Age of Division: Great Schism to Protestant Reformation (Hank Unplugged Podcast)
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 27 ส.ค. 2024
- “Before there was a West, there was Christendom.” Fr. John Strickland has written a monumental four-part history of Christendom-from the first millennium of Christendom which he deems “the age of paradise” to our current cultural condition which he labels “the age of nihilism.” telling the story of how both came to be. Fr. John Strickland joins Hank Hanegraaff, the host of the 𝘉𝘪𝘣𝘭𝘦 𝘈𝘯𝘴𝘸𝘦𝘳 𝘔𝘢𝘯 broadcast and the 𝘏𝘢𝘯𝘬 𝘜𝘯𝘱𝘭𝘶𝘨𝘨𝘦𝘥 podcast, to discuss his book The Age of Division: Christendom from the Great Schism to the Protestant Reformation, which provides an overview of the break in unity that occurred within Christendom after the Great Schism to the continued fracturing that occurred through the Protestant Reformation.
If you have ever wondered exactly how we got from the Christian society of the early centuries, united in its faithfulness to apostolic tradition, to the fragmented and secular state of the West today, this episode on The Age of Division is an absolute must listen-tracing the decline and disintegration of both East and West after the momentous but often neglected Great Schism. For five centuries, a divided Christendom was led further and further from the culture of paradise that defined its first millennium, resulting in the Protestant Reformation and the secularization that defines our society today.
🔴 Subscribe to our channel: www.youtube.co...
--------------------------------------------------
Connect with the Christian Research Institute (CRI):
🔴 Subscribe to the Bible Answer Man on Apple Podcasts: podcasts.apple...
✔️ Subscribe to “Hank Unplugged” on Apple Podcasts: podcasts.apple...
✔️ Subscribe to our magazine the Cʜʀɪsᴛɪᴀɴ Rᴇsᴇᴀʀᴄʜ Jᴏᴜʀɴᴀʟ's weekly podcast www.spreaker.c...
✔️ Subscribe to "𝘾𝙝𝙧𝙞𝙨𝙩𝙞𝙖𝙣 𝙍𝙚𝙨𝙚𝙖𝙧𝙘𝙝 𝙅𝙤𝙪𝙧𝙣𝙖𝙡 𝙍𝙚𝙖𝙙𝙨" the new audio articles podcast from the Cʜʀɪsᴛɪᴀɴ Rᴇsᴇᴀʀᴄʜ Jᴏᴜʀɴᴀʟ. open.spotify.c...
📒 Visit CRI’s website: www.equip.org/
✅ Listen to the Bible Answer Man broadcast live streaming Monday through Friday from 6-6:30 PM ET online at www.equip.org/
#bibleanswerman #churchhistory #history
I’ve been waiting on the edge of my seat for this ever since the last podcast of the series!
Thank you for this discussion!!!!!! I learned a lot. Especially about the Eucharist bread!! Amen, Amen
In Father Strickland's book, entitled "Age Of Division," he states that, "A thousand years after Pentecost, Christendom remained a civilization with a supporting culture that directed its members toward the heavenly transformation of the world (Page 21)." Christian civilization was one that lived in a union of earth and heaven, the world and paradise. Father Strickland also covers a historical fact of how the Bishop, of Roman Catholicism, began to proclaim God's approval, of himself (The Bishop of Rome) and the Western Roman Church, above the whole Church, both West and East. Father Strickland writes (page 18): "The Nicolaitian Schism (863-867) proved only temporary, but it revealed a growing ecclesiological divide in that the pope had now claimed the authority unilaterally to intervene in the affairs of another ancient patriarchate."
