Protestant vs. Orthodox Dialogue: Gavin Ortlund and Craig Truglia
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 13 มิ.ย. 2024
- This is a dialogue between Gavin Ortlund and Craig Truglia from December 2021 addressing the questions "why are you Protestant?" and "why are you Orthodox?" Thanks to Craig for allowing me to reproduce it on my channel. You can find Craig's channel here: / orthodoxchristiantheology
Truth Unites is a mixture of apologetics and theology, with an irenic focus.
Gavin Ortlund (PhD, Fuller Theological Seminary) serves as senior pastor of First Baptist Church of Ojai.
SUPPORT:
Become a patron: / truthunites
One time donation: www.paypal.com/paypalme/truth...
FOLLOW:
Twitter: / gavinortlund
Facebook: / truthunitespage
Website: gavinortlund.com/
MY BOOKS:
gavinortlund.com/mypublications/
PODCAST:
anchor.fm/truth-unites
DISCORD SERVER ON PROTESTANTISM
Striving Side By Side: / discord
00:00 Introduction
3:09 Ortlund: Reasons to be Protestant
12:55 Truglia: Reasons to be Orthodox
22:19 Is Ortlund Damned?
23:50 Points of Agreement Contra Rome
25:24 Ortlund: Doctrinal Changes + Schism
31:22 Truglia: Narratives + Religious Veneration
39:53 Ortlund: Preservation of the Church, Icons, and Schism in I Corinthians
43:51 Truglia: Icons and Schism in I Corinthians
47:52 Ortlund's Final Response
50:25 Ortlund: Concern About Attacks Between Christians
54:20 Truglia: Final Comments
57:21 Concluding Remarks
Wow, I just finished listening to your opening statement in your dialogue with Craig. I am a life long protestant who has a son that has recently become Orthodox. I actually am happy since he was beforehand dabbling in gnosticism. He is a scholar and knows church history much better than I . Now he is bent on converting me to Orthodoxy. When I finished listening to you ,I said to myself , This guy just expressed exactly how I feel. I don't condemn Orthodox or even Roman Catholics , that is our Lord Jesus' job . 30 years ago I read a book written by a RCC priest. When I got done I knew in my heart that this man knew the Same Jesus in his heart that I know on mine. Therefore from that day I never again judged a fellow Christian by his church affiliation. It's a heart issue . Thank you for this channel and your desire to share . The Lord bless you sir!
Gavin will never truly know how much he helps. God bless you brother.
Thanks for engaging with this Gavin. I'm not aware of anyone else engaging with these ideas the way you are. Your ministry has been an immense blessing for the me and the body of Christ!
As an Orthodoxy Christian (convert of 9 years) I thought this was a charitable and engaging conversation. Thank you both!
Contrary to what Craig says, it is not the Orthodox view that all people who don't belong to the EO Church are going to hell. Case in point: one of the most beloved Orthodox saints, St. Isaac of Ninevah, was in communion with the Church of the East, not the Eastern Orthodox Church, during his earthly lifetime and yet he is honored as an Orthodox saint and there is no doubt among the Orthodox about his salvation. I don't know where Craig is getting these unwarranted claims, nor how he has the gall to make such judgments that are for God alone, but he is clearly misrepresenting the understanding of the Church and is contradicted by the fact above about St. Isaac, as well as by the quotes below (and I could find other quotes by saints and church leaders with similar implications):
"You ask, will the heterodox be saved... Why do you worry about them? They have a Savior Who desires the salvation of every human being. He will take care of them. You and I should not be burdened with such a concern. Study yourself and your own sins." - St Theophan the Recluse
"It is not for us to define the state of those who are outside the Orthodox Church. If God wishes to grant salvation to some who are Christians in the best way they know, but without ever knowing the Orthodox Church-that is up to Him, not us." - Fr Seraphim Rose
"Those who live in faith and virtue, though outside the Church, receive God's loving grace and salvation." - Fr George Papademetriou
From the Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese of North America: "When speaking of a person’s or a community’s relationship to the Lord, and thus their ultimate fate, we in the visible communion of the Orthodox Church must be very careful. It is simply not for us to speculate about how any individual or group we encounter today will fare on Judgment Day. Orthodox Christians who have forgotten this have caused terrible damage to many. We must surely provoke God’s wrath and place our souls in peril when we thus usurp the prerogatives of the Righteous Judge of the Universe." (ww1.antiochian.org/content/what-about-non-orthodox-exclusive-claims-church)
Gavin should have a conversation with Seraphim Hamilton AKA Kabane instead. He is a far better representative of Orthodox theology than this Craig guy, who is misrepresenting the faith. I've never heard an Orthodox priest, or any other Orthodox Christian for that matter, claim that all those outside the Church are damned as Craig claims. It's nonsense.
The term salvation in Orthodoxy is different from Protestantism. In Orthodoxy it's primarily Salvation from sin in Protestantism it is primarily salvation from hell. God's economia exists for those outside the Church for example thief at the Cross but the Church is salvation in the Orthodox sense and these positions are not contradictory. Hell is less a physical seperation but more of a state in Orthodoxy seperation from God the source of life. Furthermore, there is some hope for those who have died which is why Orthodoxy encourages prayer for the dead.
I found Dr. Ortlund to be very clear in his presentations and responses.
Much appreciated!
Great work Dr. Ortlund, very charitable discussion. Craig seems like a nice guy but it’s all the typical ortho pop claims that remain grossly unconvincing.
While I’m also not convinced many of his proofs in his opening statements were at least based somewhat in the scripture aswell as the early church. Many orthos and Catholics tend to just have some analogy or “common sense argument” so I appreciate the thoroughness
This was such a good discussion, and very timely. My wife is traveling the EO path, while I am still a very convicted and convinced Particular Baptist, and thus it has been quite the struggle. Thank you for this and thank you for standing firm, Gavin. God bless you!
Years ago I almost went to Rome. I'm glad I didn't because upon further studying, I realized I was good where I was at as a Reformer. My problem was I didn't understand my own position well enough.
I am currently on the same path with my husband. He is traveling the EO path, where as I remain in my convictions. It’s helpful to see that I am not alone in this journey. Gavins videos have been a great help in understanding and articulating the things I cannot.
@@Lambdamale.when I had freshly come to Christ I was searching for "the one true church" so I asked a carmelite monk who worked in the monastery bookstore here in my hometown if I should become catholic. He said to me that one should not leave the faith one grew up in all too quickly and without honest consideration. So I didn't become catholic.
I appreciate Craig's honesty @23:00, but it would be at that point that I would almost have to stop and present the gospel to him. I know that look of satisfied assurance; it is one I have had to have wiped off my face many times!
My principal problem with Truglia is that his main argument, so often repeated, is this argument from fear of “well if orthodoxy is true then I’m damned, so I should be orthodox.” It often felt very… wagered.
The problem is this is true of Islam, Mormonism, etc. etc. Do Orthodox have *some* more believable claims? Yes, but it doesn’t eliminate the problem-this is an argument from fear, which Truglia self-admittedly expressed was an inferior reason to believe.
I almost converted to Orthodoxy on the account of fear when I was younger. What stopped me from making that choice was that I happened to read a book critiquing their claims in a small chapter, separate from the overall subject.
What I’ve learned since then is this: my faith is more pleasing to God when based on Love, and not wretched fear. I’ve felt the Spirit many times, it’s always led me to good, not evil. I’ve found zealous, faithful Christians outside of Orthodoxy (and quite often found some self-righteous, arrogant men inside of Orthodoxy), and finally, the historical claims of Eastern Orthodoxy are much more nebulous than they’d like to say, the idea of a “Patristic Consensus” on every issue they claim is painfully hard to defend, and more and more I see that it’s impossible not to state that the Orthodox have changed and altered their beliefs over time, and now to top it all off the Russian Church and the rest of them are in Schism (and the nuance that was once used to deny this no longer matches reality.)
All the appeal of Orthodoxy I’ve found in other traditions, where it was addressed more honestly, more broadly, and just more charitably.
It's not that I am for Eastern Orthodoxy but your argument basically destroys the doctrine of hell.
@@mattjackson450
1) I think many forms do, and some do so horribly. Whilst there is a way to address someone as to make them know the just consequence of their actions (I think the Heidelberg Catechism does this very well in it's questions of "how do I know my misery?"), I don't really think a fear of punishment really saves you at all. If you're only a Christian based on the chance you might go to hell if it's true, I'd question whether you really know Christ. Essentially, I dislike the Pascal's wager mentality that's seemingly espoused here.
2) Doctrine of Hell is a big one, it varies immensely in Eastern Orthodoxy, I believe St. Gregory of Nyssa is commonly cited as a Universalist father. Even nowadays a notable subset of universalism in the EO, with notable EO authors like David Bentley Hart as an example. Add on Infant Salvation here, as the Council of Jerusalem and some of the things some EO saints say seem to contradict.
The main problem overall is just the EO idea of "we base our teachings on the universal consensus of the fathers" and how that just... doesn't work as a hermeneutic. Certainly there's significantly overlap in what the fathers say, but pillars like Augustine and Chrysostom had different expressions and ideas from John of Damascus and Justin Martyr (Justin is also very sketchy with his christology at times, he's often accused of subordinationism.)
Another example, Augustine's view of the Trinity is somewhat controversial among the Eastern Orthodox. A Protestant can say: "yeah, Augustine was right here and these other three or five fathers where wrong--and I claim this on the basis of the strength of their arguments" whereas Eastern Orthodox often either do "well actually they all agree and there's no point of dispute at all!" or just deny Augustine as a church father (I forget their name, but I recall one notorious EO writer who outright calls Augustine a heretic). Some Eastern Orthodox are better at handling the fathers in a fair manner, but the tendency of their tradition seems to be to sweep uncomfortable theological disagreement under the rug instead of actually acknowledging a difference.
3) Sure! I hope they do heal. But at the same time, I hope the fact these schism occur without either side necessarily leaving Christ's Church might convince the EO to reject their current hardline ecclesiology on who is in the church and who isn't--this is something Protestants can do, and it's the reason why I, an Anglican, can inter-commune with Presbyterians and Reformed Baptists. And in my mind, fellowship at Communion across denominational boundaries shows a deeper and stronger sense of unity as The Body than slap-fights over Ukraine that lead to excommunication.
@@computationaltheist7267 I don't believe it does so, but I see the need for more clarification.
If someone calls themselves a Christian purely because they don't want to go to hell (think of a Pascal's wagerer), I would doubt they know Christ. They may come to know Christ eventually, but that generally requires them advancing from the mindset of a wagerer (someone who purely believes out of regard for their own skin, a sort've complaining Israelite, if you will) and into the mindset of someone who loves God (such as the prostitute who wiped Jesus's feet).
For this reason I would never, ever use a type of Pascal's wager to try to get someone to convert. Truglia referenced a "50/50% chance" and other language that caused me to belief that he was speaking of that sort of mindset, and it was that sort of mindset that almost made me convert to Orthodoxy. Not really the strength of the theological argument, but the threat of the argument being true. "Do you really want to risk that?" etc. etc.
@@ahumblemerchant241 I don't really see how that follows. If the Bible does teach that schisms or denominations are evil, then it is the duty of the Christian to join the Orthodox Church. Keep in mind that I am not saying that I buy that argument.
@@computationaltheist7267 Sorry, I feel like I'm responding to two questions--are we discussing whether my beliefs contradict the doctrine of hell (which you originally brought up), or are we discussing the argument of the Eastern Orthodox that they're the only members of the The Body of Christ and that all others are inherently schismatic in an absolute sense of leaving The Body of Christ?
Amen. The Church is visible. Fragmented, but unified through the blood of Christ.
