Father Josiah on Patristic Nectar has a TH-cam Short called "The True vs The Perfect Church" which in 30 seconds exactly addresses this. "The authenticity of the true Church is in no way challenged by the fact that She has sinners within Her. We should be thankful that the True Church on Earth is not perfect, because if the True Church on Earth was perfect, where in the world would you and I exist in Her?"
Narcissists don't care about other people so he is exactly the opposite of what you claim. You are as bad as the media, twisting and perverting the English language. But the fallibility of human language itself in its ability to convey ideas incorrectly* is all you really need to understand Protestantism is wrong about Sola Scriptura, and therefore wrong in rejecting Orthodox traditions and the hierarchy of Bishops who trace back to the Apostles, so thank you for bringing it up. *since words may mean something different to two different people, how can a word alone possess ultimate authority? That is why you need the author or the teacher to clarify what they exactly meant, and why good instructors like Fr Josiah always manage to put something another way just in case the first explanation didn't do it for you.
@@NFS0038 A person with Narcissistic Personality Disorder has a trait of mastering manipulation. And yes, there are many such people in the media that are narcissistic manipulators and you would never suspect it. If you seek truth, find it in ways that ensure you won’t be fooled. Go meet him, not as a fan, but an intern. Work for him. See who is behind the scenes. Then accuse me of anything you want. Please do your homework. I know it’s hard but that’s the way.
2 years later - Why I left buddhism for salafi islam 5 years later - Why I returned to eastern orthodoxy after being a digambara jainist monk 10 years later - How I became the Pope of the RCC 20 years later - Why not mormonism though? Just friendly banter, I understand that seeking the truth wherever it takes us is not easy. God bless!
@@kwing6017 You mean, your religion, right? Because all the orthers (I suppose you think) are false. As to "religion seeking truth through the question of why!", I have heard that nonsense all my life. Science also asks of "why" (contrary to what many people say). Besides, how can you ask "why", before asking a "what"? The "why" implies the knowledge of the "what". otherwise the "why" is meaningless. Nedless to say that Science also asks why. In his famous The Selfish Gene, Dr. Richard Dawkins asks why over 150 times. Therefore, Science have the answers for the whys and whats. Religion has no answer for anything. There is no truth to be sought in Religion. Of course, you are free to think otherwise.
I left Orthodoxy for a time. Its a desert out there beyond Orthodoxy! A spiritual desert of anxiety! I found peace admitting I was wrong and going back to Orthodoxy! All other liturgies pale in comparison. Ideologies that fail to reach the heart I found in protestantism. Shallow even ugly services, long intellectual services and/or emotionalism...is all I found in protestantism. Catholicism slightly better but that needs and calls for the fullness of holy Orthodoxy. Such a shame all this division...life is short. God looks at our hearts and deeply! Dont get so knotted up with the rational lies. Exclusivism!? Leave all that to God. He loves you. Orthodoxy is a heart matter...not a theology test. The canons are not universal laws but measures, medicines to be applied to each individual. If you find interior prayer, a good spiritual father and a good monastery...its all you need. The rest is waffle and confusion in my experience. Life is short there is much to do! Your Orthodoxy was the typical legalistic first dose!!😂 It takes a long time for us westerners to imbibe a true orthodox spirit. Too much talking we do!! I too fell into the ultra-legalism. A holy gentle spiritual father is now helping me out there! Orthodoxy is NOT about rules. God bless.
Thanks for this. I'm glad you've found peace in the Orthodox Church. And of course you are right about much of the shallowness. I think the "spiritual desert of anxiety" you experienced comes from the ultra-legalism that you say you fell into. I had to work through it too. To say that we are saved by the canons or canonicity is to seek to be "made perfect by the flesh" after having "begun in the Spirit" (Gal. 3:3).
@@FrAndrewHarrah The spirit Paul is talking about is the spirit of truth, not relativism. One protestant told me that "truth absolutism" is dangerous... Hahaha!!! Alright, if that is how you guys want "christianity" to be, then so be it. Real Christianity is grounded in truth, ALL of the truth, with NOTHING lost, according to the promises that Jesus Christ gives His Church. Otherwise, what hope do we have? Might as well be an atheist if I admit that my "church" might be teaching incorrect doctrine.
Wow, that was fast! Last I saw of your Comments on other videos you went Catholic monk, to orthodox, to baptist laity! Either way, I’m happy you found some peace man! God bless you!
Im Orthodox Christian, I will pray for you! My duty as an Orthodox Christian is to love my neighbors even if I have a different point of view. Im a sinner and I have to look my own sins instead to watch others, be judgmental is a grave sin and spiritual pride and with humility is the path to Christ and the paradise. Lord JesusChrist son of God, have mercy on me a sinner! Most Holy Mother of God pray for us!
Well yeah that’s all great but at least you come to church. I have a parishioner in my church that is still can’t get over some heretical humps. He still comes every service at 93. Never misses one. He debates and learns and stays humble. He doesn’t leave the church. The priest in this video made a prideful choice.
Because Anglicanism is neither Catholic nor Orthodox but Protestant and allthewhile still historical and sacramental. It's a compromise as everything is. People who realize that God works independently of denominations and find doctrines or practices of the two bigger churches concerning might take their place in Anglicanism. This is the case with our minister. He either was used to the sacramental worship or he explicitly preferred it. Thus he chose to (temporarily) do the work of Christ in the Anglican Church.
Wrong. Bishops in England convinced by the reformation that Rome was in error wanted to separate from the papacy anyway as they believe they had to. Henry just so happened to be the reigning sovereign at the time and obviously the Church in England isn't going to get a reformation without the king on side. Saying the Anglican Church is the church of king Henry is as vacuous as claiming that the Greek orthadox church is the church created by emperor Constantine.
So, I disagree with your conclusion, but I agree with one of your premises: many non-academic Orthodox scholars do not acknowledge the nuance between Western Christianity and Eastern Christianity. In reality, many of those differences are more matters of emphasis and explanation than actual substance, or where there are substantial differences, they do not have much practical effect. The fact that this led you out of the Church shows the danger of the apologetics and surface-level evangelism that one finds in many convert-heavy parishes. Coming from a Catholic background, my priest was very hesitant to receive me until he was satisfied that I actually wanted to join the Orthodox Church and was not just reacting to my former church's policies. Even then, if I hadn't met a lovely Greek woman who agreed to marry me, I don't know if I would have had the endurance to stay (if God continues to grant me that endurance).
If the EO church is the only true church and are correct in all that it teaches, then why do you guys teach that Jesus is coming back when he already returned in 70ad?
I am an Anglican priest ministering in Malaysia and am not associated with the COE and their associates. I almost wanted to join the Eastern Orthodox Church after reading the Church Fathers and some of the polemics you mentioned. But I had a similar investigation as Deacon Drew did. The contemporary Eastern Orthodox have a lot of errors in how they paint Western tradition. Many have been slanderous against St. Augustine of Hippo on social media. Even when confronted, they are unrepentant. There is an American bishop in Southeast Asia going around recruiting people, branding himself an Anglican Vacariate. He was dismissing and poisoning the well of the Western orthodox theology. His position might have changed now. I was interested in joining them at one point but realized something was not right with the fruits of their character. I am a missionary and Church planter in the 10/40 window region. I reflect a lot about how to advance the Kingdom of God. I examined how these polemics affect the work of the Kingdom. I noticed that the EO in America, as mentioned in this video, is growing through proselytizing, or some scholars call it growth-transference. They are not reaching out to the lost; such as those who have not heard about the Gospel. I am constantly facing real occults and polytheistic/paganistic environment. My ministry faces intense demonic environment. The list of issues is long. My point is that all these polemics are unhelpful. They drive people into the wrong rabbit hole. When I stepped out of this rabbit hole, the work of Christ is manifesting through genuine orthodoxy. People are liberated from sins and demonic influence. All glory to God! Good job Deacon. I almost wanted to do a video on this topic. I think you are doing a better job. God bless you, brother.
For those that come across this, do please do not let the point at 40:00 cause you stumble or come into doubt. Here’s a very important account. “One day, sitting at the bench outside of Stavronikita, the Elder was visiting with pilgrims, among whom was a high school teacher of theology. The theology teacher, repeating a popular Western error, claimed that Abba Isaac the Syrian was a Nestorian. Father Paisios tried to persuade him that Abba Isaac was not only Orthodox but also a saint, and that his Ascetical Homilies possess great grace and strength. But the Elder’s words were in vain: the theology teacher stubbornly insisted on his views. The Elder left for his hermitage, praying and so sad that he was in tears. When he had come to a spot on the path near a large plane tree, something happened to him. These words, “something happened”, were the only description he gave us of the incident, not wanting to reveal the exact details. According to one testimony, he saw in a vision the choir of the holy fathers passing before him, and one of them, stopping, said to him, “I am Isaac the Syrian. I am completely Orthodox. The Nestorian heresy was indeed present in my region, but I fought against it.” We are not in a position to endorse or to reject the reliability of this witness. We know for certain only that the Elder experienced a supranatural occurence that confirmed with perfect clarity the holiness and total Orthodoxy of Abba Isaac. Originally appeared in Elder Paisios of Mount Athos by Hieromonk Isaac p. 226, The Holy Monastery of Saint Arsenios the Cappadocian (2012). * * * The saints know one another, and recognize in one another the presence of Christ which divinizes the saint. Understanding that St. Isaac wrote, and lived, under the inspiration of the Spirit, St. Paisios could not abide the fashionable scholastic idea that St. Isaac was in fact not a member of the one, true Orthodox Church, but rather of the Nestorian Assyrian Church of the East. While many scholars today hold to this idea and believe it is some wonderful confirmation of the "openness" and fluid borders of the Orthodox Church, we see in St. Paisios how we should, in fact, approach this teaching. Love and truth are always inseparable and so St. Paisios, so full of love, also lived wholly dedicated to truth, and so, rather than rejoicing at such a notion, sought from God confirmation of the strictness and purity of not only St. Isaac himself, but thereby the boundaries of the Orthodox Church. Glorified as he is by the Orthodox Church, we know that St. Paisios was not a monk in delusion, and so in his testimony we know is found the truth. For more information see Fr. John Photopoulos' "Abba Isaac the Syrian, the 'Unjustly Accused Saint'"
That does not address how the EO church can generate St Isaac despite never being in communion with the EO church. No one is saying that St Isaac held to nestorianism. He was, however, not in communion with the EO church. If the EO church is the “one true Church,” you have to explain how there are saints outside of your ecclesial communion and in “false churches” that “apostatized.”
@@JasonAWilliams-IS You have to define Baptism in the way that the Church defines it (see the canons of the 6th Ecumenical Council, the teaching of Ss. Basil and Augustine). And other communions don't mean there can't be Christians among them. Not every Christian saint will be found among the faithful of the true Church. Some of them may have been baptised in the Church and later moved or transfered their membership, sometimes not knowing that they among heterodox or schismatics.
What’s so strange is that for a lot of Orthodox, what you’re describing is exactly why they stay not why they leave. The Holy Spirit binds, the devil divides. Regardless of contradictions within the body of Christ. I am a cradle Orthodox, i have never felt the way you do on these internal disputes. I feel grateful that they disagree but remain committed.
Yea, that is not true. Islam is mostly united - does that make it true? Buddhism, Hinduism... this argument from unity is not thought at all. Unity does not mean you are right. I could make the argument that, why would the devil bother you if you are already in error? As long as you do not actually know the truth, he is satisfied.
But see I see exactly what you just said, and I see it as against Orthodoxy. Institutionally, yes Protestants are divided. But whilst the opinions are different, they are not divided in that they see each other as brothers in Christ. Meanwhile One True Churchism does schism the Church in terms of effect. It does divide us and stops us being brothers. That's just my take. Love Orthodox Christians.
God bless you on your journey. I'm wondering what you think about the TH-camr named The Jewish Catholic who recently made a vide on why not Orthodox but Catholic instead. His reasoning seems really convincing although it's rarely spoken about. Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam.
I have a lot of respect for your thought process, but I'm not going to lie; I'm looking forward to your explanation for how Anglicanism (in all its parts, including nontraditional) is more consistent than Orthodoxy. From what I've seen myself, that's going to be hard to show. I'll say a prayer for you, as you asked.
@dcndrew_faithofourfathers You've given me some stuff to think about. Shortly after I started going to Orthodox Church I became aware that in my Parish, in my jurisdiction, it was not today as it was among the early Apostles. The Earthly side of the Church is indeed imperfect. Yet is its teaching correct? Is its claim to being Holy, Catholic, Apostolic correct? I believe the answer to both is yes. These points have been confirmed to me countless times both theoretically and in my experience. Is the execution lacking? Constantly. So is my own Christian praxis for I am a sinner. Yet as I struggle for myself, I struggle for The Church and in The Church. It hurts when expectations do not match reality but that's life. I'm trying to look to Christ's perfection. I do not think it is correct to accept anything that is watered down. For the salt should not lose its flavor. God bless you and I pray you will find Christ.
@@FrAndrewHarrah Anglicanism imo can be summed up in its two favorite words: "VIA MEDIA", only instead of following a true middle road, Anglicans have decided to follow every road with the presumption that they'll all intersect eventually. Wishy-washiness seems inherent to its very existence with high church anglo-catholicism and low church reformed theology, two diametrically opposed theologies, forced into the same communion by some strange sense of kumbaya. That's without including liberal theology, which is even stranger! This anglican multiple-personality disorder seems to be why the Communion is in an absolute state, and why you are a "continuing" Anglican instead of just an Anglican. This is my perspective as an outsider, forgive me for my crudeness.
Fr. Harrah, I have a question. Could you go into more detail of what you meant at 12:00 by “Heresies of Martin Luther”? Which specific doctrines are you talking about here? Asking as a Reformed Anglican.
Listening to your very interesting video, I get a sense that having been brought into the Orthodox Church into what was a parish which is almost exclusively Evangelical converts, and your association with well known Evangelical converts to Orthodoxy such as Fr Trentham, you may have been immersed in a somewhat 'skewed ethos' of Orthodoxy. That is not to in any way be critical of any of those devout people, but Orthodox ethos is learnt and absorbed by being amongst primarily cradle Orthodox communities... which, generally, have little concept of Protestant churches or theology. Nor, concern for it. The attitude is "It's none of my business. I have my own sinful life to be concerned about". If you want to avoid ecclesiastical and theological confusions, then it's unlikely anyone would find a place in any Christian denomination. Baptisms in other denominations have always been accepted by most Orthodoxy, and the rigorous debates about (re)baptism have come from prominent Protestant converts. Go to a parish in Greece or some other Orthodox country, and it's unlikely to be an issue. The conflict of the Orthodox Church being the One true Church, but accepting baptism of other denominations? As the Orthodox say about many things, 'it's a mystery', but we know that the Holy Spirit works within all people, and not just the holy and the saints, and most certainly not just the Orthodox. That is the Orthodox approach. We simply believe that the Orthodox Church is where we know the Holy Spirit to be, so is the best place to be, in what you will be familiar as refered to as the 'Spiritual Hospital'. Orthodoxy does not condemn non-Orthodox, nor judge them. Orthodoxy looks on all people as icons of Christ, and wish all to be saved. If you hear Orthodox priests saying otherwise, then you'll most likely discover them to be, firstly, converts, and secondly, American. Being in America and it's very 'American style' Orthodoxy is something of a disadvantage. Primarily because of the big influence of Evangelical converts in the '90s and beyond. As a Brit who has been Orthodox for over 30 years (from Roman Catholicism), I'm constantly shocked by what I see and hear from many TH-cam Orthodox apologists... ALL of whom are converts, and most of them having converted within the past 5 to 10 years. The Orthodox ethos is simply missing, which is of enormous sadness. In the end, the legalism and hoops that people jump through are very much secondary. It is the path of love and theosis towards Christ is what matters. Most Orthodox Christians have little idea of the ecclesiology, and that's possibly a good thing for them. The Church is in the parish, lived amongst the people. It isn't found in books, lectures and TH-cam channels.
Thank you for your story and testimony. In America there are many converts whose Orthodox identity is attached more to the Internet priests they follow rather than their local parish or actual bishop.
Arch..., thank you. You expressed quiet well, and kindly, concerns that i sensed but hadn't known how best to describe. My husband and i had the blessing to begin our journey to the Orthodox Church with our first visits to Russia, to the Kremlin in Moscow when the churches were museums but the witness of what had been there was evident. .Our home parish was founded by Russians who escaped with their lives and little else.. It was/is full of cradle Orthodox, and there was/is a depth of simple faith that the parishes with mostly converts don't have yet.. That isn't to be unkind or haughty... because i am one of the converts who needs the ethos that the long time, cradle Orthodox just have inside them.. That for cradle Orthodox not knowing much about ecclesiology may be a good thing, seems right. I find many of these discussions to be a bit wearying.
I somewhat agree, but your post doesn't account for the many church fathers and saints who condemn heresy, anathematize heretics and call ecumenism "the heresy of heresies"
Thanks for kindly discussing the matter of the Orthodox ethos. I really appreciate such comments where people kindly bring knowledge/insight. At the same time, I must say there are issues that prevent me from fully accepting Ortho tradition, such as Nicaea 2, where Christians who choose not to venerate icons are anathematized. In that sense I do agree with @mitch0990. Otherwise what you brought up about converts having rigorous views is something I find insightful and useful to the discussion. I think a lot of interdenominational debate happens between US priests/pastors/theologians and what you brought up is good to know at least.
@@mitch0990why is that a problem? To anathematize is not to be about rudeness, but about preserving the Faith in its purity and trying to wake up those in error, especially stubborn, rebellious error, from their ways. What else could or should the Church do?
If one has read as much as Drew professes to have read, such a man would never look towards or go towards or go into the so-called Roman Catholic Church.
