I was an active and devout Anglican/Episcopalian for decades. I converted to the Orthodox Church 8 years ago. My only regret is that I did not convert many years ago.
I was atheist when I believed in God i prayed for a long time to reveal to me His true Church. God revealed it to me in a dream, the name of the Church and the name of the priest. Imagine becoming Orthodox Christian in Japan, a not so christian country. That’s God’s ninja move!!
I'm not Christian but Sanatana Dharma and my Grandfather recently died I went to his funeral and was in the church and was stunned by the sear beauty of the iconography and place definitely a good place.
Wait you live in Japan ? Mate I gotta respect that , you live there with all those gurus and magic and sexual stuff that Japanese people do.....and yet you try to be an orthodox, enough said you are something I couldn’t reach even in my dreams
As an orthodox, u were really respectful and ur focus wasnt on things like opinion and emotions as some prots I have met on the internet but theological. Although I disagree on the points u made, I came to realize that Lutherans are more truth holding than the other protestant denominations bc of their view on babtism and Eucharist. God bless🤗
I grew up Protestant, and fell away from the faith as a teen. After an over a decade of being a drug addict I found Jesus Christ of Nazareth at age 30. I spent serious time alone rebuilding my life with just my Bible. After serious prayer to find the right church; I found myself at the Greek Orthodox Church, and I am so glad I found it! I find its worship and liturgy to be beautiful in ways that I have never experienced. To be honest many Protestant churches now just give a motivational speech in between rock concerts, and as a professional musician it did not work for me. I believe many will find Christ through different ways, but as I grew in Christ I found Orthodoxy to be for me.
Why is this comment section so hostile? He’s just stating the reasons why he disagrees with EO . If anyone reading this can’t be charitable about something as well-intentioned as this video, they have a lot bigger problems to deal with in their walk with God than attempting to root out someone else’s supposed heresy. Seriously.
Yeah, Ive found it in Jesus Christ, taught in a sound doctrine church like mine:an evangelical reformed fellowship. From now on, I'm so glad to be an orthodox Christian indeed! 🙏
J.Inhan.....right on fellow orthodox Christian....faith based on THE WORD OF GOD and THE WORK ACCOMPLISHED BY CHRIST. Evangelical, reformed New testament Christianity. To God be ALL the glory!!
Great video Dr. Cooper. I don't know why this is, but EVERY single time there is any video on RUclips like this, any video countering Eastern Orthodox theology, the comments are filled with almost *exclusively* Orthodox believers defending their church, with TONS of likes. I don't understand why, moreso than any other subgroup of Christendom - it's like they seek these videos out and dislike them/make their voice heard. Very strange, it happens on every single video I've ever seen on the subject, from any channel. Don't know if you noticed that too. Anyway, I appreciate this video. There is a growing trend in Reformed/Lutheran/Anglican circles to head to Constantinople, for a variety of reasons. I think it's super important to have men like yourself lay out with clarity that it's not the right path, from the lens of Scripture or even looking at the Fathers. While there is much to be admired in Orthodoxy, I think the mystical nature of the theology overpowers many into converting into a church that isn't the Apostolic, solid institution they might think.
*Orthodox Compline prayer to Mary:* _On the terrible day of judgment, deliver me from eternal punishment and make me an heir of your Son's glory_ *The orthodox Church sold actual indulgences* for the forgiveness of sins, which could be gifted to other people. The Ecumenical Patriarch fully acknowledges this fact and has honored Christos Yannaras, the scholar who documented this abuse. Patriarch Nikon I insisted that his liturgical innovations were “necessary for salvation,” and excommunicated and condemned the Old Orthodox churches for rejecting his public heresy. All other bishops accepted his heresy. The Russian Orthodox bishops today were all ordained by his invalidated succession.
With many centuries of occupation by islamic rulers, the Orthodox church has needed to be extremely militant and insular to survive. That attitude is almost in its DNA today and seen in the aggressive and overpowering responses you see on the internet. There is also the assumption among existing Orthodox and converts to Orthodoxy that old = pure/correct. As anyone can see from the history of Popes and Patriarchs, that is very flawed thinking.
@@johnpowers3013 I totally agree. It's providential that this reply came today, as just last night I was researching about some of the most infamous Popes and Patriarchs. Speaking of which, what are some of the most infamous patriarchs you can think of? Bad popes are easy to find, but because of the national context of many EO countries, the historical data is more sparse.
I'm Eastern Orthodox and I personally don't see a problem with drawing from both modes from the two traditions of Theosis that you talk about. Most of the Orthodox I know draw from both and Dr. Bogdan Bucur does an awesome job in talking about Theosis from Scripture as well as from the Fathers (from both modes). I've been Orthodox for 13 years now and I have no regrets.
@@ronaldfelix1000 as a former Southern Baptist I agree with you. I have been Orthodox now for 30 years and believe that God deliberately led me this way. Not to say that God will lead everyone there but God seems to speak to me most clearly through Orthodox belief in worship. I initially went from Southern Baptist to Roman Catholicism and then to orthodoxy. Wow one can get carried away if not careful I do believe that there are aspects of Greek philosophy or if you want to call it Hellenism that in a way God did speak in earlier times. Certainly one should not discount the influence of Hellenism since the events of the New testament occurred in a very Hellenistic context as well as Jewish.
