I'm excited to see that you made a follow-up to the previous video! The comments in that one were a mess of people misunderstanding you. Hopefully this helps clear things up.
Wow, Dr. Ortlund. That last segment on “how to be saved” was very much needed as an Oriental Orthodox who has been walking with this anxiety due to having numerous disagreements with the institutional Church and its unscriptural doctrines and practices. I can’t even express how simple yet immensely profound this remark was. This, indeed, is the Spirit of our Lord Jesus Christ who came to seek and save that which was lost - entirely contrary to the evil one whose sole mission is to shut the gates of the kingdom before humanity. That’s tragically what religious leaders throughout all generations have sought to do, and woe to those who paint this image of God before simple and “little” believers causing them to stumble, walk in ceaseless condemnation, and fully lose their sight of the Gospel and cross of our Lord Jesus. Neither do they themselves enter nor do they let others enter. God bless you, Dr. Ortlund.
*"That’s tragically what religious leaders throughout all generations have sought to do,"* Tragically, this sort of gatekeeping is also found among, basically, all denominations. I agree with you wholeheartedly, but I'm on the side of Luther and Calvin when they say that there are true Christians and true churches in all denominations that have the true Gospel. Scriptures say that the Church *_IS_* the body of Christ. And, if someone truly believes in Christ, then they are in Him. Therefore, all who truly believe in Him are the Church catholic (universal). This is why all the early Protestants say that they are catholics, deny that they started anything new, and point out how (in their opinion) they are closer to the Early Church doctrines than Catholics. Now, I don't think they were completely right about being closer to the Early Church. In some ways they were closer in some ways they were not, in my opinion. However, what they said is true about what makes one a member of the universal (catholic) Church, and that's being in Christ, just as you say.
We never make statements about a specific person’s salvation - and that includes ourselves. To do so you would need to judge and in so doing put yourself in the place of God. We do indeed hope in salvation, who is Christ.
An anecdote from my life regarding the anathmaizing of other Christians: I am a German-Russian living in Germany and a Christian who attends a Pentecostal church. A few years ago, I was visiting my Russian (Orthodox) family who lives in the US. On a long drive there, my cousin and my grandfather turned on a CD of Orthodox prayers. From time to time, the priest would say “In the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit - Amen”. Then the two of them also said Amen and crossed themselves. This was completely new to me and I didn't really know how to behave - so I joined in half-heartedly... Until at some point the following sentence came: “And cursed be everyone outside the Orthodox Church”... My cousin and my grandpa said Amen to this and crossed themselves... Well, I could neither say amen nor cross myself :D Honestly left me a bit confused. Especially because they both knew I was a Christian.
@@issaavedraKinda gaslighting the dude, no? Sunday of Orthodoxy the list of Anathemas are doled out,(unless you’re at a more progressive Orthodox Church, then they stop right before the Anathemas). Anathema literally means condemned or accursed by God. Sounds something like this “To those who scorn the venerable and holy ecumenical Councils, and who despise even more their dogmatic and canonical traditions; and to those who say that all things were not perfectly defined and delivered by the councils, but that they left the greater part mysterious, unclear, and untaught, ANATHEMA. Faithful: Anathema.” This part is particularly funny because the mere suggestion that Orthodoxy is not 100% correct makes one accursed. Amazing stuff.
I dont know if making a comment boosts your channel for the algorithm, but whatever I can do to support, I am happy to do that. I sincerely appreciate your work so much 😊
Here's my answer: The question you are asking us to answer won't yield much fruit. Asking us to find a stronger way to phrase the assertion that there is no possibility of salvation unless you are Eastern Orthodox is presupposing that that is actually what is being asserted. Instead, perhaps you should ask "How else could these assertions be interpreted in a way that is consistent with the idea that salvation may be possible for those outside the Eastern Orthodox Church?". My answer to this (modified) question is that it is similar to interpreting Paul in Romans 9. Proponents of the Calvinist notion of predestination interpret Paul's statements about God's sovereignty as applying to each individual soul, while those opposed to this idea interpret this passage in context as being a specific argument about God's plan from the beginning for the salvation of the world via Israel. It is macro scale, not micro scale. I think these quotes from Orthodox writers are similar. They are not trying to answer the question, "For the farmer living in rural, post-schism England, what hope of salvation do they have?" They are answering questions about Christian groups that are separated from Orthodoxy. At the individual level, it is much more difficult to judge what God may or may not do. After all, He is the judge, not us. "But our God is in the heavens: He hath done whatsoever he hath pleased" Psalm 115:3 Generally speaking, I think it would be beneficial to all for you engage on these writings with qualified Orthodox representatives. There are other ways to interpret these writings other than they way that feels most natural to you, and RUclips comments aren't a great place for real dialogue.
You've quoted some good Bible verses, but the Orthodox Church has still condemned Catholics and Protestants as they are not within the Orthodox Church. Dr. Ortlund has shown that. You need a response to why the Orthodox church would anathematize everyone outside of it, including professing Christians
Gavin has had multiple dialogues with EO people that have outright said that he is damned. When you have a statement as clear as, “There is NO SALVATION outside the Catholic Church”, you are suggesting we read that as, “There is actually some salvation outside the Catholic Church. You are importing later sentiments that seem to be explicitly precluded in the texts themselves. Not one of the statements that Gavin read has the caveat you are trying to provide. You seemed to express that quite easily, so surely if those writers had wanted to express the same then they would have? There is no way to more clearly say that one CANNOT be saved or that NO ONE can be saved outside of the Orthodox Church, and given that there is no clearer way to say that, it means that you are not treating the texts fairly. When you say Gavin presupposes what is being asserted, please explain what is correctly being asserted then, with direct reference to the texts being brought up. You say Gavin is presupposing the assertion, but it seems like he is just taking these statements to mean what they are clearly saying. They are clearly saying that there is no salvation outside of the Eastern Orthodox Church. That is the plain reading of these texts. They could not have said that any more clearly. Gavin is also not presupposing the assertion. His question is this, “If someone wanted to say more plainly or clearly that THERE IS NO SALVATION OUTSIDE OF THE EO CHURCH, how could they possibly do it (without doing what I have done in using caps for emphasis)?”. This does not presuppose that these statements ARE saying that, it is asking how they could have been worded in such a way that would convince you that they were saying what the plain reading seems to be saying.
@@ToothpikcOriginal We don't condemn Catholics and Protestants as persons only their faith. We don't know of our own salvation, let alone others. But that does not stop us from our duty to tell you if you are getting into a boat that has a leak. We think the likelihood of your reaching your destination is quite slim, but we still like you all the same. Your only other choice is to agree like Pope Francis that everyone has a path to heaven, etc.
I check for new Truth Unites videos pretty much every day. Or if someone is interviewing Gavin. Thanks for your work. Also looking forward to the release of Matt Fradd interview with you.
I work beside an EO man. He is 26, unmarried, and what people call “chronically online”. We talked for an hour yesterday about EO and it left me very upset. He can cite every council, father, and his desk is full of icons. Yet he doesn’t understand the gospel. I pray for him constantly.
EO myself. Keep praying for him. He understands the Gospel fully well but understands it from an historical perspective. We are contiually being saved. We are being save today yesterday and tomorrow. Salvation is a process not a transaction.
@@JC.AEP2 “Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you. 8 For everyone who asks receives; the one who seeks finds; and to the one who knocks, the door will be opened." Matthew chapter 7 Don't be discouraged. We have the Holy Spirit, who is our comforter The steadfast love of the LORD never ceases; his mercies never come to an end; they are new every morning; great is your faithfulness. Lamentations 3 verse 22
Dr Ortlund, even if you dismantle Orthodoxy, what exactly do you stand for? I’m asking as a Protestant on the verge of conversion. It seems to me that if you hold Protestantism accountable to its history, not only is it as dark, exclusive and twisted as Orthodoxy but it is even more so. From the beginning of the reformation, the movement was riddled with heresies, lies, violence, scandals, etc. In these days, everything is relativized according to a postmodern epistemology. I haven’t seen any pastor or scholar address the problem of relativism. While Orthodoxy can be exclusive, I don’t see this as a point of contention with the historical church, rather, an expression of it. I’m at the point where I even find Roman Catholicism more attractive and coherent than “Protestantism”. So my question is, what exactly are you arguing for? In other words, what tradition do you believe to be most faithful to the gospel?
The answer you are looking you will not be satisfied. That I promise you. In this video and the video before he basically means" hey look at the orthodox church. They have a bad system and as result, they will be bad consequences. Therefore Protestantism is much better because we don't believe that a church is strictly to one institutional and we don't believe ecumenical councils are infallible because they basically anathemas attached to it. Therefore Protestantism is much better. Became a Protestant" It is ridiculous
The answer you are looking you will not be satisfied. That I promise you. In this video and the video before he basically means" hey look at the orthodox church. They have a bad system and as result, they will be bad consequences. Therefore Protestantism is much better because we don't believe that a church is strictly to one institutional and we don't believe ecumenical councils are infallible because they basically anathemas attached to it. Therefore Protestantism is much better. Became a Protestant" It is ridiculous
Great question. We should all be standing on the apostolic deposit, given once for all by Christ and the Holy Spirit. Let's find churches to fellowship with who are committed to this faith above the teachings of any other person.
The Orthodox Church does not declare with certainty the eternal destiny of individual persons, apart from those who have been recognised as saints by the Church. Orthodox Christians as individuals are not considered "Saved" in a definite sense, and non Orthodox individuals are not judged to be "damned". Rather, we have been given in the Sacraments of the Orthodox church a normative and ordinary means of attaining salvation through Christ. However, in the Last Judgement, Christ may in His mercy join individuals who died outside of the canonical bounds of the Orthodox Church to His body, and grant them salvation in an extraordinary manner. For this we should hope and pray. All Christian groups draw boundary lines around what constitutes the church, and the requirements for salvation. For most protestants, JWs and Mormons are on the outside. When those lines are drawn to exclude mainline protestants, the hypocritical indignation on their part is truly something to behold.
The Divine Liturgy has a service every year where a long list of names and denominations are chanted and anathematised. Are you unaware of this ? Anathematise is a condemnation and a severance of eternal life in the church.
@@WaterMelon-Cat I can almost guarantee you saw the video of a schismatic “priest” saying anathemas to reformers like Calvin and Luther, and then all Protestant sects etc. That isn’t the actual service. That guy literally made it all up and recited it in his living room playing dress up in vestments and recorded himself to put on the internet. You can Google the Sunday of Orthodoxy service and read the anathema’s. Btw, anathemas are a took the Bible itself uses, Paul’s epistles contain anathemas quite a few times
A Protestant saying that JWs and Mormons are not saved is not remotely similar to the Catholic or Orthodox churches saying a Protestant isn't saved. Mormons and JWs deny the Trinity (Mormons lie about what it is, JWs just throw it out), while the Orthodox, Catholic, and Protestant traditions all agree on God's Triune nature. You may as well accuse Protestants of hypocrisy for putting atheists and pagans outside the "boundary lines."
You speak so ignorantly it's almost shocking, but it's not as it is, I have come to learn, typical of the apostolic churches to obscure things regarding Protestantism... Anyone who rejects the divinity of Christ is opposed to Christ and is not a Christian, self-professed non-Christian, as they identify with their cults....I can't imagine you don't know this...Mormons and JW's deny Christ's Godship....I want to believe it's ignorance and not malice. We reject your church for adding roadblocks for people who want to come to Christ but don't want to be part of your club...we maintain the teachings of our Lord Jesus and His Apostles and NOT their "successors." You believe in the church for your salvation...that's the main difference.
I enjoy my very low church, church of God that i attend. The people are kind and kingdom driven. Its all about speeading the Gospel and people getting saved.
This is a comment I left on a previous video that Dr. Ortlund made about Orthodoxy, I figured I'd leave it here as well. A few things: (1) Ortlund characterizes what he calls “the historic view” as “If you’re outside the Ark of the Church you are not saved.” My main problem with this view is that it presupposes a binary “you’re in or you’re out” view of salvation, which is across the board not what Orthodox Christians believe nor have ever believed historically. Salvation is about deification through union with Christ, and that’s a process. (2) Ortlund is correct that the view of “we know where the Church is not but where the Church isn’t” is a modern view, and because of this it’s a view I don’t affirm. The Church is the Orthodox Church, and to not be in the Orthodox Church is to be outside the Body of Christ. However, to say someone is not in the Church is not the same as saying that the Spirit is not at work in them. The Northern Kingdom of Israel was not “part of the Church” because they did not have the Davidic king, true sacrifice in the temple, etc, but God still sends them prophets and works through them. St. Maximos the Confessor says the Spirit works outside the Church, but always for the purpose of uniting people with the Church. (3) Ortlund says “I have not been able to find any historical affirmation that those outside the Orthodox Church can be saved.” Here’s one: St. Gregory the Great praying the pagan emperor Trajan out of hell: ( academic.oup.com/book/1885/chapter-abstract/141638221?redirectedFrom=fulltext ). Similarly, while I think Roman Catholics and Protestants are in error and outside the Church, I think it is possible for them to be saved by coming into union with the Church after death if they did not become part of the Church in this life. (4) Ortlund is correct that some Orthodox theologians and saints in the last century speak of the impossibility of the salvation of those outside the Church. I would agree with this, with the important caveat made before, I think people can be reconciled with the Church after death, much like Trajan. It’s also important to take into account that a lot of these statements were made in the face of Orthodox Christians trying to defend themselves against aggressive evangelization from Catholics and Protestants. (5) To refute his claim that “no one from the 9th - 19th century speaks of salvation of other groups” I’d point to how St Theophylact of Ohrid in the 11th century speaks about Latin Christians in his time, in which he affirms that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father alone (thus Theophylact denies the filiqoue) but simply said this should be attributed to the poverty of the Latin language and not to them being damned. Also it’s not like the 5th century council of Chalcedon happened and immediately there was a monophysite church and an Orthodox Church and immediately in 1054 there was a Latin church and an Orthodox Church - these schisms took literal centuries to solidify and in many cases important fathers and theologians affirm that those they disagree with (including those who affirm things like the filioque and monophysitism) are in the Church.
I'm not even going to read your copy and paste any further. You say: *"(1) Ortlund characterizes what he calls “the historic view” as “If you’re outside the Ark of the Church you are not saved.” My main problem with this view is that it presupposes a binary “you’re in or you’re out” view of salvation, which is across the board not what Orthodox Christians believe nor have ever believed historically."* That's exactly wrong, and that's what this video is about. It brings receipts to show that this is the official, historical teaching of the Orthodox church.
@@Real_LiamOBryan Except that there are also other historical receipts saying the opposite. That's the problem. There have been different views on this question within Orthodoxy throughout most of our history, and Ortlund is only quoting from one side of that debate.
I’m Orthodox and I think you may be mistaken. You say that “across the board” Orthodox understand salvation as deification / theosis. The Roman Catholic Church teaches this officially as well by the way. But this does not answer the first proposition. The Eastern Orthodox Church seems to be teaching no salvation outside the Ark of the Eastern Orthodox Church. There is no difficulty harmonizing these two points of view: there is no theosis outside the Orthodox Church. It’s that simple. That’s seemingly the Eastern Orthodox teaching.
I am an Orthodox Christian convert from being a Baptist. I loved my background as a Baptist and what I learned from being Baptist as was as missions and knowledge of the Bible. My understanding as an Orthodox Christian never really judges if other Christian faiths are saved or not. I do know that I’m in the only church but would never say any other Christian is not saved. That’s up to God who will judge us all on judgment day. My understanding is we don’t say we are saved either as we approach God as mear sinners and pray that God will have mercy on us and save us. We believe our church is the body of Christ and is like an the ark that Noah and his family was and are saved by being in the Ark or now the Orthodox Church. I would never say other Christians are condemned neither do I know of any orthodox who would say that.
I was also Baptist now Orthodox. The learned experience of being Orthodox is we are to busy asking God for his mercy that we don't spend any time judging others. If we do we have to take it to confession and ask for more of God's mercy and forgiveness. It is a beautiful life full of grace but impossible to explain. Come and see how the early Christians worshipped.
I left Russian orthodox church two years ago Your contents were extremely helpful during my struggling phase Eventhough I was uncertain about my future back then, Lord led me to an amazing pastor and a wonderful community passionate for Jesus Thank you for doing this eventhough you face a lot of opposition.
Suggest watching Joshua Schooping's video. He used to be an Orthodox priest. I'm not Orthodox and I'm certainly not defending the practice. I'm just responding to your statement that you said you'd be curious to know more.
As is often the case in these discussions, the framing and setting of terms makes a big difference. There's no good answer to a bad question. You said that there's no winning, because if you quote many people, you're accused of quotemining and if you quote only one author at length, you're told that author isn't the whole of the Orthodox tradition. As we said in our responses to the previous video, that isn't the issue, but rather the selective use of those sources. If you're examining a specific issue, it's not just a question of if you're quoting one person or many people, but if you're quoting all of what's said on the issue. For example, you quote St. Filaret of Moscow as being extremely clear on this issue, but that very same man, St. Filaret, also speaks of Catholics and Protestants as being Christians, who are in churches that mix truth and falsity but whom, nevertheless, Christ is able to save and heal. If the very same people you quote as being "incredibly clear" also say things that sound like the opposite, but you only quote one type of statement and not the other, you're giving an incomplete picture, whether you quote one person or many people, as long as you omit the totality of what they said on the particular issue. Since, for example, St. Filaret says both things, it's clear that your understanding of the starker sounding passages is incomplete. As far as "How could they say it any more clearly?" that also is, from our perspective, phrasing the question in a way that there's no good answer to. It's not "How could they have said this more clearly?" but "What is the totality of what they say and how do the different parts fit together?" To give an example from the Scriptures. Christ doesn't just say that He will be in the tomb for three days. He specifically says "three days and three nights," which sounds unambiguously like He's referring to three 24-hour periods. And yet, He was only in the tomb from Friday evening until Sunday morning, less than 48 hours. Is Christ a liar? If not, if He had wanted to say 72-hours, how could He possibly have said it more clearly? There are good responses to that, explaining what Christ actually meant, responses you almost certainly would agree with. But if you're just saying, "How could He have been more clear?" and concluding there's no clearer way to phase it, you'd have to say that Christ lied. Also, for what it's worth, the tradition from the 9th-19th centuries is consistent with the tradition both before and after. You'll find almost identical sounding passages going back to the Apostolic Fathers through the 9th century. Likewise, you'll find people exposing the "softer" view during the centuries you picked out. You've been given a number of those examples in the comments on these videos and still haven't incorporated them, though I understand you're innundated with comments and haven't seen them. For starters, I'd recommend looking at St. Theophylact of Ochrid in the 11th-12th century and St. Mark of Ephesus in the 15th.
Here is my answer: The promise of salvation only exists within the Church. Outside of the Church the hope of salvation found in the Gospel does not exist. However that does not mean the Church says they are damned. The Church prays for the redemption of all creatures for Our God is good, loving, and merciful. If the Church wanted to say all those outside of the Church are damned it would say that rather the Church negates the hope for Salvation.
I think your problem is mere intellectual not theological. You are building a fence around the gospel that does not exist within the bible. Tribalism is not the first step or qualifier for ones salvation.
Just to clarify: in Catholicism, there's the idea of material vs. formal heresy. That is, Catholics (naturally) believe that they are right but acknowledge that other Christians can hold their their beliefs sincerely and can be saved. Do the Orthodox churches make a similar distinction?
I always think of the “good thieve” when being crucified with Jesus asked to remember him in heaven. Right there he acknowledged Jesus as Son of God and his salvation . He did not have a chance to do anything else but to believe. Thank you so much Dr. Ortlund for confirming this God’s truth. Praises to His name!!
When it comes to Anathemas, unless they are leveled at a particular person, or persons, they are warnings. The idea that an Anathema against iconoclasts in the 8th century damns to hell Southern Baptists who have never been Orthodox, and in most cases have no idea what the Orthodox even is, is contrary to how the Orthodox Church understands these Anathemas. I refer to the commentary of St. Nikodemos of the Holy Mountain in the collection of the canons of the Church: "We must know that the penalties provided by the Canons, such as deposition, excommunication, and anathematization, are imposed in the third person according, to grammatical usage, there being no imperative available. In such cases in order to express a command, the second person would be necessary. I am going to explain the matter better. The Canons command the council of living bishops to depose the priests, or to excommunicate them, or to anathematize laymen who violate the canons. Yet, if the council does not actually effect the deposition of the priests, or the excommunication, or the anathematization of laymen, these priests and laymen, are neither actually deposed, nor excommunicated, nor anathematized. They are liable to stand trial, however, judicially, here as touching deposition, excommunication, or anathematization, but there as touching divine vengeance. Just as when a king commands his slave to whip another who did something that offended him, if the slave in question fail to execute the king’s command, he will nevertheless be liable to trial for the whipping. So those silly men make a great mistake who say that at the present time all those in holy orders who have been ordained contrary to canons are actually deposed from office. It is an inquisitional tongue that foolishly twaddles thus without understanding that the command of canons, without the practical activity of the second person, or, more plainly speaking, of the council, remains unexecuted, since it does not act of itself and by itself immediately and before judgment. The Apostles themselves explain themselves in their c. XLVI unmistakably, since they do not say that any bishop or presbyter who accepts a baptism performed by heretics is already and at once actually in the state of having been deposed, but that they command that he be deposed, or, at any rate, that he stand trial, and, if it be proved that he did so, then “we command that he be stripped of holy orders by your decision,” they say" (D. Cummings, trans., The Rudder of the Orthodox Catholic Church: The Compilation of the Holy Canons, Saints Nicodemus and Agapius (West Brookfield, MA: The Orthodox Christian Educational Society, 1983), p. 5f).
Thanks for commenting. I would disagree, but what you are responding to is not the claim of this video. I would be curious for your answer to the question I posed.
@@TruthUnites You were interpreting Anathemas as blanket sentences of damnation for individuals. My answer to your comments more generally are that you take condemnations of groups, and assume that they apply to all individuals that ever might be associated with such groups. The quote from the Reply of the Eastern Patriarchs about how it is necessary for Roman Catholics to come to the Orthodox Church is with regard to the normal means of salvation that are found only within the Church. That is not a judgment about each individual who may be born, live, and die without any knowledge of the Orthodox Church. There are many things you can find in the writings of the saints and the lives of the saints that speak of people being saved outside of the normal means of salvation. And you ought to have addressed this quote from St. Theophan the Recluse since you again claim he makes the kind of individual judgments you are claiming: "With reference to the above question, it is particularly instructive to recall the answer once given to an inquirer by the Blessed Theophan the Recluse. The blessed one replied more or less thus: "You ask, will the heterodox be saved... Why do you worry about them? They have a Saviour Who desires the salvation of every human being. He will take care of them. You and I should not be burdened with such a concern. Study yourself and your own sins... I will tell you one thing, however: should you, being Orthodox and possessing the Truth in its fullness, betray Orthodoxy, and enter a different faith, you will lose your soul forever." This is found in an article you can find by googling "Will the Heterodox be saved?"
@@fr.johnwhiteford6194 Thank you! I've been bringing up the application of Canon law in response to such criticisms, but he never really responds to them substantially (he didn't even want to hear it from an actual Orthodox priest, which is telling).
@@alypiusloftdon’t tattle-tale. I’m sure the father can read the comments section himself without your help. Besides, Gavin only asked to stick to the original question rather than to launch into infinite other questions that might spring from it. Those others may be relevant but it’s rude to handwave the original thoughts shared in the video.
@@fr.johnwhiteford6194So is the answer that it may be that all Protestants are damned for not being in the Eastern Orthodox Church, and it is certain that those who leave that Church will be damned-but there’s room to hope for those who only err in ignorance? What kind of sophistry is that? Just say what you believe. The folks he cited certainly didn’t have any qualms speaking their minds, so shouldn’t you follow their example?
Gavin, thanks for digging up the official historic language of Orthodoxy on this topic. It’s so plain what they mean, but there seems to be a lot of double talk coming from many modern converts to Orthodoxy.
