Fr. Jonathan is a great priest. You guys are a great team!

Father Stephen was rather soft with Dr. Ortlund. He could have pressed a little harder while still staying polite and charitable. If they ever get together for another discussion, you guys should give them more time.

@SaltShack

3 ай бұрын

Ya! You could “T” him up for Fr. Whiteford sometime who I heard responding to I think it was Ortlund, that’s just a bunch of c$@%.

Fr. Stephen demonstrated kindness and patience with Ortlund. I pray that Gavin continues to seek Christ in all that he endeavors, yet pray even more for his discovery of the fullness and reality of Christ obtained in Orthodox tradition. Christ is in our midst!

@TheTransfiguredLife

3 ай бұрын

He is and ever shall be! ☦️

@melissawade883

3 ай бұрын

That is it! Having been both Protestant and now Orthodox, I don't want anyone to miss out on the True Way! The Holy Spirit is tangibly present in the Orthodox church, but not so much in Protestant churches.

@Justas399

3 ай бұрын

Fr Stephen was not able to refute Dr Gavin's claims. That shows the weakness of the Orthodox position.

@nathandaniels4823

3 ай бұрын

@Justas399 The essence of Dr. Ortlund’s claim was that venerating icons seemed like idolatry to him. It’s nothing more than a personal opinion. He’s basically saying “I feel this way about what I think it is you do with icons”. Fr. Stephen did refute the claim, but like I’ve stated elsewhere, these types of discussions serve little purpose other than to have each side’s supporters walk away thinking their guy crushed the other guy’s argument. The strength of the Orthodox position is pretty solid. The Holy Spirit led the Apostles of the Christian Church to write the books that the Christian Church later, by the leading of the Holy Spirit, came to general agreement were inspired. That same Church still exists today. When various Protestant Christians, who were never part of this Church, try to use the Book that this Church wrote and collected and determined was inspired through the Holy Spirit (which, as Fr. Stephen pointed out, is what this Church calls Holy Tradition), members of The Church don’t need to present an argument. Protestants are using someone else’s book that they poorly understand to argue against the people to whom the book belongs.

@Justas399

3 ай бұрын

@@nathandaniels4823 Dr Ortlund asked fr Stephen where icons were mentioned in the early centuries and he had no facts to claim it was. The church did not write books. The apostles and prophets did. The church could only recognize these books as Scripture but did not have the authority to make them Scripture. The Scriptures belong to all Christians and not to some church alone. The Spirit led various men to discern by tests which books would be in the canon of Scripture.

Ortlund controlled the conversation by making it about Nicea 2 instead of Sola Scriptura vs Holy Tradition. This was wise on his part knowing Sola Scriptura cannot be historically or Biblically defended. Wish Fr. Stephen pressed him more. I’d like to see Gavin debate Jay Dyer on the topic. Sometimes it takes someone rough around the edges to cut through Gavin’s fake piety. We have no reason to be gentle in our argumentation with heretics that are leading people astray. Neither Christ, the Apostles, or the Church Fathers were.

@TPizzle96

3 ай бұрын

Absolutely zero chance Gavin would get on with Jay, but I don't think it matters too much. The good thing is that 'Truth Unites' has actually become a great entry point for Orthodoxy to a lot of people that never would have come into contact with it.

@ApostolicEchoes

3 ай бұрын

@@TPizzle96the truth of Orthodoxy will always prevail. As Christ promised.

@Lizzie236

3 ай бұрын

Watching Jay Dyer is like watching James White. After good debates you stay away from the bad ones.

@ApostolicEchoes

3 ай бұрын

@@Lizzie236 I think you’d be hard pressed to find someone as knowledgeable as Dyer in a debate. He has trouble with anger but I won’t judge him, as an unworthy sinner myself. His videos led me away from being a Oneness Pentecostal to my whole family being received into the Holy Orthodox Church. Personality aside, he is drawing many to the Church with his work.

@davidjanbaz7728

3 ай бұрын

​@@ApostolicEchoesyour like all the other churches claiming to be the only True church : your ignorant of Hebrews 12:22-29.

Love the way you two handle commentaries! It's fantastic! Love to all our Protestant friends, but they need to come to the true faith and stop upholding these heresies 😂. God bless you, Father and Luther ☦️ keep up the wonderful work and discussions.

@TheTransfiguredLife

3 ай бұрын

Thanks! God bless fam ☦️

I see a lot of people implying that it was a mistake that the conversation was focused around Nicaea II but I think it allowed for Fr. Stephen to really give a solid defense for the Apostolic practice of icon veneration. I’m glad we got to see him do that, especially with Dr. Ortlund.

If infallibility ceased with the closure of the canon of the New Testament, why are we accepting the judgment of the Nicene Fathers as to what constituted the “Holy Scriptures”? The Apostles did not pass down an infallible “Table of Contents” for the Scriptures. That ToC was identified by Bishops who came after the Apostles. At a certain point, Ortlund has to concede he just picks and chooses for himself which extra-biblical traditions of the Church he receives.

@acekoala457

3 ай бұрын

The "Fallible Collection of Infallible books" is a dilemma that cannot be answered within Scripture. Epistemology matters.

@Disciple550

2 ай бұрын

@@acekoala457bingo

When Dr. Ortland says “the protestant church believes that the Holy Spirit never abandoned the apostolic church” that is actually not true. There are vast sects within Protestantism that believe exactly that. His particular tradition may not believe that but “Protestants“ in some cases do.

@kaybrown4010

3 ай бұрын

Yes! In my protestant days, I often heard the teaching that the Holy Spirit left the “religious, man-centered” church and magically reappeared at the Reformation - or Azusa St., depending on one’s bent. I’d venture to say most protestants believe that.

@MastaC2803

3 ай бұрын

As a current Protestant the teaching of a great Apostasy applying to the Ancient churches is very prevalent. I don’t agree with it at all but I am around others who do. All churches need to open the door to the ancient church. It’s made Scripture open up in a surreal way for me. Church History is a treasure that we Protestants are most of the time ignorant of.

@Gregorydrobny

3 ай бұрын

This is another problem with Ortlund's position in general, which can easily be pressed further: he can't actually define what "the Protestant church" actually is, or even if there is one with a definite article. When folks like him are pushed on questions like this, they start moving the goal posts over and over until basically you're left with, "well _my_ church doesn't do that..."

@TyrannicalReigner

3 ай бұрын

Just like every sect has their own version of sola scriptura itself.

@JunkyJeeMail

3 ай бұрын

Very good points! With all due respect, Protestantism is ultimately an anti-catholic form of ecclesiological anarchy and theological relativism. Its unique doctrine of the invisible church is really nothing more than the application of iconoclasm to ecclesiology. It should be clear to anyone that takes the writings of the Church Fathers seriously that they were not Protestant in either practice or belief by any stretch of the imagination.

You both gave a better defense against sola scriptura in this debate review than what was given in the initial debate. Thank you for this.

Holy Tradition and the “telephone game”….You touched on the idea of the Holy Spirit working in the Church. I think it is very important to say the Holy Spirit is not limited to just keeping written text “inerrant”. That said, I feel the “telephone game”, even within his context, is taking things way out of perspective. St. Paul lived in Ephesus for well over two years. St. Paul wasn’t whispering something into one persons ear, and that one person whispering into another person’s ear, and so on and so forth. St. Paul was speaking to a group of people, over and over again for two years. Many of the things that were taught included action and movement…for example how to cross oneself or maybe venerate an icon, or whatever. While I am not claiming St. Paul taught only of these things, what I am claiming is that if he did, it would have be nothing like the “telephone game”. He would have told a group of them how to hold their hands, how to cross themselves, when to cross themselves, etc. He would have been teaching this to a community, from babies to seniors. He would have been teaching actions and the theology behind them. Even if removing the Holy Spirit from the picture, this sort of thing doesn’t fall into error like the “telephone game” does. When I became Orthodox, and I say everyone cross themselves, without a single word of instruction, I could figure out how and when to cross myself. I may have been simply lacking the “why” I am crossing myself. I would argue I could have figured that out as well over time, with little instruction. My point here is the “telephone game” is about passing a secret from one person to the next, with no one else around to correct error. Holy Tradition is life lived within a community, and is not error prone like the “telephone game”. If then we allow for the Holy Spirit to be present in the Church, then error is then also thwarted as well.

Thanks for another great video guys!

@TheTransfiguredLife

3 ай бұрын

Glory to God! Thanks brother! ☦️

I'm teaching a class on the Protestant Reformation later today with my History Class. Great timing!

@TheTransfiguredLife we definitely need a part 2 of this discussion this time inviting @Tren Horn in on it. Please 🙏🏼. Robert from Puerto Rico 🇵🇷

@TheTransfiguredLife

3 ай бұрын

Greetings Robert from the beautiful land of Puerto Rico! Dr.Gavin is a maybe for part 2. He's got important projects coming up within the next upcoming months. But once things cool down for him we will try to set something up.

@robertotapia8086

3 ай бұрын

@TheTransfiguredLife thanks for responding, yes I've heard him mention he has a busy schedule, but prayerfully you might be able to host part 2 of this discussion this year. Once again thanks and GOD Bless your family and you 🙏🏼. Your Catholic brother Robert from Puerto Rico 🇵🇷

9:12 If everything necessary is given in scripture then why is St Paul's exhortation to hold fast to teachings in letter and in word of mouth - the former but not all the latter of which are in Scripture? Sola Scriptura seems to defeat itself there. Also in 2 Peter 3:16 St Peter not only affirms St Paul's writings as scripture but he highlights the fact that many people fail to understand and often distort scripture, which is another Sola Scriptura reason to doubt Sola Scriptura.

@EricBryant

3 ай бұрын

Only if you assume that the oral is something separate than the written. But let's grant that there is an oral and written tradition. How do we know what that oral tradition is? Right. I have to just trust what *your* church says. That isn't how the early fathers operated. The only reliable record we have of what the apostles taught is preserved in Scripture. Let's look at the entire thrust of scripture, and try to see it without Orthodox presuppositions. I've spent my 2 yrs learning how the Orthodox interpret scripture. I mean, just read this excerpt from Psalm 119: How can a young person stay on the path of purity? By living according to your word. 10 I seek you with all my heart; do not let me stray from your commands. 11 I have hidden your word in my heart that I might not sin against you. 12 Praise be to you, Lord; teach me your decrees. 13 With my lips I recount all the laws that come from your mouth. 14 I rejoice in following your statutes as one rejoices in great riches. 15 I meditate on your precepts and consider your ways. 16 I delight in your decrees; I will not neglect your word. The words, "commands, word, decrees, statues, precepts..." scholars know that David was referring to the written word of God, the Torah. Imagine replacing those words with "tradition." Do you get the picture? The ENTIRE TENOR of Scripture, from Genesis to Revelation, is the superiority and authority of Scripture! It's literally so all over the place that you only miss it if you've been trained NOT to see it.

@doubtingthomas9117

3 ай бұрын

@@EricBryant-AMEN, brother 👍🏻 We have to keep in mind that when the Apostle Paul had written that particular statement in his second epistle to the Thessalonians they likely had only one other New Testament writing (1st Thessalonians) in their possession and that the Apostles were still living so of course they were still orally teaching things that weren’t confined to one or two solitary epistles.

@shotinthedark90

3 ай бұрын

​@@EricBryantyou miss the point. Had the words of the Apostles not been written down, they would be no less authoritative. You trust the church to tell you that the Bible you've received is the word of God... why is that somehow less credulous?

