There is a difference between service and servitude. While I do agree with some things, such as the importance of service towards others and that marriages should be not be entered too lightly nor ended so easily, there are many things that I disagree with. She also has a very rigid, authoritarian view of gender that not only archaic but also incompatible with living in a free, liberal democracy itself. Perhaps Rachel would be more suited for living in a theocracy instead. Or the fictional country of Gilead in the Handmaid's Tale. I also find it interesting that Rachel mentioned Sarah in the Old Testament, using her as an example of what a good wife should be, yet I do not find anything about her worth emulating. Just because she called her husband "lord" does make her a good person. I am sorry, but there is no virtue being in servitude to another. I actually have more respect for Sarah's servant, Hagar, whom was treated very badly by Sarah. I wonder why Rachel never mentioned that when bringing up Sarah?
@pgsells5 сағат бұрын
The discussion of the word εὐαγγέλιον is quite illuminating. Bearing that background in mind does give quite a different emphasis to the proclamation of the apostolic message.
@Paisios7717 сағат бұрын
Great work!
@seniorretirementplanning17 сағат бұрын
I love this video, you did a great job
@igregmartКүн бұрын
It is my understanding that Martin Luther did NOT remove those books from the Bible. Yes, he appears to question them, BUT they where part of his German bible. So, to make the charge that we were lied to appears to be debunked. Holding up the Bible to a very high place in Christianity is NOT unhealthy.
@bigmike92182 күн бұрын
So you still have a gap in apostolic succession from 70AD thru 200AD (Discussed at the 1:01 mark) honest scholarship would dictate if you can't document it with primary sources it doesn't exist. Churches claim apostolic succession for control, dominance, MONEY. & POWER the measurement of true Christianity is obedience to Jesus Christ, The 10 Commandments reading & inculcating The Holy Bible & living by every word of God Matt 4:4 Matt 7:15-20 & practicing The Beatitudes & The Sermon on The Mount Matt 5, 6 & 7! Christians have to take ownership & accountability for their actions Rev 20:11-14 God gave you The Holy Spirit & a brain use it & don't be a dumb sheeple seek God's wisdom Proverbs 3:5 & you can't go wrong!
@loganswan25572 күн бұрын
Wow Luther, you've moved into some illustrated videos. Well put together and well said brother!
@Carl_Nikephoros_Thompson2 күн бұрын
Glory to God! What an episode! That went way too quick! Please do have Dr Edith back to speak on her other book as well that she mentioned she had elsewhere, as it sounds like a really good topic. Thank you for putting this out there 🙏
@TheTransfiguredLife2 күн бұрын
Glory to God! You got it brother! ☦️
@didymus27214 күн бұрын
Preserve, O God, the Holy Orthodox Faith and Orthodox Christians, unto ages of ages. ☦️
@jaredalfred9654 күн бұрын
Excellent video!
@El_Estudio4 күн бұрын
Ortlund needs to be careful when he uses the telephone game argument to attack the veracity of tradition. The culture of the OT people was very much an oral versus a literate culture (the same could be said about the primitive church).
@metaldisciple4 күн бұрын
Hey, I wanted to thank all of you on this channel for the work you do. This is extremely off topic but there is one area of the faith that has been making me struggle. I know it’s not true doctrine but I am saddened to see that the miracle of the holy fire might in fact be deceptive. There is a video by Jimmy akin that talks of this issue. I wonder if you have seen it and what is your view. Are there and videos or articles debunking this notion. Thank you
@TheTransfiguredLife4 күн бұрын
Glory to God! ☦️ We haven't seen Jimmy's video but I'll check it out. I thought about making a video on the miracle of the Holy Fire during Lent. The Holy Fire is not a hoax. But thanks for bringing this up we will make a video demonstrating this in the future.
@metaldisciple3 күн бұрын
@@TheTransfiguredLife THANK YOU CANT WAIT!!!
@TheMhouk24 күн бұрын
love this content Luther, very smooth and professional
@TheTransfiguredLife4 күн бұрын
Thanks bro! ☦️
@jmcclintock7775 күн бұрын
I love the anachronistic graphic about the churches as "institutions". Protestants, please, The Orthodox Church, is not an institution with sacraments, but rather a sacrament with institutions. The Church is the primary vehicle of God's grace into creation.
@DjalimoDjalimo-gu5ti5 күн бұрын
0:44 Just love LOTS PODCAST! Learned so much about understanding the Scriptures.
@makingsmokesince765 күн бұрын
Excellent. Thank you.
@whoisdt5 күн бұрын
Dope video 🙌🏾💎
@TheTransfiguredLife4 күн бұрын
Thanks fam! ✊🏾
@hannahbaker30805 күн бұрын
This is wonderful!!!! My kids and I were baptized and chrismated a month ago, this is both deep and simple, my kids will be able to appreciate what we have been through, what a wonderful video
@TheTransfiguredLife5 күн бұрын
That's incredible! Many years my sister! Welcome home to you and the fam! ☦️
@hannahbaker30803 күн бұрын
@@TheTransfiguredLife thank you, it feels very much like home!
@Jeff.jdrjr0135 күн бұрын
Loved this 🔥 ❤
@arctiqbeatss5 күн бұрын
Amazing video man!
@itsmelorijayne5 күн бұрын
Glory to God for the gift of Orthodoxy! I'm in awe everyday!