Here's my answer: The Canons do actually matter in what you're addressing. Canons law is pastoral in nature. It is concerned with the salvation of people. In case of icon veneration, for example, a person who is actively working against the Orthodox Church in an Orthodox context are held to the standard of anathema at an exceedingly higher degree than a person from another background who simply doesn't understand the issue. Imagine, for example, a Christian from the middle east attending an average Protestant church. I think you would be more sympathetic toward them for thinking they did not truly worship God because worship, in their origin context, is ritual/sacramental. But a person in an average Protestant parish trying to win a group of people in the parish to adopt, say icon veneration, to the point of causing major pastoral issues--that person will be dealt with severely. Sincerely, I don't think you're reading St Theophan well. I think you're interpreting all his words within your own paradigm. Additionally, we understand St Paul, in his letter to the Romans, to have spoken about the other nations (Gentiles) finding salvation by obeying the Torah without ever having it. They are like Abram, hearing God and leaving Ur is faithfulness that brings justification. What did Abraham have besides the voice of God? Nothing. Yet he found salvation. This is the Orthodox view of everyone. Those who try to dismantle the Church, however, are viewed as oppressors and opponents.
thanks for answering. I need a little help understanding. I did not discuss the nature of canons in this video. I'd be curious for your interaction with what is stated in the five examples I documented. If you feel so inclined.
@TruthUnites You're appealing to synods in a way that indicates you do not understand how they function within the life of the Church, which is why I bring up canon law. I truly do not mean any insult--you're truly a good academic and I wish Protestants would listen to you when it comes to returning to traditional Protestantism (though I think sacred harp singing would be a better option than CCM). Fr Patrick Viscuso has authored a number of books on Orthodox Canon Law if your need a starting place. One of the emphases in his work is the distinction between formal authoritative canons, such as from the ecumenical councils and certain church fathers, and informal canons. The latter typically come from local synods and other non-ecumenical councils, as well as liturgical-canonical commentaries and Q&As. Point is, these are treated as expressing Orthodox dogma in a given time and circumstance, but that does not mean they apply in every time and circumstance. What outside heterodox groups are the concern in these condemnations? American Protestants? No, that's called anachronism.
@@alypiusloft ah, I think you misunderstand. I am aware of competing interpretations of how canon law functions. Any view of that could be granted for the sake of the argument of this video. Even if you took the view that the Synod of Jerusalem is totally revisable, fine (though I think that is wrong, but its incidental here). The argument of this video was to document the historic Orthodox view on the non-Orthodox (regardless of how that view is later received) and then ask: how more clearly could their non-salvation be articulated? I would be curious for your answer to that question.
@TruthUnites but your primary interests are dissuading people from becoming Orthodox and convincing people to become Protestant. How it is received at present *is* the concern. Warning people to stay away because of "the historic view" (which is a red-herring) is equivalent to folks saying people should stay away from Protestants because they don't hold their historic views. If your ideal version of Orthodoxy is to do away with our "accretions", you're making the case that the Tradition is insufficient for salvation in terms of sanctification. I don't think there is any genuine difference in your view of Orthodoxy and the historic view of Protestants.
Imaging trying to worship Christ at the time of the Apostles, while also believing differently from them and not joining them in worship, but worshipping apart from them while claiming to have Christ. This is the position the heterodox find themselves in.
Something like we find in Mark 9:38-40, "for whoever is not against us is for us". Not believing differently thought, just like protestants who affirm the apostle's creed.
"...while also believing differently from them..." how ironic, given the required veneration of icons, the distinct episcopal office, etc. found in the EO churches.
@ there’s a whole recent video on why Orthodox iconography is in fact ancient and original to the Church: ruclips.net/video/CfIrBOQ_SiY/видео.htmlsi=zZoOy-DubGhsRh_e
I'm an Eastern Orthodox convert from evangelicalism and really like Gavin Ortlund. I frequently disagree with him, but I think he is fair and puts forward an honest desire for dialog which is the best way for Orthodox and Protestant to exemplify the love of Christ. It is immensely beneficial that Protestants are starting to have intellectual explanations for their belief systems rather than the milquetoast feel-good truisms that have been so common over the last 30 or so years and have caused such damage to American Christianity.
@@whomptalosis22 I was only exposed to that side of Protestantism after I had become Orthodox. Growing up Protestant, it was mostly people whose extent of philosophy was "Catholics are evil pagan idol worshippers" or occasionally "I used to be Catholic, they never even read the Bible in Church" Imagine my surprise at realizing CS Lewis wasn't a complete outlier in the Protestant world...after 15 years of being surrounded by fundamentalists.
The Orthodox Church has always followed a rule of prescribing the most correct practice, and the straightest path to salvation with concern that exceptions may be perceived as rules by those within the church or not within the church and therefore would have been harmed or made prone to damnation by the liberal expression of the economy of God's providence and grace. Orthodoxy holds, without question, that the best practice and straightest path to salvation is in joining Christ's body, the church, receiving the mysteries of the church, participating in the Liturgical life of the church. We don't doubt God's ability to save by his grace, but also will not try to define it. It is out of our jurisdiction. People have followed many different paths to salvation, but the destination is literally the Church if we believe it is Christ's body, sharing his blood through the mystery of the Eucharist. The concept of salvation, being saved, in the east is not the same as in the west. It isn't a legal judgement, but a healing that enables life in Christ, that life to be lived. I will mention that the church fathers have said that water baptism outside of the church can be used by the church, but does not accomplish baptism of the Holy Spirit until the person is united to the church, so while there may be formally validatable baptism outside the Church, it is either completed by the Church, or otherwise by some mystery of God that we don't understand, and can only say HAS happened as we recognize the good thief, the 40th martyr of Sebaste www.traditioninaction.org/religious/h056rp.Sebaste.html You can see from the examples of St. Dismas and St. Aglaius undeniable salvation, so the Church confirms that their paths, while not the norm, enabled them to be saved by God's grace. The innocents killed by Herod are canonical saints. The Church does not make rules for those outside of it. The saints and bishops don't give directions to non-Orthodox. Through canon, the Church affirms the salvation of Herod's innocents, but also their Orthodoxy my a mystery of grace. I will add that the Uniate "church" that Theophan was responding too was a covert largely Jesuit organization that sent imposter priests into Slavic countries, as well as Romania and Greece, and America by the way, into country parishes that were Orthodox, to transform those parishes into Roman Catholic parishes by either claiming that the Pope had reunited, had become Orthodox, or more subtly shifted church traditions to a more western emphasis. It was a direct attempt to infiltrate Orthodox churches under the jurisdiction of Orthodox bishops and technically is now officially prohibited by Rome.
Thank you for this video. As someone who thought of EO I can’t get behind this teaching that my fellow brothers and sisters in Christ are dammned to hell
They aren’t lol, it’s just that there is one GUARANTEED way. We can’t judge the salvation of others who are heterodox. When we say that they destroy the gospel and that there is no salvation outside the church we mean not that those who follow those heresies are automatically damned, since they may never know Orthodoxy, but rather those who make the beliefs and follow them willingly against the Church. And for the fact that they trample on the gospel by heresy, it is easy. Any heresy is against the Eternal Truth of God. God has made the Truth and the Gospel clear through the Ark of Salvation, the Church.
@@jnateh You don’t get any smarter there. Ortlund usually asks “am I saved?” and he gets different answers every time. Either it’s “well, I can’t say, you know the church, invisible, we dont know” or it’s “no, you’re outside”.
Here is my answer: "Illumine with the light of grace all apostates from the Orthodox Faith, and those blinded by pernicious heresies, and draw them to Thyself, and unite them to Thy Holy, Apostolic, Catholic Church." I love you Dr. Ortlund. Along with anyone else who reads this or does not read this. As long as the Lord allows me to have breath in my lungs and that I don't wuss out on the morning prayers. I will keep saying my above answer as long as I draw breath.
This is proving Dr. Ortlund's point then, you consider us to be apostates. May the Lord grow all of us to be like Him - full of grace and truth Love you with the love of Christ, brother
No. We do not consider every heterodox person an apostate. An apostate is someone who leaves the Faith, and someone who deliberately teaches against the Body of Christ.
"The truth is like a lion; you don't have to defend it. Let it loose; it will defend itself" --describes well the mountain of evidence presented in Dr. Ortlund's Irenic style.
1) We aren’t mad at you. 2) A lot of what you’re asking is assuming a Protestant view of salvation. 3) Likewise on several other terms. 4) It is absolutely clear in tradition that the heterodox may be saved. You have connections with Fr De Young and Damick. Use them.
I think the main point in here is that we would all really like to see actual examples of your 4th point. How is it “absolutely” clear when we can’t find anyone who ever taught it.
Then you haven’t looked far at all. Five seconds would have yielded a number of quotes like this from St Theophan the Recluse: “You ask, will the heterodox be saved…Why do you worry about them? They have a Savior Who desires the salvation of every human being. He will take care of them. You and I should not be burdened with such a concern. Study yourself and your own sins….”
So, what really is salvation according to Eastern Orthodox? Are there two kinds of salvation? The first kind being what everybody talks about in the records we have, where only EO can be saved, and the second kind of salvation is the one you mentioned in your point #4? What are the differences between those salvations?
@@zzzubrrr The simplest thing to do would be look up Theosis in an Orthodox source. It will be better than what I answer here. Short answer it’s not digital yes/no and is not at all the keycard to get into Heaven definition I grew up in. We are in Christ or in Sin (St Paul), constantly moving toward union with God or away from Him. We do not create a distinction between “sanctification” and “justification” - that’s a much later and entirely Western idea.
No, it is clear tradition that those those outside the church CANNOT be saved. Like seriously, the examples he gave from literal church councils could not be any more clear. Can you stop with the gaslighting and cherry-picking?
Hi Gavin, enjoyed this video as well. I think there is far too much that I could address and as a new catechumen I think it’s better for me to not engage as I do not want to misrepresent Orthodoxy. However, one thing I will say is placing my complete trust in Jesus is what lead me to Orthodoxy, I was having an incredibly difficult time strengthening my faith within the Baptist framework and after a lot of prayer, studying theology, and attending liturgy, I simply saw something within Orthodoxy that would help me increase my faith that wasn’t available in any Baptist Church I could find near me. Now, a couple of months in, I truly believe it was the right decision.
Dr. Ortlund at 30:19-33: "That's what I want my ministry to help people know, the enchantment of simply knowing Jesus, trusting in Jesus. I believe that people in these non-Protestant traditions have that experience as well, but I think their theology is historically problematic." Response: 1. So Dr. Ortlund, their theology is historically problematic, but your theology is historically accurate. Your criteria of "simply knowing Jesus, trusting in Jesus" in order to be saved could describe many on the edges of Protestantism: A. This includes those who call upon the name of our Lord Jesus Christ and possess a Trinitarian baptism with water like (A) the Latter Day Saints, (B) Jehovah's Witnesses and (C) Iglesia Ni Cristo. B. It could include old-style Unitarians who hold communion services, but also Seventh Day Adventists and other smaller denominations whose baptisms I assume you would recognize. C. It could include anyone like Roger Williams who was exiled from Massachusetts to Rhode Island and organized the first Baptist church in America, because then all you would need is a Bible to start your own church. 2. Otherwise, you are adding a criteria like "their theology is historically problematic" that goes beyond your basic "simply knowing Jesus, trusting in Jesus." 3. I would imagine that those who have converted to Eastern Orthodoxy find in that church a fulfillment of your "simply knowing Jesus, trusting in Jesus" by (A) participating in any of its Seven Mysteries, most especially in the celebration of the Eucharist at Divine Liturgy, (B) experiencing an elongation of God's Word in the Deuterocanonical Books and (C) venerating icons of Jesus Christ. 4. Anything beyond your individualistic/subjectivistic "simply knowing Jesus, trusting in Jesus" involves a social organization based upon the following 16th century Reformation principles common to Martin Luther, John Calvin and others: "Men have the right to form their own religious groups, to join a group or not to join, to leave it when they choose; that these groups are equal in their rights and subject to no authority but what they themselves choose; that the groups are free to choose the way they shall worship; that every individual is free to choose what he shall believe." [Philip Hughes, The Reformation In England: A Popular History (London, 1957), p. 158] 5. Acts of the Apostles 2:36-38, 41-42 (KJV): "Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ." Now when they heard this, they were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, "Men and brethren, what shall we do?" Then Peter said unto them, "Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost." ... Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls. And they continued stedfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers." 6. Could it be that those who have converted to Eastern Orthodoxy wished to emulate those three thousand on the day of Pentecost who "continued stedfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers"? 7. And if the King James Bible was good enough for St. Luke ...
Isn't the salvation of the thief on the cross next to Jesus the simplest demonstration of the Gospel? The rest of everything is important to discuss and do our best to understand, but salvation is pretty simple, right?
Context is important. Dismas, *The Penitent Thief,* was nailed to a cross. A death sentence, with no chance of a pardon. If Dismas was pardoned and survived his wounds. What would his "Christian walk" look like? Orthodox? Roman Catholic? Protestant?
@druminlaawd7173 at that point I don't think the processes or liturgies of the Orthodox or Catholic church had been established. The Proto-church would have been quite distinctive. But I don't know how that is the question I raised. I landed on the conversion moment of salvation. The pared down Gospel in action. That is the key for me.
“I do not presume to call false any church which believes that Jesus is the Christ . . . You expect now that I should give judgment concerning the other half of contemporary Christianity, but I do no more than simply look out upon them; in part I see how the Head and Lord of the Church heals the many deep wounds caused by the old serpent in all the parts and limbs of this body, applying now gentle, now strong, remedies, even fire and iron, in order to soften hardness, to draw out poison, to cleanse the wounds, to separate out malignant growths, to restore spirit and life in the half-dead and numbed structures. In such wise I attest my faith that in the end the power of God will evidently triumph over human weakness, good over evil, unity over division, life over death.” (Metropolitan Philaret of Moscow, Conversation between the Seeker and the Believer Concerning the Orthodoxy of the Eastern Greco-Russian Church, Moscow 1833, 27-29, 135)”
This is the answer QED: There will never be absolute answers as we are Man and we are talking about God, hence we are addressing mysteries, in a word unknowns. Answers to mysteries are therefore attached with probabilities, and have to be personalised to the individual. We need to avoid simplistic answers, or painting people with a broad brush. First context. Most if not all are written to the laity, the Orthodox faithful. Seldom is it written to the Latin church to rile them up. Of course it will be stronger when teaching is directed inwards. We Orthodox faithful have been blessed to be in the church, are being exposed to false teachings and evangelism from the Latin church and Protestants, hence to turn away from the Eastern Orthodox Church to these teachings will most likely not lead to a good end. When they turn away, what would the reasons be: it is not just the teachings but what is in their hearts. Was it lust of power, wealth, laziness in learning or conceit? Or was it a true pursuit of God that decided that the Holy Spirit proceeded from the Father? It depends on the individual person, correct? But if the person was an Orthodox Christian, the reasons are most likely NOT good. Example 1: Consider the church that is Orthodox, does not believe in the filioque, but decides that the Latin pope is the leader of the church. What went into that decision by the leaders? Example 2: If it was a single Muslim, who lacked wisdom, and converted by faith to become a Protestant, we are less likely to be sure that he will be damned.. Perhaps this is just one step in the journey for him. So we cannot fully say like those who like binary answers, as it depends on who we are talking about. We are not trying to obfuscate, and neither are we just NOT reading plainly. But remember, all your quotes are most likely directed to the Orthodox faithful. It is more so to leaders in other faiths, that this question should be asked: Are you striving with humility to truly understand and teach the correct word of God, so that every single sheep in your flock is NOT lost? So turn your attention inwards. The question then will be, how will I know? There is not definitive answer arrived by arguing logic when we deal with the mystery of God. It is only arrived at experientially, which is why, when your western mind just reads half the answer with your church fathers' quotes, you left out the rest of the answer. And the answer is, by your fruits will you be known. Forget the doctrines for a moment. Just take a look at the average spiritual fruits your flock is bringing to God. Does your flock show love over time? How many people in the name of God did they kill? Burn at the stake? And today, how many bombs fell on the Palestinians did you approve of? Did you show mercy? Did the Eastern Orthodox church do it too? I am sure WE did. We are humans. And even one life is too many. But if you can discern that there is a difference in orders of magnitude, reflect on what part of your teachings allowed that to happen, and then ask yourself, does this reflect a fundamental flaw in one of the planks of your theological platform? It could be Absolute Divinity Simplicity, the filioque, etc. If you were blessed with discernment to lead and you know in your heart what the truth is, but you teach a different doctrine, for selfish reasons, then you know what faith awaits YOU. This obviously does not apply to the simpletons, such as myself, who lack wisdom! The point of the Fathers was, when you have removed every single problematic teaching, you will have arrived home @EasternOrthodoxCatholicChurch.
Mr. Ortlund, for what it's worth, I don't think these kinds of videos (critiques of other groups' doctrines/biblical interpretations) are actually helpful in clearing up the distinctions between your interpretations and the interpretations of those other groups. In fact, I think these videos are more harmful than even just neutral when considering the two different groups are Christian, because it muddies the waters and deepens the division among all the Christian listeners who are largely less knowledgeable and very much less amicable than you seem to be. I respect your intentions and heart, and I think it could be beneficial for someone like you (knowledgeable and amicable) to have videos that are dialogues with leaders of other groups (i.e., an EO priest). Ask these questions, even the last video's questions, to a priest, and he will be able to clarify in real time the things that need to be clarified in the wording of your questions, as well as correct if necessary any misunderstandings of EO theology within the questions, and then be able to answer those questions and clarify the differences in biblical interpretations. I assume such videos would take significantly longer to produce; however, they would at least be beneficial content to the Body of Christ, not content that ultimately furthers the divide. Thank you, though, for being an example of truth seeking, which the Church needs more of in all its branches.
On the contrary, I think these videos are necessary and important. I have many friends who became Orthodox without a proper understanding of what the Orthodox Church teaches, precisely because these doctrines are so often downplayed or ignored. They then go on to struggle deeply with spiritual anxiety and fear for the salvation of those people they care for deepest, because once they are sufficiently far into the Orthodox Faith they eventually read the saints for themselves or encounter Orthodox Priests who do not hide what their church believes. (As someone who has spent much time asking many Orthodox priests and theologians the same questions that Gavin has, it was a fruitless endeavor, as for every 5 priests, there are at least 7 opinions! Which just makes the spiritual anxiety that much worse for my friends who tried to seek epistemic refuge in Orthodoxy).
I would agree with @kmaheynoway. Pastor Ortlund's approach is gracious and rigorous. I hear the rumblings of the EO faithful in the comments about Pastor Ortlund's lack of institutional understanding of EO doctrine/dogma, but there seems to be some parsing and excuse-by-contextualizing going on by many commenters in the EO camp. Things have been written. Shall we read them clearly? I think Pastor Ortlund's videos do much to clear the water. It might get muddy in the comments, but that is the nature of discourse. I am glad that positions are being stated and argued in the comments with civility, if not a measure of grace.
The Answer: Metropolitan Kalistos Ware in his flagship book (The Orthodox Church) was pretty clear that there are two camps. 1) Traditionalists who believe you are only "saved" if you are in the Eastern Orthodox Church. So, Protestants, Oriental Orthodox, and Roman Catholics are doomed to Hell. 2) Less Traditionalists who believe as Roman Catholics do, post-Vatican 2, that Christians who are not Eastern Orthodox are true brothers and sisters in Christ who are separated from the Body of Christ, but who are still of the Body, just without the fullness of the truth of Christ. My conversations with various Orthodox friends have confirmed this as well.
Grateful for you and your ministry. Lots of Evangelicals fleeing to "safer" and "more stable" traditions like Catholicism and Orthodoxy without seeing the warts or history of their own traditions. People are burnt out on American low church evangelicalism, and I understand why. People are tired of what seems trendy, cheap thrills, "easy believe-ism", moral failures, etc. People are exhausted with Christianity that has no depth, no history, no sense of rootedness in time. They want religion that feels religious, beautiful, transcendental, instead of like a pop/rock concert. Most modern low church Christians have no historical heroes past Billy Graham. Those influenced by Reformed theology generally have heroes of the faith that go back to the Puritans, Calvin, and Luther; even then, it's like we're missing 1,200 years of Christianity, from 315-1517. Evangelical/Protestant Christianity needs a Reformation of practice and historical rootedness. Orthodoxy and Catholicism may have their resurgence, but people will find that the honeymoon will fade and they'll be left with the same anxiety they had before. The Gospel you shared at the end is what gives hope. Hope is not institutional or ecclesiastical; it's in the person of Jesus Christ.
I am Reformed in a nondenominational generic church and I long for the historic connection of the Reformation which in turn, looked back to the Church Fathers. Not all of us are ignorant; just deprived.
Orthodoxy has triumphed. Orthodoxy is triumphing. Orthodoxy will triumph ultimately and forever as the Bride and Body of the Lord Jesus Christ is, was, and ever shall be! ☦️
Here's my answer: You're right; 100%. Your scholarliness is top notch and your frustration perfectly understandable. However (I have four "howevers"), 1: At our present point in history, the salvation status of those in other denominations is not a matter agreed upon by Orthodox Christians. You could probably find Orthodox Christians debating this topic. (Perhaps you could make a video on this current debate as it is very interesting.) 2: I doubt this question would dissuade anyone from becoming Orthodox. For your average convert, judging other people's salvation just isn't part of the deal. We are not asked to personally condemn our Baptist grandmothers to hell. That said I am quite grateful for your treatment of this topic. 3: As in all Orthodox-Evangelical dialogue concerning salvation, it must be acknowledged that the meaning of the word "salvation" is subtly different in each tradition, otherwise there will be considerable talking past each other. That this generally does not happen is not the fault of the Orthodox since they tend to be very bad at explaining such things. As a former Evangelical theology buff it took me years of immersion in and study of Orthodoxy before I grasped the basics. 4: It is a common Evangelical sentiment that, while one can be saved in any denomination (not including LDS or JW since they're ACTUALLY outside Christianity), they must have a conversion experience as defined exclusively by Evangelicals in order to be saved (something along the lines of saying the sinners prayer and explicitly inviting Christ into your heart as your own personal savior); therefore most Catholics aren't "saved". I know this is not your exact view but it would be very helpful for you to address it. Keep up the good work.
On the 4th "however," I don't know 1 Evangelical who says the sinner's prayer is magically salvific...it's a verbal guide to those that don't know what to say, kind of a ritual initiation or a creed...or even inviting Christ into your heart, those are like pledges...and they're never taught by the way. There's no "sinner's prayer doctrine." Or even a conversion experience...I promise you Evangelicals don't even have a tangible description of salvation....it's like this...Catholic & EO both have Believe and Join the church institution or Rome or EO, Evangelicalism is just Believe/Trust in Jesus Alone for Salvation and bear fruit. Join a Bible-believing church to grow in the faith, once you have been saved/believed!
@@angru_arches That's fair; Evangelical attitudes vary, I'm sure; they are not standardized. However I grew up in an Evangelical church and then worked for a missionary corporation for a decade; the act/process of "becoming a Christian" was one of their favorite topics of conversation and something I witnessed hundreds of times over decades. It's possible that I was in an unusual or fringe version of Evangelicalism.
@jeffreydavis9757 As per #2- Why is it that Orthodox Christian are taught to not pray with non-Orthodox? Are you familiar with this practice? Seems to be the EO church is teaching its members to draw hard lines.
Is the Holy Spirit the one producing all of these “converts” to EO who are hateful and bear no fruit? And don’t understand the gospel? I would say no. When someone truly meets the Lord they don’t act that way
Emotional conversions aren’t anymore genuine than a poorly behaving Orthodox convert who you seem fit to judge. But as the Church is a hospital of souls, I would not want a Church full of the whole and the well but of the sick and of the dying. For Christ came not to save the righteous but sinners. He came not to heal the healthy but the sick. If they are sick and your heart truly is aligned with Christ, then pray for such poor souls. Otherwise you condemn yourself with the very thing you condemn in them.
He came to save you and make you a saint. You are called a holy one 63 times. In fact the seal of the Lord is this, the Lord knows those who are his and let everyone who names the name of Christ depart from iniquity. He also gets on those who are living in the 17 works of the flesh and tells them they will not inherit the kingdom of God. You are whole in Christ. If living sinful is healthy you biblicallly will find yourself in hell because the medicine isn’t working. He who does righteous is righteous even as He is righteous he who continues in wickedness is by no means walking with the Lord.
Thank God you replied. The Orthodox are terrible at argumentation. Many cited supposed quotes from Theophan, but when I asked for the primary source, they couldn’t provide it. Instead, they shifted the burden of proof onto me to disprove that Theophan actually said those fake quotes.😂😂😂
The non argumentation is because they are more concerned with holiness and becoming Christlike than refuting those who don't really want to know, but just want to criticise!
