The lure of Eastern Orthodoxy
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 12 сен 2024
- A response to Hank Hanegraaff regarding the church, conversion, and history.
All Dividing Line Highlights' video productions and credit belong to Alpha and Omega Ministries®. If this video interested you, please visit aomin.org/ or www.sermonaudio...
For James White's political content, click here:
www.bitchute.c...
Calvinist Baptist: "The Orthodox Church isn't open to reform!"
It isn't open to your idea of reform, and that's a good thing.
Our idea to Reform is simple. Reform your Worldview and your entire life to the word of God and keep on reforming to God's word. I am Protestant and have a joy, peace and love I never knew when Orthodox.
@@angelakatsapas7894 Jesus Christ is the Word of God. Emptying oneself and being conformed to Him by the will of the Father through the operation of the Holy Spirit is the entire point of the Christian (read "human") life. There is no essential element of faith lacking in Orthodoxy that Reformed Protestantism recaptured.
@@ElasticGiraffe The Orthodox added to God's Word.
@@angelakatsapas7894 The Orthodox Church does not add dogmas. There is one catholic and apostolic faith delivered to the saints that became more well defined over the centuries as controversies arose and terminology was standardized. Many other beliefs are widely professed, but not required of the faithful. Orthodoxy is not Roman Catholicism. Our bishops have no authority to introduce or impose novel dogmas.
@@ElasticGiraffe Really? SCRIPTURE:- One Mediator between God and man, the Man Christ Jesus. Orthodox:- Mary is a Mediatrix, and you also pray to the Saints. I was Greek Orthodox for 26 yrs. Protestant 47 yrs.
I was received into the Orthodox Church this past year from a Protestant background. I know Orthodoxy seems strange and even heretical from a Protestant point of view looking at it from the outside. But if you’re curious about what Orthodoxy is and teaches, the best thing to do would be to try to attend some of the services and listen closely to the liturgy. The Church really brings the scriptures to life and once you give Orthodoxy a real chance, it’s almost undeniable this is the true Christian faith (at least it was for me). At first it seems like it’s all About icons, saints, relics, sacraments, etc. but at it’s heart, it’s all about Jesus Christ. God bless you all
I would love to do this, though unfortunately I would have to travel to get to an Orthodox Church. However it seems worth it and I'll see about contacting a Priest to have a meeting.
Could you explain your experience in detail? I am non denominational but Sola Scriptura so you could say I lean towards Protestantism. However, the Eastern Orthodoxy Theology on the trinity is sound and biblical and I actually absolutely agree with it (with some confusion on if the Holy Spirit is only the Father’s or both the Father’s and the Son’s). However, I have a hard time looking past iconography despite it not being ‘idols’ since Exodus 20:4 is clear. I also cannot agree with the perpetual virginity of Mary and that she’s the Mother of God because Scripture says otherwise. Still, I am interested in Orthodoxy and personally as a non denom Christian I believe the true Church of Christ is the body of Christ aka those saved by grace through faith. Those of us after salvation who live in sanctification by the fellowship of the Holy Spirit is the church but it’s clear with Church History and some bible verses that there was an Apostolic church directly started by Christ. Sorry for the long paragraph, hope you can get back to me. God bless you, HalleluYah and praise the Lord Jesus✝️
@@sathsojourns hello there. Sure I can try to explain some things. I’ll try to address some of the things you are struggling with (which I struggled with as well at first) and then I’ll further explain my own personal experience.
This will be a very long answer lol.
I had problems with calling and knowing Mary as the mother of God as well when I first started attending the Church. But the issue here is not with Mary, it is with Christ and who He is. When we call her the mother of God, we’re not implying that is was her who originated the Trinity. Obviously not and of course that would be rejected. But we have such a strong emphasis on the incarnation and that Jesus Christ is absolutely God that if Mary is the mother of Jesus, then she must be the Mother of God, because Jesus is absolutely God. “True God of true God” as the Nicean Creed states. She can’t only be the mother of Jesus’s humanity and not his divinity. While Christ has 2 natures, He is not comprised of 2 separate persons, He is one person, Jesus Christ, who is both Divine and Human. So again, if Mary is truly Jesus’ Mother, and if Jesus is truly God come in the flesh, Mary is truly the mother of God. While we do exalt her and love her dearly, it is not her in and of herself that makes her so special. Even though we praise her for
her obedience to the Angel Gabriel, her zeal for God, her holiness, and many other things,
It is because through her, God came in the flesh and saved humanity, abolishing death and giving eternal life to all who will turn to Him. And the saving flesh and blood that He received came from nobody else but her. I would recommend reading “The Incarnation of the Word” by Athanasius which is the best book I’ve read on how important it is to understand that Jesus is God in the flesh, and then think about how Mary bore him in her womb for 9 months. I would also point to Luke 2:40-45. When Mary who is pregnant with Jesus visits her cousin Elizabeth, when she hears Mary’s voice John the Baptist in the womb leaps for joy, he and his mother are filled with the Holy Spirit, and Elizabeth calls Mary “the mother of my Lord.” If you hold to sola scriptura, then I think that would be a very good reason for seeing her as the Mother of God. Also if you would like to research the ecumenical council of Ephesus, I believe it was the 3rd or 4th council, this issue was raised is she is the Theotokos (bearer of God) or Christokos (bearer of Christ). The majority of the bishops agreed that Theotokos was the right term and the others who disagreed are known by the Nestorian Christians and are deemed as heretical.
I cannot give you an absolute open and shut case from the Bible about why Mary is an ever virgin (but I can give you what I believe to be a couple of good reasons). While Christ was being crucified, there were 2 people at his side, His mother and The Apostle John. He looks at his mother and says “woman, behold thy son!” and he says to John “Behold thy mother.” And after that point they lived together as mother and son. Now if Mary was truly the mother of James, Jude, and the other brothers and sisters Jesus had that are mentioned in the Bible, why would Jesus trust Mary over to John and not to any of the others ? It would be very strange especially since very early on James becomes an amazing Apostle and even the Bishop of Jerusalem (Acts 15). Also an overwhelming number of Church Fathers throughout the entire history of Christianity and even all of the early Protestant reformers believed this wholeheartedly. Martin Luther, John Calvin, Zwingli, and others believed this. From what I understand they also believed Mary is the mother of God but I don’t think that was as unanimous between them as was her ever virginity. ( it might be the same consensus but I’m not 100% sure on that).
Also when Gabriel tells Mary about the son she is about to have, she is extremely confused. She asked “how will this be since I don’t know a man” this often gets overlooked because people just think it’s because she is a virgin up to this point that she asked the question. But if she was about to get married to Joseph, and she had all These other kids later, what would have been confusing about that? Wouldn’t she have just understood that when she and Joseph eventually come together as husband and wife, then she will have that promised child? Our understanding here is that she took a lifelong vow of virginity as a child/adolescent and that is why she asks this question to the Angel. Because she made a vow to God never to remain and ever-virgin, and she did. There are more examples I can use for her ever virginity but for now I’ll leave it at that and if we keep dialoging I can bring up others.
Sure Exodus 20 seems like an open and shut case, no images of any kind. And yet Ancient Israel’s worship was always directed towards the ark of the covenant, a physical object with 2 Cherubim facing each other. And when God is commanding on how to build the tabernacle, He commands them to include angelic beings to be on the ceiling/wall
(I cannot remember where exactly in the Bible this is said but if you don’t recall and need to see the passages for yourself, I will try to find them). There is also the Bronze serpent in the wilderness which Moses made for the children of Israel to look at for healing. In Solomon’s temple, he had many images and statues, etc. Now these aren’t the main justification for Iconography in the Church, that wouldn’t be the best argument, but I just include these examples because even though they all knew Exodus 20:4, probably even better than we do, there was not an
issue with these religious images and venerating physical objects in the right context and circumstances.
The real issue with iconography and the mother of God are first and foremost, Christological issues. As I mentioned before, we have an all encompassing view of the incarnation. When Christ came into the world, there’s a sense in which God fully came into his creation and completely filled it with his glory even though, He was bodily a human being. Again, reading that book by Athanasius will do a way better job explaining this than I ever could. I mention this because after the coming of Christ, the material world in a mystical, mysterious way is different than it was before Christ came. In a way, Christ gives life to the material world in which he has entered, so there is now a slightly different understanding on the material world then there was before his coming. Also, a lot of the prohibition for images in the Old Testament was because God was invisible. Only a few of the prophets like Moses or Isaiah ever saw a vision of God and even then, it was too awesome to behold, let alone depict it in an image. All the pagan cultures and Israel multiple times (especially in Exodus) depicted the invisible God in many ways with animals, humans, etc and worshipped the wrong image that they made and obviously that’s wrong. But when Christ became a human, God became visible! No longer do we have to wonder what God looks like, He literally came to us, people saw Him and touched him. When Christ ascended into heaven, we’re the apostles and those who had seen him supposed to have blotted out the image of him from their memories? Of course not! The incarnation of Christ made it ok for us to see God and depict him. Paul calls Christ the image (which is the same word as icon) of the invisible God! If Christ had been around today, surely people would have taken a picture of him, right ? Would that have been idolatrous?
I must be honest, the issue of iconography is not my strong suit. I know the 2 best books on the topic are by saints John of Damascus and Theodore the Studite, which I have not read but plan to some day. In the one by John he, I have heard that he explains the difference between worship (for God alone) and veneration (respect shown to material objects and people). Also there are rules within the Church as to what can be represented in an icon and what can’t be. For example, images of God the Father cannot be depicted in an image because we don’t know what he looks like (the only exception is when the 3 angels visit Abraham before the destroying of Sodom and Gomorrah. The Church has always understood that as an image of the trinity). Also I believe that the only icons where the Holy Spirit can be depicted is the baptism of Jesus as a dove and Pentecost as the tongues of fire.
Sorry for the very long message but I wanted to be thorough. I hope my explanations help. If you want more clarification or anything else I’d be more than willing to keep dialogue with you here
@@EmeraldPixelGamingEPG hello I’m sorry to hear you don’t have a church in the area. I would recommend the Orthodox ministry called ancient faith. They have a lot of different podcasts that may be able to minister to you for the time being.
@@sathsojourns also like I said in my initial comment, I think the best thing for you would to start attending an Orthodox Church in your area, if possible one that is in English. Going through the services helped me so much to love Christ more, to love the Church, and I felt like I was in heaven. A lot of the doctrines and beliefs of the Church you may read about and try to understand in your head can only be understood through the experience of being in the midst of the Orthodox worship and liturgical cycle. And if you love the Bible and Christ, trust me the services are not boring!