@DM1005 күн бұрын
Thank you! So helpful! A
@AccordingtoJohn6 күн бұрын
Wonderful, thank you
@landonhaire39036 күн бұрын
A few friendly points of criticism from a Protestant who appreciates his Orthodox brothers and sisters: 1. Chrismation is the eastern equivalent of the western sacrament of Confirmation, which is practiced by most of historic Protestantism, such as Anglican, Lutheran, Methodist, and many Reformed/Presbyterian churches (and historically, at least some Baptists practiced the laying on of hands after baptism). Typically instead of anointing with oil (although that is practiced in some churches), these churches usually confirm by the laying on of hands in accord with the apostolic practice. 2. The clips and videos you show to represent Protestants are misleading and do not represent the vast majority of Protestantism. For example, you show clips of Steven Anderson, an independent fundamentalist Baptist who no reasonable Protestant would see as representing their own beliefs. Anderson does not represent Protestantism any more than the radical sects of priestless Old Believers represents Orthodoxy. Also, the clip of the woman in the chasuble is actually a schismatic Roman Catholic, not a Protestant, as can be seen by watching the video the clip comes from. Interestingly, the only instance of a representative of historic Protestantism being shown is in the clip showing the consecration of the oil for King Charles’ coronation, the one in the pinkish cassock is Hosam Naoum, the Anglican Archbishop in Jerusalem, who is a far better representative of Protestantism, given that the Anglican Communion is the world’s largest Protestant body. 3. Also, I think you may have some misconceptions about the Protestant view of Scripture and its interpretation. While Protestants do hold to a 66 book canon, this is not a novel view and was held by many Fathers, with St. Jerome being the most prominent example, and even when the Fathers differed with the Protestant canon, they often didn’t perfectly align with the Orthodox or Roman canons either. Also, Protestants don’t reject the apocryphal/dueterocanonical books wholesale. Until around the 1800s, most Protestant Bibles included the Apocrypha in between the Old and New Testaments, which is why you can find them in really old copies of the KJV, an Anglican translation. Additionally, in many Anglican and Lutheran jurisdictions, the apocrypha are included in the lectionary. Both article 6 of the Anglican 39 Articles and article 6 of the Reformed Belgic Confession recommend the Church read the apocrypha for instruction in virtue and piety. Also, while Protestants do regard Scripture as the only infallible rule of faith, that doesn’t simply leave things up to each individual’s interpretation, historic Protestantism acknowledges the authority of councils, creeds, confessions, and catechisms to guide our interpretation of Scripture. Something need not be infallible to be authoritative, just as one might acknowledge the authority of a local Synod or an individual Father without ascribing infallibility to them. I think it’s important to keep in mind that Protestantism is basically a sociological category that includes many differing traditions that share only a very minimal set of beliefs in common, and that it’s often more helpful to critique these individual traditions than to launch a critique of Protestantism as a whole.
@TheTransfiguredLife5 күн бұрын
Although your comment is loaded which is a pet peeve it came in a spirit of friendliness so thanks lol. It's a 5-minute video I'm not going to address EVERY single sect that claims to have continuity with the early church. But if you would like to make an individual argument for your group you are welcome to and we can see if the arguments hold any weight. Anyways, I don't think protestantism escapes this problem as it pertains to "confirmation". Many of the "historic" protestant groups recognize only two sacraments and "confirmation" is NOT one of them. The Westminster confession of faith known as one of the "historic" protestant confessions only recognizes "TWO Sacraments" and one of the most respected protestant theology books "Systematic Theology" by Dr. Wayne Grudemn (found in many top level seminaries) would say nothing of "confirmation" as well. So if I take you at your word we would have to eliminate all the Reformed Protestants as Christians. Yet I'm pretty sure many honest protestant would say they recognize other Trinitarian protestants who haven't received Chrismation or for your satisfaction "confirmation" as genuine Christians. From the Orthodox perspective this issue is already settled because we have the true faith. We don't have to reinvent the wheel or do mental gymnastics when we read our Church Fathers as some of our friends from the protestant tradition must do with the readings of the Early Church Fathers and Church history as a whole. Neither do we have to decide if we are going to accept the Nicene Creed because our Church wrote it and has confessed it in our liturgy for centuries. The rejection of the orthopraxy of the Fathers and the Nicene Creed is more of a protestant problem because they are devoid of the ancient faith. Which shows one of the weaknesses of a Sola Scriptura and the invisible church paradigm. Lastly, many protestant apologists like Dr.Gavin Ortlund for example use the same protestant category when they try to defend the indefensible position of protestantism. However if we take each protestant tradition on its own merit it will still be indefensible from its foundation due to the self-refuting position of Sola Scriptura.