The first thing you do is realize you are not saved or perfected by ceremonies, candles, smells, bells, garments, pretty buildings, icons, relics, liturgies, confessions, sacraments, vestments, payments, or other such things. You should never feel ashamed or somehow "less Christian" to go to almost any church in your local community, or anywhere two or three are gathered in his name. If they are bible-believing and teach from the word, then your focus is on good works and serving God's people and growing in the knowledge of our Lord. Jesus said perfect religion is taking care of widows and orphans. We WAYYY over-complicate Christian life by turning it into legalistic over-embellished "churchy" practices that don't help anyone at all, least of all the unsaved world. God wants us out in the world preaching the gospel, caring for one another, sharing burdens, helping the needy, bringing the wayward to repentance. We're not here to try and impress God by our church liturgies and ceremonies and dress codes and artwork. This is man's idea of good works, but all it is is a bunch of "stuff" to make you personally feel righteous and holy because this is how you "feel saved". Roman Catholics do not have assurance of salvation, instead they have a constant need to make sure they are up to date on confessions and hail Mary's and roseries and mass attendance and making sure they didn't commit a mortal sin cause it's hard to actually know what those are. It is personal "work" to gain momentary hope of assurance. It's not actual assurance. I don't know if it's the same for Orthodox, whether they have assurance or not. But I've certainly heard from some Orthodox that nobody is saved if they are outside THEIR system, which is an anti-gospel. Christ didn't die and provide salvation if only we join the right organizational church structure. He died to provide salvation with or without church attendance. Oh but if you go non-denominational or otherwise reformed, they might have too loud of music! They might have lasers or men in tight jeans! Oh no! Real people! It's very true that flipping a coin and going to some random church, you will experience or even be taught things you don't agree with or don't seem biblical to you. That's actually ok, believe it or not. Talk to the elders and pastors, see what they have to say, where the doctrine comes from, how it's supported. You must be willing to understand the difference between major and minor issues. Don't go to a church that denies universally accepted doctrines like the trinity or that Jesus was born of a virgin and died and rose again. But if you don't agree with their eschatology maybe, or they don't baptize with the method you like (sprinkle? Submerge?), these are not hills to die on. If you make a doctrine a hill to die on, then you are making a new gospel (you must believe in Jesus, AND affirm this one secondary doctrine that means a lot to me). Churches that demand you can't be Christian unless church is on Saturday. Or you can't be Christian if you read anything other than King James Version. Or you can't be Christian if you don't speak in tongues gibberish. Stay away from replacement gospels! That includes "you can't be Christian unless you join my church only, it's the only one!" Instead, have assurance in the finished work of Christ. Enjoy your freedom to do good. Go where God calls you, serve where you see a need. Find community. And stop being anxious about finding the "one true church that never gets anything wrong and is infallible and I can only be a proper Christian if I'm in their system and nothing else will do and after all they quoted this one church father who said..........." That is not Christian life. That is just people being anxious and looking for a dual gospel and fake assurance. A gospel made up of Christ PLUS "pick the right church".
to the Catholic apostolic Church, united with the bishop of Rome, as it was the case with the Greek and Byzantine Church during the entire first millennium...
Thanks, Deacon Drew! I am an Orthodox convert, chrismated 17 years ago from Baptist and, before that, agnostic/hippie. I appreciate you digging into the many contradicting lines that make up the cognitive dissonance of Orthodoxy. But that was actually a big credibility piece that convinced me of its organic, revelatory nature. If I were walking through the forest, and I came upon two bird houses: in one tree were some bright colored plastic panels stuck together with a Walmart tag hanging off of it, and in another tree, a chaotic bramble of sticks built up into a nest, I intuitively know which one was man-made and which one was bird-made. I will admit that the analogy is complexified by the fact that birds will happily live in either. But my outdoorsy hippie upbringing pointed me to the bird-made nest as the best place to lay my eggs. I didn't join the church because I was looking for "The Truth." I was attracted to its Goodness, Truth, and Beauty. The mystical theology and the Jesus prayer are what made it come alive for me. I am happy you found a place where the cognitive load isn't getting in the way.
Yes, I agree with you. The Orthodox Church is the best spiritual nest that I could find. I try to be humble and remember we are all in the hands of God.
“Criticism is a low level form of hatred”? I’m left a little speechless by this statement. Can someone mask their hatred and evil intentions by passing it off as “criticism?” Certainly. Like most things, they can be twisted and used for evil. But to say that all or even most criticism generally is “low level hatred” is inaccurate at best and manipulative at worst. And by making this critique, I can assure you that I do not hate you.
I watched that section again a couple times, and I didn't catch an "is" low level hatred but "can be." But to be clear: yes, you're right, criticism is not necessarily a manifestation of low level hatred. Thanks for watching.
@@FrAndrewHarrah - Believing the Truth and saying untruth is untruth is neither hatred nor even criticism. By your argument it's wrong to even INSIST that 2+2 = 4 as that is 'critical' of those who say it equals 37.5218. The filioque is heresy, not a nice word but it is. (I'm ex-Anglican and leaving that communion is the best thing anyone can do). YES - the West is wrong on this dogma, we can't all be right! That's just being 'nice'. Pray you come home to Orthodoxy.
I've talked to some EO folks and they say that God gives special grace (eg thief on cross) from time to time....how one makes a shift bc of Secondary reasons is baffling even to me, an inquiring EO. So these reasons
Thank you so much for sharing your story. I'm from a protestant background but now a catechumen that is going to be chrismated very soon and this was extremely useful for managing my perspectives because I definitely feel the desire to become "super orthodox". You're investigation on the "one true church" claim was very enlightening, especially the sharing of Hopko's response to the baptism question. I learned a lot and it's definitely given me stuff to think about and investigate. Apologies for all the rude comments. I'll be praying for you! May the Spirit of Truth guide us and dwell within us ☦️
Please tell me, the Orthodox Church I attended more than 50% of the church attenders, even parishioners in the choir were always late coming into the Divine Liturgy. Some 20+ minutes late. The front by the solea stayed empty until all these people come in fashionably late, having fully disturbed everyone else that got there on time.. Then they take communion, then half the church cuts in front of people patiently waiting in back so they can go first. Is this ok?
That's not abnormal. I would talk to your priest about it if it's really bothering you. My guess is he'll tell you that he too wishes that these people would come at the beginning of the Divine Liturgy, but that you should focus on your own heart and your own preparation for worship. As the Orthodox pray during the Lenten season: "grant me to see my own sins and not to judge my brother."
Deacon Drew, I'm curious to know if you thought at the time you were among antinomian Lutherans that antinomianism was a heresy of Martin Luther, and no longer think that, or if you still think that Martin Luther was an antinomian?
Luther was not an antinomian. The Lutheran Confessions are not antinomian. The Epitome to the Formula of Concord says that justifying faith does not exist in "a wicked intention to sin and to act against the conscience." That's why I said my "Confessional Lutheran" church was not actually Confessionally Lutheran. Epic beard, by the way.
@@FrAndrewHarrah I noted that comment, but I thought you referred to antinomianism as "Luther's heresy." Perhaps I misunderstood you. There is a good book titled Only the Law Is Eternal, which are Luther's antinomian disputations. I'm a Confessional Lutheran pastor and, sad to say, antinomianism is a scourge upon us. But, there has been some good work done in pushing back against this; very recently, in fact, in the form of a conference devoted to addressing this exact issue. And, thank you. Lol. My beard has a better reputation than me, I think. Thank you for this video, too. I made one addressing Confessional Lutherans in particular, but yours was much more comprehensive and organized. Christ's peace.
45:37 Thanks a lot for this point! Quite frankly, I am more often depressed than not (maybe because I am presbyterian LOL) so I am thankful that you mentioned this, it speaks to me a lot.
Excellent video. Very thoughtful and challenging in a charitable way. Just curious. What made you choose the Anglican Church over say another Protestant denomination or Catholicism - Roman or Eastern/Byzantine?
I am a recent convert to Eastern Orthodoxy out of Evangelicalism. I found this very interesting. You communicate your thoughts very clearly and I appreciate the tone in which you did it. I am glad this video was recommended to me by the algorithm. Very thoughtful stuff.
I feel the Orthodox Church I went to could care less about me and the priests, deacon and parishioners avoided me. I was informed I might get to become a catachumen. So I am searching out another Orthodox Church but am taking a break so I won't go insane.
Reformed and ordained minister here…great video! I too am wrestling with similar topics, especially as they relate to the Catholic and Orthodox tradition and the divisions within Protestantism…lots of study and exploration.
There is lots of nice Mormons and Jehovah witnesses out there… Just because someone is nice and loves people around them does not mean that they have the Holy Spirit. And it does not necessarily count as “fruit of the spirit“.
This seems like a case of _"erring in the side of safety,"_ meaning that while the Orthodox Church does think that you can be a Christian and not an Orthodox, they feel like it is better not to promote this view, becasue it promotes the idea that it is just as easy to be a true Christian outside the Orthodox Church as it is inside the Orthodox Church, and hence they rather say that _"you can't,"_ and then correct it with _"actually in some cases you can"_ as a footnote. I personally don't see anything wrong in this, since its kind of like saying _"Yes, you can sail across the Atlantic in a rowing boat, but you're much more likely to actually make it if you're in a big sail boat."_ Like from this pespective, if someone would come to ask you that _"Can I sail accorss the Atlantic with a rowing boat?"_ would you, their best interest in mind, rather answer, "No", just for the same of their safety, compared to, "Yes", for strictry being absolutely factual in your answer? Like you hear this kind of thing a lot with people who actually care about the safety of the people who aks their advice, in that they give answers which _"erring in the side of safety"_ rather than be absolutely factual. I think it would also be good for theologians of both side to keep in mind that one of the seven things which God hates was _"he that soweth strife among brethren"_ (Proverbs 6). Like much of this "herecy" stuff we see today, seems like a huge distraction to what really matters to God, which only seems to serve egos and not the will of God.
I am a Byzantine Orthodox Christian from Syria, I don't speak much English, but I am using a translator for this comment, well I understand a little bit of what you said, that you left Orthodoxy, well I want to know what is your religious background, why did you leave Orthodoxy and what is your church now, is it Catholic or Orthodox or Protestant or Anglican, please
Orthodoxy has several narratives, but has generally recognized that God can act beyond the realm of the church. As for baptism, at least in my experience in the Antiochian tradition is that the bishop has a lot of power in deciding whether a former baptism is valid. In my case, the bishop ruled all baptisms in the name of the Trinity are valid. Hence I was chrismated. As for ancestral sin, it seems to make a lot more sense than Calvin's schema of double predestination, which arguably depicts God as a divine sadist. Theosis and synergy are elements missing from Protestantism, much to its disadvantage. For example, compare what the term "theologian" indicates in Eastern and Western traditions. In the East, a theologian is a contemplative spiritual philosopher; in the West, theologians tend to be systematizers geared more towards logical speculation and constructing religious ideologies. The prominence of Monasteries and the spiritual inspiration they encourage has been abolished by the the preponderance of Reformation churches leading to a progressive secularization of protest denominations --- including such abominations as "clown liturgies" and the Sparkle Creed. Protestantism in the US seems unable to transcend politics and denominations are dividing largely along political moreso than spiritual lines. It is quite possible that the spirit has fled them altogether. While Orthodoxy can be inward looking, provincial and ethnocentric, it is slowly adapting to the spiritual market place in the US. I have heard Orthodox leaders speak of "Christian Communities" (avoiding the term "Church" )outside of Orthodoxy, but there still seems to be a lot of suspicion about ecumenism. (Can you really blame them when you look at some of the aberrant practices prevalent today?) Unfortunately, "conservative" Protestantism seems to be geared primarily towards salesmanship and church growth at the expense of spiritual transformation. Orthodoxy, on the other hand, seems (perhaps as a fault) to spend less time on evangelism, but manages to draw catechumens at a steady pace anyway. The Divine Liturgy is quite Biblical and centered on the Trinity. It is an invaluable aid in spiritual transformation. The analogy of the Church with a hospital, treating the illness of sin is a valid one. IMHO, the Orthodox Church is not perfect, but it is the most coherent Christian tradition
This video is interesting for me, because I am visiting an romanian orthodox church and try to figure out if I convert. Thank you for your perspective on that.
Don't be fooled, there is a counterfeit Ecumenism which "sprouts up quickly," but there is a true and godly Ecumenism that is still putting forth deep roots, which God will reveal in the proper time. Don't confuse the two.
You say that like it is a bad thing. The vast majority of people in the pews in most churches of any kind are ecumenists. The reality on the ground is more important and real than abstract theological principles
Good to see your face, Fr. Andrew. Funny to think you're serving at St. Alban now, and I believe that was the parish in Brea we first met at and then of course later at St. Luke, and then again at St. Barnabas. Hope you're doing well. If I may ask a direct question, based on my own experience in Anglicanism, if the 1928 or really any prayer book is followed, the saints and Mother of God feel strangely absent from the Church in her worship. Has this been something you've struggled with in your rejoining Anglicanism?
munkee59, not to butt in, but I will add that my go-to prayerbook is Divine Worship: Daily Office (Commonwealth Edition) published by the Personal Ordinariate, which are Anglicans in communion with Rome. This prayerbook is an amazing blend of traditions and does bring in the Mother of God and the communion of saints. Highly recommended.
Good to hear from you, Aaron. I am doing well, God be praised. We use the 1928 supplemented by the Anglican Missal, which gives fuller expression to the traditional and canonical veneration of the saints. In my private devotions too I pray the Angelus everyday.
Voices brought you into the historical church and the same voice brought you right back out. Next year a voice will take you somewhere else. Orthodoxy would have taught you to not listen to voices. What if I told you I just had a voice that said your voice was the wrong voice whose voice is better mine or yours? The problem in the West is everybody wants to be a pope.
This is such a stupid take. Your own personal interpretation is what makes you pick Orthodoxy over Catholicism. You will never escape personal interpretation as the final arbiter of which church is true.
@@GabrielWithoutWings Not really, in the beginning, there was only one Church, and over the centuries, many heresies sprang up. Around 1000 AD, the Pope wanted to take power into his own hands and came up with some new dogmas that had never been heard of before, like papal infallibility and such. It's pretty clear which faith remained pure and which did not.
I understand the hesitancy concerning my experience reading Met. Khrapovitsky. But consider this: if you were to hear your mother's voice without seeing her, how would you know it was your mother? You would just know. What if somebody said to you, "that wasn't your mother speaking." How would you answer them? It would be difficult to do so beyond saying "I know her voice, and that was her voice." My point is that there's an irreducible personal quality to these kinds of experiences that are difficult to describe to others. Furthermore, do you think a demon would lead me to repentance? And lastly, I didn't hear any voices coming out of Orthodoxy. My reasons for leaving were presented in this video.
Thank you for tackling these difficult questions and presenting them with clarity. I am a Roman Catholic, and find the questions that you presented and the various positions that have been given on those questions very often to be persuasive. Their difficulty has made me wonder if those who choose the wrong position have simply "guessed wrong" because of the extreme challenge of the question and are therefore condemned; I have a hard time believing that God is so unforgiving. But again thank you for taking the time to present these issues with such clarity. God bless!
If there is only one faith then why is there so much disagreement and division in the church? I just do my best to love GOD and love my neighbour as my self and don't worry too much about all the rest.......
Thank you for this post. It was comforting to me because I have struggled with many of the same things. You gave very encouraging advice brother, thank you.
I already forgot, I think I saw in the comments or heard in the video , you became an anglican? I was looking into this denomination, however I see they also justify use of icons?
Thank you for sharing. As a recent revert to the Catholic Church after spending 10 years as a Protestant after doing a deep dive into history I had to become reconciled to the one true Church. ⛪️ I have a feeling that’s where you will end up. God bless you 🙏
@@FrAndrewHarrah I don't mean to badger you, but I am genuinely curious to understand this - it seems you regretted being baptized into the Orthodox Church. If you are willing to explain, I'd like to know why. I am considering baptism, but I'm not sure. That's why I'm asking.
@@thornarts2130 There is only one baptism (Eph. 4:5). I received that baptism when I was 12 years old. But when I came into the Orthodox Church at 22, I denied that baptism, as I was swayed by the rigorist position. Rebaptism is a sacrilegious act, because it denies the indelible character marked on the soul and body through the original baptism. A person who is baptized can never be unbaptized-he can only deny his baptism.
All paths can lead to the Church. So if they were baptized outside and it leads them eventually to Orthodoxy, then isnt it due to the Holy Spirit? And if they never cone to Orthodoxy, then they're in Gods hands. I dont see how this is confusing.
"The church" is the body of Christ made by the saved ones. "The Church" Its NOT the catholic bor orthodox church or any other churches. Local churches are local assemblys, them we can call these as "churches" in plural. People who pretend that their religion institution is the "only" church (singular) are wrong, at best.
@@valdotc8559 You literally just made that up. You can't justify that statement. Christianity and the Church is a historical thing. Not something that you just get a hold of and do. The Church has a function and that's the sacraments. Not Bible study, youth camps and praise music.
The church is the Orthodox Church contained within the body of Christians. There is only one true church, history affirms this. Christs body can’t be shattered by men; and then glued together by some intangible philosophical concept nowhere found in scripture.. Christs body is one, with one church at the center of everything.
@@valdotc8559That is incorrect. I Just had an Islamic guy tell me that he "believes in Jesus". I am a very rare person. I was pentecostal. The Holy Spirit really did come upon me while at home. I received an open vision. For a brief time the next day I was able to see a light blue light ( aura)around insects and leaves and grass. I was told to fast and pray and to read The Gospels and the book The Acts of the Apostles. I did as I was told . I prayed for hours a day I gave up everything in life except the desire to know this "God". I almost quit trying. Just then It happened on it's own, no one around laying hands on me. No noise. No emotion. I fell into a trance on my bed. As I opened my mouth saying "oh thank you lord Jesus" . As I spoke the sprit changed my language. This phenomenological event occurred although I was ignorant about the trinity. I only sort of understood that I must repent. God answered as by fire. Yet I was not in the church. On a Continuum one can believe and yet not be in the church. We converted to Orthodoxy . Christ started the church one time for all times. It doesn't matter what I think. The Holy Spirit really hasn't guided her for 1600 years until the reformation could produce our particular brand? Hard to swallow. There is not any kind of protestantism that should exist. Protestantism is an anomaly. One church for over a thousand years. I'm almost sure Mormons and Jehovah's witness are believers just as the Muslim ☪️ assures me he believes in Jesus.
Thank God that you have come to Anglicanism and make this courageous video. The respect you have for both your former traditions is admirable and your teaching was sensitive and wise. May our Lord Jesus Christ bless your ministry richly.
Thanks for this video. I really like your calm, thoughtful demeanor. Im in a learning phase. I have been a protestant for more than 40 Years. I don't like the word "protestant" though, because Im not protesting against anything. I just follow Jesus according to the bible. Im quite happy where I am. There seems to be move of people towards Catholicism these days and, to a lesser degree, orthodoxy. I think it is because of the craziness of the modern world with its shifting sands so people look for something stable and ancient. I really think all 3 streams of Christianity should just stop fighting. Theres a lot of rock-throwing going on and its not called for. God is working in all churches. God bless you. Keep posting videos like this. They are needed
Hello, really interesting testimony. How do you view the common work of christians toward restoring a lost institutional unity in organizatiions like the WCC, NCCA or other ?
Thank you for these thoughts. I currently joined the Anglican church, coming from Protestant/Reformed tradition. Have been reading and studying EO for about two years now. This has been helpful to me as I navigate the process. I love the church fathers and connection to tradition, but mostly the sacramental theology which seems to be sorely missing in most Protestant evangelical forms of worship. I look forward to seeing your future posts.
This was a good video. In future videos, I would be interested in hearing if and how your views on Apostolic succession, iconology, and the authority of councils have changed as you moved from EO to RC to Anglicanism.
Thank you for sharing your thought-provoking story. Most of my family members are members of the Coptic Orthodox Church. They are very proud and passionate about their belief that it is the "only true church." However, I have not observed the fruits of the Spirit in their lives. Instead, I have observed strong identity, incredible pride, and disdain for other Christian traditions. In the clergy, I have observed impressive clerical garments, long beards, and long clerical titles. In my opinion, the moment one believes that they have a monopoly on Christ and his truth, they are truly lost. We can't control the Holy Spirit and His work in any human traditions. We can't domesticate Christ within corruptible human institutions. That is what the Pharisees tried and failed to do. The faithfuls of this tradition are willing to deny the validity of more than 1.5 billion Christians (Catholic and Protestant) for the sake of their traditions. This is what happens when the merciful Christ is replaced by human traditions, identity, nationalism.