I eventually got to the point where I fully believed that the Orthodox Church is truly the Apostolic Church that Christ established, and that belief helped me to accept all that the Church teaches because I trusted the Church, if that makes sense. And one thing to know in my experience, I held to the same sola scriptura because I loved, trusted, and believed the Bible. It’s not like in the Orthodox Church we don’t stress reading the Bible or we don’t obey the scriptures because we have “tradition.” On the other hand, The Church stresses the Bible so much! We teach that all of Christs commandments are so important for Christians to follow and obey. All of our saints tell us to read the Bible every day. The services are absolutely filled with scriptures, every single Sunday there is a reading from the Gospel and an epistle. So many psalms are sung in so many different services
And now as an Orthodox Christian I feel like I understand the Bible much better than I did as a Protestant because it is united with my worship.
What a great spokesman for Calvinism. He’s convinced me to never follow it.
LOL. Add to it his poor attitude and lack of charity towards those who believe differently.
@@msmutola682 lol james white is a pretty gifted speaker and is pretty smart, but a smart man with a bad idea is still just a smart man with a bad idea, and in this case a little ego attitude lol
@@CatholicLogic7 You’re also a great spokesman for Calvinism.
You don't 'follow' Calvinism, either you're pre-destined to or not. So no worries 😂
@@brianbachinger6357 he obviously said it sarcastically. You think I'm stupid? My comment still stands.
Man what a bunch of “talking” without saying anything of substance. You will have interpretations regardless of how much you shout “sola scriptura”. That’s why the Orthodox position is to dwell in the ancient wisdom of the early apostles, Saints, and fathers - wisdom that has survived 2000 years (much unlike the ocean of Protestant re-interpretations)
Yes. Look at the ridiculous and heretical prosperity gospel and and word faith garbage aught by Joel Osteen. He now doesn't even bother opening up the bible in his self-help sermons. Even worse is the utterly bizarre New Apostolic Reformation movement within Protestantism.
@@TheLincolnrailsplitt Is it really fair to consider Osteen or other prosperity/NAR teachers "protestant" though? What sort of distinctly protestant theology do they hold to? Most of them don't hold to sola scriptura because they believe in continued revelation ("The Holy Spirit spoke to me"), they place no emphasis upon any of the other solas of the Reformation, and they certainly wouldn't share in the Reformer's understanding of ecclesiology, soteriology, hamartiology, bibliology, and in some instances, christology. At best, Osteen and his ilk could be called "non Catholic," but calling them Protestant just seems like a stretch to me.
@@fallofshadows2209 the way you are asking the question proves the point. Is it fair to consider Osteen Protestant? Well, that depends -- how do you define Protestantism and set parameters on that definition? And who decides? Just asking this question implies there is some sort of coalition of agreement within Protestantism, but that has never been the case.
"Most of them don't hold to sola scriptura because they believe in continued revelation ("The Holy Spirit spoke to me")..."
This is _most_ of modern Protestant thought. Having been part of numerous Protestant churches and services, I lost track of the number of times a pastor couched his sermon in "I felt led to talk about..." or "the Lord is leading me to..." I know doctoral-level educated (from prominent institutions) Protestant preachers who have literally _quoted_ God in their sermon; e.g. "God said to me, 'Joe, you need to_____.'" If you are claiming that this isn't Christian, I'm right there with you; but you're discounting a large portion of Protestantism by doing so.
"...they place no emphasis upon any of the other solas of the Reformation..."
and they certainly wouldn't share in the Reformer's understanding of ecclesiology, soteriology, hamartiology, bibliology, and in some instances, christology."
@@fallofshadows2209 not sure why RUclips deleted half of my comment (the response to "...they place no emphasis upon..." From that point forward they hacked apart my comment, so I apologize.
It all began with latin heresy, its like they all gone mad.
I used to listen to James religiously and it inspired me to learn about Church history...which lead me to the Orthodox Church...Glory to God!
Glory to God.
Congratulations you don’t know how to actually read the Bible.
then you never really listened to him
I came out of Indian Orthodox church. I became Reformed. I never heard the Word of God there, it was ritualistic. I felt ripped off because the Bible wasn't taught. If you take your kids there, they will never understand the Word properly. It's very cultural and conversion is less likely because the Word of God is rarely preached.
@@josephm2357 this
I love the fact that the Orthodox Church can’t “Reform”, that was the biggest draw. You walk into a larger Orthodox Church and it’s like you just walked into the 15th century or something, it’s incredible. Why anyone would think constant reform is desirable after the mainline churches literally “reformed” themselves out of existence is beyond my comprehension.
To say something cant reform is to say something is perfect. Men are not perfect. If you say you cant reform, you say you are perfect, and therefore, you are a liar who cannot be trusted.
The EO church cannot be trusted, because it is a liar about itself.
@Phil Andrew If the church is "visible" in the human/hierarchical sense, then being made up of ultimately humans presence and therefore human input, it needs to reform. There is no way around this. Humans are fallible, and if the church is run by their input, it is fallible. That enforced EO/RCC definition necessitates fallibility.
If the church is defined by instances where humans are in line with the infallible Word of God, the only infallible apostolic tradition, then it does not need to reform, because it is defined by infallibility of the God-breathed Spirit working through humans.
You cant do the Motte and Bailey fallacy. Pick a definition. Stick with it. The EO/RCC insistence of the human-centered definition of the church necessitates church fallibility, the Protestant definition does not because the Protestant definition of the church is not based on human input.
@Phil Andrew You are committing the exact fallacy I said you would.
I never said the church is made up of human and Devine elements. I said that there are multiple definitions of "the church", one which defines the church by primarily human elements, and one by primarily Devine elements.
The fact that you have gone ahead and mushed those definitions together shows that you are now prepared to make a Motte and Bailey fallacy, switching between the definitions of "the church" when it suits you, inconsistently and incoherently.
Scripture and Canon are self-authenticating and received by humans. They are not made by humans. The grace of God shines through them. That's my definition of scripture. Again, you will try to commit a Motte and Bailey fallacy with this word as well, switching between a lower definition of "scripture" and a higher definition of "scripture".
The higher definition of scripture defines the higher definition of the church.
The lower, fallibilistic definition of scripture comes from your lower, human-centered definition of the church, which is necessarily fallible too.
@Phil Andrew By what standard do you even know what is the church and what is not? You don't have any. You are using your own subjectivity to define what you think is and is not the church. If you say the church defines the church, that is circular logic. If you say that the human popularity of one tradition over the other defines the church, then that is an ad-populum fallacy. You have rejected infallible apostolic scripture in its sole infallible role in defining what is and what is not the apostolic catholic church, and there are left to irrationality and incoherence.
I know that appeals to infallible scripture clouded by a tradition grounded on an irrational, circular epistemology are not appeals I need to take seriously. The basis of your authority is based on irrationality and circular logic and on that basis alone, can be rejected. Irrationality cannot come from God, nor can be applied to God's infallible scriptures.
@Phil Andrew "That is literally the same thing as saying the Church is made up of Divine and human elements."
Word-Concept fallacy. The multiple Protestant concepts of "the church" are not the Eastern Orthodox concepts of "the church", even if they are all called "the church".
"I've done no such thing. I have clearly differentiated between the opinions of individuals, which can be infallible; and the collective infallible of the Church (for example, the Council of Jerusalem) which is infallible."
The conscience of the church in any given scenario is not infallible. The church is at liberty to make use its conscience, especially for matter such as practice of tradition. There is no indication in Scripture that this was a binding, eternal council which infallibly created a new rule of faith.
"Both the Orthodox and Protestant views of epistemology is circular and it isn't the circularity that I see as problematic. It's the fact that Protestantism is internally inconsistent."
If the circle does not start and end with God, who is all in all, it is irrational. A circle such as "tradition is the standard of what tradition is, which is the standard of what tradition is" does not end with God, and therefore is irrational and by nature unauthoritave and ungodly.
There is no way around this. What is irrational does not come from God, and therefore your epistemology cannot exist coherently, and therefore cannot be read into the scriptures. What is irrational cannot be read into the infallible.
Protestant epistemology starts and ends with the Illumination of the Holy spirit through the Scriptures, and therefore is the only reliable rule of faith to judge what is apostolic and what is the part of the true church, and what is not.
Well at least a part of it is the wholesale sell out of the American church to the "seeker sensitive" model of rock concert, latte, and a Ted talk Sunday morning show. People are looking for some substance and gravitas.
I was born Greek Orthodox, saved and Born again in a Baptist Church that gradually became seeker friendly, Charismatic, Word of Faith, Toronto Blessing. God, by His Grace brought me to a Biblically Orthodox, Reformedd Protestant Baptist Church, Sola Scripyura, Sola Fide, Sola Gracia, Sola Christus, where I have been for 19 years. I was in that Chaos for 21 years, in Limbo for 5 years.
@Phil Andrew I suggest you read the Bible. Ephesians chapter 2. It is by Grace you are saved through Faith, not of works lest anyone should boast. But yes your Faith produces a life of works because the Holy Spirit now dwells in the Redeemed Saint.
@Phil Andrew I gave you the Scripture. I was Greek Orthodox and grew up in an RC Boarding School, sufficient for me is that I now have been Born again by the Spirit of God and the washing of His Word and have assurance of Salvation and my life has changed from the inside out which I never knew in all my years before even very devout in my Orthodox and Catholic days. Listen to James White. I gave you the Scripture, Scripture is sufficient for me.
@Filaretos The Zealot From what or from who? I am walking with my Lord Mesus Christ with His word as my lamp.
Sadly, what they run to, is equally false. It’s all a seeking of outward profundity, isn’t it? If the Bible can’t back it up, it’s false. No other way to measure truth
Wow. For what was supposed to be a refutation of Orthodoxy this comes across almost as a confirmation. Preach it, brother! Just a bit farther... The Spirit and the Bride say, Come!
Love your twitter account content Jim.
☦☦☦
Not sure what video you were watching!
No no! You need to submit to the Roman pontiff sir, Peter is the head apostle anyone who sets himself up against him is a schismatic
the irony is you can't tell the difference between the bride and the groom in orthodoxy because it's so arrogantly stuck in 8th century Byzantium
Where did the canon come from? It came from the lectionary of the church liturgy. The Orthodox Churches authority is evidently seen in the book of Acts during the council of Jerusalem 15:28 , and in the baptism of the eunuch by philip Acts 8: 30-31. Where is the canon listed in scripture? How can you claim their holy books? What does St. Paul mean in 2 Thessalonians 2:15? The Orthodox are the true Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. Where is the Protestant priesthood (bishops, priests, deacons) with the apostolic succession, where is the real presence of the Eucharist and sacraments, where are the incense being burned my the gentiles Malachi prophesied (1:11). In western Christianity knowing Christ is an intellectual activity, in the east he is present in the liturgy and in the church. May God guide you to the hospital of our souls and may he have mercy on us sinners.
great response.