I think that’s a succinct and accurate summary of the situation 🎃
Hope the tour is going well, Gavin
I used to watch craig when i was a orthodox member...Good dialogue😊
Definitively 100% agree with the part about already losing when we stop being charitable.
Really love the dialogue, and the work of you Dr. Ortlund!
I don't know a lot of content from Craig but I thought this was a great and honest dialogue!
God bless!
I wonder about that sometime. Have you read Matt 23?
@@1Immanuel8 I think it is very valid to bring this up.
Perhaps there is wiggle room, I also know that Elijah wasn't very "subtle" against the "prophets" of baal.
Also John called the Farisess vipers.
So perhaps there IS room for firmer addressing one and another at times.
Personally I wouldn't properly be able to draw the line between when you should talk that way as opposed to where you can't.
If i'm wrong in drawing the line, I'm being sinful, so I think in this case I'd be catious.
And also, the Lord of course doesn't have this problem, and I wouldn't come close in holyness compared to John and Elijah.
So I guess I'll be on the safe side for myself.
@@sotem3608 I totally agree. Having said that, ever since I returned to the Christian world from EO church, I have found myself firmly pushing back. Hopefully not in a manner that is otiose but for the purpose of generating intelligent discussion and debate, and perhaps even a little reflection. I cycled through the EO world so know their talking points- which they mindlessly parrot like any brainwashed bot.
@@1Immanuel8 I think the way you put "since I returned to the Christian world from EO church" could be difficult for some, as it seems to deny them to be Christian at all (not sure if this was intentional).
I think most of us have a disposition for parroting other positions.
I think it is very embedded within human nature, we act based on what we've seen/heard, because it is the easiest.
When I was Protestant I used a lot of arguments myself which were just parroting what other Protestants say.
And even now, I'm semi-Catholic (going to be confirmed), I find it very hard to form my own reasoning without following what others say.
The thing I've learned tho is to keep my mouth shut more, if I don't absolutely know what I'm talking about I should either shutup or properly preface it to give indication of my lack of knowledge.
I recognise familiarity with arguments as you say, funny enough I recognise lots of standard anti-Catholic arguments (which I also used) and I always find it very ironic when faced with them.
I think when we are honest to ourselves, and honest to others, and are properly steel-manning one's position, it automatically results in more fruitful/charitable/meaningful conversations.
@@sotem3608 that was deliberately ambiguous and provocative. It comes down to what is a Christian? I am a Christian. How do I know that? What evidence is there? Until 11 years ago, I had been adopted into the family of the chief ceremonial medicine man of the Lakota nation in South Dakota and was a traditional pipe keeper and sun dancer- if any of that means anything to you. It's a long story how the God of the Bible drew me over years, and then brought me to a point of utter desperation where I needed to know the truth. God I discovered is good for his word. I sought H the truth with all my heart and cried out desperately- and He responded to that cry, and revealed to me the truth- that the Bible is the Word of God, that Jesus is alive, and that God is my Father. I was born again by the Holy Spirit- this was an actual experience for me not something theoretical- and soon discovered that the spirits I had been doing ceremony with all those years were pissed that I was no longer under their power. Another long story of intense spiritual battle- through which God the Holy Spirit made a way. All this happened outside any church institutional context. God gave me the gift of faith, and the gift of knowledge that the Bible is the Word of God. The book is alive. None of this is academic for me- although I did train in grad school at seminary for 5 years- but spiritual realities. Bottom line is that if you are not born from above by the Holy Spirit, you are not a Christian. It doesn't matter which church institution you may belong to.
Thanks Gavin this is so good
Great interview! I pray this comments section doesn't become as full of Orthobros calling us heretics as previous ones have been (though given that we have already been put in the same category as mormons I am not holding my breath haha) God bless you doctor Ortlund!
The Orthodox have been silent but there is a lot of prot trash talk
@@OrthodoxChristianTheology Then I pray for no more cringe prot trash talk as well!
@@TheRoark amen
I just saw this comment from yesterday and lament how my comment can appear uncharitable. I hope you can at least understand that I feel compelled to tell the truth, and please know that it is an uncomfortable truth told out of love. I want the same for you as I am finding for myself. If you don’t believe that you need the Church, then why do you care whether or not the Church teaches that you need it? Honest question. Thanks for the irenic conversation yesterday.
@@cassidyanderson3722 No, you're fine! I do believe that I need the Church, I just deny that your particular institution is the whole Church rather than a part of it. I am troubled that you don't recognise me as your brother in Christ, but that doesn't mean you were being uncharitable. You were just speaking what you believe to be true, even if it is a denial of the Spirit's work in my life and the lives of countless Christians who love the Lord.
Hey brother, when can I have you in my channel for an interview on the historical aspect of the term Catholicism?
Blessings!
I learned much from this charitable discussion on both sides.
Thank you
Kind regards Kim
Jesus describes the Visible Church perfectly in Mathew 18:20.
"For where two or three have gathered together in My name, I am there in their midst.”
Matthew 18:20
As a protestant I totally agree! The church is visible and is instantiated wherever Christians gather to profess the name and gospel of Christ :)
Based.
What happens when those two or three disagree with each other?
@@mikealrodriguez6907 nothing because they have not gathered together in his name
What if the 2-3 who gather together in Jesus’ Name deny His divinity and regard him as simply a fine moral teacher?
I was convinced by modern-day Eastern Orthodox apologetics regarding the version of church history and the church fathers they present, and even took my whole family into their institution for years. I was vehemently Eastern Orthodox.
However, upon actually reading church and the early church father writings myself, directly, fully, and context, their claims of "patristic consensus", or even of general belief in modern-day Orthodox dogma, practices, and ecclesiological assertions of institutional exclusivity in the early church fathers absolutely fell apart. A great number of Eastern Orthodoxy's current practices and beliefs would be not only totally foreign to the early church, but many would be utterly abominable to them.
Eastern Orthodox apologists cherry-pick a handful of patristic quotes, completely out of context, and misrepresent them entirely order to present seeking, yet naive inquirers with false supposed "support" for their wild, ahistorical, retroactive claiming of "all the church fathers" today. They count on that, when a Protestant reads some specific word in an old quote, like Eucharist, or bishop, or "apostolic succession", the Protestant simply assumes that the church fathers all meant the same warped, new, innovated notion of these things that Eastern Orthodox today retroactively read into the church fathers' writings. They count on people ignorant of the and firsthand sources, and to fall for their empty, false, ahistorical, "appealing" rhetoric.
I did believe them, before God drew me back to Him. Eastern Orthodoxy left me spiritually destitute, completely estranged from God, dwelling in the pervasive false humility they teach, dependent on myself and my non-existent "ascetic" righteousness, and being plainly idolatrous toward mere men and created things. Actually reading the church fathers, and through Scripture completely for the first time, is precisely what led me out of Eastern Orthodoxy and to Christ. Glory to God.
That is very well put, and is spot on in my experience as well. The EO church is another faith altogether, with another Jesus and a sham salvation.
This has direct application to EO clergy: Mark 7. 6He answered and said to them, “Well did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written:
‘This people honors Me with their lips,
But their heart is far from Me.
7And in vain they worship Me,
Teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.’
8For laying aside the commandment of God, you hold the tradition of men-the washing of pitchers and cups, and many other such things you do.”
Praise God!!! Many family members are Greek Orthodox . I pray for them often to come to a true faith in Christ alone!!!
My experience has been the opposite. My faith has been much enriched by coming into Orthodoxy, though I am grateful to the Protestants who poured into my life growing up.
Most people probably cherry pick the Fathers honestly.
Dr Orlund, you've mentioned a book written about icons in the Early Church written by Paul Alexander (?). Could you give us the title?
14:30 "Schism is a damnable sin, those who dosuch things cannot inheret the Kingdom of God." One could argue that the leadership of the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Churches are guilty of this very thing for pronouncing each other "anathema" in 1054 over secondary issues, That they have persisted for a millennium is proof of deeply intrenched pride.
I’m surprised this comment hasn’t gotten any attention. That is absolutely correct. You can tell both churches hold an immense amount of pride over the other especially with the claims of being the one true church. And let’s not forget how even the EOC has been obscured by many gnostic eastern religions. That’s where many traditions have come from within the EOC. You won’t catch me submitting the Iconodula because somehow you’re anathematized if you don’t practice it.
@@jennacuna3674 just today I listened to an interview by a former Orthodox priest and he expressed his concerns over iconodoula and added many oriests hide this fact from their flock, others ae6e ignorant of it!
I enjoy listening to both Craig and Gavin.
1. Anytime Gavin interacts with EO will result in an instant watch, thumbs up, and comment.
2. Gavin's criticisms are about where I am with EO. I am ready to return to church but cannot get over that they too, are schismatic amongst themselves and refuse to see it. Also, that I am not convinced God's church is limited to an institution (EO).
3. This dude Gavin interacted with seemed to be all over the place. It was difficult for me to follow his line of reasoning at many points.
This is me too. I love EO theology, liturgy, and iconography, but this whole idea that EO is the only actual church is just obviously false, and this prevents me from converting. It ends up being salvation through membership of a particular institution, rather than salvation through faith in Christ. You can even hear this in Craig's reasoning of why he converted, to avoid hell. Faith in Christ was not enough for him. To me, the Church is obviously broader than just eastern orthodoxy.
Would love to see you invite Dr. Perry Robinson on the show!
Well both stage Calvinist and Orthobros are often uncharitable outlayers in both traditions
I went from eastern orthodox to protestant about 25 years ago. If I can put it in few words this was in many ways similar with the reformation, but at a personal level. Although born in an EO family, I came to read and understand the Scriptures though a protestant group in neighborhood. It was heart-breaking to see my grandparents(around 60 yo at that time) not knowing basics about scriptures/Christianity although they went in a EO church pretty much regularly all their life. I could not blame them too much, because when I was looking around everyone was more or less in the same situation. There was a mix of superstitions, cultural(pagan) habits and some true Christianity hidden behind rituals, which was so hard to penetrate.
Overall the reflection of Christianity in our eastern European society was/is poor and the fruits seem to be very bad - which is strange because the church(vast majority EO) was/is credited as one of the most influential institutions in the country. After some years of research I left eastern orthodoxy being pretty much convinced that in some aspects the modern eastern orthodox departed from Christian orthodoxy. The doctrinal reasons behind my decision I hold till today, but I guess nothing bothered me more than seeing the EO claims for holding the full truth and how spiritually bad they treat their own people.
Me too brother
Holy spirit works outside the orthodoxy but doesn't generates salvation never made sense to me!!!
Same with me, but with Catholicism. Didn’t join the Armenian Orthodox Church either because they are plagued with similar problems.
That is not to say the traditions we left don’t hold value .
To be fair that says more about human inclination to stagnate spiritually when not taking care of one’s spirit, than Orthodoxy as a whole. Because treating people spiritually bad can be found just as much in Protestant countries where the church has a huge influence. People that call themselves Christians and yet have zero understanding about following Christ can be found in every place regardless if it’s Protestant or Orthodox.
@@landowar2162 I've put that remark about EO churches spiritually treating bad their own in the context of their claims to be the one and only true church. I'm pretty much aware of Protestantism failures as well and my point was not to put some group above another. But, rather to bring some balance in these kind of online disputes, where lately at least from some EO we, "the other christians", get a pretty aggressive and sometimes even vitriolic attitude. In my understanding there are only Christians, disregarding denomination.
So, from my experience of decades living in a EO majority country, I just want to give a perspective that many in the West are missing. Seems to me that "westerners" have the luxury of picking what they like from EO and other spiritual beliefs of the east and leave behind the real consequences of fully embodied existence of those beliefs. I think that failures of eastern orthodoxy come from issues embedded in some aspects of their system(doctrine and practices) as a whole, that they fail to reform.