The Nicolaitian Schism began as an internal Eastern Church controversy, between Photius and Ignatius, over the Filioque. Around 860, the controversy over the Filioque and the Frankish monks broke out in the course of the disputes between Photius and Patriarch Ignatius of Constantinople. Ignatius was a Patriarch of Constantinople from 847-858, and from late 867-877. Ignatius was replaced by Photius while Ignatius was exiled in 858. Photius was Patriarch of Constantinople from 858-867, and 877-886. In 867 Photius called a council in Constantinople in which he charged the Western Church with heresy and schism because of differences in practices, in particular for the Filioque and the authority of the Papacy. Pope Nicholas supported the Germans when they insisted upon using the Filioque in Bulgaria. Photius, in 867, denounced the filioque at length and charged those who used it with heresy. Photius then summoned a council at Constantinople, which declared Pope Nicholas excommunicated. The two lines of missionary advance, one from the East and one from the West, soon converged in Bulgaria. The Bulgarian khan, Boris, was at first inclined to ask the German, Catholic missionaries for baptism; when he was threatened with a Byzantine invasion, he changed his mind, and around 865 accepted baptism from Greek clergy. Boris gave the Latins a free hand in Bulgaria, and Latin missionaries promptly launched harsh verbal assaults against the Greeks, singling out the points where Byzantine practice differed from their own: married clergy, rules of fasting, and above all the filioque. After the Byzantine Emperor was murdered, in 867, the patriarchate was given back to Ignatius, the man whose exile and resignation began the controversy. Pope Nicholas wrote to the Bulgars attacking Greek practices, and Photius replied by accusing the West of heretically altering the creed in saying that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and from the Son (Filioque). Ignatius's supporters dissuaded Pope Nicholas 1 from recognizing Photius. A council at Constantinople, called the anti-Photian Council, was called. The council decided that the Bulgarian Church belonged to the patriarchate of Constantinople. In 870 Western missionaries were expelled, and the filioque was heard no more in Bulgaria.
Father Strickland's book shows that division is based on heretical practices from the West based on the West's adding dogmatically to the Procession of the Holy Spirit, to mean 2 processions of the Holy Spirit. Mr. Strickland avoids pointing out that the actual division, which has continued between the Roman Catholic Church in the West and the Eastern Orthodox, is based on language differences between Greek and Latin. To substantiate, that the Church Schism was, and continues to be, due to self proclamations, from each side, that one dialect is approved of by God, but the other is not, Sergei Bulgakov wrote, "It is a difference of theological opinions which was dogmatized prematurely and erroneously. There is no dogma of the relation of the Holy Spirit to the Son and therefore particular opinions on this subject are not heresies but merely dogmatic hypotheses, which have been transformed into heresies by the schismatic spirit that has established itself in the Church and that eagerly exploits all sorts of liturgical and even cultural differences."
Kallistos Ware states that a more "liberal" position on this issue "Was the view of the Greeks who signed the act of union at Florence. It is a view also held by many Orthodox at the present time." He writes that "According to the 'liberal' view, the Greek and the Latin doctrines on the procession of the Holy Spirit may both alike be regarded as theologically defensible. The Greeks affirm that the Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son, the Latins that He proceeds from the Father and from the Son; but when applied to the relationship between Son and Spirit, these two prepositions 'through' and 'from' amount to the same thing." The Son and the Father are "One (John 10: 30)."
The Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity states that, according to Maximus the Confessor (Ferrara-Florence - 1431-1449), the phrase "And from the Son" does not contradict the Holy Spirit's procession from the Father as first origin, since it concerns only the Holy Spirit's coming (in the sense of the Latin word processio and Cyril of Alexandria's προϊέναι, "npoleval") from the Son in a way that excludes any idea of subordinationism. In 1995, the PCPCU pointed out an important difference in meaning between the Greek verb ἐκπορεύεσθαι and the Latin verb procedere, both of which are commonly translated as "Proceed." It stated that the Greek verb ἐκπορεύεσθαι indicates that the Spirit "Takes his origin from the Father ... in a principal, proper and immediate manner," while the Latin verb, which corresponds rather to the verb προϊέναι in Greek, can be applied to proceeding even from a mediate channel. Therefore, ἐκπορευόμενον (Who proceeds), used in the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed to signify the proceeding of the Holy Spirit, cannot be appropriately used in the Greek language with regard to the Son, but only with regard to the Father, a difficulty that does not exist in Latin and other languages.
@thy-ine Duly noted.
2:10 ... Too many words to explain the double procession of the Holy Spirit. Why add to what the Lord Jesus in the Gospel? He simply stated and revealed that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father.
All the previous books covered 500 years. Perhaps the next 500 years will be the restoration and rise of Orthodoxy.
I hope not. The practice of calling religious leaders "Father," particularly within the Orthodox tradition, is contrary to the teachings of Jesus Christ as outlined in the Bible, specifically in Matthew 23. This chapter contains Jesus' rebuke of the religious leaders of his time, where he warns against the use of honorific titles such as "Father" or "Teacher" to refer to religious authorities, asserting that only God should be regarded as the ultimate Father and Teacher.
The Orthodox practice of referring to priests and bishops as "Father" is a violation of Jesus' commandment in Matthew 23:9, which states, "And call no man your father on earth, for you have one Father, who is in heaven." By using the title "Father" to address religious leaders, Orthodox Christians are engaging in a form of idolatry and elevating human beings to a status reserved for God alone.