After watching the video I wanted to respond in similar fashion. But after reading your comment I realized it would be in vain as you had word it so well. Thank you
I'm learning about Eastern Orthodoxy at the moment. This isn't a gotcha question, but you referenced Malachi 1:11 for gentiles offering incense. What do you do with "and a grain offering that is pure" in the same sentence? Does the EO use incense but not a grain offering? Why?
@@HG-jy3bl don't know where you get "grain" offering from. it is the eucharist.
@@HG-jy3bl not sure where you get "grain" from; it's just a pure offering.
Wow, so you guys wrote the Bible? Did you hang on the cross for our sins too? Such humility. God could've used anyone he wanted to bring his word to us. If I were in your shoes, I would show some humility.
Thanks for converting me to Orthodoxy James White!
LOL....I used to attended Phoenix Reformed Baptist Church where James is a Deacon. Very intelligent man, but that is where it stops. Calvinism really skews your understanding of God as joyfully willing bad things upon you. Very logical, but dangerous. It ruined my walk with God. I have been getting prompts to go back to church after 17 years and it is towards the Orthodox faith that I am leaning. I hate to say it, but western Christianity is failing hard here in America because there really is no life in the church, it's all head knowledge (scholasticism).
Without being facetious, the multi hour debates between Dr White and Dr Brown really helped me on my journey home to Holy Orthodoxy.
Sorry for you. Hope you find your way out and come to believe in God.
@@jakeabbatacola5092 cope harder prot, imagine believing the oldest Christian church which protected the bible and true doctrines needs to find God. Enjoy your cringe women pastors and gay marriage, the true bitter fruits of "reformation".
☦
So, you're going to ignore the fact that the Bible didn't exist as compiled scripture until the 4th Century.
And I want you to explain exactly which traditions Paul was telling All of the Churches to follow in his letters. Since there were no scriptures for the Church to follow when he told them that.
He said in another video that it referred to epistles that hadn't been written yet. I kid you not lol
@@themidnightpoetryclub7663 seriously? I mean it doesn't surprise me, but...wow.
As I stated in my original comment, it's getting easier and easier to spot James's fallacious reasoning.
@@themidnightpoetryclub7663 Which video was that in?
@@astonifyed I'm sure it was another video in response to Jay Dyer
@@themidnightpoetryclub7663 Please don't waste your time searching for it for my sake, but if you ever remember the clip, id like to see it. This all seems so clownish the more I consider it.
I got Baptized into the Orthodox Church 4 days ago. James White you need to Repent from your heresies. Also, why don't you debate Jay Dyer???
Alt - Monarchist There is sadly no point James White is not open to anything other than his presuppositions.
Strange...what do you find in an orthodox church? Sacraments and traditions supersede the Word of God there. God's Word is read but minimally preached. Sin is not preached. Infant baptism guarantees salvation for all. That is why I keep away from my orthodox church.
may the Lord Christ abide in you for many many years , welcome ☦❤
@@dianaphilip3600 if you make the false claim that the word of God is minimally preached, then you know nothing about the Orthodox Church.
@@alt-monarchist I grew up in an orthodox church and that's what I see. There is no expository preaching.
You missed the whole point that Hank was trying to convey. What are you talking about, the ACT OF THE APOSTLES clearly states that the church received the holy spirit at pentecost! And we know that st John the evangelist was the last one to write his gospel (90-110 AD ), the churches established before that time and afterwards didn't have the full set of books that we have today in the NT, obviously the Holy Spirit was working in the Apostles and the Christians even that they didn't have all the new testament! Obviously God through the Holy Spirit USED the the authoritative figures and leader of the church (Matthew, Mark, Luke...) to write what we call today the NT! Obviously the church preceded the NT! And obviously the church had the proper understanding of scripture and gospels! Certainly not a guy from the 15th century who make up the term "sola scriptura" that don't even exist in the gospels!
Sir I just think that you don't even want to come to acknowledge that Christ established a church and used it to write the gospels, a church that started evangelizing the word of God orally before anything was yet written! And a church who put together what she inherited from those evangelist in order that the coming generations might have the truth that God untrusted her with, the NT!
Look what sola scriptura has done to the protestant churches! How many different denomination do they have today! How many different contradictory understanding do they have of the same gospels! Of course without the the proper understanding that the church inherited from the church fathers and councils (dogmatic Truth I mean) you will be left with your own interpretation! This is why you have jehovah witness and adventist and unitarian and all kind of heresy that the protestant churches developed throughout the last five century! The church that Christ established conveyed the truth of faith and the proper understanding of scriptures through the Holy Spirit who was working in its leaders!
The funny thing is that even the protestant church fathers (Luther, Calvin...) Acknowledged that the church fathers and specially the ecumenical councils had authoritative teaching concerning the truth that the Holy Spirit untrusted to the church! So what are you really defending!? A principal (Sola Sc..) that the protestant church fathers themselves contradicted in their teaching!
God bless you sir, and may the Lord show you the truth you are missing. I'll encourage you to do a live conversation with Hank, dialogue is the solution, not trying to attacks the others before even to try and understand them! It is what Hank was doing in the video you were using out of context, dialoguing with others that don't adhere to the same beliefs!!
Forgive me brothers if I offended anyone.
Sorry for any grammaticales errors, english is not my first language!
Your English is excellent, as are your arguments.
Well put my friend! God bless you
Kindness and truth, all wrapped in one! We need more of that these days.
Your English is better than mine probably I'm an uneducated no one and English or s my first language but you give me hope that I can be more pleasant in my conversations with others in love I like what you wrote
Why 8th century? Orthodox liturgies of st. Basil & John Chrysostom are from the 4th century
And why the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox are so similar (except the "two natures of Christ" part) while they split in the 5th century? Or am I wrong that they are similar (also since various Protestants consider them to be one Church)?
I think he means the last of the 7th Ecumenical Councils was in 787 (8th century) and that is when the traditions were fully clarified and made unchangeable beyond that point. The only major theological revision (which was more of a clarification than a reform) was when Gregory Palamas wrote on the distinctions between Essence-Energies and defended the hesychasts.
@@AarmOZ84 the way he speaks its as though they made up the tradition in the 8th century. Just because a council declares something does not mean it wasn't taught/believed beforehand
@@TheJoyofCatholicTradition Well, icons weren’t allowed as part of early Christian worship. The only two icons allowed according to John Chrysostom was the Crucifix and the Eucharist, so it kind of does contradict early church teachings. 🤷🏻♂️
@@AarmOZ84 did the early church explicitly condemn the use of icons? If so what synods and or councils. Also St. Luke wrote the first icon of Mary
I’m a Protestant but this vid lowkey made me want to become Orthodox
I did, and thank the lord for it
The Most High has laid out the way. It's not about becoming orthodox. It's about accepting Truth.
You have made no argument. Invalid.
@@BarbaPamino same thing.
@@RussianBot4Christ literally all these reformed apologists can do is say “works bad” without actually trying to understand anyone’s position. At the end of the day they care more about their catechisms than scripture itself
James White: I honor consistency over time.
Also James White: I honor traditions that can reform (inconsistency)
Orthodoxy: We’ve been consistent for almost 2k years.
The “I’m so consistent and unbiased so you can trust me” approach that James white gives off is the age old conman trick that goes: “if you think for yourself you’ll come to my conclusion anyways so just agree with me”.
The infallible tradition of the Word of God cant reform. The human EO tradition is fallible and therefore must be open to it.
“Scripture only” is a tradition in itself. It’s literally a doctrine Protestants inherit and pass on.... a tradition of men which makes every man their own personal pope.
@@alypiusloft You cant even define what a and what is not a "true tradition" without going into circular reasoning or an ad-populum fallacy. Since your tradition is founded on irrationality, and irrationality cannot be from God, I will reject your irrationality and the tradition which it attempts to uphold. What is irrational cannot come from God.
@@RussianBot4Christ 🤣🤣🤣 Some one missed history class.
I used to eat up his videos……so very happy to be Eastern Orthodox! ❤️☦️
@Anninos Christoforou_ orthodoxy the only truth such a lovely video!
Me too! He's an engaging person but I'm not calvinist anymore
@@prayunceasingly2029 what led you to believe that God doesn’t ordain everything? What caused you to disagree?
@@timetravlin4450
Because it would mean God ordained all evil before it happened
@@timetravlin4450 You clearly don’t understand other modes of thought other than Calvinism.
This video has helped my in my decision to convert to orthodoxy, can’t wait to convert to orthodoxy
Former Roman Catholic becoming orthodox
@@seekingtruth5637 same, I just became Eastern Orthodox, however unfortunately there are no orthodox churches in my area
@fph2060 I know I dint have any eithier, we find that hard.
@FPH i rejoice when I Herr that someone has come to the true faith. I am 46 and my family and I have left the traditional side of roman Catholism. I have been looking at eastren Orthodoxy for awhile. I was sadly lead to believe that the Orthodx church split from Roman Catholism but came to understand that Roman Catholism became a new church and spilt from the one true faith Orthodoxy. Sadly we are moving and there is a church where we are bit nine where we are going. Bit the important part is that we belong to Christ's.
@@fph2060 that’s a huge problem with orthodoxy. In certain locations you cannot even attend an Orthodox Church. If it’s the one true church how is someone who is poor or without a car or cannot move to an Orthodox Church area supposed to convert? Most Protestants like Baptists don’t believe you have a be Baptist to be saved but orthodox claims you have to be orthodox to be saved. But how can you even be a part of the Orthodox Church if there’s no Orthodox Church near you?
Reading the Patristics convinced me that Calvinism was wrong.
What books did you read? I need to get back into orthodoxy I was burning to learn about the saints a while back. Want to hear something funny, I was reading esv study Bible and it says in the notes on james 2:17 “faith that is not accompanied by action is useless and dead, unable to save”(sounds orthodox to me lol)
@@criticaltheist3992 I typed a reply to you yesterday, and for some reason, it isn't here today, which is a shame, since I put a lot of time into it.
Here are some quotes from the Church Fathers supporting Free Will: bjorkbloggen.com/2012/05/08/quotes-from-old-church-fathers-supporting-free-will-and-objecting-to-the-sinful-nature/
Calvinists will point to the Council of Orange in 529 in support of their ideas. However, the canons of the council can be interpreted in favor of grace assisting us to come to Christ, and not in terms of irresistible grace. Also, the conclusion condemns double-predestination. Canons 5, 13, and the Conclusion strongly imply baptismal regeneration. Here is some more information on the council: www.patheos.com/blogs/davearmstrong/2018/09/2nd-council-of-orange-sola-gratia-vs-total-depravity.html
I made a video in which I discuss such things.
