Hi Dr. Ortlund- one issue with the passage from St. Philaret of Moscow that you cite is that St. Philaret is quite well known for having a relatively accommodating view of Western Christendom. So, for example, in relation to non-Orthodox churches, St. Philaret says that "Mark you, I do not presume to call false any Church which believes that Jesus is the Christ. The Christian Church can only be either purely true, confessing the true and saving divine teaching without the false admixtures and pernicious opinions of men, or not purely true, mixing with the true and saving teaching of faith in Christ the false and pernicious opinions of men." I copied this quotation from Florovsky's "Limits of the Church", but you can auto-translate the Russian text of "Conversation Between a Seeker and a Believer" in order to verify this. Whatever the merits of your other quotations (I haven't watched the whole video yet, to be clear- I just saw St. Philaret, whose writings on this I am familiar with, and wanted to make this comment), I don't think St. Philaret of Moscow is the person to quote in relation to this particular point.
Given the plain reading of the quotation from the longer catechism, Philaret would have had to believe the 'impure truth' could also be salvific for us to enmesh your characterization of him with that statement. That is, Philaret would have had to believe that individuals could unknowingly be guided by this truth into the Orthodox Church. I don't know anything further about the his beliefs, their stability, or the context of either set of words, and am therefore unsure of your characterization. Trying to put ourselves in the minds of others is always very difficult if we are to be precise.
Hi Brother. I had emailed you many months ago. I inquired about having a short, friendly discussion on atonement. Would you be willing to set something up in the future?
even reading sentences is enough to Destroy😂😂😂😂 such weaklings..... when I see this I remember the Shias and Sunnis in islam.... isn't this similar....😅😂😂
Love ❤️ Gavin!! One of my favorite you tube channels. Even when I was EO I loved his content. But even more now since coming back to Protestant. Dr. Ortlund, you are so charitable, super professional, cordial, and extremely nice. This is how all debates and dialogue should go between different denominations or religions. I don’t understand why everyone has to get mad or upset, especially if someone feels like they are correct, why would they get mad?
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. Edit: I don't think they did it with malicious intent or anything. It was certainly a coincidence. The Russian Orthodox part of my family are lovely people and my grandmother, also Orthodox, was a role model of faith for my parents who are Baptists. I myself have good and friendly contact with a Greek Orthodox believer here in Germany.
@@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.
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.
I am an orthodox priest, and I’d love to speak to you about this. Not for show or any sort of recording, but genuinely one on one. As I’d love to hear your response to the way, I would think about that claim. Excellent and may God be with you.
God bless you for being a Priest. Dr Ortlund is a Protestant Minister and the primary definition of Protestant is that they do not have the Eucharist. Dr Ortlund might be polite but underneath he is outright contemptuous of the Orthodox and Catholic Church dogma on the Eucharist amongst other Dogma and Tradition. Baptist Minister Ortlund gives people bread and wine and deceives them into believing they have received Holy Communion. Depriving people of Holy Communion by deceiving them into believing they have received Holy Communion when they have not is the most destructive departure from Faith (a heresy) a Protestant Minister teaches and practices. Minister Ortlund, like virtually all Protestant Ministers, is also guilty of the following destructive departures from Faith: Asking Theotokos to pray for us is a waste of time, asking Angels to pray for us is a waste of time, asking Saints to pray for us is a waste of time, praying for the dead is a waste of time and Icons are a waste of time. Protestant Ministers also spout the sola fide and sola scripture heresies. Minister Ortlund also politely teaches the Dormition of Theotokos is a pack of lies. Baptist Ministers follow John Calvin's theories on the Eucharist. John Calvin had the following to say about the Orthodox and Catholic Church dogma on the Eucharist in Institutes of the Christian Religion, 1559.
The Orthodox and Catholic Sacrifice of the Mass is an “abominable insult” and “intolerable blasphemy” to Jesus Christ. Orthodox and Catholic Priests are “stupid” and “infatuated” with “superstition”. Orthodox and Catholic Priests commit “spiritual whoredom”, with their “obscene impurities”. Orthodox and Catholic Priests work with “Satan” to “assail and storm the kingdom of Christ”. The Orthodox and Catholic Sacrifice of the Mass "teems from head to foot with all kinds of impiety, blasphemy, idolatry, and sacrilege.” God bless you
Fr. Christian, I hope you're well. I attended liturgy at Holy Trinity for a few months at the beginning of this year (you, my fiance and I actually met individually a couple times), but stopped because of difficulty with this belief. If you had the opportunity, could you please make a video in response to this so I could hear your perspective? Obviously I would love it much more if you and Dr. Ortlund could speak, but provided that isn't the case I still want to hear what you have to say.
As an Orthodox Priest do you want to have a go at answering the following as another Orthodox Priest has avoided answering: "Why is it that Orthodox Priests, on the whole, want people to accept God's post 1054 A.D. visible miracles documented in the Orthodox Church whilst at the same time they want people to reject God's post 1054 A.D. visible miracles documented in the Catholic Church? especially as Protestantism wants people to reject virtually all of the plethora of God's documented post Scripture visible miracles documented in the Orthodox and Catholic Church." God bless you
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.
@@bradleyperry1735 Gavin: Here’s what Orthodox Bishop says - quotes Bishop verbatim about no salvation outside Orthodox Church. Orthodox people in comments: Gavin is so disingenuous and deceitful
@ Read my whole comment. And his quotes do not IN ANY WAY indicate the salvation of specific individuals. Again, disingenuous and deceitful. Calling a particular group heretical and accursed does not entail each individual in said group is damned.
Gavin's video is "Eastern Orthodox Critics: My Question for You", and there is only one conclusion we can draw from the EO responses to that question: the EO themselves are divided on it. Some maintain that Gavin still does not appreciate the nuance and complexity of official EO doctrine while others claim, "What is difficult to understand? You are correct, Gavin. Unless you are EO, you are not saved." So, this isn't really a debate between EO and non-EO theology.
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.
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.
Three huge problems with this presentation: 1. You ignore statements from earlier in church history 2. You fail to acknowledge that Orthodoxy accepts baptism of heretics like Roman Catholics, Anglicans and Lutherans as authentic baptisms. 3. The Orthodox Church was hard pressed by assaults from heretics in the early modern period, particularly aggressive Roman Catholicism. One way to counter that was to stress the authority of the Church. Any equivocation would have been seen as weakness.
the nature of how the church is viewed in eastern orthodox doctrine makes citing earlier church history entirely unnecessary. Either the church is fallible or all non-eastern orthodox are damned.
Nothing would change your mind if you still think the same. These things are obvious. There are hard issues, but these clauses and authorities are clear. What’s interesting, is you use sin as the justification for the theology of the strong stance of orthodox principles. Hopefully you’ll be honest to yourself. God rest
@@dustinkrumpeck8795 Ortlund would suggest there is a break in the thinking of the Church Fathers in the 9th to 19th centuries from earlier Church Fathers rather than taking the later statements in context of the earlier. The big give away to show Ortlund's views are erroneous is that Orthodoxy has always accepted the baptism of heretics as valid and to have a valid baptism is to be fellow (if somewhat heretical) Christian. Yes, to be Orthodox is to be in the Church founded by Christ. Outside there is a lot of craziness (as every honest Protestant will admit) so your salvation will be assisted by the Church. Finally, Roman Catholics with Unam Sanctam from 1304 were very big on claiming being in communion with the Pope (and thus the institutional Roman Catholic Church) so Orthodox, who were besieged) stressed their institutional church.
@@dustinkrumpeck8795 perhaps "worse", what does it say about any disparity between historical and current positions from a church which is not ever supposed to change?
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.
Yes we do. We know Athanasius was saved, we know Augustine was saved, we know Justin Martyr was saved. Is our knowledge about these salvations perfect and inerrant? By no means, but it doesn't mean that it's impossible to have the assurance and/or confidence of ours or others' salvation.
But at the same time you believe if your not part of the orthodox church your not saved Which for me doesn't make sense As Christ saves you Not your church
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 😊
I love these videos that interact with comments from previous videos! They are great for dialogue. And there is very much an issue (with all sides) where if you present multiple sources then people accuse you of cherry-picking, but if you go in-depth with one source then people say it's not representative.
"And there is very much an issue (with all sides) where if you present multiple sources then people accuse you of cherry-picking, but if you go in-depth with one source then people say it's not representative." No, that's not the issue and presenting it like that falsely makes it appear like those who disagree are acting in bad faith, determined to find fault with any approach. Rather, the issue is that, whether citing multiple people or only one person in depth, selecting only one *kind* of statement gives a false and unbalanced view of what they actually taught. The same thing can be done and frequently is done with the Scriptures, taking a particular verse on a topic, but ignoring other verses on the same topic, to build a very particular doctrine not in keeping with the Scriptures as a whole. In this case, for example, he is ignoring other things, hopeful things, said by the same people he's quoting as being "extremely clear" that there's no hope for non-Orthodox. If the same person (for example, St. Philaret) says that it is necessary to be a member of the canonical Orthodox Church for salvation and also says that Protestants and Catholics can be saved, it's clear that only quoting either one half or the other would give an inaccurate view of what that person actually believed.
The more I interact with Orthodox "Christians" the more convinced I am that their ministry is Satanic. I've never interacted with such smug people who hate the Bible and consider it "idol worship" to read the Bible and interpret it for yourself without the guidance of some Bishop who dresses like a Pharisee.
@@harveygosal if you’re watching this video and still confused on that question, I’d say go start from the beginning of The New Testament and read The Old Testament while you’re at it. That’s how you’ll learn The Gospel. Until then, it seems to me like you’ll be following pagan traditions of cesaro-papism and giving religious honour to stones wood and paint (all of those being contrary to The Gospel of Life). I pray you’re truly seeking after Christ because then you will know.
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.
As others pointed out, your assessment may have some truth regarding the evangelical sphere of American protestantism. But as a confessional Lutheran we have always had ready intellectual explanations for our theology, much like our Reformed brothers and sisters.
@@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”.
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 know you're being cool by using "cope" in your comments and employing emojis to add emphasis, but, for the benefit of us who aren't hipsters, what exactly does your comment even mean?
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 other Christian faiths if 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 on 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.
The point of the video is that whether or not you personally believe other Christians are saved or not is irrelevant because the official position of the EO church is that those outside of it are damned.
"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.
Peace to you, Indeed. He's helping reveal the evidence in favor of Holy Orthodoxy. It's only a matter of time before the faithful followers of Christ in protestantism recognize this and convert.
@absolutepixels3812 Peace to you, brother. No dreams here. The holy Fathers forbid entertaining dreams. They are almost always temptations from the devil.
@absolutepixels3812 Peace to you. I apologize. I will not call you by that title since you have requested it. You laugh at what you do not understand. But when you do then the tears will come..then healing the soul and body. The Holy Spirit will teach you all things. Do not be grieved going forward, concerning the words you have spoken to me. For you have done me a great kindness. May the Lord reward you for that according to His tender mercies. Pray for me a sinner, that I might be illumined by the Gospel.