I appreciate the presentation and discussion. I grew up in a rural community with a large representation of Protestant faith. I have enjoyed studying the Catholic and Orthodox representations and have found much that I respect and appreciate. I appreciate the Orthodox emphasis on involving all of the senses that GOD has given us in the act of worship. There is much that I don’t understand but I consider them to be brothers and sisters. I know that Ephesians 4:5 indicates that there is “one faith”, I am referring to the different ways to express that faith.
Ortlund likes to play up 'salvation anxiety' as a problem for other churches, because they claim that right faith, or belonging to the true Church, or being baptized, etc., is necessary for salvation aside from something like simply 'trust in Jesus.' Ortlund therefore clearly implies that any anxiety about salvation is bad anxiety. "Why would God want us to be anxious about whether we are believing rightly, joining the right church? Isn't it absurd that God would demand we [be baptized] [believe the Nicene Creed]," and so forth. However, if any anxiety about salvation is bad anxiety, then one could make a structurally analogous argument against believing in Christianity at all. "Why would God want us to be anxious about whether we believe in Jesus? Isn't it absurd that God would demand we trust in Jesus?" [NB: this argument would be equally effective against modern universalists, who think we need purgation or changes of will to be saved, even if they think it happens post-mortem. Ortlund's argument is not phrased as a problem in doing these things independently of grace, but just that we should have any conditions on salvation aside from trust in Jesus.] Ortlund does not think his argument implies atheism is true. This is because his thinking likely involves three confusions. First, Ortlund assumes clearly that there are good kinds of anxiety about salvation (trust in Jesus is *necessary* to avoid going to hell, for Ortlund), versus anxiety about inessentials. He seems to think those who do not believe in the divinity of Christ simply *do not trust in Jesus*, because they do it the wrong way. But, if it is possible to fail to trust Jesus the right way, then there are substantive concerns about believing rightly versus wrongly, and then we would need to see whether his views on that are correct. That's to say that Ortlund simply begs the question by assuming his own account of what right faith in Jesus consists in. Second, Ortlund is likely confusing what is essential to salvation *in general* (trusting God) with what is essential to salvation *in a particular epistemic situation*. That is, he thinks as long as you trust God, everything else is inessential to salvation. While this is true in one sense, it is false in another. It does not follow that, if one is trusting God, then you can believe anything you want, since trust in God normatively would constrain your beliefs, given what else you know. For instance, if you trust God, and you believe that Jesus is God, then you would have obligations to follow Jesus' commands. If Jesus commands baptism or belonging to the Church or partaking of the Eucharist, failing to do these things (despite professing trust in Jesus as God and being aware that Jesus commands these actions) would mean that you do not really trust in God. Ortlund likely accepts these kinds of obligations to do what God says, but he confuses the two categories by arguing that we should not be anxious whether we have what is essential to belief, as long as we trust God. But whether you are doing what God says is relevant to whether you trust God. And a very simply generic reason that many convert from Protestantism to Catholicism/Orthodoxy is that think they learn new things about what God wants them to do. Whether God actually wants them to do those things, such as be baptized, is then the substantive question Ortlund would need to face - and that question is not answered by appealing to worries about whether being asked to do those things inspires 'salvation anxiety,' since that would be an argument against *GOD* asking us to do those things. But God does command things, like 'Go forth and preach the Gospel to every creature,' or 'Do this in memory of me.' Can you be a good disciple of Jesus who does not do these things? Third, Ortlund likely (as many evangelicals do) confuses rejecting that one is saved by 'earning' salvation from God, i.e., meriting salvation because of good actions done independently of God's grace ('works righteousness'), with rejecting any logically necessary conditions on salvation (such as belief or right belief). For instance, many evangelicals are fearful of any implication that we need to 'do' anything to be saved. But it is obvious that they themselves think we *need* to *trust in Jesus.* Clearly, trusting in Jesus is something I do, in an obvious sense, given that I am the subject who performs the action. This is simply to say that nobody is saved who does not also X, Y, Z - a logically necessary condition. Again, even modern universalists think there are logically necessary conditions on salvation *like that*, such that nobody gets into heaven who does not ultimately end up in a good moral state, believing in God, etc. St. Augustine (in 'On Rebuke and Grace') makes exactly that point: the fact that God causes all our good actions in us does not imply that God causes those actions without us, and thus it is still obligatory/meaningful to preach that people should get baptized, live a moral life, pray that God will save them, etc., since God wants us to do these things. There are then contentious issues about whether 'merit' has any role in salvation, and how it works, but EVERYONE agrees (evangelicals included) that one should tell others to trust in Jesus, so that they can be saved. But then it is false that we cannot tell people they need to do anything. Ortlund just disagrees about what trust in Jesus involves or requires us to do. He should not, then, be making arguments that would undermine his own positions.
This whole comment is arguing against a series of straw-men. First, Gavin's argument is not that "any anxiety about salvation is bad anxiety," Gavin's argument is that many Church's have imposed extra requirements onto salvation that cause undue anxiety. So your whole first point fails to argue against what Gavin is arguing. Second, Gavin does not argue that "as long as you trust God, everything else is inessential to salvation." Where are you getting this? In this video alone, Gavin in the same breath as saying to trust Jesus, says to obey him, and repent from your sins, etc. So you've again failed to present an argument against what he actually says, and actually seem to articulate an identical belief! Third, Gavin does not reject any logically necessary conditions on salvation, such as faith, obedience, and repentance, as he clearly articulates in this very video! And many others more in-depth if you're actually wanting to debate what he believes and not straw-men. "He should not, then, be making arguments that would undermine his own positions." He never did. You made up out of whole cloth both his position AND his argument, making them contradict one another, and then debunked that. I'm sure he'd be happy to engage you if you ever decide to address any of the arguments that he actually does make.
@@kmaheynoway The point is is that if Gavin believes that any particular thing constitutes salvation, then he himself is excluding those who don't partake in his assumed particulars for salvation i.e Obey Christ. Therefore his problem with the Church can not be that their Idea of salvation excludes people. He needs to deal with the particulars themselves and say why something like the filioque in the creed would not effect a persons salvation. It does have an effect in a real personal way.
Dr. O, I have had some disagreements with some of your ancillary work on politics, but I continue to be blessed by your ministry in regards to the Gospel and church history. I was called a "sectarian" by Dr. Stephen Boyce for challenging the monarchical episcopate. "For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures,..."Whether then it was I or they, so we preach and so you believed.--1 Corinthians 15:3-4,11
Best free Historical Theology on the net right now! In days gone by you would pay a fortune for this kind of careful and precise teaching and have to travel far too! Awesome you are looking at EO. It attracts at the visceral, aesthetical, mystical and historical level but is deeply wanting scripturally and as you show: historically too. ❤
I found it disappointing. "Cope" is a dismissive word, used with increasing frequency online, to dismiss the other side out of hand without actually considering their argument.
It isn't unusual, particularly reading ancient writings, to see very dramatic language when engaging oppositional positions. Even Jesus does this in the Gospels. In all honesty, as an Orthodox Christian, it can be very difficult to weigh the rather incendiary comments that our saints have made against our more generalized philosophy that salvation is up to God and we aren't capable of judging another's salvation. Both of those can be true at the same time, but it isn't easy to explain it. I think some of it comes from trying to interpret when a tradition is being condemned and when an individual is being condemned. Origen is a good example. Origenism is anathematized, but it is very unclear whether Origen himself is condemned. Its hard to believe that Origen was anathematized when he was literally the spiritual influence of the Cappadocian Fathers and Athanasius.
@@thethreefates3675 No, both can't be true. You can't use some of the harshest language imaginable, speaking just about as clearly as you can, then claim there is a "general philosophy" that there is salvation outside the EO church. Like I said, its gaslighting.
Tough spot for eastern-orthodox, it’s a dilemma for them: 1. Unity. If someone in the eo church in Ukraine would say that Protestants are Christians and in some way part of the church, or are saved - they would most likely be rebuked/excommunicated. So that means it’s not a Unity in the way the eo present it to be 2. Infallible church. If you can just change the interpretation of the church fathers and their clear meaning on such a core beliefs as anathemas on other church traditions; and then remain the church - I don’t know how you can maintain that the church hasn’t changed Thank you, Gavin, amazing video!
1. No they wouldn't. You probably are used to just talking to online Orthobros but there is a vast variety of personal opinions in Orthodoxy. You can think those outside the church are saved. You just can't go along preaching that is it church dogma. 2. How is this core beliefs? Christology and Soteriology, bound by the 7 councils, are the core beliefs. Anathemas do not bound someone to hell. The church literally cannot do that. The church is not God. Furthermore, individual saints do not determine dogma, as there are some saints that literally believed things contrary to official church doctrine. And lastly, only Orthobros who don't attend liturgy say this. Church discipline changes all the time. How it interacts and calls members to the body changes with the culture sometimes. The church is there for its members, to meet their needs. The core beliefs of the church, and the core liturgical outline, are what don't change.
@@kevinmac8629 I am from Ukraine, literally heard that from my EO family(at least one member is a devoted EO, goes to church every Sunday, fasts 40 days before the Easter). Spoke with 2 EO priests after I started following Jesus and went to Protestant church. They literally said that to me. Please do not assume and I hope you will be more humble in these conversations instead of being snarky
@@ItsThatGuy1989 please do not make assumptions about my experience, it is disrespectful from your side to do. 1. I have mentioned a church in Ukraine, a representative of the eastern tradition, with a rich history - which matters, because the whole point is that your views are only existing in the Westernized EO churches, at least that is what I am arguing for. When you say "No they wouldn't" are you saying - In the church in Ukraine they wouldn't do that? Also, are you saying that you can disagree with the dogmas of the church and still be a valid member of that church? 2. If the church is Infallible - can it make mistakes in such a serious matters as anathemas? When you proclaim anathema on someone because you have a disagreement, you are lifting that disagreement to a level of core beliefs. If you are then saying - no anathema - that means whatever you disagreed about now doesn't belong to core beliefs and you can remove the anathema. I saw you said "Anathemas do not bound someone to hell." I don't understand what you mean by that. When you declare anathema on someone you consider to be a brother? Maybe by "binding" you mean that the person has no return to repentance? If yes - we can set this argument aside, because I don't think it that matters. What matters is - When you declare anathema. - are you saying that with the current belief system that person cannot be your brother or sister and will go to hell unless repents?
From my reading of Orthodoxy it seems that it is not quite the monolith of views that it’s adherents like to tout. For example, Kallistos Ware speaks quite well of us Protestants. I heard him say that many Orthodox folks have much to learn from the best of Protestant engagement with the Bible. One other thought: Orthodox theologian, David Bentley Hart, in riffing on Gregory of Nyssa, holds to a hopeful universalism, which also demonstrates diversity in this tradition.
As an Ortho, people that represents the church as a monolith of belief are likely more insecure than anything else, needing to restrict our church to something easily understood and non-challenging. What many converts to the church find comforting is the willingness of the church fathers to say that they don’t really know when confronted with theological questions which Western Christianity often feels the impulse or need to answer. The church has teachings on things the church has teachings on, yes, and those should be listened to, but it’s worth noting that the East never went through an Enlightenment as the West did, and so it has a lesser need to explain everything in almost science-like terms of causality.
DBH is more of a theologian who happens to be Orthodox rather than an Orthodox theologian, if that makes sense. His views are a bit idiosyncratic and popular with relatively small niche of Orthodox Christians. His dog book is entertaining though
I'm so grateful for your determination to not stoop to the level of the trolls and hecklers that seem to show up in the comments of so many videos like this, and the last one you made on the subject. One of the only wise things I've ever said was "you can always find the cringe of the crop online" so please, Pastor Ortlund, and anyone else who shares his convictions, don't let the spite of the trolls poison you to continuing to interact in a Christian manor on subjects like these.
The whole POV here so steeped in Protestantism that you miss the core understandings at play here. 1) The apostolic nature of the Christian faith: Jesus taught the 12, they had disciples, the faith passed down through both oral and written tradition. When you have the faith direct from the apostles what changes should be allowed? How does what Catholics have down with the filioque and papal supremacy not fundamentally altered the view of the Trinity, and moved away from any sort of accountability to the faith handed down? and Protestantism is simply an outgrowth of the same except they further cut out the first 1500 years of church history as flawed. Your argument is that altering the gospel should be tolerated? 2)Fundamental different view of salvation. Salvation is decided by God at the judgment and not before. It is not the moment you decide to follow Christ (though that is important). It's not holding the right beliefs. Even the demons believe and are still condemned. You are saved through what Christ did and by following his commands and repenting not just from sin but from views that are not in line with Gods. Thus since the judgment has not yet taken place you cannot say anyone orthodox or not is or is not saved. You can have the assurance that if we confess our sin He is faithful and just and will forgive us, but we must keep getting back up and aiming our life at Him and being like Him. 3) what the church is. The church is the living community that has this gospel handed down both verbally and written. They are the guardians of this apostolic deposit. When someone strays from the truth, how can you say they are still walking in the way when they do not heed correction and conform to the gospel? And how can someone outside that community who does not know or hold to those views then be an accurate judge of whether or not they are in that gospel? Only those who are of the original group can make that distinction. 4)Just because words rhyme doesn't make them the same. Protestants and Orthodox hold many similar beliefs and teachings, but there are some key differences largely based on the historical path of where Protestantism came from and thus they get things wrong. Ultimately, the final say on who's in and out is God's alone. He is merciful and loves all mankind and wants all men to be saved. So we cannot limit His ability to save even if it doesn't make sense to us. But that doesn't mean we should be open handed with the Way. In the same way, the main part of even that Theophan letter is a protestant trying to evangelize Orthodox Christians as though they are not saved and are all not Christians and should turn from their ways. That is in essence the same thing: Protestants saying you aren't saved and must believe as we do. Christianity is exclusive. Its just that some hold to the original deposit from the apostles, others use logic and reason to deduce what they believe scripture means.
Thank you Gavin, you're videos really set me straight. As an ex-orthodox catechumen, many people would say that for leaving the "one true church" I have committed blasphemy against the Holy Spirit and thus am damned. I think alot of young people like myself get excited about a church that is reliably non liberalized, patristic, spiritual, beautiful, ect. but along the way they trade a relationship with Christ for a relationship with an institution. since taking up a protestant framework I feel at peace and closer to Christ!
Nah. As a catechumen, you wouldn’t be any more damned than anyone else outside the church. Now me and my husband- we were chrismated/received the fullness of the faith and left it. So by Orthodox standards we are in quite a precarious position if we don’t repent and return to the church. That said, I don’t think what we were “sold” in our catechumen class was quite accurate, so I don’t think we were in a position to make the commitment that we did to Orthodoxy. Maybe we can hope for economia 🤷♀️
I agree with you on the Orthodox church but Calvinist believe that most people that God created are cut off from salvation because they aren't chosen from the foundation of the world. So Calvanism is exclusive also. Yes. What hope do they have for salvation on both ideas?
Calvinism actually doesn't teach that. It teaches that those who are saved are known by God from eternity past - it doesn't say that only a tiny minority can be saved, nor does it tell us who isn't saved. We are still to evangelize and love all to the glory of God. The difference is that the EO have historically claimed to be able to recognize who is and who is not saved by looking at denominational lines. Calvinists have no issue affirming that there are multitudes who are saved that do not hold to their theology, or go to their church.
I agree. The incoherence of Calvinism is what initially propelled me towards atheism when I was younger. After coming to faith, I think Calvinism is a devastating heresy that is worthy of being called out and held to be anathema. I think the reason we do not critique it so harshly is because of the reputable scholars and pastors who are calvinists.
@josiahalexander5697 it does not sound to me like you have studied it very much - it is very coherent and very encouraging too. If you'd like I can recommend resources to help clarify any points of confusion you might have with it. You mentioned the large number of prominent teachers that held to it - they did not hold to it for lack of studying or understanding.
Here's my answer: To make the point that nobody outside the Orthodox Church can possibly be saved, I'd write it like this: "No person, regardless of ignorance, circumstance, or even the secret condition of their heart before the Lord, who intentionally communes with [X religious community] can possibly be saved." No church teaching affirms this, because the point is that people may be united to the Orthodox Church through their genuine faith without consciously realizing so. Similarly, there may be people who consciously think themselves united to the Orthodox Church who will be damned because they are actually hypocrites. Salvation is a mystery, but the Orthodox Church in these kinds of statements only means to say that false teaching is dangerous and leads to spiritual damage, potentially damning damage.
The answer to your question is; "You ask, will the heterodox be saved... Why do you worry about them? They have a Saviour Who desires the salvation of every human being. He will take care of them. You and I should not be burdened with such a concern. Study yourself and your own sins... I will tell you one thing, however: should you, being Orthodox and possessing the Truth in its fullness, betray Orthodoxy, and enter a different faith, you will lose your soul forever." ~ St. Theophan the Recluse
There's an aspect of this I believe, but in totality it just doesn't square with what I see around me. I think it would be safe to say that Christ does not want anyone to be brutally murdered, but it's clear that that happens. This among other things leads me to believe that while God might want something that -because he gave us free will- we can ignore or utterly invert and get wrong. If this can happen with something like rape, muder etc. why would it be different with wether or not someone hears the truth of salvation? He left the world to us when he created it -we were meant to be it's stewards. This leads me to conclude that it's not unlikely that we are very responsible to share the Gospel. If someone asks us for food and we say "god will feed you" and then not give them food ourselves.... we might be standing in the way of how God intended to feed them: through us.
@@MappingtheArchetypes It's likely St. Theophan intended those words for the majority of laymen who, in reality, should not be concerning themselves with proselytization when they have their own sins to worry about. He's clearly not saying no one should ever proselytize the heterodox.
@@SeraphimGoose That almost makes sense. But everyone has their own sins to worry about... the point I'm trying to make is: we have responsibility here. If someone is dying of thirst, the sin of the person sharing water with them is irrelevant. The woman at the well was not piety, and she was sent out immediately to tell her home town about the messiah. The idea that only piety can properly spread the gospel is a) nothing I see in scripture b) either, at best, a desire to standardize and industrialize the conversion process akin to a byzantine DMV or at worst a way to retain the gatekeeping status of mediators to God the clergy claims to have. I think government structures like the DMV illustrate the problem I have with institutions like the EO or Roman Catholicism. We know in the DMV example bad drivers can bear state-sanction licenses, and car accidents still happen. Conversely it's entirely possible a person can be a good driver while not having a legal license. While one can argue that the idea behind the DMV is to do the best it can over a wide array of people, the exceptions and major leading cause of death (car accidents) leads me to think otherwise. While good drivers might be a byproduct often from the DMVs existence, I think it's success rate is greatly hamstrung by it's true motive: taxing and monetizing the use of roads, cars, etc. I think it's a similar situation with the EO and Catholic institutions (I'm distinguishing between the institutions and the people inside of them). Those institutions need to justify their existence and they've chosen to do so by claiming a monopoly on entrance into salvific states of "grace." Needless to say, I think that's the real reason (though consciously hidden or subconsciously driven) that gate keeps the spreading of the gospel by so-called laity. If the concern is practical i.e. "we want to protect against heresy" why did like... 90% of the heresy in the 2nd century to now come from church leadership? It makes no sense. If the job of the clergy is to maintain unity... why the schisms? If the institution is meant to do what it claims to do... it's not doing a very good job.
This follow-up video needed to be out out there. So good, Dr. Ortlund. I'm with you. I'm thankful for the change toward a more Biblical understanding of salvation, but we also cannot allow this obvious change to be swept under the rug as if it's not obviously a change.
Ask them “what is the gospel?” Or talk to them about scripture and they crawl out of their skin. I talk to my EO coworker about scripture and he looks at me like I’m speaking Greek. He can’t fathom a good and gracious God.
Bad catechesis of various individuals does not prove Orthodoxy false. It’s a logical error that seeks to avoid the deeper fundamental issues…and seeking to understand the way ORTHODOXY understands them. Not the way someone out of Orthodoxy attempts to understand them using his own errant presuppositions which are at the heart of the whole matter. It’s why Gavin is struggling so much to understand this. The only way he and anyone else outside of Orthodoxy can understand is by humbly setting aside their assumptions and presuppositions and comparing the two schools of thought at a deeper/meta/paradigm level. Consider Christ throughout the Gospels. What does He do? He often speaks in a parable that doesn’t merely present an either/or but a both/and that calls us to transcend our own understanding in order to embrace His, that we might be transformed into His likeness. “You have heard it said…but I tell you…” and “I came not to abolish the law but to fulfill it”…even as He says things which (to a devout Jewish mind) would be at best in opposition to the law and at worst blasphemous. How do we Orthodox know we are right? Christ is in our midst and He is and ever shall be! So come and meet Him…but leave your own assumptions at the door lest you too depart from Him because it is a hard saying and who can know it.
Here’s my answer: To start your question assumes that councils given for the Orthodox are meant for all people, and that’s just not the case. Anathamas are given to people “in the camp” so to speak. Doesn’t mean that what those “outside the camp” can’t be wrong but we can’t excommunicate or anathematize those who aren’t with us. But going back to St Theophan’s letter, that letter is about people who were Orthodox becoming Anglican. And absolutely those who apostatize from Orthodoxy are damned. But the SBC grandma who has never been in the camp (and possibly never knew the camp existed to begin with) is not necessarily.
but it's pretty clear from the quotes that Gavin read that those "outside the camp" are pronounced damned whether Protestant or Roman Catholic. Did you not watch all the video?
This is my answer: The first example you present is a theological concern regarding the filioque. The main concern with the filioque is that it unbalances the Holy Trinity, making 1 of the three proceed from the other two and subservient to them as opposed to both the Son and the Spirit proceeding equally from the Eternal Father. This is an issue of the nature of the Godhead and therefore is paramount and any inaccuracy in this is of serious theological concern. As for the bit about leaving the Uniates (what today we call Eastern -Rite Catholics if I'm understanding correctly), as scripture says, " Do not be unequally yoked together with unbelievers. For what fellowship has righteousness with lawlessness? And what communion has light with darkness?" (2 Corinthians 6:14 NKJV). Which also speaks to the majority of these. While it is indeed the historic claim of the Orthodox Church that salvation only exists within her, there are two things which must be carefully considered. 1. The reason for the Church saying this, is and has always been, concern over the heresies and falsehoods observed in other traditions, not a spirit of arrogance or self-importance on the part of the Church or her Patriarchs. 2. While the belief has always been that the full and true faith and the salvation that comes with it exist only within Holy Orthodoxy, there has also always been the knowledge that God in His Mercy and Wisdom can work outside of the Church and in the lives of those outside the Church, but that those who have been touched by the Holy Spirit will seek the Lord and His people and will want to become Orthodox because that is where they belong. The second quote is a defense of Apostolic Succession and the third continues that theme taking it one step further and saying that the RCC has cut itself off from and no-longer has a valid line of apostolic succession, which likely has to do with the various theological differences (or heresies, including the filioque) that have cropped up since the schism.
Former Protestant who became Orthodox here. While I won’t waste time mentioning other Orthodox saints who have said things positively about the salvation of those who are not Eastern Orthodox-others in the comments are doing this-what I wonder is this: why does it matter if people inside an institution make boundary statements about who is in and who isn’t? That doesn’t seem to be an argument to me, and has nothing to do with the merits or demerits of Eastern Orthodoxy, especially considering I could easily turn it around on Protestants, including Calvinists like Dr. Ortlund. For example, John MacArthur has no problem damning millions of Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox to hell because we reject Sola Fide, and major Calvinist figures today speak of how Rome “anathematized the Gospel,” and the Protestant Reformers were no less harsh in their criticisms and condemnations of Rome. But I don’t think anyone should use John MacArthur’s and other Calvinists’ positive damning of RC and EO Christians as an argument against their belief systems, especially when there are other Calvinists like Dr. Ortlund, who himself has spoken positively about his Catholic and Orthodox interlocutors. It doesn’t seem to be a useful argument for anyone to make, regardless of where they stand, against converting from any Tradition A to any Tradition B because people in Tradition B say harsh things about the people and beliefs of Tradition A.
Does it not matter to you, given that these are major councils, encyclicals of the patriarchs, etc.? Or do you essentially reject the hierarchy, but still wish to call yourself EO?
No, I don’t reject the hierarchy, and I can completely see and understand where Dr. Ortlund is coming from. That’s not my point. My point is that pointing out exclusivist statements does nothing for or against the underlying merits or demerits of a set of beliefs, unless you are operating under a presupposition that somehow the most inclusive set of beliefs is always the best.