Furthermore, the use of honorific titles such as "Father" fosters a hierarchical and authoritarian structure within the Church, where clergy are revered as spiritual authorities and wield significant power over the laity. This leads to abuses of authority and manipulation, as well as a stifling of the priesthood of all believers, individual conscience and critical thinking among believers.The veneration of clergy as "Fathers" contributes to a culture of secrecy and impunity, where abuses are often covered up or excused in the name of preserving the authority and reputation of the Church. Flee Orthodoxy.
@@1Whipperin I already posted in other places that Christ set up a royal messianic priesthood. See Revelation. In Hebrews Christ is the High Priest of the church. Paul himself spoke of the priesthood in the same terms the church uses today. Lowest order are the decons, next up are the elders (pebsters in Greek), and highest are Bishops who serve as administrative function. The other levels of Bishops are a hierarchy in the church. This is the way Christ himself set up the church before he went to the cross. I say this in Christian love but really need to read the Bible more carefully and not go off half cocked from only one or two verses. Just because you can put the keys in the ignition of the car doesn't mean you are ready to drive a car. You have to have a deeper understanding then start car, take it out of park, push down on pedal. Otherwise you will drive off a cliff as you have done with this one Bible verse you keep pressing.
@stevelenores5637 In the Bible, there is no evidence of individuals being addressed or referred to using specific titles like "Bishop Jones" or similar formulations. Instead, individuals are often identified by their given names or by descriptive terms that highlight their roles or relationships within the community. Let's explore how individuals are addressed in the Bible without the use of formal titles:
Given Names: Throughout the Bible, individuals are primarily identified by their given names, which serve as personal identifiers. For example, Paul addresses individuals such as Timothy, Titus, and Philemon by their names in his letters, without appending formal titles to their names.
Descriptive Terms: In addition to given names, individuals in the Bible are often identified by descriptive terms that highlight their roles, relationships, or attributes. For example:
Paul refers to himself as an apostle or servant of Christ, emphasizing his role and relationship to Jesus (Romans 1:1, Galatians 1:1).
Elders are described as overseers or shepherds (bishops) of the church, emphasizing their role in providing spiritual leadership and care (Acts 20:28, 1 Peter 5:1-2).
Deacons are identified by their role as servants or ministers who assist in practical aspects of ministry (Acts 6:1-7, Philippians 1:1, 1 Timothy 3:8-13).
Informal Address: In many instances, individuals in the Bible address each other using informal or familiar terms rather than formal titles. For example, Paul often refers to fellow believers as brothers and sisters, emphasizing their shared identity as members of the family of God (Romans 1:13, 1 Thessalonians 1:4).
Overall, while specific titles like "Bishop Jones" are not used in the Bible, individuals are identified and addressed based on their given names, descriptive terms that highlight their roles or relationships, and informal modes of address that reflect the relational and familial nature of the early Christian community. This reflects the simplicity and humility with which individuals related to one another within the context of the early church, prioritizing personal relationships and mutual respect over formal titles or status markers.
@stevelenores5637 In the Bible, there is no evidence of individuals being addressed or referred to using specific titles like "Bishop Jones" or similar formulations. Instead, individuals are often identified by their given names or by descriptive terms that highlight their roles or relationships within the community. Let's explore how individuals are addressed in the Bible without the use of formal titles:
Given Names: Throughout the Bible, individuals are primarily identified by their given names, which serve as personal identifiers. For example, Paul addresses individuals such as Timothy, Titus, and Philemon by their names in his letters, without appending formal titles to their names.
Descriptive Terms: In addition to given names, individuals in the Bible are often identified by descriptive terms that highlight their roles, relationships, or attributes. For example:
Paul refers to himself as an apostle or servant of Christ, emphasizing his role and relationship to Jesus (Romans 1:1, Galatians 1:1).
Elders are described as overseers or shepherds (bishops) of the church, emphasizing their role in providing spiritual leadership and care (Acts 20:28, 1 Peter 5:1-2).
Deacons are identified by their role as servants or ministers who assist in practical aspects of ministry (Acts 6:1-7, Philippians 1:1, 1 Timothy 3:8-13).
Informal Address: In many instances, individuals in the Bible address each other using informal or familiar terms rather than formal titles. For example, Paul often refers to fellow believers as brothers and sisters, emphasizing their shared identity as members of the family of God (Romans 1:13, 1 Thessalonians 1:4).
Overall, while specific titles like "Bishop Jones" are not used in the Bible, individuals are identified and addressed based on their given names, descriptive terms that highlight their roles or relationships, and informal modes of address that reflect the relational and familial nature of the early Christian community. This reflects the simplicity and humility with which individuals related to one another within the context of the early church, prioritizing personal relationships and mutual respect over formal titles or status .