@EricBryant

3 ай бұрын

@@shotinthedark90 sure. But how do we know what those "un written down" but still authoritative teachings are? And do you mean to say that everything Paul said is infallible and theopneustos? And the church didnt tell us what the word of God is. Another argument that has been soundly refuted. The church recognizes inspired Scripture. The Church doesnt *determine* what is inspired Scripture. But even if the Church did give us scripture, it does not follow that everything *else* the Church decrees is infallible. Could a first century Jew know what the OT canon was?

@EricBryant

3 ай бұрын

The Church Herself is a CREATURE of the Word of God. So She cannot be above or equal to it. If there were no Gospel (no *word of power*) THERE WOULD BE NO CHRISTIANS AND HENCE NO CHURCH. The Church doesn't belong to the Apostles. The Apostles belong to the Church. They are not YOUR apostles or MY apostles. They dont belong to only the Orthdox or Roman Catholic. They belong to all of us as Christians. Christians go astray very often by *getting the order of things wrong.*

Great video breakdown of Dr Ortlund's position! I personally think he's a kind-hearted person and means well, but people need to stop treating him with kid-gloves and ask him more serious paradigm-level questions he seems to be intentionally avoiding. One _strong_ question that needs to be asked of Dr Ortlund is if the New Testament abolishes the economy of sacred images the Church inherits from the Synagogue and Temple? If so, then Dr Ortlund needs to give an account as to why the Early Church not only had iconography but also venerated the relics of the Saints and worshiped God liturgically. I think it would be more helpful if people pointed out to Dr Ortlund that his Sola Scriptura presuppositions have not been able to produce much of anything better than ecclesiological anarchy and theological relativism. I see him more as one trying to salvage a broken system that's clearly not able to do the work the Reformation Fathers envisioned that it would accomplish in a better way than their competition in post-medieval Catholicism.

@rayfulmer5146

3 ай бұрын

Yes, to me it’s important to frame the question such that Protestants have to defend the reality of Protestantism, not just their particular idea of it. Sola Scriptura hasn’t just given us Gavin’s specific version of Baptists, it has given us Jehovas Witnesses, snake handlers, holy rollers, and the Duggers. It has to answer for that as a “fruit”, just like we have to answer for meanly stated anathemas and the canonization of dislikable emperors.

As a Protestant (barely) who’s been looking into the Orthodox faith for several years now I really enjoyed the courteous dialogue between Dr Ortland and Father Stephen De Young. I would love to see more dialogues just like this in the future. So much more comes from these discussions when they are done in a spirit of grace towards each other and a willingness to hear the other person out. Thanks You so much for making this happen and please, more of this.

@thesampo

3 ай бұрын

Dr Ortland and Craig Trulia have great discussions on out icons.

Dr Ortlund leverages "historical witness" for Protestant positions against Holy Tradition. The quote mining from various sources to either justify or deny any given belief or doctrine is the modern approach to Biblical scholarship in Protestantism. It begins with the assumption that Holy Tradition is wrong and the quote mines to prove the case. They do the same thing when arguing for their beliefs from Scripture.

@alypiusloft

3 ай бұрын

The quotes used by him become like the Wizard of Oz: "Never mind the man behind the curtain!" Never mind the beliefs of a Semi-Arian, just focus on how he agrees with me. Never mind the beliefs of Augustine concerning Tradition and baptism, just focus on these points where he agrees with me. Dr Ortlund is his own arbiter of truth using Scripture to justify himself.

@j.g.4942

3 ай бұрын

Technically protestants begin with the repeal of a law. But the reformation begins with thinking the tradition passed down to one is suspect (obeying the pornocracy, paying out of purgatory, simony, that a monk sweeping is a better work than a mother giving birth, etc) rather than that 'Sacred Tradition' is wrong

@mmbtalk

3 ай бұрын

@@alypiusloft Why don't you engage with the actual issues instead of disparaging Gavin? He raises issues that are problematic, having teachings that require weird manipulation to trace them back to the Apostles is a big issue for some of us!

@alypiusloft

3 ай бұрын

​@@mmbtalk The intention is not to disparage Gavin, but to address the *highly* problematic way in which he handles historic sources he quotes. For example, he has elsewhere been very explicitly doubtful of St John of Damascus and St Theodore the Studite concerning a quote from St Epiphanius they state was a forgery. Doubting it was a forgery means doubting the witness of these saints, and the only reason he would have to doubt them is by assuming the aniconic position is true without giving serious consideration that the Saints would actually know the truth. There are far more problems with Gavin's arguments than this one point, but I bring this one up to point out that he approaches the subject already doubting the claims. On top of that, he think quote mines to support the conclusion he's already convinced is true before having carefully examined the claims.

I've been waiting for this one!!

@TheTransfiguredLife

3 ай бұрын

Happy you're here brother ☦️

@jdsmith2k7

3 ай бұрын

@@TheTransfiguredLife Thanks brother. I really appreciate your work. It has been instrumental as I've approached the church. Myself, my wife and our 4 young children were just received as catechumens last Sunday!

@TheTransfiguredLife

3 ай бұрын

​@@jdsmith2k7Wow, that's amazing news. Glory to God! How exciting. Btw thanks, glad we could be of any use brother! ☦️✊🏾🔥

@NoeticInsight

2 ай бұрын

@@TheTransfiguredLife God bless you brother and welcome to you and your family, welcome home to the Original Church. May God bless you and your family and always remember you all in His Kingdom!

Excellent review of the discussion. Even though Fr.Stephen DeYoung could have easily destroyed Gavin Ortlund, it was nice of him to take it easy and stay patient while Ortlund kept playing mental gymnastics, beating around the bush, and running from the actual topic to cherry-picking other things to fit in his 17th century man-made traditions and and ever changing interpretations of the Bible.

@Sonwalkers247

3 ай бұрын

This is a gross mindset. It's not about destroying the opponent. We are not a bunch of religious judaistic pharisees.

@TheTransfiguredLife

3 ай бұрын

Exactly! He's an excellent bible scholar. Fr.SDY could have done that if he chose too but that wasn't his aim nor the aim of our Church! ☦️

@OrthoChi20

3 ай бұрын

@@TheTransfiguredLife God Bless ☦️ Love the channel with you and Fr.Jonathan. Excellent content hopefully we see more discussions and debates with Protestants.

@TheTransfiguredLife

3 ай бұрын

@@OrthoChi20 Thanks my brother. Glory to God! ☦️ We will try. We reached out to one protestant apologist on baptism/Eucharist he agreed and never got back to us (maybe he saw our video on communion). We will see...

@nathandaniels4823

3 ай бұрын

@OtrhoChi20 I think it’s problematic to talk of people “destroying” other people, especially Christians. I know it’s ‘just an expression’, but this kind of talk gets thrown around in these circles a lot, which indicates maybe people aren’t really getting what the Church is about.

Thanks for the video

@TheTransfiguredLife

2 ай бұрын

You're welcome! ☦️

Luther himself said that under his teachings everyone became their own pope and their own church. Dr. Ortland is just one of a plethora of protestant popes.

@EricBryant

3 ай бұрын

Where did Luther say that? I'm quite certain you've taken this out of context Reference please?

@kaybrown4010

3 ай бұрын

@@EricBryant From “Werke” (“Works”), Weimar, 1898, 5: 407, 35 - “In these matters of faith, to be sure, each Christian is for himself pope and church.” In other words, everything is relative in protestantism. If someone doesn’t like what the pastor says, they leave to start their own church because they have made themselves the sole arbiter of what constitutes the truth.

@EricBryant

3 ай бұрын

@@kaybrown4010 This is why proper Hermeneutics is so important. Because not only have you taken this quote out of context - one common hermeneutic error. But you've also failed to understand the author's *intention*. Which is actually the opposite conclusion that you drew. A second exegetical error. Third, you've failed to understand the type of literature being used. This was a letter Luther was writing to a friend, and he was employing *irony*. See, all these are essential hermeneutical aspects you're ignoring. So here's what Luther ACTUALLY meant: Context And to this we ought to be moved by the consideration, that this knowledge of ours renders us safe, so that the works of ceremonies cannot hurt us when we know that we are justified by faith. And again, we ought to be moved to this, by the knowing that we have good things in Christ, and have no longer to labour under considerations and thoughts about the manner in which we may be justified. And therefore, all our life from henceforth should be lived to the benefit of our neighbour: as Christ lived for us; and, as we do all other things for their good, much more should we attend to these indifferent ceremonies for their good. And therefore, we owe no man any thing but to love one another: and by this love it comes to pass that all things whatsoever we do are good; and yet, we seek not to be justified by our works; and this is to be a Christian. I will now only add one thing, and bring these observations to an end. - If any one shall perceive that he has a confidence or trust in the works of ceremonies, let him be bold, and at length cast them off: and in this let him not wait for any dispensation or power from the Pope: for in these matters every Christian is a pope and a church to himself: nor should any thing be decreed concerning him, nor should he abide by any thing that is decreed, which can in any way lead his faith into peril. But if he shall wish to communicate with his neighbour upon this matter, in order that he may be rendered the more certain by his word, (according to that scripture, "If any two of you shall agree upon earth concerning any thing," &c. Matt, xviii.) he does well. Conclusion The above context is a conclusion to a lengthy argument Luther was making in regard to justification by faith alone and justification by works, with a discission on the role of church ceremonies. Do church ceremonies play a part in justification before a holy God? Does going to or participating in a church ceremony have any effect on one's standing before God? In Luther's day, a church ceremony was a "good work" that could play a part in a person's justification. Therefore, one could place their confidence in the work of a ceremony. for Luther, this would be a denial of faith alone and would be placing one's confidence in something other than the work of Christ. In context, Luther says to cast off placing confidence in the work of a church ceremony. Cast away any infallible declarations of the church in regard to justification. The pope and church does not justify a person before God, the work of Christ does. It's also obvious from the context that sola scriptura was not being discussed. Rome's defenders have created a context and placed a Luther quote in that created context... this is a pure example of taking something out of context! Over the years, I've been chastised by Rome's defenders for being "anti-Catholic." What they fail to realize is that their blatant carelessness with the details of their arguments demonstrates to me they are the true anti-catholics. The goal of going through particular quotes is not to defend Luther as a Protestant saint. I see the study of any person in church history as an exercise in the love of God and neighbor. How do I love my neighbor in the study of church history? If I bear false witness against my neighbor, even if he's been dead for hundreds of years, I am not loving him.

@coloradodutch7480

14 күн бұрын

Well yes, is true for every Christian. Everybody decides what to believe and follow. Unless one wants to claim that all church members just blindly follow the church teachings without any discernment and they are just robots. The Bible is clear that we are ourselves to check against the scripture and judge if someone’s message is true. The Bible expects Christians to read the Bible and make judgements. The Bible also says to obey authority. The Bible also says to follow God rather than man. There is a tension between these and we are responsible to choose wisely.

Well done!!

Beautiful analysis of the dialogue. Blessings Fr. Jonathan and Luther. Fr. Sergio

Gavin Ortlund has a totally different paradigm for "the church" anyway. To him it's individuals scattered over thousands of different faith groups and denominations....rather than what Jesus founded, ONE faith and ONE church. I'm Catholic but we would have the same issues with Gavin's reasoning.

@EricBryant

3 ай бұрын

Which Church is the One true one?