I, too, am Coptic Orthodox, by conversion. The belief that the Coptic Church is the only true Church is NOT Orthodox at all. What, then, about the Ethiopian Church, for instance ? Why did we have talks with the Greeks and Russians about reopening communion, if we didn't accept them as brothers and sisters ? (The agreement was never ratified, sadly.)
I was raised Catholic but my parents were abusive. I was baptized and have gone to Baptist and non-denominational churches ever since. Now I’m being told by someone close to me Orthodox or nothing to be forgiven basically. Since I’m Protestant I won’t be forgiven. I’m having a hard time accepting that
@@jennifer6814 Unfortunatly my friend your parents were not practicing Catholics, but in name only. You will find these in all Professing Christian denominations. Your parents need Christ as well as You and I.
Are you saying that you know when someone is filled with the Spirit As in Galatians 5:22-23? Are you not practicing what you are accusing these of? "Why do you see the speck in your neighbor's eye, but do not notice the log in your own eye? Or how can you say to your neighbor, 'Let me take the speck out of your eye' while the log is in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your neighbor's eye." (Matthew 7:3-5).
@@sunnyland3952 Well, of course they believe that the Ethiopian Church is Orthodox. I'm from the Armenian Church, and we, along with the Copts, Syriacs, Ethiopians, Eritreans, and Indians are indeed the true, on, holy, catholic, and apostolic church. The words of our fathers on this topic are clear. This is the belief many of them suffered and died for.
I'm not familiar with Christos Yannaras or Fr. John Romanides or any of their writings, but when it comes to Frederica Mathewes-Green and Clark Carlton, I find it very bizarre that anyone would describe them as "hostile" to non-Orthodox or that either of them would be described as talking about Heterodox with pervasive animus. Anything but. Their dispositions are so thoughtful and respectful (even sweet and humble when it comes to FMG). To the extent some Western converts to Orthodoxy don't represent the faith as accurately as they should, that's simply a reality of how big a shift the paradigm is between East and West. It's very hard to rewire layers and ways (and decades) of thinking and perceiving that are so ingrained you're not fully conscious of ingrained it is. As Clark Carlton has said, Eastern Orthodoxy is not a systematic theology (which is a common mental/intellectual framework for the West). Rather, salvation is a way of life and Orthodoxy is about entering into and progressing in that way of life. Shifting between those two as a convert is, inevitably, a lifelong effort. And for that reason -- to the extent some Western converts to Orthodoxy don't represent the faith as accurately as they should, that's on their humanness and not on the actual Eastern Orthodox faith, teachings, or traditions. (Lord have mercy on me for all the growth I still need to experience even after ten years of being Orthodox, a faith and way of life that I am so so so thankful for.)
Thank you for this. Very thoughtful. Might I humbly add to your sample of passages that you look at (starting at 38:00) the following (emphasis mine): Mark 9:38-41 John said to him, “Teacher, we saw someone casting out demons in your name, and we tried to stop him, BECAUSE HE WAS NOT FOLLOWING US.” But Jesus said, “Do not stop him, for no one who does a mighty work in my name will be able soon afterward to speak evil of me. For the one who is NOT AGAINST us IS FOR US. For truly, I say to you, whoever gives you a cup of water to drink because you belong to Christ will by no means lose his reward.”
I understand that that is an appealing exegesis of the respective text. But as none of the fathers explained it in that way I would be very careful of doing so. Most of the fathers are not ambiguous in their views on schisma e.g. Ignatius of Antioch and Ireneas of Lyon. Are you sure you know better than them?
@@genericname7020 dear brother, i think you know that singular statements of individual fathers never have the same authority as the corpus of teachings they hold in common. This is the so called ‘consensus patrum’. Therefore, your argument is not sound. I think it takes exceptional audacity to brush aside what the successors of the apostles unanimously say and replace it with something that suits better your own understanding of the Bible. A book that they compiled preserved and delivered to you. Why not humbly receive the faith that was once delivered to the saints instead of trusting people who came literal 1500 years after the apostles.
@@Spoorj I respect the Church Fathers, but I see them as wise scholars. These men were fallible, which is what I have shown. Also, the idea of common agreement therefore this interpretation is true is a logical fallacy.
Roman Catholics are misunderstanding Matthew 16:18. The confession that "Jesus is the Christ the Son of God" is the only foundational truth that Christ builds His church on. Peter’s confession is the rock. And therefore each member of the congregation must begin their own personal transformation journey (born again) with their own personal confession of faith that Jesus the Son of God is the Christ.
@@francoisroy349 Peter's confession is the rock. see Agustin of Hippo confirming: "Therefore, he says, You are Peter; and upon this Rock which you have confessed, upon this Rock which you have acknowledged, saying, You are the Christ, the Son of the living God, will I build My Church; that is upon Myself, the Son of the living God, will I build My Church. I will build you upon Myself, not Myself upon you." - Augustine of Hippo Sermons on Selected Lessons of the New Testament SERMON XXVI. AGAIN ON MATT. XIV. 25: OF THE LORD WALKING ON THE WAVES OF THE SEA, AND OF PETER TOTTERING.
@@God_gave_His_Son_for_you Read all the fathers of the church on this topic: Beginning with saint augustin : Augustine “Among these [apostles] Peter alone almost everywhere deserved to represent the whole Church. Because of that representation of the Church, which only he bore, he deserved to hear ‘I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven’” (Sermons 295:2 [A.D. 411]). “Some things are said which seem to relate especially to the apostle Peter, and yet are not clear in their meaning unless referred to the Church, which he is acknowledged to have represented in a figure on account of the primacy which he bore among the disciples. Such is ‘I will give unto you the keys of the kingdom of heaven,’ and other similar passages” (Commentary on Psalm 108 1 [A.D. 415]). “Who is ignorant that the first of the apostles is the most blessed Peter?” (Commentary on John 56:1 [A.D. 416]).
@@God_gave_His_Son_for_you Because Peter was made the foundation of the Church, there were practical implications: it gave him a special place or primacy among the apostles. As the passages below demonstrate, the early Church Fathers clearly recognized this. Clement of Alexandria “[T]he blessed Peter, the chosen, the preeminent, the first among the disciples, for whom alone with himself the Savior paid the tribute [Matt. 17:27], quickly grasped and understood their meaning. And what does he say? ‘Behold, we have left all and have followed you’ [Matt. 19:27; Mark 10:28]” (Who Is the Rich Man That Is Saved? 21:3-5 [A.D. 200]). Tertullian “For though you think that heaven is still shut up, remember that the Lord left the keys of it to Peter here, and through him to the Church, which keys everyone will carry with him if he has been questioned and made a confession [of faith]” (Antidote Against the Scorpion 10 [A.D. 211]). “[T]he Lord said to Peter, ‘On this rock I will build my Church, I have given you the keys of the kingdom of heaven [and] whatever you shall have bound or loosed on earth will be bound or loosed in heaven’ [Matt. 16:18-19]. . . . Upon you, he says, I will build my Church; and I will give to you the keys, not to the Church” (Modesty 21:9-10 [A.D. 220]). The Letter of Clement to James “Be it known to you, my lord, that Simon [Peter], who, for the sake of the true faith, and the most sure foundation of his doctrine, was set apart to be the foundation of the Church, and for this end was by Jesus himself, with his truthful mouth, named Peter, the first fruits of our Lord, the first of the apostles; to whom first the Father revealed the Son; whom the Christ, with good reason, blessed” (Letter of Clement to James 1 [A.D. 221]). Origen “[I]f we were to attend carefully to the Gospels, we should also find, in relation to those things which seem to be common to Peter . . . a great difference and a preeminence in the things [Jesus] said to Peter, compared with the second class [of apostles]. For it is no small difference that Peter received the keys not of one heaven but of more, and in order that whatsoever things he binds on earth may be bound not in one heaven but in them all, as compared with the many who bind on earth and loose on earth, so that these things are bound and loosed not in [all] the heavens, as in the case of Peter, but in one only; for they do not reach so high a stage with power as Peter to bind and loose in all the heavens” (Commentary on Matthew 13:31 [A.D. 248]). Cyprian of Carthage “The Lord says to Peter: ‘I say to you,’ he says, ‘that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church.’ . . . On him [Peter] he builds the Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep [John 21:17], and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair [cathedra], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were that also which Peter was [i.e., apostles], but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair. So too, all [the apostles] are shepherds, and the flock is shown to be one, fed by all the apostles in single-minded accord. If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he [should] desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?” (The Unity of the Catholic Church 4; 1st edition [A.D. 251]). Cyril of Jerusalem “The Lord is loving toward men, swift to pardon but slow to punish. Let no man despair of his own salvation. Peter, the first and foremost of the apostles, denied the Lord three times before a little servant girl, but he repented and wept bitterly” (Catechetical Lectures 2:19 [A.D. 350]). “[Simon Magus] so deceived the city of Rome that Claudius erected a statue of him. . . . While the error was extending itself, Peter and Paul arrived, a noble pair and the rulers of the Church, and they set the error aright. . . . [T]hey launched the weapon of their like-mindedness in prayer against the Magus, and struck him down to earth. It was marvelous enough, and yet no marvel at all, for Peter was there-he that carries about the keys of heaven [Matt. 16:19]” (ibid., 6:14). “In the power of the same Holy Spirit, Peter, both the chief of the apostles and the keeper of the keys of the kingdom of heaven, in the name of Christ healed Aeneas the paralytic at Lydda, which is now called Diospolis [Acts 9:32-34]” (ibid., 17:27). Ephraim the Syrian “[Jesus said:] Simon, my follower, I have made you the foundation of the holy Church. I betimes called you Peter, because you will support all its buildings. You are the inspector of those who will build on Earth a Church for me. If they should wish to build what is false, you, the foundation, will condemn them. You are the head of the fountain from which my teaching flows; you are the chief of my disciples. Through you I will give drink to all peoples. Yours is that life-giving sweetness which I dispense. I have chosen you to be, as it were, the firstborn in my institution so that, as the heir, you may be executor of my treasures. I have given you the keys of my kingdom. Behold, I have given you authority over all my treasures” (Homilies 4:1 [A.D. 351]). Pope Damasus I “Likewise it is decreed . . . that it ought to be announced that . . . the holy Roman Church has been placed at the forefront not by the conciliar decisions of other churches, but has received the primacy by the evangelic voice of our Lord and Savior, who says: ‘You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it; and I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven . . . ’ [Matt. 16:18-19]. The first see, therefore, is that of Peter the apostle, that of the Roman Church, which has neither stain nor blemish nor anything like it” (Decree of Damasus 3 [A.D. 382]). Jerome “‘But,’ you [Jovinian] will say, ‘it was on Peter that the Church was founded’ [Matt. 16:18]. Well . . . one among the twelve is chosen to be their head in order to remove any occasion for division” (Against Jovinian 1:26 [A.D. 393]). Pope Innocent I “In seeking the things of God . . . you have acknowledged that judgment is to be referred to us [the pope], and have shown that you know that is owed to the Apostolic See [Rome], if all of us placed in this position are to desire to follow the apostle himself [Peter] from whom the episcopate itself and the total authority of this name have emerged” (Letters 29:1 [A.D. 408]). Augustine “Among these [apostles] Peter alone almost everywhere deserved to represent the whole Church. Because of that representation of the Church, which only he bore, he deserved to hear ‘I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven’” (Sermons 295:2 [A.D. 411]). “Some things are said which seem to relate especially to the apostle Peter, and yet are not clear in their meaning unless referred to the Church, which he is acknowledged to have represented in a figure on account of the primacy which he bore among the disciples. Such is ‘I will give unto you the keys of the kingdom of heaven,’ and other similar passages” (Commentary on Psalm 108 1 [A.D. 415]). “Who is ignorant that the first of the apostles is the most blessed Peter?” (Commentary on John 56:1 [A.D. 416]). Council of Ephesus “Philip, presbyter and legate of [Pope Celestine I] said: ‘We offer our thanks to the holy and venerable synod, that when the writings of our holy and blessed pope had been read to you . . . you joined yourselves to the holy head also by your holy acclamations. For your blessedness is not ignorant that the head of the whole faith, the head of the apostles, is blessed Peter the apostle’” (Acts of the Council, session 2 [A.D. 431]). “Philip, the presbyter and legate of the Apostolic See [Rome] said: ‘There is no doubt, and in fact it has been known in all ages, that the holy and most blessed Peter, prince and head of the apostles, pillar of the faith, and foundation of the Catholic Church, received the keys of the kingdom from our Lord Jesus Christ, the Savior and Redeemer of the human race, and that to him was given the power of loosing and binding sins: who down even to today and forever both lives and judges in his successors’” (ibid., session 3).
16:21 I watched an interview with a Greek Orthodox bishop who basically classified the crucifixion and passion as nothing more than a really violent prelude to the resurrection which was where the real salvific action took place. (I believe that it's both-and)
Dear sir, thank you so much for these in depth reflections. I would greatly appreciate hearing more about your journey. As a former Episcopalian who swam the Tiber to Rome, I suffered a lot of emotional and intellectual pain trying to discern the choice between Easter Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism. In ended up going to Rome for many of the reasons you mention here, particularly the lack of charity towards Catholicism and the West so prevalent in EO churches in the USA. I was struck as well by the state of conflict and disarray between the EO churches. When they are excommunicating each other, how can we even say there is a EO church? I also found that they seem to be selectively amnesiatic when it comes to church history and ecclesiology. At any rate, I am very interested to hear about your journey into Catholicism, your experience there and why you chose the Anglican Church. Thank you again and God Bless you!
Brother, I have several points to make. 1) Regarding St Nicholas Kabasilas, I'm not an expert, but as far as I understand it, the concept of ransom is a metaphor to describe the way in which Christ assumes to re-present human nature transfigured back to the Father as a perfect sacrifice to satisfy God's standard of sacrificial love, to repay in kind. It is matching love for love, which is very different from the Father being angry at the Son on our behalf or the Son owing the devil. The idea behind recapitulation is very different from the concept of ransom as Protestants understand. The sense in which the concept of ransom used by Kabasilas, as far as I know, is not describing a mechanical and transactional, forensic process, but rather, explicating how in God's sacrifice lies the path to make man's sacrifice worthwhile and effective, what the image of the proper sacrifice is and how our sacrifice can be analogous to His. To argue that because St Nicholas Kabasilas uses similar concepts than Anselm then that the doctrines are essentially the same than what Protestantism teaches (that there was a ransom paid to the devil) is to take metaphors, rhetorical language to be a metaphysical explanation. First, we don't use one Saint and make him speak for the whole Church, that is not an Orthodox approach to the subject at all, it is a form of rationalism and rigorism. St Nicholas Kabasilas is developing the traditional recapitulation theory of how the incarnation, the crucifixion and the resurrection all participate in the same unbroken mystical process of sanctifying human nature and joining it to divine nature in which it properly indwells (concept that is present in St Maximus the Confessor) and representing it to the Father. We trust the authority of the Church in its consensus, we don't need to "make it make sense" or else we'd be putting ourselves above the fathers. We look at the received tradition in its entirety, not its outliers. Anselm's theory of satisfaction is not wrong in that regard. 2) Regarding original sin vs ancestral sin, I agree that the Catholic and Orthodox perspective are very similar. But there's a difference between guilt and sin. We don't deny that we are born "in sin", but we aren't born with any guilt. The state of sin is not equal to actively pursuing sin in a manner that implies responsibility for it, nor does it condemn us to sin. That's why unbaptized babies don't go to hell nor purgatory. If that were the case that we would inherit guilt then the Theotokos couldn't hold her high place in our view and would be greatly diminished as the proper vessel for God. This is the reason why the Catholics had to add things about her like the doctrine of the "immaculate conception" afterwards. So now you have two additions, immaculate conception and purgatory, both stemming from this. The Theotokos as far as I know was born in sin, but was herself made sinless thanks to the devotion of her saintly parents who protected her from the ravages of ancestral sin. But even sexual reproduction is lesser than what God had in mind for, yet she was conceived by sexual intercourse and not of the spirit, like Christ (and like all men were supposed to be conceived before the Fall). 3) Regarding St Augustine, some of his teaching is indeed incorrect, but it's mostly good. The issue as far as I understand the issue is how St Augustine was read and interpreted in the West, especially certain neoplatonic influences that were then retrofitted into the scholastic synthesis which blended pagan philosophy (Plato and Aristotle, Philo of Alexandria, among others) and fundamentally altered the revealed non-dualistic metaphysical cosmology that Orthodox Christianity defended, replacing it with a neoplatonic monism. So you see, there are issues of deep metaphysical importance here. Non-dualism is very different from monism (like the doctrine of absolute divine simplicity proposes). 4) Regarding the filioque, it reduces the Holy Spirit and makes the Son performatively equal to the Father, blurring the distinction between the persons, and undermining the doctrine of the monarchy of the Father (which the Cappadocian Fathers taught). 5) Regarding baptism and rigorism, the way the baptism is performed is important. Triple immersion and the proper prayers are arguably formally necessary, although there is such a thing as a lay baptism in case of emergency, which even rigorists admit. The question is not just whether or not the correct procedure is being kept, but whether or not we are making a rule out of an exception or vice versa. 6) Regarding canons and exceptions. We cannot argue from exceptions to make them into rules, that's Western rationalism coupled with pride, which takes an exception to the rule to deny that rules even exist because they could find an exception. Canons are "measures" not laws, we cannot destroy measures or else we would have none, and ecclesiology would be undermined. 7) Regarding St Isaac the Syrian... I also struggled with these thoughts. You are technically correct in your rationale, but only on a technicality, and a rationalistic one at that. Like I said before, Christians as a rule don't take the exception to be or to undermine the rule. St Mary of Egypt communed, what, once in her life? Does this mean that we are then free to skip out on liturgy and not seek communion as much as we can? What or who gave us license to do that? The fact is St Isaac the Syrian was recognized by the Church as a body, we don't get to make an analogy between a canonized saint recognized by the Church hierarchy and our "feelings" because we weren't given the authority of the Church hierarchy. By making that analogy we would be making us equals to the hierarchs, undermining hierarchy, which is fundamentally the point I made before. The way you're thinking about ecclesiology, theology and history is inherently modern, uses a hyper-rigorist rationale despite trying to avoid it, because it uses Enlightenment methods that prioritize discursive reason and emotions over the noetical. I pray that you reconsider the points above.
I’m currently an inquirer in the EOC and God willing, soon to be a catechumen. With regarding St. Issac the Syrian being a part of the Church of the East even though he’s recognized by Orthodox and Catholics, when did the Church of the East/Assyrian Church schism? Did they schism before the 7th century or after the Great Schism in 1054?
What an informative theological exploration you share. I applaud your boldness to search for congruence in a spirit of charity and humility. Just stepping from one Christian tradition into another is mind boggling. I guess my mind is not as inquisitive and rigorously trained as yours. Thank you for the precious tip on discernment. "Never make a decision in a time of desolation."
"And John answered him, saying, Master, we saw one casting out devils in thy name, and he followeth not us: and we forbad him, because he followeth not us. But Jesus said, Forbid him not: for there is no man which shall do a miracle in my name, that can lightly speak evil of me. For he that is not against us is on our part. (Mark 9:38-40 KJV)" This is true catholicism and is the unity of the true Church of which Christ Jesus spoke.