@@targetprime7 Ah, I'd failed to grasp what your comment was getting at. I apologize. Okay, I'd just want to emphasize that if you think that that's a change, then that undermines the claim to be unchanging. And that I think the scriptures are clear enough that faith suffices for salvation, and it certainly seems to be the case that there are believing Christians outside the EO church, which would seem to make the belief false.
@@targetprime7 // pointing out exclusivist statements does nothing for or against the underlying merits or demerits of a set of beliefs// It does when it is in disobedience with Christ's own words of how one recognizes a good tree which bears good fruit and how many non-EO Christians exhibit works of the spirit like successful exorcisms that is only possible with the Holy Spirit. To then have an official council that condemns all of these people is working against the spirit of Christ. This is a way bigger problem for the EO than the Protestants since these are EO councils that are meant to be defining doctrine.
For sure-all good. If I’m understanding you, you’re asking if I think that the existence of different opinions now vs the examples Dr. Ortlund cited constitutes a change and therefore undermines the claim of the EOC to be unchanging in the matter of doctrine and dogma. I think it’s worth mentioning that there are countless changes that have occurred within Orthodoxy throughout the years. It would be foolish to deny this. From liturgical vestments, prayers, liturgies, languages, methods of dealing with church problems, etc., there have been changes. Even something like the sacrament of Confession, which was originally done publicly, but due to practical issues (among other things) evolved into the practice of private confession with a priest present (who stands on behalf of the church)-this is obviously a “change” in practice, but the underlying theology and doctrine regarding confession remained the same (reconciliation to both Christ and the Church at the same time, since we believe you cannot have one without the other). There’s much more to Confession than what I mentioned, but I’m just using it as an example. Whether or not those changes are a fundamental change in doctrine or “dogma” is the question, and that is what the Orthodox mean when they say that the EOC is “unchanging.” They mean that it has not changed a fundamental doctrine. Personally I do not believe that differences of opinions on the status of the non-Orthodox constitute anything “fundamental” about the doctrines of the Church, but others might disagree with me on that. I think that the accepted stories in Orthodoxy of the salvation of individuals who were saved in what I’ll call “non-normative” ways go to show, by their very existence, that it is not a fundamental doctrine on par with the Trinity or something like that which was determined in one of the Ecumenical Councils. We accept that there is a normative way of salvation, but clearly there are people who are saved in other ways. We don’t know how exactly it happens-that’s up to God and not for us to stress about, but we pray for all people to become Orthodox. And that’s not a contradiction for us either. Remember too-and this is very important when reading statements that Dr. Ortlund cited-that the anathemas of the Church are directed towards Orthodox who deliberately kept teaching heresy and left in spite of repeated warnings: it was the final attempt to get them to repent. The anathemas were never meant to be directed at Bob the Baptist or Peter the Presbyterian who lived and died following Christ to the best of their knowledge with the light they were given. Blessings!
I heard an Eastern Orthodox guy answer the question “On a scale of 1 to 10, how sure are you that you go to heaven?”, and he said “I honestly don’t know, I hope I make it to heaven.” That answer is contradictory to the teachings of Paul!! That answer was final straw when even considering if Eastern Orthodoxy is the true and only church.
You confuse understanding a formula with real life execution. GOD decides. And HE has HIS reasons. ....many on the day of judgement will be to told they are not known.
The church is Christ's faithful people. There are a lot of the faithful sitting in pews for cultural, family, habit reasons who don't agree with all the sermons or particularly care what the official denominational distinctives are. Nobody enters the kingdom because of the sign on the door. Daily trusting in the Lord, exercising love and good works toward others, is the mark of those who belong to Him.
If you do not agree with the doctrine of the church you should leave it! Not sit there and tolerate bad teachings or belief or actions Jesus condemned one of the Church’s in Revelation for tolerating sin! Stand up for truth and leave!
@@mikekayanderson408 Is there any denomination that 100% follows the scriptures in doctrine or practice? Denominations are historical and cultural artifacts, full of doctrinal choices that came out of old arguments that have no relation to the lives of everyday people. Christ's church is his faithful people, through the covenant in his blood, no matter where they are sitting.
The artificial handicap in the argument presented here is the imposition of a specific historical interpretation, Ortlunds commentary, onto Orthodox beliefs at-large, regardless of how those beliefs might be understood today. Apart from the already obvious challenge of a Russian Orthodox with their own context and language on these theological matters (Theophon)... The argument essentially asks, "How can the historical Orthodox view on non-Orthodox salvation be more clearly articulated, given these examples?" Then Ortlund persists to read (Sola Fide) salvation anachronistichally onto the Orthodox text, to then discredit a very different paradigm of Orthodoxy that has its own definition of salvation (Theosis). This approach presents several challenges to Ortlunds claims and intentions... because it: -Ignores Contemporary Interpretations: Which Gavin has activley done in the comments section. It disregards the evolving nature of religious thought in contemporary Orthodox perspectives on salvation. Like in the dialogues with Fr. Stephen De Young where some of these issues were already clarified. -This approach oversimplifies complex issues, It reduces complex theological questions to a single historical analysis, potentially leading to misunderstandings and misrepresentations. Of the group that, to Ortlunds own acknowledgement, is rallying converts. This limits the scope of the dialogue. By focusing solely on the historical perspective, with preference to your commentary and not contemporary Orthodoxy...it limits the scope of interfaith dialogue that I was anticipating, and prevents a deeper exploration of common ground. This approach has just said "bye-bye" to the earlier standards you set of interfaith dialogue you claimed were your original intentions. By framing "interfaith dialogue" to only apply to playing in the sandbox you created ...you confirmed the skepticism from the silent majority caught in this gray area of Church Identity. Your argument seems like a whopping whataboutism: you wrote to a commenter: "The argument of this video was to document the historic Orthodox view on the non-Orthodox (regardless of how that view is later received) and then ask: how more clearly could their non-salvation of heterodox be articulated?" Essentially, your asking (What about the) historic text on the Orthodox view of the salvation of the heterodox? To then posit: Is that as inclusive as we perceive the gospel today? Well slow down! if we are strong manning each others' historical positions; to then articulate modern solutions... The orthodox can just as easily assert the same argument; What about the Protestant doctrinal dissonance and anachronism that divided early protestantism onto this modern fragmentation? Do Protestants have doctrinal unity that we expect from this principle of private judgement they employ? This seems useless, seeing that the same sandbox can be framed for your position as well... I guess I expected more than an internal critique predicated on limiting the conversation. You need to address the paradigm that is actively bringing in protestant converts, not fling whataboutism's from a protestants interpretation of Orthodox texts. Just wow. (Before you also cope and disregard my comment as Orthobro cope... let me boldly specify: I am Pentecoastal!)
Show me where his argument is wrong because I'm not saying it's impossible but a majority of orthodox saints believed there's no salvation outside the church
@@aceswizzo8665 See that is the point, the argument isn't (incorrect) more so the argument is (improper): Ortlund's approach to interfaith dialogue often employs whataboutism. Instead of engaging with the core of Orthodox beliefs, he deflects the driving criticisms from Orthodoxy by pointing out perceived flaws in the Orthodox Church's non-inclusive sentiments, and venerative practices. This tactic undermines genuine dialogue and hinders the pursuit of truth, ironically he named his channel truth unites when it should have been called ‘slanted journalism.’ Whataboutism is a rhetorical tactic where someone responds to an accusation or difficult question by making a counter-accusation or bringing up a different issue. Instead of addressing the original point, they deflect attention by saying, “What about [another issue]?” This technique is often used to divert criticism and avoid directly answering the question at hand. Gavin did this with Fr. Stephen De Young in his dialogue on Sola Scriptura. The fundamental question at the heart of these discussions is the nature of salvation and the Church. Orthodox Christians often view salvation as inextricably linked to the sacraments and traditions of the Church which would clearly denote the non-inclusivity of their tradition. Ortlund, on the other hand, seems to prioritize individual interpretation of Scripture and virtually no extension of ritualistic tradition from historic root traditions... Each set of worldviews brings with it, its own set of problems. However each one should be able to speak on its own terms to what defines these very things, “Church,” “salvation,” and “faith,” and whether these definitions give an answer to the foundational question, Protestants and Orthodox have skeletons in their closets. They both have changed in some ways over time. I can make the same argument to Ortlund that he made to the Orthodox: Ortlund creates an artificial handicap. He demands that Orthodox Christians justify their beliefs within a framework that inherently disadvantages their worldview. He says, "Without appealing to contemporary Orthodoxy answer on behalf of this historic text.” And in the comments Gavin revealed this is his argument plainly, and I quote: @truthunites, says, “The argument of this video was to document the historic Orthodox view on the non-Orthodox () and then ask: how more clearly could their non-salvation be articulated? ... ” (@truthunites in response to @alypiusloft) Placing artificial handicaps is a popular approach to bypass the root issue. This approach is akin to when atheists demand proof of God's existence solely through scientific methods, “Prove to me God exists only using naturalism!” Well they effectively made an argument that artificially handicap’s any metaphysical or spiritual answer like the laws of logic or conscience. Essentially this ties the respondents arm behind their back from relying on the answers that could prove the question if treated fairly. Such a one-sided approach stifles meaningful dialogue and hinders the pursuit of understanding between different faith traditions. This achieves the opposite of what Dr. Ortlund retorts. So I end by asking, “What’s the point of this approach to the goal of interfaith dialogue?” It seems more so that Gavin is engaging with religious polemics rather than interfaith conversation as advertised…
“Jesus is not a liar” he said the gates of hell would not prevail against His Church and this means that Church is here to this day and that Church is not invisible because it’s never been described invisibly in the Gospels.
Yeah Protestant Christians agree that Jesus is not a liar. We don't believe the Church ever disappeared. That has been said on this channel over and over again. Whoever taught you that was repeating a falsehood about Protestants. Who was it? Protestants believe in the visible Church as well as the invisible Church, in that sense that not everyone who claims to be Christian is truly a Christian in the eyes of God. Can you cite any Protestant Confession of Faith from the Reformation that says otherwise? The Lord Jesus Christ never said that the church of rome would never error, as it has many times. The Church of which the Lord Jesus Cheist is the only Head existed long before there was even a church in Rome. Nor did The Lord Jesus say that the church of Constantinople or Alexandria would never error.
Dr. Ortlund, love your videos. Excellent job on this topic. Question: can't we turn your question to Orthodox brothers back on you in regards to a literal, seven-day creation and a truly global flood? If the Bible were trying to teach a literal, seven-day creation or a truly global flood, how could the Bible have worded it to be more clear? Is there any particular phrasing which would have convinced you? How does your response to this question affect your expectations for how Orthodox Christians will respond when you pose it to them?
>>If the Bible were trying to teach a literal, seven-day creation or a truly global flood, how could the Bible have worded it to be more clear? Well, for one, it could have not have juxtaposed two contradictory creation stories directly adjacent each other, both using highly etiological and poetic forms and structures. And as for the flood, it could have used language that wasn't frequently used to refer to limited areas of geography or the "known world." I don't think these examples are remotely comparable. The Orthodox Church has, in many ways over many centuries, articulated specifically how those outside of Her are certainly damned, in no uncertain terms. It's not really comparable to thousands-of-years-old poetry and ancient pre-history.
For an answer to the general thoughts expressed....I want to say that I firstly respect you greatly for willing to have these discussions. I believe that out of an abundant desire to see people saved, the Fathers of the Church have drawn a line in the sand because we can only be ASSURED of the location and working of The Holy Spirit in one place, that being the Eastern Orthodox Church. That does not deny the possibility that the Lord our God can work in other ways. I respect your desire to "read sentences and take them at face value", but you're approaching the entire thought process from a deeply Western view that is entrenched in an almost excessively rigid logical structure that is completely alien to the Phronema of the East. We do not understand in order to believe. We live in the hope of transformation with a possible outcome being comprehension. Understanding is not required. Submission is. I know already that this answer will be unsatisfactory to you, because of the very nature of Eastern thought. That being said there is simply no other way to even have the conversation other than to say this, your lack of submission to The One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic Eastern Orthodox Church is the first and primary thing preventing you from understanding. I am deeply convinced that if you were to spend your energy on firstly living the life of the Church and giving yourself to Her, you would have your Nous cleansed in a way that would enlighten you like you've never been before. May it be blessed. ☦
I, like Gavin, appreciate the willingness you have to talk here and your disagreement with historic EO theology on the issue of whether or not people outside their church structure can be saved. I do not however think this idea that Gavin, and so many others just can't understand the complexities of Eastern thought holds up. And I say that because the past declarations of the EO councils, patriarchs, theologians and other figures that Gavin walks through here, and elsewhere, are not "eastern" in the way you describe. They are extremely straightforward and not open to definition you give that there is a place where a person's salvation can be "assured" (which is inside the EO church) and a place where it cannot be (which is in communions outside of it. Rather, their contention is explicitly that anyone outside their church is not saved, not that anyone outside their church might not be saved. As a related note, frankly the terms you describe your relationship with the church, and thus to Christ in, are frankly rife with mysticism. Christianity is not a religion based on mysticism, but on the gospel - that is, the truth. The truth of Christ is not found mysticism and blind submission, but faithfully serving God by following the commands he gives us - which are clear in scripture. I do not mean any of this to be offensive at all, and I hope it does not come across as such. God bless you.
@@tategarrett3042 I suspected more or less a reply along these lines, and I don't disregard it out of hand. You're not wrong that the Orthodoxy is rife with mysticism. I have no defense or desire to defend that accusation because the embracing of Mystery is absolutely critical to EO theology. I also know that for MANY people that is a massive barrier that cannot be easily overcome and have no defense for it other than my own life and spiritual growth as an example of an avid and militant atheist turned Orthodox Christian. May Dr. Ortland's further investigations into all things of Christ, the lives of all Christians, and the whole world be blessed both now and ever and unto ages of ages. Amen.
@@maggyinahat I don't discount your experiences, but what you're saying here is identical to what Mormons, Jehova's Witnesses, and many other cults, and religious groups say. They argue that their own personal experiences and feelings are evidence enough, but we were not left the Scriptures to guide us so that we might rely on the heart - which is treacherous - to guide our decisions. I am not demanding that you know everything about your tradition, or be able to answer any question offhand, by any means, but it seems to me to be a very severe problem if there are recognized issues and the answer to them is simply to say "you must embrace mystery." If I say "I am pro life, and believe that no child should be killed in the womb" and then tell you a minute later that "I'm going to have an abortion soon" you would be perfectly within your logical rights to point out the contradiction in what I said, and if I responded by saying it was a mystery that you had to experience to accept, you would again be perfectly justified in calling me out for holding a view that was incoherent.
@@tategarrett3042 The difference between what the mormons and other heretical and non-christian groups say and what I'm saying, is that we're saying the same thing the entire church has taught since the beginning of The Church. For over 2,000 years we have been steadfast in our teachings, doctrine, structure, and practices. Rome, Luther, the Reformers, and every single branch of Protestantism has repeatedly continued the practice of revision and change and then pointed backwards at the Orthodoxy and questioned our ways. I am a little upset at being compared to mormons and other completely non-christian groups, and I apologize for being in that state of mind. That being said I'm not saying you need to have faith in just any old thing that someone has come up and decided is the truth. I'm saying that in order to come to an understanding (which is not required) one must first be in submission to the same Church founded by Christ on the day of Pentecost, headed by the Apostles, and passed down through the last 2,000 years unchanged and unwavering. God bless. ☦
@@maggyinahat I see what you're saying but the issue is the manifest contradiction in it - you're saying we (Protestants) are in revision, and that your views have been constant for 2000 years and yet the very thing we're discussing is that while Protestantism has consistently taught the same thing regarding salvation for those outside a given church (Lutheranism, or the Reformed tradition for example), your church has either changed its views or else you are out of alignment with its unchanging views. Either your church actually does deny that anyone outside its organizational boundaries is saved, as so many of its councils and leaders explicitly state, or you don't practice the unchanging faith that was handed down to the apostles 2000 years ago, because you've changed what you believe on it. Of course I can mention other points where we feel the EO church has changed its views away from what the early church actually taught and practiced, but that's a separate topic.
Wow I’m a catechumen at the moment and gotta be honest this is the hardest teaching to accept, but I keep coming back to the same thing. Jesus said if we believe his word, but what if we are believing something he never taught. Then are we believing in a false Christ ? Gavin is right who are we to change this teaching. It is hard for me still with tears. I have meant Protestants who love Christ and I would love to say that I love my Catholic brothers and sisters as well. Gavin my man. I love you man, but if this the historic teaching of the church and there was no other view. My only plea would be for people to repent of heresy and false doctrines and come into the fullness. I say this with a heavy heart. Not with pride but with tears.
Given the holy mysteries (sacraments), no Orthodox Christian would ever characterize their engagement with the Church as remotely ethereal and nor would we put the Church, the Body of Christ, against the Head of the Body, Christ Himself. Christ is not divided. We experience Christ by participating as members of His Body, the Church.
Can any orthodox make a logical argument why your church has the practice of denying to baptize believers? The apostles baptized believers the same day. Your church has the heterodox practice of a priest arbitrarily picking who can be baptized. The exact opposite practice of the apostles.
My answer: I can speak in the Protestant language because I am technically one, so I wonder if it helps that I point out that the Orthodox seem to be coming from a different perspective than you about salvation altogether. I know nothing, but salvation from an Orthodox view would maybe be incarnational in the sense that it would be embodied in you as Christ is saving you, as you are embodied in His Body in the Church. So the question I would ask back to you would be, how could anyone be saved outside of Christ and His Body? And notice that I'm not saying that no one could be saved by God as He chooses, but I am asking about, based on what we have received, how would someone be saved outside of the incarnate Christ and His incarnate Body which is the Church? Also, what would that salvation even be if it is not righteousness incarnated?
This question is premised on the Orthodox Church being the Church body. That's an incredible premise on which to build an argument about why there is no salvation outside of the Church. It's news to the hundreds of thousands (possibly millions) of Muslims who have converted to Christ through Jesus dreams who were simultaneously never given the revelation to seek out the closest Orthodox Church in order to achieve/be granted salvation.
@kevinkent6351 While uncomfortable to consider that we may be outsiders, it's important to listen to the historical testimony of the Church. We should desire to be subject to the judgment of the Church. God will judge those outside. If you are in it, then you will be judged accordingly. If you're not, then the same. Ultimately, I like to think about if things get really bad out there, and we all end up in a cave. What will we do? What will our testimony be? In the final judgment, God knows who is trying, and He knows who is lying.
@@Adam_Wilde "God will judge those outside the Church." For followers of Christ, Christ's righteousness is imputed onto them--that is, God sees Christ in them, and Christ is blameless. Those who follow Jesus are the CHURCH. There's no institution under which the Church resides. There is no tax ID or address or LLC that is the Church.
@@gardengirlmary When people say that there is "cope" somewhere, they are saying that people are trying to reconcile difficult situations by concluding that they arent important or real.
For the Velichkovsky quote I think you missed the key word there “again.” Meaning these individuals were Orthodox and then became Eastern Catholic, which we would say does damn you. That is a different scenario than someone who was never Orthodox.
There is great and blessed spiritual fruit outside of Christianity. Everyone who is the least bit honest and fair-minded knows this to be true. So the argument that non-Orthodox Christians must be legitimate because of their fruits also rightfully applies to non-Christians. More broadly, it's not possible that the God of love and justice would condemn you for living in a just and loving way because you have the wrong theology. I refer you Christians, inter alia, to Romans 2:6-11. "For he will repay according to each one’s deeds."
No, Gavin, you're not going crazy.. You have tripped over an unjustifiable contradiction that can't be defended, and that's why the confusing pushback.
"Jesus is sufficient for your everlasting salvation" - Truly the bottom line.
Therefore every single thing He left, like his Church must be followed with all our hearts
Amen. That is truly Good News and truly God glorifying.
@@JeffersonElderbut not unto salvation...lest any man boast. Also Jesus didn't leave us the EO church! No historian could possibly argue that!
Stay in your comfort like the Satan wants, the church is the home which Christ brings heaven on earth today not in the future
@@FaithinChristCrucifiedOF course Christ founded the Holy Orthodox Church. Every GOOD HISTORIAN WILL AGREE
I'm excited to see that you made a follow-up to the previous video! The comments in that one were a mess of people misunderstanding you. Hopefully this helps clear things up.
unfortunately, he also misunderstands us it would seem.
He is extremely disingenuous, and his argumentation is borderline deceitful. I’m being charitable.
Wow, Dr. Ortlund. That last segment on “how to be saved” was very much needed as an Oriental Orthodox who has been walking with this anxiety due to having numerous disagreements with the institutional Church and its unscriptural doctrines and practices. I can’t even express how simple yet immensely profound this remark was. This, indeed, is the Spirit of our Lord Jesus Christ who came to seek and save that which was lost - entirely contrary to the evil one whose sole mission is to shut the gates of the kingdom before humanity. That’s tragically what religious leaders throughout all generations have sought to do, and woe to those who paint this image of God before simple and “little” believers causing them to stumble, walk in ceaseless condemnation, and fully lose their sight of the Gospel and cross of our Lord Jesus. Neither do they themselves enter nor do they let others enter. God bless you, Dr. Ortlund.
thank you, may the Lord bless you!
What are the most serious disagreements?
@@mariammrizkalla5187 amen.
*"That’s tragically what religious leaders throughout all generations have sought to do,"*
Tragically, this sort of gatekeeping is also found among, basically, all denominations. I agree with you wholeheartedly, but I'm on the side of Luther and Calvin when they say that there are true Christians and true churches in all denominations that have the true Gospel. Scriptures say that the Church *_IS_* the body of Christ. And, if someone truly believes in Christ, then they are in Him. Therefore, all who truly believe in Him are the Church catholic (universal). This is why all the early Protestants say that they are catholics, deny that they started anything new, and point out how (in their opinion) they are closer to the Early Church doctrines than Catholics. Now, I don't think they were completely right about being closer to the Early Church. In some ways they were closer in some ways they were not, in my opinion. However, what they said is true about what makes one a member of the universal (catholic) Church, and that's being in Christ, just as you say.
The Oriental Orthodox church doesn't have doctrines or practices that go against scripture, please don't bear false witness.
"What I'm trying to do here is read sentences"
@@pmfeghali 😂
“There’s a lot of cope in the comments.” 💀😂
that was so unexpected from him lol
@ that’s what I thought. It cracked me up
We never make statements about a specific person’s salvation - and that includes ourselves. To do so you would need to judge and in so doing put yourself in the place of God. We do indeed hope in salvation, who is Christ.
This is just too rational and straightforward, no one is interested in commenting.
An anecdote from my life regarding the anathmaizing of other Christians:
I am a German-Russian living in Germany and a Christian who attends a Pentecostal church. A few years ago, I was visiting my Russian (Orthodox) family who lives in the US. On a long drive there, my cousin and my grandfather turned on a CD of Orthodox prayers. From time to time, the priest would say “In the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit - Amen”. Then the two of them also said Amen and crossed themselves.
This was completely new to me and I didn't really know how to behave - so I joined in half-heartedly...
Until at some point the following sentence came: “And cursed be everyone outside the Orthodox Church”... My cousin and my grandpa said Amen to this and crossed themselves... Well, I could neither say amen nor cross myself :D
Honestly left me a bit confused. Especially because they both knew I was a Christian.
They’re being polite, but they do not believe you are a Christian
@@jakob-d5u well, according to them, you're not a Christian. They don't want to tell you
Never heard that phrase in a single prayer in all the services of the Church.
@@issaavedra
That’s a joke ? 👀
@@issaavedraKinda gaslighting the dude, no? Sunday of Orthodoxy the list of Anathemas are doled out,(unless you’re at a more progressive Orthodox Church, then they stop right before the Anathemas). Anathema literally means condemned or accursed by God.
Sounds something like this “To those who scorn the venerable and holy ecumenical Councils, and who despise even more their dogmatic and canonical traditions; and to those who say that all things were not perfectly defined and delivered by the councils, but that they left the greater part mysterious, unclear, and untaught, ANATHEMA.
Faithful: Anathema.”
This part is particularly funny because the mere suggestion that Orthodoxy is not 100% correct makes one accursed.
Amazing stuff.
I dont know if making a comment boosts your channel for the algorithm, but whatever I can do to support, I am happy to do that.