@landonhaire39035 күн бұрын
Thank you for your reply. I wasn’t saying that you should have addressed every Protestant denomination, but that if Protestantism is going to be spoken of as a whole, then at least some of historic Protestantism (by far the most dominant form, perhaps with certain parts of the US being an exception) should be represented. In your video the examples given of Protestantism are Steven Anderson (who 99% of Protestants wouldn’t even consider Christian), a schismatic Roman Catholic, and a few non-denom mega churches. If a Protestant were to make a video about Orthodoxy and only show clips of schismatic Orthodox jurisdictions and Old Believers, would you consider that a fair representation of Orthodoxy? This is why I think it’s not helpful to speak of Protestantism as a whole, since it’s not an institutional reality like Roman Catholicism or Orthodoxy, but rather a loose sociological category that includes multiple distinct institutions. As to the number of sacraments, Protestants have historically held to a two sacrament scheme, but this is because they were operating with a more restrictive definition of sacrament than Roman and Orthodox Christians are, it didn’t entail a rejection of the other rites altogether, and like I said Anglican, Lutheran, Methodist, and many Reformed denominations retain confirmation even if they don’t use the term sacrament to describe it. It’s also important to keep in mind that the numbering of the sacraments has always been a point of diversity within the Church, and many Fathers will speak of differing numbers of sacraments, it’s really more of a semantic issue than anything else. Also, I never said that if a particular tradition didn’t practice confirmation/chrismation, they weren’t Christian, I think confirmation/chrismation is of the bene esse (well being) of the Church but not the esse (being). Also, what some Protestant groups and thinkers call Sola Scriptura is nothing like what the reformers and most of Protestantism meant by that term, which is just another reason blanket critiques of “Protestantism” are unhelpful. The classical notion of Sola Scriptura is that things like the Nicene Creed are authoritative, reliable, and providentially confirmed by the movement of the Holy Spirit in Church history, while still being founded upon, and subservient to, the only infallible rule of faith that is Holy Scripture. I appreciate you taking the time to reply, God bless.
@landonhaire39035 күн бұрын
My last reply may have been a little unclear. While I do think the use of Protestantism as a category can be irresponsible, that wasn’t my critique of your video (as you said, many Protestant apologists use this category). My objection was that Protestantism was represented by an unrepresentative sample of churches that give a false impression of what the majority of Protestant bodies are like.
@TyrannicalReigner6 күн бұрын
Great work Luther! And props to your illustrator!
@user-sh1nj6ye3g6 күн бұрын
Absolutely love the direct quotes from scripture and early fathers! Super helpful for a new catechumen here. Also the visuals are amazing, keep up the great work 👍👍
@chadpilled79136 күн бұрын
For what it is worth: my lay experience, (I am baptized, not chrismated) My priest is a strong believer in baptism, not chrismation. I went on vacation and attended a few services at another extremely small parish so the priest there spoke with me a lot. The topic of chrismation came up. He showed me in a book where it stated that Czarina Martyr Alexandra was christmated. This second priest argued that "second/corrective" baptism is not needed if one is a baptised heterodox Christian. I bring this info back to my priest. He says "Yes for a long the Church christmated heterodox Christian converts, but some time in the 1960s they began baptising again because Vatican 2 and other protestant movements began to err even on fundamental dogmas that they had once agreed on with the Orthodox Church. My biggest take away is humility. As context expands we see more nuances and hence we must be humble and rely on the traditions of the saints and our Church Fathers.
@TyrannicalReigner6 күн бұрын
Everyone needs to be baptized and chrismated. They are both mysteries of the Church.
@simon3306 күн бұрын
In order for one to submit to the Orthodox Fathers of the Church, he must make his own decision to do so. He must interpret the scriptures as needing interpretation by their tradition. Point being that private interpretation is inexorable, even for the Orthodox.
@inrmds6 күн бұрын
A diference needs to be made one is individualistic while the other is wholistic
@giessel6 күн бұрын
Gorgeous video! Greetings from the Giessels. God bless. ☦️
@TheTransfiguredLife6 күн бұрын
Love the Giessels. Appreciate it guys. Glory to God! ☦️
@junioralfa36286 күн бұрын
I had no idea about chrismation. Thanks for the video.
@TheTransfiguredLife4 күн бұрын
Glory to God! Glad it was helpful!
@yecksd6 күн бұрын
banger 🔥🔥
@essamardini51326 күн бұрын
Best short video on this topic ive ever seen
@andys30356 күн бұрын
Beautiful ☦️ thank you for sharing
@DeoCreative6 күн бұрын
💪
@TheTransfiguredLife6 күн бұрын
🐐🔥🔥
@scarletstevens6 күн бұрын
🥹☦️🙏🏼🕊️🔥
@FideiDefensatrix6 күн бұрын
Perry said that Protestant unity is illusory b/c they do not share communion. By his own logic, Orthodox Church unity is also illusory. The Russian Orthodox Church (ROC) is not in communion with the Ecumenical Patriarchate, the Church of Greece, the Greek Orthodox Patriarchate of Alexandria, and the Church of Cyprus. The ROC also recently broke off communion with Bulgarian hierarchs for concelebrating with the Orthodox Church of Ukraine.
@protestanttoorthodox36256 күн бұрын
Amin
@Afro-Capitalist6 күн бұрын
Good job Luther love it
@TheTransfiguredLife6 күн бұрын
@@Afro-Capitalist Thank you! ☦️
@wyattfuchs80796 күн бұрын
Absolutely fantastic and informative video! God bless! ☦️
@littlefishbigmountain6 күн бұрын
Hallelujah! Is that your voice, Luther? This video is top notch quality right here. Well deserved thumb and comment
@TheTransfiguredLife6 күн бұрын
Haha yes! ☦️
@andys30355 күн бұрын
@@TheTransfiguredLife I like how you ended it with a reference to the transfigured life, well played!