@BrandonDiaz-uc8iu

3 ай бұрын

​​​​@@EricBryant The Eastern Orthodox Church. One Holy, catholic, and apostolic Church. Not many different non apostolic churches who all disagree with eachother and want to worship and practice the faith however they see fit. God is not polygamous. The Church is His bride and and He only has one bride and one body. Thats not an automatic damnation on protestants or catholics but its important to recognize error so the Orthodox don't end up like the protestants and catholics. Yes the Oriental Orthodox broke away but again it was because they believe that Christ has only 1 nature and 1 will. Holy tradition has shown that this view is incorrect. Christ has 2 natures and 2 wills.

@NavelOrangeGazer

3 ай бұрын

@@BrandonDiaz-uc8iu logical reasoning also shows how all the Christological heresies lead to problems that ultimately make the incarnation meaningless. Including those promulgated by rome like the immaculate conception or on a deeper level the notion of created grace and absolute divine simplicity which renders God unknowable and distant leading to deism and ultimately atheism which is exactly where the west has ended up by following these deviations.

@BrandonDiaz-uc8iu

3 ай бұрын

@@NavelOrangeGazer You are spot on with that critique, and I think protestants will find it hard to see that these progressive Christian sects and atheism are the ugly step children of protestantism. This constant watering down of the faith and the hyper rationalistic and scholatic approaches to scriptural interpretation have led to the birth of those worldviews. Protestants will try to argue that many of the doctrines that we follow are not necessary for salvation without actually clarifying from what authority are they able to actually make such a claim. They say its from scripture as if it is self interpreting but clearly it is not.

It may be that we need to define “public revelation.” As Orthodox, I’ve only heard the teaching that the “deposit of faith” was made by the Apostles. Is Father asserting that “public revelation” includes the definitions of the Saints & Councils?

How does it not, practically speaking at least, still apply to protestants if you consider them outside of the church?

@frjamesbozeman5375

3 ай бұрын

I think that it is basically an issue of origination. The whole point and assumption of the "Anathemas" is that those who earned them were originating from *within* the Church and subject to Her teaching. They were Orthodox Christians who abandoned Orthodoxy. A protestant doesn't qualify, so to speak, and I do think that the hosts are correct in suggesting that Dr Ortlund has taken them personally rather than realizing that they are not directly pointed at those who have never been a part of the Orthodox Church.

@acekoala457

3 ай бұрын

​@@frjamesbozeman5375 But we still hold to them to show the Orthodox within the Church that it is a line not to be crossed. A Border marker.

@NavelOrangeGazer

3 ай бұрын

@@frjamesbozeman5375 This is the mistake all protestants make regarding councils and anathemas they take them to themselves or their baptist grandma personally when they are for those prime heretics that originated the controversy leading to the need for the council in the first place.

I really didn't like how Gavin Ortlund only discussed iconography on the "historic" front. His main critique is not about the historicity of Nicaea II, but how iconography is "clearly an accretion", which is a theological dilemma. Even ignoring that, his approach to the history conversation was just the typical quote mine, nothing regarding iconography in second temple Judaism, pagan iconography, how icon and idol were different things universally and finally those applied to Christian iconography. That part of the dialogue felt wasted to me.

Unfortunately it feels like Gavin is fighting against the truth…. which is ironic especially with his KZread channel name.

@lornadoone8887

3 ай бұрын

If he really believes that truth unites, on that basis alone, we might point out: 1) Eastern Orthodox are still united with the early Church on dogma, liturgy and polity after 20 centuries. 2. History shows Protestantism divides.

The original video seemed to be very specifically framed as a discussion and not a debate. Fr. Stephen was clearly striving to have a conversation and Gaven was in debate mode. Fr Stephen talks about the conversation a little in the most recent episode of “Lord of Spirits.”

@sammytalluri1019

2 ай бұрын

Which episode?

My big critique is that Gavin turned what was framed as a discussion on Sola Scriptura into an attack on Holy Tradition. I get that the Protestant position requires them to attack the Orthodox positions, but Orthodoxy being wrong doesn't mean that Sola Scriptura is true. Gavin seems to think that the Protestant position is the default, which while true in America, isn't true totally. He seems to deploy radical skepticism at certain aspects of our faith while leaving his own positions as "assumed" of being true, like the Trinity for example. If Gavin reads this, Christian Tradition being false does not lead to a Protestant conclusion; it leads to an Atheistic conclusion. The same tools used to deconstruct icon veneration and other traditions are the same ones that deconstruct the resurrection and Bible stories. Please make an ironclad case for Sola Scriptura in a dialogue setting with an Orthodox (or Catholic) without resorting to attacking the other's position. I have yet to see this.

@TheTransfiguredLife

3 ай бұрын

Good point! 💯 Sola Scriptura being the default position is wild!

@jessewinn5563

3 ай бұрын

😮

@NavelOrangeGazer

3 ай бұрын

I'd argue its not even true in america. This country isn't protestant its some kind of pygmy neo-gnostic/new age folk religion guised in prosperity materialism.

Worse than Ortlund's quote mining, he also appealed to himself in the discussion: "I don't find the evidence convincing" and similar statements. He wrapped it in piety signaling, but rhetoric doesn't change the form of the argument. Okay, cool, I don't find the evidence for the Solas convincing, now what Dr. Gavin? Where do we go from here? I know it wasn't a debate, though it turned into something of a one-sided one; but Protestantism has several presuppositions that the Orthodox shouldn't grant them, and doing so allows them to go on the attack, which is exactly what Ortlund did.

@Gregorydrobny

3 ай бұрын

I've watched several of his videos, and it was on par with the rest of his position, so I wasn't surprised. But yes, Ortlund ends up in CircularLogicLand quite quickly. He also did this in the discussion when he started employing counter-factual history as a means for justifying his skepticism about the Holy Spirit working in The Church, which is ultimately nonsensical. "But what if this emperor hadn't been the emperor..." That's just a terrible basis for an argument.

@kennysmith15

3 ай бұрын

This is one of the weirdest comments ever. Are you saying Gavin shouldn’t have used reason in this discussion. Shouldn’t the argument be whether his reason is sound or not?

@machinotaur

3 ай бұрын

@@kennysmith15 I'm surprised you managed to interpret my comment that way. I'm saying appealing to personal incredulity, which Ortlund did several times, is a bad form of argument and quickly leads to an impasse. I think the rest of his arguments were also bad in content, but those were among the worst in form.

@TheMhouk2

3 ай бұрын

it's the fallacy of personal incredulity.

@harrygarris6921

3 ай бұрын

The rejection of the authority of tradition is an acceptance of the infallibility of private judgement.

I agree with this assessment. The discussion was SUPPOSED to be about sola-scriptura, but Gavin wanted to talk about icons (as usual). Fr. Stephen was relatively well-prepared regardless, but I don’t believe he directly addressed Gavin’s evidentiary presupposition (which is a fairly atheistic way of arguing for a Christian, so it’s not hard to see how Protestantism paves the way for atheism). But Gavin derailing the conversation and making it about icons left the main topic (sola-scriptura) wanting. If you guys have them on again, maybe you could moderate the discussion a little more so it stays on topic? Other than that, I’m glad it happened.

What about anathema made after death?

Even as someone that is (currently) baptist, I'm really struggling with Dr. Ortlund's defense of Sola Scriptura. His position is modest enough, but it doesn't seem capable of defining what the Holy Spirit working in His church actually looks like. How can we know Nicea I was the work of the Holy Spirit and not Nicea II? How can we know the proto-orthodox canon was the Holy Spirits work, and not the various gnostic canons or the Islamic canon? How can the infallibility of scripture ever be separable from fallible interpreters and canons when Dr. Ortlund and Fr. Stephen De Young can't even agree on what do and don't constitute as "basic building blocks" for theology. Islam and the Latter Day Saints both also affirm that their positions are based on building blocks that are plainly visible in the New Testament, but Dr. Ortlund and Fr. Stephen De Young would probably both readily dismiss those claims based on their own interpretation of Scripture. I wish someone would press Dr. Ortlund on describing what the Holy Spirit being at work in the Church actually looks like.

@holycatholicapostolicfaith

8 күн бұрын

1. A woman, without her, man is nothing. 2. A woman: without her, man is nothing. 3. A woman, without her man, is nothing. The placement of punctuation alters the meaning significantly: 1. Implies that a woman is insignificant without a man in her life. 2. Suggests that without a woman, a man is nothing. 3. States that without her support, a woman is nothing. The earliest New Testament manuscripts were in scripto continuo, a style of writing without spaces in between words. (continuous script). Uncial, a script with majuscule (capital) letters which was more curved than earlier Greek writing styles, was used during the 4th-8th centuries. If punctuation alters the meaning so significantly, imagine not having spacing between words. It was absolutely necessary to have someone communicate in person. Not to mention cultural differences between our times: * ancient hellenistic cultures could recite entire poems (such as the Odyssey) from memory * ancients did not trust written sources to the same degree they trusted someone face to face 2 Thessalonians 2:15 (ESV) So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by our spoken word or by our letter. Pentecost did not happen to a book. The Holy Spirit is NOT a book in the unlike how Christ IS a man. Gavin demonstrates a position in which he has negated himself (negated his own foundational epistemology) at this point: If all interpretations are fallible and susceptible to revision, why shouldn’t we revise the 1st council witness to Christ as coeternal with the Father? The only explanation for why not, according to Gavin, is to establish a strongly held individualized opinion based on one’s own ability to comprehend God in one’s own intellect despite one’s own fallibility. Fr Stephen’s response to this proposition, which again it must be reiterated that Gavin’s entire worldview is founded on this idea, was exactly to point out Gavin’s hypocrisy. They have spoken softly, but anyone with ears to hear and some sense of genuine education will see through Gavin’s hypocritical pride with ease.

I think something that should have been said to his comments on tradition is that we as individuals don’t get to pick and choose which father or which saying of a father. As I’ve been taught, even where fathers disagree with each other, we are still expected to understand both. What we follow is the Church’s decisions on matters. Is this an accurate summation?

@KRRR820

26 күн бұрын

Once again, Gavin addressed this in the original video and everyone’s ignoring it. Because of cognitive dissonance. Gavin plainly said multiple times there isn’t a single reference from a single individual in the first, second, or third century church espousing iconography as appropriate. In fact every single reference available to us todaycondemned it. This was brought up multiple times, and as I’m learning about orthodox folks, shoulder shrugging and ignoring stuff is the standard reply.

When Protestants are questioned about the definition of Sola Scritptura, they say that SS is not the idea that everything has to be in the Bible (if you say that SS is that), but it means that the only infallible rule of faith is the Bible alone. But what is the consequence of it? It means that you will have to judge everything you can using the Bible because it is the only infallible source. And what does it mean that you have to judge everything using the Bible? It can only mean one thing: the Bible has to have a text or set of texts that, individually or together, say explicitly or implicitly something about the matter you are trying to answer. In other words, we get to the same thing the Protestant was negating before (that everything has to be in the Bible). The definition that the only infallible source of the rule of faith is the Bible leads to the idea that everything has to be in the Bible. But a Protestant can say that they can use the tradition or anything else if it does not contradict the Bible. And we have a problem. First, if the Bible doesn't say anything about the matter and you have to rely on the method of seeing if it doesn't contradict the Bible, you won't have a reliable method. Actually, a lot of things that Protestants don't accept as true don't contradict the Bible, like the Cathloc claim that they have Peter's remains or the idea that those who are "dead" have conscience or that they know what is happening here. Second, you are judging if something contradicts the Bible using your interpretation of Scripture, and you are judging your interpretation using your interpretation to judge it. So if you interpret that Jesus said the the bread and the wine was just a symbol, then the Catholic claim is false; but if you interpret the Jesus was literal, then it doesn't contradict anyting. Third, you are making a set of things that you chose to believe arbitrarily, unless you believe your denomination has been guided by God to make infallible teachings.