I sincerely appreciate your work so much 😊
It does help, all engagement makes a difference but comments are more impactful than Likes for example.
My smile is so wide when I see a TU notification
Here's my answer: The question you are asking us to answer won't yield much fruit. Asking us to find a stronger way to phrase the assertion that there is no possibility of salvation unless you are Eastern Orthodox is presupposing that that is actually what is being asserted. Instead, perhaps you should ask "How else could these assertions be interpreted in a way that is consistent with the idea that salvation may be possible for those outside the Eastern Orthodox Church?".
My answer to this (modified) question is that it is similar to interpreting Paul in Romans 9. Proponents of the Calvinist notion of predestination interpret Paul's statements about God's sovereignty as applying to each individual soul, while those opposed to this idea interpret this passage in context as being a specific argument about God's plan from the beginning for the salvation of the world via Israel. It is macro scale, not micro scale. I think these quotes from Orthodox writers are similar. They are not trying to answer the question, "For the farmer living in rural, post-schism England, what hope of salvation do they have?" They are answering questions about Christian groups that are separated from Orthodoxy. At the individual level, it is much more difficult to judge what God may or may not do. After all, He is the judge, not us. "But our God is in the heavens: He hath done whatsoever he hath pleased" Psalm 115:3
Generally speaking, I think it would be beneficial to all for you engage on these writings with qualified Orthodox representatives. There are other ways to interpret these writings other than they way that feels most natural to you, and RUclips comments aren't a great place for real dialogue.
You've quoted some good Bible verses, but the Orthodox Church has still condemned Catholics and Protestants as they are not within the Orthodox Church. Dr. Ortlund has shown that. You need a response to why the Orthodox church would anathematize everyone outside of it, including professing Christians
Gavin has had multiple dialogues with EO people that have outright said that he is damned.
When you have a statement as clear as, “There is NO SALVATION outside the Catholic Church”, you are suggesting we read that as, “There is actually some salvation outside the Catholic Church. You are importing later sentiments that seem to be explicitly precluded in the texts themselves. Not one of the statements that Gavin read has the caveat you are trying to provide. You seemed to express that quite easily, so surely if those writers had wanted to express the same then they would have? There is no way to more clearly say that one CANNOT be saved or that NO ONE can be saved outside of the Orthodox Church, and given that there is no clearer way to say that, it means that you are not treating the texts fairly.
When you say Gavin presupposes what is being asserted, please explain what is correctly being asserted then, with direct reference to the texts being brought up. You say Gavin is presupposing the assertion, but it seems like he is just taking these statements to mean what they are clearly saying. They are clearly saying that there is no salvation outside of the Eastern Orthodox Church. That is the plain reading of these texts. They could not have said that any more clearly.
Gavin is also not presupposing the assertion. His question is this, “If someone wanted to say more plainly or clearly that THERE IS NO SALVATION OUTSIDE OF THE EO CHURCH, how could they possibly do it (without doing what I have done in using caps for emphasis)?”. This does not presuppose that these statements ARE saying that, it is asking how they could have been worded in such a way that would convince you that they were saying what the plain reading seems to be saying.
@@ToothpikcOriginal We don't condemn Catholics and Protestants as persons only their faith. We don't know of our own salvation, let alone others. But that does not stop us from our duty to tell you if you are getting into a boat that has a leak. We think the likelihood of your reaching your destination is quite slim, but we still like you all the same. Your only other choice is to agree like Pope Francis that everyone has a path to heaven, etc.
I check for new Truth Unites videos pretty much every day. Or if someone is interviewing Gavin. Thanks for your work. Also looking forward to the release of Matt Fradd interview with you.
Fraud?!
@@BrianGondo lol typo. thanks
I'm a simple man, I get a notification from Truth Unites, I leave whatever I'm doing and click! God bless you, Gavin✝️🔥❤️
I work beside an EO man. He is 26, unmarried, and what people call “chronically online”. We talked for an hour yesterday about EO and it left me very upset. He can cite every council, father, and his desk is full of icons. Yet he doesn’t understand the gospel. I pray for him constantly.
EO myself. Keep praying for him. He understands the Gospel fully well but understands it from an historical perspective. We are contiually being saved. We are being save today yesterday and tomorrow. Salvation is a process not a transaction.
usually these folks only cite the councils and fathers that agree w them.
Why do you say he cant understand the gospel?
@@jacobrickman5197you mean sanctification? Salvation is once for all not a process.
Correct diagnosis. Gen Z Orthodoxised and in dire need of the freedom of the Gospel of Grace. Much prayer. The new creation is only a work of God.
These types of videos are so important. The Algorithm constantly assaults my faith with No Salvation Outside Our Church theology from many parties.
Oh well 😂
@@JC.AEP2 “Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you. 8 For everyone who asks receives; the one who seeks finds; and to the one who knocks, the door will be opened." Matthew chapter 7
Don't be discouraged. We have the Holy Spirit, who is our comforter
The steadfast love of the LORD never ceases;
his mercies never come to an end;
they are new every morning;
great is your faithfulness. Lamentations 3 verse 22
I feel you on that. God Bless you! Christ is enough!
I thought I was the only one !!!!! :)
Have you joined all of them yet?
Dr Ortlund, even if you dismantle Orthodoxy, what exactly do you stand for? I’m asking as a Protestant on the verge of conversion. It seems to me that if you hold Protestantism accountable to its history, not only is it as dark, exclusive and twisted as Orthodoxy but it is even more so. From the beginning of the reformation, the movement was riddled with heresies, lies, violence, scandals, etc. In these days, everything is relativized according to a postmodern epistemology. I haven’t seen any pastor or scholar address the problem of relativism. While Orthodoxy can be exclusive, I don’t see this as a point of contention with the historical church, rather, an expression of it. I’m at the point where I even find Roman Catholicism more attractive and coherent than “Protestantism”.
So my question is, what exactly are you arguing for? In other words, what tradition do you believe to be most faithful to the gospel?
Exactrly my thoughts. I am in the same situation, having been brought up Protestant, and through with it.
The answer you are looking you will not be satisfied. That I promise you. In this video and the video before he basically means" hey look at the orthodox church. They have a bad system and as result, they will be bad consequences. Therefore Protestantism is much better because we don't believe that a church is strictly to one institutional and we don't believe ecumenical councils are infallible because they basically anathemas attached to it. Therefore Protestantism is much better. Became a Protestant"
It is ridiculous
The answer you are looking you will not be satisfied. That I promise you. In this video and the video before he basically means" hey look at the orthodox church. They have a bad system and as result, they will be bad consequences. Therefore Protestantism is much better because we don't believe that a church is strictly to one institutional and we don't believe ecumenical councils are infallible because they basically anathemas attached to it. Therefore Protestantism is much better. Became a Protestant"
It is ridiculous
Great question. We should all be standing on the apostolic deposit, given once for all by Christ and the Holy Spirit.
Let's find churches to fellowship with who are committed to this faith above the teachings of any other person.
Come home to Rome
The Orthodox Church does not declare with certainty the eternal destiny of individual persons, apart from those who have been recognised as saints by the Church. Orthodox Christians as individuals are not considered "Saved" in a definite sense, and non Orthodox individuals are not judged to be "damned". Rather, we have been given in the Sacraments of the Orthodox church a normative and ordinary means of attaining salvation through Christ. However, in the Last Judgement, Christ may in His mercy join individuals who died outside of the canonical bounds of the Orthodox Church to His body, and grant them salvation in an extraordinary manner. For this we should hope and pray. All Christian groups draw boundary lines around what constitutes the church, and the requirements for salvation. For most protestants, JWs and Mormons are on the outside. When those lines are drawn to exclude mainline protestants, the hypocritical indignation on their part is truly something to behold.
The Divine Liturgy has a service every year where a long list of names and denominations are chanted and anathematised. Are you unaware of this ? Anathematise is a condemnation and a severance of eternal life in the church.
Exactly
@@WaterMelon-Cat I can almost guarantee you saw the video of a schismatic “priest” saying anathemas to reformers like Calvin and Luther, and then all Protestant sects etc. That isn’t the actual service. That guy literally made it all up and recited it in his living room playing dress up in vestments and recorded himself to put on the internet. You can Google the Sunday of Orthodoxy service and read the anathema’s. Btw, anathemas are a took the Bible itself uses, Paul’s epistles contain anathemas quite a few times
A Protestant saying that JWs and Mormons are not saved is not remotely similar to the Catholic or Orthodox churches saying a Protestant isn't saved. Mormons and JWs deny the Trinity (Mormons lie about what it is, JWs just throw it out), while the Orthodox, Catholic, and Protestant traditions all agree on God's Triune nature. You may as well accuse Protestants of hypocrisy for putting atheists and pagans outside the "boundary lines."
You speak so ignorantly it's almost shocking, but it's not as it is, I have come to learn, typical of the apostolic churches to obscure things regarding Protestantism...
Anyone who rejects the divinity of Christ is opposed to Christ and is not a Christian, self-professed non-Christian, as they identify with their cults....I can't imagine you don't know this...Mormons and JW's deny Christ's Godship....I want to believe it's ignorance and not malice.
We reject your church for adding roadblocks for people who want to come to Christ but don't want to be part of your club...we maintain the teachings of our Lord Jesus and His Apostles and NOT their "successors." You believe in the church for your salvation...that's the main difference.
I enjoy my very low church, church of God that i attend. The people are kind and kingdom driven. Its all about speeading the Gospel and people getting saved.
This is a comment I left on a previous video that Dr. Ortlund made about Orthodoxy, I figured I'd leave it here as well.
A few things:
(1) Ortlund characterizes what he calls “the historic view” as “If you’re outside the Ark of the Church you are not saved.” My main problem with this view is that it presupposes a binary “you’re in or you’re out” view of salvation, which is across the board not what Orthodox Christians believe nor have ever believed historically. Salvation is about deification through union with Christ, and that’s a process.
(2) Ortlund is correct that the view of “we know where the Church is not but where the Church isn’t” is a modern view, and because of this it’s a view I don’t affirm. The Church is the Orthodox Church, and to not be in the Orthodox Church is to be outside the Body of Christ. However, to say someone is not in the Church is not the same as saying that the Spirit is not at work in them. The Northern Kingdom of Israel was not “part of the Church” because they did not have the Davidic king, true sacrifice in the temple, etc, but God still sends them prophets and works through them. St. Maximos the Confessor says the Spirit works outside the Church, but always for the purpose of uniting people with the Church.
(3) Ortlund says “I have not been able to find any historical affirmation that those outside the Orthodox Church can be saved.” Here’s one: St. Gregory the Great praying the pagan emperor Trajan out of hell: ( academic.oup.com/book/1885/chapter-abstract/141638221?redirectedFrom=fulltext ). Similarly, while I think Roman Catholics and Protestants are in error and outside the Church, I think it is possible for them to be saved by coming into union with the Church after death if they did not become part of the Church in this life.
(4) Ortlund is correct that some Orthodox theologians and saints in the last century speak of the impossibility of the salvation of those outside the Church. I would agree with this, with the important caveat made before, I think people can be reconciled with the Church after death, much like Trajan. It’s also important to take into account that a lot of these statements were made in the face of Orthodox Christians trying to defend themselves against aggressive evangelization from Catholics and Protestants.
(5) To refute his claim that “no one from the 9th - 19th century speaks of salvation of other groups” I’d point to how St Theophylact of Ohrid in the 11th century speaks about Latin Christians in his time, in which he affirms that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father alone (thus Theophylact denies the filiqoue) but simply said this should be attributed to the poverty of the Latin language and not to them being damned. Also it’s not like the 5th century council of Chalcedon happened and immediately there was a monophysite church and an Orthodox Church and immediately in 1054 there was a Latin church and an Orthodox Church - these schisms took literal centuries to solidify and in many cases important fathers and theologians affirm that those they disagree with (including those who affirm things like the filioque and monophysitism) are in the Church.
I'm not even going to read your copy and paste any further. You say:
*"(1) Ortlund characterizes what he calls “the historic view” as “If you’re outside the Ark of the Church you are not saved.” My main problem with this view is that it presupposes a binary “you’re in or you’re out” view of salvation, which is across the board not what Orthodox Christians believe nor have ever believed historically."*
That's exactly wrong, and that's what this video is about. It brings receipts to show that this is the official, historical teaching of the Orthodox church.
@@Real_LiamOBryan Maybe you should've read further.
@@Real_LiamOBryan You're tripping over the first point and fell because of it. You should listen first before you say anything. Lord have mercy
@@Real_LiamOBryan Except that there are also other historical receipts saying the opposite. That's the problem. There have been different views on this question within Orthodoxy throughout most of our history, and Ortlund is only quoting from one side of that debate.
I’m Orthodox and I think you may be mistaken. You say that “across the board” Orthodox understand salvation as deification / theosis. The Roman Catholic Church teaches this officially as well by the way. But this does not answer the first proposition. The Eastern Orthodox Church seems to be teaching no salvation outside the Ark of the Eastern Orthodox Church. There is no difficulty harmonizing these two points of view: there is no theosis outside the Orthodox Church. It’s that simple. That’s seemingly the Eastern Orthodox teaching.
I am an Orthodox Christian convert from being a Baptist. I loved my background as a Baptist and what I learned from being Baptist as was as missions and knowledge of the Bible. My understanding as an Orthodox Christian never really judges if other Christian faiths are saved or not. I do know that I’m in the only church but would never say any other Christian is not saved. That’s up to God who will judge us all on judgment day. My understanding is we don’t say we are saved either as we approach God as mear sinners and pray that God will have mercy on us and save us. We believe our church is the body of Christ and is like an the ark that Noah and his family was and are saved by being in the Ark or now the Orthodox Church. I would never say other Christians are condemned neither do I know of any orthodox who would say that.
I was also Baptist now Orthodox. The learned experience of being Orthodox is we are to busy asking God for his mercy that we don't spend any time judging others. If we do we have to take it to confession and ask for more of God's mercy and forgiveness.
It is a beautiful life full of grace but impossible to explain.
Come and see how the early Christians worshipped.
@@thesampo God Bless you brother. Im Protestant but if the Orthodox Church gets you closer to Jesus then I praise God for it! 🙌
Amen Gavin! Christ alone truely saves and brings us by His grace alone into His universal church. His church alone! Blessings
16th century presupposition. It can't be justified. Nice try though.
His Church is the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church. Holy Orthodoxy. And it is through His Body that we are saved.
Thank you so much. You are greatly appreciated, Dr. Ortlund.
I left Russian orthodox church two years ago
Your contents were extremely helpful during my struggling phase
Eventhough I was uncertain about my future back then, Lord led me to an amazing pastor and a wonderful community passionate for Jesus
Thank you for doing this eventhough you face a lot of opposition.
Their is a war in the spiritual realm, the demons hate it when we expose false traditions and bring clarity to The Truth of The Gospel.
Amen
What's the Gospel?
Very true
Are people unaware of what's happening when yearly the Orthodox read out the Anathemas at the beginning of Lent?
@Phlebas9202 yes I am unaware, but somewhat curious
@@gardengirlmarySuggest watching Joshua Schooping's RUclips video on Orthodox ritual cursing of other Christians.
Suggest watching Joshua Schooping's video. He used to be an Orthodox priest. I'm not Orthodox and I'm certainly not defending the practice. I'm just responding to your statement that you said you'd be curious to know more.
St. Paul does it in the Bible. Let them be accursed. It’s a Christian thang.
Another appeal to emotion
As is often the case in these discussions, the framing and setting of terms makes a big difference. There's no good answer to a bad question. You said that there's no winning, because if you quote many people, you're accused of quotemining and if you quote only one author at length, you're told that author isn't the whole of the Orthodox tradition. As we said in our responses to the previous video, that isn't the issue, but rather the selective use of those sources.
If you're examining a specific issue, it's not just a question of if you're quoting one person or many people, but if you're quoting all of what's said on the issue. For example, you quote St. Filaret of Moscow as being extremely clear on this issue, but that very same man, St. Filaret, also speaks of Catholics and Protestants as being Christians, who are in churches that mix truth and falsity but whom, nevertheless, Christ is able to save and heal. If the very same people you quote as being "incredibly clear" also say things that sound like the opposite, but you only quote one type of statement and not the other, you're giving an incomplete picture, whether you quote one person or many people, as long as you omit the totality of what they said on the particular issue. Since, for example, St. Filaret says both things, it's clear that your understanding of the starker sounding passages is incomplete.
As far as "How could they say it any more clearly?" that also is, from our perspective, phrasing the question in a way that there's no good answer to. It's not "How could they have said this more clearly?" but "What is the totality of what they say and how do the different parts fit together?" To give an example from the Scriptures. Christ doesn't just say that He will be in the tomb for three days. He specifically says "three days and three nights," which sounds unambiguously like He's referring to three 24-hour periods. And yet, He was only in the tomb from Friday evening until Sunday morning, less than 48 hours. Is Christ a liar? If not, if He had wanted to say 72-hours, how could He possibly have said it more clearly? There are good responses to that, explaining what Christ actually meant, responses you almost certainly would agree with. But if you're just saying, "How could He have been more clear?" and concluding there's no clearer way to phase it, you'd have to say that Christ lied.
Also, for what it's worth, the tradition from the 9th-19th centuries is consistent with the tradition both before and after. You'll find almost identical sounding passages going back to the Apostolic Fathers through the 9th century. Likewise, you'll find people exposing the "softer" view during the centuries you picked out. You've been given a number of those examples in the comments on these videos and still haven't incorporated them, though I understand you're innundated with comments and haven't seen them. For starters, I'd recommend looking at St. Theophylact of Ochrid in the 11th-12th century and St. Mark of Ephesus in the 15th.
Here is my answer: The promise of salvation only exists within the Church. Outside of the Church the hope of salvation found in the Gospel does not exist. However that does not mean the Church says they are damned. The Church prays for the redemption of all creatures for Our God is good, loving, and merciful. If the Church wanted to say all those outside of the Church are damned it would say that rather the Church negates the hope for Salvation.
Isaiah did well to prophesy about you
It does, the eastern orthodox church says it clearly,those outside the eastern orthodox church are heretics and are damned.
I think your problem is mere intellectual not theological. You are building a fence around the gospel that does not exist within the bible. Tribalism is not the first step or qualifier for ones salvation.
The Eastern Orthodox Church isn't "the Church." The premise is flawed.
Just to clarify: in Catholicism, there's the idea of material vs. formal heresy. That is, Catholics (naturally) believe that they are right but acknowledge that other Christians can hold their their beliefs sincerely and can be saved. Do the Orthodox churches make a similar distinction?
I always think of the “good thieve” when being crucified with Jesus asked to remember him in heaven. Right there he acknowledged Jesus as Son of God and his salvation . He did not have a chance to do anything else but to believe.
Thank you so much Dr. Ortlund for confirming this God’s truth. Praises to His name!!
Key word "did not have a chance" - Do you?
You don't know what his last thoughts were and what actually saved him.Only Jesus knew
That’s known as economia, loosening of the canons. Literally Orthodoxy 101.
When it comes to Anathemas, unless they are leveled at a particular person, or persons, they are warnings. The idea that an Anathema against iconoclasts in the 8th century damns to hell Southern Baptists who have never been Orthodox, and in most cases have no idea what the Orthodox even is, is contrary to how the Orthodox Church understands these Anathemas. I refer to the commentary of St. Nikodemos of the Holy Mountain in the collection of the canons of the Church:
"We must know that the penalties provided by the Canons, such as deposition, excommunication, and anathematization, are imposed in the third person according, to grammatical usage, there being no imperative available. In such cases in order to express a command, the second person would be necessary. I am going to explain the matter better. The Canons command the council of living bishops to depose the priests, or to excommunicate them, or to anathematize laymen who violate the canons. Yet, if the council does not actually effect the deposition of the priests, or the excommunication, or the anathematization of laymen, these priests and laymen, are neither actually deposed, nor excommunicated, nor anathematized. They are liable to stand trial, however, judicially, here as touching deposition, excommunication, or anathematization, but there as touching divine vengeance. Just as when a king commands his slave to whip another who did something that offended him, if the slave in question fail to execute the king’s command, he will nevertheless be liable to trial for the whipping. So those silly men make a great mistake who say that at the present time all those in holy orders who have been ordained contrary to canons are actually deposed from office. It is an inquisitional tongue that foolishly twaddles thus without understanding that the command of canons, without the practical activity of the second person, or, more plainly speaking, of the council, remains unexecuted, since it does not act of itself and by itself immediately and before judgment. The Apostles themselves explain themselves in their c. XLVI unmistakably, since they do not say that any bishop or presbyter who accepts a baptism performed by heretics is already and at once actually in the state of having been deposed, but that they command that he be deposed, or, at any rate, that he stand trial, and, if it be proved that he did so, then “we command that he be stripped of holy orders by your decision,” they say" (D. Cummings, trans., The Rudder of the Orthodox Catholic Church: The Compilation of the Holy Canons, Saints Nicodemus and Agapius (West Brookfield, MA: The Orthodox Christian Educational Society, 1983), p. 5f).
Thanks for commenting. I would disagree, but what you are responding to is not the claim of this video. I would be curious for your answer to the question I posed.
@@TruthUnites You were interpreting Anathemas as blanket sentences of damnation for individuals. My answer to your comments more generally are that you take condemnations of groups, and assume that they apply to all individuals that ever might be associated with such groups. The quote from the Reply of the Eastern Patriarchs about how it is necessary for Roman Catholics to come to the Orthodox Church is with regard to the normal means of salvation that are found only within the Church. That is not a judgment about each individual who may be born, live, and die without any knowledge of the Orthodox Church. There are many things you can find in the writings of the saints and the lives of the saints that speak of people being saved outside of the normal means of salvation.
And you ought to have addressed this quote from St. Theophan the Recluse since you again claim he makes the kind of individual judgments you are claiming: "With reference to the above question, it is particularly instructive to recall the answer once given to an inquirer by the Blessed Theophan the Recluse. The blessed one replied more or less thus: "You ask, will the heterodox be saved... Why do you worry about them? They have a Saviour Who desires the salvation of every human being. He will take care of them. You and I should not be burdened with such a concern. Study yourself and your own sins... I will tell you one thing, however: should you, being Orthodox and possessing the Truth in its fullness, betray Orthodoxy, and enter a different faith, you will lose your soul forever." This is found in an article you can find by googling "Will the Heterodox be saved?"
@@fr.johnwhiteford6194 Thank you! I've been bringing up the application of Canon law in response to such criticisms, but he never really responds to them substantially (he didn't even want to hear it from an actual Orthodox priest, which is telling).
@@alypiusloftdon’t tattle-tale. I’m sure the father can read the comments section himself without your help. Besides, Gavin only asked to stick to the original question rather than to launch into infinite other questions that might spring from it. Those others may be relevant but it’s rude to handwave the original thoughts shared in the video.
@@fr.johnwhiteford6194So is the answer that it may be that all Protestants are damned for not being in the Eastern Orthodox Church, and it is certain that those who leave that Church will be damned-but there’s room to hope for those who only err in ignorance? What kind of sophistry is that? Just say what you believe. The folks he cited certainly didn’t have any qualms speaking their minds, so shouldn’t you follow their example?
Gavin, thanks for digging up the official historic language of Orthodoxy on this topic. It’s so plain what they mean, but there seems to be a lot of double talk coming from many modern converts to Orthodoxy.
Here's my answer: The Canons do actually matter in what you're addressing. Canons law is pastoral in nature. It is concerned with the salvation of people. In case of icon veneration, for example, a person who is actively working against the Orthodox Church in an Orthodox context are held to the standard of anathema at an exceedingly higher degree than a person from another background who simply doesn't understand the issue. Imagine, for example, a Christian from the middle east attending an average Protestant church. I think you would be more sympathetic toward them for thinking they did not truly worship God because worship, in their origin context, is ritual/sacramental. But a person in an average Protestant parish trying to win a group of people in the parish to adopt, say icon veneration, to the point of causing major pastoral issues--that person will be dealt with severely. Sincerely, I don't think you're reading St Theophan well. I think you're interpreting all his words within your own paradigm. Additionally, we understand St Paul, in his letter to the Romans, to have spoken about the other nations (Gentiles) finding salvation by obeying the Torah without ever having it. They are like Abram, hearing God and leaving Ur is faithfulness that brings justification. What did Abraham have besides the voice of God? Nothing. Yet he found salvation. This is the Orthodox view of everyone. Those who try to dismantle the Church, however, are viewed as oppressors and opponents.
thanks for answering. I need a little help understanding. I did not discuss the nature of canons in this video. I'd be curious for your interaction with what is stated in the five examples I documented. If you feel so inclined.