@@absolutepixels3812 A blessed Lord's day to you. I do not know who personally from within the Orthodox Church has mocked you or Pentecostals. But I'm sorry to hear this. Did you mention that you were Orthodox but left the Church? I'm not sure what you meant I could be mistaken, forgive me. But you did say that you are protestant and Pentecostal or at least approving of it. I do have a long history of being involved in Pentecostalism. So I understand well what Pentecostals believe in generally and within specific groups. My only suggestion is that you do a search on the "Kundalini Spirit" and Pentecostal and/or charismatic movement. You will learn that the spirit behind all these movements from the beginning is not innocent. But harmful and deceitful. It creates confusion among the people who give themselves to that spirit. I agree with you though as an Orthodox Christian. We should and even must be childlike in our love and worship of the Lord. :) and we will have His joy and peace in us if we have the desire to carefully learn and keep His commandments. Which are not burdensome. But we must grow to full maturity and discernment in our thinking. Not being children in our minds but our hearts. We are always be learners as disciples so there's no shame in being wrong about something and needing correction. It's always in good company and a good place to be in. Love. 1 John 1:1- 3 John 14 It's important to understand that some of the sickest people with terrible pasts (such as myself) are found within the Orthodox Church. This is why our Lord has said "those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick." Christ goes and seeks where the need of a physician is greatest. The 12 squabbled amongst themselves over pride. Christ accepted prostitutes and greedy tax collectors. They didn't become like angels immediately, scripture shows us. So too must we all bear with one another s faults with patience and love. If we are going to call ourselves Christian. Therefore, why should I think ill of you even if you strongly disagree with me? All of the Holy Fathers and saints throughout the centuries of the Church agree on this: that the only way to escape delusion is to understand that everyone is in spiritual delusion. So the idea is that we are all fallen sinners, right? So for me to say that you are in delusion without taking into account my own preset delusion. Assumes that I'm not spiritually deluded but you are. Which is the symptom of being spiritually deluded. So how can we know if anyone is telling the truth? We are all blind so the Holy Spirit must truly guide us as sheep out of the dangers of heresy in this life into His sheepfold. We trust God to do for us what we cannot do for ourselves. But like obedient children, we follow. He alone shows us the way. Faith, hope and love. No need to feel guilty about eating yogurt on Wednesday or Friday. If you are thankful in what you partake of you glorify God. But Christ lovingly teaches us that we cannot overcome our demons without prayer and fasting. The Orthodox faith teaches us that all feelings of despair and hopelessness are from the devil. And must be rejected with faith hope and love. This takes courage and humility, because we all are weak and need help from others. The devil is cunning though so he will always try to get us to be at war with everyone in our lives, other Christians and non Christians. But Christ is "the Stronger Man." May He, the Lord keep you. Thank you for praying for me, even if you think that I am deluded. You are not completely wrong. But Christ is our Good Shepherd, Protector, and Hope. May His goodness be with us. In Christ,
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?
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.
@@sharbean Would he have fasted? Would he have confessed his sins to a priest? Would he have been baptized? What would his thoughts on the Eucharist be? From your response, I assume you have a "once saved, always saved" viewpoint?
@druminlaawd7173 I cannot precisely surmise what his life as a Christ follower would have been like in the earliest days of the believers except to look at what is described in scripture. I do lean into the once saved always saved position. It is only God's business to know the veracity of a person's choice. It is possible to do every good act and tradition without belief. It is possible to believe and yet seem to fail to act. People are often very comforted and find satisfaction in ticking boxes. And it is a good thing to do good things. But again, this is not what I was making a statement about in my original post. I am pointing out the evidence of an extremely pared down and simple threshold of salvation that Jesus himself acknowledged.
@@sharbean He would have fasted. For our Lord says that when the Bridegroom is gone, the faithful will fast. Not only would he have confessed his sins to his priest, back then, they confessed their sins to the entire congregation. He for sure would have been baptized. Finally, he would have believed that our Lord's presence was in the Eucharist. For everyone thought that for 1500ish years. Including Calvin, Luther and Zwengli. *the RC view on "presence" that is, for they were all former RC's.* The Christian path is a struggle. A daily process. *Generally speaking,* It isn't a single moment in time of Hypergrace; I want to be clear; Eastern Orthodox considers Dismas as a Saint. Saint Dismas's salvation may have been "simple." However, how many people are afforded the opportunity to have salvation via "deathbed conversion?" Not many are afforded that. Therefore, the rest of us have "work to do." Our good works mean nothing for salvation, *filthy rags;* however, one has to work at salvation. We Orthodox don't believe in once saved, always saved. For that would be in violation of one's free will which has been given to us by God. For if God negated a former believer's rejection, why would he not also do that for non-believers? Which would make God a Universalist. That doctrine is considered a heresy by the vast majority of Christians. Nor would Saint Paul make any sense when he said to work out one's salvation with fear and trembling.
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.
Here is my objection to orthodoxy. There is no evidence in the first century of christian iconography. In fact, the early church constantly preached against the pagans and the ghnostics, who were the ones practicing such things.
This is my answer: Gavin, as a general rule, you are discounting the Orthodox emphasis on the mystery and the mercy of God. These are primary and should be the context for interpreting these statements. You're reading them rigidly and with logical precision, like a good academic, but missing the context of the Orthodox ethos regarding salvation. God is always merciful and looking to extend mercy, and no Orthodox Christian should speak as if that mercy had been limited by human action, and that we are able to pronounce on that limitation. God alone decides when he should be merciful, and it's pride to speak otherwise. With that said, I'm going to exegete the passages that you bring up, and show how I would read them: 1. "What hope do they have for salvation?" (St. Paisius) - for the Orthodox, the judgment of God regarding our salvation does not mean that he is looking for our wicked deeds so that he can damn us. It means that he is looking for the ways that we have turned to him, so that he can turn to us. God wants to be merciful to us. When St. Paisius says, "What hope do they have for salvation?", what he means is, I think, "what good thing will be brought to God when they come before him for judgment?" The saint doesn't see what will be brought. But he is NOT saying that there is absolutely no such thing, or more crucially, that God will therefore have no mercy on them. If he had said, "God will have no mercy on them," this would be a far stronger statement, in the Orthodox mind, than what he has said. At this point he would make himself to know God's judgments, which are above us. No saint, who strives in humility, would do this I think. 2. "When these forsake the Church, they are forsaken by the Holy Spirit, and there remains in them neither understanding nor light, but only darkness and blindness." This statement is admittedly harder, although it has certain biblical precedents. I'm thinking of Romans 1, where people withdraw from God and so are handed over to sin, or to St. James's letter, which states that "draw near to God, and he will draw near to you." The opposite is also true: forsake God (in the Church), and he will withdraw from you - at least to this extent. This is what the verse says, in spirit at least. But here is what it does not say: God will have no mercy on them, and they are beyond the mercy of God at the judgment. It does not say that God ceases to seek their salvation, or that he will not look for what is good in them at the judgment. And what God might find, man does not presume to pronounce on. Their having "only darkness and blindness" refers to their heresy and leaving the Church. I wouldn't take it as absolute (they still have reason and can perform acts of mercy towards others, after all). 3. "To have part in Christ's salvation, we must necessarily be members of his body, that is, of the Catholic Church" (St. Philaret) - If we wish for salvation, we must be members of Christ's body. But does this exclude God's mercy to those outside the Church? Do we draw boundaries around his mercy? See, for example, the Orthodox St. Varus. This saint is recognized as an intercessor for those who die unbaptized and outside of the Orthodox faith. He has been recognized as such since the 17th century in Russia. If the Orthodox are so adamant about the damnation of those outside the Church, why do we have saint whose role is pray for those persons? Why would he pray unless there is the expectation that God, in his compassion and love, can have mercy on them in some form? You see how Orthodoxy holds together these two things: salvation is within the Orthodox Church, but the mercy of God is not bound by human understanding. I hope you find this helpful, Gavin. I don't have enough time to answer all of the citations you bring up, but I would like to make a few more short comments. First, I wouldn't rely so much on the passage in Matthew 9 where there is an exorcist who is outside of the disciples who is accepted by Christ. This is easily countered by Matthew 7:22, where there are some who cast out demons but the Lord claims "I never knew you." There's more to be considered than just whether one is casting out demons. To the broader point, the "fruit," I think, is whether things - including especially the body of Christ - are scattered or gathered. But that's another conversation. Second, I'd like to gently encourage you away from this topic of salvation and whether others are damned. I give you the benefit of the doubt that you are approaching it honestly, but please realize that you are tempting Orthodox persons to triumphalism and pride. "Don't you all believe that those outside the Church are damned? The texts say it. Just say it yourself already." It's hard not to feel this way, against one's better inclinations, when you focus on this topic. And it's such pride to say these things. The Church makes its decrees principally to protect the faithful, not to excoriate outsiders. It certainly doesn't make them to puff up its own members. Please respect this. Blessings, Daniel
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! ☦️
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.
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.
@@dancastle3042 I have not encountered this, but it doesn't surprise me. EO Churches did not have to coexist with other denominations for most of their history until suddenly here we all are mixed together in the modern day USA and Canada, and so as a whole EO Churches are still figuring out what that relationship will look like. Different EO Christians have different attitudes toward other denominations; there are certainly some hardliners, but many seem quite non-adversarial in the same way most Baptists would be non-adversarial toward them, and the rest are somewhere in the middle. Knowing Orthodox Christianity, it will probably take another hundred years or so to work out these matters.
All this talk about EO and RC has made me really discouraged, confused and left with a racing mind as of late in regards to my own Christian experiences as a Protestant. No matter what the most correct view is, I appreciate the respect and validations for many’s experiences with Christ outside these boundaries.
Check out 'Lectio: Salvation', 'Lectio: Eucharist' and 'Lectio: Mary'. I can really, really relate to your struggle, and all I can say is, now that I'm going to Mass and going through RCIA, I finally feel a sense of peace.
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.
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.
@@shannonmorgan2866 Newsflash. Youre not the judge of whose fruit is good or bad. You do not see the heart of any man. There are plenty of men and women who convert to Orthodoxy who are bearing far more fruit than a Protestant could ever dream. At the end of the day though it is not a virtue contest. It is about who is holy aka set apart. Being set apart is about being part of a covenant people and that covenant is entered into through baptism, chrismation, and the Eucharist. So again those who are outside the church are not set apart in that way. The faith you have has to be the one once delivered to all the saints in order for it to be counted as the true faith. The beliefs, works, and love must be apostolic.
@@shannonmorgan2866 Are you the standard of who is bearing fruit and who is not? I dont recall you being appointed God who knows rhe hearts of men and can dogmatically say they bear no fruit. Might want to look in the mirror and ask why you think this assertion of yours is reasonable.
The gospel is so simple yet RC and EO church complicate it man. Just believe. A true Christian will adore Jesus Christ and not want to live in sin. That’s it. Doesn’t mean you won’t sin. Of course you will sin. But the new nature in you hates sin. You abhor it. Why? Because you know who your king is and he hates sin!
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
If I had to describe Orthodoxy is one word, it would be: pride. In two words: excessive pride. This pride is deeply rooted in Greek culture saying they gave western civilization philosophy, society, arts and ultimately - Christianity. The discussions with orthodox often go into the direction of historical primacy, and enititlement on "copyright" of Christianity.
If that's your experience, I'm ashamed as a greek. But don't let this foolishness misguide you because orthodoxy is not 'greek' only, greeks are 10 million, orthodox are 250-300 million
Weird. I left Protestantism because that is the one word I would give it. All assuming they understand the faith better than those before them and better than the church next door. In Orthodoxy I saw people struggling with their sins and to be better servants instead of just accepting a generic "I'm saved!" mentality.
@@MajorMustang1117 This! The message of Protestantism is so watered down as to be almost meaningless, so all that is left is to self-righteously criticize others for wanting something based in tradition.
@@sihtnaelkk2187 no need for feeling ashamed. Greeks have indeed initially given all this things to the West. The conflict arises from something I would broadly describe as the "fallacy of tradition". It's been 2000 years, Greece has been ravaged by various conquerors, the people dispersed, culture diluted with all these influences and other parts of the world have become centers. "The good old days" are over. Pride can be good thing in times of physical dangers for nations but if it becomes a purpose to itself it makes us not really in the image of our Lord (IMHO).
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?