All that being said, let us all examine and really humble ourselves before God in Christ Jesus our Lord and Savior.
No arguments presented but I would argue the Liturgical praxis behind understanding and using scripture is far superior amongst the Orthodox then the protestant especially concerning old testament hermeneutics and typology
What was the book about from Paul Alexander that you mentioned about icons?
Loved the talk! Dr Ortlund's two reasons were really good, and articulated very well. Appreciated hearing from the other side too.
To me, it comes down to distinguishing between schism and genuine justified excommunication. If a person or group was excommunicated because of a schismatic spirit, whether it was the RC church or the EO church that performed an excommunication, then it was the people who did the excommunication who were causing schism, not the other way around! Yes, many protestant churches have continued to schism, and many times with a schismatic spirit. Which of those splits were justified as a genuine form of excommunication, is a legitimate question. But we who have been born into(or saved into) a particular church are not responsible for our Forefather's actions. If we consider ourselves to be one with other groups, even if our denomination in the past has illegitimately considered such other groups outside the faith, then we are actually NOT schismatic ourselves! But if anyone in the EO or RCC(or a protestant denomination) look on other true believers with a schismatic spirit, even if their church teaches them to, then isn't it they who are schismatic?
Definitely not buying what Truglia is selling.
Yay finally more dialogue with Orthodoxy
Craig seems like a nice guy. I, as a Protestant, ended up agreeing with most of his presentation about how the church and its teaching elders are supposed to pass along correct doctrine, i.e. interpretations. Obviously, I still disagreed with other parts. I really enjoyed this discussion from both participants.
Nice but disagreeing with him is one thing, but neglecting the reality is another
With all respect to Craig, it sounds like he is basing his entire ecclesiology and soteriology on the translation of one word in one verse in the Bible. I would prefer to take the whole counsel of Scripture.
Epiphanius saw schismatics and he saw non-Christians. Different groups. The details make this clear.
Even as a Protestant, I certainly do regard our schisms as Christians as grave sins which grieve our God and His saints. But the correct method to fix this sin of schism is neither to loose the bounds of--nor strictly define--orthodoxy. Anglicans have failed in the first way, permitting a great deal of heresies, while the Eastern Orthodox have failed in the second, damning (officially) all who would contradict the Imperial Church.
This is why dialogue between Oriental and Assyrian Orthodox and Anglicans will always be more productive, none presuming their conciliar decisions to be infallible as the EO and Latins do.
Although I've met singular Orthodox priests who admit Ecumenical Councils might be fallible, the "Tradition" for the majority of clergy is unfortunately set and sealed. You cannot ever reform yourself if you presume yourself infallible.
This is a good summary of things. I believe that until the whole church and all of the various groups can come together in humility and discuss differences and even agree to disagree on certain things, the schisms in the body of Christ will never be healed.
I also find it strange in a way that the Orthodox are not more accepting of differences, considering the wide disparity in both practice and beliefs between the different Orthodox sects. They cling to this idea of consensus amongst the Fathers, but every time I press them on what this means, and what the actual consensus is on particular issues, I can get ten different answers. So in the end, there doesn't seem to be any clear consensus at all.
But ultimately it will take both the EO and Latins setting aside the idea of infallability before any real progress can be made. Hard to correct errors when you are unable to admit you can ever be wrong.
Craig doesn't seem to at all listen to Dr.Ortland. he's just scribbling stuff, he even searches something at least once. Ortho bros don't care about scripture or sound reasoning. They just don't.
On the point of schism being a sin, it occurs to me that this may be similar to Adam's sin: we are the inheritors of the results of the schisms, though we do not directly bear the guilt for them; and while the passage from Galatians does say "those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God," it does not also say "they'll be cast into the lake of fire" or "they are your enemies." We had better hope that there is not damnation for those of us who inherited this schismatic reality and have to wade through to figure out which sect is "the right one," else we're almost certainly all screwed.
So if Lewis and Tolkien are damned, along with Dr. Ortlund, is anyone really saved then? 😂😬
St. Theophan the Recluse said,
“You ask, will the heterodox be saved… Why do you worry about them? They have a Saviour Who desires the salvation of every human being. He will take care of them. You and I should not be burdened with such a concern. Study yourself and your own sins… I will tell you one thing, however: should you, being Orthodox and possessing the Truth in its fullness, betray Orthodoxy, and enter a different faith, you will lose your soul forever.”
@@marcusee1234nation Nice quote, but that’s not what the official Orthodox anathemas stated.
@@marcusee1234nation who is this guy ? I rather listen to scriptures and church fatherz
We asked. And you answered!! Thank you Rohan I mean Dr. Ortlund
Many people make a move from Protestantism to Catholicism or Orthodoxy. However, too often a fundamentalist protestant remains a fundamentalist Catholic or Orthodox.
The orthodox remind me a lot of fundamentalists in their arguments. If you say that nobody could disagree on secondary or tertiary issues and still be saved, then you are the schismatic.
Yes, but remember not all orthodox people argue like that just like Protestants have their extreme fundamentalist orthodox have that as well
If you see this comment Gavin could you direct me to where Augustine is talking about heretics being Christians, etc? You made the comment right around the 48:50 mark or a little before.
LOL at people who kiss and bow down to paintings calling us “heterodox” .
I love these conversations. Thank you for posting this dialogue. As a Catholic, I have some questions. These are some of the core questions that keep me Catholic and I'm genuine trying to understand a Protestant framework to see if I'm missing something or I'm crazy.
For context, I'm defining denominational distinctives as particular teachings unique to particular Protestant churches that both distinguish and practically alter the manner of worship and teaching about the Christian faith; some examples are views on the sacraments, who can be a minister, teachings on God's nature, etc.
1. Would it be a historical Protestant position to view their denominational distinctives as traditions?
2. Would the denominational distinctives of each Protestant tradition be reform-able? i.e. could the Lutheran church deny their understanding of Real Presence, justification, etc. and remain Lutheran? or are these denominational distinctives "set in cement?"
3. Would Protestants generally say that these denominational distinctives are derived from a "proper" or "correct" exegesis of Holy Scripture? and are these denominational distinctives generally derived from the same texts?
4. Are confessions of faith considered infallible documents within Protestant traditions? If not, how are they categorized? Would it be analogous to consider the writers of these confessions as Protestant Magisteriums?
5. If the Holy Spirit is working within multiple institutions equally, in what way is it sad that Christians are not united under one institutional body? How does "lowering the bar" regarding institutional boundaries and defining who is and who is not a Christian affect how seriously we take doctrinal divisions?
6. Would the Reformers agree with Dr. Ortlund's current view on catholicity or would the Reformers be more prone to asserting the superiority of their own tradition over others? Would they view other traditions as "deficient" or even consider other Protestant traditions as non-Christian?
I know that's a lot of questions, but I really respect this channel and the perspectives of those who watch it and am really looking for answers to these questions. Thanks.
1. In the sense protestants are using 'tradition' we likely have a different definition than RC would hold, which is why we may tend to avoid the term as Catholics will sometimes take this as an admission of something else. So we don't have a sacred tradition but a set of beliefs and practice we believe best represents the Scriptures and teachings of the Apostles as opposed to something that develops over time separately or may at times contradict the Bible. Some hold a higher sense of tradition than others though we will agree that God's Word is the highest standard and our traditions must conform to it.
2. Lutheran's are the more traditional of the Protestant church so in that case I suspect they would stop being Lutheran or otherwise hold a minority view while keeping fellowship. I mean this could be said of Catholics too, I doubt you all believe every dogmatic teaching and doctrine; I'm guessing most lay Catholics don't have them memorised anyway. The thing is you can leave one denomination and join a different one while being a Christian the entire time.
3. Yes, see 1. What differences we have in this likely involve emphasis on different texts but also perspectives on the same ones.
4. No, they are only considered reliable insofar as they are consistently grounded in Scripture. They are not analogous but we do consider them useful and representative of a given perspective within a denomination. We don't dogmatise the confessions or make people anathema for not holding every part of them, though.
5. Who said the Spirit is working 'equally'? We can acknowledge some Catholics are genuine Christians while maintaining the institution is based on traditions of man that don't inherently place you under the Lordship of Christ. Maybe I'm unclear on what you mean by lowering the bar; in the protestant church we believe faith in Christ alone is the source and completion of salvation. We can have other doctrinal differences and still hold the same Gospel. Not all differences are of the level of Christian vs heretical sect as Gavin has mentioned here and elsewhere. We distinguish orders of significance, not arbitrarily lower the standard for all doctrines.
6. Luther probably would, Calvin not so much in my estimate. I think initially they wanted to reform the existing Church and were themselves kicked out for this at which point formed separate congregations and some others joined them. I'm still learning though.
We would only consider others non-Christian on central Gospel issues(eg JW's rejecting the divinity of Christ, which is essential) and otherwise yes, would say another view was deficient. See Gavin's triage series for more on this.
@@zacdredge3859 thank you for responding. I’m prone to writing a lot, so I’m only going to respond to (1) first. That way, I’m not giving you too much information to which to respond and we can balance responding to each other’s questions while having freedom to end the conversation if it becomes too cumbersome.
Regarding (1), first I’ve realized my question has presuppositions within it:
1. Do you agree that major Protestant branches like Lutheranism, Presbyterianism, etc. can be considered Christian “traditions” in at least some general sense?
2. Do you agree that these branches are distinct from each other by virtue of their particular doctrinal teachings and, consequently, their particular practices of worship and education stemming from those doctrinal teachings?
As I understand the Catholic Catechism, sacred tradition is the preservation of apostolic teaching given by Jesus, preserved by the Holy Spirit through the successors of the apostolic office. It is separate, but closely connected to Sacred Scripture and witnessed by the Church Fathers and councils. By the Holy Spirit it remains present and active today (CCC 77-79).
1. Is there a substantial distinction between “the preservation of apostolic teaching given by Jesus and preserved by the Holy Spirit through the successors of the apostolic office” and “a set of beliefs and practices that best represent the Scriptures and teachings of the apostles” other than the mode through which those teachings are understood to be defined and passed on?
2. Would you, and Protestants generally, consider these sets of beliefs and practices traditions? Why or why not?
I ask because in my mind, what you are saying and what the Catholic Church is saying are the same thing, but the means of transmission are different, aside from the preservation of those teachings by the Holy Spirit. By formal church teaching, most Protestants and Catholics agree that their teachings are witnessed by the Church Fathers and councils, and remain present and active today so I don’t think there’s any gap there either.
Calvin saw and believed there were in the RCC true congratulations and that outside of the RCC there were take ones. What traditions do you think we have that matter more than unity? The RCC and Orthodox have many.
@@Phill0old Just for clarity, are you saying that Calvin believed there are both true and false congregations existing inside and outside the RCC? I think autocorrect got a hold of your comment.
I’m also not clear on your question. Do you believe that I’m claiming that Protestant churches generally maintain traditions that those churches believe are more important than unity among other churches? And are you claiming that ancient traditions (I’m using the term to describe the RCC, Orthodox, and Oriental Orthodox churches) do maintain traditions that are more important than unity among other churches?
@@dylanakers7272 I am saying that Calvin believed that true Christian congregations exist in all manner of settings, just as false ones so.
I am saying that the RCC and the Orthodox hold traditions that deny unity and make it impossible. Indeed even after they split they continued to put further barriers in the way of unity and dogmatise and anathema themselves into a corner.
How that helps.
Remarkable how the orthodox feel compelled to surround themselves with images, even when it's just a zoom call.