Furthermore, in Saint Augustine's "On Grace and Free Will", the first seven chapters seem to refute Total Depravity, and Chapters 31 and 45 seems to say hey unconditional election. www.newadvent.org/fathers/1510.htm
I'll make another comment with more links later on.
@@criticaltheist3992 I don’t understand. As reformed, I was raised to believe that my faith saves me, but faith without works is dead. These aren’t contradictory ideas and I fear that endless pride will be the reason Protestants and orthodox will never reunite. People needing a human battle to fight with another through some modality, in this case, misrepresentation of logic.
Sola Scriptura.
@@criticaltheist3992 Sorry my reply is so late, I either didn't notice it or I forgot to reply. I would start with Against Heresies by Saint Ireneaus, and I'd also look at the Synod of Lyon in 475, as wells as the Council of Orange in 529. There's a bunch of others you can look at too, but I'd start with those.
You don't 're-form' Christ's church. He formed it. You preserve it. You return to it if you have left it. Come home to orthodoxy Pastor James.
You do reform it, just as the apostles did, when the fallible humans who are a part of the body move into error.
@@gch8810 How did Apostles "reform" it and what makes you think that someone in America from a branch that came from England,that was heresy that came from the Catholic Church...has a better authority to reform the Church than the Apostles and first Christians? And I'm not just talking about Calvinism,but all American Protestant Churches.
@@Tsagia "How did Apostles "reform" it"
When some Jews were saying Gentile Christians needed to get circumcised to become fully Christian. They had a big meeting about that in Acts 15. The word "reform" comes with a lot of baggage because it sounds like making up something new to most people.
Lol. Well it hasn't been preserved well. So it has to be reformed
8th or 9th century? So what did Hagia Sophia look like in the 6th century?
And why the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox are so similar (except the "two natures of Christ" part) while they split in the 5th century? Or am I wrong that they are similar (also since various Protestants consider them to be one Church)?
@@konstantinospapadopoulos7735 its hard to explain to Nordics and Germanics. Their cultures didn't even have an alphabet before Christianity.
@@konstantinospapadopoulos7735 One says christ has 2 distinct natures, man and God while the other believe the two natures are not divided and distinct but one without mixing. Personally i think its all rubbish to try to understand the nature of Jesus since he is God and thus unknowable to man.
@@vincentfox4929 As I have said in an other comment under the present video, even the respective Churches consider this to be more about "linguistics" rather than theology (you may see here the relevant part of that comment);
"Also, since we are talking about the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox, these split for what can be seen nowadays as a mere difference in the using of words or how these translate in different languages or how these are perceived by different cultures... Eg The issue in Chalcedon was about whether Christ had one or two natures... The Orientals insisted in "one nature" (one "physis") and the Eastern Orthodox claim that he has one "hypostasis". But in a more analytic definition (as oppossed to a literal one), both churches appear to hold the same beliefs/views; that Christ is 100% man and 100% God..."
To further that point above, "substance" and "essense" are differing in meaning in English but at the same time I gather that they may both translate in Greek as "ousia"...
Also I can see your point, but there is also the perspective that the Churches are not defining here, but merely codifying what is written in scripture... Similarly, there is the essence-energy distinction in Orthodoxy exactly because one cannot define God, thus they are not taking away of the mystery of god but they let it be... On the other hand, Christ dwelled among the people and this experience people had had to be put into words somehow, ie "unknownable to man" alone would not work here very well...
I’ve been thinking about orthodoxy for 10 years and considering converting. I think I’m going to do it this year.
Glory to God! May Jesus Christ bless your journey! 🙏🏼☦️
Welcome home brother/sister
Why don't you convert to just being IN CHRIST????
James: I’m not impressed unless you’ve been doing it for 25 or 30 years
2,000 year old Orthodox Church: am I a joke to you?
Lol
white let’s out that “I think I’m smarter than everyone because I just simply connect all the dots” ego vibe every so often.
1,200 years
@@KristiLEvans1 Can you perhaps then answer me this question:
1:38 May I ask something I noticed in this and other videos of James White... He claims that the [Eastern] Orthodox Church traditions are 8th century traditions... How then this line of argumentation can be reconciled with the fact that the Oriental Orthodox and Eastern Orthodox Churches split in the 5th century with their main point of dispute being that of the "two natures of Chirst" (the Oriental orthodox claim "one nature" here...) and apart from that they hold the same traditions, with icons, etc..? In other words, how can the two be so similar if they split in the 5th century and then the Eastern Orthodox Church formed its traditions in the 8th century? Did they split and had anathemas pronounced against each other but were still "copying" each other, and if so, what for?!
@@konstantinospapadopoulos7735 I don’t hear him say that ALL the theology derives from the 8th C. He says the theology was FROZEN in the 8th C., due to [obvious] persecution and suppression forces.
@@KristiLEvans1 So the one that supposedly derives from the 8th century is different to that of the Oriental Orthodox or not?
Orthodox Orthodoxy does not deny the validity of scripture you have to remember it was the Orthodox Church from which the Canon of scripture came. As far as our liturgical services and tradition not being formulated prior to the 8th century that is Pure Fantasy, we have the writings and thoughts of the apostolic fathers the patristic writings of the pre Nicene and post-nicene fathers we also have their interpretations of scripture that is to say the interpretations of the men by whom the Holy Spirit discern which scriptures should compose the Canon. We look to these early church fathers for their discernment and interpretation of scripture for we have seen what happens when you leave it to the Scholastic intellectualism of men to interpret it as we see in the several thousand variations on Protestant denominations. I speak as one who was an Evangelical for over 30 years before, thank God, converting to Orthodoxy.
Thank you for this comment. It was very insightful and consistent with what other Orthodoxes have said.
I found this video to be rather muddled and filled with rambling, and ended up obscuring what might have been some valid points.
He sounded like me in the mornings......before coffee! Lol
The canon of scripture was known long before OE came along. So you are relying on the men of the early church period over the men of 'scholastic intellectualism'. None of them were infallible in their understanding of the scripture (no one is). They got things right and wrong when it came to theology. This is why its the Christian's responsibility to read and study the scripture for themself not just accept something because of tradition. As far as denominations go the 'Church fathers' were just as diverse in their theological views as modern day denominations. Seems to me like you converted to eastern orthodoxy for some wrong or misleading reasons.
@@stevie6621 " the canon of scripture was known long before the OE came along" ??? The Orthodox Church appeared on the day of Pentecost 33 AD ( and then developed and matured from there) The scriptures as we know them came out of the church not vice versa. As far as diversity and error in the early church you are correct that's why they had the ecumenical councils, all the Bishops gathered together to discern the will of the Spirit as to what was correct, once discerned that became the rule for the church which is still carried to this day. Perhaps if you spent more time digging into the writings of the early fathers and how dogmatic theology developed within the early church rather than looking at everything through your biased perception you would come into the fullness of the truth. We have a saying in Orthodoxy when you think you know better than the early fathers you're a heretic.
@@johnburnett5717 EO is it exists today (along with the RCC who makes the same claims) does not go back anywhere near 33AD. The Apostolic churches are based off what the Pauline epistles teach and EO has gone way beyond that with many of their traditions/teachings that were invented many centuries later. The ecumenical councils is not the big problem. The big difference is to do with soteriology and sacraments, this is where they have mostly departed from scripture. Its all good to read and learn from the early church but keep in mind their writings are not infallible nor did they have it all right. Our understanding of the scripture and faith has gone way beyond the days of the early church. All teachings and claims need to be lined up with the scripture at the end of the day. This is the only way correction and advancement in doctrine can be made.
@@stevie6621 the RCC church while originally part of the five patriarchies, chose to deviate from the patristic tradition. The Roman Catholic Church as we know it today did not come into existence until after the great schism of 1054. Your statement that the Orthodox church has gone Way Beyond the boundaries of scripture is purely subjective opinion on your part I can defend every practice and tradition of the Orthodox Church from scripture. You have chosen to follow after the Scholastic tradition which gives precedence to men's intellectual Pride. The proof of error is glaringly obvious with regards to the numerous Protestant denominations each Which vary one from the other and each claiming they exclusively hold the truth as Guided by the Holy Spirit. The holy spirit is not the author of confusion and chaos. You stand at a distinct disadvantage as I was an ardent Defender of Evangelical Christianity for over 30 years I know what you think what you believe but by the statements you have made you know very little about the truth of Orthodoxy. I will conclude with what I said earlier, when you think you know better than the early church fathers those that were there at the beginning you are a heretic.
I'm glad you are about "honoring consistency over time". That's Orthodoxy. That it cannot be "reformed" is to its credit. That is why it doesn't constantly splinter into thousands of sects (like Protestantism). The biblical cannon (which include the Septuagint and deuterocanonical books) is the highest expression of the tradition of the Church. There is no tension between scripture and tradition (2 Thessalonians 2:15). The Church is the physical embodiment of Christ on Earth, who is its Head. The Holy Spirit has and will preserve the Church (the foundation and pillar of truth 1 Timothy 3:15) and the gates of hell (have not...and) will not prevail against it (Matthew 16:18).
Amen
Orthodoxy is chock full of modern innovations. just repeating "this is the faith of the apostles" doesnt that that nicea 2 is highly innovative
Amin.
It not being able to be reformed is not at all to its credit. Reforming something is something that the apostles were constantly trying to do during the early church. They had to or else the church would have continued in errant doctrine and sinful actions. That is all refrigeration is. Correcting the church so that it is consistently in line with Scripture.
@@gch8810 saying that the Church "the pillar and ground of Truth" can teach error is heresy that explicitly contradicts scripture.
The Church by definition is incabable of teaching error. The apostles spread the faith once delivered. Your view is anachronistic nonsense birthed post hoc by protestants trying to justify their existance.
"Once you've been doing something for 25-30 years, then I'm impressed..."
How about twenty centuries?
He was talking about people, not an institution, not even one that pretends it went unchanged for 2,000 years and hopes no one checks the records.
@@f308gtb1977 if YOU say so
@@f308gtb1977 it was simply unchanged for 2,000 years. That's why they have manuscripts, monasteries, and relics that are thousands of years old.
@@byzantinephilosopherNope not unchanged. For example infant baptism was a later development.