I'm a Roman Catholic to put my cards on the table at the outset. I will start with a recent anecdote. A local Orthodox parish had an ethnic fair recently. We were invited to divine liturgy by a friend who is a member of their parish. I asked him when liturgy began. He said, "Well, it starts around 10 AM. When matins end, the divine liturgy begins, but sometimes matins end before or after 10 AM." Their website had 10 AM listed, but the written word vs. the lived reality of the community were not always in agreement. I think the written word being subbordinate to community life could ease some concerns about the words you quoted being pretty bleak for western Christians. I think arguments based on words is a very western Christian thing to do. The words you quoted say what they. Eastern Orthodoxy has never gone through a period like scholasticism or a reformation that would push a lot of point and counterpoint arguing. I am not sure how precise apologetic type comments can be taken coming from Eastern Orthodoxy or pre-scholastic Roman Catholic figures. Most words would be in sermons, homilies, letters, and hymns rather than using Aristotelean methods of logic or point and counter point tracts. When Pope Pius VI died under house arrest, Rome put out some pretty strident statements (that is pretty true of most of the 19th century). The pressures of Islam on a lot of Eastern Orthodoxy, the emergence of atheistic Marxist governments in Eastern Europe, and this was/is true of a lot of immigrant Catholic communities to the US and likely true of immigrant communities of Orthodox Christians to the US as well, statements made from a siege mentality tend to be pretty harsh.
This is huge. Thank you brother. I don’t see Dr. Ortlund arguing out of bad faith or anything, simply Dr Ortlund/Protestants and the Orthodox parties seem to be talking past each other accidentally. It would be helpful for these types of dialogues to happen in person rather than online.
The application of the canon laws are also a good example. We have very specific prescribed penances for various spiritual maladies, but from the beginning the rigor of application was left up to the confessor/spiritual father.
If EO simply said "we changed our views in this topic" everything would be solved, but they can't do it, because of their eclesiology, thus they need to do these levels of mental gymnastics
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!!
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.
Metropolitan Philaret may have spoken in different ways at different times. He once famously or infamously said, “No church which believes Jesus to be the Christ will I dare call false.” The reference was to non-Orthodox Churches. This statement brought some serious criticism of Philaret from more traditionally minded Orthodox. Philaret’s own theology was formed in the context of the quasi-Lutheranizing theology of his mentor Metropolitan Platon Levshin, and is shown in Philaret’s Catechism, e.g. his acceptance of the Jewish-Protestant canon of the Old Testament.
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 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?
My Answer: Orthodox Councils and Fathers weren't talking to you. They were giving a message to the Church for the Church. An Orthodox Christian who refuses to venerate icons is denying the humanity of Christ. A heterodox, with a different understanding, is not. Paradoxes are a major feature of the voice of the Spirit. It is not incoherent to say both, there is only one Holy, Catholic, and Orthodox Church and at the same time "God is a a rewarder of those who diligently seek him" whether they are nominally Christian or not. My answer is that they were not talking to you as a heterodox. They were speaking to Orthodox.
Sorry. I don’t venerate icons and I don’t deny the humanity of Christ. I don’t agree with such equation. Sounds pretty idiotic and heretical to me. I do believe God can speak through icons, through stones, through anything, but I don’t feel urge to bow before stones or kiss them… prostrate or whatever. History proves that first at least 3-4 centuries there were no real icons in that sense. It all comes after Constantine and his era. I don’t buy legend about Apostle Luke being first iconograph. History and archeology prove that’s not so. And Scripture mention 0 icons. No nothing about venerating them. Even first councils didn’t have icons. So they were denying humanity of Christ also? Baloney! If you like icons, fine, but to make such a stupid claim, I wonder if you put this one of the last councils above the previous ones and Scriptures. There is no paradox in that. It’s no common sense. It’s not even mystery. I even believe God did and can do miracles through icons, well I do, but he can do that through anointing oil, blessing water or stone or anything. I don’t venerate them. And I do have honour and respect for saints, martyrs and miracle-workers a lot, but I don’t pray to them. Nobody did that in the time of writing New Testament, nobody did that at least first 2-3 centuries after. And there is some contemplative and mysterious and sacred in the art of writing icons and that people can behold them and meditate on holy things. I get it. But to make it something big and make it another door and window to Jesus while He is Open Heaven and is accessible to everyone who believes in Him 24/7, Why on earth would I put more windows and more doors before the One who is the Truth, The Way and the Life, True Door to the Father? Again, enjoy icons if you want, but I agree with Dr. Ourtland that is prideful, pagan and heretical idea to make wierd new doctrine to write off other brethren to prove “we are the right ones, everyone else is nut job”. It gets so crazy in church history that even Nestor was not Nestorian and Maximus the Confessor got his tongue cut off.. this is exactly where your reasoning is going. And had we no reformation, Christians would kill each other over doctrines literally and EO along with Roman Catholic would continue inquisitions and baptizing pagans at the threat of the sword like Islam did and some radical Muslims might do. Just admit it’s all about church politics and has nothing to do with the Gospel, you just guys want to prove your “ego”, why you are right and everyone else is wrong. Fine. Fair enough. But just admit it without going circles around the main thing.
Here is my answer, not Orthodox but have been looking into it for a while, but a lot of these arguments could very easily apply to you as well and don't really sway me away from Orthodoxy. 1. Paisius Velichkovsky: So, you would be completely fine with a brother/sister Babtist church one day openly declaring they are the universal supreme Baptist overlord, they will be changing the Nicaean Creed you previously all held to and explicitly promised not to change, and they are changing it to deny the trinity? You would seriously still say "Well we might disagree on a few things, but they are still going to be saved because..."? 2. 1672 Synod of Jerusalem: Every Protestant church has a Bishop or something akin to a Bishop, even the protestants who outright deny churches and just sit at home with their Bible (in that case, they are the Bishop) all have a leadership of some kind. Why is it an issue to say that these Bishops should be successors to other Bishops leading back to the Apostles? That seems like a much stronger argument for church leadership than "this guy I agree with from the reformation who I can still massively disagree with is the true successor to the apostles and just so happens to agree with everything I do. Also, every other Christian before him was wrong unless they agree with him/me." 3. The Patriarchal Encyclical of 1895: Again, don't see why this statement is an issue unless you are saying (and these are my biggest reasons for not being protestant) "There is no certainty in Christ and being a Christian." and "You can get Baptism, Communion, path to salvation, the trinity, Church governance, loving your neighbor, what it means to believe, who Jesus was, etc. all wrong but as long as you "believe in Jesus" (which could apply to any number of people you wouldn't consider saved) you are still saved and my brother and sister in Christ." 4.The Catechism of St. Philaret: So now Church is not even necessary? I can just sit at home with a Bible and come to whatever conclusions I want? 5. 1848 Encyclical of the Eastern Patriarchs: From my understanding hearing various debates about the Filioque, it boils down to a matter of trinitarian theology. Again, this goes back to is there any certainty in Christ if we can get even the trinity wrong? I am completely fine with not having certainty in regard to other Christian's salvation status, I can't be OK with being uncertain in almost every other aspect of being a Christian. When it comes down to viewing my various options as a whole, the Orthodox system makes the most sense historically, theologically, biblically, and every other -ly I can think of.
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.
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.
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.
This was a very charitable presentation. The Spirit of Orthodoxy is love. Our doors are always open for all. It is absolutely necessary to denounce heretical doctrines, but fear the Lord and refuse to judge others. Only God is the Judge who knows everyone’s heart. Who is man to judge? As Christians we must be humble and repentant servants of Jesus. For example, as Gavin pointed out an Anglican brother preaching the Gospel of Christ should have been praised then introduced to the richness of Orthodoxy, not reprimanded by a fellow Saint. Even Saints as holy and righteous as they are, are still sinners, but not intentionally of course. They can misspeak as we all do. We do not know the full intentions of anyone’s heart, so we must remain faithful to Jesus and let Him judge. With that said, Revelation chapter 1 is the template for resolving this ecclesial matter. Christ’s letters to the 7 Churches of Asia Minor, addresses all of these concerns. If we are to equate the Orthodox Church to the excellency of the Philadelphian Church, then there are at least 6 other remnants that are critiqued yet still part of the collective Church. Only one was in trouble of being removed, which I can imagine are today’s “woke churches” and blatantly unbiblical “denominations.” The issue I take with Protestantism as a reforming effort, however, is that we as Christians are supposedly united yet divided simultaneously-which only burdens the Church. We must unite doctrinally, patriarchally (patristically), and liturgically as Jesus wills for all of us to collectively be of one mind and heart. Of course, the omniscience and omnipotence of God transcends institutions, but why would anyone purposely after having tasted of the Lord liturgically, ever refuse Christianity in its most ancient and authentic expression?: Orthodoxy. You know, all of these concerns would dissipate if believers repented and partook of an Orthodox parish. Anyone can feign victimhood, but why not simply join Orthodoxy? I hope you hear my heart on this matter, I’m not approaching this with a critical spirit. Imagine a Mormon or Muslim criticizing Christianity (the Church) because we cherish the Trinity, and thus, are too ‘exclusivist.’ Well, we all have the free-will to join our brothers and sisters in faithful worship, and as stated before, the doors are always open to God’s Home. When will Papists forsake their dogma of Papal “supremacy” which never existed Biblically? If Peter as the first Pope exercised “infallibility” then the Church of Acts would have formed and revolved solely around him-which evidently it didn’t. And why, after understanding that “Sola Scriptura” is a failed ecclesial experiment that only leads to further divisiveness within the Church, is backwardly still upheld by many? Mind you, the fable of “Sola Fide” which is Biblically decimated by the Apostle James (chapter 2) in his affirmation of faith and works being married, not antithetical to each other on the basis of salvation, is still in circulation within Christendom. Repentance is the key to reunification. The verdict being that we all need to repent of generationally misleading doctrines to reunify under Christ’s Apostolic Church-where it all began.
I think we should find ways to work together as much as we can, as we are all hemorrhaging members. In areas where we can't agree, then find ways to disagree without being disagreeable. A much bigger issue than having people switch from one denomination to another (which is their choice anyways), is losing people to atheism. The main problem we all have, is that 5 days a week our kids are getting taught that atheism is science in public education. The response of most churches, from the oldest to the newest, has been very limpwrist and dismissive. We should all be working together to refute the evolutionism, and make sure we all protect our younger generations from real clear heresy.
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.
Why is our exclusive view even a problem? You act like the EOs taking the stance we do is wrong and that we need to "account" for this view...but I don't see any evidence put forward that it is wrong. It seems like you take as axiomatic that it is wrong and that we need to for some reason answer it...I don't think that is the case though. I have no problem saying that A) You're not a Christian and you're not a part of Jesus' church and B) I have no comment on your heart, only God knows that.
I’m an orthodox convert from baptist. I’ve experienced the fullness of the gospel in orthodoxy. It has changed my life! I encourage those interested in EO please go to a local parish and experience the EO faith yourself.
I have gone to many protestant churches and spent a few years being Catholic. I am a catechumen now so I am still becoming Orthodox. The Orthodox Church has been life changing for me beyond words. Nothing else has even come close. Experiencing the church for yourself is very wise advice.
Hey Gavin! I have a question, I am a southern Baptist minister who has begun to question if there is the spiritual presence of Christ in communion. If this is true, are there any Creedo-Baptist denominations outside of the SBC? Thanks!
This is just an appeal to emotion. Even if it's true you didn't disprove Orthodoxy. You believe people will go to hell too, we would just believe more people will.
@@bradspitt3896 And your original comment has nothing to do with this video. Pastor Ortlund is citing the exact language of the writings of your church fathers. The only emotion that this video seems to elicit is anger from certain EO faithful.
@@AnalyticalSceptic Not according to Gavin. His only critique is that he can't believe it with a good conscience, he's actually arguing that it is historical.
Eastern Orthodox does say if someone is not Orthodox they are not saved, But doesn't Roman Catholicism say the same. They both say if you are not part of their group, you will not go to heaven.
Call or email your local Orthodox parish priest and see what he says. While Gavin may be able to find Orthodox priests from hundreds of years ago who say that the heterodox are not saved, it’s not the position of any Orthodox clergyman I’ve ever met.
