Orthodox Christian Theology
Orthodox Christian Theology
This is the KZread Channel for OrthodoxChristianTheology.com. Our mission is to help explain Orthodoxy to Christians of all stripes as well as cover topics such as Biblical exegesis, Church History, the teaching of the saints, and more.
Пікірлер
Is it proper to say that His human nature is concrete or that it is abstract?
I understand the argument of the fathers, but I didn't get why this doctrine would take away from the Theotokos all her merits. Adam and Eve didn't have the original sin, but they fell: they were not inclined to evil. Could you explain this argument? Thanks
Ever since the satanic cult of sola scriptura a man made tradition invented by a devil possessed man was introduced five hundred years ago many idiots like Calvin Smith, Zwingli, Henry Viii, Knox, Ellen, Wesley etc started to interpret the Bible on their own wild imagination and even adding their wishful thinking or twisting historical facts in order to justify their satanic theology and to destroy the Church that Jesus established under the stewardship of Peter but nothing happened to it for the last two thousand years and will remain till Jesus comes back because Jesus himself promised to Peter saying no gates of hell will prevail against it
Do you agree with Justin Martyr that the Son is NOT the Maker of all things (the Father alone is)?
Maryism??? Saw this posted ON X ! ECCLESIASTES 9:5-10 For the living know that they shall die, but the dead know nothing at all: neither have they anymore a reward: for their remembrance is forgotten. 6 Also their love and their hatred, and their envy is now perished, and they have no more portion forever, in all that is done under the sun. 7 Go, eat thy bread with joy, and drink thy wine with a cheerful heart: for God now [a]accepteth thy works. 8 At all times let thy garments be [b]white, and let not oil be lacking upon thine head. 9 [c]Rejoice with the wife whom thou hast loved all the days of the life of thy vanity, which God hath given thee under the sun all the days of thy vanity: for this is thy portion in the life, and in thy travail wherein thou laborest under the sun. 10 All that thine hand shall find to do, do it with all thy power: for there is neither work nor invention, nor knowledge, nor wisdom in the grave whither thou goest. This will include the lie of purgatory and the selling of indulgences to the uneducated. That's why papal Rome burned every book Bible whatever and rewrote the Bible in Latin, which was a dead language and no one could read but the papal clergy.
Real
Im a convert from Catholicism to Lutheranism, which i guess would be refered to as swimming the Rhine.
Protestants are more jews than Christians ! #WesternHeretics
Wait, y’all believe Mary was sinless?
I go by scripture only
Yes, my husband took all the scripture courses at st. Tikhons.
If I ever become catholic, I’d be eastern catholicism
What is the critique of the Chieti Document titled? And what is the author’s name? I found a Fr. Alexander Gousettis online, but that didn’t quite sound like what your guest here today said.
Fundamentalist Protastants do not believe God's love is unconditional thus he'll fire and brimstone . We as Orthodox do believe his love is unconditional . Redemption is a process ... otherwise the Incarnation is nonsense.
Hey Craig, thanks so much for the videos man, very helpful. I am requesting if you could make a video regarding the Consensus Patrum, specifically what it is, if it really exists, and how we can know it exists. It has become a standard rebuttal from Protestants to say that there is no such thing, and I think a video on the topic would be very helpful and if you have any resources on the topic, I would gladly take those as well. Thanks!
I'm not sure how you make a video on this. There is one or there is not. It would require posing a question ("is there a consensus on X") and then *investigating* X for years or decades even, because determining consensus is ultimately a historical question. Simply, someone who says "there is no consensus on X" would have to 1. demonstrate that presently we cannot find it and 2. be patient, as the other side would need time to actually research the question. Historically speaking, I'd say questions such as icons were posed before anyone gave serious thought to documenting them. This is why I believe that we can do a better job defending iconodulia today, than during the 8th century---we have access to information that is cross disciplinary that they would have not thought up off centuries ago.