Deacon Drew, This video has been very helpful, thank you! Regarding the issue of ecclesiology (which seems to me to be perhaps the most pertinent issue in the whole Protestant/Catholic/Orthodox discussion), I think I agree with your assessment. Might those Orthodox on the more ecumenical side argue that Christians baptized outside of the institution of the Orthodox Church are nevertheless saved through the Orthodox Church despite not being visibly or intentionally aligned with it? How would you respond to that rejoinder? I'm looking forward to your future videos on your personal journey!
Thanks for this, Mark Todd. I don't think it's consistent with the traditional Orthodox theological method. The Orthodox Church is resistant to innovation, and that is an innovative ecclesiological understanding. It is more traditional, in my opinion, to just admit that the One Church can be rent by schism. I'll argue for that in my next video.
@@FrAndrewHarrah That makes sense. I know that many Roman apologists have argued for that view recently, but I'm not as aware of the current trends of Orthodox apologetics. I appreciate your work!
Hello, Dcn. Drew! Thank you for your wonderful video. What do you mean when you say we are “guilty analogously” at 20:56 or that we are “guilty by analogy” at 21:09?
Hello Adam, I'm getting this from St. Augustine who draws a distinction between personal and original sin. The guilt incurred from personal sin is guilt properly speaking, the guilt incurred from original sin is only guilt by analogy, because guilt properly speaking implies a personal act. But because we are all born in Adam, because Adam is our natural head and we are members of his body, his personal act affects all of us. We are all born guilty in Adam in this analogous sense.
I can't wait for part 2. I've been Orthodox for 16 years. The first two years of ethnic old country-style Orthodoxy were wonderful, but then we got a hyperdox non-Greek convert priest who took me right back to the cult-like fundamentalism of my Protestant youth and ruined the peace I had found in Orthodoxy. I've been struggling ever since. After he came along I began to see the cracks in the facade, I no longer felt at peace and the way I had been practicing Orthodoxy based on the way the old country Orthodox people showed me was wrong according to him. And I had to do everything by the book or I was basically going to hell. He upset a lot of people and eventually was sent to another church, but I've never recovered psychologically from his time at our church.
My brother, as an Orthodox Christian, I am so sorry to hear this horrible experience for you! I know you’re probably not interested in hearing the cliche “just a bad priest” stuff, but I just wanted to reach out and say that I am praying for you. God loves all of us, and whatever happens in life, He is there for you, and for all of us. We may not understand the why of these things, but He allows what we can bear. I’m sorry for this experience brother, but know that I’m out here praying for your recovery from this experience. God bless you! And may Jesus Christ have mercy on all of us! 🙏☦️❤️
I’ve heard similar stories. Many of these people have no business being priests. You can try reading the writings of the saints and also holy elders from Orthodox countries. Some of these are on TH-cam, for example Elder Dositheos. Someone can be traditional without being toxic. There is a difference.
I really appreciate this thorough breakdown. I have been intrigued by Orthodoxy and really felt the presence of the Holy Spirit in their church/service when I went. It was a beautiful experience. However, I would agree that it isn't the only church or only expression. Anecdotally, I just can't subscribe to that. I'm not sure why God is taking me on this path of visiting many denominations but it is nice to hear from someone who has also been down this road.
Fantastic video brother. I was brought up low church Lutheran, now I'm Catholic. But I went to Athos last year and attend Anglican services every now and then. There is great truth in all of Christendom, some disagreement among brothers is fine and will continue even when we are united. Keep making content! I'll share this with a friend.
@dcndrew_faithofourfathers yes sure. It frankly fantastic, the density of peace and holiness in that place is unbelievable. The brothers there are great teachers of the tradition. I feel like going there deepened my understanding of how one improves spiritually. I will for sure go back and stay longer next time.
Orthodoxy is attractive because you get a sense of peace from your own doing, not because tour faith is absolutely placed in Christ. Like a person that is anxious because they believe the left the stove on, so is the man that doesn’t truly trust in Christ. If he doesn’t turn off the stove himself, his anxiety grows, ignoring the fact that someone home already did the work.
Regarding the Filioque. Isn't "heretical" reserved to purposeful reject a teaching of the Church? I'm ignorant, but I thought that St. Augustine identified the Divine Essence with the One True God, while the Greek Fathers identified The Father with the One True God, I'm pretty sure both would have considered wrong the other view, but we can't say that it was heresy, because it was just a mistake from one of the sides. Isn't the clarification of St. Gregory Palamas the explanation of the doctrine on the light of the strong Monarchical Trinity of the Fathers?
How the heck in the age of the internet does a recently converted Christian maintain their sanity and discernment of what it even means to be in Christ or be saved, with millions of voices, opinions, churches, and denominations. Im currently reading the NT and praying as the only places I know where God gives His information. But at the same time I don't really know what it means to be in Christ. I have faith in Him and want to do His will but at the same time you can ask 10 different Christians who are reading the same verse come up with completely different interpretations. How does one who wants to follow Christ find the correct path towards Him in an oceans of millions of different versions of the same Word of God?
Praise God for your recent conversion, Connor! Becoming a Christian is the best decision you will ever make in life. And I really feel for you, man. The internet age makes these things really tough. I feel that myself. But the heart of the faith really is quite simple: "repentance towards God and faith towards our Lord Jesus Christ" (Acts 20:21). Regarding where you are to go to church and get baptized, ask the Lord to guide you and he will. Do not be afraid that you will make a wrong choice. I've lived long enough with the Lord to know and experience God's goodness. He really is better than we could possibly imagine. Have you read C.S. Lewis' Mere Christianity? That would probably be worth picking up and reading alongside your Bible reading. May God bless and keep you in your discernment.
@dcndrew_faithofourfathers I've read Abolition of Man. What brought me back to Christ was not by my will but by His. I was an atheist for a good decade(was a devout Protestant in my teenage years), until one day there was a house fire. I stayed with a friend who taught my autistic mind the concept of 'meta"(pertaining to or noting an abstract, high-level analysis or commentary, especially one that consciously references something of its own type.) After that event I began to understand what people were referring to regarding 'spiritual' matters. I was still agnostic for a time up until 2020, when the whole planet was going to hell because of the myopic pride of mankind. At that moment I prayed for the first time ever since my teenage years. I understood at that point WHY Jesus Christ had to come down from Heaven to save our wretched species. Since then I've grown closer to Jesus Christ, praying every day compulsively to save me from myself. I have been blessed with a God fearing woman whom I want to spend the rest of my life with and be married to her in God's eyes. This made giving up sins like pr0n much easier since I now know what direction is better. The next step we are both on is finding a church and trying to accept and understand God's Word, I've started reading the NT and am currently on Collasians Sorry if this has been a long read
Same here I became a believer like 2 plus years ago when I quit drinking and doing bad sexual stuff. I feel so split in many ways spiritually but my faith is rock solid and I trust the NT 💯 just don't know which church to attend they all feel lost to me in different ways.
I left Orthodoxy for 20 years. Then, I had an NDE/heart attack. Changed my mind about a LOT. Now I'm back - and can't provide ANY "worldly/material" explanation for my belief. "Blessed are thet who have not seen, and yet believe."
I no longer have a dog in this race, but as a former Reformed Baptist/Christian Reconstructionist - it's hard to not have a deep sympathy for the Orthodox position. In every way, they appear to have the oldest positions/views of any Trinitarian group. Yet through Papal greed and lust for power, the church was divided.
Agreed. And the more you really look into the issues that divide Orthodoxy and Catholicism and Protestantism, the less it becomes possible to truly believe any other church can be correct. And if you remain a Catholic or Protestant, you will have some serious mental gymnastics you will have to contend with, or you will refuse to think about it further because the Truth will be too difficult to behold.
@@alepine1986there are gymnastics on the Orthodox side. The filioque is THE doctrine taught by all the latin fathers and several of the easterns. EO are absolutely wrong for rejecting it
@@Iffmeister Not sure where you're getting that but it's not true. The filioque was a unilateral and unauthorized addition, and a Pope (can't remember which one right now) had the Nicene Creed inscribed on stone tablets and hung in St. Peter's Basilica without the filioque, and he said it could never be changed 'even in a syllable'. Additionally the filioque is not recited among eastern Catholics and several popes have recited the Nicene Creed without the filioque. So, no.
Regarding baptism and the Body of Christ, Yes Deacon, you are actually discussing ecumenism. Is the question of the delimitation of what is the Church really binary with respect to one particular jurisdiction or particular church? If so, then those who insist on rebaptism are consistent. If not, then the ecumenical view of a wider church, with no requirement for rebaptism ( given a previous baptism in the name of the Trinity) is the consistent one. Maybe theology itself is the key…
with regards to baptism, couldn't one take the traditionalist catholic perspective that baptisms are valid outside of the church, especially for those who don't have the use of reason, and that they are incorporated into the Church, really and truly, but when they reach the age of accountability, and once they learn of the true church (whichever church that might be) and they reject it through various means, including believing and professing heresies, they're thereby cut off from the church?
Thanks for sharing your story. In regard to Romanides, i would recommend reading "Against Romanides" by Vladimir Moss. Romanides' teachings do not reflect the views of the Orthodox Church, and just because he is held up as some great theologian by those calling themselves Orthodox doesn't make it so. He taught many heresies that directly contradict the teaching of the fathers.
You're likely aware of this already, but V. Moss was a True Orthodox, i.e. not in the canonical Orthodox Church. If you follow him as a lodestar, he'll lead you out of canonical Orthodoxy. But yes, he was right about Fr. Romanides. And from what I've read in his ecclesiological essays, he basically holds to a "branch theory" of the Church. He denies that, of course, but I think the essential points are there. I don't find his denial persuasive.
Indeed, I am one of those "uncanonical" Orthodox, but I'm not in the same synod as Dr. Moss. In regard to him supposedly believing in the branch theory, I assume you're referring to his ecclesiological understanding of the validity of various Orthodox synods that are out of communion with each other, yet are still somehow part of the One Church. The qualifier here though, is that these synods (or at least the ones he includes) are confessing the same Orthodox faith, and are only out of communion with each other because of misunderstandings and small squabblings as such, that are unrelated to the faith. We see examples of this in Church history with the so-called "Meletian schism" as well as the so-called "Johannite schism", where we see saints that were out of canonical communion with each other due to misunderstandings, yet held to the same Orthodox faith. I'm by no means trying to argue this is normative, just that it isn't unheard of, and I believe this is what Dr. Moss is referring to in his writings.
Thank you! I really enjoyed listening to this. At first I was reluctant, but, as you said, I listened to the end and it was worth it. It's so true that some in the modern Orthodox world would create an overemphasis regarding certain things and create an unnecessary (and sometimes erroneous) pitting "this against that"... Romanides is not a good example of "balance" (with his over zealous Augustine bashing), a balance that would be better found in people like Lossky, Florovsky, Shmemann etc. I do think that the differences between east and west are often a matter of emphasis, but there still certainly remains irreconcilable differences: with the outworking of certain areas of Augustinian trains of thought, this is certainly the case regarding, for example, the nature of election and synergy and the degree that latet Reformers and traditions would take it. As a nonconformist evangelical charismatic, I was introduced to the Orthodox world because I worked for one of the hierarchs of the Orthodox Church of Russia here in the UK. Through him, and his parishioners, and further afield in England folk, I have had the best experience of real Orthodoxy - with deep humility and love and a strong sense of that "phrenoma" you mentioned ... I draw almost solely from Eastern Orthodox theology and soteriology etc and completely see why many hundreds of years ago you were either in the Church, or you were out of it; but splits happened... in the 5th century did the North Africans suddenly cease to be Christian? Or those who followed the teaching of Nestorius? I do see that Eastern Orthodoxy holds the fullness and is truest to the early church doctrine; but equally I cannot except for a moment that my devout mother who was a Baptist and all the people you mentioned were not Christian and also had a deeply profound knowledge of being part of the Mystical Body of Christ... it's just a no brainier. God works with what he's got... and that's us fragmented argumentative lot! But apart from many people within the Orthodox Church's view of "the invisible church", and, I think, going a little OTT on certain aspects of Mariology towards the latter half of the first Millennium, I love Orthodoxy. I know I will be accused of prideful independence and "prelest" at this point : ) (but I know I'm not) ; ) It's just that with the clear personal knowledge of my own conversion back in my early 20s and living in an area of the UK where there isn't even an Orthodox Church, I know that the official teaching and canonical proclamation on those outside the Church (Eastern Orthodox organisation) cannot be a reality, and this consequently calls into question the degree to which the Eastern Orthodox Church (or any Communion) as an institution is infallible... because to deny the real relationship of many thousands of people with Jesus Christ who were not within the boundaries of Eastern Orthodoxy, is absurd. God Bless!
Hmm, good thoughts to chew on, thank you for sharing. I'm still learning but the EO teachings of: 1) essence vs energies 2) monarchy of the Father 3) ancestral sin instead of original sin ...are strong points in favor of EO that seems to make more consistent and coherent understanding of there bible...and are each distinct to EO
@@valdotc8559 EO is Eastern Orthodox Cliff notes of MY understandings thus far: Original sin - humans are born damned and guilty for Adam's sin Ancestral sin - humans are born broken/imperfect into a currupt world bcuz of Adam's sin, but are guilty and damned for their own personal sins, not Adam's. Helpful links to understand: 1) th-cam.com/users/shortsGYTajzoGQQA?si=M6kx_R3jGhuSArRV 2) th-cam.com/video/Ds-ouM7b4P4/w-d-xo.htmlsi=6XwuOGRc-s2o-EDs
@@inrmds yes, I've heard that but it's a little confusing to me how "anymore" works...and that they still call it original sin, kinda like they just changed the definition of the doctrine idk So is it just reformers with the mind numbing teaching of original sin ??
New Covenant Whole Gospel: How many modern Christians cannot honestly answer the questions below? Who is the King of Israel in John 1:49? Is the King of Israel now the Head of the Church, and are we His Body? Who is the “son” that is the “heir” to the land in Matthew 21:37-43? Why did God allow the Romans to destroy the Old Covenant temple and the Old Covenant city, about 40 years after His Son fulfilled the New Covenant promised in Jeremiah 31:31-34 in blood at Calvary? 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. 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, 3:16? 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. God is not now a “racist”. He has extended His love to all races of people through the New Covenant fulfilled by His Son’s blood at Calvary. The Apostle Paul warned against using “genealogies” in our faith in 1 Tim. 1:4, and Titus 3:9. 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.
as an Orthodox convert, I have no problems with Orthodoxy, like the ones you describe. I don't expect it to be perfect--all systems here are corrupt as a result of the fallen world. So you will have to choose another corrupt Christian system instead of the Orthodox one, and plain and simply: Orthodoxy is the most beautiful and profound expression of Christianity, in addition to being the oldest--frozen in place throughout the MIddle East, as a result of Islam. Very little has changed as a result. Your relationship with God is ultimately personal and should not require a "safe space"...church is a place to glorify God, but it is also a hospital
Thank you for what you said towards the end, about sometimes God will call people into Orthodox Church for his work in their life. Someone in my family has joined because he wanted more depth & reverence. I see future issues in that marriage, especially with child-raising, but I have to keep putting them back in God’s hands.
Father Josiah on Patristic Nectar has a TH-cam Short called "The True vs The Perfect Church" which in 30 seconds exactly addresses this.
"The authenticity of the true Church is in no way challenged by the fact that She has sinners within Her. We should be thankful that the True Church on Earth is not perfect, because if the True Church on Earth was perfect, where in the world would you and I exist in Her?"
Fr. Josiah is a narcissist.
Narcissists don't care about other people so he is exactly the opposite of what you claim. You are as bad as the media, twisting and perverting the English language. But the fallibility of human language itself in its ability to convey ideas incorrectly* is all you really need to understand Protestantism is wrong about Sola Scriptura, and therefore wrong in rejecting Orthodox traditions and the hierarchy of Bishops who trace back to the Apostles, so thank you for bringing it up.
*since words may mean something different to two different people, how can a word alone possess ultimate authority? That is why you need the author or the teacher to clarify what they exactly meant, and why good instructors like Fr Josiah always manage to put something another way just in case the first explanation didn't do it for you.
@@dimitrytchertkoff3056 and you're bearing false witness to a Christian priest.
@@NFS0038 A person with Narcissistic Personality Disorder has a trait of mastering manipulation. And yes, there are many such people in the media that are narcissistic manipulators and you would never suspect it. If you seek truth, find it in ways that ensure you won’t be fooled. Go meet him, not as a fan, but an intern. Work for him. See who is behind the scenes. Then accuse me of anything you want. Please do your homework. I know it’s hard but that’s the way.
@@dimitrytchertkoff3056source: trust me bro, go work for him bro, find out about the skeletons in his closet bro im sure he has some bro
2 years later - Why I left buddhism for salafi islam
5 years later - Why I returned to eastern orthodoxy after being a digambara jainist monk
10 years later - How I became the Pope of the RCC
20 years later - Why not mormonism though?
Just friendly banter, I understand that seeking the truth wherever it takes us is not easy. God bless!
And in religion there is no truth to be sought.
@@3BK235Y that is exactly what religion is though seeking truth through the question of why.
@@kwing6017 You mean, your religion, right? Because all the orthers (I suppose you think) are false.
As to "religion seeking truth through the question of why!", I have heard that nonsense all my life. Science also asks of "why" (contrary to what many people say). Besides, how can you ask "why", before asking a "what"? The "why" implies the knowledge of the "what". otherwise the "why" is meaningless.
Nedless to say that Science also asks why. In his famous The Selfish Gene, Dr. Richard Dawkins asks why over 150 times. Therefore, Science have the answers for the whys and whats. Religion has no answer for anything. There is no truth to be sought in Religion.
Of course, you are free to think otherwise.
This is American mindset
Nonsense. If you never change I have to wonder about your spiritual growth and understanding
As a recent Orthodox convert who left Protestantism after 30 years, the comments here have reinforced my hope. ☦️
or reinforce your opinion...
Amen! Glory to Jesus Christ!
I left Orthodoxy for a time. Its a desert out there beyond Orthodoxy! A spiritual desert of anxiety! I found peace admitting I was wrong and going back to Orthodoxy! All other liturgies pale in comparison. Ideologies that fail to reach the heart I found in protestantism. Shallow even ugly services, long intellectual services and/or emotionalism...is all I found in protestantism. Catholicism slightly better but that needs and calls for the fullness of holy Orthodoxy. Such a shame all this division...life is short. God looks at our hearts and deeply! Dont get so knotted up with the rational lies. Exclusivism!? Leave all that to God. He loves you. Orthodoxy is a heart matter...not a theology test. The canons are not universal laws but measures, medicines to be applied to each individual. If you find interior prayer, a good spiritual father and a good monastery...its all you need. The rest is waffle and confusion in my experience. Life is short there is much to do! Your Orthodoxy was the typical legalistic first dose!!😂 It takes a long time for us westerners to imbibe a true orthodox spirit. Too much talking we do!! I too fell into the ultra-legalism. A holy gentle spiritual father is now helping me out there! Orthodoxy is NOT about rules. God bless.
Lovely comment. Thank you for the good word
Thanks for this. I'm glad you've found peace in the Orthodox Church. And of course you are right about much of the shallowness. I think the "spiritual desert of anxiety" you experienced comes from the ultra-legalism that you say you fell into. I had to work through it too. To say that we are saved by the canons or canonicity is to seek to be "made perfect by the flesh" after having "begun in the Spirit" (Gal. 3:3).