@@1Whipperin Why do protestants think Christians got everything wrong until 1500. Those people who wrote the Bible were the first priests of Christianity. Your argument is even though the guidelines for ordination are in the Bible that the first Christians never used those guidelines to appoint their leaders. Does that even make sense? So you are saying if there was a school for mechanics, there are no mechanics because no mechanics are named in the course. The fact that there are instructions indicates not only is there a priesthood but that the priests were the instructors. Anything else makes no sense.
The reason why both written versions, of the line in the Nicene Creed, are Biblically definitive, is because both the line which reads "The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father," and the line which reads "The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son," does not take away the true Biblical context that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father. To substantiate, John 15: 26 says "When the comforter is come, whom I (Meaning Jesus, God the Son) will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father." The Biblical context of "Procession," in John 15: 26, therefore, conveys that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, and from the Father, the Holy Spirit will be sent by the Son. All of this could be shortened to "The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father," and the Eastern Orthodox Church insists on confessing only from where the Holy Spirit proceeds. Most other branches of Christendom include the fuller details, that what proceeds from the Father will be given to us by the Son. We can also see this same meaning in Galatians 4: 6, "The Spirit of his Son," Romans 8: 9, "Spirit of Christ," Philippians 1: 19, "Spirit of Jesus Christ."
@thy-ine Fr Strickland addresses the problem with the theology of double procession of the HS in his books. The procession of HS from the F and the S has been debated and no consensus have been given to double procession.
@@BibleAnswerMan Dear Brother Hank Hanegraaff: Thank you for reaching out to me in these important comments!
Brother Hanegraaff, I am looking forward to reading Father Strickland's HS book, at some point in time, God willing, but much of what has been covered, in HS, has also been previewed here, in the youtube. The implication in the youtube is that HS is an historical evidence of how Christ's prophecy - "The love of many will wax cold," has and will continue to come to pass. When controversy leads to division, in what should be the show of "One" fellowship, glares back at us, from history, such as the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox division (Not controversy), which became formal in 1054 A.D., we see a continuous fulfilled prophecy of Christ, who prophesied, in Matthew 24: 12-14 - "And because iniquity shall abound, the love of many shall wax cold. But he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved. And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come." The part of Christ's prophecy, that Eastern Orthodox did not support, of "Gospel of the kingdom being preached," is the inclusion of the Canonized Scriptures given to all. The humanly justified system of division, in Christendom, has also had to be adopted as the formula that Protestants must rely on, because after the initial Reformation, another falling away (Division) had to be expected, or Christ's prophecy would prove false. So doctrines, not consistent with the meaning of God's word, will continue to be the cause of church schism, until the day Christ returns to earth to restore all things.
This was also signed by the Eastern bishops
“We accept and approve all the letters of the blessed Pope Leo that he composed on the subject of the Christian religion. Whence, as we have said, following the Apostolic See [Rome] in all matters and proclaiming all that has been determined by it, I hope that I may deserve to be in the one communion with you that the Apostolic See proclaims, in which there is the complete and true solidity of the Christian religion: we promise also that the names of those who are separated from the communion of the Catholic Church, that is, who are not in agreement with the Apostolic See, will not be recited in the sacred mysteries. Moreover, I have signed this profession of my faith with my own hand and have offered it to you, Hormisdas, holy and venerable pope of the city of Rome. - “Libellus fidei” of Pope Hormisdas, August 11, 515
@ChrisBurton-mf3gk Interesting. Do not recall whether Fr. Strickland deals with that specific declaration of faith mentioned. Appreciate the input.
Both versions of the line, in the Nicene Creed, the version that says, "The Holy Ghost, the Lord and Giver of life, who proceedeth from the Father (First Council of Constantinople - 381), who with the Father and the Son together is worshiped and glorified," and the line which includes the filioque and reads, "The Holy Ghost, the Lord and Giver of life, who proceedeth from the Father and the Son
(Third Council of Toledo - 589)," should not be used to distort the true context that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father. It is when differences, like the one described, are used, by people on one side, or the other, to proclaim that God approves only one of the groups within the whole fellowship of believers, that causes the division in communion, and this is not to eat the Lord's Supper
(1 Corinthians 11: 20). Every Church who has a "Closed Communion" has had an ongoing history of division, and they come together in church, but are divided because of the heretical practice of using their differences of communication, to proclaim that one version, of communication, is approved of by God, even though the context remains. For reasons of the same heresies, where one claims to be approved of by God, while the other is not, The Great Schism began on July 16, 1054.