@TruthUnites You're appealing to synods in a way that indicates you do not understand how they function within the life of the Church, which is why I bring up canon law. I truly do not mean any insult--you're truly a good academic and I wish Protestants would listen to you when it comes to returning to traditional Protestantism (though I think sacred harp singing would be a better option than CCM). Fr Patrick Viscuso has authored a number of books on Orthodox Canon Law if your need a starting place. One of the emphases in his work is the distinction between formal authoritative canons, such as from the ecumenical councils and certain church fathers, and informal canons. The latter typically come from local synods and other non-ecumenical councils, as well as liturgical-canonical commentaries and Q&As. Point is, these are treated as expressing Orthodox dogma in a given time and circumstance, but that does not mean they apply in every time and circumstance. What outside heterodox groups are the concern in these condemnations? American Protestants? No, that's called anachronism.
@@alypiusloft ah, I think you misunderstand. I am aware of competing interpretations of how canon law functions. Any view of that could be granted for the sake of the argument of this video. Even if you took the view that the Synod of Jerusalem is totally revisable, fine (though I think that is wrong, but its incidental here). The argument of this video was to document the historic Orthodox view on the non-Orthodox (regardless of how that view is later received) and then ask: how more clearly could their non-salvation be articulated? I would be curious for your answer to that question.
@TruthUnites but your primary interests are dissuading people from becoming Orthodox and convincing people to become Protestant. How it is received at present *is* the concern. Warning people to stay away because of "the historic view" (which is a red-herring) is equivalent to folks saying people should stay away from Protestants because they don't hold their historic views. If your ideal version of Orthodoxy is to do away with our "accretions", you're making the case that the Tradition is insufficient for salvation in terms of sanctification. I don't think there is any genuine difference in your view of Orthodoxy and the historic view of Protestants.
@@TruthUnites Gavin, it’s going to be the same as what every single other Orthodox Christian has already patiently explained to you
Imaging trying to worship Christ at the time of the Apostles, while also believing differently from them and not joining them in worship, but worshipping apart from them while claiming to have Christ. This is the position the heterodox find themselves in.
Something like we find in Mark 9:38-40, "for whoever is not against us is for us". Not believing differently thought, just like protestants who affirm the apostle's creed.
Apostles did not venerate icons. Saint luke the first iconographer is an 8th century fairy tale.
"...while also believing differently from them..." how ironic, given the required veneration of icons, the distinct episcopal office, etc. found in the EO churches.
The apostles didn’t prostrate to and kiss Byzantine cartoons
@ there’s a whole recent video on why Orthodox iconography is in fact ancient and original to the Church:
ruclips.net/video/CfIrBOQ_SiY/видео.htmlsi=zZoOy-DubGhsRh_e
Had an interesting conversation just yesterday with an EO gentleman that didn't recognize this position. Thank you for the resource.
I'm an Eastern Orthodox convert from evangelicalism and really like Gavin Ortlund. I frequently disagree with him, but I think he is fair and puts forward an honest desire for dialog which is the best way for Orthodox and Protestant to exemplify the love of Christ. It is immensely beneficial that Protestants are starting to have intellectual explanations for their belief systems rather than the milquetoast feel-good truisms that have been so common over the last 30 or so years and have caused such damage to American Christianity.
Protestants have always had a rich traditional of philosophy and intellectualism. You just might not have been aware.
@@whomptalosis22especially the Reformed side of Evangelicals which I think are the most intellectual
@@whomptalosis22 I was only exposed to that side of Protestantism after I had become Orthodox. Growing up Protestant, it was mostly people whose extent of philosophy was "Catholics are evil pagan idol worshippers" or occasionally "I used to be Catholic, they never even read the Bible in Church"
Imagine my surprise at realizing CS Lewis wasn't a complete outlier in the Protestant world...after 15 years of being surrounded by fundamentalists.
@@whomptalosis22 Like nominalism ?
@@whomptalosis22unfortunately even some of us are unaware though too. We don't always represent ourselves well.
The Orthodox Church has always followed a rule of prescribing the most correct practice, and the straightest path to salvation with concern that exceptions may be perceived as rules by those within the church or not within the church and therefore would have been harmed or made prone to damnation by the liberal expression of the economy of God's providence and grace. Orthodoxy holds, without question, that the best practice and straightest path to salvation is in joining Christ's body, the church, receiving the mysteries of the church, participating in the Liturgical life of the church. We don't doubt God's ability to save by his grace, but also will not try to define it. It is out of our jurisdiction. People have followed many different paths to salvation, but the destination is literally the Church if we believe it is Christ's body, sharing his blood through the mystery of the Eucharist. The concept of salvation, being saved, in the east is not the same as in the west. It isn't a legal judgement, but a healing that enables life in Christ, that life to be lived.
I will mention that the church fathers have said that water baptism outside of the church can be used by the church, but does not accomplish baptism of the Holy Spirit until the person is united to the church, so while there may be formally validatable baptism outside the Church, it is either completed by the Church, or otherwise by some mystery of God that we don't understand, and can only say HAS happened as we recognize the good thief, the 40th martyr of Sebaste www.traditioninaction.org/religious/h056rp.Sebaste.html
You can see from the examples of St. Dismas and St. Aglaius undeniable salvation, so the Church confirms that their paths, while not the norm, enabled them to be saved by God's grace. The innocents killed by Herod are canonical saints. The Church does not make rules for those outside of it. The saints and bishops don't give directions to non-Orthodox.
Through canon, the Church affirms the salvation of Herod's innocents, but also their Orthodoxy my a mystery of grace.
I will add that the Uniate "church" that Theophan was responding too was a covert largely Jesuit organization that sent imposter priests into Slavic countries, as well as Romania and Greece, and America by the way, into country parishes that were Orthodox, to transform those parishes into Roman Catholic parishes by either claiming that the Pope had reunited, had become Orthodox, or more subtly shifted church traditions to a more western emphasis. It was a direct attempt to infiltrate Orthodox churches under the jurisdiction of Orthodox bishops and technically is now officially prohibited by Rome.
Thank you Gavin, sincerely.
I always find your videos so helpful, keep up the good work Dr. Ortlund
Thank you for this video. As someone who thought of EO I can’t get behind this teaching that my fellow brothers and sisters in Christ are dammned to hell
They aren’t lol, it’s just that there is one GUARANTEED way. We can’t judge the salvation of others who are heterodox. When we say that they destroy the gospel and that there is no salvation outside the church we mean not that those who follow those heresies are automatically damned, since they may never know Orthodoxy, but rather those who make the beliefs and follow them willingly against the Church. And for the fact that they trample on the gospel by heresy, it is easy. Any heresy is against the Eternal Truth of God. God has made the Truth and the Gospel clear through the Ark of Salvation, the Church.
I would be interested to see some videos of Dr. Ortlund discussing these topics with some Orthodox scholars and clergy to get their side.
He has a few videos talking with Orthodox priests. Definitely worth watching!
@@jnateh You don’t get any smarter there. Ortlund usually asks “am I saved?” and he gets different answers every time. Either it’s “well, I can’t say, you know the church, invisible, we dont know” or it’s “no, you’re outside”.
@@ora_et_labora1095 to be fair to the EO one Orthodox Priest in Greece no less called him a fellow Christian.
@@sethcarter4910 That's encouraging but he's going against the historical position.
@@RouterOSRS Which are?
Here is my answer:
"Illumine with the light of grace all apostates from the Orthodox Faith, and those blinded by pernicious heresies, and draw them to Thyself, and unite them to Thy Holy, Apostolic, Catholic Church."
I love you Dr. Ortlund. Along with anyone else who reads this or does not read this. As long as the Lord allows me to have breath in my lungs and that I don't wuss out on the morning prayers. I will keep saying my above answer as long as I draw breath.
Too bad orthodoxy is not light....it's keeping people in the dark.
This is proving Dr. Ortlund's point then, you consider us to be apostates.
May the Lord grow all of us to be like Him - full of grace and truth
Love you with the love of Christ, brother
No. We do not consider every heterodox person an apostate. An apostate is someone who leaves the Faith, and someone who deliberately teaches against the Body of Christ.
@@user-lo9po5mp5uIt is where the Light of Christ is found. Where are your Saints? Where are your Martyrs?
You use your breath to bring people to your church, but you don't consider using it to bring people to Christ?
"The truth is like a lion; you don't have to defend it. Let it loose; it will defend itself"
--describes well the mountain of evidence presented in Dr. Ortlund's Irenic style.
1) We aren’t mad at you.
2) A lot of what you’re asking is assuming a Protestant view of salvation.
3) Likewise on several other terms.
4) It is absolutely clear in tradition that the heterodox may be saved.
You have connections with Fr De Young and Damick. Use them.
I think the main point in here is that we would all really like to see actual examples of your 4th point. How is it “absolutely” clear when we can’t find anyone who ever taught it.
Then you haven’t looked far at all. Five seconds would have yielded a number of quotes like this from St Theophan the Recluse:
“You ask, will the heterodox be saved…Why do you worry about them? They have a Savior Who desires the salvation of every human being. He will take care of them. You and I should not be burdened with such a concern. Study yourself and your own sins….”
So, what really is salvation according to Eastern Orthodox? Are there two kinds of salvation? The first kind being what everybody talks about in the records we have, where only EO can be saved, and the second kind of salvation is the one you mentioned in your point #4? What are the differences between those salvations?
@@zzzubrrr The simplest thing to do would be look up Theosis in an Orthodox source. It will be better than what I answer here. Short answer it’s not digital yes/no and is not at all the keycard to get into Heaven definition I grew up in. We are in Christ or in Sin (St Paul), constantly moving toward union with God or away from Him. We do not create a distinction between “sanctification” and “justification” - that’s a much later and entirely Western idea.
No, it is clear tradition that those those outside the church CANNOT be saved. Like seriously, the examples he gave from literal church councils could not be any more clear. Can you stop with the gaslighting and cherry-picking?
Hi Gavin, enjoyed this video as well. I think there is far too much that I could address and as a new catechumen I think it’s better for me to not engage as I do not want to misrepresent Orthodoxy. However, one thing I will say is placing my complete trust in Jesus is what lead me to Orthodoxy, I was having an incredibly difficult time strengthening my faith within the Baptist framework and after a lot of prayer, studying theology, and attending liturgy, I simply saw something within Orthodoxy that would help me increase my faith that wasn’t available in any Baptist Church I could find near me. Now, a couple of months in, I truly believe it was the right decision.
Thank you Pastor Ortland for continuing this conversation and not running away from the very clear consequences of the Eastern Orthodox position.
Dr. Ortlund at 30:19-33: "That's what I want my ministry to help people know, the enchantment of simply knowing Jesus, trusting in Jesus. I believe that people in these non-Protestant traditions have that experience as well, but I think their theology is historically problematic."
Response:
1. So Dr. Ortlund, their theology is historically problematic, but your theology is historically accurate. Your criteria of "simply knowing Jesus, trusting in Jesus" in order to be saved could describe many on the edges of Protestantism:
A. This includes those who call upon the name of our Lord Jesus Christ and possess a Trinitarian baptism with water like (A) the Latter Day Saints, (B) Jehovah's Witnesses and (C) Iglesia Ni Cristo.
B. It could include old-style Unitarians who hold communion services, but also Seventh Day Adventists and other smaller denominations whose baptisms I assume you would recognize.
C. It could include anyone like Roger Williams who was exiled from Massachusetts to Rhode Island and organized the first Baptist church in America, because then all you would need is a Bible to start your own church.
2. Otherwise, you are adding a criteria like "their theology is historically problematic" that goes beyond your basic "simply knowing Jesus, trusting in Jesus."
3. I would imagine that those who have converted to Eastern Orthodoxy find in that church a fulfillment of your "simply knowing Jesus, trusting in Jesus" by (A) participating in any of its Seven Mysteries, most especially in the celebration of the Eucharist at Divine Liturgy, (B) experiencing an elongation of God's Word in the Deuterocanonical Books and (C) venerating icons of Jesus Christ.
4. Anything beyond your individualistic/subjectivistic "simply knowing Jesus, trusting in Jesus" involves a social organization based upon the following 16th century Reformation principles common to Martin Luther, John Calvin and others:
"Men have the right to form their own religious groups, to join a group or not to join, to leave it when they choose; that these groups are equal in their rights and subject to no authority but what they themselves choose; that the groups are free to choose the way they shall worship; that every individual is free to choose what he shall believe."
[Philip Hughes, The Reformation In England: A Popular History (London, 1957), p. 158]
5. Acts of the Apostles 2:36-38, 41-42 (KJV): "Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ." Now when they heard this, they were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, "Men and brethren, what shall we do?" Then Peter said unto them, "Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost." ... Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls. And they continued stedfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers."
6. Could it be that those who have converted to Eastern Orthodoxy wished to emulate those three thousand on the day of Pentecost who "continued stedfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers"?
7. And if the King James Bible was good enough for St. Luke ...
because having Christ is not enough for many Orthodox, they sadly are only fulfilled by worldly practices and religious ritual
Isn't the salvation of the thief on the cross next to Jesus the simplest demonstration of the Gospel? The rest of everything is important to discuss and do our best to understand, but salvation is pretty simple, right?
Context is important. Dismas, *The Penitent Thief,* was nailed to a cross. A death sentence, with no chance of a pardon.
If Dismas was pardoned and survived his wounds. What would his "Christian walk" look like? Orthodox? Roman Catholic? Protestant?
@druminlaawd7173 at that point I don't think the processes or liturgies of the Orthodox or Catholic church had been established. The Proto-church would have been quite distinctive.
But I don't know how that is the question I raised. I landed on the conversion moment of salvation. The pared down Gospel in action.
That is the key for me.
“I do not presume to call false any church which believes that Jesus is the Christ . . . You expect now that I should give judgment concerning the other half of contemporary Christianity, but I do no more than simply look out upon them; in part I see how the Head and Lord of the Church heals the many deep wounds caused by the old serpent in all the parts and limbs of this body, applying now gentle, now strong, remedies, even fire and iron, in order to soften hardness, to draw out poison, to cleanse the wounds, to separate out malignant growths, to restore spirit and life in the half-dead and numbed structures. In such wise I attest my faith that in the end the power of God will evidently triumph over human weakness, good over evil, unity over division, life over death.”
(Metropolitan Philaret of Moscow, Conversation between the Seeker and the Believer Concerning the Orthodoxy of the Eastern Greco-Russian Church, Moscow 1833, 27-29, 135)”
Dr. Ortlund, Why are Eastern Orthodox encouraged to pray for the unbaptized? Does this not imply the possibility that they may be saved?
Asking God for mercy
This is the answer QED:
There will never be absolute answers as we are Man and we are talking about God, hence we are addressing mysteries, in a word unknowns. Answers to mysteries are therefore attached with probabilities, and have to be personalised to the individual. We need to avoid simplistic answers, or painting people with a broad brush.
First context. Most if not all are written to the laity, the Orthodox faithful. Seldom is it written to the Latin church to rile them up. Of course it will be stronger when teaching is directed inwards. We Orthodox faithful have been blessed to be in the church, are being exposed to false teachings and evangelism from the Latin church and Protestants, hence to turn away from the Eastern Orthodox Church to these teachings will most likely not lead to a good end. When they turn away, what would the reasons be: it is not just the teachings but what is in their hearts. Was it lust of power, wealth, laziness in learning or conceit? Or was it a true pursuit of God that decided that the Holy Spirit proceeded from the Father? It depends on the individual person, correct? But if the person was an Orthodox Christian, the reasons are most likely NOT good. Example 1:
Consider the church that is Orthodox, does not believe in the filioque, but decides that the Latin pope is the leader of the church. What went into that decision by the leaders?
Example 2:
If it was a single Muslim, who lacked wisdom, and converted by faith to become a Protestant, we are less likely to be sure that he will be damned.. Perhaps this is just one step in the journey for him. So we cannot fully say like those who like binary answers, as it depends on who we are talking about. We are not trying to obfuscate, and neither are we just NOT reading plainly. But remember, all your quotes are most likely directed to the Orthodox faithful.
It is more so to leaders in other faiths, that this question should be asked: Are you striving with humility to truly understand and teach the correct word of God, so that every single sheep in your flock is NOT lost? So turn your attention inwards. The question then will be, how will I know? There is not definitive answer arrived by arguing logic when we deal with the mystery of God. It is only arrived at experientially, which is why, when your western mind just reads half the answer with your church fathers' quotes, you left out the rest of the answer. And the answer is, by your fruits will you be known. Forget the doctrines for a moment. Just take a look at the average spiritual fruits your flock is bringing to God. Does your flock show love over time? How many people in the name of God did they kill? Burn at the stake? And today, how many bombs fell on the Palestinians did you approve of? Did you show mercy? Did the Eastern Orthodox church do it too? I am sure WE did. We are humans. And even one life is too many.
But if you can discern that there is a difference in orders of magnitude, reflect on what part of your teachings allowed that to happen, and then ask yourself, does this reflect a fundamental flaw in one of the planks of your theological platform? It could be Absolute Divinity Simplicity, the filioque, etc. If you were blessed with discernment to lead and you know in your heart what the truth is, but you teach a different doctrine, for selfish reasons, then you know what faith awaits YOU. This obviously does not apply to the simpletons, such as myself, who lack wisdom!
The point of the Fathers was, when you have removed every single problematic teaching, you will have arrived home @EasternOrthodoxCatholicChurch.
Mr. Ortlund, for what it's worth, I don't think these kinds of videos (critiques of other groups' doctrines/biblical interpretations) are actually helpful in clearing up the distinctions between your interpretations and the interpretations of those other groups. In fact, I think these videos are more harmful than even just neutral when considering the two different groups are Christian, because it muddies the waters and deepens the division among all the Christian listeners who are largely less knowledgeable and very much less amicable than you seem to be.
I respect your intentions and heart, and I think it could be beneficial for someone like you (knowledgeable and amicable) to have videos that are dialogues with leaders of other groups (i.e., an EO priest). Ask these questions, even the last video's questions, to a priest, and he will be able to clarify in real time the things that need to be clarified in the wording of your questions, as well as correct if necessary any misunderstandings of EO theology within the questions, and then be able to answer those questions and clarify the differences in biblical interpretations. I assume such videos would take significantly longer to produce; however, they would at least be beneficial content to the Body of Christ, not content that ultimately furthers the divide. Thank you, though, for being an example of truth seeking, which the Church needs more of in all its branches.
On the contrary, I think these videos are necessary and important. I have many friends who became Orthodox without a proper understanding of what the Orthodox Church teaches, precisely because these doctrines are so often downplayed or ignored. They then go on to struggle deeply with spiritual anxiety and fear for the salvation of those people they care for deepest, because once they are sufficiently far into the Orthodox Faith they eventually read the saints for themselves or encounter Orthodox Priests who do not hide what their church believes. (As someone who has spent much time asking many Orthodox priests and theologians the same questions that Gavin has, it was a fruitless endeavor, as for every 5 priests, there are at least 7 opinions! Which just makes the spiritual anxiety that much worse for my friends who tried to seek epistemic refuge in Orthodoxy).
I would agree with @kmaheynoway. Pastor Ortlund's approach is gracious and rigorous. I hear the rumblings of the EO faithful in the comments about Pastor Ortlund's lack of institutional understanding of EO doctrine/dogma, but there seems to be some parsing and excuse-by-contextualizing going on by many commenters in the EO camp. Things have been written. Shall we read them clearly? I think Pastor Ortlund's videos do much to clear the water. It might get muddy in the comments, but that is the nature of discourse. I am glad that positions are being stated and argued in the comments with civility, if not a measure of grace.
The Answer: Metropolitan Kalistos Ware in his flagship book (The Orthodox Church) was pretty clear that there are two camps. 1) Traditionalists who believe you are only "saved" if you are in the Eastern Orthodox Church. So, Protestants, Oriental Orthodox, and Roman Catholics are doomed to Hell. 2) Less Traditionalists who believe as Roman Catholics do, post-Vatican 2, that Christians who are not Eastern Orthodox are true brothers and sisters in Christ who are separated from the Body of Christ, but who are still of the Body, just without the fullness of the truth of Christ. My conversations with various Orthodox friends have confirmed this as well.
Grateful for you and your ministry. Lots of Evangelicals fleeing to "safer" and "more stable" traditions like Catholicism and Orthodoxy without seeing the warts or history of their own traditions. People are burnt out on American low church evangelicalism, and I understand why. People are tired of what seems trendy, cheap thrills, "easy believe-ism", moral failures, etc. People are exhausted with Christianity that has no depth, no history, no sense of rootedness in time. They want religion that feels religious, beautiful, transcendental, instead of like a pop/rock concert.
Most modern low church Christians have no historical heroes past Billy Graham. Those influenced by Reformed theology generally have heroes of the faith that go back to the Puritans, Calvin, and Luther; even then, it's like we're missing 1,200 years of Christianity, from 315-1517.
Evangelical/Protestant Christianity needs a Reformation of practice and historical rootedness. Orthodoxy and Catholicism may have their resurgence, but people will find that the honeymoon will fade and they'll be left with the same anxiety they had before. The Gospel you shared at the end is what gives hope. Hope is not institutional or ecclesiastical; it's in the person of Jesus Christ.
I am Reformed in a nondenominational generic church and I long for the historic connection of the Reformation which in turn, looked back to the Church Fathers. Not all of us are ignorant; just deprived.
@ agreed. Grateful that some are looking to seriously include church history in their theology and practice. It’s far below the norm.
The "honeymoon" has yet to fade after 2000 years brother
@@sixgunslimeI mean, it did at least once. It’s called the Reformation.
Orthodoxy has triumphed.
Orthodoxy is triumphing.
Orthodoxy will triumph ultimately and forever as the Bride and Body of the Lord Jesus Christ is, was, and ever shall be! ☦️
Big ups to you Gavin. I appreciate you speaking up and being a guide for us to grow and learn the intricacies of these discussions
Here's my answer:
You're right; 100%. Your scholarliness is top notch and your frustration perfectly understandable.
However (I have four "howevers"),
1: At our present point in history, the salvation status of those in other denominations is not a matter agreed upon by Orthodox Christians. You could probably find Orthodox Christians debating this topic. (Perhaps you could make a video on this current debate as it is very interesting.)
2: I doubt this question would dissuade anyone from becoming Orthodox. For your average convert, judging other people's salvation just isn't part of the deal. We are not asked to personally condemn our Baptist grandmothers to hell. That said I am quite grateful for your treatment of this topic.
3: As in all Orthodox-Evangelical dialogue concerning salvation, it must be acknowledged that the meaning of the word "salvation" is subtly different in each tradition, otherwise there will be considerable talking past each other. That this generally does not happen is not the fault of the Orthodox since they tend to be very bad at explaining such things. As a former Evangelical theology buff it took me years of immersion in and study of Orthodoxy before I grasped the basics.
4: It is a common Evangelical sentiment that, while one can be saved in any denomination (not including LDS or JW since they're ACTUALLY outside Christianity), they must have a conversion experience as defined exclusively by Evangelicals in order to be saved (something along the lines of saying the sinners prayer and explicitly inviting Christ into your heart as your own personal savior); therefore most Catholics aren't "saved". I know this is not your exact view but it would be very helpful for you to address it.
Keep up the good work.
On the 4th "however," I don't know 1 Evangelical who says the sinner's prayer is magically salvific...it's a verbal guide to those that don't know what to say, kind of a ritual initiation or a creed...or even inviting Christ into your heart, those are like pledges...and they're never taught by the way. There's no "sinner's prayer doctrine."
Or even a conversion experience...I promise you Evangelicals don't even have a tangible description of salvation....it's like this...Catholic & EO both have Believe and Join the church institution or Rome or EO, Evangelicalism is just Believe/Trust in Jesus Alone for Salvation and bear fruit. Join a Bible-believing church to grow in the faith, once you have been saved/believed!
The Divine Liturgy anathematises all non Orthodox during lent, that seems pretty concrete on condemnation.
@@angru_arches That's fair; Evangelical attitudes vary, I'm sure; they are not standardized. However I grew up in an Evangelical church and then worked for a missionary corporation for a decade; the act/process of "becoming a Christian" was one of their favorite topics of conversation and something I witnessed hundreds of times over decades. It's possible that I was in an unusual or fringe version of Evangelicalism.