Most orthodox Christians are openly racist and ethnonationalist that goes against the teachings of the new testament. The original church was actually established by jews with gentile converts. In the New Testament, Paul demands active unity in the church, a unity that explicitly joins together differing ethnic groups because of their common identity in Christ. Paul proclaims that, in Christ, believers form a brand-new humanity. The old barrier of hostility and division between ethnic groups has been demolished by the cross; and now, all peoples are to be one in Christ (Rom. 4; Gal. 3-4; Col. 3; Eph. 2). Christians of other ethnicities aren’t just equal to us; they are joined to us. Paul insists that the primary identity of Christians is to be based on their union with Christ-not on traditional sociological, geographical, and ethnic connections. Again, the implications are profound. Christians of other races aren’t just equal to us; they are joined to us. As Christians, we’re all part of the same body, united by the presence of the same Holy Spirit who indwells us all. We’re not just friends or fellow worshipers in the same religion, but brothers and sisters in the same family. Favortism is a sin and likned to the lawbreakers of old. Orthodox and other ethno based churches are a taint
@@SimpleMinded221, have you personally met most Orthodox Christians? If not then you can't speak on what most Orthodox Christians are. I've been Orthodox for 15 years and in my personal experience I can say for every one bad or racist experience I had there were 500 good or nonracist experiences. As far as your claim of ethno nationalism I think you're exaggerating the actual reality on the ground. I'm Antiochian and so my Parish was started by immigrants from Syria, but at my parish you will find people from Iraq, Jordan, Palestine, Syria, Lebanon, Greece, Serbia, Egypt, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Ukraine, Russia, Romania, some countries from Asia, and people like me (from America). Also the unity seen in both New Testament Scripture and in the early church Fathers is unity in doctrine, unity in fellowship or intercommunion. We believe that our Faith or Religion trumps ethnicity, and so any Orthodox Christian is allowed to have Holy Communion at any Orthodox Church that is in Communion. And we also believe that any Orthodox Christian can marry another Orthodox Christian, and so you're exaggerating the reality on the ground plus by talking this way you reveal your ignorance of ancient canons in 4th and 5th century canons in Canon law (in regards to Ecclesiology).
2:47 Saint John of Damascus from the 8th century spoke of how God uses analogy to communicate something about himself long before Thomas Aquinas. He uses this fact in his argument on the use of images in the church.
Whoa, St John of Damascus who wrote 5 centuries earlier than Aquinas uses concepts later adopted by Thomas? Who had also read a lot lot of the Greek fathers? mind blowing, dude...
The sweetness of graces that flow from the Monasteries, the monks/nuns, visiting holy sites, reading the lives of the saints, the authentic athoritative connection to historical biblical accounts tradition and even culture, etc. Just give yourself more time and pray. I am a former 7th day adventist, former pentecostal, former non denominational, former roman catholic, now Antiochian Orthodox.
@@cheeseymanish read: "The gurus, the young man, and Elder Paisios." "Wisdom of the holy fathers" "Rock and Sand" any writings from Fr. Seraphim Rose, Elder Ephraim, Elder Joseph the hesychast, Elder Paisios, Elder Porphyrios, St. Anthony the Great, etc will totally change your life. Many if not all of these holy men are npw canonized or to be canonized Saints in the church.
@@AbuSefein89 How would you answer to the typical protestant objection that the church of the bible was different from what came after(i.e., relics, liturgy, etc) ?
@@jpmisterioman any unbiased research into early christianity inevitably leads to rome then further east until you hit Jerusalem. Christianity would not exist without Orthodoxy. The bible was written by them, everything we know about Christ comes from them. Many of the churches mentioned in scriptures still stand to this day and can be visited. One in particular is the church of St. Peter in Antioch, St. Ignatius of Antioch was St. Peter's successor. They were of the early church bishops. Read what was written by St. Ignatius of Antioch. none of the early church fathers were protestant, protestantism didnt exist lol
The early church was corrupted with paganism, hero worship, and power struggles. I have little faith in any of the writings outside those of the original Apostles.
Dr. Cooper, thank you for your sincerity and charity in all your videos. It truly gives me hope that we can all come to the Table and be one with Christ.
Former protestant here (I was an evangelical before becoming lutheran, and the lutheran church I joined is my tribal church), I thanked God for He showed me the way by making me hard to breath when entering an Orthodox church around my uni, it's just my personal experience, but happened was I was searching for God for a long time. Learning about Anglican, the Latin, Islam, Buddhism, and even once an atheist. But I heard about a weird church, a church from eastern europe and the middle east, claiming to be the direct continuation of the church, saying that the 4 Patriarchates come from them, and that the Latins are a tyrant and the prots are their weird offspring, yes I knew Orthodoxy from a debate on the internet. And I look it up, funnily enough they had around a thousand converts in my country, a muslim country, and another funny thing is that, that is near. So yeah I go there, and once I entered the Church, the beauty just caught me off guard, and I felt that breathing is hard, and tears are coming out of eyes. I sat down and started to pray, and the tears never stopped until I get out of the church. At that moment I thanked God and said to myself "So this is the way", I go home and cried for hours, to note, I'm a man, and I believe that a man shouldn't cry, but I cried. That day I also look up how to become a cathecumen and talk to the priest the next week. I hope anyone would read this, and I may not prove anything and my conversion is purely because of emotions, but I believe that it was God's work.
I don't know many thinks about comparative theology but based on my little experience on it, I would say that the Orthodox Church is not just intellectual or rationally centralized, it erges a very deep profound communion with divinity, a personal relationship with God. It's not just words and obeying to rules, it's about transforming the self through your everyday action, showing compassion and understanding and patience and humility!
The forensic, juridical language of scripture represents, by way of metaphor, the images and symbols of salvation, not its ontological contents. This is a seminal error of soteriology inherited by the Protestants from the Roman Catholics, which begins to take root first with the rise of Frankish influence in the West , culminating in the late scholastic period with Anselm's theory of atonement.
@@jpmisterioman It isn't a "conspiracy". The Franks had a profound influence on the papacy and its development, independent of whether one buys into the more specific claims of Romanides or not. Observe the role of the Franks in the adoption of the Filioque by Rome, which Pope Leo III resisted (under pressure) to the point of having silver plates inscribed with the original Nicene-Constantinoplean Creed sans Filioque placed prominently in St. Peter's Basilica. This is covered in Anthony Siecienski's " Filioque: History of a Doctrinal Controversy" published by Oxford University Press. The Franks also demonstrably influenced Western iconoclasm and rationalism, for which their theologians laid the groundwork in documents like the "Librini Carolini" which rejected Nicaea II and its affirmation of the veneration of icons while elevating the word (verbum) as the highest form of the sacred, a development which was obviously a precursor to the later Scholastic rationalism, with its reduction of the faith into an elaborate system of conceptual-propositional statements and deductions; from whence was spawned the entire Protestant religious outlook and everything which eventually emerged out of it, including Enlightenment and Western Liberalism and individualism. So it's simply not correct to simply dismiss these connections as entailing the acceptance of some outlandish or otherwise dubious "conspiracy".