Humbert of Moyenmoutier (1000 A.D. to 1015 A.D. - 5 May 1061 A.D.) was a French Benedictine abbot and later cardinal. It was Cardinal Humbert of Moyenmoutier, then, who committed to an act of excommunicating the Patriarch of Constantinople, Michael I Cerularius, in 1054 that is generally regarded as the precipitating event of the East-West Schism between the Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church. The most recent division between the Russian Orthodox Church and the Ecumenical Patriarchate happened on 15 October 2018. On 11 October 2018, the synod of the Ecumenical Patriarchate announced that it would grant autocephaly to the "Church of Ukraine" in the future. In the same decision the Holy Synod announced that it will immediately reestablish a church body ruled directly by the Ecumenical Patriarch in Kyiv, revoke the legal binding of the letter of 1686, and lift the excommunications which affected clergy and faithful of two Ukrainian Orthodox churches. This decision was also supported by the whole hierarchy (Bishops) of the Church of Greece, minus seven metropolitans. This decision meant that the Church of Greece recognized the Orthodox Church of Ukraine. The "Ukrainian Orthodox Church - Kyiv Patriarchate," the "Ukrainian Autocephalous Orthodox Church in Diaspora," and the "Ukrainian Orthodox Church (Moscow Patriarchate)," together, are the "Orthodox Church of Ukraine." The Russian Orthodox Church had announced previously it would break communion with any hierarch of the Church of Greece who enters in communion with any hierarch of the Orthodox Church of Ukraine. The Russian Orthodox Church, and The Russian Orthodox Church Outside Of Russia, have broken full communion with the Ecumenical Patriarchate on 15 October 2018, which marked the beginning of the 2018 Moscow-Constantinople schism. Each believe that the one group is approved of by God, but the other is not. Thus, one or the other claim to be the group who has God's approval to receive communion. Is division called communion?
1 Corinthians 11: 17-22 does not praise the above described division as the Lord's Supper.
@thy-ine The issue with the filioque clause has to do with the dual procession of the Spirit from the Father and the Son, which the East finds the addition to have been an illegitimate doctrinal innovation upon an Ecumenical Creed, namely the Nicene Creed. But the issues are more complex surrounding the East/West schism which are explained in the interview and Fr. Stricklands book on the Age of Division. What you mentioned about Cerularius is dealt with in the same book. See www.equip.org/product/cri-resource-the-age-of-paradise-the-age-of-division-the-age-of-utopia-the-age-of-nihilism-4-volumes-on-ages-of-christendom-hup/
@@BibleAnswerMan Dear Mr. Hank Hanegraaff: Before I respond specifically to your comment, I need to Thank you for reading and listening to the comments I share with you and all other commenters on your youtubes. Father Strickland's book, entitled "Age of Division," is believed to be a very good history of the Christian Church schism, and I would think that Mr. Strickland's book could even be an actual evidence of how Christ's prophecy, in Matthew 23: 34-35, continues to be fulfilled, since the earliest days of fulfillment - Acts 5: 40, Acts 7: 59, 1 Corinthians 11: 18-19,
Revelation Chapter 2: 1-7, and verses12-17, 18-29, and Chapter 3: 1-6, and verses 14-22. The false doctrines that were addressed by the angel (The preacher), in the highlighted Revelation verses, has and will continued to infiltrate the named branches of Christendom - And this does not include the small population, found in all the branches of Christendom, who are Christians, and who sincerely repent to God for their sins, and who are often suffering some kind of persecution, those who truly have heard God's word and commit to Him, and share His word with others, unrecognized by other humans. Brother Hank Hanegraaff, I should be sharing more Biblical insight, on your comments, and I know, that according to God's word, there is a need for me to show true Biblical acceptance and courtesy, even to those who disagree. The youtube comments have been a way for the most vulnerable believers to share the story which God has helped them to understand, accept, and share.
Note: If you do not know where you will immediately go when you die right at this very minute then you deny what CHRIST said about having everlasting life and being not condemned therefore you deny CHRIST. True Christianity is the only faith where a person is saved and forgiven of all sins and not condemned by GOD's free gift of grace through faith and not of any works whatsoever.
John 3:14 KJV "And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the SON OF MAN be lifted up:
15 That whosoever believes in HIM should not perish, but have eternal life.
16 For GOD so loved the world, that HE gave HIS ONLY BEGOTTEN SON, that whosoever believes in HIM should not perish, but have everlasting life.