If the claim is a historically continuous tradition then it matters what that tradition has always said up until five seconds ago, regarding the status of institutional outsiders.
@@cassidyanderson3722 But that’s not the question. The Orthodox Church claims to be unchanging. I’m glad if it’s changed since hundreds of years ago, but then the claim of unchanging is also false, it would seem.
And the Baptist who comes to my door to preach me the Gospel tells me the Catholics are snakes. I stir clear of Christians badmouthing other Christians
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?
Another great video. I don't see how it could be any clearer? The EO church has clearly historically taught that there is no salvation outside of the EO church. Maybe there are other strains of the tradition from the 9th-19th century that teach otherwise (we would need to be shown those), but there is obviously a very strong strain of exclusivism within the tradition that must be dealt with.
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.
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 ...
Dr. Ortlund has discussed many of your inquiries in his books, one of which is about theological triage. He also has made a couple of videos on that. You might want to check them. His remarks on being simply enchanted by the Gospel do not nullify the importance of theology or church institutions or the sacraments or the hierarchs or the tradition. He simply pointed to such an assurance in the Gospel. All of these discussions should point to that joy and not lead people astray into the fear of judgment as if the love of God has not been poured into heart. Hope this helps. In Christ alone.
@@Presbapterian So if anyone: A. has the joyful assurance of the Gospel and decides to become Eastern Orthodox, B. based upon "the importance of theology or church institutions or the sacraments or the hierarchs or the tradition," - then - C. there is no problem, even if Dr. Ortlund thinks that EO "theology is historically problematic"?
@annakimborahpa Good for him/her. The joy of salvation should be our priority here. As an orthodox reformational Christian, I would definitely cheer them in their journey of following our Lord and encourage them to seek for the truth even more. It would be my prayer that their eyes will be opened to the fact that their church institution has chosen some wrong paths and heterodoxies, formally speaking. Again, I have seen cognitive dissonance among the EO folks, where they would be less rigorous than their official church institutiton actually requires them to be, so this kind of issue should be treated case by case with Godly wisdom and patience.
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 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.
St. Theophan is right. I don't get why acknowledging the exclusivity of Orthodoxy is so off-putting to Protestants. Nobody should have ever converted from Paganism seeing how "mean" it is to reject the salvation of one's friends and family.
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.
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.
Orthodoxy is strict in preserving the faith, and this saved it on that from Catholic additions and from the Protestant Reformation, I don't care what they think about others at least preserved the faith as the early Christians lived it without increase or decrease
Here's my answer: Here's what they could say if they were saying what you imply, "No individual outside of the visible communion of the Orthodox Church shall be saved. They will certainly suffer eternal damnation" They do not say that. Just as many Christians today will say, hate the sin no the sinner. Orthodox hates heterodoxy, not the heterodox. It's important that the Orthodox speak in strong polemical terms against false teachings whether by outright heretics or by non-Orthodox Christians because, to us, we are protecting the fullness of the faith. We cannot concede a single point of our doctrine because it is the doctrine of Christ, who is the Truth. Orthodox prayers and teachings are intentionally hyperbolic, read the Akathist hymn or pre-communion prayers. You are taking Orthodox words out of the Orthodox context. The strong statements regarding salvation and grace affirm the normative path of salvation but they do not confine God. God can save anyone, even those outside the Church. No Orthodox Christian could reject this statement. If you just "read words" you will never understand the Orthodox worldview. Orthodoxy is a life, not a formula.
Side note for you, Gavin, I mostly listen on Podcast, but when I get to check out your videos, I notice that the video quality including the lighting and background contrast looks really good! I know this is something you work hard on and you say you don't have much background on, so I want to affirm the quality I see. At least visually it's on par with Mike Winger's stuff imo.
Orthodox here. Scripture first. Ecumenical councils second. Church tradition/. church Fathers 3rd. I left Protestantism because it’s an absolute mess. Everyone can be their own church , no need for the historic church. As far as “cut off from salvation” if you are heterodox… that is up to God. period end of sentence , mic drop.
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.
@@timothyhodgson9572 Like I replied above to Gavin, all the quotes are most likely addressed to Orthodox Christians, simply because we don't spend time writing them to Protestants, because we like to excite them. So, in that CONTEXT, to a person who is Orthodox, and is thinking of becoming a Calvinist, we are telling them that if you decide to be a Calvinist (example), there is a good chance the reason you are converting to Protestantism is not a good one. Context, context, context so he is taking the statement out of contexts we don't apply to persons but the TEACHINGS. When we say, there is no salvation outside the Orthodox Catholic church, we have to consider examples. Consider this. A man is a Baptist, but he sees a beautiful muslim girl and she says, ok I will marry if you convert to Islam. And he does. Where do you think he is going, most likely (we don't really know, ok)? Would that be something you would recommend as a strategy for salvation? Remember, we are always speaking about the teachings and your actions. Not YOU as a person. On the other hand, a Nazi one day found Jesus, and joined the Calvinist church. Would you not agree that was moving in the correct direction? We will have issues with the teachings, BUT we would agree that it is his personal relationship with Lord Jesus SO we will say as always, not everyone is the "church" is saved, and not everyone outsides is damned. This is NOT the first time we have answered this question. It is not that hard.
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?
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.
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.
It is good video. I'm Protestant all my life but I'm considering other options your videos are helping me very much I want to read church history books and can you recommend me
Dr Ortlund, first let me thank you for your videos. They have been a great deal for me to understand arguments in different fields of theology better, and to express them correctly. I am a protestant, coming from an exclusive plymouth brethren assembly but being more broadly an evagelical christian. I have spent a good amount of time talking with eastern orthodox friends, spending time in retreat in a monastery dependant upon the simonos petras monastery of Mt Athos, talking with priests, attending matins, vepsers and litturgies without taking part in communion. My biggest problem with orthodoxy remains indeed the theology of exclusivity which stems from their view of the body of Christ being those who are in communion with the EOC, and no one else. But that being said, I think some nuance is necessary within eastern orthodoxy theology, which I personally find to be much more "poetic" in a sense than the western tradition. The eastern orthodox church does not, unlike catholics, put every bit of their theology in words on papers that then get officialized. And unlike both catholics and protestants, don't necessarily define everything in square boxes, but rather prefer to let the meaning of sentences and doctrines be binding in the whole meaning of it, not the specific words. This is why the orthodox have no problem saying that Mary is "the hope of the christian people" while also saying that Christ "is our only hope". Even reguarding the sacrament of the Eucharist, the orthodox don't seem to have an ultra specific doctrine on what happens to the bread and wine, rather prefering to say that the elements become "really and truly christ", which of course includes the doctrine of transubstanciation but without going into a lot of details on how this happens. Therefore, I am not surprised that some eastern orthodox texts sometimes contain multiple words interchangeably that would be very well defined as not being the same thing in western tradition, being clearly different and having different implications. In a way, a lot of psalms do this, and the EOC seems attached to the way the psalms are written. (I.e. asking God to kill all the sinners while asking God to have mercy on us, sinners)
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.
@@Cletus_the_Elder In order to read something "clearly", you need to at least understand the mind and the WAY of thinking that is generating those supposedly "clear" statements. You cannot apply your own framework to things within the Orthodox framework if you're not even willing to apply the Orthodox framework to what we ourselves say and believe. All Gavin is doing here is what he and the lot of you in the comments have always done - you take some words from our tradition and you apply your own exegetical framework and philosophical presuppositions. Then you wonder why we make a fuss. It's because you're not even in the right forest, nevermind barking up the right tree. At the end of the day, this is a heart problem. And Gavin is trying to overintellectualize it in a way that doesn't even comport with our own intellectual and historical framework.
@@aaronwolf4211 Is the context so heavy, is the language so dense with historical meaning, to depart from the clear admonition of the text being discussed?
@@Cletus_the_Elder The very issue here is that you presuppose you know what is "clear". This is the heart of the matter and a key error of Protestantism across a variety of issues. And that is what I am pointing out here. Your framing and presuppositions are the issue, not how WE understand OUR teaching.
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!
@TruthUnites I think you’ll find that your questions will be answered by listening to the Willard Preacher Podcast episode 39 where they actually respond to a different video of yours. They clarify the fact that when you talk of salvation you mean something different by it than any Orthodox person, including the Orthodox people you quote. This hurdle you see for converts doesn’t actually exist, because it’s not a hurdle in Orthodoxy when understanding salvation in an Orthodox way. If you still have confusion then maybe sit down with an Orthodox priest or bishop to get help removing the Protestant lens and putting on the Orthodox lens when examining Orthodox doctrines.
Here is my answer: In Orthodoxy no-one, not even a saint, is infallible. So it is no good quoting any particular saint or father to prove what all of Orthodoxy believes. That is why there is no systematic theology like in the West. Eastern Orthodoxy works on completely different principles. It is consensus, not individualism.
@@jbn668 same here actually and I absolutely love that orthodox does not hold saints as infallible, really wish they didn't pray to created beings though. No, I was merely prodding at someone saying, " here is my answer" in a consensus based church as is the claim... kind of silly if you think about it.
"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
@@veritasquidestveritasOF course Christ founded the Holy Orthodox Church. Every GOOD HISTORIAN WILL AGREE
Hi Dr. Ortlund- one issue with the passage from St. Philaret of Moscow that you cite is that St. Philaret is quite well known for having a relatively accommodating view of Western Christendom. So, for example, in relation to non-Orthodox churches, St. Philaret says that "Mark you, I do not presume to call false any Church which believes that Jesus is the Christ. The Christian Church can only be either purely true, confessing the true and saving divine teaching without the false admixtures and pernicious opinions of men, or not purely true, mixing with the true and saving teaching of faith in Christ the false and pernicious opinions of men." I copied this quotation from Florovsky's "Limits of the Church", but you can auto-translate the Russian text of "Conversation Between a Seeker and a Believer" in order to verify this. Whatever the merits of your other quotations (I haven't watched the whole video yet, to be clear- I just saw St. Philaret, whose writings on this I am familiar with, and wanted to make this comment), I don't think St. Philaret of Moscow is the person to quote in relation to this particular point.
That is very helpful. Thank you for sharing that!
Given the plain reading of the quotation from the longer catechism, Philaret would have had to believe the 'impure truth' could also be salvific for us to enmesh your characterization of him with that statement. That is, Philaret would have had to believe that individuals could unknowingly be guided by this truth into the Orthodox Church.
I don't know anything further about the his beliefs, their stability, or the context of either set of words, and am therefore unsure of your characterization. Trying to put ourselves in the minds of others is always very difficult if we are to be precise.
My priest told me to ignore St. Philaret's catechism.
Hi Brother. I had emailed you many months ago. I inquired about having a short, friendly discussion on atonement. Would you be willing to set something up in the future?
@@GabrielWithoutWingsis his catechism not dogmatic?
"What I'm trying to do here is read sentences"
@@pmfeghali 😂
@@pmfeghali Lol
even reading sentences is enough to Destroy😂😂😂😂
such weaklings.....
when I see this I remember the Shias and Sunnis in islam.... isn't this similar....😅😂😂
."..out of context and saw discord and confusion" -WISC
You should too, to see if Dr. Ortlund is accurately representing our position.
Love ❤️ Gavin!! One of my favorite you tube channels. Even when I was EO I loved his content. But even more now since coming back to Protestant. Dr. Ortlund, you are so charitable, super professional, cordial, and extremely nice. This is how all debates and dialogue should go between different denominations or religions. I don’t understand why everyone has to get mad or upset, especially if someone feels like they are correct, why would they get mad?
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.
Edit:
I don't think they did it with malicious intent or anything. It was certainly a coincidence.
The Russian Orthodox part of my family are lovely people and my grandmother, also Orthodox, was a role model of faith for my parents who are Baptists.
I myself have good and friendly contact with a Greek Orthodox believer here in Germany.
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.
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.