Icons are everywhere in an Orthodox home.
@@Abraham-yq2wz Yes, that's the problem. That's the point.
@@philagon It’s our spiritual lineage. Most homes are filled with images of living, biological family; the very people who Christ tells us to hate.
@@Abraham-yq2wz No one casts doubt on whether icons are part of the orthodox tradition. The question is whether it is permissible. I have in mind depictions of the son, which is a violation of the second commandment. A picture of a daughter or a father could never violate that commandment, unless it was worshipped by being prayed or bowed down to.
It’s a big money maker.
LOL at people bowing down to paintings. They gotta make a million prostrations in front of the paintings so they can make it through the toll houses or something ……
Gavin: Would you say I am damned to hell? Is C.S Lewis in hell?
Craig: Absolutely
Jesus Christ: Condemn not, lest you be condemned
Yeah, Craig is not too bright. He has set himself up as an internet Ortho teacher, and so bears the burden of responsibility of all those he is leading astray. A blind fool leading the blind.
Lol at the above response to "condemn not." Props for "art vandelay."
Well, at least Craig qualified that answer in the sense of hoping that is he is wrong about this. I am just not convinced that most EO's I know really take that hardline stance. I don't think putting Protestantism, in the best sense, fits in the same category as Gnosticism, Arianism, etc., which is probably what Cyprian really had in mind.
@@clarkemorledge2398 the arians had many more things in common honestly then probably everyone other than high church anglicans. As for the Donatists and novations that were condemned by Cyprian and Augustine no protestant sect comes anywhere close to them in similarity as they otherwise align with the Orthodox other than on the doctrine of penance.
I think dialoging with someone who is a recognized Orthodox scholar would be better. As far as I know (and I could be mistaken), Craig is doing this stuff on his own. It would be more helpful if the dialoge was with someone who was blessed or authorized by a Bishop to teach. I say this as an Eastern Orthodox Christian.
Shouldn’t ANY EO be able to defend and teach what he believes? Is it necessary to be “blessed” or “authorized”?
Asking as a Protestant who genuinely would like to know.
@@bethsaari6209 It is customary for Orthodox Christians to seek a blessing before doing just about anything, especially representing the church in a public capacity. It is unwise to simply assume that one has the capabilities to defend and teach the Orthodox faith. If you, under the presumption that you are so equipped, teach heresy, or mislead others, or push people away from the faith unnecessarily, there can be eternal consequences. I'm sure Craig has the blessing to do apologetics.
I think this video is helpful because lots of people become Orthodox for these kinds of reasons.
Well said!
Great job Gavin!
Funny he quotes Irenaus about schism, when he himself taught that Jesus was an old man, due to his recapitulation theory. A teaching he claimed came from the apostles, when it was found to be a novel teaching, and thus he schisms from the apostles actual teachings.
First I’m not EO, but you are wrong. Irenaeus based his belief that Jesus was almost 50 (not an “old man” by our standards) on John 8:57, a very reasoned interpretation of that verse. There is not a single verse in the Scriptures that tell us (1) how old Jesus was when he died nor (2) how long his ministry was. We only know this based on advanced archeology, astronomy, and history. That you attribute “schism” to a minor misunderstanding of Christ’s age at death, no more than 15 years older than He actually was, is a totally laughable gotcha.
How about a real gotcha, like Ortlund is a Calvinist and Calvin rejected both the existence of Hades/Abraham’s Bosom as a spiritual realm (in contradiction to literal passages in Scripture saying Jesus descended to Hades in Acts 2 etc, all church history from Irenaeus to Augustine, and the Apostles Creed) and so do all confessional Reformed (WCF ch 32 for example, and so does Ortlund's own erroneous Baptist creed). Now that is true schism from Scriptural and apostolic teaching and an embarrassing for Calvinists.
Recapitulation atonement is biblical. It literally says in Ephesians 1:10 that God summed up all things in Christ.
@@IAmisMaster He made a theological point that Christ had to be an ‘old man’ in order to redeem old men in his view of recapitulation. The apostles didn’t teach this, thus it is a schism from the truth, no matter how little a schism you may perceive it to be. To me, it’s a bigger deal, because he’s using this as part of his atonement theory when it is simply a novel idea. Also, I believe in recapitulation, but I don’t believe Jesus was an older man, but the overall point of the incarnation, and Him being fully-God and fully-man and the second Adam.
Also, I don’t know of anyone who denies Hades/Abraham’s bosom as a spiritual realm. The debate really boils down to semantics, but reformed people would typically just refer to this as the “intermediary state.” Those in Christ are with the Lord, and those not in Christ are in torment both awaiting the resurrection of the body. Some would call it Hades or Abraham’s Bosom. Not too much there because the Bible doesn’t talk much about what happens when we die, only the end of all things so it’s not really a schism…
Though my point is not to say there aren’t disagreements, but that there has always been disagreements. There’s so much division amongst the church fathers it’s ridiculous to act as if there has always been perfect tradition and unity.
@@chadsteven9334
You say: "Also, I don’t know of anyone who denies Hades/Abraham’s bosom as a spiritual realm. The debate really boils down to semantics, but reformed people would typically just refer to this as the “intermediary state.”"
False again, and all you had to do was read the WCF citation I gave you:
"* The souls of the righteous, being then made perfect in holiness, are received into the highest heavens* , where they behold the face of God in light and glory, waiting for the full redemption of their bodies: and the *souls of the wicked are cast into hell* , where they remain in torments and utter darkness, reserved to the judgment of the great day. *Besides these two places for souls separated from their bodies, the Scripture acknowledgeth none* ."
- Westminster Confession of Faith Chapter 32
The London Baptist also copies this language. So if you are a confessionally Reformed English-speaking person, your creed utters total falsehood contrary to Scripture and all the early church. And to prove they know what they are claiming, they are quoting Calvin's Institutes (Institutes II. 16.) where he mocks the idea that Jesus went to a realm of the dead as the opinion of children and says "descended into hell" means Christ suffered the agony of the damned in the lake of fire. That's plainly what Calvin and English Calvinist confessions say. I'm glad you agree that is absurd, but you need to deal with the truth that Confessional Calvinism is that absurd.
@@chadsteven9334 "To me, it’s a bigger deal, because he’s using this as part of his atonement theory when it is simply a novel idea."
How about Calvin and Luther inventing that descent into Hades means Jesus suffered the torments of hell? How about that novel and heretical idea?
@@IAmisMaster I don’t understand your point. I’m not arguing about specific teachings, but rather there’s always been schism in the Church, and that’s ironic that Irenaus said that, because he famously appealed to apostolic tradition with his novel idea.
I'm curious what the "plain and obvious reading" of Romans is in the Orthodox mind. The amount of back flipping I have seen in trying to prove anything other than God's sovereign choice in election is astounding so far. Not only that, but Paul answers questions that no one asks of a synergystic system, such as "is there injustice in God?" and "Why does God judge us if we can't go against his will?"
A book that helped me understand Orthodox-like way of thinking regarding justification was "Moral Transformation: The Original Christian Paradigm of Salvation".
I have a video on it
Ah yes, Romans seen through the lens of John Calvin, the novel Protestant father through whom all must be interpreted as 'sola scriptura'.
lol Romans 9 is about corporate election of Israel and JEWISH PEOPLE’s questions of how God can be fair by using Jewish people but then willing that they generally fall away to allow the gentiles in. You just have to read it in context with Romans 10 and 11, but to prove your novel heresy that God arbitrarily damns people has no basis in apostolic teaching , we have the earliest commentaries on the entire book of Romans from the 3rd and 4th century from native Greek speakers, Origen and Chrysostom, which you can read for yourself which totally refute John Calvin.
Not all protestans understand roman 9 as Calvin did... Arminius for example! John Wesley! To name a few..... All Early Church Fathers as well, Even Augustine at the start was of the same persuation since that was the traditional church Interpretation.
To be fair regarding 1 Corinthians 11, Paul ends that chapter with "And the rest I will set in order when I come", so we can't say with certainty that we know his entire position on the matter beyond his exhortation to stop the dissension during the Eucharist. Let's also bear in mind that he describes people as having been killed by partaking of the Eucharist in an "unworthy manner" in this chapter, so the factionalism/heresy seems to be part of a pretty serious (albeit perhaps larger) issue.
‘You will know them by their fruit’.
At the very least, we can thank Craig for enthusiastically demonstrating some of the key problems in Orthodox apologetics -- namely, the presumption of "insincerity" among others, and a blissful lack of awareness regarding the way in which Orthodoxy violates the apologists' own assertions.
On the claim of insincerity, it is common for Orthodox apologists to not give consistently rational arguments for their positions, but to question and condemn other people's intelligence and character. Craig does this himself in his various videos. When pressed to move away from ad hominem dismissals of others and provide something resembling a sound argument for their own positions, they often go back to "we don't do that (philosophy)," and "you're a heretic or you would get it."
Regarding the "we don't change" mantra: Craig argues that Orthodoxy only believes whatever was plainly believed from the beginning, but that just isn't true. We can then ask, was it required as a condition of being a Christian prior to Chalcedon that one affirm that Jesus has two natures in one person? The answer, of course, is no. As long as one confessed that Jesus was Lord (God) and came in the (human) flesh, he would have been perfectly fine as a Christian. Orthodoxy (and Roman Catholicism) changed this in the 5th century to require that one profess (or at least not deny) two actual natures in Christ. Rather than merely confessing that he is both divine and human in a way that we don't comprehend, now one has to affirm some new doctrine. At that point the Orthodox either just repeats "we never change" or ends up pressing for (Roman Catholic style) development of doctrine... while condemning the Roman Catholic Church for that very thing. This is so common: "Your change is bad. Our change isn't really change."
It is genuinely laughable to hear an Orthodox criticize someone else for "appeal to authority." Pretty much every argument Orthodox apologists make is nothing more than an appeal to authority. Indeed, it is extremely difficult to make any argument about historical events or facts without making some kind of appeal to an authority, but it is amusing when they just accuse others of what they do.
There are countless other examples of this kind of, well, hypocrisy (for lack of a better term) throughout history. That is, it is arguable that Orthodox are just as guilty of introducing schism into the Body of Christ as those people they condemn. However, their apologists pretend that their hands are all clean while everyone else has been sullied in some way.
That all being said, I really do like Orthodoxy... and I am also greatly amused by the perplexed look that moves over Ortlund's face when someone is saying something rather odd. :)
I agree. I am also sorry to see such arrogance. Dr Ortlund is amazing and has such a Christ-like spirit.
Am I being confused with someone else?
@@OrthodoxChristianTheology umm, no, you are not "being confused with someone else," but there is that blissful lack of self-awareness again. :)
You repeatedly claimed that other apologists (especially Roman Catholics) are "insincere." You repeatedly asserted that Orthodoxy merely holds to what was believed from the beginning, even invoking St. Vincent of Lerins. You accused Ortlund of (the fallacy of) appeal to authority. I've watched several of your videos. You do these kinds of things routinely then deny it when called on it.
@@philoalethia I just didn't see any tangible examples where I allegedly did x or y.
@@philoalethia as for Dr. Ortlund he did make what appeared to be an appeal to authority in this video citing a book on icons and even then I charitably said I presume he was not trying to do that, but if you are offended by me please forgive me that is not my intent
I like that Gavin guy
The Orthodox is engaged in the substitution of concepts. The fact that an image of Christ or saints was found somewhere does not mean that someone held divine services in their honor and worshipped them in accordance with the oros 7 of the Ecumenical Council of Icon Worshippers. The same is true about the "altars". He just gives them what they want, for real. The Early Church did not have any altars in the sense that they are used in Orthodoxy or Catholicism. It was clearly either just a means to place liturgical items, or a Christian grave. Hello from Russia.