17 For GOD sent not HIS SON into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through HIM might be saved.
18 He that believes on HIM is not condemned: but he that believes not is condemned already, because he has not believed in the NAME of the ONLY BEGOTTEN SON OF GOD."
Luther should of tried to get on board with the Eastern Orthodox Church. Orthodox Church is the Apostolic Church. They are not the Catholic Church or from the Catholic Church. What was the Lutheran treaties that the Orthodox Church denied? Was it reasonable?
@robinbanion3772 Is not that explained in the interview w/ Fr. Strickland? The basic problem has to do with the move away from the paradisical vision of heavenly immanence common to the first millennium of church history, and the dominance of a heavenly transcendence view in the West. For the details see vol. 1 & 2 of Paradise and Utopia: The Rose and Fall of What the West Once Was. www.equip.org/product/cri-resource-the-age-of-paradise-the-age-of-division-the-age-of-utopia-the-age-of-nihilism-4-volumes-on-ages-of-christendom-hup/
@@BibleAnswerMan Martin Luther, held various theological and doctrinal disagreements with the Orthodox Church, though it's important to note that Luther's primary focus was on reforming the Roman Catholic Church. Nevertheless, Luther's views on Orthodoxy were shaped by his broader theological convictions and his interactions with Eastern Christian thought. Here are some reasons why Luther had disagreements with Orthodoxy:
Sacramental Theology: Luther's theology placed significant emphasis on the doctrine of justification by faith alone (sola fide) and the authority of Scripture (sola scriptura). While the Orthodox Church also emphasizes salvation by grace through faith, there are differences in the understanding of sacraments such as baptism and the Eucharist. Lutherans hold to the concept of "sacramental union," where Christ's body and blood are believed to be present "in, with, and under" the elements of bread and wine in the Eucharist. Orthodox theology, on the other hand, often emphasizes the mysterious and transformative nature of the sacraments without adhering to the same conceptual framework as Lutheranism.
Authority and Tradition: Luther challenged the authority of the Roman Catholic Church hierarchy and its traditions, advocating for a return to the authority of Scripture as the sole source of Christian doctrine. While the Orthodox Church also regards Scripture as authoritative, it places significant emphasis on sacred tradition as a source of theological interpretation and continuity with the early "Church Fathers".
The Filioque Controversy: One significant theological difference between Western Christianity (including Lutheranism) and Eastern Orthodoxy is the inclusion of the Filioque clause in the Nicene Creed. This clause, which asserts that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, was added to the creed in the West but is rejected by the Eastern Orthodox Church. Lutherans generally retained the Filioque clause, whereas Orthodox theology emphasizes the original form of the creed without the addition.
Papal Authority: Luther's critique of the papacy and the centralized authority of the Roman Catholic Church was not directly relevant to the Orthodox Church, which operates under a different ecclesiological structure. However, Luther's rejection of papal supremacy and the hierarchical structure of the Roman Catholic Church would have resonated with certain aspects of Orthodox ecclesiology, which emphasizes conciliarity and the collegiality of bishops.
Fascinating, wonderful presentation.
Catholic history is ante-church history.
While enduring the early persecutions of the Roman government (65-300 A.D.), most of professing Christianity went through a gradual departure from New Testament doctrine concerning church government, worship and practice. Local churches ceased to be autonomous by giving way to the control of “bishops” ruling over hierarchies. The simple form of worship from the heart was replaced with the rituals and splendor of paganism. Ministers became “priests,” and pagans became “Christians” by simply being sprinkled with water. This tolerance of an unregenerate membership only made things worse. SPRINKLED PAGANISM is about the best definition for Roman Catholicism.
The Roman Emperor Constantine established himself as the head of the church around 313 A.D., which made this new “Christianity” the official religion of the Roman Empire. The first actual Pope in Rome was probably Leo I (440-461 A.D.), although some claim that Gregory I was the first (590-604 A.D.). This ungodly system eventually ushered in the darkest period of history known to man, properly known as the “Dark Ages” (500-1500 A.D.). Through popes, bishops, and priests, Satan ruled Europe, and Biblical Christianity became illegal.
You don’t have a clue what you are talking about
@@GhostofFranky You're the dunce who knows nothing of the Dark ages ???