My smile is so wide when I see a TU notification
I am an orthodox priest, and I’d love to speak to you about this. Not for show or any sort of recording, but genuinely one on one. As I’d love to hear your response to the way, I would think about that claim. Excellent and may God be with you.
As an Orthodox Christian, I love that idea!
God bless you for being a Priest. Dr Ortlund is a Protestant Minister and the primary definition of Protestant is that they do not have the Eucharist. Dr Ortlund might be polite but underneath he is outright contemptuous of the Orthodox and Catholic Church dogma on the Eucharist amongst other Dogma and Tradition. Baptist Minister Ortlund gives people bread and wine and deceives them into believing they have received Holy Communion. Depriving people of Holy Communion by deceiving them into believing they have received Holy Communion when they have not is the most destructive departure from Faith (a heresy) a Protestant Minister teaches and practices. Minister Ortlund, like virtually all Protestant Ministers, is also guilty of the following destructive departures from Faith: Asking Theotokos to pray for us is a waste of time, asking Angels to pray for us is a waste of time, asking Saints to pray for us is a waste of time, praying for the dead is a waste of time and Icons are a waste of time. Protestant Ministers also spout the sola fide and sola scripture heresies. Minister Ortlund also politely teaches the Dormition of Theotokos is a pack of lies.
Baptist Ministers follow John Calvin's theories on the Eucharist. John Calvin had the following to say about the Orthodox and Catholic Church dogma on the Eucharist in Institutes of the Christian Religion, 1559.
The Orthodox and Catholic Sacrifice of the Mass is an “abominable insult” and “intolerable blasphemy” to Jesus Christ. Orthodox and Catholic Priests are “stupid” and “infatuated” with “superstition”. Orthodox and Catholic Priests commit “spiritual whoredom”, with their “obscene impurities”. Orthodox and Catholic Priests work with “Satan” to “assail and storm the kingdom of Christ”. The Orthodox and Catholic Sacrifice of the Mass "teems from head to foot with all kinds of impiety, blasphemy, idolatry, and sacrilege.”
God bless you
Fr. Christian, I hope you're well. I attended liturgy at Holy Trinity for a few months at the beginning of this year (you, my fiance and I actually met individually a couple times), but stopped because of difficulty with this belief. If you had the opportunity, could you please make a video in response to this so I could hear your perspective?
Obviously I would love it much more if you and Dr. Ortlund could speak, but provided that isn't the case I still want to hear what you have to say.
Why don't you post your thoughts in the comments for others to consider them?
As an Orthodox Priest do you want to have a go at answering the following as another Orthodox Priest has avoided answering: "Why is it that Orthodox Priests, on the whole, want people to accept God's post 1054 A.D. visible miracles documented in the Orthodox Church whilst at the same time they want people to reject God's post 1054 A.D. visible miracles documented in the Catholic Church? especially as Protestantism wants people to reject virtually all of the plethora of God's documented post Scripture visible miracles documented in the Orthodox and Catholic Church."
God bless you
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.
@@bradleyperry1735 Gavin: Here’s what Orthodox Bishop says - quotes Bishop verbatim about no salvation outside Orthodox Church.
Orthodox people in comments: Gavin is so disingenuous and deceitful
@ Read my whole comment. And his quotes do not IN ANY WAY indicate the salvation of specific individuals. Again, disingenuous and deceitful. Calling a particular group heretical and accursed does not entail each individual in said group is damned.
@@bradleyperry1735 you got refuted son!
Gavin's video is "Eastern Orthodox Critics: My Question for You", and there is only one conclusion we can draw from the EO responses to that question: the EO themselves are divided on it. Some maintain that Gavin still does not appreciate the nuance and complexity of official EO doctrine while others claim, "What is difficult to understand? You are correct, Gavin. Unless you are EO, you are not saved."
So, this isn't really a debate between EO and non-EO theology.
its a very good observation that the reactions to this video are all over the map -- and that this fact itself says something
@@TruthUnitesit says nothing other than those who speak online do so without full knowledge nor authority and therefore misspeak.
Finally someone said it
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.
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
You know you can just subscribe, you don't have to actually check everyday?
@@stefanpieper3757 I have subscribed, but I don't have RUclips on my phone.
Three huge problems with this presentation:
1. You ignore statements from earlier in church history
2. You fail to acknowledge that Orthodoxy accepts baptism of heretics like Roman Catholics, Anglicans and Lutherans as authentic baptisms.
3. The Orthodox Church was hard pressed by assaults from heretics in the early modern period, particularly aggressive Roman Catholicism. One way to counter that was to stress the authority of the Church. Any equivocation would have been seen as weakness.
the nature of how the church is viewed in eastern orthodox doctrine makes citing earlier church history entirely unnecessary. Either the church is fallible or all non-eastern orthodox are damned.
Nothing would change your mind if you still think the same. These things are obvious. There are hard issues, but these clauses and authorities are clear. What’s interesting, is you use sin as the justification for the theology of the strong stance of orthodox principles.
Hopefully you’ll be honest to yourself.
God rest
why quote earlier fathers when the current ones have made the position clear.
@@dustinkrumpeck8795
Ortlund would suggest there is a break in the thinking of the Church Fathers in the 9th to 19th centuries from earlier Church Fathers rather than taking the later statements in context of the earlier.
The big give away to show Ortlund's views are erroneous is that Orthodoxy has always accepted the baptism of heretics as valid and to have a valid baptism is to be fellow (if somewhat heretical) Christian.
Yes, to be Orthodox is to be in the Church founded by Christ. Outside there is a lot of craziness (as every honest Protestant will admit) so your salvation will be assisted by the Church.
Finally, Roman Catholics with Unam Sanctam from 1304 were very big on claiming being in communion with the Pope (and thus the institutional Roman Catholic Church) so Orthodox, who were besieged) stressed their institutional church.
@@dustinkrumpeck8795 perhaps "worse", what does it say about any disparity between historical and current positions from a church which is not ever supposed to change?
I'm a simple man, I get a notification from Truth Unites, I leave whatever I'm doing and click! God bless you, Gavin✝️🔥❤️
A response to Dr. Ortlund:
ruclips.net/video/tUo-NzXOA_g/видео.htmlsi=SgP8A-PeNjNk4WhE
💯 facts! Me too
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.
Yes we do. We know Athanasius was saved, we know Augustine was saved, we know Justin Martyr was saved.
Is our knowledge about these salvations perfect and inerrant? By no means, but it doesn't mean that it's impossible to have the assurance and/or confidence of ours or others' salvation.
But at the same time you believe if your not part of the orthodox church your not saved
Which for me doesn't make sense
As Christ saves you
Not your church
@@dude9318The Church is the Body of Christ.
@@dude9318They're hypocrites
Thank you so much. You are greatly appreciated, Dr. Ortlund.
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.
I love these videos that interact with comments from previous videos! They are great for dialogue.
And there is very much an issue (with all sides) where if you present multiple sources then people accuse you of cherry-picking, but if you go in-depth with one source then people say it's not representative.
"And there is very much an issue (with all sides) where if you present multiple sources then people accuse you of cherry-picking, but if you go in-depth with one source then people say it's not representative."
No, that's not the issue and presenting it like that falsely makes it appear like those who disagree are acting in bad faith, determined to find fault with any approach. Rather, the issue is that, whether citing multiple people or only one person in depth, selecting only one *kind* of statement gives a false and unbalanced view of what they actually taught. The same thing can be done and frequently is done with the Scriptures, taking a particular verse on a topic, but ignoring other verses on the same topic, to build a very particular doctrine not in keeping with the Scriptures as a whole.
In this case, for example, he is ignoring other things, hopeful things, said by the same people he's quoting as being "extremely clear" that there's no hope for non-Orthodox. If the same person (for example, St. Philaret) says that it is necessary to be a member of the canonical Orthodox Church for salvation and also says that Protestants and Catholics can be saved, it's clear that only quoting either one half or the other would give an inaccurate view of what that person actually believed.
Had an interesting conversation just yesterday with an EO gentleman that didn't recognize this position. Thank you for the resource.
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
The more I interact with Orthodox "Christians" the more convinced I am that their ministry is Satanic. I've never interacted with such smug people who hate the Bible and consider it "idol worship" to read the Bible and interpret it for yourself without the guidance of some Bishop who dresses like a Pharisee.
@@harveygosal if you’re watching this video and still confused on that question, I’d say go start from the beginning of The New Testament and read The Old Testament while you’re at it. That’s how you’ll learn The Gospel. Until then, it seems to me like you’ll be following pagan traditions of cesaro-papism and giving religious honour to stones wood and paint (all of those being contrary to The Gospel of Life). I pray you’re truly seeking after Christ because then you will know.
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 Like nominalism ?
@@whomptalosis22unfortunately even some of us are unaware though too. We don't always represent ourselves well.
As others pointed out, your assessment may have some truth regarding the evangelical sphere of American protestantism. But as a confessional Lutheran we have always had ready intellectual explanations for our theology, much like our Reformed brothers and sisters.
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?
Gavin continues to be one of the most humble Christian leaders.💖🕊️
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 always find your videos so helpful, keep up the good work Dr. Ortlund
“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
@@Caru14 Where's the cope? I see big Ws from Orthodox Christians
I know you're being cool by using "cope" in your comments and employing emojis to add emphasis, but, for the benefit of us who aren't hipsters, what exactly does your comment even mean?
@@Cletus_the_Elder its a quote and a laughing emoji, this is not hieroglyphics, he thought the quote was funny
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 other Christian faiths if 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 on 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!!
The point of the video is that whether or not you personally believe other Christians are saved or not is irrelevant because the official position of the EO church is that those outside of it are damned.
But to the point, the ark analogy supports Gavin’s point - the people not on the ark died.
"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.
Peace to you,
Indeed. He's helping reveal the evidence in favor of Holy Orthodoxy. It's only a matter of time before the faithful followers of Christ in protestantism recognize this and convert.
@absolutepixels3812 Peace to you, brother. No dreams here. The holy Fathers forbid entertaining dreams. They are almost always temptations from the devil.
@absolutepixels3812 Peace to you. I apologize. I will not call you by that title since you have requested it. You laugh at what you do not understand. But when you do then the tears will come..then healing the soul and body. The Holy Spirit will teach you all things. Do not be grieved going forward, concerning the words you have spoken to me. For you have done me a great kindness. May the Lord reward you for that according to His tender mercies. Pray for me a sinner, that I might be illumined by the Gospel.
@@absolutepixels3812 A blessed Lord's day to you. I do not know who personally from within the Orthodox Church has mocked you or Pentecostals. But I'm sorry to hear this. Did you mention that you were Orthodox but left the Church? I'm not sure what you meant I could be mistaken, forgive me.
But you did say that you are protestant and Pentecostal or at least approving of it. I do have a long history of being involved in Pentecostalism. So I understand well what Pentecostals believe in generally and within specific groups. My only suggestion is that you do a search on the "Kundalini Spirit" and Pentecostal and/or charismatic movement. You will learn that the spirit behind all these movements from the beginning is not innocent. But harmful and deceitful. It creates confusion among the people who give themselves to that spirit.
I agree with you though as an Orthodox Christian. We should and even must be childlike in our love and worship of the Lord. :) and we will have His joy and peace in us if we have the desire to carefully learn and keep His commandments. Which are not burdensome. But we must grow to full maturity and discernment in our thinking. Not being children in our minds but our hearts. We are always be learners as disciples so there's no shame in being wrong about something and needing correction. It's always in good company and a good place to be in.