@@jpmisterioman That Pope Leo III personally accepted the Filioque as a theological point is trivial to the argument, the relevant point being that he took pains to resist its inclusion in the Creed, a fact which is evident in the inscription he added to the silver plates bearing the original Creed without the Filioque which he placed in St. Peter's:. ": "Haec Leo posui amore et cautela orthodoxae fidei" ("I, Leo, put these here for love and protection of orthodox faith"). This action was in response to pressure from the Franks to add the Filioque to the Creed. The "article" you sent conveniently never mentions any of this. As for St. Gregory Palamas, you would simply be wrong as a matter of fact, footnotes or no footnotes, since the the "Palamite" theology is simply the elaboration of a theology which had already been taught by St Athanasuis, St. Basil, the Cappadocians, St. Maximos, St. John the Damascene and others, in addition to being enshrined at the Sixth Ecumenical Council. If it is merely ' Islamic Mysticism' as you say then that would put you in a bit of a pickle would it not? Since the RCC includes the Uniates in their communion, who both venerate Palamas as a saint and affirm the teaching of the Divine Energies as taught by the same, with the explicit approval of your Popes. So merely attacking Romanides (who is simply one writer not the source of Orthodox teaching) isn't sufficient to substantiate your argument. And if you knew anything about the subject you'd know that the teaching of St. Gregory has been codified by medieval Orthodox councils which are binding on all the Orthodox. So anyone saying St. Gregory Palamas is a heretic is in fact a heretic themselves, not only according to the Orthodox but your own Catholic "Uniates".
@@jpmisterioman Those plates bear witness to a consensus of faith and polity within the pre-schism universal Church from which Rome and the entire West deliberately deviated under the theological influence of Frankish theologians in response to the pressures of Frankish political machinations. This is not very difficult. Either the Church taught and accepted as a an authoritative deliverance of universally accepted Ecumenical Councils that Holy Spirit proceed hypostatically from the Father, or from the Father and Son together, or it did not. The action of Leo III at a time when the Church was still united, East and West, demonstrates that even the that bishop in whom Roman Catholicism later invested a charism of infallibility and absolute teaching authority upheld what the Orthodox today assert was the correct formulation of the Creed reflecting a recognition of not only what was held to be the normative theology of the whole Church but of the binding nature of Ecumenical Councils as highest authority over its dogmatic teaching. So the fact that some in the West had previously come to accept the filioque is merely a red herring which sidesteps the main argument regarding the papal claims about dogmatic authority and the nature of the polity of the Church and its universal teaching as expressed collegially at the Councils. The rest of what you stated does not fare any better. If a dogma is true and held to be infallibly such, as is the Filioque by Rome (c.f. 4th Lateran Council, Council of Florence, etc), then it is absurd and a contradiction to say that a church which recognizes and is in communion with a "Holy See" which teaches the Filioque as a true dogma of the faith; that is held dogmatically to constitute the sole infallible teaching magisterium of the Church demanding docility and submission, is free to omit the Filioque and revert to the version of the Creed sung by the Orthodox who declare the Filioque to be a grave heresy. God is not the author of confusion. One Church with two differing views on the Holy Spirit and on Essence-Energies and Anthropology (Western body-soul/intellect vs Eastern Tripartite Body, Soul, Nous) entails the affirmation of a kind of spiritual schizophrenia. Far from demonstrating some elevated notion of spiritual unity that you suggest, it rather demonstrates quite forcefully that the RC church is a human institution whose primary concern is to enlarge its power and worldly influence, rather than to serve as a living expression and bulwark of that faith "delivered once and for all to the saints". If you care about footnotes so much that you would assert that we should dismiss an author purely on such grounds, then to be consistent you must also summarily dismiss many other authors who didn't write in the style of professional academics adopted since the rise of Humanism and Enlightenment in the West. This would include all the ancient authors, the Holy Fathers East and West, and the Holy Scriptures. I hope by now you can see that such arguments serve as little more than petty smokescreens by those seeking to avoid having to honestly confront the substance of an opposing argument. It's moot however since, as I have already stated, one need not accept the expansive claims of Romanides thesis to acknowledge the significant role of the rise of the Franks in determining the trajectory of the papacy both political and ecclesiastical, and of Western theology in the Medieval period and beyond. The argument you are making is simply one of "guilt by association". This clearly won't work. You stated that the Holy Fathers that preceded St. Gregory Palamas did not observe an distinction between Essence and Energies. That is a demonstrably false claim. Here are a few examples for your consideration: “Essence and energy are not identical.” Cyril of Alexandria Thesaurus 18, PG 75:312c Or consider Letter 234 of St. Basil: "The question is, therefore, only put for the sake of dispute. For he who denies that he knows the essence does not confess himself to be ignorant of God, because our idea of God is gathered from all the attributes which I have enumerated. But God, he says, is simple, and whatever attribute of Him you have reckoned as knowable is of His essence. But the absurdities involved in this sophism are innumerable. When all these high attributes have been enumerated, are they all names of one essence? And is there the same mutual force in His awfulness and His loving-kindness, His justice and His creative power, His providence and His foreknowledge, and His bestowal of rewards and punishments, His majesty and His providence? In mentioning any one of these do we declare His essence? If they say, yes, let them not ask if we know the essence of God, but let them enquire of us whether we know God to be awful, or just, or merciful. These we confess that we know. If they say that essence is something distinct, let them not put us in the wrong on the score of simplicity. For they confess themselves that there is a distinction between the essence and each one of the attributes enumerated. The operations are various, and the essence simple, but we say that we know our God from His operations, but do not undertake to approach near to His essence. His operations come down to us, but His essence remains beyond our reach." Also Observe Section 15 of Book 3 of St. John Damascene's "On the Exposition of the Orthodox Faith" entitled "Concerning the energies in our Lord Jesus Christ", where he clearly elucidates the position affirmed by St. Gregory Palamas and held by the Orthodox Church today: www.newadvent.org/fathers/33043.htm So none of what you are saying is true. And this Marcus Plested person is not a dogmatic authority in the Orthodox Church and his views on EE are at variance with the established dogmatic teaching of the Church, besides not standing up to theological scrutiny. I could care less what he thinks.