@@FrAndrewHarrah The spirit Paul is talking about is the spirit of truth, not relativism. One protestant told me that "truth absolutism" is dangerous... Hahaha!!! Alright, if that is how you guys want "christianity" to be, then so be it. Real Christianity is grounded in truth, ALL of the truth, with NOTHING lost, according to the promises that Jesus Christ gives His Church. Otherwise, what hope do we have? Might as well be an atheist if I admit that my "church" might be teaching incorrect doctrine.
Wow, that was fast! Last I saw of your
Comments on other videos you went Catholic monk, to orthodox, to baptist laity! Either way, I’m happy you found some peace man! God bless you!
Did you watch the full video?
Im Orthodox Christian, I will pray for you! My duty as an Orthodox Christian is to love my neighbors even if I have a different point of view. Im a sinner and I have to look my own sins instead to watch others, be judgmental is a grave sin and spiritual pride and with humility is the path to Christ and the paradise. Lord JesusChrist son of God, have mercy on me a sinner! Most Holy Mother of God pray for us!
Well yeah that’s all great but at least you come to church. I have a parishioner in my church that is still can’t get over some heretical humps. He still comes every service at 93. Never misses one. He debates and learns and stays humble. He doesn’t leave the church.
The priest in this video made a prideful choice.
Amen. I feel the same way. Jesus commanded me to love. Also enjoy learning about others church’s too.
Thank you for praying for me.
@@FrAndrewHarrahYou welcome IGod bless you.
Amen☦
Anglicanism exists because Henry the VIII wanted a divorce. I've never understood the appeal.
Because Anglicanism has gospel truth, and because Henry has nothing to with Anglicanism today. 😄
You need to read more.
Because Anglicanism is neither Catholic nor Orthodox but Protestant and allthewhile still historical and sacramental.
It's a compromise as everything is. People who realize that God works independently of denominations and find doctrines or practices of the two bigger churches concerning might take their place in Anglicanism.
This is the case with our minister. He either was used to the sacramental worship or he explicitly preferred it. Thus he chose to (temporarily) do the work of Christ in the Anglican Church.
Wrong. Bishops in England convinced by the reformation that Rome was in error wanted to separate from the papacy anyway as they believe they had to. Henry just so happened to be the reigning sovereign at the time and obviously the Church in England isn't going to get a reformation without the king on side. Saying the Anglican Church is the church of king Henry is as vacuous as claiming that the Greek orthadox church is the church created by emperor Constantine.
Angelican is definitely an evil founder who committed adultery and murder to the same women.
So, I disagree with your conclusion, but I agree with one of your premises: many non-academic Orthodox scholars do not acknowledge the nuance between Western Christianity and Eastern Christianity. In reality, many of those differences are more matters of emphasis and explanation than actual substance, or where there are substantial differences, they do not have much practical effect. The fact that this led you out of the Church shows the danger of the apologetics and surface-level evangelism that one finds in many convert-heavy parishes. Coming from a Catholic background, my priest was very hesitant to receive me until he was satisfied that I actually wanted to join the Orthodox Church and was not just reacting to my former church's policies. Even then, if I hadn't met a lovely Greek woman who agreed to marry me, I don't know if I would have had the endurance to stay (if God continues to grant me that endurance).
Did you watch the entire video?
@@davidskorik1 yes
If the EO church is the only true church and are correct in all that it teaches, then why do you guys teach that Jesus is coming back when he already returned in 70ad?
@@ProphetGreg94 Because he didn't.
@@TheRomanOrthodox he did. He made it clear that he was going to return in the first century.
I am an Anglican priest ministering in Malaysia and am not associated with the COE and their associates. I almost wanted to join the Eastern Orthodox Church after reading the Church Fathers and some of the polemics you mentioned. But I had a similar investigation as Deacon Drew did. The contemporary Eastern Orthodox have a lot of errors in how they paint Western tradition. Many have been slanderous against St. Augustine of Hippo on social media. Even when confronted, they are unrepentant.
There is an American bishop in Southeast Asia going around recruiting people, branding himself an Anglican Vacariate. He was dismissing and poisoning the well of the Western orthodox theology. His position might have changed now. I was interested in joining them at one point but realized something was not right with the fruits of their character.
I am a missionary and Church planter in the 10/40 window region. I reflect a lot about how to advance the Kingdom of God. I examined how these polemics affect the work of the Kingdom. I noticed that the EO in America, as mentioned in this video, is growing through proselytizing, or some scholars call it growth-transference. They are not reaching out to the lost; such as those who have not heard about the Gospel.
I am constantly facing real occults and polytheistic/paganistic environment. My ministry faces intense demonic environment. The list of issues is long. My point is that all these polemics are unhelpful. They drive people into the wrong rabbit hole.
When I stepped out of this rabbit hole, the work of Christ is manifesting through genuine orthodoxy. People are liberated from sins and demonic influence. All glory to God!
Good job Deacon. I almost wanted to do a video on this topic. I think you are doing a better job. God bless you, brother.
May God bless your ministry, Father. Thanks for sharing this.
For those that come across this, do please do not let the point at 40:00 cause you stumble or come into doubt.
Here’s a very important account.
“One day, sitting at the bench outside of Stavronikita, the Elder was visiting with pilgrims, among whom was a high school teacher of theology. The theology teacher, repeating a popular Western error, claimed that Abba Isaac the Syrian was a Nestorian. Father Paisios tried to persuade him that Abba Isaac was not only Orthodox but also a saint, and that his Ascetical Homilies possess great grace and strength. But the Elder’s words were in vain: the theology teacher stubbornly insisted on his views. The Elder left for his hermitage, praying and so sad that he was in tears.
When he had come to a spot on the path near a large plane tree, something happened to him. These words, “something happened”, were the only description he gave us of the incident, not wanting to reveal the exact details. According to one testimony, he saw in a vision the choir of the holy fathers passing before him, and one of them, stopping, said to him, “I am Isaac the Syrian. I am completely Orthodox. The Nestorian heresy was indeed present in my region, but I fought against it.” We are not in a position to endorse or to reject the reliability of this witness. We know for certain only that the Elder experienced a supranatural occurence that confirmed with perfect clarity the holiness and total Orthodoxy of Abba Isaac.
Originally appeared in Elder Paisios of Mount Athos by Hieromonk Isaac p. 226, The Holy Monastery of Saint Arsenios the Cappadocian (2012).
* * *
The saints know one another, and recognize in one another the presence of Christ which divinizes the saint. Understanding that St. Isaac wrote, and lived, under the inspiration of the Spirit, St. Paisios could not abide the fashionable scholastic idea that St. Isaac was in fact not a member of the one, true Orthodox Church, but rather of the Nestorian Assyrian Church of the East. While many scholars today hold to this idea and believe it is some wonderful confirmation of the "openness" and fluid borders of the Orthodox Church, we see in St. Paisios how we should, in fact, approach this teaching. Love and truth are always inseparable and so St. Paisios, so full of love, also lived wholly dedicated to truth, and so, rather than rejoicing at such a notion, sought from God confirmation of the strictness and purity of not only St. Isaac himself, but thereby the boundaries of the Orthodox Church. Glorified as he is by the Orthodox Church, we know that St. Paisios was not a monk in delusion, and so in his testimony we know is found the truth.
For more information see Fr. John Photopoulos' "Abba Isaac the Syrian, the 'Unjustly Accused Saint'"
That does not address how the EO church can generate St Isaac despite never being in communion with the EO church. No one is saying that St Isaac held to nestorianism. He was, however, not in communion with the EO church. If the EO church is the “one true Church,” you have to explain how there are saints outside of your ecclesial communion and in “false churches” that “apostatized.”
@@AngelusIgnis you've set up a false dichotomy. There can be, and are, schismatic or apostate churches that have saints in them.
@@Luke-sy4ou How is that possible if they haven't had true baptism? How can they be a saint if they are not even Christian?
@@JasonAWilliams-IS You have to define Baptism in the way that the Church defines it (see the canons of the 6th Ecumenical Council, the teaching of Ss. Basil and Augustine). And other communions don't mean there can't be Christians among them. Not every Christian saint will be found among the faithful of the true Church. Some of them may have been baptised in the Church and later moved or transfered their membership, sometimes not knowing that they among heterodox or schismatics.
Yeah the whole point is that he wasn’t actually orthodox.
What’s so strange is that for a lot of Orthodox, what you’re describing is exactly why they stay not why they leave. The Holy Spirit binds, the devil divides. Regardless of contradictions within the body of Christ. I am a cradle Orthodox, i have never felt the way you do on these internal disputes. I feel grateful that they disagree but remain committed.
Exactly, Glory to God!
Yea, that is not true. Islam is mostly united - does that make it true? Buddhism, Hinduism... this argument from unity is not thought at all. Unity does not mean you are right. I could make the argument that, why would the devil bother you if you are already in error? As long as you do not actually know the truth, he is satisfied.
But see I see exactly what you just said, and I see it as against Orthodoxy.
Institutionally, yes Protestants are divided. But whilst the opinions are different, they are not divided in that they see each other as brothers in Christ.
Meanwhile One True Churchism does schism the Church in terms of effect. It does divide us and stops us being brothers.
That's just my take. Love Orthodox Christians.
God bless you on your journey. I'm wondering what you think about the TH-camr named The Jewish Catholic who recently made a vide on why not Orthodox but Catholic instead. His reasoning seems really convincing although it's rarely spoken about. Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam.
The Great thing about the Orthodox Church is the emphasis on Mystery. I found that being over intellectual will give you a headache in any church.
I have a lot of respect for your thought process, but I'm not going to lie; I'm looking forward to your explanation for how Anglicanism (in all its parts, including nontraditional) is more consistent than Orthodoxy. From what I've seen myself, that's going to be hard to show. I'll say a prayer for you, as you asked.
I think the threshold for consistency is higher when the communion in itself bears the weight of infallibility and exclusivity.
@@FrAndrewHarrah Ah, okay. I see where you're coming from.
@dcndrew_faithofourfathers You've given me some stuff to think about. Shortly after I started going to Orthodox Church I became aware that in my Parish, in my jurisdiction, it was not today as it was among the early Apostles. The Earthly side of the Church is indeed imperfect. Yet is its teaching correct? Is its claim to being Holy, Catholic, Apostolic correct? I believe the answer to both is yes. These points have been confirmed to me countless times both theoretically and in my experience. Is the execution lacking? Constantly. So is my own Christian praxis for I am a sinner. Yet as I struggle for myself, I struggle for The Church and in The Church. It hurts when expectations do not match reality but that's life. I'm trying to look to Christ's perfection. I do not think it is correct to accept anything that is watered down. For the salt should not lose its flavor. God bless you and I pray you will find Christ.
^@@FrAndrewHarrah tried to tag you in original message, failed 😢
@@FrAndrewHarrah Anglicanism imo can be summed up in its two favorite words: "VIA MEDIA", only instead of following a true middle road, Anglicans have decided to follow every road with the presumption that they'll all intersect eventually. Wishy-washiness seems inherent to its very existence with high church anglo-catholicism and low church reformed theology, two diametrically opposed theologies, forced into the same communion by some strange sense of kumbaya. That's without including liberal theology, which is even stranger! This anglican multiple-personality disorder seems to be why the Communion is in an absolute state, and why you are a "continuing" Anglican instead of just an Anglican. This is my perspective as an outsider, forgive me for my crudeness.
Fr. Harrah, I have a question. Could you go into more detail of what you meant at 12:00 by “Heresies of Martin Luther”? Which specific doctrines are you talking about here? Asking as a Reformed Anglican.
I should have been clearer. I meant the “heresies” that I (wrongly) associated with Luther due to my time in the Southern California Lutheran circles.
Listening to your very interesting video, I get a sense that having been brought into the Orthodox Church into what was a parish which is almost exclusively Evangelical converts, and your association with well known Evangelical converts to Orthodoxy such as Fr Trentham, you may have been immersed in a somewhat 'skewed ethos' of Orthodoxy. That is not to in any way be critical of any of those devout people, but Orthodox ethos is learnt and absorbed by being amongst primarily cradle Orthodox communities... which, generally, have little concept of Protestant churches or theology. Nor, concern for it. The attitude is "It's none of my business. I have my own sinful life to be concerned about".
If you want to avoid ecclesiastical and theological confusions, then it's unlikely anyone would find a place in any Christian denomination.
Baptisms in other denominations have always been accepted by most Orthodoxy, and the rigorous debates about (re)baptism have come from prominent Protestant converts. Go to a parish in Greece or some other Orthodox country, and it's unlikely to be an issue.
The conflict of the Orthodox Church being the One true Church, but accepting baptism of other denominations?
As the Orthodox say about many things, 'it's a mystery', but we know that the Holy Spirit works within all people, and not just the holy and the saints, and most certainly not just the Orthodox. That is the Orthodox approach. We simply believe that the Orthodox Church is where we know the Holy Spirit to be, so is the best place to be, in what you will be familiar as refered to as the 'Spiritual Hospital'.
Orthodoxy does not condemn non-Orthodox, nor judge them. Orthodoxy looks on all people as icons of Christ, and wish all to be saved. If you hear Orthodox priests saying otherwise, then you'll most likely discover them to be, firstly, converts, and secondly, American.
Being in America and it's very 'American style' Orthodoxy is something of a disadvantage. Primarily because of the big influence of Evangelical converts in the '90s and beyond.
As a Brit who has been Orthodox for over 30 years (from Roman Catholicism), I'm constantly shocked by what I see and hear from many TH-cam Orthodox apologists... ALL of whom are converts, and most of them having converted within the past 5 to 10 years. The Orthodox ethos is simply missing, which is of enormous sadness.
In the end, the legalism and hoops that people jump through are very much secondary. It is the path of love and theosis towards Christ is what matters. Most Orthodox Christians have little idea of the ecclesiology, and that's possibly a good thing for them.
The Church is in the parish, lived amongst the people. It isn't found in books, lectures and TH-cam channels.
Thank you for your story and testimony. In America there are many converts whose Orthodox identity is attached more to the Internet priests they follow rather than their local parish or actual bishop.
Arch..., thank you. You expressed quiet well, and kindly, concerns that i sensed but hadn't known how best to describe. My husband and i had the blessing to begin our journey to the Orthodox Church with our first visits to Russia, to the Kremlin in Moscow when the churches were museums but the witness of what had been there was evident. .Our home parish was founded by Russians who escaped with their lives and little else..
It was/is full of cradle Orthodox, and there was/is a depth of simple faith that the parishes with mostly converts don't have yet..
That isn't to be unkind or haughty... because i am one of the converts who needs the ethos that the long time, cradle Orthodox just have inside them..
That for cradle Orthodox not knowing much about ecclesiology may be a good thing, seems right. I find many of these discussions to be a bit wearying.
I somewhat agree, but your post doesn't account for the many church fathers and saints who condemn heresy, anathematize heretics and call ecumenism "the heresy of heresies"
Thanks for kindly discussing the matter of the Orthodox ethos. I really appreciate such comments where people kindly bring knowledge/insight. At the same time, I must say there are issues that prevent me from fully accepting Ortho tradition, such as Nicaea 2, where Christians who choose not to venerate icons are anathematized. In that sense I do agree with @mitch0990. Otherwise what you brought up about converts having rigorous views is something I find insightful and useful to the discussion. I think a lot of interdenominational debate happens between US priests/pastors/theologians and what you brought up is good to know at least.
@@mitch0990why is that a problem? To anathematize is not to be about rudeness, but about preserving the Faith in its purity and trying to wake up those in error, especially stubborn, rebellious error, from their ways.
What else could or should the Church do?
If one leaves Orthodoxy, where does one go?
If one has read as much as Drew professes to have read, such a man would never look towards or go towards or go into the so-called Roman Catholic Church.
sect
The first thing you do is realize you are not saved or perfected by ceremonies, candles, smells, bells, garments, pretty buildings, icons, relics, liturgies, confessions, sacraments, vestments, payments, or other such things.
You should never feel ashamed or somehow "less Christian" to go to almost any church in your local community, or anywhere two or three are gathered in his name. If they are bible-believing and teach from the word, then your focus is on good works and serving God's people and growing in the knowledge of our Lord. Jesus said perfect religion is taking care of widows and orphans. We WAYYY over-complicate Christian life by turning it into legalistic over-embellished "churchy" practices that don't help anyone at all, least of all the unsaved world.
God wants us out in the world preaching the gospel, caring for one another, sharing burdens, helping the needy, bringing the wayward to repentance. We're not here to try and impress God by our church liturgies and ceremonies and dress codes and artwork. This is man's idea of good works, but all it is is a bunch of "stuff" to make you personally feel righteous and holy because this is how you "feel saved".
Roman Catholics do not have assurance of salvation, instead they have a constant need to make sure they are up to date on confessions and hail Mary's and roseries and mass attendance and making sure they didn't commit a mortal sin cause it's hard to actually know what those are. It is personal "work" to gain momentary hope of assurance. It's not actual assurance.
I don't know if it's the same for Orthodox, whether they have assurance or not. But I've certainly heard from some Orthodox that nobody is saved if they are outside THEIR system, which is an anti-gospel. Christ didn't die and provide salvation if only we join the right organizational church structure. He died to provide salvation with or without church attendance.
Oh but if you go non-denominational or otherwise reformed, they might have too loud of music! They might have lasers or men in tight jeans! Oh no! Real people!
It's very true that flipping a coin and going to some random church, you will experience or even be taught things you don't agree with or don't seem biblical to you. That's actually ok, believe it or not. Talk to the elders and pastors, see what they have to say, where the doctrine comes from, how it's supported. You must be willing to understand the difference between major and minor issues. Don't go to a church that denies universally accepted doctrines like the trinity or that Jesus was born of a virgin and died and rose again. But if you don't agree with their eschatology maybe, or they don't baptize with the method you like (sprinkle? Submerge?), these are not hills to die on. If you make a doctrine a hill to die on, then you are making a new gospel (you must believe in Jesus, AND affirm this one secondary doctrine that means a lot to me). Churches that demand you can't be Christian unless church is on Saturday. Or you can't be Christian if you read anything other than King James Version. Or you can't be Christian if you don't speak in tongues gibberish. Stay away from replacement gospels! That includes "you can't be Christian unless you join my church only, it's the only one!"
Instead, have assurance in the finished work of Christ. Enjoy your freedom to do good. Go where God calls you, serve where you see a need. Find community. And stop being anxious about finding the "one true church that never gets anything wrong and is infallible and I can only be a proper Christian if I'm in their system and nothing else will do and after all they quoted this one church father who said..........." That is not Christian life. That is just people being anxious and looking for a dual gospel and fake assurance. A gospel made up of Christ PLUS "pick the right church".
to the Catholic apostolic Church, united with the bishop of Rome, as it was the case with the Greek and Byzantine Church during the entire first millennium...