Love. 1 John 1:1- 3 John 14
It's important to understand that some of the sickest people with terrible pasts (such as myself) are found within the Orthodox Church. This is why our Lord has said "those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick." Christ goes and seeks where the need of a physician is greatest. The 12 squabbled amongst themselves over pride. Christ accepted prostitutes and greedy tax collectors. They didn't become like angels immediately, scripture shows us. So too must we all bear with one another s faults with patience and love. If we are going to call ourselves Christian. Therefore, why should I think ill of you even if you strongly disagree with me? All of the Holy Fathers and saints throughout the centuries of the Church agree on this: that the only way to escape delusion is to understand that everyone is in spiritual delusion. So the idea is that we are all fallen sinners, right? So for me to say that you are in delusion without taking into account my own preset delusion. Assumes that I'm not spiritually deluded but you are. Which is the symptom of being spiritually deluded. So how can we know if anyone is telling the truth? We are all blind so the Holy Spirit must truly guide us as sheep out of the dangers of heresy in this life into His sheepfold. We trust God to do for us what we cannot do for ourselves. But like obedient children, we follow. He alone shows us the way. Faith, hope and love.
No need to feel guilty about eating yogurt on Wednesday or Friday. If you are thankful in what you partake of you glorify God. But Christ lovingly teaches us that we cannot overcome our demons without prayer and fasting. The Orthodox faith teaches us that all feelings of despair and hopelessness are from the devil. And must be rejected with faith hope and love. This takes courage and humility, because we all are weak and need help from others. The devil is cunning though so he will always try to get us to be at war with everyone in our lives, other Christians and non Christians. But Christ is "the Stronger Man." May He, the Lord keep you. Thank you for praying for me, even if you think that I am deluded. You are not completely wrong. But Christ is our Good Shepherd, Protector, and Hope. May His goodness be with us.
In Christ,
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?
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.
@@sharbean Would he have fasted? Would he have confessed his sins to a priest? Would he have been baptized? What would his thoughts on the Eucharist be?
From your response, I assume you have a "once saved, always saved" viewpoint?
@druminlaawd7173 I cannot precisely surmise what his life as a Christ follower would have been like in the earliest days of the believers except to look at what is described in scripture.
I do lean into the once saved always saved position. It is only God's business to know the veracity of a person's choice. It is possible to do every good act and tradition without belief. It is possible to believe and yet seem to fail to act.
People are often very comforted and find satisfaction in ticking boxes. And it is a good thing to do good things. But again, this is not what I was making a statement about in my original post.
I am pointing out the evidence of an extremely pared down and simple threshold of salvation that Jesus himself acknowledged.
@@sharbean He would have fasted. For our Lord says that when the Bridegroom is gone, the faithful will fast. Not only would he have confessed his sins to his priest, back then, they confessed their sins to the entire congregation. He for sure would have been baptized. Finally, he would have believed that our Lord's presence was in the Eucharist. For everyone thought that for 1500ish years. Including Calvin, Luther and Zwengli. *the RC view on "presence" that is, for they were all former RC's.* The Christian path is a struggle. A daily process. *Generally speaking,* It isn't a single moment in time of Hypergrace; I want to be clear; Eastern Orthodox considers Dismas as a Saint. Saint Dismas's salvation may have been "simple." However, how many people are afforded the opportunity to have salvation via "deathbed conversion?" Not many are afforded that. Therefore, the rest of us have "work to do."
Our good works mean nothing for salvation, *filthy rags;* however, one has to work at salvation.
We Orthodox don't believe in once saved, always saved. For that would be in violation of one's free will which has been given to us by God. For if God negated a former believer's rejection, why would he not also do that for non-believers? Which would make God a Universalist. That doctrine is considered a heresy by the vast majority of Christians. Nor would Saint Paul make any sense when he said to work out one's salvation with fear and trembling.
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
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
Here is my objection to orthodoxy. There is no evidence in the first century of christian iconography. In fact, the early church constantly preached against the pagans and the ghnostics, who were the ones practicing such things.
Thank you for saying it! But the orthobros commenting won't respond anyways.
This is my answer: Gavin, as a general rule, you are discounting the Orthodox emphasis on the mystery and the mercy of God. These are primary and should be the context for interpreting these statements. You're reading them rigidly and with logical precision, like a good academic, but missing the context of the Orthodox ethos regarding salvation. God is always merciful and looking to extend mercy, and no Orthodox Christian should speak as if that mercy had been limited by human action, and that we are able to pronounce on that limitation. God alone decides when he should be merciful, and it's pride to speak otherwise.
With that said, I'm going to exegete the passages that you bring up, and show how I would read them:
1. "What hope do they have for salvation?" (St. Paisius) - for the Orthodox, the judgment of God regarding our salvation does not mean that he is looking for our wicked deeds so that he can damn us. It means that he is looking for the ways that we have turned to him, so that he can turn to us. God wants to be merciful to us. When St. Paisius says, "What hope do they have for salvation?", what he means is, I think, "what good thing will be brought to God when they come before him for judgment?" The saint doesn't see what will be brought. But he is NOT saying that there is absolutely no such thing, or more crucially, that God will therefore have no mercy on them. If he had said, "God will have no mercy on them," this would be a far stronger statement, in the Orthodox mind, than what he has said. At this point he would make himself to know God's judgments, which are above us. No saint, who strives in humility, would do this I think.
2. "When these forsake the Church, they are forsaken by the Holy Spirit, and there remains in them neither understanding nor light, but only darkness and blindness." This statement is admittedly harder, although it has certain biblical precedents. I'm thinking of Romans 1, where people withdraw from God and so are handed over to sin, or to St. James's letter, which states that "draw near to God, and he will draw near to you." The opposite is also true: forsake God (in the Church), and he will withdraw from you - at least to this extent. This is what the verse says, in spirit at least. But here is what it does not say: God will have no mercy on them, and they are beyond the mercy of God at the judgment. It does not say that God ceases to seek their salvation, or that he will not look for what is good in them at the judgment. And what God might find, man does not presume to pronounce on. Their having "only darkness and blindness" refers to their heresy and leaving the Church. I wouldn't take it as absolute (they still have reason and can perform acts of mercy towards others, after all).
3. "To have part in Christ's salvation, we must necessarily be members of his body, that is, of the Catholic Church" (St. Philaret) - If we wish for salvation, we must be members of Christ's body. But does this exclude God's mercy to those outside the Church? Do we draw boundaries around his mercy? See, for example, the Orthodox St. Varus. This saint is recognized as an intercessor for those who die unbaptized and outside of the Orthodox faith. He has been recognized as such since the 17th century in Russia. If the Orthodox are so adamant about the damnation of those outside the Church, why do we have saint whose role is pray for those persons? Why would he pray unless there is the expectation that God, in his compassion and love, can have mercy on them in some form? You see how Orthodoxy holds together these two things: salvation is within the Orthodox Church, but the mercy of God is not bound by human understanding.
I hope you find this helpful, Gavin. I don't have enough time to answer all of the citations you bring up, but I would like to make a few more short comments.
First, I wouldn't rely so much on the passage in Matthew 9 where there is an exorcist who is outside of the disciples who is accepted by Christ. This is easily countered by Matthew 7:22, where there are some who cast out demons but the Lord claims "I never knew you." There's more to be considered than just whether one is casting out demons. To the broader point, the "fruit," I think, is whether things - including especially the body of Christ - are scattered or gathered. But that's another conversation.
Second, I'd like to gently encourage you away from this topic of salvation and whether others are damned. I give you the benefit of the doubt that you are approaching it honestly, but please realize that you are tempting Orthodox persons to triumphalism and pride. "Don't you all believe that those outside the Church are damned? The texts say it. Just say it yourself already." It's hard not to feel this way, against one's better inclinations, when you focus on this topic. And it's such pride to say these things. The Church makes its decrees principally to protect the faithful, not to excoriate outsiders. It certainly doesn't make them to puff up its own members. Please respect this.
Blessings,
Daniel
@@DanCantey :
The early church strictly prohibited icons.
So were the church fathers and councils wrong?
@@Starius65 :
The early church strictly prohibited icons.
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! ☦️
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.
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.
@@dancastle3042 I have not encountered this, but it doesn't surprise me. EO Churches did not have to coexist with other denominations for most of their history until suddenly here we all are mixed together in the modern day USA and Canada, and so as a whole EO Churches are still figuring out what that relationship will look like. Different EO Christians have different attitudes toward other denominations; there are certainly some hardliners, but many seem quite non-adversarial in the same way most Baptists would be non-adversarial toward them, and the rest are somewhere in the middle. Knowing Orthodox Christianity, it will probably take another hundred years or so to work out these matters.
All this talk about EO and RC has made me really discouraged, confused and left with a racing mind as of late in regards to my own Christian experiences as a Protestant. No matter what the most correct view is, I appreciate the respect and validations for many’s experiences with Christ outside these boundaries.
Check out 'Lectio: Salvation', 'Lectio: Eucharist' and 'Lectio: Mary'. I can really, really relate to your struggle, and all I can say is, now that I'm going to Mass and going through RCIA, I finally feel a sense of peace.
Just stick with what the Bible says.
In Jesus’s name, trust in the Father through the Spirit. You’ll be fine.
Thank you Gavin, sincerely.
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
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.
@@shannonmorgan2866 Newsflash. Youre not the judge of whose fruit is good or bad. You do not see the heart of any man. There are plenty of men and women who convert to Orthodoxy who are bearing far more fruit than a Protestant could ever dream. At the end of the day though it is not a virtue contest. It is about who is holy aka set apart. Being set apart is about being part of a covenant people and that covenant is entered into through baptism, chrismation, and the Eucharist. So again those who are outside the church are not set apart in that way. The faith you have has to be the one once delivered to all the saints in order for it to be counted as the true faith. The beliefs, works, and love must be apostolic.
I have known very many wonderful Eastern Orthodox converts. Their is good and bad people in every group.
@@shannonmorgan2866 Are you the standard of who is bearing fruit and who is not? I dont recall you being appointed God who knows rhe hearts of men and can dogmatically say they bear no fruit. Might want to look in the mirror and ask why you think this assertion of yours is reasonable.
The gospel is so simple yet RC and EO church complicate it man. Just believe. A true Christian will adore Jesus Christ and not want to live in sin. That’s it. Doesn’t mean you won’t sin. Of course you will sin. But the new nature in you hates sin. You abhor it. Why? Because you know who your king is and he hates sin!
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
If I had to describe Orthodoxy is one word, it would be: pride. In two words: excessive pride. This pride is deeply rooted in Greek culture saying they gave western civilization philosophy, society, arts and ultimately - Christianity. The discussions with orthodox often go into the direction of historical primacy, and enititlement on "copyright" of Christianity.
lol
If that's your experience, I'm ashamed as a greek. But don't let this foolishness misguide you because orthodoxy is not 'greek' only, greeks are 10 million, orthodox are 250-300 million
Weird. I left Protestantism because that is the one word I would give it. All assuming they understand the faith better than those before them and better than the church next door.
In Orthodoxy I saw people struggling with their sins and to be better servants instead of just accepting a generic "I'm saved!" mentality.
@@MajorMustang1117 This! The message of Protestantism is so watered down as to be almost meaningless, so all that is left is to self-righteously criticize others for wanting something based in tradition.
@@sihtnaelkk2187 no need for feeling ashamed. Greeks have indeed initially given all this things to the West. The conflict arises from something I would broadly describe as the "fallacy of tradition". It's been 2000 years, Greece has been ravaged by various conquerors, the people dispersed, culture diluted with all these influences and other parts of the world have become centers. "The good old days" are over. Pride can be good thing in times of physical dangers for nations but if it becomes a purpose to itself it makes us not really in the image of our Lord (IMHO).
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?
I'm a Roman Catholic to put my cards on the table at the outset. I will start with a recent anecdote. A local Orthodox parish had an ethnic fair recently. We were invited to divine liturgy by a friend who is a member of their parish. I asked him when liturgy began. He said, "Well, it starts around 10 AM. When matins end, the divine liturgy begins, but sometimes matins end before or after 10 AM." Their website had 10 AM listed, but the written word vs. the lived reality of the community were not always in agreement. I think the written word being subbordinate to community life could ease some concerns about the words you quoted being pretty bleak for western Christians.