@@f308gtb1977yeah dude, things change. The church is made of different building materials. The church fathers use different shampoo and wear different shoes these days. But these are the people who gave us our canon. This church preceded the Bible as we know it. Indeed, check the records, you haven’t. Because then you wouldn’t be ignorant running your mouth. So check them out. And then try to justify believing in the “infallible text” that was compiled by this church that you don’t believe in. You can be delusional if you like, but it’s not recommended
Thnks for creating more converts to Orthodoxy james
Oriental or EO because you each consider each other heretics. Can't even decide among yourselves yet you point to others. You should just call yourselves Muslims at this point
Thanks to the documentary “the failure of Eastern Orthodoxy” I left the Orthodox Church.
@@orwellianpepe7660 dang...shame
@@orwellianpepe7660 that documentary is a sham
"The biggest problem with Eastern Orthodoxy is it can't be Reformed." I can't help but laugh at how Protestants criticize Orthodoxy and Catholicism for not being good Protestants.
The biggest problem with Sola Scriptura is that its self-refuting.
Orthodoxy's roots do go back to apostolic times St. Justin Martyr (150) describes the liturgical worship of his day & though it has grown (growth without change) that worship is still the core of Orthodox liturgical worship. Orthodox tradition is not simply of the eight and ninth centuries. That's arbitrary. The Palamite controversy was a few centuries after that, so why not just say Orthodox tradition is of the 14th century?
I'm a lapsed Orthodox so I'm not that biased, but this video was not convincing to anyone except the already convinced.
@@GS-cj7rf This simply means you weren't ever really Orthodox. No thinking Orthodox would make the base "monolithic," claim you broach. The councils were conciliatory. Period. There were differences of views, for that's why they were called but it was always to deal with heresy that arose. And you know what? The Holy Spirit, just as He did at the first Jerusalem council gave the Church a Common mind ( a statement/judgment) in responding to the issue which was then canonized. Thus to believe against what was "judged " as James said in Jerusalem was to be heterodox nothing more nothing less!!
You are highly mistaken.
How is Sola Scriptura self-refuting?
@@GS-cj7rf Scripture is nothing more than a text. It requires a reader, which means it requires an interpreter. You cannot divorce the two. If you wish to be your own interpreter of scripture that's fine, but it is not a Church. If you wish to conform your interpretation to that of another group, you're free to do so as well. But all you are doing is replacing one tradition with another. You cannot avoid interpretation or tradition. All you can do is try to find the correct one. If you truely believe the correct one is your own self then you are putting yourself above scripture and doing precisely what you accuse the EO of doing. There is no way out of this.
@@GS-cj7rf Fine. Be your own pope
@@GS-cj7rf I was born into the Orthodox church, as were my parents, grandparents and pretty much entire family line as far back as I can gather. I did of course discern not to leave. I don't consider Christianity to be a shopping experience to pick and choose based on my own preference.
I'm not a Calvinist. I'm not a Catamecheumen of Orthodoxy either... but I'll say that I have followed prominent apologists from BOTH sides for about a decade now and nothing has given me as much grounding and understanding of how to argue for God as listening to men like Jay Dyer and David Patrick Henry... their studies of metaphysics and their analysis of MANY debates have taught me so much about the weak points in atheism as well as in the general evangelist/protestant world. Their grasp on the necessity of the Trinity, and typology in the Old Testament is impressive. I don't agree with them on all points, but I have respect for certain aspects that are very significant to the faith.
Nobody cares, James pointed out clear issues within the orthodox church yet you arrogantly decided to ignore them and go off on a tangent about who knows what. Accept that the EO church is stuck in 8th century tradition and will for reform just like Muslims stuck in the 7th century
Surely you took notes or made a playlist? Care to share please
@@FaithfulComforter still waiting for her reply
@@TheCondescendingRedditor lol I bought Rock and Sand by Fr Josiah. I’ll buy more books from EO later on
"The problem with Eastern Orthodoxy is that it can't be reformed." So, it's a problem for a church to be historically consistent and resistant to innovation and change?
Yes. Consistency is only good if what is being taught is actually true. If a church is founded on a lie and teaches things that are contrary to Scripture then it is no better than paganism.
I would rather be divided by truth than consistent and united under a lie.
@@lanadoesathing everything the Orthodox Church teaches is true.
Ask the Churches of Revelation if they didn't need a reformation. I see all the orthodox in this comment sectopn scoffing at White implying that a church needs to be able to reform. '' You err not knowing the Scriptures ''.
@@wolkenpowerbased on what? Scripture? Tradition?
“The biggest problem is they can’t be reformed” hahahahaha because we aren’t broken, therefore no reformation.
The Catholic Church is not broken, my friend: many individuals go out of her and start their own churches where they compose their own gospel messages. This is a Scriptural reality and a mark of the Church of Christ: read Paul and John on heretics, separatists and antichrists. If you church doesn't have it, ask yourself what you have.
Pierre Schiffer I have the entire history of the church, it’s saints and their writings, ecumenical councils and creeds that validate Orthodox Christianity. None of the people even in the New Testament believed in such a nonsense heresy as sola scriptura.
@@St3ph3ndavid That is correct: the early Church did not believe in Sola Scriptura and neither do I. I think you might read my message partly backwards? What I meant to say is that the Church of the NT suffered from separatists and heresies and in that light having a Reformation - as in 16th century - is not any surprise either.
Pierre Schiffer I must have misread this, my apologies brother. We are definitely in agreement
@@St3ph3ndavid No problem; thanks man!
Alternate title... James White flowders for 7 minutes trying to refute Orthodoxy, all the while explaining why Orthodoxy is correct
Exactly
He literally explained why it's true lol. And he thinks his reforming from 1600s to now is right. For his crew this is Gold because they just won't get it.
„Greatest problem with Eastern Orthodoxy is that it cannot be reformed“
Thank God that it can’t because there is no need to change something that it’s already flawless
Therefore, brethren, stand fast & hold the traditions which you were taught, whether by word or our epistle. Seems the church especially early church was super important, edifying & necessary. Holy scripture coming together as a blessing for the church & truth to stand on. Unfortunately now churches teach whatever sounds good or form cults & holy scripture gets twisted & or interpreted in ways that dont edify or even make sense, plus versions/ translations that should never come out
How do you test and prove that Eastern Orthodoxy is truly holding to the traditions of the 1st century Apostles?
@@murtomedia4217 I would imagine scripture & tradition, but Im also not Eastern Orthodox nor do I attend any Orthodox church. I dont have a problem w/ their traditions & their Eschatology I agree w/
We cannot test tradition by a tradition the Apostles didn't leave much of a record of in Scripture. Greek Pagan practices and superstition could have crept into their liturgical traditions. Iconoclasms, wearing black robes, waving incense around. Praying for the dead...
@@murtomedia4217 I take it your not Orthodox, lol. We can say we cant test alot past down from man, whether religion or otherwise, we trust the bible is the true word of God, & It was formed from men, eventhough I believe divine in origin. I guess its faith that godly men did things proper & in order w/ the fear of the Lord. I personally put scripture over every tradition & thats my tradition, I just dont throw out the baby w/ the bath water regarding church traditions. I once did when I left the catholic church but we can learn there are biblical reasons or principles for their (Orthodox/Catholic) traditions, or at least their interpretations, whether we agree w/ or not
amen
The idea that the church should be always reforming is very strange. Adapting to new heresies and environment, sure, but always reforming? I don’t think so. This is why we find ourselves with so many denominations when we are always reforming according to the principle of sola scriptura. It doesn’t work. Also, to merely state that the church is stuck in the 8th century without proving it should be disregarded as flippantly as it was stated. This isn’t an argument; it’s just assertions.
You really don't know what you are talking about.
shooter downunder make your case, don’t just make a statement like that.
That is well stated.
Well said, JAW 1991. Naked assertions abound in James's videos; all the more so when he attempts (and fails miserably) to address the Eastern Church.
@@shooterdownunder Could you perhaps answer this then "And why the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox are so similar (except the "two natures of Christ" part) while they split in the 5th century? Or am I wrong that they are similar (also since various Protestants consider them to be one Church)?"
The only thing missing from making this a legit protestant video are strobe lights, corresponding smoke, and plexiglass covered drum space.
he kinda has that going on in his studio.
Yes, because that’s what Protestant churches are all like.
Best advertisement for Orthodoxy to date lol.
The Lord promised that the gates of hell would not prevail against His church; however, all of Protestantism is based on the premise that the gates of hell did in fact prevail against the Church! And THEY had to correct what Christ himself had founded. What absolute arrogance.
Word, very based. Protestanism is Gay
"It can't be reformed." ... "and the gates of hell shall not prevail against them."
hmmm except for when Christ commands it to repent numerous times in Revelation according to Scripture. Bottom line Scripture corrects the fallible church.
@@maredondo I think there's a difference in the church stepping back in line and a complete reformation.
@@benjbaird6851He just refuted you. And notice in the book of revelation it's "churches" plural. No concept of the "one true Church"
You know, the more I listen to a Calvinist talk, the better Orthodoxy sounds. Calvinists don't even have a "gospel", for God's sakes, since they believe God predestined a large portion of humanity to be objects of His "eternal hatred" or "eternal wrath" (two phrases found NO where in Scripture, by the way).
I found this as well. I was raised Protestant and found Orthodoxy. I think a lot of Calvinists straw man the orthodox position. The Orthodox Church has been the same faith, the same church of the Apostles, early Church Fathers and the Saints through these 2,000 years. I’m blessed to be in this Family and be in continuity with the disciples of Christ. Something I couldn’t say about the Protestant tradition☦️🙏🏼
Romans 9: 14-29
You are in error; Genesis 15:5-6 [5] And he brought him outside and said, “Look toward heaven, and number the stars, if you are able to number them.” Then he said to him, “So shall your offspring be.” [6] And he believed the LORD, and he counted it to him as righteousness.
@@Syd_3 The Greek, Russian and Asian orthodox churches would disagree with you.
@@tricord2939 source? I’m Eastern Orthodox and I know for a fact we are in communion and have the same faith since the Apostles. I don’t know one EO who wouldn’t say this. Greek or Russian or Asian, it’s the same liturgy, same faith as far as accepting and following the 7 ecumenical counsels and are under a bishop in communion with all the other bishops, same confession of creed. Just because they are in a different vernacular or maybe have a slightly different look to it, doesn’t mean they are different. Orthodoxy provides room for the vernacular and expression of culture through the foundational liturgy and dogmas of the church which we all much adhere to be ONE. And to be Orthodox, you do have to confess through apostolic succession that it is the True and ancient church from the apostles.
I don’t know what you’re talking about.
"You can't reform it" that's the point
It shouldn’t be. If scripture cannot correct the church, the church is off the reservation
@@KristiLEvans1 "correct the church"?
You understand that the orthodox church was established by the apostles of Christ himself?