@@TedBruckner Joel olsteens church in Texas. According to Protestants. 🤣
Thanks, Deacon Drew! I am an Orthodox convert, chrismated 17 years ago from Baptist and, before that, agnostic/hippie. I appreciate you digging into the many contradicting lines that make up the cognitive dissonance of Orthodoxy. But that was actually a big credibility piece that convinced me of its organic, revelatory nature. If I were walking through the forest, and I came upon two bird houses: in one tree were some bright colored plastic panels stuck together with a Walmart tag hanging off of it, and in another tree, a chaotic bramble of sticks built up into a nest, I intuitively know which one was man-made and which one was bird-made. I will admit that the analogy is complexified by the fact that birds will happily live in either. But my outdoorsy hippie upbringing pointed me to the bird-made nest as the best place to lay my eggs. I didn't join the church because I was looking for "The Truth." I was attracted to its Goodness, Truth, and Beauty. The mystical theology and the Jesus prayer are what made it come alive for me. I am happy you found a place where the cognitive load isn't getting in the way.
Thanks for sharing. There is much that is good, and true, and beautiful in Orthodoxy.
Yes, I agree with you. The Orthodox Church is the best spiritual nest that I could find. I try to be humble and remember we are all in the hands of God.
@@mirandapasquini673 amen.
Perfect!
Thank you so much, your comment has been very helpful to myself. I love your bird nest analogy. And I seek to join The Orthodox Church.
This is a great resource thank you very charitable and well put.
“Criticism is a low level form of hatred”? I’m left a little speechless by this statement.
Can someone mask their hatred and evil intentions by passing it off as “criticism?” Certainly. Like most things, they can be twisted and used for evil.
But to say that all or even most criticism generally is “low level hatred” is inaccurate at best and manipulative at worst.
And by making this critique, I can assure you that I do not hate you.
He said "can be," not, "is."
@@KevinDay At first he said that criticism can be hatred, then he amends this and clarifies that it “is” low level hatred.
I watched that section again a couple times, and I didn't catch an "is" low level hatred but "can be." But to be clear: yes, you're right, criticism is not necessarily a manifestation of low level hatred. Thanks for watching.
@@KevinDay - but the gist is that it 'is'.
@@FrAndrewHarrah - Believing the Truth and saying untruth is untruth is neither hatred nor even criticism. By your argument it's wrong to even INSIST that 2+2 = 4 as that is 'critical' of those who say it equals 37.5218.
The filioque is heresy, not a nice word but it is. (I'm ex-Anglican and leaving that communion is the best thing anyone can do). YES - the West is wrong on this dogma, we can't all be right! That's just being 'nice'.
Pray you come home to Orthodoxy.
I've talked to some EO folks and they say that God gives special grace (eg thief on cross) from time to time....how one makes a shift bc of Secondary reasons is baffling even to me, an inquiring EO.
So these reasons
Thank you so much for sharing your story. I'm from a protestant background but now a catechumen that is going to be chrismated very soon and this was extremely useful for managing my perspectives because I definitely feel the desire to become "super orthodox". You're investigation on the "one true church" claim was very enlightening, especially the sharing of Hopko's response to the baptism question.
I learned a lot and it's definitely given me stuff to think about and investigate.
Apologies for all the rude comments.
I'll be praying for you! May the Spirit of Truth guide us and dwell within us ☦️
Please tell me, the Orthodox Church I attended more than 50% of the church attenders, even parishioners in the choir were always late coming into the Divine Liturgy. Some 20+ minutes late. The front by the solea stayed empty until all these people come in fashionably late, having fully disturbed everyone else that got there on time.. Then they take communion, then half the church cuts in front of people patiently waiting in back so they can go first. Is this ok?
That's not abnormal. I would talk to your priest about it if it's really bothering you. My guess is he'll tell you that he too wishes that these people would come at the beginning of the Divine Liturgy, but that you should focus on your own heart and your own preparation for worship. As the Orthodox pray during the Lenten season: "grant me to see my own sins and not to judge my brother."
Deacon Drew,
I'm curious to know if you thought at the time you were among antinomian Lutherans that antinomianism was a heresy of Martin Luther, and no longer think that, or if you still think that Martin Luther was an antinomian?
Luther was not an antinomian. The Lutheran Confessions are not antinomian. The Epitome to the Formula of Concord says that justifying faith does not exist in "a wicked intention to sin and to act against the conscience." That's why I said my "Confessional Lutheran" church was not actually Confessionally Lutheran.
Epic beard, by the way.
@@FrAndrewHarrah I noted that comment, but I thought you referred to antinomianism as "Luther's heresy." Perhaps I misunderstood you. There is a good book titled Only the Law Is Eternal, which are Luther's antinomian disputations.
I'm a Confessional Lutheran pastor and, sad to say, antinomianism is a scourge upon us. But, there has been some good work done in pushing back against this; very recently, in fact, in the form of a conference devoted to addressing this exact issue.
And, thank you. Lol. My beard has a better reputation than me, I think. Thank you for this video, too. I made one addressing Confessional Lutherans in particular, but yours was much more comprehensive and organized.
Christ's peace.
Thank you, Rik!
45:37 Thanks a lot for this point! Quite frankly, I am more often depressed than not (maybe because I am presbyterian LOL) so I am thankful that you mentioned this, it speaks to me a lot.
Excellent video. Very thoughtful and challenging in a charitable way.
Just curious. What made you choose the Anglican Church over say another Protestant denomination or Catholicism - Roman or Eastern/Byzantine?
He'll discuss Catholicism in the second video.
Good question, particularly nowadays with the unbiblical blessing of same sex unions having been approved.
@@clivejames5058the speaker is a continuing Anglican. No continuing Anglican would support what’s going on in the Episcopal/ Anglican Church.
@@clivejames5058were not part of the Anglican Church
Anglican Church is just orthdoxy for protestants
Thank you for this video sir. I’ve been wrestling with this for almost a year now.
I am a recent convert to Eastern Orthodoxy out of Evangelicalism. I found this very interesting. You communicate your thoughts very clearly and I appreciate the tone in which you did it. I am glad this video was recommended to me by the algorithm. Very thoughtful stuff.
Thanks for watching.
Welcome home to the church that Jesus built brother. Also an Eastern Orthodox convert.
I feel the Orthodox Church I went to could care less about me and the priests, deacon and parishioners avoided me. I was informed I might get to become a catachumen. So I am searching out another Orthodox Church but am taking a break so I won't go insane.
Reformed and ordained minister here…great video! I too am wrestling with similar topics, especially as they relate to the Catholic and Orthodox tradition and the divisions within Protestantism…lots of study and exploration.
What do you believe about original sin and Baptism?
You should ask God. "Priests" these days are......... less than filled with the Holy Ghost.
There is lots of nice Mormons and Jehovah witnesses out there… Just because someone is nice and loves people around them does not mean that they have the Holy Spirit. And it does not necessarily count as “fruit of the spirit“.
True lol
you are parotting Kyle ?
someone could be stupid and nice. does it make it right?
But all christians proclaim that Jesus is the Lord and only by Holy Spirit this is possible
This seems like a case of _"erring in the side of safety,"_ meaning that while the Orthodox Church does think that you can be a Christian and not an Orthodox, they feel like it is better not to promote this view, becasue it promotes the idea that it is just as easy to be a true Christian outside the Orthodox Church as it is inside the Orthodox Church, and hence they rather say that _"you can't,"_ and then correct it with _"actually in some cases you can"_ as a footnote.
I personally don't see anything wrong in this, since its kind of like saying _"Yes, you can sail across the Atlantic in a rowing boat, but you're much more likely to actually make it if you're in a big sail boat."_ Like from this pespective, if someone would come to ask you that _"Can I sail accorss the Atlantic with a rowing boat?"_ would you, their best interest in mind, rather answer, "No", just for the same of their safety, compared to, "Yes", for strictry being absolutely factual in your answer? Like you hear this kind of thing a lot with people who actually care about the safety of the people who aks their advice, in that they give answers which _"erring in the side of safety"_ rather than be absolutely factual.
I think it would also be good for theologians of both side to keep in mind that one of the seven things which God hates was _"he that soweth strife among brethren"_ (Proverbs 6). Like much of this "herecy" stuff we see today, seems like a huge distraction to what really matters to God, which only seems to serve egos and not the will of God.
Are you Orthodox? That is not the historical and canonical position on the status of the non-Orthodox.
@@FrAndrewHarrah Just an heretic here leaning in from the outer darkness
Thank you for sharing your journey. Just became Anglican myself in December of last year.
God bless you
Poor choice.
the Aglican church is in error. Join a Holy Apostolic Orthodox Church.
God bless you❤️ anglican church is beautiful
I am a Byzantine Orthodox Christian from Syria, I don't speak much English, but I am using a translator for this comment, well I understand a little bit of what you said, that you left Orthodoxy, well I want to know what is your religious background, why did you leave Orthodoxy and what is your church now, is it Catholic or Orthodox or Protestant or Anglican, please
Orthodoxy has several narratives, but has generally recognized that God can act beyond the realm of the church.
As for baptism, at least in my experience in the Antiochian tradition is that the bishop has a lot of power in deciding whether a former baptism is valid. In my case, the bishop ruled all baptisms in the name of the Trinity are valid. Hence I was chrismated.
As for ancestral sin, it seems to make a lot more sense than Calvin's schema of double predestination, which arguably depicts God as a divine sadist.
Theosis and synergy are elements missing from Protestantism, much to its disadvantage. For example, compare what the term "theologian" indicates in Eastern and Western traditions. In the East, a theologian is a contemplative spiritual philosopher; in the West, theologians tend to be systematizers geared more towards logical speculation and constructing religious ideologies.
The prominence of Monasteries and the spiritual inspiration they encourage has been abolished by the the preponderance of Reformation churches leading to a progressive secularization of protest denominations --- including such abominations as "clown liturgies" and the Sparkle Creed. Protestantism in the US seems unable to transcend politics and denominations are dividing largely along political moreso than spiritual lines. It is quite possible that the spirit has fled them altogether.
While Orthodoxy can be inward looking, provincial and ethnocentric, it is slowly adapting to the spiritual market place in the US. I have heard Orthodox leaders speak of "Christian Communities" (avoiding the term "Church" )outside of Orthodoxy, but there still seems to be a lot of suspicion about ecumenism. (Can you really blame them when you look at some of the aberrant practices prevalent today?)
Unfortunately, "conservative" Protestantism seems to be geared primarily towards salesmanship and church growth at the expense of spiritual transformation.
Orthodoxy, on the other hand, seems (perhaps as a fault) to spend less time on evangelism, but manages to draw catechumens at a steady pace anyway.
The Divine Liturgy is quite Biblical and centered on the Trinity. It is an invaluable aid in spiritual transformation. The analogy of the Church with a hospital, treating the illness of sin is a valid one.
IMHO, the Orthodox Church is not perfect, but it is the most coherent Christian tradition
Why are Orthodox monks causing themselves pain and cough red and black blood is this Christian?
@@gladatusbob4497What are you talking about?
This video is interesting for me, because I am visiting an romanian orthodox church and try to figure out if I convert. Thank you for your perspective on that.
So you’re just basically an Ecumenist now?
Lord, have mercy.
Don't be fooled, there is a counterfeit Ecumenism which "sprouts up quickly," but there is a true and godly Ecumenism that is still putting forth deep roots, which God will reveal in the proper time. Don't confuse the two.
You say that like it is a bad thing. The vast majority of people in the pews in most churches of any kind are ecumenists. The reality on the ground is more important and real than abstract theological principles
What? "reality" isn't defined by cultural changes or numbers of people.
@@nyssian7264 At some point someone draws a line or there is no line. Relativism is not tenable.
Good to see your face, Fr. Andrew. Funny to think you're serving at St. Alban now, and I believe that was the parish in Brea we first met at and then of course later at St. Luke, and then again at St. Barnabas. Hope you're doing well.
If I may ask a direct question, based on my own experience in Anglicanism, if the 1928 or really any prayer book is followed, the saints and Mother of God feel strangely absent from the Church in her worship. Has this been something you've struggled with in your rejoining Anglicanism?
munkee59, not to butt in, but I will add that my go-to prayerbook is Divine Worship: Daily Office (Commonwealth Edition) published by the Personal Ordinariate, which are Anglicans in communion with Rome. This prayerbook is an amazing blend of traditions and does bring in the Mother of God and the communion of saints. Highly recommended.
Good to hear from you, Aaron. I am doing well, God be praised. We use the 1928 supplemented by the Anglican Missal, which gives fuller expression to the traditional and canonical veneration of the saints. In my private devotions too I pray the Angelus everyday.
Great video! Looking forward to part 2 ❤️☦️
This is a really good video.
Voices brought you into the historical church and the same voice brought you right back out. Next year a voice will take you somewhere else. Orthodoxy would have taught you to not listen to voices. What if I told you I just had a voice that said your voice was the wrong voice whose voice is better mine or yours? The problem in the West is everybody wants to be a pope.
This is such a stupid take. Your own personal interpretation is what makes you pick Orthodoxy over Catholicism. You will never escape personal interpretation as the final arbiter of which church is true.
You would submit to rome even if it was antichrist. That's not Christ like, nor apostolic
Amen! well said.
@@GabrielWithoutWings Not really, in the beginning, there was only one Church, and over the centuries, many heresies sprang up. Around 1000 AD, the Pope wanted to take power into his own hands and came up with some new dogmas that had never been heard of before, like papal infallibility and such. It's pretty clear which faith remained pure and which did not.
I understand the hesitancy concerning my experience reading Met. Khrapovitsky. But consider this: if you were to hear your mother's voice without seeing her, how would you know it was your mother? You would just know. What if somebody said to you, "that wasn't your mother speaking." How would you answer them? It would be difficult to do so beyond saying "I know her voice, and that was her voice." My point is that there's an irreducible personal quality to these kinds of experiences that are difficult to describe to others. Furthermore, do you think a demon would lead me to repentance? And lastly, I didn't hear any voices coming out of Orthodoxy. My reasons for leaving were presented in this video.
Thank you for tackling these difficult questions and presenting them with clarity. I am a Roman Catholic, and find the questions that you presented and the various positions that have been given on those questions very often to be persuasive. Their difficulty has made me wonder if those who choose the wrong position have simply "guessed wrong" because of the extreme challenge of the question and are therefore condemned; I have a hard time believing that God is so unforgiving. But again thank you for taking the time to present these issues with such clarity. God bless!
You're welcome. Glad it was helpful.
If there is only one faith then why is there so much disagreement and division in the church? I just do my best to love GOD and love my neighbour as my self and don't worry too much about all the rest.......
Wow! I don’t have to make my own video now. This is my story too. Articulate and irenic. Well done brother.
Thank you for sharing your story brother. In times like this, we should do our best to simply listen. God Bless you and keep you!
Incredibly helpful. Can’t wait for the next issue.
Thank you
Thank you for this post. It was comforting to me because I have struggled with many of the same things. You gave very encouraging advice brother, thank you.
He’s completely wrong.
@@MaximusWolfeso profound of a response
@@rwingtwitteracademy
Perhaps not but profound but certainly accurate.
I already forgot, I think I saw in the comments or heard in the video , you became an anglican? I was looking into this denomination, however I see they also justify use of icons?
Thank you for sharing. As a recent revert to the Catholic Church after spending 10 years as a Protestant after doing a deep dive into history I had to become reconciled to the one true Church. ⛪️ I have a feeling that’s where you will end up. God bless you 🙏
Please, would you explain why you regret getting baptized?
I don't regret getting baptized, I regret getting re-baptized.
@@FrAndrewHarrah I don't mean to badger you, but I am genuinely curious to understand this - it seems you regretted being baptized into the Orthodox Church. If you are willing to explain, I'd like to know why. I am considering baptism, but I'm not sure. That's why I'm asking.
@@thornarts2130 There is only one baptism (Eph. 4:5). I received that baptism when I was 12 years old. But when I came into the Orthodox Church at 22, I denied that baptism, as I was swayed by the rigorist position. Rebaptism is a sacrilegious act, because it denies the indelible character marked on the soul and body through the original baptism. A person who is baptized can never be unbaptized-he can only deny his baptism.
@@FrAndrewHarrah Thank you for explaining that.
All paths can lead to the Church. So if they were baptized outside and it leads them eventually to Orthodoxy, then isnt it due to the Holy Spirit? And if they never cone to Orthodoxy, then they're in Gods hands. I dont see how this is confusing.
"The church" is the body of Christ made by the saved ones. "The Church" Its NOT the catholic bor orthodox church or any other churches. Local churches are local assemblys, them we can call these as "churches" in plural. People who pretend that their religion institution is the "only" church (singular) are wrong, at best.
@@valdotc8559 You literally just made that up. You can't justify that statement. Christianity and the Church is a historical thing. Not something that you just get a hold of and do. The Church has a function and that's the sacraments. Not Bible study, youth camps and praise music.
The church is the Orthodox Church contained within the body of Christians. There is only one true church, history affirms this. Christs body can’t be shattered by men; and then glued together by some intangible philosophical concept nowhere found in scripture.. Christs body is one, with one church at the center of everything.
@@oddpenguin8911 the Greek word used in the holy scripture which was translated into English as “church” simply means assembly
@@valdotc8559That is incorrect. I Just had an Islamic guy tell me that he "believes in Jesus". I am a very rare person. I was pentecostal. The Holy Spirit really did come upon me while at home. I received an open vision. For a brief time the next day I was able to see a light blue light ( aura)around insects and leaves and grass. I was told to fast and pray and to read The Gospels and the book The Acts of the Apostles. I did as I was told . I prayed for hours a day I gave up everything in life except the desire to know this "God". I almost quit trying. Just then It happened on it's own, no one around laying hands on me. No noise. No emotion. I fell into a trance on my bed. As I opened my mouth saying "oh thank you lord Jesus" . As I spoke the sprit changed my language. This phenomenological event occurred although I was ignorant about the trinity. I only sort of understood that I must repent. God answered as by fire. Yet I was not in the church. On a Continuum one can believe and yet not be in the church. We converted to Orthodoxy . Christ started the church one time for all times. It doesn't matter what I think. The Holy Spirit really hasn't guided her for 1600 years until the reformation could produce our particular brand? Hard to swallow. There is not any kind of protestantism that should exist. Protestantism is an anomaly. One church for over a thousand years. I'm almost sure Mormons and Jehovah's witness are believers just as the Muslim ☪️ assures me he believes in Jesus.
What church do you go to now? Anglican? I’m getting that from a comment I read.
Converting to Orthodoxy 😃
I recently became Orthodox!
Thanks be to God - the Lord bless you.
@@marcokitesameee I’m a catechumen 😊
Yep bunch of well meaning ideology beyond it!!
Me too !
God bless you...
Couldn’t you use his argument at 36:21 to suggest that different religions are united with Christ due to their good works?
Thank God that you have come to Anglicanism and make this courageous video. The respect you have for both your former traditions is admirable and your teaching was sensitive and wise. May our Lord Jesus Christ bless your ministry richly.
Thanks for this video. I really like your calm, thoughtful demeanor. Im in a learning phase. I have been a protestant for more than 40 Years. I don't like the word "protestant" though, because Im not protesting against anything. I just follow Jesus according to the bible.
Im quite happy where I am. There seems to be move of people towards Catholicism these days and, to a lesser degree, orthodoxy. I think it is because of the craziness of the modern world with its shifting sands so people look for something stable and ancient.
I really think all 3 streams of Christianity should just stop fighting. Theres a lot of rock-throwing going on and its not called for. God is working in all churches.