Why do protestants not have bishops and deacons like it says in 1 Timothy? Something I've always wondered about...
I was raised Orthodox and studied Mormonism... I don't think most people realize how similar these 2 religions are.
@@bersules8 Make sure you bow down to all your paintings tonight and be sure to salute them like the 7th ecumenical “council” of 787 A.D. says to, otherwise you won’t make it through the toll houses because “saint so and so” said blah blah blah.
@@bersules8 Nah, we just get tired of hateful Orthobro Dyerites with their sophistry and nonsense.
I am neither of those groups, but I am interested. Can you explain what exactly you mean by that? What are the similarities?
I’m ex Mormon now Protestant and I can tell you Mormonism has very little in common with historic Christianity let alone Eastern Orthodoxy😂
This video was very concerning if we're being honest. And here I thought dialogue of Catholics and Protestants was a hard pill to swallow. Orthodox actually straight up declares that EVERYONE, not just protestants, but even more traditional branches of Christianity like Anglicans, Lutherans, Catholics and even OTHER ORTHODOX (wow) from outside of their narrow understanding of the Church is damned to hell to a certainty. This is frighteningly serious. Not just because it makes dialogue pointless but most importantly, it puts them firmly outside of the body of Christ as preachers of a different gospel, right besides Jehovas Witnesses who claim the same things. This is sad, very sad. The worst part is the thing that nothing can be done. They've dogmatised themselves into a corner with no exits. At least Catholics have new councils and change their theology, or their "understanding" of previously declared theology. Orthodox case seems hopeless. This is so, so very sad I want to cry.
That's precisely what official Catholic doctrine teaches, regardless of what their new squishy platitudes, offered for ecumenical purposes in hopes of enticing converts in modernity, might be. Everyone not joined to Christ by way of His one true visible church, under the authority of the Pope, is damned.
@@reimannsum9077 This is not the current teaching of the Catholic Church at all. Are some kind of Pius 10 rad trads? You know this makes you a protestant too, in a way? :) since you defy the current magisterial teaching for the sake of what "was and always should be", that's ecactly the same thinking Luther had.
@@mitromney This man is just honest about what both Catholics and the Orthodox actually, definitionally, confessionally teach and always have to continue to teach. There is no possibility of alteration to those teachings as they are enshrined infallibly by ecumenical councils.
@@reimannsum9077 if two magisterial teachings do not agree though, which one do you follow? I'd say obviously the current one. Church is learning what Holy Spirit has to say. Catholic teachings are being altered all the time, this is nothing new. I'd say you're very narrow minded.
Gavin, would you please debate an Orthodox person who is not an ecclesiological exclusivist? There is more discussion to be had on this point, please! I nominate Benjamin Cabe from youtube channel Theoria. Read his article on substack about rebaptism. There is a reason I was not rebaptised by my bishop when I became Orthodox……
The Orthodox Church cut out maximus tongue. Only to claim he was right after his death….
That’s what eastern tradition is.
If Maximus is teaching what they teach today then him getting his tongue cut out is evidence the church was not teaching what he taught before hand.
Which Orthodox tradition?
You can’t brush these behaviors away.
Christians cutting out the tongue of a saint claiming to be Christian’s teaching the orthodox faith. 🤪🤪🤣
Sounds logical chief.
Is this a historical fact ? First time I hear about it and I used to be EO.
In my home country(eastern Europe) we have similar example of a priest from around 1930. Not cutting his tongue, but excommunicating him and at this burial his priest's robe was also taken from him, torn to pieces and torn from his body in the coffin. After 45 years, probably also because this priest movement resisted over the years the excommunication was cancelled. Nowadays, as far as I know this movement is more or less half orthodox, half protestant.
@@stefang.9763 what ‘ movement’?
Byzantine Empress Irene [AD 752-803]. out of political ambition had her own son's eyes put out. She is a venerated Saint of the Orthodox Church. On the Sunday of Orthodoxy (1st in Lent), when the Synodicon of Orthodoxy (Acts of Nicaea II) are read, she is hailed with 'Eternal Memory!' shouted out when her pious deeds for the holy icons are recalled. When the Lives of the Saints are read in Orthodox churches many dark things from the past within the Christian Church are omitted or glossed over. One thus gets the impression that all the people on the 'right [Orthodox] side were Saints; all the other were damnable, evil heretics. Even John Chrysostom says that the virginity of heretics is fornication and the martyrdom of heretics is suicide.
Many Baptists believe that they never persecuted anyone, but that throughout history, going by different names in different times and places {eg., Paulicians, Novatians, Montanists, et al.] they were severely persecuted by the Church in the East and later [Waldensians, Cathari, Anabaptists, et al.) by the Roman Church . Byzantine history shows continual persecution of anyone who did not follow the State Church's 'Orthodoxy'. Some will say that this was not the Church but the secular rulers -- Emperors and Empresses -- and those politicians who influenced them. Still, the Church and State were one and continued as such in the Russian Empire.
When Prince Vladimir of Kiev (a much venerated Saint in the Orthodox Church) sent his envoys abroad to investigate various religions it is reported that "Islam was undesirable due to its prohibition of alcoholic beverages and pork. Vladimir remarked on the occasion: "Drinking is the joy of all Rus'. We cannot exist without that pleasure." Ukrainian and Russian sources also describe Vladimir consulting with Jewish envoys and questioning them about their religion, but ultimately rejecting it as well, saying that their loss of Jerusalem was evidence that they had been abandoned by God. They also mention 'an awful stench' among some of these non-Christians -- really deep theological consideration...... Of course, when the envoys went to Byzantium, Europe's largest and richest city at that time, they were awestruck at the beauty and delightful, Heavenly nature of the Orthodox worship. On these bases Vladimir became a Christian.
He then proclaimed that all subjects of Rus' must be baptized into this new faith or risk his displeasure. The chronicles then report that 'all proceeded with joy to the River Denpr to be baptized'. Vladimir also took away the children of the nobles to be indoctrinated into Christianity in special schools, over which the newly and forcibly converted greatly lamented, being considered too immature as yet in their faith to understand his actions.
All this -- people doing horrific acts being venerated as Saints with their own icons, feast days and services, as well as the Christian State in the East (and West) arresting, torturing and murdering those whom it considered heretics goes completely against Christian piety. It is no wonder that the Baptists cherish four freedoms: Bible Freedom, Soul Freedom, Church Freedom and Freedom of Religion -- four freedoms that were continually violated throughout the centuries by the official church, regardless of where it was located.
@@garyeastman7882 Wait till you hear about what Paul did before repenting
How is
The Canon decided amazing protestant agreed with the Canon in the orthodox church
Polycarp wrote that he was ordained by Ignatius who was ordained by John.
Ok, so the Orthodox church has the true teachings of the Apostles? Fine, but which Orthodox church? The Orthodox church of the church fathers or the modern Orthodox church? My understanding is that those two are not always in agreement.
The Orthodox Church does not have the teachings of the Apostles. One can read all the Ante-Nicene church writers who succeeded the apostles, some of them as bishops and elders, from about 90 AD to 300 AD, and they rejected veneration of icons (Athenagoras, Irenaues, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Turtullian, Lactnatius), taught saints remain in Hades prior to the Resurrection, not heaven, and cannot hear our prayers (Irenaeus, Hippolytus, Lactantius, etc.). That alone disproves Eastern Orthodoxy.
Indeed, I must also affirm that the early church fathers speak of a _very_ different faith than modern-day Eastern Orthodoxy. Eastern Orthodox apologists simply read back their own developed, unbiblical, unapostolic beliefs into the church fathers' writings, where they are not actually present-- and in many cases, are outright condemned.
Reading the first 300 church fathers myself, fully and in context (along with Scripture, of course), is what made it abundantly clear to me that the claims of both Eastern Orthodox and Romanists today are demonstrably false.
@@moiseybeliy5458 Very true, but you must add rejection of mainstream Protestantism as well if you are consistent with the ante-nicene church. Thee false dichotomy between faith and all works which Luther invented, denying that we will all face final judgment and inherit eternal life based on our own works even though every passage on final judgment says that (John 5:28-29; Romans 2:4-13; Galatians 6:7-10 etc.), rejecting that baptism saves contrary to Scripture, believing people go straight to heaven when we die contrary to Scripture...all these are equally bad Protestant errors
@@moiseybeliy5458 I recommend reading and listening to David Bercot, who is the most consistent with Ante-nicene church doctrine and far more likely to be apostolic then today's demonstrable false teachings.
Honestly, if it wasn't for the veneration of icons and praying to Saints, I would become Eastern Orthodox.
That's a lot of people
From the same category, I would add to this worshiping of relics. In my hometown this is a big thing every year around 14th of September. Because most or the participants are Bible illiterates, basically EO puts them on the verge of idolatry. Would EO care about the stumbling block principle ? Does not seem so. For now, tradition seems to be above people.
Honestly same. And like the comment above says the Boeing to relics and believing they hold special healing powers. It’s too gnostic for me, and I came out of new age and agnosticism before becoming born again…. It’s too close to what I used to be. It dilutes the gospel
The Constantinople vs Moscow schism is a real stumbling block with regard to the claim of Orthodoxy being "the One True Church". There is no clear answer to the question of "when does schism become Schism".
I get trapped a a deserted island. I have fish a fruit, fresh water and in the wreckage from the plane I found the book of John, i read it I repent believe believe, and pray as instructed by Christ. I try to even try to have a remembrance with a drink from berries and a piece of food. Live the rest of my life there and the die…Am i saved ? am I part of Christ church?
Pascal was converted with only John 17.
Probably, God can even convert people with angels
@@OrthodoxChristianTheology so no need to be part of Orthodox Church.
@@thebluedan actually the opposite. On the desert island you are not rejecting the Church. In fa t you'd wish to be off the island and I. It
@@OrthodoxChristianTheology why? And how would I even know it’s existed?
My point is believing automatically makes you part on THE church…which you seem to affirmed with your response of probably.
@@thebluedan your rhetorical questions show that your heart is set against His body and faith without love, though it can move mountains, cannot save
It seems like Craig has someone next to him off camera that he is subtly looking to...maybe a coach idk...maybe im wrong .but bold statement to say all protestants are damned to hell...The enemy loves statements like that..idk..smh
I appreciate your humility, Dr. Gavin, but being a former protestant for 30 years, and there are many protestant churches that believe the church apostatized in the early years, even today I have pastor friends who always say the church has apostatized. Until Martin Luther. The circles that I’ve been around and taught from always spoke in this manner. John MacArthur teaches this. As a matter of fact, John MacArthur called out Hank Hanegraaff stating he has apostatized.
John MacArthur and street-level claims are not representative of magisterial Protestantism.
I understand this, but the truth be said this was all our approach to the early Church. And I understand this is not yours. But today I still get attacked from some of my former Protestant acquaintances. Some I still talk to thank God, but most consider me lost.
@@TruthUnites John MacArthur is never called out on this and Dr. James white
@@believer8793 I’m so sorry you have that experience!
@@TruthUnites Thank you Dr Gavin God bless.
It's mind boggling that bold traditionalist adhere to the sectarian view till this very day. None of us have an epistemic certainty to tell the destiny of atheist, let alone other Christians. He clearly said that Gavin will be damn, oh really? I'm an Orthodox, but l don't subscribe to it at all. That view is fading away, especially after the nineth century.
Can the view "fade away" though? Wouldn't there have to be some official acknowledgement that the official teaching has changed? I know the Orthodox church doesn't have the same magisterial system as the Roman Catholic church, but it seems like the Orthodox view is that the historic Orthodox church has not erred. For this view to change wouldn't that mean many past anathemas issued by the Orthodox church would be wrong?