@justicebjorke27906 күн бұрын
Whoa brother well done. Keep up the vids like this
@TheTransfiguredLife6 күн бұрын
Thanks my brother. Hopefully more to come! ☦️
@TerenceHoefdraad6 күн бұрын
Now I know what chrismation is all about. Very nice. 👌🏽
@TheTransfiguredLife6 күн бұрын
Glory to God! ☦️
@david_n_nettey6 күн бұрын
This is great! Keep up the good work and God bless!
@TheTransfiguredLife6 күн бұрын
Thank you! Blessings to you as well brother! ☦️
@tjkhan45416 күн бұрын
I appreciated this video and did not know EO considered chrismation a sacrament. At the same time, it seems like the more fundamental issues are 1) Scripture and tradition, and 2) sacramental theology. Lastly, the passages from Acts seem difficult to apply to this, since some are descriptive and not prescriptive, and many do not mention oil or chrismation at all. At any rate, thank you for producing this and helping me understand EO more 🙏🏻
@TyrannicalReigner6 күн бұрын
We do not view scripture and tradition in opposition but in harmony, as scripture is itself a tradition of the Church. The same Holy Spirit that preserves the scriptures is the same Holy Spirit that preserves the correct understanding of the scriptures and unwritten traditions (2 Thessalonians 2:15). James 5:14 prescribes the presbytery of the Church to annoint the sick with oil. This is the mystery (sacrament) of Holy Unction, but the scriptures do not tell you what kind of oil is to be used. Therefore, the Holy Tradition of Church is required for the correct understanding and application of this verse. The same applies to the verses you cited in Acts. A legalistic, scientific analysis (what you would call hermeneutics) is fine, but how the Church (via the Holy Spirit) has always understood these passages is of paramount importance over hermeneutics, because the Holy Spirit is the primary conveyor of truth, not one's individual analysis of the text.
@tjkhan45416 күн бұрын
@@TyrannicalReigner thank you for your insights. I don’t mean to pit Scripture and tradition in opposition either, but I meant the relationship of them to each other. As a Protestant holding to sola Scriptura and studying church history, I have a hard time accepting the infallibility of the Church. Along the same lines, I would push a little on your opposition of hermeneutics as a legalistic scientific analysis, over against how the Church (via the HS) understands Scripture; because I think there’s confusion there. All people everywhere use hermeneutics, and the Church has always used hermeneutics to understand Scripture; hermeneutics is just the methods used to interpret the meaning of a text. Having the Holy Spirit’s guidance does not mean one makes no use of hermeneutics.
@TyrannicalReigner6 күн бұрын
@@tjkhan4541 I think the problem that you run into by denying an infallible Church is you are removing Christ and the Holy Spirit from His Church. The scriptures tell us the Church is the Body of Christ. Christ's Body is of divine origin, which we become members of by Grace. The scriptures also tell us the Church is the pillar and ground of the truth. The Church cannot be the pillar and ground of truth if it is failing to do so, thus inferring infallibility. Without an infallible Church, you have no infallible list of books known as the Bible. This is especially problematic for someone who claims their sole infallible rule of faith is the Bible. I never said I was in opposition to hermeneutics nor did I say we should make no use of it. What I said is that it cannot be the primary means by which we come to know the scriptures, because it is not the mechanism through which the Holy Spirit has preserved the understanding of the scriptures. That mechanism is tradition, which is the passing on of correct understanding from one generation to the next. 2 Timothy 2:2 lays this out prescriptively and it's how the Church has always operated throughout history. In no way does that mean hermeneutics are of no use.
@tjkhan45415 күн бұрын
@@TyrannicalReigner I would respectfully push back that only Scripture is infallible and inerrant, because it alone is Theopneustos, God-breathed (1Tim 3v16). It is the only infallible place where we hear God’s voice speaking without any room for human error. It is not correct to reason from 1Tim 3v15 and conclude the church’s infallibility. An infallible church just does not work biblically, as seen in Acts 20 (with the Ephesian elders) and in other places in epistles and Revelation. I would respectfully submit that as a Protestant, this seems to fall apart just like papal infallibility does: the authority is infallible, unless and until he’s not, and then it’s shown that he was not a true authority to begin with. This honestly strikes me as a useless doctrine. Lastly, on the canon, Christians do not need an infallible or authorized list of books, we need the books that are infallible and authoritative themselves. I would strongly recommend Michael Kruger’s two books on canon to anyone interested; he goes into detail talking about authority and canonicity, which is difficult to do in YT comments.
@TyrannicalReigner5 күн бұрын
@@tjkhan4541 I understand you want to just assume the scriptures, but to do so without justifying how you know what they are and how you use them is not a valid move. If you explain to me that you know the scriptures via XYZ, all of which are extraneous to the Bible itself, and thus according to your own system is a fallible epistemology, then you have objectively forfeited the ability to know with certainty what the infallible scriptures are, and your entire system collapses on itself. There is no refuge for this position. 1 Timothy 3:16 does not say scripture alone is God-breathed, therefore is does not support your argument. We have no problem saying people within the Church may err. Of course this is in the scriptures and history. However, the Church as a whole will not falter (Matthew 16:18). And to assert it will is an outright denial of Christ and the Holy Spirit. I am very familiar with Michael Kruger's work. I could see why many protestants find him compelling, because he gives confirmation bias to many. I know because I used to be one who put stock in his arguments. However and unfortunately, Kruger constantly lies by omission and provides a highly truncated revisionist narrative of the history of the biblical canon. The exaggerates early Christian consensus on the biblical canon and hand waives or outright ignores the major disagreements they had on the subject. And of course Kruger has no theological or ecclesiological continuity with all of the sources which he cites, just as is the case with all protestants.