I suspect Gavin reads the anathemas as he does because of his view of an "invisible Church" that anyone who identifies as a Christian, regardless of type, belongs. So in that light, the anathemas would be aimed at him as a part of that invisible Church.

To answer Fr. Jonathon's question I think Dr. Ortlund is probably making a distinction between public revelation as adding to scripture, versus the Holy Spirit guiding the Churches interpretation of scripture. I'm not sure why he brought this up though since that's in agreement with Eastern Orthodox teaching. The problem would more be with post-Christian groups and "scriptures" like the book of mormon, the quaran etc.

"Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus. All the categorical strength and point of this aphorism lies in its tautology. Outside the Church there is no salvation, because salvation is the Church" (G. Florovsky, "Sobornost: the Catholicity of the Church", in The Church of God, p. 53). Does it therefore follow that anyone who is not visibly within the Church is necessarily damned? Of course not; still less does it follow that everyone who is visibly within the Church is necessarily saved. As Augustine wisely remarked: "How many sheep there are without, how many wolves within!" (Homilies on John, 45, 12). While there is no division between a "visible" and an "invisible Church", yet there may be members of the Church who are not visibly such, but whose membership is known to God alone. If anyone is saved, he must in some sense be a member of the Church; in what sense, we cannot always say." + Metropolitan Kallistos Ware

@nathandaniels4823

3 ай бұрын

Why didn’t you lead with the last quote? Look, you need to learn a bit about how to constructively dialogue with heterodox. You can’t respond to someone who thinks you’re saying that anyone who isn’t Orthodox is damned with “there is no salvation outside the Church”. It makes the Church seem arrogant, petty, judgmental, exclusionary, and something to be avoided, and on the Last Day, you’ll have to answer for why they turned around and rejected the Church. If the gentleman says he got the impression that anyone who’s not in the church is damned (and he’s talking specifically about the Orthodox Church), don’t tell him that Yes, the Orthodox Church is the Church and No, there is no salvation outside the Church. Lead with the Met. Kallistos quote instead.

@matheusmotta1750

3 ай бұрын

@@nathandaniels4823 The problem is that the gentleman, and people like him (Dr. Ortlund included), have a different understanding of Salvation from Orthodoxy. So, when they see "there is no salvation outside the Church", they take from their understanding, and freak out. But I explained it very much in my previous commentaries, even talked about how Roman Emperor Trajan (who was a pagan!) was saved from Hades by the prayers of Saint Pope Gregory the Great. But it's also important not to deny that indeed there is no Salvation outside the Church. But it needs to be understood in the Orthodox way, and not how you may understand it.

@nathandaniels4823

3 ай бұрын

​@@matheusmotta1750 I think the problem is too many of us are here to win arguments. I'm speaking to myself as well.

@matheusmotta1750

3 ай бұрын

@@nathandaniels4823yeah, that's true.

I think anathemas make sense. Every religion needs certain boundaries about what it believes and doesn’t believe. And the reality is that every Protestant church has those boundaries too. I am Catholic and no Catholic has ever told me I’m going to hell, but lots of Protestants online have told me I’m going to hell. So it’s just hypocritical for Protestants to complain about anathemas.

Just because SS is a tradition does not mean that it is not inspired. However, even if one is taking su h a view that it is both/and does not mean that everything that is considered both/and are indeed both/and. I think this is a false dichotomy. Furthermore, he said "to that extent."

At around 13 or 14 min marker. I could not agree with you more Fr Jonathan. The scriptures clearly show a passing on if the traditions of the faith that was taught

I’m waiting for a new book to be produced exposing every bad argument for sola Scriptura and explains the proper view of Tradition from an EO standard point

@acekoala457

3 ай бұрын

Perry Robinson has the best videos and articles for this subject. And no one has ever responded in full to him.

6 minute mark and the Father is totally on point 👉

I always like how protestants say the scriptures contain everything necessary for salvation but most of it isnt necessary for salvation. They then speak of essentials but ask them for a list of such essentials? Often they will say the scriptures contain the essentials! OK WHICH PASSAGES ARE ESSENTIAL AND WHICH ARE OPTIONAL? If you do get q list some will give you 20 items, some ten , some 6 , and some say "just give me Jesus" and the rest is up.for grabs apparently.. so scripture has everything necessary for salvation but most of it isnt necessary for salvation.

@rayfulmer5146

3 ай бұрын

It is by necessity the claim that there is a “canon within the canon”, yes.

@Celtickaven

2 ай бұрын

I think Matthew 7:15-25 is as clear as you can get speaking to a group of people who would be illiterate and unschooled. 13 Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat: 14 Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it. 15 Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. 16 Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? 17 Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. 18 A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. 19 Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire. 20 Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them. 21 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. 22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? 23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity. 24 Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock: 25 And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell not: for it was founded upon a rock.

Nobody has done more to convince me of the validity of icons than Dr Gavin.

Sola Scriptura is a meaningless phrase without an authoritative interpretation. Words on a page don’t have inherent authority, because a book is an inanimate object. Practically speaking the only way that scripture has any authority at all is if someone is reading scripture, understanding what is being taught, and applying it.

@rayfulmer5146

3 ай бұрын

A point so obvious that you wouldn’t have to make it outside of post-Protestant Christian apologetics. Much like the analogy used above, the Constitution and Bill of Rights have “authority” over the law in the US, but a society 2000 years from now on a differently land trying to follow them to the letter wouldn’t become Americans. Documents live in communities of interpreters and practitioners.

@harrygarris6921

3 ай бұрын

@@rayfulmer5146 yeah exactly. And I think the reformers in some sense wanted to find collective agreement on the authority of the scriptures and this would be the standard that people could be held to but that only works as long as people agree what the scriptures say.

@rayfulmer5146

3 ай бұрын

@@harrygarris6921 Something that has gone off the rails is Protestants-R-Us. This We The People Panprotestantism is extremely modern. As late as when my dad was a boy, you couldn't take communion (or Lord's Supper, as the case may be) at denominational Protestant churches unless you were in their denomination. It's simple, each of them believed that they had Reformed The Church (singular) correctly. It's only as that has become untenable and fracture after fracture have rendered the methodology absurd that we are seeing them claim a kind of Mere Sola Scriptura

@cronmaker2

3 ай бұрын

I reject SS, but this line of arg needs to be qualified to avoid falling into skepticism. Not all texts are hopelessly obscure or require authoritative interpretation to understand, otherwise you fall into an infinite regress of external interpreters (EO still have to read and interpret councils and fathers that interpret Scripture). Not all interpretations are equally plausible or credible, Scripture isn't a wax nose. You don't seek an authoritative interpreter for every text you come across in daily life.

@harrygarris6921

3 ай бұрын

@@cronmaker2 but this isn’t the point I was making. What I’m saying is that we don’t have access to scripture as it is in its essence, and therefore you can’t say scripture has essential authority. We have access to scripture through reading, understanding, and applying. That’s true for Orthodox, Catholics, and Protestants. But an obvious problem arises on the Protestant side of things. It starts to break down very quickly when there are debates over how scripture should be read, understood, and applied. If you can’t agree on the process through which scripture is authoritative then you undermine its authority.

👏🏻👏🏻✊🏾

Nice

Here is my perspective as a Protestant who listened to the discussion. Firstly, I can't understand the agitation, whenever a Protestant insists on staying within the boundaries of what can be verified as scripture or Apostolic! It is like me when I insist on a strict diet because I have a suspicion of ingesting something that will harm me. Why should anyone be up in arms and call me names because I want to protect myself? Secondly, father, it is not true that everyone taught the same things; what about the Marcionites, Montanists, Gibeonites etc.? Secondly, I think Galvin repeatedly went back to Nicea 2 as a clear example of where from out of the blue, strange teachings get sneaked in! I need verifiable proof that any of the apostles venerated icons as this borders on idolatry. Thirdly, when you say you believe in the guidance of the Spirit, surely the Lord promised that all those who are children of God are indwelled of the Spirit and the Lord never insisted on the need to be part of the Orthodox or RC to be saved or to be part of the family. Lastly, the Apostle Paul writes, let the word dwell in you richly, I sincerely doubt that he meant the thoughts of the fathers. There are helpful but not obligatory. We are instructed to be discerning and retain what is good and discard what is evil. So as a Protestant, I see idolatry in icons and as one who shall give an account before the Lord, I discard such. Lastly, Dyer elsewhere claims that it is a fallacy to embrace the scriptures from the Church and reject all their other teachings! So what! Somebody can lead to you conversion but it doesn't he owns you. It has happened that a scandalous person helps another believe, but this doesn't mean a young believer is required to imitate the scandals. In my education professional, students can inquire and disagree with their professors. So I see no reason, when I see something endangering my soul, why I can't like Joshua say, " As for me and my house, we reject Mariotory and all these venerations"

@eurocrime8992

3 ай бұрын

How can we be sure that they didn't err regarding the scriptures?

@mmbtalk

3 ай бұрын

@@eurocrime8992 We also believe in God using the testimony of the early witnesses, just as the Samaritan woman, despite her shortcomings was able to lead her village to the Lord. So it's possible to be led to the truth by imperfect people

@eurocrime8992

3 ай бұрын

@@mmbtalk So they were mistaken about everything else but when it comes to the formation of the cannon of the Scripture they're led by the Holy Spirit... How convenient. Too bad God didn't help them understand other things but waited for Luther.

@mmbtalk

3 ай бұрын

@@eurocrime8992 please don't put words in my mouth, scripture tells us to discern all things, it doesn't matter how big a character happens to be the source, and Paul said even if phe himself were to preach another gospel, he is to be rejected (Galatians 1:8,9). And clearly in the original message delivered and recorded by the immediate witnesses, there are no icons being preached, Marian venerations, no praying to the saints mentioned. With due respect, I am entitled to learn from all the fathers but I must weigh, because the Lord said, while we sleep the enemy has his way of introducing tares.

@eurocrime8992

3 ай бұрын

@@mmbtalk Weighing by your own mind is how every heresy is created and how the enemy influence our minds. Not everything is written down and the apostles never intended that their epistles be put together and made into a single book over time.

Gavin: i willingly place myself outside the apostolic churches protesting Apostolic churches: we place you outside the church (anathema) Gavin: How dare you, im offended 🙄

@ScroopGroop

3 ай бұрын

Holy misrepresentations batman...

@ThruTheUnknown

3 ай бұрын

@@ScroopGroop Holy Just So Argument Joker

❤☦️

On the topic of Anathemas, i wonder why is it such a big deal for Dr Gavin to be anathematized by a Church he doesn't believe to be the true church any way? his discomfort, reveals the fact that he in deed cares to be anathematized by the church, and that means he probably understands deep down, the veracity and relevance of the claims of authenticity (orthodox ) The Church makes, and the implications it has to be alienated by it, but he just decides to resist it for the sake of Lord knows what. Meaning he is resisting The Truth (him)itself and if that is the case, yikes what a sketchy place to find one's self that is!

@matheusmotta1750

3 ай бұрын

No one gets sensitive by the amathematization of non-Trinitarians.