Are you really Augustinian if you are not communing infants? (Thats a half-joke) I appreciate your approach Dr. Cooper, you are well researched and charitable. I am former reformed baptist and currently an EO catechumen. The anti-augustine approach of some Orthodox was a concern of mine when i began looking into Orthodoxy but there has been a lot of pushback to that and emphasizing that Augustine is a church father. Overall, my thought throughout the whole video is how the east and west have developed different approaches to epistemology that combined could be an aid to one another. That this is the long term result and tragedy of schism. Something was lost when the east and west broke. How we should long for a united church.
While I disagree as an Orthodox Christian I appreciate your respectful tone, and we are all united in our shared belief in Jesus Christ. On that, we pray together.
Can you imagine the apostles have a theolical debate with the common folks as they presented Christ's message? No it was "Hey, bud, do I have news for you".
Cooper, I don't know if you'll ever see this, but I just gotta say, whilst I think you fundamentally misunderstand Catholic theology, you're an incredibly intelligent man. I saw some people say that they think you should debate Dyer, but I think he would be a waste of your time. You're far more earnest, charitable, and intelligent. Keep up the videos. God bless you, my brother in Christ.
I appreciate this video and your respectful tone. I grew up LCMS and got my MDiv from Concordia Theological Seminary before I left for Orthodoxy. At least three of your five reasons were my own in terms of identifying real differences between Lutheranism and Orthodoxy, I just came to a different conclusion. My ultimate reason for leaving Lutheranism was ecclesiology. Again, thank you for the fair tone and content of your video.
Glory to God! I was accepted into CTS for fall of 2021 but deferred enrollment for a year, partially to figure out where I was between Lutheranism and Roman Catholicism. Just a month ago I was chrismated into the Holy Orthodox Church.
@@zealousideal its true that sometimes eastern orthodoxy is very academic..at least in my native orthodox church..thats why i like to listen teaching of coptic church becouse its more understandable for simple people like me and very spiritual just like in very low protestant churches
@@zealousideal It seems to me that the West uses the wrong tools to understand God, or at least fails to use the full complement of tools. The problem is that God can't be fully understood through the intellect. You can't put God under a microscope in a lab. You can't weigh or measure God. Nor can God be boxed in by definitions. Coming from the opposite approach, it would be as if someone tried to understand the theory of gravity by taking it on faith rather than examining the science behind the theory. At some point you have to let God be a mystery and take a leap of faith. For me, that's what the Western church fails to do.
I’m Orthodox and want to start by saying that I appreciate your approach in general, both in the respect you show and in the fact that you bothered to read our Saints and Fathers before sharing your opinion on them in the first place. Many people speak ill of them, and the Church, without doing even one single minute of due diligence and serious research first. I want to add some perspective to your second point, specifically where you said that the early Fathers talked about theosis as more something already accomplished than as an experience. The language may sound that way, but I encourage you to also think about the context in which they wrote - which was entirely as part of the sacramental, incarnational experience of the Church herself as living, breathing, worshipping members. Their ideas and writings cannot really be separated from the experience of theosis as undergone within the Church, and I may even suggest that if they mentioned it less than later writers, it’s because it was so fundamental that it could be assumed without giving explicit mention to it. Just something to think about! Also, you are correct that the penal atonement and debt language is absolutely part of Orthodoxy. Many Orthodox deny it but they are incorrect, and largely “throwing the baby out with the bath water” simply because it sounds too Western or Protestant to them.
Pastor Dr. Cooper, peace be with you! I just wanted to say thank you for this video. I hope that your viewers will understand how well read and knowledgable you are on the topic of the Eastern Church. I am Orthodox myself, and I truly appreciate your even handed, well educated, and kind approach to Orthodoxy. I often wonder if the reason for the different outlooks held by Lutherans and Orthodox are due to the circumstances in which each has lived. For example, the Lutheran theologians and frankly Lutherans in the main, I find are more well studied and possess very capable analytical and legalistic reasoning. I would think that this is rooted in the brilliant academic and theological mind of Martin Luther; one may agree or disagree with him, but his intellect is vast and his love for Christ is as well. The Orthodox, on the other hand, have for so long existed as the Church in captivity, often under occupation or persecution and just hoping to keep it alive for another generation. That said, I can see the reason that the Orthodox emphasize a more mystical/spiritual approach is due to the suffering under the Ottoman Turks, the Bolsheviks, etc. With regard to antipathy toward all things Western, I don't know that I see it in my own church, but on the intenet of things, there are some real hardliners. People who dismiss St. Augustine, for example, because Fr. John Romanides wrote against him. Anyway, I would suggest checking out the Western Rite movement. It seems to be strongest under the auspices of the Antiochian Patriarchate and ROCOR (Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia). I hope to be part of the reclaimation of Western Orthodoxy. We both carry the scars of Rome in one form or other, but for what it's worth, I love and respect the Lutheran Church very much as well. Martin Luther's 95 Theses sparked a revolution for me that brought me out of Roman error, and I have always loved the conviction of "to go against conscience is neither right nor safe; here I stand." I hope I did that justice. Anyway, this got long. Thanks for reading!
@@wesmorgan7729 it's really cool. Interestingly,when I read the old liturgies, like the Sarum and Gallican, I can see the Lutheran liturgy being closer to them than to Rome and closer to them than Rome. The ancient undivided church had many liturgies though. The Roman mass was just one. But we shall see how it goes.