@@OrthodoxChristianTheology I would definitely agree on the line of questioning that would need to be had (and that it would indeed need to be done regarding a specific topic). Since it is such a large mountain to climb in many cases, do you think that people should maybe cut down on their use of appealing to “consensus” all the time? It kind of reminds me of the appeal to “mystery” in the sense that it can be appealed to genuinely and in many cases, but sometimes it’s appealed to in cases that it shouldn’t be or at least could be further dug through. At least in KZread apologetics (which we all know can be misleading sometimes), it seems to be a common reply on various topics and it always seems more complicated than that. Thanks so much for responding to all these questions from people, really means a lot! I appreciate you!
@@user-kj3kx4lp4z I think it is the opposite. When we all know that something's been done by everyone for a real long time. We should just take for granted. It's a consensus and the proof should be the proof the opposite even if we don't have all the details yet.
Neither one of you do apologetics, you do polemics. Apologetics is the defense of Christianity, against competing worldviews and philosophies. An apologist defends the resurrection of Christ, his deity, incarnation, the existence of God, the historical reliability of the gospels, etc.
Great discussion!
As a catholic i am grateful for your work. I pray both churches humble and unite. Maybe we can agree to disagree on this issue as it is so difficult to comprehend by the human mind. Is it so divisive we can’t slightly disagree on what almost seems an undefinable mystery? Let’s pray for each other. To love Jesus, his Father the creator, and the gift that is the spirit of god who does work we cannot comprehend. I love the orthodox church and people. As im sure there are plenty of orthodox who love the catholic church as well. Let us pray for and love one another as Christ loves us all.
Some questions orthos can't answer as well: 1: That the papacy is a manifestation of the Petrine Ministry is taught throughout the Fathers, and it is affirmed by Byzantines after the schism, who affirmed the divine institution of the papacy but denied that his headship of the Church was absolute or immediate. So it seems some claims for a Petrine ministry are present in the Bible for the Church to accept as true, but what are the scriptural bases of "first among equals"? Moses was not equal to other judges, the Prince Nasi or Av Beit were not equal to other rabbis, and kings were not equal to others in authority. The minute it is admitted that Peter has some kind of primacy given to him by Jesus, it becomes very hard to sustain the idea that this was only a kind of "first among equals," a ceremonial authority. Not only is "first among equals" a contradictory term in itself, but it is also not found in early church history and not found in scriptures. So why do the Orthodox use it and accept it? 2: Protestants like to use the word "authority," but it means nothing since it doesn't have any binding power or divine backing; their authority is just an empty label since "when you submit only when you agree, the one to whom you submit is yourself." Similarly, the Orthodox use the word "primacy," but it means absolutely nothing if you say it's just ceremonial authority. The form Vatican I gives this word actually makes this a logical doctrine. Usually, the primacy of Rome is argued alongside the primacy of Peter because Rome is seen as the first because it is the see of Peter, who was first among the Apostles. Peter never stepped foot in Constantinople nor Moscow. If Rome can defect and her primacy be switched to the next canonical see, then there will always be intractable schisms over determining which church is 'Rome' at any particular time. Doesn't this render the primacy pointless? 3: Gregory of Cyprus introduced the concept of "eternal manifestation," which was previously unheard of in theological debates. This concept was seen as an ad hoc invention to oppose Beccus's compelling defense of the Filioque. Essentially, the Eastern Orthodox Church created the idea of "eternal manifestation" in the 13th century to counter Western theological positions, despite its lack of historical precedent. So if to the Orthodox Church, history and the teachings of the Fathers are so important, why do they use and import concepts so novel to reject ideas and language of Church Fathers who never spoke of or heard of these concepts? 4: How can the Orthodox determine what is dogma or what is infallibly revealed to be divinely revealed? 5: Since the schism, there were much harsher controversies that took many more faithful from the flock if we accept the Orthodox position, like the Catholic Church taking over most of the faithful, and Protestantism branching off and taking whole continents. When dangers to the truth and the Church were lesser, the Church would convene an ecumenical council, yet the Orthodox Church still didn't. Were local councils really significant enough for what happened in the last millennium? Did the Orthodox really clarify their doctrine so as to combat new intellectual heresies arising from Western scholarly approaches to the Bible? 6: How can orthodox today determine what is an ecumenical council? 7: What is a "relation," and how many relations are there in the Trinity? What is the difference between absolute and relative terms according to the Cappadocians? In which category would you place the paternity of the Father? Is this hypostatic property relative or absolute? How does the relation of origin not posit a distinction between subjects? If it does, how is it not just a relation of opposition? 8: The Council of Ephesus clearly states that Peter will live in his Roman successors forever -This is officially inscribed in the highest ranking books for the orthodox church, is this proposition true or is not true? if not true, Eastern Orthodoxy contains a contradiction and is therefore false!