@jeffreydavis9757 As per #2- Why is it that Orthodox Christian are taught to not pray with non-Orthodox? Are you familiar with this practice? Seems to be the EO church is teaching its members to draw hard lines.
Is the Holy Spirit the one producing all of these “converts” to EO who are hateful and bear no fruit? And don’t understand the gospel? I would say no. When someone truly meets the Lord they don’t act that way
Emotional conversions aren’t anymore genuine than a poorly behaving Orthodox convert who you seem fit to judge. But as the Church is a hospital of souls, I would not want a Church full of the whole and the well but of the sick and of the dying. For Christ came not to save the righteous but sinners. He came not to heal the healthy but the sick. If they are sick and your heart truly is aligned with Christ, then pray for such poor souls. Otherwise you condemn yourself with the very thing you condemn in them.
He came to save you and make you a saint. You are called a holy one 63 times. In fact the seal of the Lord is this, the Lord knows those who are his and let everyone who names the name of Christ depart from iniquity. He also gets on those who are living in the 17 works of the flesh and tells them they will not inherit the kingdom of God. You are whole in Christ. If living sinful is healthy you biblicallly will find yourself in hell because the medicine isn’t working. He who does righteous is righteous even as He is righteous he who continues in wickedness is by no means walking with the Lord.
Thank God you replied. The Orthodox are terrible at argumentation. Many cited supposed quotes from Theophan, but when I asked for the primary source, they couldn’t provide it. Instead, they shifted the burden of proof onto me to disprove that Theophan actually said those fake quotes.😂😂😂
The non argumentation is because they are more concerned with holiness and becoming Christlike than refuting those who don't really want to know, but just want to criticise!
“I’m too holy to give you the quotes that I’ve quoted, but not quite too holy to comment the quote in the first place!” LOL
@janen668 So, asking for a source is seen as evidence that I’m not genuinely interested but only want to criticize. Wow... 🤯
@@luisr5577 I am sorry, i only referred to the part of your comment about the Orthodox being terrible at argumentation. No insult intended!
@@janen668 thankfully, no insult was imputed. But you did further the original commenter's stance that EO are bad at arguing.
I appreciate the presentation and discussion. I grew up in a rural community with a large representation of Protestant faith. I have enjoyed studying the Catholic and Orthodox representations and have found much that I respect and appreciate. I appreciate the Orthodox emphasis on involving all of the senses that GOD has given us in the act of worship. There is much that I don’t understand but I consider them to be brothers and sisters. I know that Ephesians 4:5 indicates that there is “one faith”, I am referring to the different ways to express that faith.
Ortlund likes to play up 'salvation anxiety' as a problem for other churches, because they claim that right faith, or belonging to the true Church, or being baptized, etc., is necessary for salvation aside from something like simply 'trust in Jesus.'
Ortlund therefore clearly implies that any anxiety about salvation is bad anxiety.
"Why would God want us to be anxious about whether we are believing rightly, joining the right church? Isn't it absurd that God would demand we [be baptized] [believe the Nicene Creed]," and so forth.
However, if any anxiety about salvation is bad anxiety, then one could make a structurally analogous argument against believing in Christianity at all.
"Why would God want us to be anxious about whether we believe in Jesus? Isn't it absurd that God would demand we trust in Jesus?"
[NB: this argument would be equally effective against modern universalists, who think we need purgation or changes of will to be saved, even if they think it happens post-mortem. Ortlund's argument is not phrased as a problem in doing these things independently of grace, but just that we should have any conditions on salvation aside from trust in Jesus.]
Ortlund does not think his argument implies atheism is true. This is because his thinking likely involves three confusions.
First, Ortlund assumes clearly that there are good kinds of anxiety about salvation (trust in Jesus is *necessary* to avoid going to hell, for Ortlund), versus anxiety about inessentials. He seems to think those who do not believe in the divinity of Christ simply *do not trust in Jesus*, because they do it the wrong way. But, if it is possible to fail to trust Jesus the right way, then there are substantive concerns about believing rightly versus wrongly, and then we would need to see whether his views on that are correct. That's to say that Ortlund simply begs the question by assuming his own account of what right faith in Jesus consists in.
Second, Ortlund is likely confusing what is essential to salvation *in general* (trusting God) with what is essential to salvation *in a particular epistemic situation*. That is, he thinks as long as you trust God, everything else is inessential to salvation. While this is true in one sense, it is false in another. It does not follow that, if one is trusting God, then you can believe anything you want, since trust in God normatively would constrain your beliefs, given what else you know. For instance, if you trust God, and you believe that Jesus is God, then you would have obligations to follow Jesus' commands. If Jesus commands baptism or belonging to the Church or partaking of the Eucharist, failing to do these things (despite professing trust in Jesus as God and being aware that Jesus commands these actions) would mean that you do not really trust in God.
Ortlund likely accepts these kinds of obligations to do what God says, but he confuses the two categories by arguing that we should not be anxious whether we have what is essential to belief, as long as we trust God. But whether you are doing what God says is relevant to whether you trust God. And a very simply generic reason that many convert from Protestantism to Catholicism/Orthodoxy is that think they learn new things about what God wants them to do. Whether God actually wants them to do those things, such as be baptized, is then the substantive question Ortlund would need to face - and that question is not answered by appealing to worries about whether being asked to do those things inspires 'salvation anxiety,' since that would be an argument against *GOD* asking us to do those things. But God does command things, like 'Go forth and preach the Gospel to every creature,' or 'Do this in memory of me.' Can you be a good disciple of Jesus who does not do these things?
Third, Ortlund likely (as many evangelicals do) confuses rejecting that one is saved by 'earning' salvation from God, i.e., meriting salvation because of good actions done independently of God's grace ('works righteousness'), with rejecting any logically necessary conditions on salvation (such as belief or right belief). For instance, many evangelicals are fearful of any implication that we need to 'do' anything to be saved. But it is obvious that they themselves think we *need* to *trust in Jesus.* Clearly, trusting in Jesus is something I do, in an obvious sense, given that I am the subject who performs the action. This is simply to say that nobody is saved who does not also X, Y, Z - a logically necessary condition. Again, even modern universalists think there are logically necessary conditions on salvation *like that*, such that nobody gets into heaven who does not ultimately end up in a good moral state, believing in God, etc.
St. Augustine (in 'On Rebuke and Grace') makes exactly that point: the fact that God causes all our good actions in us does not imply that God causes those actions without us, and thus it is still obligatory/meaningful to preach that people should get baptized, live a moral life, pray that God will save them, etc., since God wants us to do these things. There are then contentious issues about whether 'merit' has any role in salvation, and how it works, but EVERYONE agrees (evangelicals included) that one should tell others to trust in Jesus, so that they can be saved. But then it is false that we cannot tell people they need to do anything. Ortlund just disagrees about what trust in Jesus involves or requires us to do. He should not, then, be making arguments that would undermine his own positions.
This whole comment is arguing against a series of straw-men.
First, Gavin's argument is not that "any anxiety about salvation is bad anxiety," Gavin's argument is that many Church's have imposed extra requirements onto salvation that cause undue anxiety. So your whole first point fails to argue against what Gavin is arguing.
Second, Gavin does not argue that "as long as you trust God, everything else is inessential to salvation." Where are you getting this? In this video alone, Gavin in the same breath as saying to trust Jesus, says to obey him, and repent from your sins, etc. So you've again failed to present an argument against what he actually says, and actually seem to articulate an identical belief!
Third, Gavin does not reject any logically necessary conditions on salvation, such as faith, obedience, and repentance, as he clearly articulates in this very video! And many others more in-depth if you're actually wanting to debate what he believes and not straw-men.
"He should not, then, be making arguments that would undermine his own positions."
He never did. You made up out of whole cloth both his position AND his argument, making them contradict one another, and then debunked that. I'm sure he'd be happy to engage you if you ever decide to address any of the arguments that he actually does make.
@@kmaheynoway The point is is that if Gavin believes that any particular thing constitutes salvation, then he himself is excluding those who don't partake in his assumed particulars for salvation i.e Obey Christ. Therefore his problem with the Church can not be that their Idea of salvation excludes people. He needs to deal with the particulars themselves and say why something like the filioque in the creed would not effect a persons salvation. It does have an effect in a real personal way.
Dr. O, I have had some disagreements with some of your ancillary work on politics, but I continue to be blessed by your ministry in regards to the Gospel and church history. I was called a "sectarian" by Dr. Stephen Boyce for challenging the monarchical episcopate.
"For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures,..."Whether then it was I or they, so we preach and so you believed.--1 Corinthians 15:3-4,11
Best free Historical Theology on the net right now! In days gone by you would pay a fortune for this kind of careful and precise teaching and have to travel far too! Awesome you are looking at EO. It attracts at the visceral, aesthetical, mystical and historical level but is deeply wanting scripturally and as you show: historically too. ❤
Gavin saying “cope” was so funny
I found it disappointing. "Cope" is a dismissive word, used with increasing frequency online, to dismiss the other side out of hand without actually considering their argument.
EO attempts to lessen the extremely harsh wording and language of anathemas seems like gaslighting, honestly.
Modernists views of these kinds of things are WILDLY out of line. So check yourself.
@@andreaurelius45 ...I have no idea what you were trying to say.
It isn't unusual, particularly reading ancient writings, to see very dramatic language when engaging oppositional positions. Even Jesus does this in the Gospels. In all honesty, as an Orthodox Christian, it can be very difficult to weigh the rather incendiary comments that our saints have made against our more generalized philosophy that salvation is up to God and we aren't capable of judging another's salvation. Both of those can be true at the same time, but it isn't easy to explain it. I think some of it comes from trying to interpret when a tradition is being condemned and when an individual is being condemned. Origen is a good example. Origenism is anathematized, but it is very unclear whether Origen himself is condemned. Its hard to believe that Origen was anathematized when he was literally the spiritual influence of the Cappadocian Fathers and Athanasius.
@@thethreefates3675 No, both can't be true. You can't use some of the harshest language imaginable, speaking just about as clearly as you can, then claim there is a "general philosophy" that there is salvation outside the EO church. Like I said, its gaslighting.
This is not how anathemas work.
This was an excellent video and one which does a fine job of summarizing the issues at stake here.
Tough spot for eastern-orthodox, it’s a dilemma for them:
1. Unity. If someone in the eo church in Ukraine would say that Protestants are Christians and in some way part of the church, or are saved - they would most likely be rebuked/excommunicated. So that means it’s not a Unity in the way the eo present it to be
2. Infallible church. If you can just change the interpretation of the church fathers and their clear meaning on such a core beliefs as anathemas on other church traditions; and then remain the church - I don’t know how you can maintain that the church hasn’t changed
Thank you, Gavin, amazing video!
No Orthodox are saying that. Nice try though.
Nah
1. No they wouldn't. You probably are used to just talking to online Orthobros but there is a vast variety of personal opinions in Orthodoxy. You can think those outside the church are saved. You just can't go along preaching that is it church dogma.
2. How is this core beliefs? Christology and Soteriology, bound by the 7 councils, are the core beliefs. Anathemas do not bound someone to hell. The church literally cannot do that. The church is not God. Furthermore, individual saints do not determine dogma, as there are some saints that literally believed things contrary to official church doctrine. And lastly, only Orthobros who don't attend liturgy say this. Church discipline changes all the time. How it interacts and calls members to the body changes with the culture sometimes. The church is there for its members, to meet their needs. The core beliefs of the church, and the core liturgical outline, are what don't change.
@@kevinmac8629 I am from Ukraine, literally heard that from my EO family(at least one member is a devoted EO, goes to church every Sunday, fasts 40 days before the Easter). Spoke with 2 EO priests after I started following Jesus and went to Protestant church. They literally said that to me. Please do not assume and I hope you will be more humble in these conversations instead of being snarky
@@ItsThatGuy1989 please do not make assumptions about my experience, it is disrespectful from your side to do.
1. I have mentioned a church in Ukraine, a representative of the eastern tradition, with a rich history - which matters, because the whole point is that your views are only existing in the Westernized EO churches, at least that is what I am arguing for. When you say "No they wouldn't" are you saying - In the church in Ukraine they wouldn't do that? Also, are you saying that you can disagree with the dogmas of the church and still be a valid member of that church?
2. If the church is Infallible - can it make mistakes in such a serious matters as anathemas? When you proclaim anathema on someone because you have a disagreement, you are lifting that disagreement to a level of core beliefs. If you are then saying - no anathema - that means whatever you disagreed about now doesn't belong to core beliefs and you can remove the anathema.
I saw you said "Anathemas do not bound someone to hell." I don't understand what you mean by that. When you declare anathema on someone you consider to be a brother?
Maybe by "binding" you mean that the person has no return to repentance? If yes - we can set this argument aside, because I don't think it that matters. What matters is - When you declare anathema. - are you saying that with the current belief system that person cannot be your brother or sister and will go to hell unless repents?
From my reading of Orthodoxy it seems that it is not quite the monolith of views that it’s adherents like to tout. For example, Kallistos Ware speaks quite well of us Protestants. I heard him say that many Orthodox folks have much to learn from the best of Protestant engagement with the Bible.
One other thought: Orthodox theologian, David Bentley Hart, in riffing on Gregory of Nyssa, holds to a hopeful universalism, which also demonstrates diversity in this tradition.
As an Ortho, people that represents the church as a monolith of belief are likely more insecure than anything else, needing to restrict our church to something easily understood and non-challenging. What many converts to the church find comforting is the willingness of the church fathers to say that they don’t really know when confronted with theological questions which Western Christianity often feels the impulse or need to answer.
The church has teachings on things the church has teachings on, yes, and those should be listened to, but it’s worth noting that the East never went through an Enlightenment as the West did, and so it has a lesser need to explain everything in almost science-like terms of causality.
Thanks for that candid and irenic response!
David Bentley Hart does not represent the Orthodox Church. He’s a universalist, something we have condemned as heresy.
Does Kallistos Ware? Certainly Gregory of Nyssa counts...
DBH is more of a theologian who happens to be Orthodox rather than an Orthodox theologian, if that makes sense. His views are a bit idiosyncratic and popular with relatively small niche of Orthodox Christians.
His dog book is entertaining though
I'm so grateful for your determination to not stoop to the level of the trolls and hecklers that seem to show up in the comments of so many videos like this, and the last one you made on the subject. One of the only wise things I've ever said was "you can always find the cringe of the crop online" so please, Pastor Ortlund, and anyone else who shares his convictions, don't let the spite of the trolls poison you to continuing to interact in a Christian manor on subjects like these.
The whole POV here so steeped in Protestantism that you miss the core understandings at play here.
1) The apostolic nature of the Christian faith: Jesus taught the 12, they had disciples, the faith passed down through both oral and written tradition. When you have the faith direct from the apostles what changes should be allowed? How does what Catholics have down with the filioque and papal supremacy not fundamentally altered the view of the Trinity, and moved away from any sort of accountability to the faith handed down? and Protestantism is simply an outgrowth of the same except they further cut out the first 1500 years of church history as flawed. Your argument is that altering the gospel should be tolerated?
2)Fundamental different view of salvation. Salvation is decided by God at the judgment and not before. It is not the moment you decide to follow Christ (though that is important). It's not holding the right beliefs. Even the demons believe and are still condemned. You are saved through what Christ did and by following his commands and repenting not just from sin but from views that are not in line with Gods. Thus since the judgment has not yet taken place you cannot say anyone orthodox or not is or is not saved. You can have the assurance that if we confess our sin He is faithful and just and will forgive us, but we must keep getting back up and aiming our life at Him and being like Him.
3) what the church is. The church is the living community that has this gospel handed down both verbally and written. They are the guardians of this apostolic deposit. When someone strays from the truth, how can you say they are still walking in the way when they do not heed correction and conform to the gospel? And how can someone outside that community who does not know or hold to those views then be an accurate judge of whether or not they are in that gospel? Only those who are of the original group can make that distinction.
4)Just because words rhyme doesn't make them the same. Protestants and Orthodox hold many similar beliefs and teachings, but there are some key differences largely based on the historical path of where Protestantism came from and thus they get things wrong. Ultimately, the final say on who's in and out is God's alone. He is merciful and loves all mankind and wants all men to be saved. So we cannot limit His ability to save even if it doesn't make sense to us. But that doesn't mean we should be open handed with the Way.
In the same way, the main part of even that Theophan letter is a protestant trying to evangelize Orthodox Christians as though they are not saved and are all not Christians and should turn from their ways. That is in essence the same thing: Protestants saying you aren't saved and must believe as we do. Christianity is exclusive. Its just that some hold to the original deposit from the apostles, others use logic and reason to deduce what they believe scripture means.
Thank you very much, great response.
Thank you Gavin, you're videos really set me straight.
As an ex-orthodox catechumen, many people would say that for leaving the "one true church" I have committed blasphemy against the Holy Spirit and thus am damned.
I think alot of young people like myself get excited about a church that is reliably non liberalized, patristic, spiritual, beautiful, ect. but along the way they trade a relationship with Christ for a relationship with an institution. since taking up a protestant framework I feel at peace and closer to Christ!
God bless your journey!
Nah. As a catechumen, you wouldn’t be any more damned than anyone else outside the church. Now me and my husband- we were chrismated/received the fullness of the faith and left it. So by Orthodox standards we are in quite a precarious position if we don’t repent and return to the church. That said, I don’t think what we were “sold” in our catechumen class was quite accurate, so I don’t think we were in a position to make the commitment that we did to Orthodoxy. Maybe we can hope for economia 🤷♀️
Lord, have mercy
God bless this ministry. If we are going to be one, we will need to fight these things out in love.
I agree with you on the Orthodox church but Calvinist believe that most people that God created are cut off from salvation because they aren't chosen from the foundation of the world. So Calvanism is exclusive also. Yes. What hope do they have for salvation on both ideas?
Calvinism actually doesn't teach that. It teaches that those who are saved are known by God from eternity past - it doesn't say that only a tiny minority can be saved, nor does it tell us who isn't saved. We are still to evangelize and love all to the glory of God. The difference is that the EO have historically claimed to be able to recognize who is and who is not saved by looking at denominational lines. Calvinists have no issue affirming that there are multitudes who are saved that do not hold to their theology, or go to their church.
I agree. The incoherence of Calvinism is what initially propelled me towards atheism when I was younger. After coming to faith, I think Calvinism is a devastating heresy that is worthy of being called out and held to be anathema.
I think the reason we do not critique it so harshly is because of the reputable scholars and pastors who are calvinists.
@josiahalexander5697 it does not sound to me like you have studied it very much - it is very coherent and very encouraging too. If you'd like I can recommend resources to help clarify any points of confusion you might have with it. You mentioned the large number of prominent teachers that held to it - they did not hold to it for lack of studying or understanding.
@@tategarrett3042 Calvin does teach double predestination, i.e. people created for salvation, and others for damnation. Read the Institutes.
@@josiahalexander5697 Yes, I was brought up in calvinism and totally agree.
Here's my answer: To make the point that nobody outside the Orthodox Church can possibly be saved, I'd write it like this:
"No person, regardless of ignorance, circumstance, or even the secret condition of their heart before the Lord, who intentionally communes with [X religious community] can possibly be saved."
No church teaching affirms this, because the point is that people may be united to the Orthodox Church through their genuine faith without consciously realizing so. Similarly, there may be people who consciously think themselves united to the Orthodox Church who will be damned because they are actually hypocrites. Salvation is a mystery, but the Orthodox Church in these kinds of statements only means to say that false teaching is dangerous and leads to spiritual damage, potentially damning damage.
The answer to your question is; "You ask, will the heterodox be saved... Why do you worry about them? They have a Saviour Who desires the salvation of every human being. He will take care of them. You and I should not be burdened with such a concern. Study yourself and your own sins... I will tell you one thing, however: should you, being Orthodox and possessing the Truth in its fullness, betray Orthodoxy, and enter a different faith, you will lose your soul forever." ~ St. Theophan the Recluse
There's an aspect of this I believe, but in totality it just doesn't square with what I see around me. I think it would be safe to say that Christ does not want anyone to be brutally murdered, but it's clear that that happens. This among other things leads me to believe that while God might want something that -because he gave us free will- we can ignore or utterly invert and get wrong. If this can happen with something like rape, muder etc. why would it be different with wether or not someone hears the truth of salvation? He left the world to us when he created it -we were meant to be it's stewards. This leads me to conclude that it's not unlikely that we are very responsible to share the Gospel. If someone asks us for food and we say "god will feed you" and then not give them food ourselves.... we might be standing in the way of how God intended to feed them: through us.
@@MappingtheArchetypes It's likely St. Theophan intended those words for the majority of laymen who, in reality, should not be concerning themselves with proselytization when they have their own sins to worry about. He's clearly not saying no one should ever proselytize the heterodox.
@@SeraphimGoose That almost makes sense. But everyone has their own sins to worry about... the point I'm trying to make is: we have responsibility here. If someone is dying of thirst, the sin of the person sharing water with them is irrelevant. The woman at the well was not piety, and she was sent out immediately to tell her home town about the messiah. The idea that only piety can properly spread the gospel is a) nothing I see in scripture b) either, at best, a desire to standardize and industrialize the conversion process akin to a byzantine DMV or at worst a way to retain the gatekeeping status of mediators to God the clergy claims to have. I think government structures like the DMV illustrate the problem I have with institutions like the EO or Roman Catholicism. We know in the DMV example bad drivers can bear state-sanction licenses, and car accidents still happen. Conversely it's entirely possible a person can be a good driver while not having a legal license. While one can argue that the idea behind the DMV is to do the best it can over a wide array of people, the exceptions and major leading cause of death (car accidents) leads me to think otherwise. While good drivers might be a byproduct often from the DMVs existence, I think it's success rate is greatly hamstrung by it's true motive: taxing and monetizing the use of roads, cars, etc. I think it's a similar situation with the EO and Catholic institutions (I'm distinguishing between the institutions and the people inside of them). Those institutions need to justify their existence and they've chosen to do so by claiming a monopoly on entrance into salvific states of "grace." Needless to say, I think that's the real reason (though consciously hidden or subconsciously driven) that gate keeps the spreading of the gospel by so-called laity. If the concern is practical i.e. "we want to protect against heresy" why did like... 90% of the heresy in the 2nd century to now come from church leadership? It makes no sense. If the job of the clergy is to maintain unity... why the schisms? If the institution is meant to do what it claims to do... it's not doing a very good job.
This follow-up video needed to be out out there. So good, Dr. Ortlund. I'm with you. I'm thankful for the change toward a more Biblical understanding of salvation, but we also cannot allow this obvious change to be swept under the rug as if it's not obviously a change.
Ask them “what is the gospel?” Or talk to them about scripture and they crawl out of their skin. I talk to my EO coworker about scripture and he looks at me like I’m speaking Greek. He can’t fathom a good and gracious God.
Bad catechesis of various individuals does not prove Orthodoxy false. It’s a logical error that seeks to avoid the deeper fundamental issues…and seeking to understand the way ORTHODOXY understands them. Not the way someone out of Orthodoxy attempts to understand them using his own errant presuppositions which are at the heart of the whole matter. It’s why Gavin is struggling so much to understand this. The only way he and anyone else outside of Orthodoxy can understand is by humbly setting aside their assumptions and presuppositions and comparing the two schools of thought at a deeper/meta/paradigm level.
Consider Christ throughout the Gospels. What does He do? He often speaks in a parable that doesn’t merely present an either/or but a both/and that calls us to transcend our own understanding in order to embrace His, that we might be transformed into His likeness. “You have heard it said…but I tell you…” and “I came not to abolish the law but to fulfill it”…even as He says things which (to a devout Jewish mind) would be at best in opposition to the law and at worst blasphemous.
How do we Orthodox know we are right? Christ is in our midst and He is and ever shall be! So come and meet Him…but leave your own assumptions at the door lest you too depart from Him because it is a hard saying and who can know it.
Here’s my answer: To start your question assumes that councils given for the Orthodox are meant for all people, and that’s just not the case. Anathamas are given to people “in the camp” so to speak. Doesn’t mean that what those “outside the camp” can’t be wrong but we can’t excommunicate or anathematize those who aren’t with us. But going back to St Theophan’s letter, that letter is about people who were Orthodox becoming Anglican. And absolutely those who apostatize from Orthodoxy are damned. But the SBC grandma who has never been in the camp (and possibly never knew the camp existed to begin with) is not necessarily.