@bonniegadsden90976 күн бұрын
Awesome video!
@TheTransfiguredLife6 күн бұрын
Glad you enjoyed it! Please share 😊
@bottomoftherabbithole6 күн бұрын
This is probably the best video you have put out in my opinion; a masterpiece of impeccable timing. There are so many issues like this that absolutely DECIMATE Protestantism which havent really been apologetically engaged yet. Such an incredible summary of how Protestantis are not even "wrong" about Chrismation, per se. In fact, it's arguably worse than l misunderstanding the Sacrament...no such concept even exists in their paradigm! Lord have mercy. Graceful, informative, engaging, POWERFUL. Excellent work! I am confident God will use this as a catalyist/final straw to draw people into the Ark of Salvation. Grant this, O Lord!
@TheTransfiguredLife6 күн бұрын
My brother from another mother! Appreciate it! ☦️🔥🔥
@littlefishbigmountain6 күн бұрын
Thankfully, Christ is winnowing the Protestants, collecting the grains that really want the truth and scattering the chaff. He is merciful 🤍☦️
@simon3306 күн бұрын
“that if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.” Romans 10:9 . Salvation is in Christ not a particular church.
@littlefishbigmountain6 күн бұрын
@@simon330 So every professing Christian who believes in their heart that God raised Jesus from the dead is going to be saved? Are you sure that’s the position you’re going with?
@ZachFish-4 күн бұрын
It’s a tradition not supported in scripture (Not set fourth by God), therefore, most Protestants find no grounds to practice it.
Пікірлер
There is a difference between service and servitude. While I do agree with some things, such as the importance of service towards others and that marriages should be not be entered too lightly nor ended so easily, there are many things that I disagree with. She also has a very rigid, authoritarian view of gender that not only archaic but also incompatible with living in a free, liberal democracy itself. Perhaps Rachel would be more suited for living in a theocracy instead. Or the fictional country of Gilead in the Handmaid's Tale. I also find it interesting that Rachel mentioned Sarah in the Old Testament, using her as an example of what a good wife should be, yet I do not find anything about her worth emulating. Just because she called her husband "lord" does make her a good person. I am sorry, but there is no virtue being in servitude to another. I actually have more respect for Sarah's servant, Hagar, whom was treated very badly by Sarah. I wonder why Rachel never mentioned that when bringing up Sarah?
The discussion of the word εὐαγγέλιον is quite illuminating. Bearing that background in mind does give quite a different emphasis to the proclamation of the apostolic message.
Great work!
I love this video, you did a great job
It is my understanding that Martin Luther did NOT remove those books from the Bible. Yes, he appears to question them, BUT they where part of his German bible. So, to make the charge that we were lied to appears to be debunked. Holding up the Bible to a very high place in Christianity is NOT unhealthy.
So you still have a gap in apostolic succession from 70AD thru 200AD (Discussed at the 1:01 mark) honest scholarship would dictate if you can't document it with primary sources it doesn't exist. Churches claim apostolic succession for control, dominance, MONEY. & POWER the measurement of true Christianity is obedience to Jesus Christ, The 10 Commandments reading & inculcating The Holy Bible & living by every word of God Matt 4:4 Matt 7:15-20 & practicing The Beatitudes & The Sermon on The Mount Matt 5, 6 & 7! Christians have to take ownership & accountability for their actions Rev 20:11-14 God gave you The Holy Spirit & a brain use it & don't be a dumb sheeple seek God's wisdom Proverbs 3:5 & you can't go wrong!
Wow Luther, you've moved into some illustrated videos. Well put together and well said brother!
Glory to God! What an episode! That went way too quick! Please do have Dr Edith back to speak on her other book as well that she mentioned she had elsewhere, as it sounds like a really good topic. Thank you for putting this out there 🙏
Glory to God! You got it brother! ☦️
Preserve, O God, the Holy Orthodox Faith and Orthodox Christians, unto ages of ages. ☦️
Excellent video!
Ortlund needs to be careful when he uses the telephone game argument to attack the veracity of tradition. The culture of the OT people was very much an oral versus a literate culture (the same could be said about the primitive church).
Hey, I wanted to thank all of you on this channel for the work you do. This is extremely off topic but there is one area of the faith that has been making me struggle. I know it’s not true doctrine but I am saddened to see that the miracle of the holy fire might in fact be deceptive. There is a video by Jimmy akin that talks of this issue. I wonder if you have seen it and what is your view. Are there and videos or articles debunking this notion. Thank you
Glory to God! ☦️ We haven't seen Jimmy's video but I'll check it out. I thought about making a video on the miracle of the Holy Fire during Lent. The Holy Fire is not a hoax. But thanks for bringing this up we will make a video demonstrating this in the future.
@@TheTransfiguredLife THANK YOU CANT WAIT!!!
love this content Luther, very smooth and professional
Thanks bro! ☦️
I love the anachronistic graphic about the churches as "institutions". Protestants, please, The Orthodox Church, is not an institution with sacraments, but rather a sacrament with institutions. The Church is the primary vehicle of God's grace into creation.
0:44 Just love LOTS PODCAST! Learned so much about understanding the Scriptures.
Excellent. Thank you.