@@matthew7491 I used to be orthodox and I also got hung up on that point. If the past councils are infallible, and you disagree with anything they say, then you undermine your own authority.
Not sure if it that simple Aaron. I mean, I agree with your position. But from an EO perspective I think that this bold and exclusivist claim has to do with other for EO important doctrines, like the sacrament of priesthood, apostolic succession, etc. where the grace of God is to be given only though the orthodox priest.
@@stefang.9763 But it's the same issue that Gavin brought up. If the EO church sees that salvation can only come through the EO church (because of it's apostolic succession, baptismal method, or whatever else), then doesn't that ignore the fruit in other traditions?
@@matthew7491 Yes, true. I used to be EO. What I meant above is that EO exclusivist pretentions are more than a just a claim, they are actually deeply rooted in their doctrines. So, EO sectarian claim of exclusivity over God's grace won't fade away so easily, like Aaron says.
I grew up Orthodox...Then I was SAVED at 30. YES!!! I WAS BORN AGAIN WITHOUT THE "ORTHODOX CHURCH"!!! Then I saw clearly how Apostate and heretical "Orthodoxy" was. It's actually quite sad. I pray for Orthodox people. They (my entire family included) are so lost and DECIEVED.
Dang Gavin went right for the throat at 23:00…
Craig fails to defend the worship of images and idols, again. He has one or more videos desperately trying to defend icon worship and frustrates himself to failure each time. Not a good look.
9:47 Dr. Ortlund says that the EO perspective of someone not being on the ark of Noah (the church) one could not be saved and that others are damned to hell. One the other hand as a Calvinist, he believes that some are damned and others aren't all based on God's choice. It appears that he isn't being fair in the sense that he makes an emotional appeal against the EO position of the Church as the ark of salvation and those who aren't on that ark are damned, while he's perfectly fine with the Calvinist model of God damning a vast number of people for no reason other than God's sovereign decree. Why is his view better than the EO position when the church is saying to freely chose to get on the ark as Noah preached in his day a message of repentance while the Calvinist position says you can't repent unless God moves on you to do so and in most cases, he will pass people over and judge them for something he made them incapable of doing. To me, this is not a good argument against EO.
3. Even in the beginnings of this one and only Church of God there arose certain rifts,(19) which the Apostle strongly condemned.(20) But in subsequent centuries much more serious dissensions made their appearance and quite large communities came to be separated from full communion with the Catholic Church - for which, often enough, men of both sides were to blame. The children who are born into these Communities and who grow up believing in Christ cannot be accused of the sin involved in the separation, and the Catholic Church embraces upon them as brothers, with respect and affection. For men who believe in Christ and have been truly baptized are in communion with the Catholic Church even though this communion is imperfect. The differences that exist in varying degrees between them and the Catholic Church - whether in doctrine and sometimes in discipline, or concerning the structure of the Church - do indeed create many obstacles, sometimes serious ones, to full ecclesiastical communion. The ecumenical movement is striving to overcome these obstacles. But even in spite of them it remains true that all who have been justified by faith in Baptism are members of Christ's body,(21) and have a right to be called Christian, and so are correctly accepted as brothers by the children of the Catholic Church.(22)
Moreover, some and even very many of the significant elements and endowments which together go to build up and give life to the Church itself, can exist outside the visible boundaries of the Catholic Church: the written word of God; the life of grace; faith, hope and charity, with the other interior gifts of the Holy Spirit, and visible elements too. All of these, which come from Christ and lead back to Christ, belong by right to the one Church of Christ.
The brethren divided from us also use many liturgical actions of the Christian religion. These most certainly can truly engender a life of grace in ways that vary according to the condition of each Church or Community. These liturgical actions must be regarded as capable of giving access to the community of salvation.
It follows that the separated Churches(23) and Communities as such, though we believe them to be deficient in some respects, have been by no means deprived of significance and importance in the mystery of salvation. For the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as means of salvation which derive their efficacy from the very fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Church.www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_decree_19641121_unitatis-redintegratio_en.html
Thanks John. That is an important dose of reality to an oftentimes extremist slant which discussions of ecumenicalism can take.
Craig starts out by saying that schism is a damnable sin, but does he really think Orthodoxy isn't in schism? Firstly from Rome, and secondly the various nationalistic Orthodox churches divided one from another?
@Elisabet Zamora what an unkind response and disrespectful to both myself and Dr. Ortlund! As for who started the great schism, this is theological, and is addressed in my documentary.
@Elisabet Zamora some umpires blow a lot of calls
@Elisabet Zamora He telling the truth the pope not the head of other bishops only over his area
@@OrthodoxChristianTheology Yes, it seems to be settled. In attitude, EO are the most schismatic Christian group out there...
It is sad that Craig's response to discovering that Sectarianism is a damnable sin, was to join a Sectarian church. :(
This is why I hold to a non-Denominational view point. That is to say, I do not believe that only those who are in a certain Denomination can be saved. But I recognize that God's people can be found across all Denominations (even in Churches that are fully heretical, I just believe that those brothers and sisters who are being saved, will quickly come to see the errors of those churches and will either leave, or fight to reform the church, being either successful, or (sadly) more likely thrown out).
Obviously we all have to find a Church that we believe has all the major Doctrines, and most/all secondary Doctrines right, and a willingness to be open about the other secondary and tertiary Doctrines, etc. But I think the true desire of all true Christians is unity.
This is actually why I've been drawn to Anglicanism of late, their Via Media approach means they high degrees of tolerance to most Secondary and Tertiary Doctrines (Arminianism/Calvinism,/Molinism, etc. High Church/Low Church, to what degree the Gifts of the Spirit are for today. So on and so forth), and remain in full Communion with those who differ on such things. And whilst there is a lot of mess in the Anglican Communion that needs to be cleaned up, they seem to be headed in the right direction with regards to most of that. And if they do manage to purge the leaven of liberalism, with its LGBT+ agenda, and cease to ordain women, etc. Then I don't see why Communion could not be extended in the future to some of the Lutheran Churches.
Also, it is why I am really trying to push St. Gregory Nazianzus' doctrine of Credo-Paedobaptism, to help bridge the divide between Paedobaptists, and Credobaptists, in the hope that Communion could one day be found between those two branches too.
Got to make a million prostrations in front of my paintings so I can make it through the toll houses. Just LOL at people bowing down to paintings.
What a desperately sad and ignorant comment. Level 1 blindness. Have you had a look at the walls of the Roman catacombs?
@@jg7923 Standing at Church is an act of self-denial during worship. It is a struggle but nobody concludes that 'they are so spiritual' because they do this. Quite the opposite. The body is brought low and not elevated in pride. The two main entrances during the Liturgy represent the coming of the Gospel into the world and, secondly, the willing journey of Christ towards Golgotha. Their weekly renewal never grows vacuously ritualistic, unless we do. The vestments worn by the priests etc. are worn with much humility and not with self-aggrandizement. No baby spoon involved, merely the body and blood of the glorified Saviour, received after the struggle of pre-fasting, a repentant heart and much joy. Those Churches which sanitized the spoon because of Convid did so outwith the ethos of Orthodoxy. Yes, the mask wearing during the holy fire in Jerusalem was quite shameful. When I saw that, I could no longer look. The propaganda ran and still runs deep.
@@rodangus4489 that sounds really good! It doesnt match my experience in the EO church however. Not even close.
@@1Immanuel8 What I said is the teaching of Orthodoxy. Perhaps you were not properly instructed before you attended? With opened eyes, every worshiper can find what the holy fathers have taught. The door and way is open to all. Local Orthodox Churches vary, as do people, just like the 7 Churches in Revelation.
@@rodangus4489 that is sound Ortho propaganda bro- what the holy fathers have taught. Maybe you can explain to me what it is that you mean by the phrase. As for myself, the Lord saved me 11 years ago using only the Bible outside of any church context. Prior to that I had been adopted into a Lakota (Indigenous) family in South Dakota and was a traditional pipe keeper and sun dancer- if that means anything to you. Once I surrendered my life to Christ on Christmas day several years ago after about a year of diligently seeking the truth about the God of Abraham by reading the Bible the Lord gave me a night vision of what I looked like from his point of view and he also showed me the spirits I had been doing ceremony with for all those years. I wailed in repentance before the Lord for weeks and months. It's all a long story. Fast forward 10 years, right after a very bad truck crash, Satan seized the opportunity and diverted my attention to the EO church. I was badly concussed at the time, could not think critically and was led away by EO false claims, bells, whistles, icons and incense. It was only when I finally came to my senses, and started coming out of the mental fog of concussion, and starting asking questions again, based on Scripture that the archimandrite did me a favor by excommunicating me. I was simply quoting the Bible, and asking him how that matched up with what we were doing in the parish. I guess he didn't like questions. Drove 16 hours one way to see my Bishop. He says trust the priest. These guys are self deceived and deceivers. They see themselves as the authority in the church. My authority is the Word of God. It is the Word of God who took me out of the Pit when I cried out to Him with all my heart for the truth. When you stand before the Lord Rod, let me know how 'this is what the holy fathers taught' works out for you. As for me and my house, we follow the Word of God.
31:30 Gavin gives a thorough biblical response, simply quoting the Bible, with accurate historical context for church father quotes.
Orthodox response: tHaT’s ThE wEsTeRn nArRaTiVe
The criminal that hung beside Jesus qualified for paradise without receiving any sacrament or "correct" interpretation of scripture from any "elder". In fact from what he said to Jesus his understanding of theology was pretty limited, but Jesus accepted his faith and offered salvation. This incident alone justifies the Protestant position on salvation.
At 49:00 he basically reveals how little he actually knows about this subject. So he miss uses Augustine saying there is no faith out side the Catholic church ( Not the RCC but the visible church) which means he's not saved? A lot of these ortho bros just seem very smug. Like they just want to feel superior by invoking being apart of an older tradition.
His response they would not be canonically Christian is absurd. Both groups take communion, practice water baptism, and affirm the Trinity. But us protestants don't have pictures of saints all over, and our leaders don't wear robes? If you can't see how absurd that logic is I don't know what to tell you.
The basic question which emerges from this is can the Christian Church exist as merely a collection of sects? There are lots of Protestant sects, for example three flavours of Lutheranism alone, I believe. I think you may struggle to win converts.
I count at least three principal Orthodox sects. One follows the Oros of 1755. The second is little more than an appendage of the Russian State. The third is presumably neither of these.
There is supposed to be just the one Catholic sect, and currently (October 2022) there still is, discounting certain microsects which are hardly more than play-acting. This Pope is pushing the Catholic Church towards schism. We will need to think carefully about what response to make.
As Orthodox Indo not agree with Craig.
“You ask, will the heterodox be saved... Why do you worry about them? They have a Saviour Who desires the salvation of every human being. He will take care of them. You and I should not be burdened with such a concern. Study yourself and your own sins... I will tell you one thing, however: should you, being Orthodox and possessing the Truth in its fullness, betray Orthodoxy, and enter a different faith, you will lose your soul forever."
☦️ Saint Theophan the Recluse
Also, the very will known Orthodox saying: We know where the Church is, we do not know where the Church is not.
Great, fruitful, dialogue fellows. Glad to see Craig on Gavin’s show following Joshua Schooping’s disingenuous appearance. A point of disagreement: Craig’s view of the salvation of the heterodox is present in Orthodoxy, but it is a minority view that faded as the Church became more familiar with the various Protestant sects. The current prevailing view is that some are heretics (JW, Mormons, Calvinist, etc.) and some are heterodox (Anglicans, Lutherans, Methodist, etc.). The majority view, as I understand it, is that heretics are damned and we simply have no way of knowing the ultimate fates of the heterodox.