Now here is a Christian response if I’ve ever seen one. As a Lutheran leaning Christian I feel like your comment was respectful, loving, shared your hopes for Christianity, and also maintained your personal theological convictions with excitement. If only all of us in Christ discoursed in such a loving way with each other. God bless you!
As an Orthodox Christian I appreciate your candor. While I can disagree with your points, I've come from Protestantism myself, I had a question for you regarding icons. I grant your argument that in the NT and early Church (I assume you're referring to the Ante-Nicene Father period) you don't find a emphasis on icons. However, at the 7th Ecumenical Council we do find a strong emphasis. Here is the relevant passage from that Council regarding icons: "We define that the holy icons, whether in color, mosaic, or some other material, should be exhibited in the holy churches of God, on the sacred vessels and liturgical vestments, on the walls, furnishings, and in houses and along the roads, namely the icons of our Lord God and Savior Jesus Christ, that of our Lady the Theotokos, those of the venerable angels and those of all saintly people. Whenever these representations are contemplated, they will cause those who look at them to commemorate and love their prototype. We define also that they should be kissed and that they are an object of veneration and honor (timitiki proskynisis), but not of real worship (latreia), which is reserved for Him Who is the subject of our faith and is proper for the divine nature, ... which is in effect transmitted to the prototype; he who venerates the icon, venerated in it the reality for which it stands." Do you follow this canon which directs Christian believers to venerate icons. If not, then how can you justify disregarding a direction of the Holy Catholic Church that is held without dispute between both Roman Catholic and Orthodox alike, as well as others? This Council and its canons predate the Protestant Reformation by many centuries, and was never, to my knowledge, challenged by any of the reformers, including Martin Luther himself.
@@JP-rf8rr Just watched his treatment of icons and the 7th Council. Basically his approach was that he wasn't too sure about the 7th Council being truly Ecumenical or correct about what it judged to be the true and authentic faith of Christians with regards to the use of icons. It came off to me like a "Johnny come lately" attitude of "I don't think I agree with the Council so I'm not going to accept it as true". All the while this Council is not debated or argued about but held in common between Roman Catholic and Orthodox alike who have many bones to pick with each other, especially the Orthodox, but not when it comes to icons and the 7th Council. There is universal agreement in this point. It just seems ridiculous to me to dismiss something from the undivided Church just because it offends your sensibilities. But that's really the crux of Protestantism in a nutshell. There's an awful lot of talk about Sola Scriptura and the Bible only, but when it comes down to it it's just up to the whim of the individual if something is accepted or not. And practically any interpretation of the Scriptures can be asserted by pretty much anyone to uphold any particular view someone would want to have. It's chaotic and has led to the vast array of disjointed churches and communities we witness today. Martin Luther might have intended a good thing, the reform of the Roman Catholic Church, but his followers and successive generations have turned his noble goal into something unrecognizable and terrible for the Faith.
@@justanotherlikeyou I would say that your judgment is a little unfair, he isn't trying to justify some of his unbelief of things within the council to an orthodox. Instead he is justifying his use of icons to those who are overzealous about images with a brief mention of the council. That being said, his argument is more than it offends his sensibilities. He is basically saying that many of the people (especially the west) didn't comprehend the council's implications and the main focus was refuting Islam. His main justification is that a large portion of the Christian population didn't view icons that way and that was saw as perfectly acceptable. And the justification for the council's view of icons just doesn't seem convincing. You can disagree with that but it's not as simple as having his sensibilities offended.
@@justanotherlikeyou I would like to direct your attention to 1 Corinthians 8, especially 11-13: "And so by your knowledge this weak person is destroyed, the brother for whom Christ died. 12 Thus, sinning against your brothers and wounding their conscience when it is weak, you sin against Christ. 13 Therefore, if food makes my brother stumble, I will never eat meat, lest I make my brother stumble." So in context, this is referring to eating food that was originally offered to idols. It refers to the "stronger brother" as the one who knows that idols are nothing, and therefore does not sin by eating meat sacrificed to idols. It calls the one the "weaker brother" who has a more sensitive conscience towards this issue, and ultimately says that while it is not a sin in and of itself to eat meat sacrificed to idols, the stronger causes the weaker brother to sin when forcing him to go against his conscience. So I guess by all means, call us Protestants the weaker brothers. Notice it doesn't say to even try to convince the weaker brother that the stronger is right. It says it's not worth destroying the weaker brother's conscience. I think the 7th Council really does fall under this category, especially since there were Christians elsewhere who said it was not good to have images at all. As Jordan discussed in the relevant video, we Lutherans are definitely not iconoclasts in that we see images not as being sinful in and of themselves, or even kissing icons as sinful necessarily, some people still will feel in their consciences that they are treating them like idols. So we think it was wrong for the Council of Elvira to throw out images entirely, as Paul says the weaker brother is not to condemn the stronger brother. Paul on the other hand also says the stronger brother is not to look down on the weaker brother. I'm not entirely sure if the Eastern Orthodox "force" everyone in their parish to kiss and venerate icons, though, so I'd be interested to hear your thoughts. Thanks.
@@albusai he has a point , stop trying to make a joke out of him , when I went to Portugal ( a very catholic country , which my father is from in case you are wondering why we went there ) I went to a church ( catholic) when I saw the priest there I.....didn’t see it felt anything inside him, it wasn’t like our priest here in Greece where when I go up to him I feel....differently.....I feel good.....in fact as I am speaking to you right now I am feeling good ( not trying to say that I am better than you or something, I am just saying the truth ) as an orthodox I can safely say that Orthodox Church just from the church alone is superior
Hello friend. In order to have a more authentic view on Eastern Orthodoxy, I would propose you to have a look at the life and miracles of modern Orthodox saints, like e.g. St. Paisios of Mount Athos, St. Porphyrios of Kafsokalyvia, St. Iakovos Tsalikis of Evia, St. Nectarios of Aegina, St. Luke of Crimea, St. Joseph the Hesychast, etc. No matter what is the theological background of any individual, the divine experience of the saints is the safest guide for anyone to reach the truth of Orthodoxy.