@EricBryant

3 ай бұрын

Because if I joined your church now I have a crisis of conscience, thinking that people outside it are damned. Are you ok with that?

@matheusmotta1750

3 ай бұрын

@@EricBryant is there anyone in Heaven who is not a part of the Church? That's what you don't get. There's no being saved outside of the Church. If anyone that's outside of the Church gets to be saved, it's through the Church, and ultimately becoming part of the Church. And we know that there are people outside of the Church that get to be saved because of the lives of the Saints, Emperor Trajan being saved through the prayers of Saint Pope Gregory, for example. You just assume your understanding of being saved and Salvation is the same as ours, which it isn't.

@EricBryant

3 ай бұрын

Which church? ​@@matheusmotta1750

@matheusmotta1750

3 ай бұрын

@@EricBryant the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church that Jesus founded and still exists today. Namely, the Orthodox Church. There's no "churches" as much as there ano "bodies of Christ".

New public revelations ended with Apocalypse and John. Montanism is done and dusted. There can't be new revelations because you'd end up in epistemic skepticism. The faith is once and for all delivered according to St. Paul. "Do not accept another Gospel from us, even if an angel comes down" (hello Mormons). If public revelations are not closed, then there is no principle by which you can even identify heresy. What new can be revealed but not innovate?

Its a mainstream evangelical view, generally speaking, but not a mainstream protestant view. Some version of prima scriptura os usually the view of mainline protestants.

According to Francis Turretin's statement the Trinity wouldn't be infallible either 😮

Hello! It's not a pejorative comment. Fr. Jonathan looks like a cartoon character from some cartoon that I watched when I was a child, but I can't remember anymore.

Gavin’s logic is self-defeating. His statement that there is no infallible revelation after the apostolic age is quite an infallible statement to him.

Thanks Luther for at least trying to be consistent and charitable.

why is sola scriptura seen as a tradition of men if it’s literally reading the Words of God directly and taking it at face value, i don’t understand why that is seen as a negative?

@thehammared5972

3 ай бұрын

Because taking Scripture at face value (only) is the same problem the Jews had with Scripture and why they had so many issues. Christ showed and taught the deeper spiritual meaning the law that the Jews and pharisees were ignorant of. Paul taught the deeper and spiritual meaning of the law (You shall not muzzle an ox while it treads the field).

@acekoala457

3 ай бұрын

Because it is separated from the Theanthropic and Historical Reality of Christ's Body. Even if it was just "Literally Reading God's Word", which it isn't because everyone who practices Sola Scriptura holds to their own novel interpretations of Scripture, it would still be separated from Christ's Body due to it being a novel doctrine, an accretion according to Dr. Ortlund, and therefore false.

@rayfulmer5146

3 ай бұрын

Because “a text without a context is a pretext for a prooftext.”

@nathandaniels4823

3 ай бұрын

Because no text has any meaning in and of itself. Like the Ethiopian eunuch said, “How can I understand unless someone teach me?” If any text has to be interpreted, then the translation (which is also an interpretation, because it’s someone telling someone else what the words mean-and do some research-each translation carries with it the interpretive biases of the people translating it) And interpretation of those words needs the Holy Spirit’s guidance just as much as the human beings who wrote the Bible. Following Sola Scriptura means that each individual becomes the decider of what the Bible means. And each person carries with them biases and traditions of interpretation. So it’s not a matter of “sola Scriptura or Tradition”. It’s a matter of what tradition will you follow. I don’t trust your interpretation of Scripture. I don’t trust mine. And since Ortlund doesn’t recognize the Bible doesn’t interpret itself, I don’t trust his interpretation either.

@rayfulmer5146

3 ай бұрын

@@nathandaniels4823 Nailed it. To some extent we're really always just talking about who's interpretation we find most plausible.

00:15:40 This is what makes debate and discussion with ODX Christians so challenging. With all due respect, I don't think Fr. Ivanov correctly understood Gavin's point here. What Gavin is saying is: No Sola Scriptura itself is not divinely inspired. It is an effort to remain faithful to that which IS divinely inspired (i.e Scripture) He is NOT saying: The effort to remain faithful is ITSELF is divinely inspired. First, fully grasp your opponent's argument.

@ScroopGroop

3 ай бұрын

Thats ecumenism and damnable sin. Obviously

@deadalivemaniac

3 ай бұрын

Okay, so if it’s not divinely instituted, why follow it? Protestants make this same argument contra tradition constantly. Gavin’s made it. Tony Costa has made it when he attempted to critique Orthodoxy. James White. The list goes on. It just runs the risk of being a tradition of men, that ever-nebulous Protestant dog whistle, that will deceive and destroy many. Okay, I grasp the argument (as did Luther and Fr. Jonathan) and Fr. Stephen exemplified the issue in his points. If we are semper reformada, then we have no basis to critique Unitarianism, Mormonism, Jehovah’s Witnesses, and many others we deny the title of Christian to. They are being faithful to the divinely inspired things of God and what they claim to be original. You’d need a non-circular reason to then say, “X’s interpretation is unfaithful or wrong.” If that’s your criteria of faithfulness, it’s a terrible argument. If you have to appeal outside that, then faithfulness isn’t the standard nor is it divinely instituted. Hence why Ortlund went into attack mode on tradition instead of defending sola scriptura. Because Fr. Stephen hit SS at its weakest point: the doctrine of the right of private judgement. I’ll put the issue this way: Romans 13 tells us our institutions over us are divinely instituted. I don’t think it’s a stretch to say that’s both ecclesiastical and government authorities both. Regardless, we are to follow them. Where in the Bible does it say we follow anything not divinely instituted? More importantly, where does it say to lean on our own understandings? Grasp the consequences of your own argument before you convict us. And I know Scroop Groop will say this is all adiaphora but that only stuck as anything other than something Melancthon toiled with (after thoroughly watering Luther’s theology down when he died and Chemnitz thereafter) after the Calvinists, Lutherans, and Anabaptists stopped killing each other over their interpretations. All adiaphora, right? Just look at Marburg, Zwingli and Luther anathematized each other over the Eucharist. They did not see it as a mere difference of opinion but worthy of condemning one another. What constitutes adiaphora in the Protestant world today is completely arbitrary. You have Baptists who completely deny baptismal regeneration or real presence, Lutherans who uphold both, and somehow this is not mutually exclusive but adiaphora? I agree with Perry Robinson, the Lutherans who actually do call Baptists, Reformed, etc. heretics and vice versa are actually being honest.

He is speaking to the Apostles in John 16. And what are "these things" in 1 Timothy? What did he do with "all things"? Paul also tells timothy that Scripture has all that is necessary. I think he is primarily talking about the hebrew bible there. However, Pauls letters are also called the Scriptures, not just after his death, but also in his time.

@matheusmotta1750

3 ай бұрын

Saint Paul doesn't say that the Scriptures "have it all". Also, other writings were called "scripture" like the writings of Saint Paul. It's not necessarily implied that's Holy Scripture. Like the difference between writing and Holy Writings. Also, that still begs the question of what the Scriptures are, what books pertain to it and what books don't. Matter which is authoritatively defined by the Divine authority of the Church.

@rayfulmer5146

3 ай бұрын

Actually you’re making our point for us. St Paul wasn’t talking “mostly” about the Old Testsment, he was talking ONLY about the OT. NT writings weren’t called scripture when they were being written. However, the OT do NOT contain all things necessary for much of anything without the interpretive lens of the Christian faith, which at that point was nothing but the apostolic preaching or Christ and a few pastoral letters from founding apostles. In other words, the scriptures as constituted at that time only had that ability to those for whom the veil of ignorance was lifted by the faith of the apostles preaching.

@jessewinn5563

3 ай бұрын

@rayfulmer5146 Peter calls Paul's letters Scriptures. They were obviously also seen as inspired. What more do you need? And as far as the 1st Timothy passage, it's impossible to know for sure if he was only talking about Hebrew Scriptures. There's a reasonable argument that, while the Hebrew Scriptures were the primary source and thus the primary reference he was making, that he was also speaking to other letters that the apostles, including Paul, have written. It makes complete sense woth the context of the passage.

@rayfulmer5146

3 ай бұрын

@@jessewinn5563 Well I would need a lot more than that. First of all, he simply calls them egrapsen, from 'graphe'. Graphe in Greek has a very wide semantic range, but in its most basic form is just "writings" or "things written". Calling it writing in one place, scripture in another, holy writings in another, etc. are all translator/editorial decisions. So, in the most basic form it just says "as in the other writings". The reason for translating it "scriptures" in the most Bibles (and again, it's the exact same root word - egrapsen - translated "writings" earlier) is that it is used in the NT for the Hebrew scriptures, and clearly here does refer to them. Yet, the choice not to say Paul's "scriptures", but rather "writings", is to say that the Scriptures per se are the Jewish texts. Paul's letter is similar in that it holds an inspired authority in their community and, as with scriptures, is a holy writing that can be twisted by private interpretation that is not accountable to what he taught them. However, my point is not whether or not Christians considered them inspired, but whether or not they understood there to be a 'canon', much less a 'closed canon' of NT scriptures. They did not. They were repeatedly called the apostolic writings, or memoirs of the apostles, until quite some time after their composition. A good history of this (from an Anglican, not an Orthodox) is John Barton's "Holy Writings Sacred Texts: The Canon of Early Christianity." The history of canonical compilation is not a smooth and quick process as Sola Scriptura would require. It takes a couple of hundred years before the contemporary NT is spelled out in any scripture listing of a post-apostolic father, and even then the very person who does so (Irenaeus) confounds the gnostic heretics by citing that the faith is held by preaching and inheritance even in places where there is no literacy. Also, the same passage is all about the twisting of scriptures by private interpretation. Which is really much more to my point. Of course, I would not argue that the scriptures are uninspired, but rather than their interpretation is not obvious. A few quote-mined texts here and there, in different books (that were written to answer questions other than those we are usually asking), are not going to get around the fact that Christianity existed without "Bibles" for a long time. Finally, the Sufficiency of Scripture doctrine presumes a soteriology that Orthodox do not share. It presumes a juridical notion of justification, rather than the eastern doctrine of striving for theosis and sanctifying of the person. Therefore the Orthodox question is not "is this absolutely necessary for God to let me in?", but rather "is this part of worshipping and following God in fullness, so that we grow in Christ-likeness?". Different paradigms.

But is not the Eastern Orthodox anathemise every year the others Christian’s groups who don’t believe the same things?

Protestantism: ever deducing and inferring but never able to come to a knowledge of the fullness of the apostolic faith.

@EricBryant

3 ай бұрын

Orthodoxy: Never deducing because... Well ... We have all the answers already. ... We believe strongly in humility

@ArchangelIcon

3 ай бұрын

@@EricBryant Indeed. We believe in humility before the wisdom and teaching of the Saints who held to the faith of the Apostles, not thinking we as individuals know better.

@EricBryant

3 ай бұрын

​@@ArchangelIconand are you sure you are interpreting the teachings of the Church correctly?