A small note: LDS/Mormons are not considered Protestant, they deny the Infallibility and Sufficiency of Scripture as well as Sola Fide. Bring Protestant is generally defined by falling into the three main Solae (Sola Gratia, Sola Fide, Sola Scriptura).
The vast majority of Protestants would agree about LDS/Mormons/JWs being heretics and having no assurance of salvation-particularly because they’re anti-Trinitarian. (LDS/Mormons are polytheistic and don’t believe God the Father eternally existed, JWs are Arian).
"LDS, Mormons, Calvinists" is such a funny phrase. I assume you mean by calvinists people that affirm the sovereignty of God in election, which would include Dr. Ortlund and a lot of the groups you mentioned in the heterodox section. Putting us in the same group as 19th century polytheists and polygamists who believe in God as a created being is very uncharitable.
Surely, you didn’t group Calvinist with LSD/Mormon. You do know that Gavin is a Calvinist? Calvinist are sacramental, and have very similar views as Lutherans.
You caught the LDS/Mormon error before I could edit it - meant to reference Jehovah Witnesses. While I understand that Calvinists personally distinguish themselves from those groups, as Craig points out, the Orthodox Church sees those distinctions as immaterial. I meant no offense - just stating my understanding of these issues. I’m open to corrections and appreciate your input.
@@cassidyanderson3722 I think Reformed should be listed alongside Anglicans and Lutherans personally, as they are part of the magisterial reformation and have very similar views of election to Lutherans. Luther's most important work in his mind was On the Bondage of the Will after all. In addition most historic Anglicans are reformed, which would put them in the latter category.
No one "church" is a gatekeeper to God. Jesus Christ is the only way to the Father, not a denomination or branch. There will be people in heaven from most all sects of Christianity, it's all a matter of the heart.
I love Gavin’s face when he realizes that the fathers critiquing where and how icons were being venerated by the church in their day and age, basically proves the veneration of icons being the Catholic practice of the church… 😅
I believe he was astonished by the sophistry that was employed there. Craig's argument was very weak. He used a negative argument to prove a positive truth. The fact that all early Church Fathers mentioned negatively any kind of venaration does not prove that was an accepted practice. On the contrary that was a diversion from the Apostolic doctrine. Early Fathers have condemned various practices in the church that does not mean they were true.
I think what you're observing is frustration. Craig is making some laughably bad inferences from the documents he's referencing. The accepted church practice among early Christian writers and bishops was explicitly against the veneration of Bishops. Craig is trying to use the fact that the laity of some of these churches may have been participating in image veneration as evidence for the catholicity of the practice. That's a very questionable means for discerning universal church practice because of how slender of a reed it is. If it were universal apostolic tradition, why is it being condemned by the people "in the know"?
I see both Catholicism and Dr Ortlund's own Calvinism equally in the same way that he sees Catholicism. I agree with what he says about their beliefs developing over time until they no longer resemble what's written in scripture. The thing is, the same seems true of Calvinism. Meticulous divine determinism never appears in the Bible and is in fact contradicted by scripture (Jeremiah 32:35 being a prominent example), so the Calvinists developed the two wills of God to explain that. I have heard more than one Calvinist say this explicitly - that the two wills of God aren't in scripture, but they are necessary because otherwise divine sovereignty doesn't work. The same rationale is used to explain away the numerous references to God wanting all people to be saved when Calvinism holds that God wants most people to be damned. So as far as I can tell, this is an example of Calvinism doing the very same thing Dr Ortlund was talking about Catholicism doing - taking one belief that isn't in scripture and then adding another belief that isn't in scripture but that follows from the first belief. Of course, I'm entirely uneducated in these matters so I freely admit I could be wrong but this is the way it seems to me.
Interesting that Craig states he converted to avoid hell. I rejected Protestantism, Eastern Orthodoxy, and Roman Catholicism, because I also fear God and His eternal punishment, but that fear alone can't tell me what belief is correct. The errors of Protestantism are obvious, such as deny Scripture when it says plainly we only inherit eternal life and are justified on judgment day by our works (Romans 2:4-13; Galatians 6:7-10). But Eastern Orthodoxy teaches idolatry by veneration of icons and praying to saints, which was uniformly rejected by their own saints like Athenagoras, Irenaeus, Lactantius, and other witnesses to true apostolic Christianity like Clement of Alexandria, Origen and Tertullian.
Here is brief proof that neither veneration of icons nor prayer to saints is apostolic in origin:
"Because of the multitude, who cannot distinguish between matter and God, or see how great is the interval which lies between them, pray to idols made of matter, are *we therefore, who do distinguish and separate the uncreated and the created , that which is and that which is not, that which is apprehended by the understanding and that which is perceived by the senses, and who give the fitting name to each of them, - are we to come and worship images* ? If, indeed, matter and God are the same, two names for one thing, then certainly, in not regarding stocks and stones, gold and silver, as gods, we are guilty of impiety. *But if they are at the greatest possible remove from one another ' as far asunder as the artist and the materials of his art , - why are we called to account* ."
- Athenagoras (177 A.D.) in A Plea for Christians ch. 15
"They style themselves Gnostics. *They [Carpocratians] also possess images, some of them painted, and others formed from different kinds of material; while they maintain that a likeness of Christ* was made by Pilate at that time when Jesus lived among them. They crown these images , and set them up along with the images of the philosophers of the world that is to say, with the images of Pythagoras, and Plato, and Aristotle, and the rest. *They have also other modes of honouring these images, after the same manner of the Gentiles [pagans]* ".
- Irenaeus, Against Heresies book 1 ch. 25 (circa AD 180)
"common sense forbids the supposition that God is at all a piece of corruptible matter, or is honoured when made to assume by men a form embodied in dead matter, fashioned according to some image or symbol of His appearance."
- Origen, Against Celsus book 3 ch. 40
"Insane would be the more appropriate word for those who hasten to temples and worship images or animals as divinities. *And they too are not less insane who think that images, fashioned by men of worthless and sometimes most wicked character, confer any honour upon genuine divinities* ."
- Origen, Against Celsus book 3 ch. 76
"For neither painter nor image-maker existed in their state, the law expelling all such from it; *that there might be no pretext for the construction of images,-an art which attracts the attention of foolish men, and which drags down the eyes of the soul from God to earth* . There was, accordingly, amongst them a law to the following effect: 'Do not transgress the law, and make to yourselves a graven image, any likeness of male or female; either a likeness of any one of the creatures that are upon the earth, or a likeness of any winged fowl that flieth under the heaven, or a likeness of any creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth, or a likeness of any of the fishes which are in the waters under the earth.'"
- Origen, Against Celsus book 4 ch. 31
"What madness is it, then, either to form those objects which they themselves may afterwards fear, or to fear the things which they have formed? But, they say, we do not fear the images themselves, but those beings after whose likeness they were formed, and to whose names they are dedicated . You fear them doubtless on this account, because you think that they are in heaven; for if they are gods, the case cannot be otherwise. Why, then, do you not raise your eyes to heaven, and, invoking their names, offer sacrifices in the open air? Why do you look to walls, and wood, and stone, rather than to the place where you believe them to be ? What is the meaning of temples and altars? *what, in short, of the images themselves, which are memorials either of the dead or absent? For the plan of making likenesses was invented by men for this reason, that it might be possible to retain the memory of those who had either been removed by death or separated by absence. In which of these classes, then, shall we reckon the gods? If among the dead, who is so foolish as to worship them? If among the absent, then they are not to be worshipped, if they neither see our actions nor hear our prayers* . But if the gods cannot be absent,-for, since they are divine, they see and hear all things, in whatever part of the universe they are,-it follows that images are superfluous, since the gods are present everywhere, and it is sufficient to invoke with prayer the names of those who hear us. But if they are present, they cannot fail to be at hand at their own images. It is entirely so, as the people imagine, that the spirits of the dead wander about the tombs and relics of their bodies. But after that the deity has begun to be near, there is no longer need of his statue."
Lactantius, - The Divine Institutes book 2 ch.2 p.41.
@YAJUN YUAN
7th Day Adventism is judaizing with the literal Sabbath and ten commandments. Christians follow the law of Christ and only the spiritual/moral principles of the Old Testament, as all the early church writers state. Soul sleep is also unbiblical. We go to Abraham’s Bosom/Paradise/Hades when we die just as Irenaeus, Hippolytus, Tertullian, and Lactantius say. That’s biblical.
@YAJUN YUAN lol I don't have a church website. Show me an early church writer who says we Christians should follow the sabbath just as Moses did.
@YAJUN YUAN
You're joking right?
"If, then, those who had lived according to the ancient practices came to the newness of hope, no longer keeping the sabbath but living in accordance with the Lord’s day, on which our life also arose through him and his death…"
- Ignatius, Epistle to the Magnesians 9:1
"The new law requires you to keep perpetual sabbath, and you, because you are idle for one day, suppose you are pious, not discerning why this has been commanded you: and if you eat unleavened bread, you say the will of God has been fulfilled. The Lord our God does not take pleasure in such observances: if there is any perjured person or a thief among you, let him cease to be so; if any adulterer, let him repent; then he has kept the sweet and true sabbaths of God. If any one has impure hands, let him wash and be pure."
- Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho, Ch 12
"This same does Ezekiel the prophet say with regard to the Sabbaths: Also I gave them My Sabbaths, to be a sign between Me and them, that they might know that I am the Lord, that sanctify them. Ezekiel 20:12 And in Exodus, God says to Moses: And you shall observe My Sabbaths; for it shall be a sign between Me and you for your generations. Exodus 21:13 *These things, then, were given for a sign; but the signs were not unsymbolical, that is, neither unmeaning nor to no purpose, inasmuch as they were given by a wise Artist* ; but the circumcision after the flesh typified that after the Spirit. For we, says the apostle, have been circumcised with the circumcision made without hands. Colossians 2:11 And the prophet declares, Circumcise the hardness of your heart. *But the Sabbaths taught that we should continue day by day in God's service. For we have been counted, says the Apostle Paul, all the day long as sheep for the slaughter; Romans 8:36 that is, consecrated [to God], and ministering continually to our faith, and persevering in it, and abstaining from all avarice, and not acquiring or possessing treasures upon earth* . Matthew 6:19 Moreover, the Sabbath of God (requietio Dei), that is, the kingdom, was, as it were, indicated by created things; in which [kingdom], the man who shall have persevered in serving God (Deo assistere) shall, in a state of rest, partake of God's table. *And that man was not justified by these things, but that they were given as a sign to the people, this fact shows - that Abraham himself, without circumcision and without observance of Sabbaths, believed God* , and it was imputed unto him for righteousness; and he was called the friend of God."
-Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Book 4, Ch. 16
@YAJUN YUAN The Mosaic Sabbath is the fourth of the ten commandments, and those quotes say we do not literally observe the Mosaic sabbath. Case closed.
It doesn't matter whether Ignatius' says Lord's day or Lord's living, Justin and Irenaeus say the spiritual principle of the sabbath is to stop sinning and do good just as Christ taught and that we do not observe the Mosaic sabbath.
What church do you attend then? I have a lot of similar concerns… Do you have any thoughts on the Assyrian church of the east?
"If you wish to enter into life, then keep the commandments ", ( Matthew 19;17).
"Give alms and all shall be clean within for you". ( Luke 11;41).
The Catholic Church had provided over 13 translations of High and low German, way before Martin Luther was even born! Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is true food and Blood true drink and His Church built on Peter the rock
Regarding the aggressiveness of the Orthodox, I can just give a link to my playlist with my disputes with the Orthodox.