@1611AuthorizedVersion The summation you give is inaccurate to the evidence. There were in first millennium of Christianity several popes or bishops simultaneously overseeing their respective patriarchate of churches. The five main patriarchates were in Alexandria, Jerusalem, Antioch, Constantinople, and Rome. They were leaders among equals. Unfortunately, the pope in the West, sought primacy over all others. This along with other issues, such as the illegitimate addition of the filioque clause into the Nicene Creed, led to the schism that divided East and West. The so-called dark ages were hardly “dark.” Many Christian innovations occurred from first thousand years of church history. (See the Victory of Reason by Rodney Stark)
There was a unsurpassed unity in the first millennium of Church history, and many positives came about from the Paradisiacal vision embraced in Christendom, which had become forgotten in the second millennium into the present epic. All this is dealt with in various resources available on equip.org. See especially Paradise and Utopia: The Rise and Fall of What the West Once Was - Four Volumes: The Age of Paradise, The Age of Division, The Age of Utopia, and the Age of Nihilism | www.equip.org/product/cri-resource-the-age-of-paradise-the-age-of-division-the-age-of-utopia-the-age-of-nihilism-4-volumes-on-ages-of-christendom-hup/
New Covenant Whole Gospel:
Who is now the King of Israel in John 1:49? Is the King of Israel now the Head of the Church, and are we His Body? 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.
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.
.
Jesus said that He would send the Holy Spirit in John but also that the Spirit proceeds from the Father. If Jesus sends the Spirit does the Spirit not also proceed from Hesus? Anyway because we believe in triune God in which the three persons are equal, why have we been splitting hairs on this fir centuries? Really?
@kevinrombouts3027 The procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father and from the Son (i.e., filioque) was a significant theological matter. The East saw the introduction of the filioque clause into to the Nicene Creed as an illegitimate innovation with profound theological implication of double procession. John 14-16 does tell us that the Son ascends to the Father and asks the Father to send the Spirit, and the Spirit proceeds from the Father. The challenge is whether one can support the double procession from Scripture. This doctrinal debate cannot be trivialized in anyway. Please consult discussion on pp. 204-212 in The Orthodox Church (Penguin Books) by Timothy Ware. www.equip.org/product/the-orthodox-church-an-introduction-to-eastern-christianity/
Father John? Jesus commanded against such titles as Father. Matthew 23 : 8-12.
and yet Paul called himself a father. you realize how silly you sound?
Do you still call your dad father?
@yecksd You mean how silly Jesus sounds. Paul's function as a father is not a title of Father in the context of a title of exaltation over the brethren as Jesus commanded against in Matthew 23: 8-12.
@christopherlampman5579 Yes. That's a different context. My dad as father of me was not a title of exaltation over the brethren like Jesus Christ commanded against in Matthew 23.
@yecksd The context of calling someone "father" can vary greatly depending on the relationship and cultural norms involved. In Matthew 23, Jesus addresses the religious leaders of his time commanding his disciples against adopting titles of honor within religious contexts. Let's explore the differences in context between calling one's biological father "father" and using the term "father" in a religious context, as highlighted in Matthew 23:
Biological Father:
Calling one's biological father "father" is a common and culturally accepted practice in many societies. It is a term of endearment, respect, and recognition of the parental relationship.
In this context, "father" refers to the biological or legal parent who has a unique and intimate relationship with their child. It denotes authority, guidance, and paternal care within the family unit.
The use of the term "father" in this context reflects a natural and familial bond between parent and child, emphasizing love, trust, and mutual respect.
Religious Leader as "Father" in Matthew 23:
In Matthew 23, Jesus criticizes the religious leaders of his time, particularly the Pharisees and teachers of the law, for their hypocrisy and love of titles and honorifics.
When Jesus commanded against calling anyone on earth "father," "teacher," or "rabbi," he is commanding against the use of titles within religious contexts.
In this context, "father" refers to religious leaders who seek honor and recognition for their authority and piety. Jesus admonishes his disciples not to exalt religious leaders to a position of authority or to place them on a pedestal above the brethren.
So Hank are you really teaching now that you can’t know if you’re saved?
@bobbijohopkins3621 What makes you say that? Nobody imagines salvation to be a theological proposition. So, just say “yes,” to a explication on the doctrine of salvation by grace, then one is in heaven, regardless of whether that same person follows Jesus as Lord for the rest of his/her life, just say the “sinners prayer,” do what you want, then when you die, you go to heaven. There is more to it than that. See this video> th-cam.com/video/iWkmI5P3rmc/w-d-xo.htmlsi=-v4m1T2nq9hSRa8w
So you believe that if you died today that you would go to heaven? My understanding is that the Greek Orthodox do not believe that they can know that for sure?
I recommend you get a copy of “Answering Orthodoxy: A Catholic Response to Attacks from the East” by Michael Lofton for a more correct interpretation of the history of this period.