Dope video 🙌🏾💎
Thanks fam! ✊🏾
This is wonderful!!!! My kids and I were baptized and chrismated a month ago, this is both deep and simple, my kids will be able to appreciate what we have been through, what a wonderful video
That's incredible! Many years my sister! Welcome home to you and the fam! ☦️
@@TheTransfiguredLife thank you, it feels very much like home!
Loved this 🔥 ❤
Amazing video man!
Glory to God for the gift of Orthodoxy! I'm in awe everyday!
Thank you! So helpful! A
Wonderful, thank you
A few friendly points of criticism from a Protestant who appreciates his Orthodox brothers and sisters: 1. Chrismation is the eastern equivalent of the western sacrament of Confirmation, which is practiced by most of historic Protestantism, such as Anglican, Lutheran, Methodist, and many Reformed/Presbyterian churches (and historically, at least some Baptists practiced the laying on of hands after baptism). Typically instead of anointing with oil (although that is practiced in some churches), these churches usually confirm by the laying on of hands in accord with the apostolic practice. 2. The clips and videos you show to represent Protestants are misleading and do not represent the vast majority of Protestantism. For example, you show clips of Steven Anderson, an independent fundamentalist Baptist who no reasonable Protestant would see as representing their own beliefs. Anderson does not represent Protestantism any more than the radical sects of priestless Old Believers represents Orthodoxy. Also, the clip of the woman in the chasuble is actually a schismatic Roman Catholic, not a Protestant, as can be seen by watching the video the clip comes from. Interestingly, the only instance of a representative of historic Protestantism being shown is in the clip showing the consecration of the oil for King Charles’ coronation, the one in the pinkish cassock is Hosam Naoum, the Anglican Archbishop in Jerusalem, who is a far better representative of Protestantism, given that the Anglican Communion is the world’s largest Protestant body. 3. Also, I think you may have some misconceptions about the Protestant view of Scripture and its interpretation. While Protestants do hold to a 66 book canon, this is not a novel view and was held by many Fathers, with St. Jerome being the most prominent example, and even when the Fathers differed with the Protestant canon, they often didn’t perfectly align with the Orthodox or Roman canons either. Also, Protestants don’t reject the apocryphal/dueterocanonical books wholesale. Until around the 1800s, most Protestant Bibles included the Apocrypha in between the Old and New Testaments, which is why you can find them in really old copies of the KJV, an Anglican translation. Additionally, in many Anglican and Lutheran jurisdictions, the apocrypha are included in the lectionary. Both article 6 of the Anglican 39 Articles and article 6 of the Reformed Belgic Confession recommend the Church read the apocrypha for instruction in virtue and piety. Also, while Protestants do regard Scripture as the only infallible rule of faith, that doesn’t simply leave things up to each individual’s interpretation, historic Protestantism acknowledges the authority of councils, creeds, confessions, and catechisms to guide our interpretation of Scripture. Something need not be infallible to be authoritative, just as one might acknowledge the authority of a local Synod or an individual Father without ascribing infallibility to them. I think it’s important to keep in mind that Protestantism is basically a sociological category that includes many differing traditions that share only a very minimal set of beliefs in common, and that it’s often more helpful to critique these individual traditions than to launch a critique of Protestantism as a whole.
Although your comment is loaded which is a pet peeve it came in a spirit of friendliness so thanks lol. It's a 5-minute video I'm not going to address EVERY single sect that claims to have continuity with the early church. But if you would like to make an individual argument for your group you are welcome to and we can see if the arguments hold any weight. Anyways, I don't think protestantism escapes this problem as it pertains to "confirmation". Many of the "historic" protestant groups recognize only two sacraments and "confirmation" is NOT one of them. The Westminster confession of faith known as one of the "historic" protestant confessions only recognizes "TWO Sacraments" and one of the most respected protestant theology books "Systematic Theology" by Dr. Wayne Grudemn (found in many top level seminaries) would say nothing of "confirmation" as well. So if I take you at your word we would have to eliminate all the Reformed Protestants as Christians. Yet I'm pretty sure many honest protestant would say they recognize other Trinitarian protestants who haven't received Chrismation or for your satisfaction "confirmation" as genuine Christians. From the Orthodox perspective this issue is already settled because we have the true faith. We don't have to reinvent the wheel or do mental gymnastics when we read our Church Fathers as some of our friends from the protestant tradition must do with the readings of the Early Church Fathers and Church history as a whole. Neither do we have to decide if we are going to accept the Nicene Creed because our Church wrote it and has confessed it in our liturgy for centuries. The rejection of the orthopraxy of the Fathers and the Nicene Creed is more of a protestant problem because they are devoid of the ancient faith. Which shows one of the weaknesses of a Sola Scriptura and the invisible church paradigm. Lastly, many protestant apologists like Dr.Gavin Ortlund for example use the same protestant category when they try to defend the indefensible position of protestantism. However if we take each protestant tradition on its own merit it will still be indefensible from its foundation due to the self-refuting position of Sola Scriptura.