The link itself: th-cam.com/play/PLmrwV6ZaHsTuKHUxWD69NtJrXKDYjOhkI.html
I hope you can translate it into your language.
You can make any videos in english? That would be so helpful or also articles.
@@internautaoriginal9951 I'm sorry, but I can't. Russian neural network for some reason
translates only from English to Russian, and it is not yet possible to translate from Russian.
Jesus Christ built His Church on Peter the rock, before the later development of the orthodox Church.
I could never be orthodox, as they do not teach proper Marian dogmas, and they have no final in a living visible head. Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is true food and Blood true drink
I went from Baptist to Orthodox and rapidly back to Baptist. The EO church is a remnant of the Imperial church. A lot of their doctrine is false. Simply start with the fact that there are no priests or bishops in the EO sense under the new covenant. Jesus says call no man on earth 'father' for you have one father, your Father in heaven. A born again Christian has direct access to Dad in heaven. We have one intermediary, our brother the Lord Jesus. We are family. Any priest who presumes to act in this capacity, as with Orthodox priests, effectively put themselves in the position of the Lord Jesus. Such priests are deceived, self deceived and deceive others. EO is another faith, not the biblical faith. They have a different Jesus where Mary and the saints are venerated/worshipped. They simply do not understand what it means to be a Christian, adopted into the family of God. These are really simple things to understand if you actually read the Word of God, and if you are born again by God.
I did the same thing going from Baptist / Calvary Chapel to eastern orthodoxy and back to Baptist. They are pretty much The Imperial Church of Constantinople after “the 7th ecumenical council in 787 A.D.”
LOL at people bowing down to paintings.
@@jg7923 @J G exactly, not the Church of the Lord Jesus Christ. When I finally came to my senses, and started asking questions, biblical questions of the priests- one a university prof and the other an archimandrite- they didn't like that. One day after liturgy, as I was trying to get a biblical fix on what I was doing praying to Mary and the saints- the archimandrite- an 80 years old former Anglican priest- suddenly pronounced that I was excommunicated! Yikes! Cast out of the one true Church! I had been baptized 2 months before. I drove 16 hours one way to see my bishop about it. Ahhh, it was all such a farce. The EO church is leading many to perdition. Many. They are a false church with a sham salvation.
@@1Immanuel8 Yep, Eastern Orthodoxy Is A Joke. It’s pagan costume theater and Greek culture preservation pretending to be The Church and Christianity. They treat people horribly and love to gaslight people with mind games. They are insanely wicked. There are tares among the wheat in all different sects of Christianity but Man there are So Many Tares in Eastern Orthodoxy. It was such a let down and depressing dealing with them.
@@jg7923 you may have deleted a post that I got in my feed but don't see here. That was my experience as well. EO clergy do not understand the Gospel. It really is that simple. It is a paganized form of Christianity that goes back to Constantine. In my experience and observation the EO church bears rotten fruit, a crop of tares. There may be some wheat in there- but perhaps not too much. Once you start examining their doctrine, point by point it is off, incorrect, or made up. Former EO priest Joshua Schooping's book is pretty good. I have yet to see an Ortho bro invite him on for a discussion in the same manner in which Gavin interacts with the Orthodox. Why is that Craig?
God bless you for sharing your story in this post and on another comment. I'm currently in spiritual discernment and seeing the rough patches and road your faith went through and came out refined through sole reliance on the Bible gives me hope, that if I lay my full trust and obedience to God and his inspired and revealed word I too, can be refined.
8:45 We can also see good fruit outside any Christian church though. And without God's grace it wouldn't be good, but we can't conclude that the fullness of faithfulness and means of dikaiōsis (being made righteous, translated in NT as justification) is present everywhere a single good fruit is.
As I've said before, this argument about exclusivism only appeals to my emotional concern for others, which if entertained would have me become a total perrenialist. I ask myself, should I expect the true church to claim and warn of exclusivity or not, and I think NOT being exclusive is more of a sign against a claimant than for.
It's also the same all or nothing theme we see from the fall onward. God is perfect. A murderer and a liar are not. To hate is to murder.
how are you defining "fruit?"
@@TruthUnites Well based on these verses:
Galatians 5:22-23 - But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control; against such things there is no law.
Ephesians 5:9 for the fruit of the light consists in all goodness, righteousness and truth
James 1:17 Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and cometh down from the Father of lights, with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning.
So I know not every gift of the Spirit can be found outside the church, which is why I'm only sticking to these verses, but I know by God's grace I was granted gifts to help me on my way before I knew Christ and I was attracted to similar and greater gifts in others who still don't know God very well although they do yearn for Him as what they call truth/love.
I would guess that everyone is given opportunities to see good and perfect things and choose to move closer to God or not. In this way or other ways the Holy Spirit is inviting everyone to find salvation through Christ and as Romans 2 outlines, they will be judged based on what God knows they knew, not on what others know.
In the same manner we can easily imagine that while unrepentent heretics (those who knowingly reject truth and schism even if they accept most truths) may be judged as lost, their innocent followers may not. But on their follower who comes to know the truth is placed a very heavy cross. They must be willing to put Christ ahead of their families and friends and their own standing in the eyes of everyone they treasure. Because now they know. And even if their intellect creates the greatest excuse, God knows when we know in our heart and will see that intellectual pursuit as a means of disobedience.
@@colmwhateveryoulike3240 thanks. It seems to me that the New Testament defines fruit as something specifically wrought by the Holy Spirit in response to the gospel, not just generic virtue that can be found anywhere.
@@TruthUnites Yeah well you're definitely correct but to the degree we can discern the church using this method, we'll have an issue, right? If we can see fruits matching the superficial description in atheists (who would themselves believe they are experiencing the highest purity they can imagine), then even if we see greater levels of purity in churches that may have far more relationship with Father, Son and Holy Spirit, we could still presume that the church that has retained true doctrine might simply produce fruit of greater purity again. There is no reasonable defeator for this that I am seeing. In fact it seems most likely based on my experience of wandering through many stages of belief and non belief.
@@colmwhateveryoulike3240 help me understand how you think atheists can bear the fruit of the Holy Spirit in response to the gospel. I’m not following at all. Atheist don’t believe in God so how can you understand them as responding to the gospel?
The point missed by both these guys is the fact that Orthodoxy of today is not the same as the true Orthodoxy of the early Church. The original Orthodoxy is much closer to the truth than modern Orthodoxy, Protestantism and Roman Catholicism. As for what is the true Church (ekklesia) it’s not any particular denomination. It’s defined as the group of people who are true believers and followers of Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour, and that crosses all denominations. To argue that any particular denomination or church group is the only true Church is not only wrong it’s evil simply because that’s what the evil one would want; fighting amongst fellow Christians to the point of self-destruction. To be honest the best way to be part of the true Church is to read and study the Holy Scripture. After all, it’s the best written text of what Jesus and His Apostles taught about the true doctrines at the time by word of mouth. Then follow like minded Christians who attend a good Bible teaching church close by but remembering always to use the Scriptures as the one and only authoritative text for the Word of God to verify what is taught in the church is actually true or false. What most people do is the exact opposite. They follow what their church says and don’t bother to check what it says against what the written Word of God says. That’s lazy Christianity that risks one leading down the wrong path. Let the denomination that is without sin cast the first stone.
Both speakers have stated truths but the attacking of each other’s views ought to stop as the true Church crosses denominations. We should focus on the True Gospel to be part of the true Church and not quibble about side issues, such as icon veneration and the like, which to be frank are diversions caused by the evil one to try and separate us from God.
Okay, gnostic.
@@Manuel-jt3fp OK heretic.
Your post is one of the best I have read. Thank you.
@@rjay5603 Glory to God. You are welcome, fellow believer. God Bless.
C'mon bro you gotta move past the whole..."is CS Lewis in hell?" question if you want to understand the unrivaled beauty of Orthodoxy. Do you really think Seth Green over here has any idea who's names are written in the book of life? Aim higher Gavin. There are vast troves of Christian mystical wisdom your audience could benefit from if you found more nuanced conversation partners.
Become orthodox
no
@@HarrisonTheGrey why
How can faith alone be the True Gospel, when Paul teaches even if one has ALL FAITH, but does not LOVE, IT IS USELESS.
Plus, Dr. Ortlund finally admitted, that all Protestant interpretations are fallible! Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is true food and Blood true drink and His Church built on Peter the rock
Keep punching that strawman
He's always said that though? He said that private judgements are always fallible, even when we are choosing to believe an infallible authority (Scripture, or tradition in your case). I am pretty sure he answered you on the last community post he mentioned you on. Peace always from our Lord who is the true door and the true vine.
@@TheRoark Yes, Dr. Ortlund admitted he had no idea what Jesus Christ actually meant by "this IS MY BODY " or who the Woman is in Revelation 12. It took Dr. Ortlund over a year to admit it!
So much for knowing the True Gospel! Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is true food and Blood true drink and His Church built on Peter the rock
@@jonnbobo That is what I keep saying to Dr. Ortlund! Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is true food and Blood true drink
@@matthewbroderick6287 I don't think saying that everyone has fallible beliefs in infallible authorities is the same as "admitting you have no idea" about anything haha. As for who the woman of revelation is I will go with the early church fathers with it being the church ;) God bless you Matthew, I hope one day you can argue with us in good faith!
Just stop thinking and start listening to the Pope amen
Thanks, Alex.
@@HarrisonTheGrey You're welcome
I still don't agree with Craig's, and Father Patrick's for that matter, answer to the question of whether it is Orthodox doctrine that non-Orthodox Christians are damned to Hell. Just because there have been saints throughout the years who have spoken harshly about non-Orthodox Christians doesn't mean that they were necessarily correct or that their words can be applied in exactly the same way in the modern context. As Gavin pointed out, it is not best practice to apply the words of a Christian from a different context to today's issues without any clarifications. To that effect, consider the following: Most pious Orthodox Christians greatly respect Fr. (most likely soon to be St.) Seraphim Rose who grew up in the Protestant American context before converting to Orthodoxy in the 1960s. Here are a few highlights from his short essay "The Proper View of Non-Orthodox Christians" (throughthegraceofgodorthodoxchristianity.wordpress.com/father-seraphim-rose-the-proper-view-of-non-orthodox-christians/). Read the whole thing if you have 5-10 minutes. This is much more in line with what I have experienced the lived-out faith of the Orthodox Church to be. "However, it is not for us to define the state of those who are outside the Orthodox Church. If God wishes to grant salvation to some who are Christians in the best way they know, but without ever knowing the Orthodox Church - that is up to Him, not us." "About those Christians who are outside the Orthodox Church, therefore, I would say: they do not yet have the full truth. Perhaps it just hasn’t been revealed to them yet, or perhaps it is our fault for not living and teaching the Orthodox Faith in a way they can understand. With such people we cannot be one in the Faith, but there is no reason why we should regard them as totally estranged or as equal to pagans (although we should not be hostile to pagans either- they also haven’t yet seen the truth!). " "There is no reason why we cannot call them Christians and be on good terms with them, recognizing that at least we have our faith in Christ in common, and live in peace especially with our own families. A harsh, polemical attitude is called for only when the non-Orthodox are trying to take away our flocks or change our teaching."
No saints teach this
you don't understand the Orthodox position. The question underlying the discussion is what makes a person a Christian. The Lord Jesus Christ, God in the flesh says, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God.” John 3.3. The EO church says you must be baptized into the EO church and participate in the sacraments. Only one can be true. Do you put your faith in Jesus, or in the EO church (by which I mean the EO church as embodied in the clergy) for your salvation. Who is your authority? The Word of God, or the traditions of the EO church? Both claim to be a Christian. Only one is.