I think arguments based on words is a very western Christian thing to do. The words you quoted say what they. Eastern Orthodoxy has never gone through a period like scholasticism or a reformation that would push a lot of point and counterpoint arguing. I am not sure how precise apologetic type comments can be taken coming from Eastern Orthodoxy or pre-scholastic Roman Catholic figures. Most words would be in sermons, homilies, letters, and hymns rather than using Aristotelean methods of logic or point and counter point tracts.
When Pope Pius VI died under house arrest, Rome put out some pretty strident statements (that is pretty true of most of the 19th century). The pressures of Islam on a lot of Eastern Orthodoxy, the emergence of atheistic Marxist governments in Eastern Europe, and this was/is true of a lot of immigrant Catholic communities to the US and likely true of immigrant communities of Orthodox Christians to the US as well, statements made from a siege mentality tend to be pretty harsh.
This is huge. Thank you brother. I don’t see Dr. Ortlund arguing out of bad faith or anything, simply Dr Ortlund/Protestants and the Orthodox parties seem to be talking past each other accidentally. It would be helpful for these types of dialogues to happen in person rather than online.
The application of the canon laws are also a good example. We have very specific prescribed penances for various spiritual maladies, but from the beginning the rigor of application was left up to the confessor/spiritual father.
This is insightful and helps me understand the EO response to Pastor Ortlund's videos. Thank you, brother.
This was an excellent video and one which does a fine job of summarizing the issues at stake here.
If EO simply said "we changed our views in this topic" everything would be solved, but they can't do it, because of their eclesiology, thus they need to do these levels of mental gymnastics
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.
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.
It's "emotional," but not "an appeal to emotion." Excellent. Concise.
Metropolitan Philaret may have spoken in different ways at different times. He once famously or infamously said, “No church which believes Jesus to be the Christ will I dare call false.” The reference was to non-Orthodox Churches. This statement brought some serious criticism of Philaret from more traditionally minded Orthodox. Philaret’s own theology was formed in the context of the quasi-Lutheranizing theology of his mentor Metropolitan Platon Levshin, and is shown in Philaret’s Catechism, e.g. his acceptance of the Jewish-Protestant canon of the Old Testament.
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 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.
My Answer: Orthodox Councils and Fathers weren't talking to you. They were giving a message to the Church for the Church. An Orthodox Christian who refuses to venerate icons is denying the humanity of Christ. A heterodox, with a different understanding, is not. Paradoxes are a major feature of the voice of the Spirit. It is not incoherent to say both, there is only one Holy, Catholic, and Orthodox Church and at the same time "God is a a rewarder of those who diligently seek him" whether they are nominally Christian or not. My answer is that they were not talking to you as a heterodox. They were speaking to Orthodox.
Well said, but wasted on egoist grifters unfortunately
That's ignoring the comments highlighted in the video about Eastern Catholic churches having no hope for salvation cause of the filioque.
Sorry. I don’t venerate icons and I don’t deny the humanity of Christ. I don’t agree with such equation. Sounds pretty idiotic and heretical to me.
I do believe God can speak through icons, through stones, through anything, but I don’t feel urge to bow before stones or kiss them… prostrate or whatever.
History proves that first at least 3-4 centuries there were no real icons in that sense. It all comes after Constantine and his era. I don’t buy legend about Apostle Luke being first iconograph. History and archeology prove that’s not so. And Scripture mention 0 icons. No nothing about venerating them. Even first councils didn’t have icons. So they were denying humanity of Christ also? Baloney!
If you like icons, fine, but to make such a stupid claim, I wonder if you put this one of the last councils above the previous ones and Scriptures.
There is no paradox in that. It’s no common sense. It’s not even mystery.
I even believe God did and can do miracles through icons, well I do, but he can do that through anointing oil, blessing water or stone or anything. I don’t venerate them. And I do have honour and respect for saints, martyrs and miracle-workers a lot, but I don’t pray to them. Nobody did that in the time of writing New Testament, nobody did that at least first 2-3 centuries after.
And there is some contemplative and mysterious and sacred in the art of writing icons and that people can behold them and meditate on holy things. I get it. But to make it something big and make it another door and window to Jesus while He is Open Heaven and is accessible to everyone who believes in
Him 24/7,
Why on earth would I put more windows and more doors before the One who is the Truth, The Way and the Life, True Door to the Father?
Again, enjoy icons if you want, but I agree with Dr. Ourtland that is prideful, pagan and heretical idea to make wierd new doctrine to write off other brethren to prove “we are the right ones, everyone else is nut job”.
It gets so crazy in church history that even Nestor was not Nestorian and Maximus the Confessor got his tongue cut off.. this is exactly where your reasoning is going. And had we no reformation, Christians would kill each other over doctrines literally and EO along with Roman Catholic would continue inquisitions and baptizing pagans at the threat of the sword like Islam did and some radical Muslims might do.
Just admit it’s all about church politics and has nothing to do with the Gospel, you just guys want to prove your “ego”, why you are right and everyone else is wrong. Fine. Fair enough. But just admit it without going circles around the main thing.
@ilmarmeldre2568 I know how it sounds to you. Demonic egotism is a horrible thing .
@@BarbaPamino
Saying he’s a demonic egoist doesn’t address his points. Try again.
Here is my answer, not Orthodox but have been looking into it for a while, but a lot of these arguments could very easily apply to you as well and don't really sway me away from Orthodoxy.
1. Paisius Velichkovsky: So, you would be completely fine with a brother/sister Babtist church one day openly declaring they are the universal supreme Baptist overlord, they will be changing the Nicaean Creed you previously all held to and explicitly promised not to change, and they are changing it to deny the trinity? You would seriously still say "Well we might disagree on a few things, but they are still going to be saved because..."?
2. 1672 Synod of Jerusalem: Every Protestant church has a Bishop or something akin to a Bishop, even the protestants who outright deny churches and just sit at home with their Bible (in that case, they are the Bishop) all have a leadership of some kind. Why is it an issue to say that these Bishops should be successors to other Bishops leading back to the Apostles? That seems like a much stronger argument for church leadership than "this guy I agree with from the reformation who I can still massively disagree with is the true successor to the apostles and just so happens to agree with everything I do. Also, every other Christian before him was wrong unless they agree with him/me."
3. The Patriarchal Encyclical of 1895: Again, don't see why this statement is an issue unless you are saying (and these are my biggest reasons for not being protestant) "There is no certainty in Christ and being a Christian." and "You can get Baptism, Communion, path to salvation, the trinity, Church governance, loving your neighbor, what it means to believe, who Jesus was, etc. all wrong but as long as you "believe in Jesus" (which could apply to any number of people you wouldn't consider saved) you are still saved and my brother and sister in Christ."
4.The Catechism of St. Philaret: So now Church is not even necessary? I can just sit at home with a Bible and come to whatever conclusions I want?
5. 1848 Encyclical of the Eastern Patriarchs: From my understanding hearing various debates about the Filioque, it boils down to a matter of trinitarian theology. Again, this goes back to is there any certainty in Christ if we can get even the trinity wrong?
I am completely fine with not having certainty in regard to other Christian's salvation status, I can't be OK with being uncertain in almost every other aspect of being a Christian. When it comes down to viewing my various options as a whole, the Orthodox system makes the most sense historically, theologically, biblically, and every other -ly I can think of.
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.
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!
@@roma544216 yeah I understand your struggle. It like talking to Pharisees who think they don’t need Christ
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.
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.
This was a very charitable presentation. The Spirit of Orthodoxy is love. Our doors are always open for all. It is absolutely necessary to denounce heretical doctrines, but fear the Lord and refuse to judge others. Only God is the Judge who knows everyone’s heart. Who is man to judge? As Christians we must be humble and repentant servants of Jesus. For example, as Gavin pointed out an Anglican brother preaching the Gospel of Christ should have been praised then introduced to the richness of Orthodoxy, not reprimanded by a fellow Saint. Even Saints as holy and righteous as they are, are still sinners, but not intentionally of course. They can misspeak as we all do. We do not know the full intentions of anyone’s heart, so we must remain faithful to Jesus and let Him judge. With that said, Revelation chapter 1 is the template for resolving this ecclesial matter. Christ’s letters to the 7 Churches of Asia Minor, addresses all of these concerns. If we are to equate the Orthodox Church to the excellency of the Philadelphian Church, then there are at least 6 other remnants that are critiqued yet still part of the collective Church. Only one was in trouble of being removed, which I can imagine are today’s “woke churches” and blatantly unbiblical “denominations.” The issue I take with Protestantism as a reforming effort, however, is that we as Christians are supposedly united yet divided simultaneously-which only burdens the Church. We must unite doctrinally, patriarchally (patristically), and liturgically as Jesus wills for all of us to collectively be of one mind and heart. Of course, the omniscience and omnipotence of God transcends institutions, but why would anyone purposely after having tasted of the Lord liturgically, ever refuse Christianity in its most ancient and authentic expression?: Orthodoxy. You know, all of these concerns would dissipate if believers repented and partook of an Orthodox parish. Anyone can feign victimhood, but why not simply join Orthodoxy? I hope you hear my heart on this matter, I’m not approaching this with a critical spirit. Imagine a Mormon or Muslim criticizing Christianity (the Church) because we cherish the Trinity, and thus, are too ‘exclusivist.’ Well, we all have the free-will to join our brothers and sisters in faithful worship, and as stated before, the doors are always open to God’s Home. When will Papists forsake their dogma of Papal “supremacy” which never existed Biblically? If Peter as the first Pope exercised “infallibility” then the Church of Acts would have formed and revolved solely around him-which evidently it didn’t. And why, after understanding that “Sola Scriptura” is a failed ecclesial experiment that only leads to further divisiveness within the Church, is backwardly still upheld by many? Mind you, the fable of “Sola Fide” which is Biblically decimated by the Apostle James (chapter 2) in his affirmation of faith and works being married, not antithetical to each other on the basis of salvation, is still in circulation within Christendom. Repentance is the key to reunification. The verdict being that we all need to repent of generationally misleading doctrines to reunify under Christ’s Apostolic Church-where it all began.
I think we should find ways to work together as much as we can, as we are all hemorrhaging members. In areas where we can't agree, then find ways to disagree without being disagreeable. A much bigger issue than having people switch from one denomination to another (which is their choice anyways), is losing people to atheism. The main problem we all have, is that 5 days a week our kids are getting taught that atheism is science in public education. The response of most churches, from the oldest to the newest, has been very limpwrist and dismissive. We should all be working together to refute the evolutionism, and make sure we all protect our younger generations from real clear heresy.
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.
What does this have to do with the video?
29:00
Why is our exclusive view even a problem? You act like the EOs taking the stance we do is wrong and that we need to "account" for this view...but I don't see any evidence put forward that it is wrong. It seems like you take as axiomatic that it is wrong and that we need to for some reason answer it...I don't think that is the case though.
I have no problem saying that A) You're not a Christian and you're not a part of Jesus' church and B) I have no comment on your heart, only God knows that.
God bless this ministry. If we are going to be one, we will need to fight these things out in love.
I’m an orthodox convert from baptist. I’ve experienced the fullness of the gospel in orthodoxy. It has changed my life! I encourage those interested in EO please go to a local parish and experience the EO faith yourself.
May u open your eyes to the biblical truth😊
I have gone to many protestant churches and spent a few years being Catholic. I am a catechumen now so I am still becoming Orthodox. The Orthodox Church has been life changing for me beyond words. Nothing else has even come close. Experiencing the church for yourself is very wise advice.
It absolutely does matter what church you are in. Christ said the church is his Body.
Hey Gavin! I have a question, I am a southern Baptist minister who has begun to question if there is the spiritual presence of Christ in communion. If this is true, are there any Creedo-Baptist denominations outside of the SBC? Thanks!