What are you going to "correct" that the apostles didn't know?
@@marlo8456 yes. The Roman Catholics say the same thing.
@@KristiLEvans1 I dont think you fully understand church history to make that claim.
Also, what do you need to change from what the apostles taught?
@@marlo8456 yes. The Roman Catholics ask me the same questions. And no, I think where church history is concerned, we must diverge. I read and listened to scholars, and unfortunately, actual history diverges greatly from what modern priests and lay people claim. Marian doctrines don’t emerge until hundreds of years after Christ, for instance, and then, it’s traced back to gnostic writings like the very creepy Odes of Solomon. No. Can’t do it. The EO churches are EXTREMELY tempting, but I can’t do it.
ICXC NIKA, Orthodoxy stands for ever, Amijn
The Divine Liturgy is beautiful.
I can't do 20 minutes. just seems very repetitive
It is hard but see it like going to the gym
@@claireclaire238 impious woman
@@byzantinephilosopherI'm happy for God to judge me on my other efforts in life for example service to others ...I feel is more important than attending every service.
@@byzantinephilosopher dont be so judgy
Eastern Ortho and Romanist claims that there was "no Bible" before some mystery date is absolute nonsense. What they mean is that what Scripture was was entirely ambiguous until some mystery date (that they never seem to know themselves). This is simply, demonstrably not true. The first 300+ years of church fathers constantly refer to the gospels and epistles unambiguously as Scripture, starting immediately. They knew what Scripture is, and did not need to wait hundreds or thousands of years later to be told that the writings of the prophets and apostles, to whom God directly revealed Himself, His nature, His will, and the Gospel, are indeed Holy Scripture and uniquely authoritative. They knew it immediately, because _obviously._ Simply read their writings firsthand, completely, and in context. Modern-day Eastern Orthodox claims are absolute sand.
Thank you
When referring to Scripture they likely meant the Torah and for the gospel it was spread via mouth as most ancient tradition. How many people do you think read back then 😂 even when the Bible was put together almost every person was illiterate.
@@ZBielskiThey were quoting the gospels and Epistles and calling them scripture.
It sounds like you don’t know the claims yourself. The claim is that there was no concrete canon of scripture. This is a problem for anyone who believes in sola scriptura for *hopefully* obvious reasons
@@JacobsLadderToTruth How so? Are you saying that the transmission of the written documents (notice I didn't say scripture) is unreliable?
I have never seen such a man who knows so little about something, want to say so much about the thing... James always fascinates me how he even calls himself a Christian.
Anyways in other news, it was the church that wrote the scripture, it was the church that compiled the scriptures and its only fare that the church interprets those same scriptures. The more I read about the Orthodox Church the more i want to join in, from their attitudes to their preservation of church traditions as handed to them by the Apostles. God bless them.... 🙏🏽
Come home brother. Lord Jesus Christ Son of God have mercy on us sinners.
Come home to the one true Church.
It wasn’t the church that wrote the Bible, it was the apostles who wrote to the churches.
@@nickhanley5407 were they part of the church?
@@nickhanley5407 how do you write a church? And the apostles aren't outside agents of the church. They under the instruction of Christ were the first patriarchs of the church. So yes the Church wrote the Bible.
100% Yes we categorically deny the heresy of Sola Scriptura! I want every Protestant to hear what he is saying. Then ask why? Why does the Ancient Eastern Orthodox Church reject Sola Scriptura and yet believe that the scriptures are divinely inspired? Go read Orthodox writers and apologists. For that matter just go check out Jay Dyer’s RUclips channel.
By what standard do you define what is the "Ancient Eastern Orthodox church" and what is not?
Yes, I'm Lutheran...but White is not describing EO correctly. I agree with the problems inherent in Sola Scripture...because, at the end of the day, some MAN has to interpret it. Protestants only move the authority of the Church from the Church to themselves. That is all they are really doing.
I love this comment section.
Wow. Even the consistency over time part I pretty much agree with. People convert and leave from all sorts of churches, mostly probably too hastily. Orthodoxy and protestantism are different religions, so take it slow. More than one convert has been shocked to discover how different they are; best to do that before you make any commitments. As for the role of the bible in the Church, it has a voice. It isn't the only voice, but the scriptures are a central part of Orthodox tradition, and it's totally valid to call out Orthodox christians for ignoring the words of Jesus, for instance. At the same time, Orthodoxy proper (but not the neo-traditionalism so rampant online) has a very healthy relationship with biblical scholarship. Orthodoxy really does have the fullness of the faith.
That isn't what Orthodoxy teaches. Orthodoxy teaches that Scripture comes from the Church - namely, from Apostolic authority and Tradition. Then, Church Fathers safeguard that apostolic tradition. It was the apostles, after all, who wrote the Scriptures, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. One cannot abstract Scripture from the Apostles and Tradition which gave us the Scriptures. And much of how Scripture was interpreted came from both an oral tradition as well as a liturgical tradition. The Church -- not Scripture - is the "pillar and foundation of truth." (1 Tim. 3:15). That's what Orthodoxy believes and that's why Orthodoxy rejects Sola Scriptura.
1:38 May I ask something I noticed in this and other videos of James White... He claims that the [Eastern] Orthodox Church traditions are 8th century traditions... How then this line of argumentation can be reconciled with the fact that the Oriental Orthodox and Eastern Orthodox Churches split in the 5th century with their main point of dispute being that of the "two natures of Chirst" (the Oriental orthodox claim "one nature" here...) and apart from that they hold the same traditions, with icons, etc..? In other words, how can the two be so similar if they split in the 5th century and then the Eastern Orthodox Church formed its traditions in the 8th century? Did they split and had anathemas pronounced against each other but were still "copying" each other, and if so, what for?!
Good point. They also didnt have physical contact, a long distance away. And yet they both look the same except for that theology which sadly I think if I read correctly is a miscommunication. It is kinda a testimony like you say to the fact they could stay the same for hundreds of years and hold fast to what the traditions of God were by oral or written as St Paul puts it.
Dunning Kruger Effect on overdrive right here ☝️
Thankful to have converted to Orthodoxy.
James honors consistency over time, except when it comes to EOC....he is confused. I am not EOC, but this is divisive and harmful to the true believers of Jesus!
Consistency over time which also must be constantly reforming? Those are contradictory, James.
Argument from pragmatism: The problem with the Orthodox Church is that it can't be reformed since it is entrenched in 8th and 9th century tradition.
Argument from pragmatism: The problem with the Protestant Church is that it can't be united since it is entrenched in Sola Scriptura.
Maybe the Orthodox Church views the fathers/councils as its anchor to not having to be reformed by splitting all the time?
5:10 "It cant be reformed!" Sweet! Based and white pilled!
If we are to be "reformed" we'd loose this miraculous event ruclips.net/video/gIQWYUe_KDY/видео.html
So you disagree with Athanasius having fought for a return to the biblical, apostolic Gospel and faith during a time when the majority of the bishopric were Arians? You would have, no doubt, equally argued that he had gone about "inventing his own, new church", had you lived back then. He was exiled and reviled by the very church you would have defended as "the true and unchanging faith" (wrongly) during that time, according to your bizarre, worldly understanding of the church. Bishops can, and do, err (St. John Chrysostom even goes so far as to say that the road to hell is paved with their skulls). When they err, one can either follow them for the sake of "being in the _'One True Church™"_ (in a purely worldly, superficial, vapid institutional sense), or one could _actually_ be united to Christ and remain in His Body, His Church, by virtue of following the true faith, regardless of what some falsehood-preaching heresiarch servants of satan with a title of "bishop" claim. Scripture is unambiguous regarding Christ and His apostles commanding us to both attempt to correct and to flee from false teachers.
You must either believe that Athanasius was in the Church or that he was outside of it when he was "officially excommunicated". If you believe that he was indeed outside of the Church when he was excommunicated, then you have removed truth itself as being a prerequisite for following and being united to Christ-- which is to say, you worship men and believe in nothing that Christ or His apostles taught. However, if you believe he was within the Church, then you have the same paradigm of authority as a "Protestant".
Choose one.
A lot going on here. To explain the 8th and 9th century: islam happened, conquered a whole lot of land. The emperors thought that God was punishing them for idolatry and went into extreme iconoclasm and Nestorianism. The following century was a huge theological batter between the Orthodox “iconodules” and the iconoclasts. The great theologian in this time was Saint John of Damascus, who used living in the Muslim court and muslim education to write the first Orthodox refutation of Islam and through that refuting iconoclasm. To this day we celebrate the “Triumph of Orthodox” which is the anniversary of the defeat of the iconoclastic heresy. I’m not sure what was allegedly added in this time? Apologetics? A defence of Orthodox theology?
Such a poor representation of Orthodoxy.... while He said a number of things which need corrected, I’ll just stick with the most obvious. Orthodoxy is NOT just a bunch of 8th century teachings. And anyone who wants to know which of us is telling the truth, read ANY CHURCH FATHER before 800 AD and you will see they teach Orthodoxy. Read Basil, Athanasius, Gregory of Nazianzen, Justin martyr, Ambrose, Cyril of Alexandria, etc. even John of Damascus’ great defense of Orthodoxy (written in the mid 700’s AD) is simply SUMMARIZING the beliefs of all the great saints and men of God who came hundreds of years before him. If Orthodoxy is just a re-hashin of 8th century theology, then why do Orthodoxy gain their theology from the 8 eceumenical councils, ALL OF WHICH come before the 800’s? again. James white needs to do a little more research before taking on the Orthodox Church 😕. I think this video is just propaganda for Calvinists who don’t have time to look it up themselves. Also, interesting coming from someone whose theology mostly comes from the 16th century..
I'm a recovering Calvinist, and Orthodox catechumen. I'd have to agree with your assessment of James White. I used to sit for hours listening to him talk trash on the Dividing Line basking in reaffirmations of my inconsistent beliefs. He's like Jay Dyer for Calvinists, just with less knowledge of Church history.
Orthodoxy in sense of traditional Christian faith, not Eastern Orthodox. If Eastern Orthodox claims it was always the same church, why the differences in doctrines of theirs and earliest ante-Nicene fathers. Veneration of Icons is one example.