@EricBryant

3 ай бұрын

​@@ArchangelIconbc please show me where the Apostles bowed and kissed icons, either in history or in Scripture

@ArchangelIcon

3 ай бұрын

@@EricBryant I'm not interpreting the teachings of the Church. The Church's teachings are pretty clear and well established for very many centuries. Wheras, non-denominal protestants rely on their own personal interpretations, or the interpretation of their pastor... until the pastor changes their mind about an interpretation... or the individual changes their mind... then you can move to another church that agrees with your own personal interpretation... or maybe the interpretations of Luther or Calvin, who disagreed with each other on the interpretations. . I choose to accept the interpretation of the Christian Church which had pretty much decided on how Scripture was interpreted even before they decided what would be Scripture and finally decided what would be in the Bible. I prefer to humble myself before their interpretations rather than believe that I as an individual know better than what the whole of Christianity has believed for 1,500 years before the Reformation. Are you interpreting the Scripture correctly, and how do you know if you are or aren't?

Debates dont work

Eastern Orthodox Truth is determined by the Holy Spirit through the Biblical principle of enduring consensus that Scripture defines as pleasing to the Holy Spirit and how the Apostles themselves governed the Church by first deciding Judas should be replaced and then who would replace him to settling the first “controversy” of the first Century Apostolic Church at the Jerusalem Council……..Roman Catholicism stripped that authority from the Holy Spirit and transferred it to the Office of the Papacy. Protestantism wrestled the authority to determine truth from heresy from the office of the Papacy and gave it to various “Reformers”. American Evangelicalism took that authority from the reformers and dangerously handed it over to anyone, literally everyone with a Bible and and Opinion who lacks the fear of God to use it. Or I’m completely wrong and out of my depth but if I am so is Dr. Ortlund. Father Bless.

@josiahalexander5697

3 ай бұрын

Hmm that’s a really interesting perspective. Have any books or articles you’d recommend that speak on this?

@SaltShack

3 ай бұрын

@@josiahalexander5697 Not per se, just my own uneducated observation as a 35 year Orthodox convert, raised Mormon and educated in Roman Catholic Schools. But I’d start with Irenaeus, against heresies and end with Fr. Trenhams Rock and Sand. If you don’t want to read at all just listen to any reformed Protestant Pastors sermon which inevitably will be a 10 second or less reading of some verse or partial verse of Scripture followed by a 33 minute sermon about what it means and even “what Jesus is saying her is……….” Look at Fiducia Supplicans or any video for or against it by Tradition Catholics or supporter of Pope Francis. That’s Roman Catholic authority in action today. The final words on the topic though are probably most clearly distinguished in Scripture and Canon of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church that always and only has shown fidelity to enduring Consensus that Fr. Panayiotis Papageorgiou refers to as the resounding voices of the many as proof of the Holy Spirits Continual influence over the Body of Christ. Scripture Commands to be of one mind and judgement from John for instance. That’s as close as I like to get to quoting Scripture on a comment forum. How does the Body of Christ fulfill that command if not by the examples also provided in Scripture if you can even ignore 2,000 years of Synodality.

@SaltShack

3 ай бұрын

@@josiahalexander5697 Forgot to mention Calvin’s Institutes of the Christian Religion and the various Protestant statements of Faith from London to Westminster to Augsburg to Philadelphia…………

Gavin is not SS in the modern understanding of the term. He is more PS.

Funny how Prots have nothing against the Germanic traditions of Easter/Ostern

Saint Paul commands us in Scripture to obey his holy ordinances (traditions) as revealed to him by God. Thus, “Sola Scriptura” is a delusion because Scripture commands us to maintain the traditions of Apostolic Orthodoxy: “Be ye followers of me, even as I also am of Christ. Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances, as I delivered them to you.” - 1 Corinthians 11:1-2 (KJV)

Thats not an inconsistency. You're reading into his comments.

@OrthobroJames

3 ай бұрын

Please address with a timestamp, it looks like you're talking to yourself multiple times in the comment section

Saint Augustin?!Augustin it's not accepted as a saint in EO church,as far as I know,since he has many errors and his view is scholastic,so it's title is blessed Augustin.Doamne ajuta!

@thehammared5972

3 ай бұрын

Augustine of Hippo is a Saint of the Orthodox Church. If I recall correctly, toward the end of his life he acknowledged that due to his ignorance of Greek and not being aware of the teachings of the Greek fathers, he likely has made errors in his writings and teachings and repented offered himself up to the Church for judgement for any problems he caused.

@EricBryant

3 ай бұрын

​@@thehammared5972no he isn't. Go look it up officially

@acekoala457

3 ай бұрын

"Blessed" is technically a higher level of Sainthood than just Saint. St. Augustine was declared as such at the 6th Ecumenical Council.

@deadalivemaniac

3 ай бұрын

He’s definitely a saint.

@shiningdiamond5046

2 ай бұрын

​@@EricBryant His feast day is June 15 and is in the synaxarium of Both Nicodemus and Dmitri of rostovs corpus. Since you lied you're going to hell

People act like God is dumb. That they need to translate for God. That the Word of God is not enough, as if it was missing something or is wrong in some things. Jesus told Peter 1 time about the keys. But Jesus said 3 times to tend His flock, love His sheep. But nobody is doing that, nobody is doing good works. If someone is trapped in sin they’ll say “I’ll pray for you.” As they watch them walk off a cliff.

@EricBryant

3 ай бұрын

Right. Like God hasn't given us His Spirit to teach and guide and interpret ODX can't deal with 1 John 2:27 From a UNIVERSAL epistle, meaning: it applies to all Christians everywhere at all times.

@move_i_got_this5659

3 ай бұрын

@@EricBryant 11 But when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned. Galatians 2:11 If Peter gets it wrong, anyone can get it wrong. What good works are you doing? Or have done?

There is a solid reason to go to N2. Its not unrelated. Not at all. And there you go saying you know his reasons for saying what he says. Implying that he mentions N2 because he is offended.

Innovation, Development and “Accretions” are not a problem, they are Biblical. The issue is how they are adopted and by what authority. The Apostles were the first innovators. They decided to replace Judas and determined how his replacement would be selected. The Jerusalem Council settled controversy regarding gentile conversion. Holy Spirit pleasing development or the opinion of Calvin, Luther, Knox, Westley, Bacon, Hobbs, Billy Graham, Joel Osteen or Dr. Gavin Ortlund?

Their logic doesn’t add up. They say the statement from Turin is a logical contradiction of the HS present in the church. That is completely false, the OT and NT show that not to be contradictory at all. Just because the HS was with Peter doesn’t mean Peter wasn’t wrong, the assumption of perfection with no issues is simple false. The Bible itself says ther will be false teachers even though the HS is with the church. Icon veneration wasn’t there in the first 5 centuries, show me sola scriptura in the first few centuries. Double standard, you should give them the same timeframe, but even then we all know that the gospels and letters were still not all available but even then, read the writers they used the scriptures to fight false teachings from the beginning, the NT does so, Jesus does so, Peter does do. The time leading up to the council of Nicaea and after they did so. On the icon veneration vs sola scriptura, it isn’t just that there is no icon veneration for about five centuries, it is that the early church fathers wrote against it. Note that the early church fathers already used the scriptures to fight heresy. You can put lchunks of the NT together using just their writings because they quoted the NT so much. Sola scriptura is not self defeating, it is the only spoken inspired word of God we have, attested by the scriptures. Jesus spoke out against man made traditions put on top of the word of God.

Sola Scriptura= the Scriptures alone are the inspired-inerrant Word of God. Therefore they are the ultimate authority for the Christian. There is no equal nor greater authority than the Scriptures.

@rayfulmer5146

3 ай бұрын

Where does scripture say that?

@Justas399

3 ай бұрын

@@rayfulmer5146 2 Timothy 3:16

Dr.Gavin is on his way to Orthodoxy, as he is missing communion literally the body and blood of our lord Christ Jesus ☦️ the bland Intangible Protestant life becomes very empty , selfish it becomes all about me and my personal relationship with Christ, the church is all together praying for one another and all the saints. Lord have mercy on me a sinner, Christ is in our midst.

"You will not find any...in the early church" Thats an inconsistency from the remarks that were made in the last episode regarding the myths about Mary.

I think a good part of the misunderstanding and upset, at least, for me, lies in the fact that we're not playing on an equal playing field. We as Protestants are not making any extraordinary claims against *your entire tradition and church*. But the same cannot be said of you, Orthodox. We aren't fully brothers to you. We aren't fully Christians to you. We aren't in the Church, as far as you're concerned. Can you see how that makes us feel like second class citizens? We don't come from traditions that differentiate among "levels' or "types" or "degrees" of "Christian." Sure, there's different maturity levels in Christ. But the Orthodox make an EXTRAORDINARY claim that only those within your institutional communion are in the Church. You don't seem to care that even in your own Eastern Orthodox Church(es) you have schisms and divisions, and one patriarch not in communion with whole swaths of other supposedly Orthodox Christians. And you don't see this hypocrisy? And you then want us Protestants to throw away everything we've been taught to join you. So, let me turn it around on you, Orthobros, and ask you a couple of questions: 1) Please tell me what specific doctrine or dogma must I believe or accept or submit to, in order to attain to salvation, THAT ISN"T TAUGHT IN SCRIPTURE; and, 2) Why do you feel so threatened by allowing other sheep in other folds to be considered "in the church?" Seriously? 3) Why are you so threatened by Sola Scriptura? LEt's say it's wrong. No fathers taught it. The Church doesn't teach it. How can a Christian go wrong believing it, if it does, in fact contain everything necessary for salvation?