Great! My video, "A Baptist Case for Real Presence in the Eucharist," might be of use. God bless you.
This is just an appeal to emotion. Even if it's true you didn't disprove Orthodoxy. You believe people will go to hell too, we would just believe more people will.
No, modern EO apologist want to act all ecumenical, but the OG EO were not Ecumenical as modern day EO Apologists .
@jacobroel Nothing to do with what I said.
@@bradspitt3896 And your original comment has nothing to do with this video. Pastor Ortlund is citing the exact language of the writings of your church fathers. The only emotion that this video seems to elicit is anger from certain EO faithful.
It is not problem with going to hell, problem is with purpose of hell and its duration.
@@AnalyticalSceptic Not according to Gavin. His only critique is that he can't believe it with a good conscience, he's actually arguing that it is historical.
Eastern Orthodox does say if someone is not Orthodox they are not saved, But doesn't Roman Catholicism say the same. They both say if you are not part of their group, you will not go to heaven.
Call or email your local Orthodox parish priest and see what he says. While Gavin may be able to find Orthodox priests from hundreds of years ago who say that the heterodox are not saved, it’s not the position of any Orthodox clergyman I’ve ever met.
If the claim is a historically continuous tradition then it matters what that tradition has always said up until five seconds ago, regarding the status of institutional outsiders.
@@cassidyanderson3722
But that’s not the question. The Orthodox Church claims to be unchanging. I’m glad if it’s changed since hundreds of years ago, but then the claim of unchanging is also false, it would seem.
@@cassidyanderson3722would you say they were just wrong ?
I’m glad to see reformation within he Orthodox Church in this matter
And the Baptist who comes to my door to preach me the Gospel tells me the Catholics are snakes. I stir clear of Christians badmouthing other Christians
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?
Another great video. I don't see how it could be any clearer? The EO church has clearly historically taught that there is no salvation outside of the EO church. Maybe there are other strains of the tradition from the 9th-19th century that teach otherwise (we would need to be shown those), but there is obviously a very strong strain of exclusivism within the tradition that must be dealt with.
Why would you “deal” with it? You aren’t part of our Church.
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.
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
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
Dr. Ortlund has discussed many of your inquiries in his books, one of which is about theological triage. He also has made a couple of videos on that. You might want to check them.
His remarks on being simply enchanted by the Gospel do not nullify the importance of theology or church institutions or the sacraments or the hierarchs or the tradition. He simply pointed to such an assurance in the Gospel. All of these discussions should point to that joy and not lead people astray into the fear of judgment as if the love of God has not been poured into heart.
Hope this helps.
In Christ alone.
@@Presbapterian So if anyone:
A. has the joyful assurance of the Gospel and decides to become Eastern Orthodox,
B. based upon "the importance of theology or church institutions or the sacraments or the hierarchs or the tradition,"
- then -
C. there is no problem, even if Dr. Ortlund thinks that EO "theology is historically problematic"?
@annakimborahpa
Good for him/her. The joy of salvation should be our priority here. As an orthodox reformational Christian, I would definitely cheer them in their journey of following our Lord and encourage them to seek for the truth even more. It would be my prayer that their eyes will be opened to the fact that their church institution has chosen some wrong paths and heterodoxies, formally speaking. Again, I have seen cognitive dissonance among the EO folks, where they would be less rigorous than their official church institutiton actually requires them to be, so this kind of issue should be treated case by case with Godly wisdom and patience.
@@Presbapterian What are these EO "wrong paths and heterodoxies, formally speaking"?
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 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.
Another great video. I have a question, does the Byzantine Catholic tradition share the same view regarding salvation as the Eastern Orthodox?
St. Theophan is right. I don't get why acknowledging the exclusivity of Orthodoxy is so off-putting to Protestants. Nobody should have ever converted from Paganism seeing how "mean" it is to reject the salvation of one's friends and family.
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.
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.
Orthodoxy is strict in preserving the faith, and this saved it on that from Catholic additions and from the Protestant Reformation, I don't care what they think about others at least preserved the faith as the early Christians lived it without increase or decrease
the mandatory traditions like icon veneration aren't traced back to the apostles. the EOC might be preserved but not starting early enough.
Here's my answer: Here's what they could say if they were saying what you imply, "No individual outside of the visible communion of the Orthodox Church shall be saved. They will certainly suffer eternal damnation" They do not say that.
Just as many Christians today will say, hate the sin no the sinner. Orthodox hates heterodoxy, not the heterodox. It's important that the Orthodox speak in strong polemical terms against false teachings whether by outright heretics or by non-Orthodox Christians because, to us, we are protecting the fullness of the faith. We cannot concede a single point of our doctrine because it is the doctrine of Christ, who is the Truth.
Orthodox prayers and teachings are intentionally hyperbolic, read the Akathist hymn or pre-communion prayers. You are taking Orthodox words out of the Orthodox context. The strong statements regarding salvation and grace affirm the normative path of salvation but they do not confine God.
God can save anyone, even those outside the Church. No Orthodox Christian could reject this statement.
If you just "read words" you will never understand the Orthodox worldview. Orthodoxy is a life, not a formula.
Side note for you, Gavin, I mostly listen on Podcast, but when I get to check out your videos, I notice that the video quality including the lighting and background contrast looks really good! I know this is something you work hard on and you say you don't have much background on, so I want to affirm the quality I see. At least visually it's on par with Mike Winger's stuff imo.
Orthodox here.
Scripture first. Ecumenical councils second. Church tradition/. church Fathers 3rd.
I left Protestantism because it’s an absolute mess. Everyone can be their own church , no need for the historic church.
As far as “cut off from salvation” if you are heterodox… that is up to God. period end of sentence , mic drop.
Your position is a violation of Decree 2 of the Synod of Jerusalem. The Church and Scripture are equal to each other.
I’d be interested in your thoughts on Trent Horn’s video on the myth of Protestant martyrs
I haven’t seen that one. Wow
@ I haven’t watched it but I thought the title was bit outrageous
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.
@@timothyhodgson9572 Like I replied above to Gavin, all the quotes are most likely addressed to Orthodox Christians, simply because we don't spend time writing them to Protestants, because we like to excite them. So, in that CONTEXT, to a person who is Orthodox, and is thinking of becoming a Calvinist, we are telling them that if you decide to be a Calvinist (example), there is a good chance the reason you are converting to Protestantism is not a good one. Context, context, context so he is taking the statement out of contexts we don't apply to persons but the TEACHINGS.
When we say, there is no salvation outside the Orthodox Catholic church, we have to consider examples. Consider this. A man is a Baptist, but he sees a beautiful muslim girl and she says, ok I will marry if you convert to Islam. And he does. Where do you think he is going, most likely (we don't really know, ok)? Would that be something you would recommend as a strategy for salvation? Remember, we are always speaking about the teachings and your actions. Not YOU as a person.
On the other hand, a Nazi one day found Jesus, and joined the Calvinist church. Would you not agree that was moving in the correct direction? We will have issues with the teachings, BUT we would agree that it is his personal relationship with Lord Jesus SO we will say as always, not everyone is the "church" is saved, and not everyone outsides is damned. This is NOT the first time we have answered this question. It is not that hard.
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?
Why would people disagree? As an Orthodox Catechumen, I agree 100% with you
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.
@@bradleyperry1735 His body is everyone who has believed in Him. This is plain from scripture.
@ And if they’ve believed in Him, they’ve been united to the Church. Through baptism, Chrismation, and communion.
@ What about Saint Dismas?
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?
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.
@@jbn668the publican went home justified. The whole point is the assurance of justification through humble repentance and trust.
Thank you Pastor Ortland for continuing this conversation and not running away from the very clear consequences of the Eastern Orthodox position.
It is good video. I'm Protestant all my life but I'm considering other options your videos are helping me very much I want to read church history books and can you recommend me
Dr Ortlund, first let me thank you for your videos. They have been a great deal for me to understand arguments in different fields of theology better, and to express them correctly.
I am a protestant, coming from an exclusive plymouth brethren assembly but being more broadly an evagelical christian.
I have spent a good amount of time talking with eastern orthodox friends, spending time in retreat in a monastery dependant upon the simonos petras monastery of Mt Athos, talking with priests, attending matins, vepsers and litturgies without taking part in communion.
My biggest problem with orthodoxy remains indeed the theology of exclusivity which stems from their view of the body of Christ being those who are in communion with the EOC, and no one else.
But that being said, I think some nuance is necessary within eastern orthodoxy theology, which I personally find to be much more "poetic" in a sense than the western tradition. The eastern orthodox church does not, unlike catholics, put every bit of their theology in words on papers that then get officialized. And unlike both catholics and protestants, don't necessarily define everything in square boxes, but rather prefer to let the meaning of sentences and doctrines be binding in the whole meaning of it, not the specific words.
This is why the orthodox have no problem saying that Mary is "the hope of the christian people" while also saying that Christ "is our only hope". Even reguarding the sacrament of the Eucharist, the orthodox don't seem to have an ultra specific doctrine on what happens to the bread and wine, rather prefering to say that the elements become "really and truly christ", which of course includes the doctrine of transubstanciation but without going into a lot of details on how this happens.
Therefore, I am not surprised that some eastern orthodox texts sometimes contain multiple words interchangeably that would be very well defined as not being the same thing in western tradition, being clearly different and having different implications.
In a way, a lot of psalms do this, and the EOC seems attached to the way the psalms are written. (I.e. asking God to kill all the sinners while asking God to have mercy on us, sinners)
Thanks for doing this work❤
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.
@@Cletus_the_Elder In order to read something "clearly", you need to at least understand the mind and the WAY of thinking that is generating those supposedly "clear" statements. You cannot apply your own framework to things within the Orthodox framework if you're not even willing to apply the Orthodox framework to what we ourselves say and believe. All Gavin is doing here is what he and the lot of you in the comments have always done - you take some words from our tradition and you apply your own exegetical framework and philosophical presuppositions. Then you wonder why we make a fuss. It's because you're not even in the right forest, nevermind barking up the right tree. At the end of the day, this is a heart problem. And Gavin is trying to overintellectualize it in a way that doesn't even comport with our own intellectual and historical framework.
@@aaronwolf4211 Is the context so heavy, is the language so dense with historical meaning, to depart from the clear admonition of the text being discussed?
@@Cletus_the_Elder The very issue here is that you presuppose you know what is "clear". This is the heart of the matter and a key error of Protestantism across a variety of issues. And that is what I am pointing out here. Your framing and presuppositions are the issue, not how WE understand OUR teaching.
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!
@@jbn668 thankfully, no insult was imputed. But you did further the original commenter's stance that EO are bad at arguing.
@TruthUnites I think you’ll find that your questions will be answered by listening to the Willard Preacher Podcast episode 39 where they actually respond to a different video of yours. They clarify the fact that when you talk of salvation you mean something different by it than any Orthodox person, including the Orthodox people you quote.
This hurdle you see for converts doesn’t actually exist, because it’s not a hurdle in Orthodoxy when understanding salvation in an Orthodox way.
If you still have confusion then maybe sit down with an Orthodox priest or bishop to get help removing the Protestant lens and putting on the Orthodox lens when examining Orthodox doctrines.
Here is my answer: In Orthodoxy no-one, not even a saint, is infallible. So it is no good quoting any particular saint or father to prove what all of Orthodoxy believes. That is why there is no systematic theology like in the West. Eastern Orthodoxy works on completely different principles. It is consensus, not individualism.
Shouldn't that be "Our" answer?
@@wills9392 Probably not, as I am only an enquirer into Orthodoxy.
@@jbn668 same here actually and I absolutely love that orthodox does not hold saints as infallible, really wish they didn't pray to created beings though. No, I was merely prodding at someone saying, " here is my answer" in a consensus based church as is the claim... kind of silly if you think about it.
@@wills9392 Yes, of course, I understand what you mean.