Thank you for your reply. I wasn’t saying that you should have addressed every Protestant denomination, but that if Protestantism is going to be spoken of as a whole, then at least some of historic Protestantism (by far the most dominant form, perhaps with certain parts of the US being an exception) should be represented. In your video the examples given of Protestantism are Steven Anderson (who 99% of Protestants wouldn’t even consider Christian), a schismatic Roman Catholic, and a few non-denom mega churches. If a Protestant were to make a video about Orthodoxy and only show clips of schismatic Orthodox jurisdictions and Old Believers, would you consider that a fair representation of Orthodoxy? This is why I think it’s not helpful to speak of Protestantism as a whole, since it’s not an institutional reality like Roman Catholicism or Orthodoxy, but rather a loose sociological category that includes multiple distinct institutions. As to the number of sacraments, Protestants have historically held to a two sacrament scheme, but this is because they were operating with a more restrictive definition of sacrament than Roman and Orthodox Christians are, it didn’t entail a rejection of the other rites altogether, and like I said Anglican, Lutheran, Methodist, and many Reformed denominations retain confirmation even if they don’t use the term sacrament to describe it. It’s also important to keep in mind that the numbering of the sacraments has always been a point of diversity within the Church, and many Fathers will speak of differing numbers of sacraments, it’s really more of a semantic issue than anything else. Also, I never said that if a particular tradition didn’t practice confirmation/chrismation, they weren’t Christian, I think confirmation/chrismation is of the bene esse (well being) of the Church but not the esse (being). Also, what some Protestant groups and thinkers call Sola Scriptura is nothing like what the reformers and most of Protestantism meant by that term, which is just another reason blanket critiques of “Protestantism” are unhelpful. The classical notion of Sola Scriptura is that things like the Nicene Creed are authoritative, reliable, and providentially confirmed by the movement of the Holy Spirit in Church history, while still being founded upon, and subservient to, the only infallible rule of faith that is Holy Scripture. I appreciate you taking the time to reply, God bless.
My last reply may have been a little unclear. While I do think the use of Protestantism as a category can be irresponsible, that wasn’t my critique of your video (as you said, many Protestant apologists use this category). My objection was that Protestantism was represented by an unrepresentative sample of churches that give a false impression of what the majority of Protestant bodies are like.
Great work Luther! And props to your illustrator!
Absolutely love the direct quotes from scripture and early fathers! Super helpful for a new catechumen here. Also the visuals are amazing, keep up the great work 👍👍
For what it is worth: my lay experience, (I am baptized, not chrismated) My priest is a strong believer in baptism, not chrismation. I went on vacation and attended a few services at another extremely small parish so the priest there spoke with me a lot. The topic of chrismation came up. He showed me in a book where it stated that Czarina Martyr Alexandra was christmated. This second priest argued that "second/corrective" baptism is not needed if one is a baptised heterodox Christian. I bring this info back to my priest. He says "Yes for a long the Church christmated heterodox Christian converts, but some time in the 1960s they began baptising again because Vatican 2 and other protestant movements began to err even on fundamental dogmas that they had once agreed on with the Orthodox Church. My biggest take away is humility. As context expands we see more nuances and hence we must be humble and rely on the traditions of the saints and our Church Fathers.
Everyone needs to be baptized and chrismated. They are both mysteries of the Church.
In order for one to submit to the Orthodox Fathers of the Church, he must make his own decision to do so. He must interpret the scriptures as needing interpretation by their tradition. Point being that private interpretation is inexorable, even for the Orthodox.
A diference needs to be made one is individualistic while the other is wholistic
Gorgeous video! Greetings from the Giessels. God bless. ☦️
Love the Giessels. Appreciate it guys. Glory to God! ☦️
I had no idea about chrismation. Thanks for the video.
Glory to God! Glad it was helpful!
banger 🔥🔥
Best short video on this topic ive ever seen
Beautiful ☦️ thank you for sharing
💪
🐐🔥🔥
🥹☦️🙏🏼🕊️🔥
Perry said that Protestant unity is illusory b/c they do not share communion. By his own logic, Orthodox Church unity is also illusory. The Russian Orthodox Church (ROC) is not in communion with the Ecumenical Patriarchate, the Church of Greece, the Greek Orthodox Patriarchate of Alexandria, and the Church of Cyprus. The ROC also recently broke off communion with Bulgarian hierarchs for concelebrating with the Orthodox Church of Ukraine.
Amin
Good job Luther love it
@@Afro-Capitalist Thank you! ☦️
Absolutely fantastic and informative video! God bless! ☦️
Hallelujah! Is that your voice, Luther? This video is top notch quality right here. Well deserved thumb and comment
Haha yes! ☦️
@@TheTransfiguredLife I like how you ended it with a reference to the transfigured life, well played!
Whoa brother well done. Keep up the vids like this
Thanks my brother. Hopefully more to come! ☦️
Now I know what chrismation is all about. Very nice. 👌🏽
Glory to God! ☦️
This is great! Keep up the good work and God bless!
Thank you! Blessings to you as well brother! ☦️
I appreciated this video and did not know EO considered chrismation a sacrament. At the same time, it seems like the more fundamental issues are 1) Scripture and tradition, and 2) sacramental theology. Lastly, the passages from Acts seem difficult to apply to this, since some are descriptive and not prescriptive, and many do not mention oil or chrismation at all. At any rate, thank you for producing this and helping me understand EO more 🙏🏻
We do not view scripture and tradition in opposition but in harmony, as scripture is itself a tradition of the Church. The same Holy Spirit that preserves the scriptures is the same Holy Spirit that preserves the correct understanding of the scriptures and unwritten traditions (2 Thessalonians 2:15). James 5:14 prescribes the presbytery of the Church to annoint the sick with oil. This is the mystery (sacrament) of Holy Unction, but the scriptures do not tell you what kind of oil is to be used. Therefore, the Holy Tradition of Church is required for the correct understanding and application of this verse. The same applies to the verses you cited in Acts. A legalistic, scientific analysis (what you would call hermeneutics) is fine, but how the Church (via the Holy Spirit) has always understood these passages is of paramount importance over hermeneutics, because the Holy Spirit is the primary conveyor of truth, not one's individual analysis of the text.