@Lessonius

3 ай бұрын

I am by no means qualified to properly answer your questions, but I can give you the gist of it, hopefully someone else will expand on it and correct me on any wrong points. 1. The faith is a "package", there is no singular "thing" that leads to salvation, but it starts with what St. John the Baptist said: "Repent, for the Kingdom of God is at hand" - Salvation starts with repentence. Unlike what protestantism teaches, salvation is not a "one time card" you receive at some point (be it once you confess, get baptized, etc.) and you're good to go - Salvation is an ongoing process with many steps, continuous repentence being one of them. I won't go into more detail here, what I'm trying to say is that you're asking the wrong question. Nothing Orthodoxy teaches isn't taught in scripture, you're presupposing it isn't as you're probably disconnected from the actual, passed down proper interpretation of said scripture and have probably been taught a lot of false things (be it the topic on baptism, the solas, calvinistic teachings, etc.) - this is not meant as an offense, but simply telling you how it is from someone who's been in that position myself, almost every protestant pastor/teacher has their own view and version of what the scriptures say, I don't think that's a controversal thing to say, but it's definitely not a good thing, I think we can agree on that. If you want to start somewhere, I'd recommend starting by studying the Nicene Creed and why each and every sentence is there - That's the foundation of the christian faith, historically and currently, and what unites us in truth - if you don't understand and confess the creed in it's proper meaning, you're not in the real body of Christ. 2. Which leads me to your second question and allow me to start with a question as well - Do you know how heresy starts? I'll leave you to dwell on that. The faith once delivered to the apostles is a sacred deposit. There is only 1 truth (again, study the origins of the creed) and many, many lies, infinite if you will, I think we can agree on that. Us all starting to have our own "truths" is what has lead to the scisms and separation of the faithful. In the scriptures, at Penetecost, we read that the faithful were gathered together and were praying, fasting and worshipping in union. Part of the union is sharing the same beliefs - if we don't, then we're not in union. There's one body of Christ, there aren't many. That body's teachings and beliefs are one, there aren't many. If we cannot agree on what those are and be in union, then there's tension among us that inevitabily leads to separation and in many cases, to much worse. The Orthodox faith doesn't claim that the Holy Spirit doesn't work outside the Church, but it does claim that the Holy Spirit definitely works inside the Church - It's the normative way of salvation, the thing you're aiming for given your first question. The Church is the body of Christ, it is the divine institution on Earth that has inherited, preserved and cherished the sacred deposit of faith since the Lord himself passed it on to the Apostles, who passed it on to their students, and so on. It's not that you cannot have faith outside the Church, but you cannot have the fullness of faith outside it. 3. Sola Scriptura is dangerous and leads back to the question I asked - Do you know how heresy starts? Almost every heretic in history has made his/her arguments from scripture, that's all I'm going to say about that, think about it. It containing everything necessary for salvation doesn't by any means mean that you have the means to USE/UNDERSTAND those contents properly, those are two completely different things. A string theory book contains everything necessary for understanding it, but if I'm not an experienced physician already, most of those words/concepts/information means nothing to me. Arius and St Athanasius were reading the same scripture, yet one taught that Christ is a creature like us, whist the other taught that Christ is the 2nd person of the Trinity, co-eternal with the Father and the Holy Spirit, this is just one example out of many. Having the scriptures as the sole authority/highest authority is not wrong in itself, but it's problematic when you've got nothing else to rely on epistemically, especially in cases were the same passages are read, but completely different conclusions are made. Again, I'm also new to Orthodoxy, but as someone who unkowingly started with protestant teachings, this is what I can share with you that might be helpful to understand some core pricipals. In closing, and this might sound rough but again, think about it - If you feel like a second class citizen, then isn't something compelling you to feel that way? Maybe there's a reason for that? I never see anyone of age truly bothered or offended by lies told about them from people who don't know them. The reason why you feel that Orthodox christians don't consider Protestants to be fully brothers is based largely on what I've written in point 2 and 3 - If we're not in union, we're in disarray/disagreement and that has devestating consequences when we're talking about God and Truth and we both should know Truth is a person and not a thing, the person of Jesus Christ - There's 1 Jesus Christ, not many. If we both believe different things about the Truth, one of us is wrong and in the worst case, both of us are, but there's absolutely no way that BOTH OF US ARE CORRECT. Apologies if I'm wrong about this, but it seems you're taking these differences personally and it really isn't. It's not about you or about me, it's about God. It's about what He wants for us and from us, as He knows best and we need to know Him and know Him truly.

@EricBryant

3 ай бұрын

1. Faith is a package. There is no singular thing that leads to salvation Sounds good. But isn't what Scripture teaches exactly 2. Do i know how heresy starts? Yes And if it's faith once delivered, why are there accretions? 3. I spent 2 years as a catechumen. I understand plenty. But thanks again for the condescension. I realize only ODX Christians can grasp Orthodoxy

@Lessonius

3 ай бұрын

​@@EricBryant Accretions are a very tricky thing, as what Gavin deems accretions are actually the truth from the Orthodox perspective and what he believes to be the truth is an accretion, watch the video we're commenting on for a concrete example. But to give a proper answer, the devil will always try to lead the faithful to destruction, that is why there are issues inside the Church as well, as you mentioned in your initial comment. The only real targets the demons have are the faithful, as the rest are already bound by sin, there's no need to "worry" about them. However, the Shepherd knows his flock and the wolves are driven out, in due time, as He himself said, nothing remains hidden and the truth will always inevitably perservere. To go back to my initial example, there was a time where arianism was the mainstream belief and vastly outnumbered the true faith in terms of followers, but we see what happened, despite that - truth perserveres. I'm surprised by the fact that you've spent 2 years as a catechumen, as I would image you'd have gotten the answers to your initial questions already, unless you deliberately refused to enquire about them and discuss with your spiritual Father/Confessor or refuse to accept the answers given. Again it seems you're taking this personally, and once again I'm inclined to tell you that it really, really isn't nor am I trying to be condescending or offensive. I sense some form of anger/resentment/bitterness towards Orthodoxy and I would encourage some introspective thinking on why that is, but of course I might be getting the wrong impression and if I am, forgive me for that. What you see online in many cases is not a true representation of Orthodoxy, "Orthobros" are not the representitves of Chirst, this includes me. There's a reason there are Priests, Bishops, Patriarchs and so on. If only Orthodox Christians can grasp Orthodoxy, then I would've never become Orthodox, as I didn't have any tangible roots there and that goes for many others as well - Infact, most current Orthodox priests in America started out as Protestants. If your comment was true, Orthodoxy would've probably been dead a long time ago.

@nathandaniels4823

3 ай бұрын

@EricBryant It sounds like you’re frustrated, and that these frustrations are bigger than any of these conversations here. I’m not being condescending here, I’m trying to say that the comments section of a KZread video is not a place you’re likely to find fruitful discussion, especially about disagreements with the Orthodox faith. With regards to your frustrations about how Orthodox Christians view the Church, I get it. I’m Orthodox, but I grew up in a Charismatic Christian community. Look, you’re likely to get a lot of different responses about the definition of the Church depending on which Orthodox Christian you’re talking to. Two things that may be helpful: first, as an Orthodox Christian, I find it’s most helpful to stick to the “we know where the Holy Spirit/Church is, but we don’t know where it isn’t”. There are two reasons you may hear harsher statements from Orthodox: 1) they’re new converts and they gave up a lot to get to where they are, and as western binary thinkers it’s hard to realize that something better doesn’t mean nothing else works…or 2) they’ve come from a long tradition of Orthodoxy, and encountering people who have all sorts of strange(to them) beliefs but they’re calling themselves Christians….it feels threatening. I don’t know your personal experiences, but over 20 years ago, when I told my friends and family I was joining the Orthodox Church, they thought I was joining some sort of cult. They had no frame of reference, so their default was “if it’s not what I know as Christianity, it’s wrong”. That’s what a lot of Orthodox feel about Protestants, but there’s a whole other dimension to it. Let me make an analogy, and forgive me if it’s offensive….but I’m trying to explain why many Orthodox feel the way they do about “The Church”. Let’s say 1,200 years from now, on a different continent, some far future civilization discovers the Declaration of Indepemdence, the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights. These people fall in love with these documents, and decide to follow them to the letter. They arrange their society around these documents. They’ve become America…..right? Well, no they haven’t. Let’s say America is still here 1,200 years from now, and Americans travel to this other place and meet these people who exhibit some similarities to Americans, but there are a lot of differences. The thing is, America is a place. It never went away, and you don’t get to become an American without going through immigration, taking the classes, taking the oath, and doing all the things to become a citizen.

@nathandaniels4823

3 ай бұрын

@EricBryant again, I’m sorry if that’s an offensive analogy to you. Orthodox Christians believe the Church is not an ethereal body that only God knows what it is. It’s an actual body of people and it’s easy to see who’s in it. That’s why they are guarded about making positive statements about people who aren’t in those bodies, who aren’t under any authority they recognize, who don’t even believe the same things about what salvation is…. But the other thing is I don’t know if it was made clear enough to you when you were a catechumen that Orthodox Christians don’t believe that Salvation and The Church are the exact same thing. Look, the Church is the Ark of salvation, and those in the Church are “those who are being saved”…..but any Orthodox Christian who knows anything will tell you that there are folks in the Orthodox Church who may not find salvation on the Last Day….and also, any Orthodox Christian who knows anything will tell you that God has mercy on whom he has mercy. Only God is judge, and He judges what we did with what we’ve been given. That is as true for those outside the Church as it is for those inside it. Now, speaking only on my own behalf, as an Orthodox Christian whom God led to the Church *from waay outside its borders*, I can say I know God loved me and led me as much as I was willing to be led. I can say He loves my friends and family and you and everyone else just as much as He loves me. I can also say that I believe the Church, the Orthodox Church, is the truest expression of the Christian faith. That said, even though I believe He calls everyone to The Church as much as they’re willing to be led, I also believe that God also works with people wherever they are, INCLUDING outside the Orthodox Church…..and also for many reasons, some people are better off outside the Church. I still believe God continues to love them every bit as much and lead them to Him, even if that happens in a different way.

These are just appeals to authority. Again you're acting as if Protestantism inherently hates or abandons tradition. They don't, look at Lutheranism and Anglicanism. The liturgy, is there, the councils are there and so on. We DO look to tradition as an authoritative source! But it answers to scripture! There is nothing substantial in these argumentative points, it only appeals to authority of an Institution. But, where do we go when the institution goes astray? Do we still follow it? Scripture teaches us not to. Your presuppositions prevent you from honest dialogue

@eurocrime8992

3 ай бұрын

Anglicans and Lutherans only show the confusion of the protestant movement. They're choosing and discarding what suits them and their personal understanding of the Scripture.

@mamafortuin

3 ай бұрын

On what basis can you know which interpretation of scripture is authoritative?

@ScroopGroop

3 ай бұрын

@@mamafortuin The clear and plain reading of the text, read through the lense of the testimony of the fathers matched with modern scholarship

@cronmaker2

3 ай бұрын

No one denies Protestantism affirms secondary authorities. But tradition is only authoritative insofar as it conforms to the individuals private judgment of scripture - as you say it answers to Scripture, which really means it answers to the individuals PJ of Scripture. No council, creed, confession, ecclesial judgment, or witnessed teaching of the past is irreformable or ultimately binding.

@ScroopGroop

3 ай бұрын

@@cronmaker2 I mean for most protestants that’s frankly false. Traditional protestant, ism accepts councils, creeds and confessions, we just don’t burden these things, with some sort of nebulous definition of infallibility, but none of the “ apostolic” churches agree on anyway. There’s things about Protestantism that can be criticized quite easily, but if we’re going to have productive dialogue, we need to represent each other honestly, and there is a severe lack of papists and palamites doing that

The Ortho bros in the comment section are crying that they didn’t win this debate 😂

@ScroopGroop

3 ай бұрын

There's nothing you can do when history doesnt favor your claims. All you can do is slander and assert from silence. This is the Orthodox method.

@shiningdiamond5046

3 ай бұрын

It wasn't a debate it was a discussion and gavin has already debated Fr ramsey in the past where he gave no arguments for his rockband church

@deadalivemaniac

3 ай бұрын

Imagine coming to an Orthodox channel just to insult us. Is this really the spirit that guides Protestants? If so, my only regret was not leaving sooner.

@deadalivemaniac

3 ай бұрын

@@ScroopGroopThis coming from a man so comfortable in his beliefs he has to go to an Orthodox channel to announce how uncomfortable we are in our beliefs for us.

@ScroopGroop

3 ай бұрын

@@deadalivemaniac My bad, I'll just stop defending people from being misrepresented

Here's something I have been wondering about. many people critique the higher textual criticism movement for being relativistic and evidentialist. Conservative protestant denominations critique these higher textual liberals for their positions. let's take a look at Genesis and the multiple authorship theory, that is a criticized position by conservative protestnts. however, when it comes to things like icon veneration, protestants like Ortlund to take fundamentally the same position as the higher textual liberals. If a strict evidentialist approach is incorrect for attributing authorship of Genesis, why is not that same standard applied for icon veneration?

24:00 What? Why is infallibility necessary for The Church to still be alive and guided? There is absolutely no logic in that statement. Those statements aren't even remotely contradictory. You're poking holes in an argument that you can't answer.

@deadalivemaniac

3 ай бұрын

Because the Church is Christ’s body. Therefore, it cannot err as Christ could not, they’re both impeccable. Hence why you get things like 1 Timothy 3 15. And that it will never have the Gates of Hell prevail against it and that the Church will be delivered unto all truth.