Daniel Beardsley hahah. “Recovering Calvinist” is the actual term me and my friends used in our podcast bio. Yeah, I definitely enjoy Jay’s theological/intellectual prowess... but he can be kinda a tool sometimes hahah. Doesn’t always give off the illumined, kind-hearted orthodox vibe. But I guess the fathers weren’t always gentle LOL
Protestant Warrior we have proof of icons in church’s definitely in the ante-nicene era. While yes, a few church writers disagreed with iconography such as Origin or Eusebius, the church as a whole practiced and accepted their use. Read St. John of Damascus’ “on the divine images”. It’s a brilliant, short work which argues for the use of images in worship, using the incarnationality of the Christian Faith as the foundation for his argumentation. His works were deemed “orthodox” by the the 7th council. Remember, origin had his sainthood stripped from him due to his Neoplatonic and gnostic leanings (which explains why he disagreed with iconography) and Eusebius LOVED Origin. The Muslim ideology (which rejects the incarnatio) sweeping the Christian world is a lot of fuel the iconoclasts. All that to say is, the Orthodox Church is the MOST aligned with the ante-nicene fathers of any current Christian tradition... while you are right to point out that some clarification of doctrine had taken place over the first several centuries (trinity, nature’s of Christ, icons, etc)
Alexander Derus it’s from James Shute and you’re surprised?
If you Orthodox believers think that everything you do in your liturgy is 2000 years old… think again. Not one of the writers of the Bible prayed to saints and it’s not mentioned once in the whole Bible unless as channeling or sorcery. Why should we think that there was some oral tradition that didn’t get written down for 300 year? We know that heresy was popping up within the lives of the disciples, why should we trust oral tradition over their writings?
Because they had ecumenical councils when major heresies raised, they had 7 councils in total. If saint intercession was a problem it would have been brought up in a council.
Thank god im Orthodox! Thank you James:)
Wait ... so the Divine Liturgy of John Chrysostom (347-407AD) which I celebrated in Church this morning was from the 8th century? Hmm.
Also, it's not just the liturgy we look to, but he writings of the early Church fathers (St Ignatius for example). The Bible is NOT self interpreting! If it were, why would you have so many protestant denominations? Hank was pointing out that for hundreds of years there was no Bible. How do you explain that, James? Was the Church just completely lost in the dark during that time?
Another video of James White not understanding Orthodoxy. If he was honest and took a genuine look at Orthodoxy, he would see two things: 1. Orthodoxy has a high view of the Scriptures, 2. Orthodoxy uses the Scriptures to hold fast to those traditions that were passed down from the apostles. The rejection of Sola Scripture is not a rejection of the authority of scripture. It is a rejection of the idea that a handful of people can bend the meaning of Scripture into something outside of what the apostles were taught by Christ and gave to us in the Church. The Church is the binding of the Scriptures. It is the Church’s traditions which protect and preserve the Scriptures.
So why does the unorthodox church contradict Scripture?
@@genericname7020 How does the Orthodox Church contradict Scripture?
@@jameslambert6665 Matthew 1:25
I pray that this man and those deceived by him one day become as children, and come to approach Christ in His Bride as I did years ago
Fake and LGBT
Fascinating, he did not cite one scripture to refute Orthodoxy...
I'm a reformed baptist but James White here shoots his own argument in the foot by explicitly not understanding what orthodox people, and in some sense, roman catholics mean by tradition. How these historic churches understand ecclesiology is that what is called "sacred tradition" is inspired by God, and Scripture itself is part of that sacred tradition. The argument is that there were Christians who were martyred and killed before ever reading Ephesians or 1 Peter, and these Christians are still in heaven, long before Scripture was formally canonized and called "The Bible" Sadly a vast majority of Protestants don't seem to get this and like James White see it as Tradition vs. Scripture, and in the end, misrepresent what these people believe, and they in turn misrepresent you by calling you a Biblicist cause it seems you don't understand/know the history of how the Bible came to be.
Most Christians who have lived have been dirt poor and not been able to even read. The rise in the current uptick in people converting to these churches has to do with American evangelicalism caring more about getting Trump elected, and alienating young people by NOT preaching the Gospel, so these young people who are spiritually hungry flock to orthodoxy or catholicism cause these guys in a very real sense are completely divorced from being blown about with trends and caring more about politics than Gospel preaching.
James White actually helped my conversion to the true apostolic faith that is only found in the Orthodox Church. God bless you James! May God grant you the courage and the time to actually study the faith you throw jabs at but admittedly do not understand, and also to formally debate Jay Dyer.
Studying Eastern Orthodoxy, Roman Catholicism, and especially reading the early church fathers just cemented me even further in staying classically Protestant. All glory to God! There’s nothing like knowing Christ, resting in Him, and being in union with Him.
This guy does a fabulous job helping protestants become Catholic or Orthodox. Thanks be to God!
"Catholic or Orthodox"
Always reforming equals relativism and by definition division. You marry the Bible to the tradition of the reformation. Literally just saying "believe my newer tradition, not those people stuck in older traditions"
Only if you ignore what is actually meant by that slogan and insert relativism. The slogan is a call to always examine ourselves in the light of scripture, not in the light of whatever seems right in our own eyes. Scripture is a very old tradition; one might say the original tradition.
@@oracleoftroy Christians existed before New Testament scripture. Also, in light of scripture implies knowing the proper canon and proper interpretation. When applied in real life the whole thing just devolved into personal interpretation, or simply applying the theology of Luther or Calvin as if that is the true interpretation
@@oracleoftroy and even then, it is not simply a call to re-examine ourselves. James knows what he means. He means always reforming aka always bringing it back to the 1500s/1600s
@@themidnightpoetryclub7663 _"Christians existed before New Testament scripture."_
Oh, I agree. I think it is right to call e.g. Abraham and Moses Christians, even if it sounds anachronistic. And avoiding the anachronism, there were Christians in the very short period between Pentecost and before the first epistle was written. That doesn't exactly contradict Calvinism though, so I'm not sure what significance I'm supposed to see in that.
_"Also, in light of scripture implies knowing the proper canon and proper interpretation."_
God knows the proper canon and proper interpretation. God preserves his word.
Don't make everything revolve around you and you will have less problem understanding the Reformed view of sola scriptura.
_"When applied in real life the whole thing just devolved into personal interpretation, or simply applying the theology of Luther or Calvin as if that is the true interpretation"_
I disagree that it *just* devolves into personal interpretation, though that is involved. After all, I'm sure none of your responses have the explicit approval of a body of priests to ensure you aren't straying from your church's norms. You are offering your own personal interpretation here. That's great. Iron sharpens iron.
_"and even then, it is not simply a call to re-examine ourselves. James knows what he means. He means always reforming aka always bringing it back to the 1500s/1600s"_
If that were James' opinion, he wouldn't be a Baptist. No, that is just your personal interpretation, which is invalid by your standard and you should submit to the church's teaching about "Always Reforming."
Thanks for converting People to Orthodoxy, James White.
How arrogant is this guy?
Every time I see a podcast trying to refute Eastern Orthodoxy it only strengthens my faith!
Same. You can’t refute the truth.
“Unless you do it for 25-30 years, I’m not impressed…honoring consistency over time”…the irony in this statement is thicccccc. Then EO can’t be reformed and is encrusted in 8-9th century tradition. I mean, this guy can’t even stay consistent for a 7 min video. I’ll pray on this during my entertainment concert mass this Sunday at the local stadium 😂
The 25-30 year comment was about individual teachers
Thanks to the documentary “the failure of Eastern Orthodoxy” I left the Orthodox Church.
Here's my question, WHY is it a PROBLEM that the Church of Jesus Christ, the one he said that the gates of Hades would NOT overcome, WHY should THAT church NEED to be reformed? Did the spirit mess up at some point, maybe Jesus wasn't paying attention for a while and allowed his church to stray? I'm confused as to why reformation SHOULD be something possible when we are talking about THE holy spirit guided church of Jesus Christ. In what universe does something guided by the holy spirit and guarded by the promises of Christ need correction or reformation?
Because they started doing stuff like offering indulgences, didn’t offer the Eucharist to the people, overstretched their bishopric, started praying to saints, kept “ikons” and revered them, wrong views on baptism, wrong views on justification, wrong views on how were saved, and that’s just to name a few of the reasons it was necessary to reform.
@@nickhanley5407 rubbish the Orthodox Church never was involved with indulgence and icons you also have cross around your neck or at your local baptist church do you not?
@@nickhanley5407 also if they were all so wrong that means they all in hell dude your comment is stupid .
Hello Mary DeTray I suggest you to read the first chapters of the Book of Revelation to understand why a church should need the ability to reform.
@@yungspaghetti1685thank you for showing the importance of scripture
Hank Hanegraaff came to his robust knowledge of the Bible and Christian history for years before he decided to convert to Eastern Orthodoxy. He didn't need the established church to explain the Bible to him for all that time. Why does he suddenly think we need a central ecclesiastical polity to explain it to everyone else? Imagine thinking you need a priest to read the Bible to you.
Catholic here: Much love to my OrthoBros!
Love you too apostolic brother 🙏🏼☦️
So glad I did a 180 and ran away from orthodoxy and found the Holy Spirit in my evangelical non denominational church
I believe that the Orthodox Church wrote, edited, and compiled Holy Scripture. I believe James White is a silly person.
If Hank just wanted something more---"smells and bells"--he could have just as easily converted to the Charismania/Word of Faith movement. But he had such a vendetta against that, so he found Eastern Orthodoxy a more romantic way to get it
LOL, there's no point in honouring consistency if you're consistently wrong 😂 James White sounds smart by I dare everyone to test him
No Church tradition, no sola scriptura. Sola scriptura is the equivalent of modernity, which seeks to lift itself up by its own collar. As Lewis has said, won’t get one very far, but will succeed in choking one’s self.
I’ve been trying to chat with people on that channel and it’s like a sci-fi novel. Old Francis running from Mike Bickle to the Pope of Rome screaming let’s all unify.
Please do a video of all the changes in the Catholic Church!! If I had a dollar for every time a Catholic person told me that the Catholic church was 2000 years of unchanging truth, I’d be rich. I only know of a few, but I’ve been meaning to do this study. I’m sure you have many just stuff the top of your head that you could list. Please do and thank you!
Sandina 2cents this will shed a ton of light on the Roman Catholic system and it’s Antichrist popes and papacy.
PLEASE if you can sense the deadness of the institutional churches but can't put your finger on it. I'm pleading with you to understand something very important here. The mainstream Christian system is not of God.
Rev 17:5 - "Mystery, Babylon The Great, The Mother Of Harlots, And Abominations Of The Earth."
Mystery Babylon The Great is the Vatican - “And the woman which thou sawest, is that great Citie which reigneth ouer the kings of the earth.” - Rev 17:18
And she has harlot daughters which represent the protestant churches.
And “the Abominations Of The Earth” are corrupt scriptures.
And the final bible that will unite all faiths is called Wormwood/the Abomination of desolation. cvillebiblebaptist.com/AdultEducation/Vatican%20and%20United%20Nations%20Bible.pdf
And Jesus Christ is calling His people out.