@@TyrannicalReigner thank you for your insights. I don’t mean to pit Scripture and tradition in opposition either, but I meant the relationship of them to each other. As a Protestant holding to sola Scriptura and studying church history, I have a hard time accepting the infallibility of the Church. Along the same lines, I would push a little on your opposition of hermeneutics as a legalistic scientific analysis, over against how the Church (via the HS) understands Scripture; because I think there’s confusion there. All people everywhere use hermeneutics, and the Church has always used hermeneutics to understand Scripture; hermeneutics is just the methods used to interpret the meaning of a text. Having the Holy Spirit’s guidance does not mean one makes no use of hermeneutics.
@@tjkhan4541 I think the problem that you run into by denying an infallible Church is you are removing Christ and the Holy Spirit from His Church. The scriptures tell us the Church is the Body of Christ. Christ's Body is of divine origin, which we become members of by Grace. The scriptures also tell us the Church is the pillar and ground of the truth. The Church cannot be the pillar and ground of truth if it is failing to do so, thus inferring infallibility. Without an infallible Church, you have no infallible list of books known as the Bible. This is especially problematic for someone who claims their sole infallible rule of faith is the Bible. I never said I was in opposition to hermeneutics nor did I say we should make no use of it. What I said is that it cannot be the primary means by which we come to know the scriptures, because it is not the mechanism through which the Holy Spirit has preserved the understanding of the scriptures. That mechanism is tradition, which is the passing on of correct understanding from one generation to the next. 2 Timothy 2:2 lays this out prescriptively and it's how the Church has always operated throughout history. In no way does that mean hermeneutics are of no use.
@@TyrannicalReigner I would respectfully push back that only Scripture is infallible and inerrant, because it alone is Theopneustos, God-breathed (1Tim 3v16). It is the only infallible place where we hear God’s voice speaking without any room for human error. It is not correct to reason from 1Tim 3v15 and conclude the church’s infallibility. An infallible church just does not work biblically, as seen in Acts 20 (with the Ephesian elders) and in other places in epistles and Revelation. I would respectfully submit that as a Protestant, this seems to fall apart just like papal infallibility does: the authority is infallible, unless and until he’s not, and then it’s shown that he was not a true authority to begin with. This honestly strikes me as a useless doctrine. Lastly, on the canon, Christians do not need an infallible or authorized list of books, we need the books that are infallible and authoritative themselves. I would strongly recommend Michael Kruger’s two books on canon to anyone interested; he goes into detail talking about authority and canonicity, which is difficult to do in YT comments.
@@tjkhan4541 I understand you want to just assume the scriptures, but to do so without justifying how you know what they are and how you use them is not a valid move. If you explain to me that you know the scriptures via XYZ, all of which are extraneous to the Bible itself, and thus according to your own system is a fallible epistemology, then you have objectively forfeited the ability to know with certainty what the infallible scriptures are, and your entire system collapses on itself. There is no refuge for this position. 1 Timothy 3:16 does not say scripture alone is God-breathed, therefore is does not support your argument. We have no problem saying people within the Church may err. Of course this is in the scriptures and history. However, the Church as a whole will not falter (Matthew 16:18). And to assert it will is an outright denial of Christ and the Holy Spirit. I am very familiar with Michael Kruger's work. I could see why many protestants find him compelling, because he gives confirmation bias to many. I know because I used to be one who put stock in his arguments. However and unfortunately, Kruger constantly lies by omission and provides a highly truncated revisionist narrative of the history of the biblical canon. The exaggerates early Christian consensus on the biblical canon and hand waives or outright ignores the major disagreements they had on the subject. And of course Kruger has no theological or ecclesiological continuity with all of the sources which he cites, just as is the case with all protestants.
Awesome video!
Glad you enjoyed it! Please share 😊
This is probably the best video you have put out in my opinion; a masterpiece of impeccable timing. There are so many issues like this that absolutely DECIMATE Protestantism which havent really been apologetically engaged yet. Such an incredible summary of how Protestantis are not even "wrong" about Chrismation, per se. In fact, it's arguably worse than l misunderstanding the Sacrament...no such concept even exists in their paradigm! Lord have mercy. Graceful, informative, engaging, POWERFUL. Excellent work! I am confident God will use this as a catalyist/final straw to draw people into the Ark of Salvation. Grant this, O Lord!
My brother from another mother! Appreciate it! ☦️🔥🔥
Thankfully, Christ is winnowing the Protestants, collecting the grains that really want the truth and scattering the chaff. He is merciful 🤍☦️
“that if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.” Romans 10:9 . Salvation is in Christ not a particular church.
@@simon330 So every professing Christian who believes in their heart that God raised Jesus from the dead is going to be saved? Are you sure that’s the position you’re going with?
It’s a tradition not supported in scripture (Not set fourth by God), therefore, most Protestants find no grounds to practice it.
Amazing ❤
Appreciate it! Glory to God! ☦️