❤
I'm trying to be charitable, but this makes no sense.
This is correct.
but it's pretty clear from the quotes that Gavin read that those "outside the camp" are pronounced damned whether Protestant or Roman Catholic. Did you not watch all the video?
No, its clear as day its a general statement for those outside the EO church. Stop with the gaslighting.
This is my answer: The first example you present is a theological concern regarding the filioque. The main concern with the filioque is that it unbalances the Holy Trinity, making 1 of the three proceed from the other two and subservient to them as opposed to both the Son and the Spirit proceeding equally from the Eternal Father. This is an issue of the nature of the Godhead and therefore is paramount and any inaccuracy in this is of serious theological concern. As for the bit about leaving the Uniates (what today we call Eastern -Rite Catholics if I'm understanding correctly), as scripture says, " Do not be unequally yoked together with unbelievers. For what fellowship has righteousness with lawlessness? And what communion has light with darkness?" (2 Corinthians 6:14 NKJV). Which also speaks to the majority of these. While it is indeed the historic claim of the Orthodox Church that salvation only exists within her, there are two things which must be carefully considered. 1. The reason for the Church saying this, is and has always been, concern over the heresies and falsehoods observed in other traditions, not a spirit of arrogance or self-importance on the part of the Church or her Patriarchs. 2. While the belief has always been that the full and true faith and the salvation that comes with it exist only within Holy Orthodoxy, there has also always been the knowledge that God in His Mercy and Wisdom can work outside of the Church and in the lives of those outside the Church, but that those who have been touched by the Holy Spirit will seek the Lord and His people and will want to become Orthodox because that is where they belong.
The second quote is a defense of Apostolic Succession and the third continues that theme taking it one step further and saying that the RCC has cut itself off from and no-longer has a valid line of apostolic succession, which likely has to do with the various theological differences (or heresies, including the filioque) that have cropped up since the schism.
Never thought I’d hear you say “There’s a lot of cope in the comments”. 😂
Former Protestant who became Orthodox here.
While I won’t waste time mentioning other Orthodox saints who have said things positively about the salvation of those who are not Eastern Orthodox-others in the comments are doing this-what I wonder is this: why does it matter if people inside an institution make boundary statements about who is in and who isn’t? That doesn’t seem to be an argument to me, and has nothing to do with the merits or demerits of Eastern Orthodoxy, especially considering I could easily turn it around on Protestants, including Calvinists like Dr. Ortlund. For example, John MacArthur has no problem damning millions of Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox to hell because we reject Sola Fide, and major Calvinist figures today speak of how Rome “anathematized the Gospel,” and the Protestant Reformers were no less harsh in their criticisms and condemnations of Rome. But I don’t think anyone should use John MacArthur’s and other Calvinists’ positive damning of RC and EO Christians as an argument against their belief systems, especially when there are other Calvinists like Dr. Ortlund, who himself has spoken positively about his Catholic and Orthodox interlocutors. It doesn’t seem to be a useful argument for anyone to make, regardless of where they stand, against converting from any Tradition A to any Tradition B because people in Tradition B say harsh things about the people and beliefs of Tradition A.
Does it not matter to you, given that these are major councils, encyclicals of the patriarchs, etc.? Or do you essentially reject the hierarchy, but still wish to call yourself EO?
No, I don’t reject the hierarchy, and I can completely see and understand where Dr. Ortlund is coming from. That’s not my point. My point is that pointing out exclusivist statements does nothing for or against the underlying merits or demerits of a set of beliefs, unless you are operating under a presupposition that somehow the most inclusive set of beliefs is always the best.
@@targetprime7 Ah, I'd failed to grasp what your comment was getting at. I apologize.
Okay, I'd just want to emphasize that if you think that that's a change, then that undermines the claim to be unchanging. And that I think the scriptures are clear enough that faith suffices for salvation, and it certainly seems to be the case that there are believing Christians outside the EO church, which would seem to make the belief false.
@@targetprime7 // pointing out exclusivist statements does nothing for or against the underlying merits or demerits of a set of beliefs// It does when it is in disobedience with Christ's own words of how one recognizes a good tree which bears good fruit and how many non-EO Christians exhibit works of the spirit like successful exorcisms that is only possible with the Holy Spirit. To then have an official council that condemns all of these people is working against the spirit of Christ. This is a way bigger problem for the EO than the Protestants since these are EO councils that are meant to be defining doctrine.
For sure-all good. If I’m understanding you, you’re asking if I think that the existence of different opinions now vs the examples Dr. Ortlund cited constitutes a change and therefore undermines the claim of the EOC to be unchanging in the matter of doctrine and dogma.
I think it’s worth mentioning that there are countless changes that have occurred within Orthodoxy throughout the years. It would be foolish to deny this. From liturgical vestments, prayers, liturgies, languages, methods of dealing with church problems, etc., there have been changes. Even something like the sacrament of Confession, which was originally done publicly, but due to practical issues (among other things) evolved into the practice of private confession with a priest present (who stands on behalf of the church)-this is obviously a “change” in practice, but the underlying theology and doctrine regarding confession remained the same (reconciliation to both Christ and the Church at the same time, since we believe you cannot have one without the other). There’s much more to Confession than what I mentioned, but I’m just using it as an example.
Whether or not those changes are a fundamental change in doctrine or “dogma” is the question, and that is what the Orthodox mean when they say that the EOC is “unchanging.” They mean that it has not changed a fundamental doctrine. Personally I do not believe that differences of opinions on the status of the non-Orthodox constitute anything “fundamental” about the doctrines of the Church, but others might disagree with me on that. I think that the accepted stories in Orthodoxy of the salvation of individuals who were saved in what I’ll call “non-normative” ways go to show, by their very existence, that it is not a fundamental doctrine on par with the Trinity or something like that which was determined in one of the Ecumenical Councils. We accept that there is a normative way of salvation, but clearly there are people who are saved in other ways. We don’t know how exactly it happens-that’s up to God and not for us to stress about, but we pray for all people to become Orthodox. And that’s not a contradiction for us either.
Remember too-and this is very important when reading statements that Dr. Ortlund cited-that the anathemas of the Church are directed towards Orthodox who deliberately kept teaching heresy and left in spite of repeated warnings: it was the final attempt to get them to repent. The anathemas were never meant to be directed at Bob the Baptist or Peter the Presbyterian who lived and died following Christ to the best of their knowledge with the light they were given.
Blessings!
Thanks for doing this work❤
Thanks for the work you do Gavin.
I heard an Eastern Orthodox guy answer the question “On a scale of 1 to 10, how sure are you that you go to heaven?”, and he said “I honestly don’t know, I hope I make it to heaven.”
That answer is contradictory to the teachings of Paul!! That answer was final straw when even considering if Eastern Orthodoxy is the true and only church.
His reply was in the spirit of the republican praying in the temple, rather than the Pharisee.
You confuse understanding a formula with real life execution.
GOD decides.
And HE has HIS reasons.
....many on the day of judgement will be to told they are not known.
@@janen668the publican went home justified. The whole point is the assurance of justification through humble repentance and trust.
Good job brother.
The church is Christ's faithful people.
There are a lot of the faithful sitting in pews for cultural, family, habit reasons who don't agree with all the sermons or particularly care what the official denominational distinctives are.
Nobody enters the kingdom because of the sign on the door. Daily trusting in the Lord, exercising love and good works toward others, is the mark of those who belong to Him.
If you do not agree with the doctrine of the church you should leave it!
Not sit there and tolerate bad teachings or belief or actions
Jesus condemned one of the Church’s in Revelation for tolerating sin!
Stand up for truth and leave!
@@mikekayanderson408 Is there any denomination that 100% follows the scriptures in doctrine or practice?
Denominations are historical and cultural artifacts, full of doctrinal choices that came out of old arguments that have no relation to the lives of everyday people.
Christ's church is his faithful people, through the covenant in his blood, no matter where they are sitting.
The artificial handicap in the argument presented here is the imposition of a specific historical interpretation, Ortlunds commentary, onto Orthodox beliefs at-large, regardless of how those beliefs might be understood today. Apart from the already obvious challenge of a Russian Orthodox with their own context and language on these theological matters (Theophon)... The argument essentially asks, "How can the historical Orthodox view on non-Orthodox salvation be more clearly articulated, given these examples?" Then Ortlund persists to read (Sola Fide) salvation anachronistichally onto the Orthodox text, to then discredit a very different paradigm of Orthodoxy that has its own definition of salvation (Theosis).
This approach presents several challenges to Ortlunds claims and intentions... because it:
-Ignores Contemporary Interpretations: Which Gavin has activley done in the comments section. It disregards the evolving nature of religious thought in contemporary Orthodox perspectives on salvation. Like in the dialogues with Fr. Stephen De Young where some of these issues were already clarified.
-This approach oversimplifies complex issues, It reduces complex theological questions to a single historical analysis, potentially leading to misunderstandings and misrepresentations. Of the group that, to Ortlunds own acknowledgement, is rallying converts.
This limits the scope of the dialogue. By focusing solely on the historical perspective, with preference to your commentary and not contemporary Orthodoxy...it limits the scope of interfaith dialogue that I was anticipating, and prevents a deeper exploration of common ground. This approach has just said "bye-bye" to the earlier standards you set of interfaith dialogue you claimed were your original intentions.
By framing "interfaith dialogue" to only apply to playing in the sandbox you created ...you confirmed the skepticism from the silent majority caught in this gray area of Church Identity.
Your argument seems like a whopping whataboutism: you wrote to a commenter:
"The argument of this video was to document the historic Orthodox view on the non-Orthodox (regardless of how that view is later received) and then ask: how more clearly could their non-salvation of heterodox be articulated?"
Essentially, your asking (What about the) historic text on the Orthodox view of the salvation of the heterodox? To then posit: Is that as inclusive as we perceive the gospel today?
Well slow down! if we are strong manning each others' historical positions; to then articulate modern solutions... The orthodox can just as easily assert the same argument; What about the Protestant doctrinal dissonance and anachronism that divided early protestantism onto this modern fragmentation? Do Protestants have doctrinal unity that we expect from this principle of private judgement they employ?
This seems useless, seeing that the same sandbox can be framed for your position as well... I guess I expected more than an internal critique predicated on limiting the conversation. You need to address the paradigm that is actively bringing in protestant converts, not fling whataboutism's from a protestants interpretation of Orthodox texts. Just wow.
(Before you also cope and disregard my comment as Orthobro cope... let me boldly specify: I am Pentecoastal!)
Show me where his argument is wrong because I'm not saying it's impossible but a majority of orthodox saints believed there's no salvation outside the church
@@aceswizzo8665 See that is the point, the argument isn't (incorrect) more so the argument is (improper):
Ortlund's approach to interfaith dialogue often employs whataboutism. Instead of engaging with the core of Orthodox beliefs, he deflects the driving criticisms from Orthodoxy by pointing out perceived flaws in the Orthodox Church's non-inclusive sentiments, and venerative practices. This tactic undermines genuine dialogue and hinders the pursuit of truth, ironically he named his channel truth unites when it should have been called ‘slanted journalism.’ Whataboutism is a rhetorical tactic where someone responds to an accusation or difficult question by making a counter-accusation or bringing up a different issue. Instead of addressing the original point, they deflect attention by saying, “What about [another issue]?” This technique is often used to divert criticism and avoid directly answering the question at hand. Gavin did this with Fr. Stephen De Young in his dialogue on Sola Scriptura.
The fundamental question at the heart of these discussions is the nature of salvation and the Church. Orthodox Christians often view salvation as inextricably linked to the sacraments and traditions of the Church which would clearly denote the non-inclusivity of their tradition. Ortlund, on the other hand, seems to prioritize individual interpretation of Scripture and virtually no extension of ritualistic tradition from historic root traditions... Each set of worldviews brings with it, its own set of problems. However each one should be able to speak on its own terms to what defines these very things, “Church,” “salvation,” and “faith,” and whether these definitions give an answer to the foundational question,
Protestants and Orthodox have skeletons in their closets. They both have changed in some ways over time. I can make the same argument to Ortlund that he made to the Orthodox: Ortlund creates an artificial handicap. He demands that Orthodox Christians justify their beliefs within a framework that inherently disadvantages their worldview. He says, "Without appealing to contemporary Orthodoxy answer on behalf of this historic text.” And in the comments Gavin revealed this is his argument plainly, and I quote:
@truthunites, says, “The argument of this video was to document the historic Orthodox view on the non-Orthodox () and then ask: how more clearly could their non-salvation be articulated? ... ” (@truthunites in response to @alypiusloft)
Placing artificial handicaps is a popular approach to bypass the root issue. This approach is akin to when atheists demand proof of God's existence solely through scientific methods, “Prove to me God exists only using naturalism!” Well they effectively made an argument that artificially handicap’s any metaphysical or spiritual answer like the laws of logic or conscience. Essentially this ties the respondents arm behind their back from relying on the answers that could prove the question if treated fairly.
Such a one-sided approach stifles meaningful dialogue and hinders the pursuit of understanding between different faith traditions. This achieves the opposite of what Dr. Ortlund retorts.
So I end by asking, “What’s the point of this approach to the goal of interfaith dialogue?” It seems more so that Gavin is engaging with religious polemics rather than interfaith conversation as advertised…
“Jesus is not a liar” he said the gates of hell would not prevail against His Church and this means that Church is here to this day and that Church is not invisible because it’s never been described invisibly in the Gospels.
The church by definition can not be invisible because it takes people to make the church.
Define prevail.
Almost the entire NT is corrective of false beliefs and behavior that the Apostolic church was guilty of.
@ you proved my point with this one actually
Yeah Protestant Christians agree that Jesus is not a liar. We don't believe the Church ever disappeared. That has been said on this channel over and over again. Whoever taught you that was repeating a falsehood about Protestants. Who was it? Protestants believe in the visible Church as well as the invisible Church, in that sense that not everyone who claims to be Christian is truly a Christian in the eyes of God. Can you cite any Protestant Confession of Faith from the Reformation that says otherwise? The Lord Jesus Christ never said that the church of rome would never error, as it has many times. The Church of which the Lord Jesus Cheist is the only Head existed long before there was even a church in Rome. Nor did The Lord Jesus say that the church of Constantinople or Alexandria would never error.
Dr. Ortlund, love your videos. Excellent job on this topic. Question: can't we turn your question to Orthodox brothers back on you in regards to a literal, seven-day creation and a truly global flood? If the Bible were trying to teach a literal, seven-day creation or a truly global flood, how could the Bible have worded it to be more clear? Is there any particular phrasing which would have convinced you? How does your response to this question affect your expectations for how Orthodox Christians will respond when you pose it to them?
>>If the Bible were trying to teach a literal, seven-day creation or a truly global flood, how could the Bible have worded it to be more clear?
Well, for one, it could have not have juxtaposed two contradictory creation stories directly adjacent each other, both using highly etiological and poetic forms and structures. And as for the flood, it could have used language that wasn't frequently used to refer to limited areas of geography or the "known world."
I don't think these examples are remotely comparable. The Orthodox Church has, in many ways over many centuries, articulated specifically how those outside of Her are certainly damned, in no uncertain terms. It's not really comparable to thousands-of-years-old poetry and ancient pre-history.
For an answer to the general thoughts expressed....I want to say that I firstly respect you greatly for willing to have these discussions. I believe that out of an abundant desire to see people saved, the Fathers of the Church have drawn a line in the sand because we can only be ASSURED of the location and working of The Holy Spirit in one place, that being the Eastern Orthodox Church. That does not deny the possibility that the Lord our God can work in other ways.
I respect your desire to "read sentences and take them at face value", but you're approaching the entire thought process from a deeply Western view that is entrenched in an almost excessively rigid logical structure that is completely alien to the Phronema of the East. We do not understand in order to believe. We live in the hope of transformation with a possible outcome being comprehension. Understanding is not required. Submission is.
I know already that this answer will be unsatisfactory to you, because of the very nature of Eastern thought. That being said there is simply no other way to even have the conversation other than to say this, your lack of submission to The One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic Eastern Orthodox Church is the first and primary thing preventing you from understanding.
I am deeply convinced that if you were to spend your energy on firstly living the life of the Church and giving yourself to Her, you would have your Nous cleansed in a way that would enlighten you like you've never been before.
May it be blessed. ☦
I, like Gavin, appreciate the willingness you have to talk here and your disagreement with historic EO theology on the issue of whether or not people outside their church structure can be saved. I do not however think this idea that Gavin, and so many others just can't understand the complexities of Eastern thought holds up. And I say that because the past declarations of the EO councils, patriarchs, theologians and other figures that Gavin walks through here, and elsewhere, are not "eastern" in the way you describe. They are extremely straightforward and not open to definition you give that there is a place where a person's salvation can be "assured" (which is inside the EO church) and a place where it cannot be (which is in communions outside of it. Rather, their contention is explicitly that anyone outside their church is not saved, not that anyone outside their church might not be saved.
As a related note, frankly the terms you describe your relationship with the church, and thus to Christ in, are frankly rife with mysticism. Christianity is not a religion based on mysticism, but on the gospel - that is, the truth. The truth of Christ is not found mysticism and blind submission, but faithfully serving God by following the commands he gives us - which are clear in scripture. I do not mean any of this to be offensive at all, and I hope it does not come across as such.
God bless you.
@@tategarrett3042
I suspected more or less a reply along these lines, and I don't disregard it out of hand.
You're not wrong that the Orthodoxy is rife with mysticism. I have no defense or desire to defend that accusation because the embracing of Mystery is absolutely critical to EO theology.
I also know that for MANY people that is a massive barrier that cannot be easily overcome and have no defense for it other than my own life and spiritual growth as an example of an avid and militant atheist turned Orthodox Christian.
May Dr. Ortland's further investigations into all things of Christ, the lives of all Christians, and the whole world be blessed both now and ever and unto ages of ages. Amen.
@@maggyinahat I don't discount your experiences, but what you're saying here is identical to what Mormons, Jehova's Witnesses, and many other cults, and religious groups say. They argue that their own personal experiences and feelings are evidence enough, but we were not left the Scriptures to guide us so that we might rely on the heart - which is treacherous - to guide our decisions. I am not demanding that you know everything about your tradition, or be able to answer any question offhand, by any means, but it seems to me to be a very severe problem if there are recognized issues and the answer to them is simply to say "you must embrace mystery."
If I say "I am pro life, and believe that no child should be killed in the womb" and then tell you a minute later that "I'm going to have an abortion soon" you would be perfectly within your logical rights to point out the contradiction in what I said, and if I responded by saying it was a mystery that you had to experience to accept, you would again be perfectly justified in calling me out for holding a view that was incoherent.
@@tategarrett3042
The difference between what the mormons and other heretical and non-christian groups say and what I'm saying, is that we're saying the same thing the entire church has taught since the beginning of The Church.
For over 2,000 years we have been steadfast in our teachings, doctrine, structure, and practices.
Rome, Luther, the Reformers, and every single branch of Protestantism has repeatedly continued the practice of revision and change and then pointed backwards at the Orthodoxy and questioned our ways.
I am a little upset at being compared to mormons and other completely non-christian groups, and I apologize for being in that state of mind.
That being said I'm not saying you need to have faith in just any old thing that someone has come up and decided is the truth. I'm saying that in order to come to an understanding (which is not required) one must first be in submission to the same Church founded by Christ on the day of Pentecost, headed by the Apostles, and passed down through the last 2,000 years unchanged and unwavering.
God bless. ☦
@@maggyinahat I see what you're saying but the issue is the manifest contradiction in it - you're saying we (Protestants) are in revision, and that your views have been constant for 2000 years and yet the very thing we're discussing is that while Protestantism has consistently taught the same thing regarding salvation for those outside a given church (Lutheranism, or the Reformed tradition for example), your church has either changed its views or else you are out of alignment with its unchanging views. Either your church actually does deny that anyone outside its organizational boundaries is saved, as so many of its councils and leaders explicitly state, or you don't practice the unchanging faith that was handed down to the apostles 2000 years ago, because you've changed what you believe on it. Of course I can mention other points where we feel the EO church has changed its views away from what the early church actually taught and practiced, but that's a separate topic.
This was great!
Im Orthodox, there is no salvation outside the Church or outside the Body of Christ or outside the Ark of salvation or apart from Christ.
@@EricAlHarb thank you for being consistent
Thank you for speaking up the truth! I live in Ukraine and have to deal with the Orthodox church all of my life.
God bless!
Another good one!
Wow I’m a catechumen at the moment and gotta be honest this is the hardest teaching to accept, but I keep coming back to the same thing. Jesus said if we believe his word, but what if we are believing something he never taught. Then are we believing in a false Christ ? Gavin is right who are we to change this teaching. It is hard for me still with tears. I have meant Protestants who love Christ and I would love to say that I love my Catholic brothers and sisters as well. Gavin my man. I love you man, but if this the historic teaching of the church and there was no other view. My only plea would be for people to repent of heresy and false doctrines and come into the fullness. I say this with a heavy heart. Not with pride but with tears.
It's unfortunate that people speak of an ethereal encounter with the Church, instead of an encounter with Christ.
Given the holy mysteries (sacraments), no Orthodox Christian would ever characterize their engagement with the Church as remotely ethereal and nor would we put the Church, the Body of Christ, against the Head of the Body, Christ Himself. Christ is not divided. We experience Christ by participating as members of His Body, the Church.
Can any orthodox make a logical argument why your church has the practice of denying to baptize believers? The apostles baptized believers the same day. Your church has the heterodox practice of a priest arbitrarily picking who can be baptized. The exact opposite practice of the apostles.
I'd love to know the answer to this too.
My answer: I can speak in the Protestant language because I am technically one, so I wonder if it helps that I point out that the Orthodox seem to be coming from a different perspective than you about salvation altogether. I know nothing, but salvation from an Orthodox view would maybe be incarnational in the sense that it would be embodied in you as Christ is saving you, as you are embodied in His Body in the Church. So the question I would ask back to you would be, how could anyone be saved outside of Christ and His Body? And notice that I'm not saying that no one could be saved by God as He chooses, but I am asking about, based on what we have received, how would someone be saved outside of the incarnate Christ and His incarnate Body which is the Church? Also, what would that salvation even be if it is not righteousness incarnated?
This question is premised on the Orthodox Church being the Church body. That's an incredible premise on which to build an argument about why there is no salvation outside of the Church. It's news to the hundreds of thousands (possibly millions) of Muslims who have converted to Christ through Jesus dreams who were simultaneously never given the revelation to seek out the closest Orthodox Church in order to achieve/be granted salvation.
@kevinkent6351 While uncomfortable to consider that we may be outsiders, it's important to listen to the historical testimony of the Church. We should desire to be subject to the judgment of the Church. God will judge those outside. If you are in it, then you will be judged accordingly. If you're not, then the same. Ultimately, I like to think about if things get really bad out there, and we all end up in a cave. What will we do? What will our testimony be? In the final judgment, God knows who is trying, and He knows who is lying.
@@Adam_Wilde "God will judge those outside the Church." For followers of Christ, Christ's righteousness is imputed onto them--that is, God sees Christ in them, and Christ is blameless. Those who follow Jesus are the CHURCH. There's no institution under which the Church resides. There is no tax ID or address or LLC that is the Church.
“A lot of cope in the comments” LOL
"there's a lot of cope in the comments." Yes, yes there is. Gavin, I think we're being gaslit.
"What I'm trying to do here is read sentences and read words." 🤣
I don't know what this means lol
@@gardengirlmary When people say that there is "cope" somewhere, they are saying that people are trying to reconcile difficult situations by concluding that they arent important or real.
@@tonic-music thanks, I appreciate the definition :)
All these quotes are unbelievably based.
For the Velichkovsky quote I think you missed the key word there “again.” Meaning these individuals were Orthodox and then became Eastern Catholic, which we would say does damn you. That is a different scenario than someone who was never Orthodox.
There is great and blessed spiritual fruit outside of Christianity. Everyone who is the least bit honest and fair-minded knows this to be true. So the argument that non-Orthodox Christians must be legitimate because of their fruits also rightfully applies to non-Christians. More broadly, it's not possible that the God of love and justice would condemn you for living in a just and loving way because you have the wrong theology. I refer you Christians, inter alia, to Romans 2:6-11. "For he will repay according to each one’s deeds."
No, Gavin, you're not going crazy.. You have tripped over an unjustifiable contradiction that can't be defended, and that's why the confusing pushback.