God bless you. Keep posting videos like this. They are needed
Hello, really interesting testimony. How do you view the common work of christians toward restoring a lost institutional unity in organizatiions like the WCC, NCCA or other ?
Thank you for these thoughts. I currently joined the Anglican church, coming from Protestant/Reformed tradition. Have been reading and studying EO for about two years now. This has been helpful to me as I navigate the process. I love the church fathers and connection to tradition, but mostly the sacramental theology which seems to be sorely missing in most Protestant evangelical forms of worship. I look forward to seeing your future posts.
Glad I’m Orthodox. I ain’t leaving.
Glad I'm not. Ain't joining!
@@hughmccann919 - your loss, not mine 🤷🏾♂️
I can draw closer to God because of my faith in him through Orthodoxy and through his grace for salvation.
This was a good video. In future videos, I would be interested in hearing if and how your views on Apostolic succession, iconology, and the authority of councils have changed as you moved from EO to RC to Anglicanism.
Thank you for sharing your thought-provoking story.
Most of my family members are members of the Coptic Orthodox Church. They are very proud and passionate about their belief that it is the "only true church." However, I have not observed the fruits of the Spirit in their lives. Instead, I have observed strong identity, incredible pride, and disdain for other Christian traditions. In the clergy, I have observed impressive clerical garments, long beards, and long clerical titles.
In my opinion, the moment one believes that they have a monopoly on Christ and his truth, they are truly lost. We can't control the Holy Spirit and His work in any human traditions. We can't domesticate Christ within corruptible human institutions. That is what the Pharisees tried and failed to do. The faithfuls of this tradition are willing to deny the validity of more than 1.5 billion Christians (Catholic and Protestant) for the sake of their traditions. This is what happens when the merciful Christ is replaced by human traditions, identity, nationalism.
I, too, am Coptic Orthodox, by conversion. The belief that the Coptic Church is the only true Church is NOT Orthodox at all. What, then, about the Ethiopian Church, for instance ? Why did we have talks with the Greeks and Russians about reopening communion, if we didn't accept them as brothers and sisters ? (The agreement was never ratified, sadly.)
I was raised Catholic but my parents were abusive. I was baptized and have gone to Baptist and non-denominational churches ever since. Now I’m being told by someone close to me Orthodox or nothing to be forgiven basically. Since I’m Protestant I won’t be forgiven. I’m having a hard time accepting that
@@jennifer6814 Unfortunatly my friend your parents were not practicing Catholics, but in name only. You will find these in all Professing Christian denominations. Your parents need Christ as well as You and I.
Are you saying that you know when someone is filled with the Spirit As in Galatians 5:22-23? Are you not practicing what you are accusing these of? "Why do you see the speck in your neighbor's eye, but do not notice the log in your own eye? Or how can you say to your neighbor, 'Let me take the speck out of your eye' while the log is in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your neighbor's eye." (Matthew 7:3-5).
@@sunnyland3952 Well, of course they believe that the Ethiopian Church is Orthodox. I'm from the Armenian Church, and we, along with the Copts, Syriacs, Ethiopians, Eritreans, and Indians are indeed the true, on, holy, catholic, and apostolic church. The words of our fathers on this topic are clear. This is the belief many of them suffered and died for.
Thankful for this video.
The Pastoral advice at the end of this is AMAZING, thank you. I’m a Roman Catholic struggling with historic Protestantism so thank you.
Thank you for this interesting testimony.
I'm not familiar with Christos Yannaras or Fr. John Romanides or any of their writings, but when it comes to Frederica Mathewes-Green and Clark Carlton, I find it very bizarre that anyone would describe them as "hostile" to non-Orthodox or that either of them would be described as talking about Heterodox with pervasive animus. Anything but. Their dispositions are so thoughtful and respectful (even sweet and humble when it comes to FMG).
To the extent some Western converts to Orthodoxy don't represent the faith as accurately as they should, that's simply a reality of how big a shift the paradigm is between East and West. It's very hard to rewire layers and ways (and decades) of thinking and perceiving that are so ingrained you're not fully conscious of ingrained it is. As Clark Carlton has said, Eastern Orthodoxy is not a systematic theology (which is a common mental/intellectual framework for the West). Rather, salvation is a way of life and Orthodoxy is about entering into and progressing in that way of life. Shifting between those two as a convert is, inevitably, a lifelong effort.
And for that reason -- to the extent some Western converts to Orthodoxy don't represent the faith as accurately as they should, that's on their humanness and not on the actual Eastern Orthodox faith, teachings, or traditions. (Lord have mercy on me for all the growth I still need to experience even after ten years of being Orthodox, a faith and way of life that I am so so so thankful for.)
Thank you God for me discovering this channel! I pray that I will watch your videos.
Thank you for this. Very thoughtful. Might I humbly add to your sample of passages that you look at (starting at 38:00) the following (emphasis mine):
Mark 9:38-41
John said to him, “Teacher, we saw someone casting out demons in your name, and we tried to stop him, BECAUSE HE WAS NOT FOLLOWING US.” But Jesus said, “Do not stop him, for no one who does a mighty work in my name will be able soon afterward to speak evil of me. For the one who is NOT AGAINST us IS FOR US. For truly, I say to you, whoever gives you a cup of water to drink because you belong to Christ will by no means lose his reward.”
Yes, the apostles were saying "Jesus this guy doesn't have apostolic succession" And Jesus still said that He is still part of the church.
I understand that that is an appealing exegesis of the respective text. But as none of the fathers explained it in that way I would be very careful of doing so. Most of the fathers are not ambiguous in their views on schisma e.g. Ignatius of Antioch and Ireneas of Lyon. Are you sure you know better than them?
@@Spoorj Iraneaus said that Jesus was 50 years old. So yes.
@@genericname7020 dear brother, i think you know that singular statements of individual fathers never have the same authority as the corpus of teachings they hold in common. This is the so called ‘consensus patrum’. Therefore, your argument is not sound.
I think it takes exceptional audacity to brush aside what the successors of the apostles unanimously say and replace it with something that suits better your own understanding of the Bible. A book that they compiled preserved and delivered to you. Why not humbly receive the faith that was once delivered to the saints instead of trusting people who came literal 1500 years after the apostles.
@@Spoorj I respect the Church Fathers, but I see them as wise scholars. These men were fallible, which is what I have shown. Also, the idea of common agreement therefore this interpretation is true is a logical fallacy.
Thank you. This is a wise video.
Roman Catholics are misunderstanding Matthew 16:18.
The confession that "Jesus is the Christ the Son of God" is the only foundational truth that Christ builds His church on.
Peter’s confession is the rock.
And therefore each member of the congregation must begin their own personal transformation journey (born again) with their own personal confession of faith that Jesus the Son of God is the Christ.
That's your personnal interpretation. Jesus gave to Peter the keys of the Kingdom . He gave him authority in the church.
@@francoisroy349 Peter's confession is the rock.
see Agustin of Hippo confirming:
"Therefore, he says, You are Peter; and upon this Rock which you have confessed,
upon this Rock which you have acknowledged, saying,
You are the Christ, the Son of the living God, will I build My Church;
that is upon Myself, the Son of the living God, will I build My Church.
I will build you upon Myself, not Myself upon you."
- Augustine of Hippo
Sermons on Selected Lessons of the New Testament
SERMON XXVI.
AGAIN ON MATT. XIV. 25: OF THE LORD WALKING ON THE WAVES OF THE SEA, AND OF PETER TOTTERING.
@@God_gave_His_Son_for_you Read all the fathers of the church on this topic: Beginning with saint augustin :
Augustine
“Among these [apostles] Peter alone almost everywhere deserved to represent the whole Church. Because of that representation of the Church, which only he bore, he deserved to hear ‘I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven’” (Sermons 295:2 [A.D. 411]).
“Some things are said which seem to relate especially to the apostle Peter, and yet are not clear in their meaning unless referred to the Church, which he is acknowledged to have represented in a figure on account of the primacy which he bore among the disciples. Such is ‘I will give unto you the keys of the kingdom of heaven,’ and other similar passages” (Commentary on Psalm 108 1 [A.D. 415]).
“Who is ignorant that the first of the apostles is the most blessed Peter?” (Commentary on John 56:1 [A.D. 416]).
@@God_gave_His_Son_for_you Because Peter was made the foundation of the Church, there were practical implications: it gave him a special place or primacy among the apostles. As the passages below demonstrate, the early Church Fathers clearly recognized this.
Clement of Alexandria
“[T]he blessed Peter, the chosen, the preeminent, the first among the disciples, for whom alone with himself the Savior paid the tribute [Matt. 17:27], quickly grasped and understood their meaning. And what does he say? ‘Behold, we have left all and have followed you’ [Matt. 19:27; Mark 10:28]” (Who Is the Rich Man That Is Saved? 21:3-5 [A.D. 200]).
Tertullian
“For though you think that heaven is still shut up, remember that the Lord left the keys of it to Peter here, and through him to the Church, which keys everyone will carry with him if he has been questioned and made a confession [of faith]” (Antidote Against the Scorpion 10 [A.D. 211]).
“[T]he Lord said to Peter, ‘On this rock I will build my Church, I have given you the keys of the kingdom of heaven [and] whatever you shall have bound or loosed on earth will be bound or loosed in heaven’ [Matt. 16:18-19]. . . . Upon you, he says, I will build my Church; and I will give to you the keys, not to the Church” (Modesty 21:9-10 [A.D. 220]).
The Letter of Clement to James
“Be it known to you, my lord, that Simon [Peter], who, for the sake of the true faith, and the most sure foundation of his doctrine, was set apart to be the foundation of the Church, and for this end was by Jesus himself, with his truthful mouth, named Peter, the first fruits of our Lord, the first of the apostles; to whom first the Father revealed the Son; whom the Christ, with good reason, blessed” (Letter of Clement to James 1 [A.D. 221]).
Origen
“[I]f we were to attend carefully to the Gospels, we should also find, in relation to those things which seem to be common to Peter . . . a great difference and a preeminence in the things [Jesus] said to Peter, compared with the second class [of apostles]. For it is no small difference that Peter received the keys not of one heaven but of more, and in order that whatsoever things he binds on earth may be bound not in one heaven but in them all, as compared with the many who bind on earth and loose on earth, so that these things are bound and loosed not in [all] the heavens, as in the case of Peter, but in one only; for they do not reach so high a stage with power as Peter to bind and loose in all the heavens” (Commentary on Matthew 13:31 [A.D. 248]).
Cyprian of Carthage
“The Lord says to Peter: ‘I say to you,’ he says, ‘that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church.’ . . . On him [Peter] he builds the Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep [John 21:17], and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair [cathedra], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were that also which Peter was [i.e., apostles], but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair. So too, all [the apostles] are shepherds, and the flock is shown to be one, fed by all the apostles in single-minded accord. If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he [should] desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?” (The Unity of the Catholic Church 4; 1st edition [A.D. 251]).
Cyril of Jerusalem
“The Lord is loving toward men, swift to pardon but slow to punish. Let no man despair of his own salvation. Peter, the first and foremost of the apostles, denied the Lord three times before a little servant girl, but he repented and wept bitterly” (Catechetical Lectures 2:19 [A.D. 350]).
“[Simon Magus] so deceived the city of Rome that Claudius erected a statue of him. . . . While the error was extending itself, Peter and Paul arrived, a noble pair and the rulers of the Church, and they set the error aright. . . . [T]hey launched the weapon of their like-mindedness in prayer against the Magus, and struck him down to earth. It was marvelous enough, and yet no marvel at all, for Peter was there-he that carries about the keys of heaven [Matt. 16:19]” (ibid., 6:14).
“In the power of the same Holy Spirit, Peter, both the chief of the apostles and the keeper of the keys of the kingdom of heaven, in the name of Christ healed Aeneas the paralytic at Lydda, which is now called Diospolis [Acts 9:32-34]” (ibid., 17:27).
Ephraim the Syrian
“[Jesus said:] Simon, my follower, I have made you the foundation of the holy Church. I betimes called you Peter, because you will support all its buildings. You are the inspector of those who will build on Earth a Church for me. If they should wish to build what is false, you, the foundation, will condemn them. You are the head of the fountain from which my teaching flows; you are the chief of my disciples. Through you I will give drink to all peoples. Yours is that life-giving sweetness which I dispense. I have chosen you to be, as it were, the firstborn in my institution so that, as the heir, you may be executor of my treasures. I have given you the keys of my kingdom. Behold, I have given you authority over all my treasures” (Homilies 4:1 [A.D. 351]).
Pope Damasus I
“Likewise it is decreed . . . that it ought to be announced that . . . the holy Roman Church has been placed at the forefront not by the conciliar decisions of other churches, but has received the primacy by the evangelic voice of our Lord and Savior, who says: ‘You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it; and I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven . . . ’ [Matt. 16:18-19]. The first see, therefore, is that of Peter the apostle, that of the Roman Church, which has neither stain nor blemish nor anything like it” (Decree of Damasus 3 [A.D. 382]).
Jerome
“‘But,’ you [Jovinian] will say, ‘it was on Peter that the Church was founded’ [Matt. 16:18]. Well . . . one among the twelve is chosen to be their head in order to remove any occasion for division” (Against Jovinian 1:26 [A.D. 393]).
Pope Innocent I
“In seeking the things of God . . . you have acknowledged that judgment is to be referred to us [the pope], and have shown that you know that is owed to the Apostolic See [Rome], if all of us placed in this position are to desire to follow the apostle himself [Peter] from whom the episcopate itself and the total authority of this name have emerged” (Letters 29:1 [A.D. 408]).
Augustine
“Among these [apostles] Peter alone almost everywhere deserved to represent the whole Church. Because of that representation of the Church, which only he bore, he deserved to hear ‘I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven’” (Sermons 295:2 [A.D. 411]).
“Some things are said which seem to relate especially to the apostle Peter, and yet are not clear in their meaning unless referred to the Church, which he is acknowledged to have represented in a figure on account of the primacy which he bore among the disciples. Such is ‘I will give unto you the keys of the kingdom of heaven,’ and other similar passages” (Commentary on Psalm 108 1 [A.D. 415]).
“Who is ignorant that the first of the apostles is the most blessed Peter?” (Commentary on John 56:1 [A.D. 416]).
Council of Ephesus
“Philip, presbyter and legate of [Pope Celestine I] said: ‘We offer our thanks to the holy and venerable synod, that when the writings of our holy and blessed pope had been read to you . . . you joined yourselves to the holy head also by your holy acclamations. For your blessedness is not ignorant that the head of the whole faith, the head of the apostles, is blessed Peter the apostle’” (Acts of the Council, session 2 [A.D. 431]).
“Philip, the presbyter and legate of the Apostolic See [Rome] said: ‘There is no doubt, and in fact it has been known in all ages, that the holy and most blessed Peter, prince and head of the apostles, pillar of the faith, and foundation of the Catholic Church, received the keys of the kingdom from our Lord Jesus Christ, the Savior and Redeemer of the human race, and that to him was given the power of loosing and binding sins: who down even to today and forever both lives and judges in his successors’” (ibid., session 3).
16:21 I watched an interview with a Greek Orthodox bishop who basically classified the crucifixion and passion as nothing more than a really violent prelude to the resurrection which was where the real salvific action took place. (I believe that it's both-and)
Thank you for sharing! I'm looking forward to future videos in this series.
Dear sir, thank you so much for these in depth reflections. I would greatly appreciate hearing more about your journey. As a former Episcopalian who swam the Tiber to Rome, I suffered a lot of emotional and intellectual pain trying to discern the choice between Easter Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism. In ended up going to Rome for many of the reasons you mention here, particularly the lack of charity towards Catholicism and the West so prevalent in EO churches in the USA. I was struck as well by the state of conflict and disarray between the EO churches. When they are excommunicating each other, how can we even say there is a EO church? I also found that they seem to be selectively amnesiatic when it comes to church history and ecclesiology. At any rate, I am very interested to hear about your journey into Catholicism, your experience there and why you chose the Anglican Church. Thank you again and God Bless you!
Thanks for this, Daniel. I understand the emotional and intellectual pain!
Path is narrow. Lord have mercy on me a sinner. John 6. It's a hard saying.
Brother, I have several points to make.
1) Regarding St Nicholas Kabasilas, I'm not an expert, but as far as I understand it, the concept of ransom is a metaphor to describe the way in which Christ assumes to re-present human nature transfigured back to the Father as a perfect sacrifice to satisfy God's standard of sacrificial love, to repay in kind. It is matching love for love, which is very different from the Father being angry at the Son on our behalf or the Son owing the devil. The idea behind recapitulation is very different from the concept of ransom as Protestants understand. The sense in which the concept of ransom used by Kabasilas, as far as I know, is not describing a mechanical and transactional, forensic process, but rather, explicating how in God's sacrifice lies the path to make man's sacrifice worthwhile and effective, what the image of the proper sacrifice is and how our sacrifice can be analogous to His.
To argue that because St Nicholas Kabasilas uses similar concepts than Anselm then that the doctrines are essentially the same than what Protestantism teaches (that there was a ransom paid to the devil) is to take metaphors, rhetorical language to be a metaphysical explanation.
First, we don't use one Saint and make him speak for the whole Church, that is not an Orthodox approach to the subject at all, it is a form of rationalism and rigorism. St Nicholas Kabasilas is developing the traditional recapitulation theory of how the incarnation, the crucifixion and the resurrection all participate in the same unbroken mystical process of sanctifying human nature and joining it to divine nature in which it properly indwells (concept that is present in St Maximus the Confessor) and representing it to the Father. We trust the authority of the Church in its consensus, we don't need to "make it make sense" or else we'd be putting ourselves above the fathers. We look at the received tradition in its entirety, not its outliers. Anselm's theory of satisfaction is not wrong in that regard.
2) Regarding original sin vs ancestral sin, I agree that the Catholic and Orthodox perspective are very similar. But there's a difference between guilt and sin. We don't deny that we are born "in sin", but we aren't born with any guilt. The state of sin is not equal to actively pursuing sin in a manner that implies responsibility for it, nor does it condemn us to sin. That's why unbaptized babies don't go to hell nor purgatory.
If that were the case that we would inherit guilt then the Theotokos couldn't hold her high place in our view and would be greatly diminished as the proper vessel for God. This is the reason why the Catholics had to add things about her like the doctrine of the "immaculate conception" afterwards. So now you have two additions, immaculate conception and purgatory, both stemming from this.
The Theotokos as far as I know was born in sin, but was herself made sinless thanks to the devotion of her saintly parents who protected her from the ravages of ancestral sin. But even sexual reproduction is lesser than what God had in mind for, yet she was conceived by sexual intercourse and not of the spirit, like Christ (and like all men were supposed to be conceived before the Fall).
3) Regarding St Augustine, some of his teaching is indeed incorrect, but it's mostly good. The issue as far as I understand the issue is how St Augustine was read and interpreted in the West, especially certain neoplatonic influences that were then retrofitted into the scholastic synthesis which blended pagan philosophy (Plato and Aristotle, Philo of Alexandria, among others) and fundamentally altered the revealed non-dualistic metaphysical cosmology that Orthodox Christianity defended, replacing it with a neoplatonic monism. So you see, there are issues of deep metaphysical importance here. Non-dualism is very different from monism (like the doctrine of absolute divine simplicity proposes).