@@CroElectroStile maybe you can make those more concise, and less loaded, and i can answer them? Your questions have assumptions literally built into them.
@@OrthodoxChristianTheology as if you didn't load your questions with your ortho presups and assumptions my dude. btw I have more harder questions that orthos can't answer - a bit nuanced, maybe i make a video in the future, this is just a broad stroke of fairly basic Q's where EO's usually tap dance IMO. I'ts not like I don't know what you would say, I just don't find that the answers provided usually properly deal with the points (lackluster, insufficient etc.)
@@CroElectroStile My questions are pretty short and they're in the info box above so they're pretty straightforward for you to answer if you want
1. Doing the sign of the cross is also not found in the scirotutes, so is it wrong to do it? First among equals was shown throughout the scirptutes with peter being refutted by paul, with james presiding over the first council in Jerusalem while peter was present, while none of the ECs being held in Rome, the fact that ECs were qctually held (why hold them if the pope has final say) whixh the pope was never in attendance, and the list goes on
2.peter developed the church in antioch, so does your argument become invalid now? Rome is seen as first because thats where Christianity become legal, and they were the economic superpower at the time. The apochrofal text mentioned that any apostles that stays in one place for more than 3 days is a false apostle, so most likely Peter wasn't even bishop in Rome, just that he died there.
I do appreciate this, but we should consolidate our efforts in resolving the old calendarist schism rather than wasting time on a 1000 year old Schism and a western papist church that has locked itself into in-escapable circular papal supremacy-infallbility.
He is a very good Priest and a wonderful and warm human being. It seems starving young people are finding guidance, refuge, and the affirmation of God's love in his work through the video media. I don't know, but he seems to have a gift for loving spiritually orphaned young people. All thanks to God, through Jesus our Lord!
"Double procession" is, it seems, not as much of an issue with Catholics as it is for Orthodox. There are at least 6 or 7 staunch Orthodox saints who use double procession speech (St Basil, St Maximus, and many others just research it). After you read these things from the Orthodox saints you realize it's just a a pattern of speech.
With all due respect, this is not so.
Exactly, "through the son". Did you research it like I suggested? Don't be afraid!
@@johnnyd2383 gosh, here's just one, I'll be back with more since y'all refuse to research it (from St Maximos): “ The Romans have produced unanimous documentary evidence of the Latin fathers and also of Cyril of Alexandria from the sacred commentary he composed on the gospel of st John. On the basis of these texts, they have shown that they have not made the son the cause of the spirit- they know in fact that the father is the only cause of the son and the spirit, the one by begetting the other by procession. But they use this expression in order to manifest the sprits combing forth through him and in this way to make clear the unity and identity of essence”
@@MarcusBarnabassisSystersSonne Tell me... Why is it that all heretics: Latins, Orientals, Prots seek to find justification for their heresies in the writings of the Orthodox Holy Fathers.? Is it in the desperate attempt to legitimize heresies they endorse or is it because they sub-consciously know they believe in lies.?
@@MarcusBarnabassisSystersSonne You're missing the critique here, which is, what is the official explanation given throughout the pre-schism era?
Evidence of people doing things like praying to saints/using icons/believing Marian dogma that others don't accept is not evidence these things are good and to be emulated. There have been pagans since the beginning. It does not mean we ought to emulate their practices nor allow even the appearance of evil. Especially when in conflict with scripture.