@W D "The Spirit inspires where he wills. And you hear his voice, but you do not know where he comes from, or where he is going." [John 3:8] The Church always considered miracles to individuals (whether considered as Saints or not) as an expression of God's mercy to them and humanity in general. However miracles don't necessarily mean acceptance of one's state by God. Gor example we see in the New Testament cases of miracles done to men who either didn't follow Christ [Luke 9:49-50] or even ignored Him [Acts 10:1-6]. Similarily to that there are many cases of miracles even to non Christians like, e.g. Muslims or atheists. That being said, miracles to individuals alone were never considered as a sign of genuineness of someone's faith. However when miracles are combined with genuine faith - i.e. faith that is being kept unaltered since the times of Apostles - then miracles can be considered as a seal of authenicity granted by God. This is exactly the case of miracles within Orthodoxy. Miracles without Orthodox-genuine faith don't proove anything apart from God's mercy towards men. Nevertheless there is a case of miracles that can help someone to trace the original Church and these are the liturgical miracles which have a repetitive character. Take for example the blessing of the water: When a Roman-catholic priest blesses water he adds some salt in it so as to be natuarally preserved unrotten for few weeks, whereas when an Orthodox priest blesses water he doesn't put anything and the water is being miraculously preserved unrotten no matter how many months, years or decades might pass! Similar to it is the miracle of the Holy Fire in the Holy Sepulcre of Jerusalem that takes place every Holy Saturday. That miracle is possible to take place ONLY by the prayer of the Orthodox Patriarch of Jerusalem. Everyone who has tried to replace him (like e.g. Roman-catholic, Armenian, etc.) has failed. Thus, the issue of miracles on individuals should be adressed with caution and always having in mind that authenticity of faith can not solely be proven, but only to be strengthen by them.
@W D My criterion was not whether I like Orthodoxy or not, but whether its faith has been kept unaltered or not. As for the miracles happening solely in the Orthodox Church, kindly read again paragraphs 4 and 5 of my previous post. God never left seekers of Truth without tangible evidence.
@W D You are wrong. All Orthodox, Greeks, Russians, Serbians, Romanians, Arabs, Africans, etc., confess exactly the same Creed of Faith, as this was formed by the First and Second Ecumenical Councils, contrary to papists and protestants who have altered it. Disagreements may arise sometimes within Orthodoxy but these have to do with ecclesiastical matters and not with doctrines. As for the Holy Bible, this was written by the Church through the inspiration of the Holy Ghost and since then it is authentically interpreted only within the Church. This of course doesn't mean that we may do with the Bible "whatever we like", but only to be consistent with its spirit under the light of the teaching of the Holy Fathers of the Church.
@W D Such things have happened multiple times in the past. Meetings and discussions, disagreements and reconciliations are part of Church's history since the very beginning. You shouldn't have short memory, neither confuse ecclesiastical with doctrinal issues. And yes, Russians are Orthodox the same as Greeks or any other who confesses our faith.
@W D Differences between Orthodoxy and Roman-catholicism are both doctrinal and ecclesiastical. The split started with the filioque dispute and papal claims about supremacy but during the centuries that passed since then the differences considerably increased. Here is an indicative list of them: www.impantokratoros.gr/Papism-Falsehoods.en.aspx
After being an atheist for 28 years and being in the Anglican and then briefly the Roman church, I am grateful to the Lord that He finally brought me to a God honouring, bible-believing Baptist church. God bless you all who worship Jesus rightly as your only Saviour.
Apophatic theology started with Pseudo-Dionysius? I think you need to reexamine this statement from several different angles, but primarily through scripture and earlier church fathers. Scripture Old Testament The Old Testament has plenty of examples of "the cloud/smoke" of God. Moses is not able to see God as He is but only His back side as He passes by. In Isaiah we read, "Truly You are God, who hide Yourself, O God of Israel, the Savior" (Isaiah 45:15). "Who in the clouds shall be compared to the Lord? (Ps. 88:7 Lxx)" Ecclesiastes: "Do not be hasty with your mouth, and do not let your heart be quick to utter a word before God; For God is in heaven, and you are on earth; therefore, let your words be few (Ecc 5:1)." New Testament In the New Testament, "God alone has immortality, dwelling in unapproachable light, whom no man has seen or can see, to whom be honor and everlasting power. Amen" (1 Tim 6:16). "No one has seen God at any time" (John 1:18). "The peace of God, which surpasses all understanding, will guard your hearts and minds through Christ Jesus" (Philippians 4:7). Patristics prior to Pseudo-Dionysius Moving from there, there are examples in Clement of Alexandria, and plenty in the Cappodacian Fathers. Gregory of Nyssa, interpreting Phil 4:7, wrote "beyond reach not only of the human but of the angelic and of all supracosmic intelligence." Gregory Nazianzus wrote that "boundlessness" was the only thing that could somewhat be comprehended about the divine nature. Theology, according to Basil the Great, is "inexpressible by the human voice" and "incomprehensible to human reason." More: "our thought is weak, but our tongue is still weaker than our thought" and human language is "powerless to express the conceptions formed by the mind." The Holy Spirit, according to Basil is "incorporeal, purely immaterial, and indivisible...infinite in power, unlimited, unmeasured by times or aeons." The doctrine of predication, according to Basil, does not apply to God. The Divine Nature, according to Gregory of Nyssa, is "unlike anything known" and this is where any "proper conceptions about the Divine Nature" begins. It is impossible to "find among existing things a likeness of the object of our inquiry, sufficient in all respects for the presentation of the matter in hand by way of some kind of analogy and resemblance." More Nyssa: "Even if it were possible to draw an analogy for this from created things, such conjecturing about the transcendent from lower existences would not be altogether sound." According to Basil, it is illegitimate to theorize about the "immutability of the divine nature." There is no "common ground to the peculiar nature of human life and the peculiar nature of divine life, their distinctive properties standing entirely apart from each other." Any effort "to apply to the ineffable nature of God that common custom in human life of establishing differences of degree in society" must be completely renounced and repudiated. I can go on and on in the Cappodacian Fathers. On and on and on and on. I have not even got part way down the tip of the iceberg. They speak of silence, thoughtlessness, etc, etc. So I think you need to reconsider your statements on apophatic theology, especially when you make such a mistake as to say it originated with Pseudo-Dionysius when there is no support in that statement at all. Even more so when you say that Thomas Aquinas thoroughly develops speaking by way of analogy, when plenty of eastern fathers use analogy and cataphatic theology.
