
good video i love maps
Very insightful! Thank you. God bless
Would you argue icons are a over development
Do we have same understanding of “Penal Substitution” as some Protestants? That Christ on the cross took upon God the Father’s wrath and actually was dissociated from the Trinity because He took upon all sin unto himself?
@@haykloretsi7899 yea that’s what EO has a problem with, not that he voluntarily suffered in our place
Christ is never dissociated from the Trinity.
@@andrewbehery Do we believe that God The Father had to 'unleash His wrath' upon The Son in order to redeem humanity of sin, or is it rather that by suffering in place of us despite being utterly innocent Christ redeemed humanity of its sin?
Between God and man stands one great barrier, sin. For by sin man concracted in the worst bargin he ever made. A greater debt then he could ever pay. Only by the Son of God bring His infinite justice to our bankruptcy could the dept ever be aquitted. In becoming human, He declared His submission and obedience to the Father on behalf of us all. In fullfilment, He gave Himself to be lifted up on the cross to bear all the weight of the sins of the whole world.
@@haykloretsi7899mo is a do not understand Penal Substitution in this manner as the Protestants. Yes Christ came down to die instead of us and pay the penalty on our behalf, but He did not pay the ransom to the devil nor to fulfill the wrath of the Father, but rather gave Himself to the Divine Justice, as we pray in one of the Fractions.
St. john of Damascus and St. Maximus the Confessor did not live in the Medieval period, they lived in the 7th and 8th centuries.
Most scholars would consider that to be the early Middle Ages. “Medieval”=After the fall of Rome to the Goths in 476 AD
*At the **7:35** time stamp, you portrayed Ethiopia as embracing Christ in the 4th century-that is a blatant lie. I hope this misrepresentation stems from ignorance rather than a deliberate intent to mislead your audience.* Ethiopia’s spiritual devotion to the God of Abraham predates the birth of Christ by a millennium (one thousand years). The fervent belief of Ethiopia in the God of Abraham positioned the nation on par with the Jews in divine favor and merit, as eloquently articulated by the prophet Amos in Amos 9:7: "Are you not as children of the Ethiopians unto me, O children of Israel?" Ethiopians then surpassed the Jews when they embraced Christ in 34AD, a pivotal moment marked by the conversion of an esteemed Ethiopian eunuch, a custodian of the queen's treasury, who became the first to embrace Christianity under the guidance of Apostle Philip, as chronicled in Acts 8:26-38. Furthermore, the accounts detailed by St. Irenaeus (130-202 AD) within his treatise "Against Heresies III.12.8" and the renowned "Ecclesiastical History: Book II" authored by St. Eusebius (260-339 AD) corroborate the narrative in alignment with Acts 8:26-38. *_St. Eusebius emphasizes how the Ethiopian eunuch, upon his return to his native land, diligently preached the Gospel to his fellow Ethiopians, thereby fulfilling the prophetic declaration that "Ethiopia shall stretch out her hand to God" (Psalm 67:32)._*
The essence of my argument lies in the historical reality that Ethiopia's belief in the God of Abraham predates the monotheistic beliefs of Egypt, Western and Eastern Christian traditions - while you all were engrossed in the worship of idols and celestial bodies, such as the sun, moon, and stars, Ethiopia stood firm in the faith of Abraham's God, subsequently becoming the first to embrace Christ. Yes of course, the Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahido Church, learned structure and received bishops from Alexandria and closely monitored the evolution of Christianity, and adopted monastic practices from the Desert Fathers of Egypt through the disciples of St. Pachomius the Great and through meticulous scrutiny, assimilated teachings from St. Athanasius, the Cappadocian fathers, St. Cyril the Great, and others while also dismissing doctrines put forth by Arius, Nestorius, Eutyches, and later Leo’s two-nature doctrine post-Incarnation. While we've assimilated much from the Alexandrian Church, there are areas where we reject your conduct. For example, until recently, your were playing buddy buddy and cozying up with Catholics, with attempts at ecumenism. We steadfastly opposed your conduct and any notion of union with the EO and Catholics unless they renounce Leo and the two-natures doctrine post-union. Leo remains a heretic in our eyes. *_Anyhow, It is wise to learn before speaking and refrain from mischaracterizing the Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahido Church._*
the funny thing is either east or west never consider PSA as orthodoxy teaching
He wasn’t saying that Ethiopia had no belief in Christ before the 4th century, just that the EOTC wasn’t established until the 4th century.
@@birukb273 ጎበዜ አናግረከዋል? አናግረከው ነው intentionኑን ልታብራራልኝ የሞከርከው?
አናግረከው ካልሆነ ግን ምን ጥልቅ አስባለህ? እራሱ ምን ለማለት ፈልጎ እንደሆነ intentionኑን ቢያስረዳ ይመረጣል።
@ አላናገርኩትም ግን If you’re trying to say that I’m assuming his intention, I could accuse you of doing the same thing… All he said was that the EOTC was established in the 4th century. This video isn’t even about the EOTC, so he’s not going to be concerned with explaining exactly how Christianity reached Ethiopia. There’s no need to worry about any “intention” he might have had because he’s not even trying to say one thing or another about Ethiopia. He just briefly mentioned the EOTC and that was it.
@@birukb273 እንዴ ምንድነው እንደዚህ ቁልት የሚያረግህ? የማናት የርጎ ዝንብ እባካችሁ። አንተን ሳላናግርህ፣ ደሞም ላናግርህም አልፈልግም --- ሰውየውም ትንፍሽ ሳይል፣ የሆንሽ የድርወጥ አማሳይ ሴታሴት፣ ወገብሽ ላይ መቀነትሽን አስረሽ እየተከታተልሺኝ ኡኡ ትይብኛለሽ። ወራዳ፣ በራስ መተማመን የጎደለህ፣ ቂጥ ላሽ፣ ለማያገባህ ገብተህ ስትገረድለት ሰውየው እራሱ ይንቅሀል። የማነች ጢንዚዛ ባካችሁ፣ stay in your lane homie። ከእዳንተ አይነቶች፣ ከጠላቤት የማያልፍ እውቀትና ወሬ ከሚያለቀልቁ ጋር ጌዜ የለኝም። Bye Bye!!!
For everyone that doesn't know this, this guy said that nature necessitates person to critique two natures.... which is absurd and contradicts anthropology
Take your pills. 🧘:))
We need to submit to the Holy Roman Catholic Pope. The vicar of Christ as mentioned in the second ecumenical council of Nicaea in 787.
Even before that all the Fathers appeal to Rome as the highest see, no going around it.
😂😂😂
@@deusyvulture7877 No your Pope will submit to us
@@TomHawks-k8lplease Stop! Submit to God, this isn’t a pride game.
@@DivineAegis02 Are you a car salesman. Convert to Eastern Orthodoxy and stop pretending to be based.
Respond to Orthodox Ethos
You really should not set yourself up as a teacher of others on theological matters when you have so much still to learn. Hopefully people who listen to this will dig a little deeper and see that your knowledge is shallow and your statements are inaccurate. You are doing harm.
He doesn't know what he's talking about and I don't think if you went back to school it would help, his mind's made up.