Rev 18:4
“And I heard another voice from heauen, saying, Come out of her, my people, that yee be not partakers of her sinnes, and that yee receiue not of her plagues:”
The most important thing to understand is that GOD CAN BE TRUSTED to preserve His word for every generation forever as He promises us in Psalms 12:6-7 and you do not need men to teach you.
1 John 2:27
“But the anointing which ye haue receiued of him, abideth in you: and yee need not that any man teach you: But, as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is trueth, and is no lye: and euen as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him.”
It’s vital to know, especially right now, that God has kept His word in tact.
There is still an every word testimony with us!
The following clip by Reg Block is what the Lord used to open my eyes to the truth of Gods promises in Mark 13:31, Psalm 12:6-7, Psalms 138:2, and Matt 4:4 and so on.
It’s not more lifeless information. It is powerful and life changing and I’m grateful for it!
ruclips.net/video/tAMOquyQu-8/видео.html
The next video is a lesson by John Doerr on the pure word of God in the English language, which is found in the av1611 kjv. This is a much different testimony than the King James bible you are able to easily find in the churches and the so called "Christian bookstores". Please pray and genuinely take this before the Lord. He will show you. (Prepare to be attacked once you start down this path) The devil and his ministers don’t want this going out.
ruclips.net/video/C9lIWdQ0rc0/видео.html
I prayed a long time to know what the truth was, because over the years I grew increasingly confused, frustrated, misguided and so on.. But like most of us, I kept returning to church Sunday after next hoping something would change. If I sang more, prayed harder, got more involved, etc, ...maybe something would give. But nothing ever did. I must have walked a thousand isles. It had gotten to a point where a friend at the time said, “just try and sing". He meant well, but it was always disingenuous so I never did. Long story short - my whole Christian life was that way until recently. (powerless) God has since opened my eyes and I trust Him alone.
I really hope this reaches somebody. If this is you... honestly, please look into what I’m saying. God is rich in mercy and His patience is unmatched. He's been drawing me for a long time. Maybe He’s drawing you too and this is the message you needed.
This link is a series of interviews between Reg Block and John Doerr that go in depth regarding Johns trip to England for the purposes of co-producing three films: A lamp in the dark, Tares among the wheat and A bridge to babylon.
The three films (free to watch), cover the history of the bible. More specifically the preservation of Gods word and the measures that have been taken to cast doubt on, and ultimately destroy it.
(it's a treasure of information for the Saints) - find the first interview to start on.
ruclips.net/channel/UCIfGUbjTsGu1dfoNqYUZzmgvideos
here is one very final clip on the "servants of Lucifer"
ruclips.net/video/DuVTlYYos0c/видео.html
"(if it were possible,) they shall deceiue the very elect.”
It’s imperative to understand that the av1611 is much different than the 1769 KJV that most believe is the true 1611 but is not. The KJV only movement doesn’t use the authorized version of 1611 either.
This is the bible that Rome has been trying to destroy and cast doubt on since its inception. Everything, from the gun powder plot to false rumours of King James being gay. It contains all the prophecies in tact. Things like, what is the mark of the beast, what is wormwood, who and what is Antichrist, who are Leviathan and Behemoth representations of, and so on.
If the scriptures are broken, the prophets are killed and the church can’t hear what the Spirit is saying.
freely ye haue receiued, freely giue.”
Matt 10:8
Mike Scarborough Wow that is a lot to go through but I’ll try. First I completely agree that the Roman Catholic Church is a whore Babylon and the daughter harlots are the protestant churches that have a peace agreement with the Roman Catholic Church. So far that’s a Lutheran Methodist and presbyterian but I’m sure more will follow suit, sadly. Wormwood has already happened, there was a nuclear power plant that exploded in the Ukraine call Chernobyl. This killed a whole bunch of people through the water even after the nuclear explosion instantly killed people. The English word for Chernobyl is wormwood. The abomination of desolation is in the middle of the seven year peace treaty in Israel. The antichrist Will stand on the temple mount and declare himself God or the Messiah. So that hasn’t happened yet. I’m not interpreting, this is exactly what it says is going to happen. I’ll have to watch the link videos to understand what your point is about the different king James version Bible’s.
He is talking about eastern orthodoxy not roman catholicsm look into it deeper
@@randomperson-gp8ph Except for papal authority, I don’t see a big difference between the Catholic Church in the Eastern Orthodox. Are there any other differences?
@@sandina2cents779 obviously you dont know much since you are commenting about roman catholicsm in eastern orthodox video.
I was raised Pentecostal. I witnessed how materialistic, worldly and greedy Pentecostals typically are. In my 20's I started going to Baptist churches and admired their friendliness and hospitality but also saw certain sins like gluttony and laziness were common. I think theology is very important in guiding the practices of Christians. Sound doctrine is critical. Most preachers in all of the denominations refuse to teach sound doctrine due to cowardice and greed. ( Not wanting to offend because they dont want to lose people-their tithes and offerings- as well as their tax exemption to the state so they become passive and obedient towards tyrants. Christianity is dying and almost dead in the West because modern day Christianity is useless. The Church must embrace Reconstruction and start reading authors such as Dabney, Bahnsen and Rushdoony if they want to become victorious. Most chuches today especially the Baptists are complete defeatists and say there is no hope, the Anti-christ is coming and will rule and reign. We should just passively wait to be rescued in the Rapture. We should just let the world go and the culture go straight to hell.
Who are dahbney, bahnsen and rushdoony?
Lots of poor Pentecostal and Baptist churches all over the world that shun materialism and greed.
Hair of the dog isn't going to save you. That casualness is a trait of protestantism and what western Christianity more broadly has become, you can't fix it with protestantism.
You have to go to more otherworldly and sanctified sources, like the early church fathers. Christians of all stripes should read and emulate them.
Is the Orthodox Church not expecting the Antichrist to come then?
Thank you for TRUTH Mr. White! So glad I left the RC Church and refuse to entertain Eastern Orthodox Church!
To critique James’s perspective on sola scriptura. So what about the billions of people who have lived in times and places where majority of the populace were illiterate. Or what about times before the printing press.
Did all those people go to hell because weren’t able to read the Bible? There’s thousands of different Protestant denominations. If just reading the Bible was sufficient for getting perfect Biblical exegesis and there is no tradition beyond it then why are there so many different denominations that each depend on different interpretations of different founders to gain their understanding?
Did those who didn't have the Orthodox Church go to hell?
78LedHead depends what you mean by “having the Orthodox Church”. Anyone who rejects Orthodox doctrine was subject to damnation. In the Bible Saint Paul says that anyone who is a maker of schism, believes strange and pagan doctrines contrary to the faith were outside of the grace of God and the church and were subject to damnation.
@@SirMemesAlot71 You are quoting Paul now? What happened to your earlier argument, where you asked about people who were illiterate?
*People are leaving Calvinism in droves...and people are flocking to Orthodox Christianity*
*Read the Apostle's pupils (early Church Fathers). Their doctrine and practice aligns with Eastern Orthodoxy, not 16th century Protestant figureheads.*
I was Eastern Orthodox for many years and they never taught me anything except coloring in Sunday School. I started learning about theology and the early Church and the issues of Catholics and Protestants and Orthodox. I went to Catholic churches and Protestant churches to learn more. Finally after 15 years I have become a Reformed Calvinist who believes in Sola Scriptura and Sola Fide. Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy have failed to teach and maintain the true core gospel. You can still find it there and I would have considered myself a believer in the Orthodox Church, but I was not learning anything AT ALL.
Same here, except I was in charismatic church.
Now I am reading theological books from Church Fathers to Bavinck
@Cool Guy --- What is "the true core gospel"?
@@JohnQPublic11 The Orthodox Church rejects Romans 4 Justification as a legalistic declaration of righteousness and quote James 2 to say that our works contribute to our justification. The reformed view says that our works are an outcome of our justification. This issue leads to a lot of the congregation thinking that if they commit a sin they are going to hell. And that they need to take communion to become forgiven again. There is no sense of justification in a passed tense as Paul States in Romans 5 having been justified.
@@jakesanders136 Yeah a lot of iconoclast tradition in the reformed view which I disagree with. I have Icons and Christian art at home. Some Presbyterians and Baptists think it's 2CV but I don't. The difference is that I don't venerate them loool. Just remember those who came before us, remember the virgin Mary, remember the saints and remember Christ. I think icons are beautiful.
"Honoring consistency over time"
That pretty much sums up orthodoxy
The continuing presence of the Holy Spirit in the church does sound appealing doesn’t it. I’m sorry you feel the need to constantly overhaul your church. The idea is the church changes you not the other way around. “which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.”
The lure of Eastern Orthodoxy is the lure of seeking the truth. Because it is the truth.
I think the pure is is that culturally we've been taught to hate western Christianity and it's culture, so people go east to get away from our culture. But they only end up "protestantizing" orthodoxy.. wealthy Americans, when they want religion, just go out and buy one. We also love the costumes.
The Church has councils for a reason, so the Orthodox Christian Church can be reformed, you just don’t have the authority to do so, Dr. White.
"Oral tradition apart from scripture" sounds a lot like the Pharisees (Orthodox) Jews.
Mark 7: 8-13 (Jesus speaking)
2 Thessalonians 2:15
Thank God Orthodoxy will never change!
Biblically speaking “scripture alone” is not supported like the guidance and long-standing of the church passages, also historically speaking before the printing press as well. Orthodox takes the win on this one as I see it.
You cant even define "church history" without using a circular argument. My definition of church history is based on the only infallible apostolic rule of faith, which are the scriptures.
Sola Scriptura is Biblical because it is God’s Word.
Ironic that he states the only thing that impresses him is consistency over time when that is exactly what Orthodoxy is.
Well some people are stuck in 16th century categories and that’s the only reformation that is valid in those quarters. I mean look up their responses to NT Wright and others, this is amusingly ironic!
I am sorry to say that protestantism is a great calamity to Christianity. Faith. Especially Calvinism.
"Encrusted and stuck in the 8th and 9th centuries" by golly, that almost sounds like a thousand years! When was the great schism again?
As a non Christian outsider interested in the debate between Orthodoxy and Protestantism, it seems odd to advocate for “Sola Scriptura” as the means to understand how the Christian Church aught to be run or function when New Testament scripture wasn’t written down for decades after Christ’s death and weren’t compiled as we have them today for hundreds of years after that. Even when the Canon was settled it wasn’t as if the laity had access to it (books and writing in general were extremely rare and expensive). It seems obvious the liturgy of the Orthodox Church is closest to the original church because it expounds on scripture and it’s meaning in an oral way that would have been accessible to all, regardless of their ability to read or obtain scriptures for themselves.