Thank you. You helped a person in doubt. I am slowly reading my way through the ante-/post- Nicene fathers series of books and trying to get to grips with my faith and develop in myself a strong understanding (intellectual and emotional) of the Holy Trinity and all other aspects. And I noticed both use of affirmative and negative theology in the Fathers.
@@EmptyKingdoms I've since been marking apophaticism in the Bible when I come across examples. This list is far from complete; I haven't read through the entire thing trying to keep an eye out for apophaticism. 1 Timothy 1:17 Now to the King eternal, immortal (apophatic), invisible (apophatic), to God who alone is wise, be honor and glory forever and ever. Amen. Colossians 2:3 in whom are hiden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge. Philippians 4:7 and the peace of God, which surpasses all understanding, will guard your hearts and minds through Christ. Ephesians 3:8 ...that I should preach among the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ. Romans 11:33 Oh, the depth of the riches of both the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are His judgments and His ways past finding out. Psalm 17:12 He made darkness His hiding place; His tabernacle was around Him, Dark water in the clouds of the sky. 13 Because of the brightness before Him, the clouds, the hail and the fiery coals passed through. Pslam 138:6 Your knowledge has become too wondrous for me; it has become too overwhelming; I am unable to grasp it. Wisdom of Sirach 43 28 How shall we ever be able to adequately praise Him? For He is greater than all His works. 30 Glorify the Lord and exalt Him as much as you are able, for He will surpass even that. And when you exalt Him, put forth all your strength; Do not grow weary, for you cannot exalt Him enough. 31 Who has seen Him and will describe Him? And who can magnify Him as He truly is? 32 There are yet many hidden things greater than these, for we have seen but few of His works.
Thank you for prefacing this video by saying that you don't fully understand Orthodox theology. This explains why you gave these reasons not to be EO. I encourage you to do some more investigation, and not just academic investigation, but attending an Orthodox service, talking to an Orthodox priest, etc. 1. The purpose of Apophatic theology is to avoid speculations and inaccurate statements about what we know of God. However, there are plenty of Cataphatic statements and doctrines that EO make about God. The difference is that these are revealed truths, as opposed to scholastic derivations based on human speculation and rationalism. The entire Nicene Creed is made up of Cataphatic statements. To imply otherwise is quite naive. Also, the essence/energies doctrine is crucial in terms of how we come to understand who God is. Because we cannot know Him in His essence, only that which has been revealed is given positive statements, otherwise, negative statements avoid making theological pitfalls. Think a bit about why the U.S. Constitution or the 10 commandments are made up of negative statements, mostly. There is a reason for this. 2. You never explained why the EO's articulation of Theosis is "neo-platonic." So I consider this a null and void argument. But Orthodoxy is very careful to avoid platonic theology, and again, the essence/energies distinction is crucial here because there is no dichotomy between the one and the many. Theosis simply means becoming gods by grace, what Christ is by nature. Union with God does not imply pantheism as with other Eastern religions. There is always a clear distinction between the created and the uncreated, and this will never change. As such, theosis is not neo-platonic in any sense. 3 & 4. The doctrine of justification did not gain prominence until the Reformers. While there is forensic language used throughout the NT, it merely expands our understanding of salvation and articulates it in a rich way. Fundamentally, salvation is not forensic according to the EO Tradition. While there is certainly forensic terminology that we use, the process of Salvation is not that God declares us innocent and pure when clearly we are not, but Salvation is truly an ontological transfiguration, and this is alluded throughout Scriptures OT and NT. EO rejects many of the Augustinian themes that give rise to the Western doctrine of "original sin" not as a cultural difference or a difference in thought. Augustine simply did not understand the Greek language and make proper translations from the Greek text of the NT. He understood original sin as genetic transmission and a guilt of the human race due to Adam's sin. Orthodoxy does believe in a doctrine of "original sin" more commonly referred to as "ancestral sin," and this is not based on speculation or mistranslation, but based on the anthropology of Christ which translates to the anthropology of humankind. Man has freewill because Christ had free will in his humanity as illustrated in the Garden of Gethsemane. Freewill is fundamental to EO theology, and Augustine sets a trajectory that leads to a more deterministic theology that is incompatible with EO. 5. The 7th Ecumenical Council clearly lays out the importance and emphasis of icons. You are correct in saying that not all regions had a robust practice of iconography, but many regions did. This came to a head when iconoclasts were vehemently opposed to icons, and gave theological reasons for this. This became a Christological matter, which is why the veneration of icons goes beyond merely optional, but a true expression of the incarnation as God becoming man in a material sense through the incarnation. While we do not (or at least not supposed to) depict God the Father, as Roman Catholics have, we absolutely can and should depict God the Son (Jesus Christ) to remind us that he is truly man. The 7th council will tell you all you need to know about the importance of iconography (besides being used as a tool to the illiterate women and children, who learned primarily through images). And to this day, art is a language unto itself that communicates things that words simply cannot.
Having previously been Eastern Orthodox for twenty years I could add quite a bit to what was said. However, I will just point out one thing. The Exclusivity that one is obligated to believe and hold to is far more radical than the soft sell that most modern Eastern Orthodox Churches present. The true EO Ecclesiology is that there are no Christians outside EO. All outside her communion are under anathema/curse by the EO Church, and since they believe they have the Apostolic power to bind and loose, those outside her are believed to be cursed by God. Nicea 2 made this very clear as well as the Synodicon of Orthodoxy that anathematizes other Christians by name and group. The Synodicon is supposed to be read in Church once a year. Virtually no one does this because it is so scandalous. The so-called True Orthodox Churches who broke from World Orthodoxy have the real EO Ecclesiology, which World Orthodoxy has thrown under the bus. Those Protestants who are flirting with Eastern Orthodoxy be aware that you are being soft sold everything, from Icons, Mary, Salvation and a number of other things. If you are OK with being a Sectarian of such a radical nature, then perhaps it is a good fit for you. It took me years to get to the truth of what Eastern Orthodoxy really teaches. It is an Ocean, a deep well that takes years to really understand.