@ScroopGroop

3 ай бұрын

@@deadalivemaniac Id argue thats simply false since we can demonstrate that the East HAS erred in its contradictions within itself. This also presupposes your idea of "Church"

Acknowledging that the Spirit is actively preserving the church in history does not mean that we expect to see additions to scripture. Yet, the church can still make mistakes, the church is not infallible- look at the council of Florence for example. You EO guys were not infallible there, were you? That is all the Protestant is saying. There is no contradiction there! How can you EO folks not understand that? You’re pretending to be dumb.

@deadalivemaniac

3 ай бұрын

That was a Catholic council. It’s now where affirmed by us. Dont call us dumb when you get basic historic facts wrong.

This video should be titled “Cognitive Dissonance 101“. Gavin responded to every single one of these rebuttals in his original comments. But you guys ignored those explanations. The simple fact is, icons are idolatry. Saint prayer and veneration is idolatry. Mary prayer and veneration, is goddess worship. In response, all you guys do is shrug your shoulders and say it’s “not that big of a deal”. But when you’re slapped with literally piles of Bible verses and direct quotes from first and second century church fathers, you just ignore them and continue shrugging your shoulders. That’s not a strong argument. In fact it’s not an argument at all. I desperately wanted to transition to the Orthodox church, but you guys are doing the same stuff Catholics do, and you make the same excuses and have the same weak arguments to back up what you’re doing. You blatantly ignore Bible verses and historical references saying it’s an abomination in the church. That’s not intellectual honesty and every single one of you knows that, deep down inside. Listen to your conscience.

Orthodoxy is the one and true church. The one and only church God established and promised to preserve until the end of times. Glory to God ❤

Another point to be made is that Gavin says what's not in the bible is fallible, but you dont see him wanting to eradicate musical instruments nearly in the same he wants to eradicate baptismal regeneration, intercession of the saints and the eucharist when they are as equally valid if not more so than musical instruments. The guy is an absolute flaming hypocrite IMO.

@josiahalexander5697

3 ай бұрын

I think the point of departure is about what is TRUE. So for instance, a tree grows towards the sun - that’s a fact. Versus A tree grows towards the prettiest rocks. Well, that might be poetic but it’s not actually true. I think that’s moreso the disagreement between the two. It’s hard with topics like this because we’re not on the other side of this life yet, so a lot of it comes down to personal belief and how we read scripture. Since Ortlund is Protestant his basis of truth is the scripture and he doesn’t see those things happening in the scripture which is where he draws his conclusion to dismiss them. His concern is about what is actually true. The musical instrument comparison breaks down because instruments are man-made tools. They can be manipulated at will whereas the nature of spiritual life is not man-made, it is discovered.

@josiahalexander5697

3 ай бұрын

I don’t think Ortlund wants to eradicate these things, it’s moreso that he does not believe they are real. I’m not sure where he depicts hypocrisy?

@ThruTheUnknown

3 ай бұрын

@@josiahalexander5697 They are not real? So can there be any falsehood in Christ then? No. So my argument still stands in my opinion.

@josiahalexander5697

3 ай бұрын

@@ThruTheUnknown Well, sure, but that’s just your opinion. That’s your subjective interpretation. The thing is Ortlund holds scripture to be the binding authority and since he doesn’t see those in scripture, they seem, in his view, to be later developments, man-made ideas that do not originate from Jesus.

@josiahalexander5697

3 ай бұрын

@@ThruTheUnknown Your point stands if you are willing to say those are man-made tools, but the problem with that is that if they are man-made tools, then they are not divinely appointed. If they are not divinely appointed then Ortlund is right in his criticism. The argument is about what is true, not about what is practical.

00:15:29: Sola Scriptura is not a tradition. It is taught in Scripture, in multiple places: One such place is Matthew 22:23-29: "That same day the Sadducees, who say there is no resurrection [or, INSERT ANY TEACHING OPPOSED TO SCRIPTURE], came to [Jesus] with a question ... . . . ...29 Jesus replied, “You are in error **because you do not know the Scriptures** or the power of God." +++ That's Jesus, our Lord, operating on a Sola Scriptura principle. We also see our Lord operate on this same principle when He is tempted by the Devil (Luke 4). Unlike what Adam and Eve did in the Garden, when our Lord was tempted by Satan, He didn't say, "Our Jewish tradition says .." No! He quoted ... SCRIPTURE. The Torah. Until Satan left Him. That's what Protestants who believe God's word, do. And you anathematize or criticize us for it. Instead of thinking you have possibly *anything* you could learn from Protestants. I often feel the discussions between Orthodox and Protestant apologists of today are really no different than the discussions the first Protestants had with Patriarch Jeremias. "We have all the answers and you have to do it our way, then we'll welcome you home. " Adam and Eve fell from grace because they couldn't get the one word God gave them right. They didn't fall because they failed to understand a Tradition. The Bible STARTS OFF placing God's word as highest authority. It was the word of God which through Christ created the WORLD. The Sadducees are in error because they don't know Scripture, *not* because they don't know Tradition. Jesus didn't say, "You're in error because you're not keeping the tradition of the Pharisees." Jesus reprimanded them because they promoted a belief ("there is no resurrection of flesh") that they would not promote if they subordinated their Tradition to the teaching of SCRIPTURE. No one is ever praised in Scripture for keeping a Tradition. But people are praised ALL over the place for keeping the Scripture (e.g..The Bereans of Acts 17). Our Lord Jesus is using Scripture as the *authority* against which any sect's tradition or doctrine must be judged. That's the very definition of Sola Scriptura.

@TyrannicalReigner

3 ай бұрын

"No one is ever praised in scripture for keeping a tradition." "Then Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples, 'The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses’ seat, so do and observe whatever they tell you, but not the works they do.' " "So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by our spoken word or by our letter."

@EricBryant

3 ай бұрын

​@@TyrannicalReigneroh gosh I cant bro Just read it in context. The whole chapter. I don't see why ODX defenders love to trot out this verse. Our Lord says "Do what they say but not what they do" He's pointing out their hypocrisy. Read the Sermon on the Mount from beginning to end. Jesus says do as they SAY, because what they say, for example, is "Honor your father and mother" (IE THEY TEACH SCRIPTURE. You do realize this is just commandment 2 of the Ten Commandments, right?) But dont do as they DO, i.e., "Mom, dad, be well under Corban tradition" (while refusing to take care of them). Ie Jesus is pitting HIS FATHER'S WORD (SCRIPTURE) against THEIR (sinful) TRADITION. And he's saying: do as they say (the word of Scripture) but not as they do (their hypocritical interpretation designed to allow them to sin, which actually violates the 2nd Commandment). See you can't just read the Bible. You got to READ the Bible. The problem with the Orthodox is you often just have incorrect Bible Hermeneutics. You don't really know the principles of sound interpretation. Bc you made antiquity the source of your interpretations, instead of ... Oh i dont know .. the *discipline* and *science* of proper interpretation.

@TyrannicalReigner

3 ай бұрын

@@EricBryant I suppose you don't understand why Orthodox quote this passage because you miss the point entirely as your comment indicates. Christ is saying they have authority because they sit in the Seat of Moses, which is a tradition not explicated on in the OT. Everything you just said is irrelevant to that point.

@EricBryant

3 ай бұрын

​@@TyrannicalReignerNo, I understand why you quote it I said, "Nowhere does Scripture praise a person for keeping a Tradition, but all over Scripture praises people for keeping the Scripture." And you reply with a passage where Jesus is literally rebuking the Pharisees for being hypocrites (and this is not the only place Jesus does this) You point to Pharisees, Whom no one anywhere in Scripture has *anything* good to say about, to prove that Tradition is of equal authority to Scripture. You point to Pharisees, whom our Lord called WHITE WASHED TOMBS, as an example of someone being praised for following Tradition. With all due respect, brother, you just don't understand Scripture. And I wouldn't blame you. Orthodox Christians don't study Scripture. You think that hearing it read over and over in a liturgy = you study and meditate on Scripture and know what it means. And of course, if one isn't born again and indwelled by the Holy Spirit, you have zero chance of understanding Scripture anyway.

@EricBryant

3 ай бұрын

​​@@TyrannicalReigner yes they have authority because they sit in the seat of Moses. No one argues this The Church HAS authority. No one argues this. And ... Our Lord said, "EVEN THOUGH they sit in the seat of Moses ..." Watch this ... ... DO AS THEY SAY (because they talk a good game) but NOT AS THEY DO (bc they dont actually obey Scripture) And you take that, dismiss my argument, and give a second one that also misses the point. Yes, the Pharisees had authority. But was it an infallible authority?

"They want to be different from us..." dude really? Lol classic Orthodox arrogance.

@issaavedra

3 ай бұрын

I mean, most of protestant history is about how to do things in the least Catholic way possible lol

@jessewinn5563

3 ай бұрын

That's cute.

@shobudski6776

3 ай бұрын

@@jessewinn5563Cute but true.

@jessewinn5563

3 ай бұрын

@shobudski6776 lol alright. 😆

@shobudski6776

3 ай бұрын

@@jessewinn5563Yes indeed. It’s alright. 👍

Why doesn’t Scripture provide an instruction manual for the Liturgy and the Sacraments? Could it be because that style of literature wasn’t invented until the Industrial Revolution. Why would the Apostles and Disciples and Apostolic Fathers and Church fathers waste enormous amounts of time and huge sums of money to communicate things that were more easily demonstrated? Let alone providing physical evidence against you at your execution. Ignoring, discarding or calling the “smells and bells”, to coin a phrase from Dr. James White in his criticism that Orthodox Tradition isn’t necessarily wrong just vestigial or superfluous or even an obstruction to experiencing the Gospel, of the First, second and certainly the third Century Church is to deny Scripture itself for it is the Tradition that developed Canon through the resounding voices of the many that Fr. Panayiotis Papageorgiou references.

@ScroopGroop

3 ай бұрын

It does provide instructions on the sacraments? If scripture is silent on the issue, it is adiaphora

@SaltShack

3 ай бұрын

@@ScroopGroop Scripture is of course not not silent, obviously, but neither is ritual detailed, as in instruction manuals but that doesn’t prevent Protestant objections. Adiaphora is not an Orthodox concept and not a Biblical one either. Economia is probably the closest but certainly not in the same ballpark as its administration is not a compromise of Doctrine.

@ScroopGroop

3 ай бұрын

@@SaltShack How in the world can you argue that scripture is silent on the sacraments? Also, adiaphora is absolutely present in Orthodoxy? Are the tollhouses dogma? Transubstantiation

@SaltShack

3 ай бұрын

@@ScroopGroop I’m not arguing scripture is silent on the Sacraments. I’m arguing the opposite. Protestant and Evangelicals diminish the Sacraments and revile Orthodox Ritual. Transubstantiation and Toll houses are Roman Catholic not Eastern Orthodox.

@SaltShack

3 ай бұрын

@@ScroopGroop One of us is unclear on what Adiaphora means. I understand it as the principle which allows different Protestant denominations to to have different opinions about sacramental and Dogmatic matters like who’s is saved and who isn’t baptism to or not to and when, but because they both believe in Sola Scriptura and other broader ideas they are generally OK with each other ,Ike Protestant brothers in the same tent thought they each sit in a different section. Orthodox recognize Orthodox and not Orthodox, I.e. Heterodox those outside the Body of Christ, anathema until they repent and rejoin The One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. This is not a condemnation it’s a plea as God Desires all to be saved.