4) Regarding the filioque, it reduces the Holy Spirit and makes the Son performatively equal to the Father, blurring the distinction between the persons, and undermining the doctrine of the monarchy of the Father (which the Cappadocian Fathers taught).
5) Regarding baptism and rigorism, the way the baptism is performed is important. Triple immersion and the proper prayers are arguably formally necessary, although there is such a thing as a lay baptism in case of emergency, which even rigorists admit. The question is not just whether or not the correct procedure is being kept, but whether or not we are making a rule out of an exception or vice versa.
6) Regarding canons and exceptions. We cannot argue from exceptions to make them into rules, that's Western rationalism coupled with pride, which takes an exception to the rule to deny that rules even exist because they could find an exception. Canons are "measures" not laws, we cannot destroy measures or else we would have none, and ecclesiology would be undermined.
7) Regarding St Isaac the Syrian... I also struggled with these thoughts. You are technically correct in your rationale, but only on a technicality, and a rationalistic one at that. Like I said before, Christians as a rule don't take the exception to be or to undermine the rule.
St Mary of Egypt communed, what, once in her life? Does this mean that we are then free to skip out on liturgy and not seek communion as much as we can? What or who gave us license to do that? The fact is St Isaac the Syrian was recognized by the Church as a body, we don't get to make an analogy between a canonized saint recognized by the Church hierarchy and our "feelings" because we weren't given the authority of the Church hierarchy. By making that analogy we would be making us equals to the hierarchs, undermining hierarchy, which is fundamentally the point I made before.
The way you're thinking about ecclesiology, theology and history is inherently modern, uses a hyper-rigorist rationale despite trying to avoid it, because it uses Enlightenment methods that prioritize discursive reason and emotions over the noetical. I pray that you reconsider the points above.
I’m currently an inquirer in the EOC and God willing, soon to be a catechumen. With regarding St. Issac the Syrian being a part of the Church of the East even though he’s recognized by Orthodox and Catholics, when did the Church of the East/Assyrian Church schism? Did they schism before the 7th century or after the Great Schism in 1054?
@@xgingex3962 AFAIK They're non-chalcedonians, so way earler.
What an informative theological exploration you share. I applaud your boldness to search for congruence in a spirit of charity and humility. Just stepping from one Christian tradition into another is mind boggling. I guess my mind is not as inquisitive and rigorously trained as yours. Thank you for the precious tip on discernment. "Never make a decision in a time of desolation."
"And John answered him, saying, Master, we saw one casting out devils in thy name, and he followeth not us: and we forbad him, because he followeth not us. But Jesus said, Forbid him not: for there is no man which shall do a miracle in my name, that can lightly speak evil of me. For he that is not against us is on our part. (Mark 9:38-40 KJV)" This is true catholicism and is the unity of the true Church of which Christ Jesus spoke.
Deacon Drew,
This video has been very helpful, thank you! Regarding the issue of ecclesiology (which seems to me to be perhaps the most pertinent issue in the whole Protestant/Catholic/Orthodox discussion), I think I agree with your assessment. Might those Orthodox on the more ecumenical side argue that Christians baptized outside of the institution of the Orthodox Church are nevertheless saved through the Orthodox Church despite not being visibly or intentionally aligned with it? How would you respond to that rejoinder?
I'm looking forward to your future videos on your personal journey!
Thanks for this, Mark Todd. I don't think it's consistent with the traditional Orthodox theological method. The Orthodox Church is resistant to innovation, and that is an innovative ecclesiological understanding. It is more traditional, in my opinion, to just admit that the One Church can be rent by schism. I'll argue for that in my next video.
@@FrAndrewHarrah That makes sense. I know that many Roman apologists have argued for that view recently, but I'm not as aware of the current trends of Orthodox apologetics.
I appreciate your work!
Hello, Dcn. Drew! Thank you for your wonderful video. What do you mean when you say we are “guilty analogously” at 20:56 or that we are “guilty by analogy” at 21:09?
Hello Adam, I'm getting this from St. Augustine who draws a distinction between personal and original sin. The guilt incurred from personal sin is guilt properly speaking, the guilt incurred from original sin is only guilt by analogy, because guilt properly speaking implies a personal act. But because we are all born in Adam, because Adam is our natural head and we are members of his body, his personal act affects all of us. We are all born guilty in Adam in this analogous sense.
@@FrAndrewHarrah Im curious as to how this view of our guilt in Adam (analogously) affects your view of the Ever Virgin Mary.
I can't wait for part 2. I've been Orthodox for 16 years. The first two years of ethnic old country-style Orthodoxy were wonderful, but then we got a hyperdox non-Greek convert priest who took me right back to the cult-like fundamentalism of my Protestant youth and ruined the peace I had found in Orthodoxy. I've been struggling ever since. After he came along I began to see the cracks in the facade, I no longer felt at peace and the way I had been practicing Orthodoxy based on the way the old country Orthodox people showed me was wrong according to him. And I had to do everything by the book or I was basically going to hell. He upset a lot of people and eventually was sent to another church, but I've never recovered psychologically from his time at our church.
Thank you
My brother, as an Orthodox Christian, I am so sorry to hear this horrible experience for you! I know you’re probably not interested in hearing the cliche “just a bad priest” stuff, but I just wanted to reach out and say that I am praying for you. God loves all of us, and whatever happens in life, He is there for you, and for all of us. We may not understand the why of these things, but He allows what we can bear. I’m sorry for this experience brother, but know that I’m out here praying for your recovery from this experience. God bless you! And may Jesus Christ have mercy on all of us! 🙏☦️❤️
I’ve heard similar stories. Many of these people have no business being priests. You can try reading the writings of the saints and also holy elders from Orthodox countries. Some of these are on TH-cam, for example Elder Dositheos. Someone can be traditional without being toxic. There is a difference.
@@sigmamaleonhisgrindset thank you so much.
I really appreciate this thorough breakdown. I have been intrigued by Orthodoxy and really felt the presence of the Holy Spirit in their church/service when I went. It was a beautiful experience. However, I would agree that it isn't the only church or only expression. Anecdotally, I just can't subscribe to that. I'm not sure why God is taking me on this path of visiting many denominations but it is nice to hear from someone who has also been down this road.
Well done! I am a Catholic but I look forward to the next video
Did you ever visit a Monstary or take a Pilgrimage to talk to an Elder?
DD. Nice outline of your experience.
Hi, I'm an accidental Anglican (?) and found your video really honest and helpful. Thank you.
Glad it was helpful!
Fantastic video brother. I was brought up low church Lutheran, now I'm Catholic. But I went to Athos last year and attend Anglican services every now and then. There is great truth in all of Christendom, some disagreement among brothers is fine and will continue even when we are united.
Keep making content! I'll share this with a friend.
Thanks for this. Wow, would you mind sharing a little bit about your trip to Athos?
@dcndrew_faithofourfathers yes sure. It frankly fantastic, the density of peace and holiness in that place is unbelievable. The brothers there are great teachers of the tradition. I feel like going there deepened my understanding of how one improves spiritually. I will for sure go back and stay longer next time.
st nicolas cabasillas is the man. “Commentary on The Divine Liturgy” is amazing.
Orthodoxy is attractive because you get a sense of peace from your own doing, not because tour faith is absolutely placed in Christ.
Like a person that is anxious because they believe the left the stove on, so is the man that doesn’t truly trust in Christ. If he doesn’t turn off the stove himself, his anxiety grows, ignoring the fact that someone home already did the work.
Regarding the Filioque. Isn't "heretical" reserved to purposeful reject a teaching of the Church? I'm ignorant, but I thought that St. Augustine identified the Divine Essence with the One True God, while the Greek Fathers identified The Father with the One True God, I'm pretty sure both would have considered wrong the other view, but we can't say that it was heresy, because it was just a mistake from one of the sides.
Isn't the clarification of St. Gregory Palamas the explanation of the doctrine on the light of the strong Monarchical Trinity of the Fathers?
How the heck in the age of the internet does a recently converted Christian maintain their sanity and discernment of what it even means to be in Christ or be saved, with millions of voices, opinions, churches, and denominations.
Im currently reading the NT and praying as the only places I know where God gives His information. But at the same time I don't really know what it means to be in Christ.
I have faith in Him and want to do His will but at the same time you can ask 10 different Christians who are reading the same verse come up with completely different interpretations.
How does one who wants to follow Christ find the correct path towards Him in an oceans of millions of different versions of the same Word of God?
Praise God for your recent conversion, Connor! Becoming a Christian is the best decision you will ever make in life. And I really feel for you, man. The internet age makes these things really tough. I feel that myself. But the heart of the faith really is quite simple: "repentance towards God and faith towards our Lord Jesus Christ" (Acts 20:21). Regarding where you are to go to church and get baptized, ask the Lord to guide you and he will. Do not be afraid that you will make a wrong choice. I've lived long enough with the Lord to know and experience God's goodness. He really is better than we could possibly imagine.
Have you read C.S. Lewis' Mere Christianity? That would probably be worth picking up and reading alongside your Bible reading. May God bless and keep you in your discernment.
@dcndrew_faithofourfathers
I've read Abolition of Man.
What brought me back to Christ was not by my will but by His. I was an atheist for a good decade(was a devout Protestant in my teenage years), until one day there was a house fire. I stayed with a friend who taught my autistic mind the concept of 'meta"(pertaining to or noting an abstract, high-level analysis or commentary, especially one that consciously references something of its own type.)
After that event I began to understand what people were referring to regarding 'spiritual' matters. I was still agnostic for a time up until 2020, when the whole planet was going to hell because of the myopic pride of mankind.
At that moment I prayed for the first time ever since my teenage years. I understood at that point WHY Jesus Christ had to come down from Heaven to save our wretched species.
Since then I've grown closer to Jesus Christ, praying every day compulsively to save me from myself. I have been blessed with a God fearing woman whom I want to spend the rest of my life with and be married to her in God's eyes. This made giving up sins like pr0n much easier since I now know what direction is better.
The next step we are both on is finding a church and trying to accept and understand God's Word, I've started reading the NT and am currently on Collasians
Sorry if this has been a long read
Same here I became a believer like 2 plus years ago when I quit drinking and doing bad sexual stuff. I feel so split in many ways spiritually but my faith is rock solid and I trust the NT 💯 just don't know which church to attend they all feel lost to me in different ways.
I left Orthodoxy for 20 years. Then, I had an NDE/heart attack. Changed my mind about a LOT. Now I'm back - and can't provide ANY "worldly/material" explanation for my belief. "Blessed are thet who have not seen, and yet believe."
I no longer have a dog in this race, but as a former Reformed Baptist/Christian Reconstructionist - it's hard to not have a deep sympathy for the Orthodox position. In every way, they appear to have the oldest positions/views of any Trinitarian group. Yet through Papal greed and lust for power, the church was divided.
Agreed. And the more you really look into the issues that divide Orthodoxy and Catholicism and Protestantism, the less it becomes possible to truly believe any other church can be correct. And if you remain a Catholic or Protestant, you will have some serious mental gymnastics you will have to contend with, or you will refuse to think about it further because the Truth will be too difficult to behold.
The oldest position among Orthodox would be the Oriental Orthodox. You know what they call Eastern Orthodox? Roman Orthodox.
Papal greed? Wasn't constantinople more powerful than Rome then?
@@alepine1986there are gymnastics on the Orthodox side. The filioque is THE doctrine taught by all the latin fathers and several of the easterns. EO are absolutely wrong for rejecting it
@@Iffmeister Not sure where you're getting that but it's not true. The filioque was a unilateral and unauthorized addition, and a Pope (can't remember which one right now) had the Nicene Creed inscribed on stone tablets and hung in St. Peter's Basilica without the filioque, and he said it could never be changed 'even in a syllable'. Additionally the filioque is not recited among eastern Catholics and several popes have recited the Nicene Creed without the filioque. So, no.
Regarding baptism and the Body of Christ, Yes Deacon, you are actually discussing ecumenism. Is the question of the delimitation of what is the Church really binary with respect to one particular jurisdiction or particular church? If so, then those who insist on rebaptism are consistent. If not, then the ecumenical view of a wider church, with no requirement for rebaptism ( given a previous baptism in the name of the Trinity) is the consistent one. Maybe theology itself is the key…
Thank you for sharing your story!
with regards to baptism, couldn't one take the traditionalist catholic perspective that baptisms are valid outside of the church, especially for those who don't have the use of reason, and that they are incorporated into the Church, really and truly, but when they reach the age of accountability, and once they learn of the true church (whichever church that might be) and they reject it through various means, including believing and professing heresies, they're thereby cut off from the church?
Thanks for sharing your story. In regard to Romanides, i would recommend reading "Against Romanides" by Vladimir Moss. Romanides' teachings do not reflect the views of the Orthodox Church, and just because he is held up as some great theologian by those calling themselves Orthodox doesn't make it so. He taught many heresies that directly contradict the teaching of the fathers.
You're likely aware of this already, but V. Moss was a True Orthodox, i.e. not in the canonical Orthodox Church. If you follow him as a lodestar, he'll lead you out of canonical Orthodoxy. But yes, he was right about Fr. Romanides. And from what I've read in his ecclesiological essays, he basically holds to a "branch theory" of the Church. He denies that, of course, but I think the essential points are there. I don't find his denial persuasive.
Indeed, I am one of those "uncanonical" Orthodox, but I'm not in the same synod as Dr. Moss.
In regard to him supposedly believing in the branch theory, I assume you're referring to his ecclesiological understanding of the validity of various Orthodox synods that are out of communion with each other, yet are still somehow part of the One Church. The qualifier here though, is that these synods (or at least the ones he includes) are confessing the same Orthodox faith, and are only out of communion with each other because of misunderstandings and small squabblings as such, that are unrelated to the faith.
We see examples of this in Church history with the so-called "Meletian schism" as well as the so-called "Johannite schism", where we see saints that were out of canonical communion with each other due to misunderstandings, yet held to the same Orthodox faith. I'm by no means trying to argue this is normative, just that it isn't unheard of, and I believe this is what Dr. Moss is referring to in his writings.
@@FrAndrewHarrah How is True Orthodox not canonical?
Thank you! I really enjoyed listening to this. At first I was reluctant, but, as you said, I listened to the end and it was worth it.
It's so true that some in the modern Orthodox world would create an overemphasis regarding certain things and create an unnecessary (and sometimes erroneous) pitting "this against that"... Romanides is not a good example of "balance" (with his over zealous Augustine bashing), a balance that would be better found in people like Lossky, Florovsky, Shmemann etc. I do think that the differences between east and west are often a matter of emphasis, but there still certainly remains irreconcilable differences: with the outworking of certain areas of Augustinian trains of thought, this is certainly the case regarding, for example, the nature of election and synergy and the degree that latet Reformers and traditions would take it.
As a nonconformist evangelical charismatic, I was introduced to the Orthodox world because I worked for one of the hierarchs of the Orthodox Church of Russia here in the UK. Through him, and his parishioners, and further afield in England folk, I have had the best experience of real Orthodoxy - with deep humility and love and a strong sense of that "phrenoma" you mentioned ... I draw almost solely from Eastern Orthodox theology and soteriology etc and completely see why many hundreds of years ago you were either in the Church, or you were out of it; but splits happened... in the 5th century did the North Africans suddenly cease to be Christian? Or those who followed the teaching of Nestorius? I do see that Eastern Orthodoxy holds the fullness and is truest to the early church doctrine; but equally I cannot except for a moment that my devout mother who was a Baptist and all the people you mentioned were not Christian and also had a deeply profound knowledge of being part of the Mystical Body of Christ... it's just a no brainier. God works with what he's got... and that's us fragmented argumentative lot!
But apart from many people within the Orthodox Church's view of "the invisible church", and, I think, going a little OTT on certain aspects of Mariology towards the latter half of the first Millennium, I love Orthodoxy. I know I will be accused of prideful independence and "prelest" at this point : ) (but I know I'm not) ; )
It's just that with the clear personal knowledge of my own conversion back in my early 20s and living in an area of the UK where there isn't even an Orthodox Church, I know that the official teaching and canonical proclamation on those outside the Church (Eastern Orthodox organisation) cannot be a reality, and this consequently calls into question the degree to which the Eastern Orthodox Church (or any Communion) as an institution is infallible... because to deny the real relationship of many thousands of people with Jesus Christ who were not within the boundaries of Eastern Orthodoxy, is absurd.
God Bless!
Thank you for your gracious response and for sharing your thoughts. May God bless and keep you.
Hmm, good thoughts to chew on, thank you for sharing.
I'm still learning but the EO teachings of: 1) essence vs energies 2) monarchy of the Father 3) ancestral sin instead of original sin
...are strong points in favor of EO that seems to make more consistent and coherent understanding of there bible...and are each distinct to EO
Whats eo? And whats the difference between original and ancestral sin?
@@valdotc8559 EO is Eastern Orthodox
Cliff notes of MY understandings thus far:
Original sin - humans are born damned and guilty for Adam's sin
Ancestral sin - humans are born broken/imperfect into a currupt world bcuz of Adam's sin, but are guilty and damned for their own personal sins, not Adam's.
Helpful links to understand:
1) th-cam.com/users/shortsGYTajzoGQQA?si=M6kx_R3jGhuSArRV
2) th-cam.com/video/Ds-ouM7b4P4/w-d-xo.htmlsi=6XwuOGRc-s2o-EDs
@@huey7437even roman catholicism doesn't teach original sin anymore
Don't forget the doctrine of the nous, nepsis, Jesus Prayer, theosis.
@@inrmds yes, I've heard that but it's a little confusing to me how "anymore" works...and that they still call it original sin, kinda like they just changed the definition of the doctrine idk
So is it just reformers with the mind numbing teaching of original sin ??
New Covenant Whole Gospel: How many modern Christians cannot honestly answer the questions below?
Who is the King of Israel in John 1:49? Is the King of Israel now the Head of the Church, and are we His Body? Who is the “son” that is the “heir” to the land in Matthew 21:37-43? Why did God allow the Romans to destroy the Old Covenant temple and the Old Covenant city, about 40 years after His Son fulfilled the New Covenant promised in Jeremiah 31:31-34 in blood at Calvary?
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.
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, 3:16? 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.
God is not now a “racist”. He has extended His love to all races of people through the New Covenant fulfilled by His Son’s blood at Calvary. The Apostle Paul warned against using “genealogies” in our faith in 1 Tim. 1:4, and Titus 3:9.
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.
as an Orthodox convert, I have no problems with Orthodoxy, like the ones you describe. I don't expect it to be perfect--all systems here are corrupt as a result of the fallen world. So you will have to choose another corrupt Christian system instead of the Orthodox one, and plain and simply: Orthodoxy is the most beautiful and profound expression of Christianity, in addition to being the oldest--frozen in place throughout the MIddle East, as a result of Islam. Very little has changed as a result. Your relationship with God is ultimately personal and should not require a "safe space"...church is a place to glorify God, but it is also a hospital
Thank you for what you said towards the end, about sometimes God will call people into Orthodox Church for his work in their life. Someone in my family has joined because he wanted more depth & reverence. I see future issues in that marriage, especially with child-raising, but I have to keep putting them back in God’s hands.