@ChrisBurton-mf3gk Appreciate the suggestion.
Lofton is a hack you Even eric ybarra can see that
@@GhostofFranky I’m only recommending his book. I don’t know all the details about Eric Ybarra and why he left Reason & Theology or even about Michael Lofton himself. I don’t know him personally, and honestly I don’t have the desire to gossip about or slander him.
Any man calling himself Father in a religious context is in violation of Jesus Christ command in Matthew 23: 8-12. He's not a brother.
So, by that logic, Paul shouldn't call Timothy his spiritual "son" because that would imply Timothy could call Paul a spiritual "father".
Your context is flawed. You have one Father who is in Heaven. And any man that does the Will of the Father is a Son of God.
The Pharisees knew the Scriptures and the Law, but didn't have it in their hearts. They loved to be seen by men. Any man that follows God and instructs his "spiritual children" (like Paul and Timothy) are rightly called "Father" out of love. I see my earthly father as just that. My wonderful earthly father.
I also see my priest as my spiritual father, because he has helped me in knowing Jesus and helped me through my sins. Therefore, I call him Father.
@MajorMustang1117 Paul, as spiritual father to Timothy, was not taking on the title of Father Paul. Paul didn't refer to himself as Apostle Paul either. He was Paul, an apostle. Functions of ministry with others like apostles, pastors, fathers, and teachers are never titles among the brethren in the NT. Context is the key to understanding the Bible. John is doing evil by calling himself Father within the context of the brethren or Ekklesia. Flee evil doers like John.
@@1Whipperin
Are you claiming Jesus was a false teacher for calling Abraham father?
@1Whipperin ...... Apostles, pastors, fathers.... ummm and Elders, presbyters, and bishops are not titles among the NT? Like in Timothy?
@@calvinpeterson9581 No. In the Gospels, there isn't a direct instance where Jesus addresses Abraham as "Father" in the same way that he refers to God as "Father." However, Jesus does speak about Abraham in various contexts, often referring to him as the patriarch or as the father of the Jewish people. For example:
In John 8:56, Jesus says, "Your father Abraham rejoiced at the thought of seeing my day; he saw it and was glad." Here, Jesus acknowledges Abraham's significance in the Jewish tradition and implies a spiritual connection between himself and Abraham.
In Luke 16:24-25, in the parable of the rich man and Lazarus, Abraham is depicted as a figure of authority in the afterlife. The rich man, suffering in Hades, addresses Abraham as "Father Abraham" and requests his help.
In Luke 13:16, Jesus refers to Abraham as "this woman, a daughter of Abraham," recognizing the woman's status as part of the covenant community descended from Abraham.
Jesus doesn't directly address Abraham as "Father" in the same sense that he addresses God as "Father," he does acknowledge Abraham's role as a spiritual ancestor and a significant figure in the Jewish faith. The title "Father" is used in various cultural and religious contexts.
In Matthew 23:8-12, Jesus addresses his disciples and the crowds, cautioning them against elevating religious leaders to a position of undue authority and honor, and instead emphasizing the principle of humility and equality among believers. The specific passage reads:
"But you are not to be called 'Rabbi,' for you have one Teacher, and you are all brothers. And do not call anyone on earth 'father,' for you have one Father, and he is in heaven. Nor are you to be called instructors, for you have one Instructor, the Messiah. The greatest among you will be your servant. For those who exalt themselves will be humbled, and those who humble themselves will be exalted."
In this context, Jesus' admonition against calling anyone on earth "father" is part of a broader teaching on humility and the rejection of titles of honor and authority. The principle underlying Jesus' words is not a literal prohibition against using the term "father" in all contexts, but rather a caution against bestowing undue reverence or authority upon human leaders.
While Jesus himself did not explicitly refer to Abraham as "father" within the context of Matthew 23:8-12, the broader biblical tradition does include instances where patriarchs such as Abraham are referred to as "father" in a respectful or honorific sense. For example, in Luke 16:24, the parable of the rich man and Lazarus depicts Abraham as being addressed as "father" by the rich man in the afterlife. Similarly, in Romans 4:1-25, the apostle Paul refers to Abraham as the "father" of all who have faith, highlighting his significance within the faith tradition.
It's important to recognize that Jesus' words in Matthew 23:8-12 are not intended as a blanket prohibition against the use of titles such as "father" or "teacher" in all contexts, but rather as a caution against the improper use of such titles to assert dominance or superiority over others. The broader message emphasizes the importance of humility, servanthood, and the recognition of God as the ultimate source of authority and wisdom.