Thank you for posting this...I am an EO inquirer, and EO has been "too good be true" - so I've been looking for what's off. I'm personally ok with a lot of weird things, but if the OCA Church demands parishioners to belief in it's infallibility that's something I can't bear. Can you relate any historical documents or resources to determine their actual beliefs around salvation or other topics you've brought here? Also, what type of Church do you go to now?
Martyn Crosse No he’s not, and I can’t believe I didn’t recognize that this is the Cooper guy Jay was going to debate, lol I had no idea, but it was pathetic to say he’s a conspiracy theorists, therefore I won’t debate him that’s cowardly, and frankly stupid how did Cesar get assassinated?
I think the problem with justification is not the legal language, but the confusion of this language with the reality of the situation. It's like taking metaphor too literally. And Catholics also reject the notion that God really does set up a cosmic law court and conducts his business just like a judge. NT Wright deals with this quite well in his book(s) on Paul
You orthodox people surely are blind. We catholics love you and respect you, and never questioned your beliefs, we never even PERMITTED OURSELVES or even DARED to criticise you. While you orthodox act like we are something terrible. Let me say, you orthodox totally have a non-christian behaviour like this. Shame on this behaviour and may god forgive you for the sin of hate.
@@Bashkir Interesting point, but not true. I just prayed for him and you say it's hate. We all have free will. And about what Roman Catholics did in the past to Orthodox Christians, I rather not talk. Just type JASENOVAC in google or en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_clergy_involvement_with_the_Usta%C5%A1e
Срб СОССД.ГИХСБПМГ.амин Here another hateful and unchristian thing coming from you, considering the past sins, while the purpose of Christianity is forgive and tend your hands to others you instead want another church of god like you to disappear and people to go away from it. Mine is not a point, I am sick of the orthodox world hating us while we love you.
Срб СОССД.ГИХСБПМГ.амин If you are talking about Crusades, these were political interests and religion was hardly used, the Church of Rome has condemned those acts already. Saint John Baptist has saved the Roman Catholic Church and restored it to its original good state.
@@Bashkir No, I'm talking about 20th century. What Saint John has to do with Roman Catholics? He lived 1000 years before the Schism. The problem I have with Roman Catholics is that they are in heresy. I love all Christians but the TRUTH CAN BE ONLY ONE! Orthodox Church remain the same for 2000 years, and Roman Catholic Church changed a lot of things in service, in dogma etc. On Holy Liturgy, we pray for unity of ALL the Christians. But that unity can't be compromise between us but following the TRUTH. GOD BLESS YOU!☦️
We will actually agree on that there is legal language in the bible and talk on justification. The difference is that it's not the only way to think about salvation.
I don't really understand approaching the church fathers through a Lutheran perspective. You pick parts that they say that you like and agree with your points (like things on Justification) but overall, you're not going to agree with the church fathers in terms of iconography, sacraments, apostolic succession, so are you just agreeing with them on points that justify your church?
Well orthodox do that too, as well as Catholics. St irenaeus says things about mary that you orthodox would call heretical and teturlian says things about baptism that they would call heretical. The fathers aren't orthodox or catholic or Lutheran, the fathers are the fathers. So any attempt to read the fathers in any of the 3 perspectives means mentioning the parts you like while ignoring the parts you don't. What I like about Jordan cooper is that he doesn't try and force the fathers into any of the 3 perspectives. He will point out that Clement believed in Sola Fide but also that Justin martyr taught salvation by faith and works.
@@JP-rf8rr I'm sorry but your comment just shows your poor understanding of church history. There was no distinction between "catholic" and "orthodox", as we understand it today, because there was just One Church, the Early Church (which was Catholic, which just mean universal). The church fathers were part of that Church and so they are within the Roman Catholic and Orthodox Tradition. Jordan Cooper is using these guys as though they are part of the Lutheran Tradition when really the Lutheran church condemns everything early as being in apostasy. What he tries to do is find authority in the church fathers by quote mining and taking them out of context to justify his clown church.
@@roflingsteaks 1. I never said that there was a distinction between Catholics and Orthodox then. I said the fathers aren't orthodox (as in modern or relatively modern orthodox) and they weren't Catholics (as in modern or relatively modern Catholics). 2. Both orthodoxy and Catholicism quote mine the church fathers ridiculously while claiming that the other side is taking them out of context (they clearly can't look in a mirror). I've even heard orthodox dismiss Clement of Rome because "he's Latin" (although I think if Clement agreed with orthodoxy then they'd happily ignore that) Cooper on the other hand isn't quote mining. He genuinely discusses both the fathers who agree with him and disagree with him. And he doesn't force them into certain positions.
@@JP-rf8rr "I said the fathers aren't orthodox (as in modern or relatively modern orthodox) and they weren't Catholics (as in modern or relatively modern Catholics)." no you didn't lol. read what you said again "The fathers aren't orthodox or catholic or Lutheran, the fathers are the fathers". And then the point I made completely went over your head. Do you understand what it means when it's said that there were no distinctions in the early church? thus everything in the early church is within the Roman Catholic and Orthodox TRADITION? do you not understand that? No Orthodox is going to refute Clement of Rome because Clement of Rome was WITHIN TRADITION. It's fine for modern Orthodoxy and modern Roman Catholicism to quote the early fathers because they are WITHIN TRADITION. What's wrong is Cooper looking for authority in them since they're not in tradition, or is he trying to make the point that the early church fathers were Lutheran? lmao
@@roflingsteaks No you missed my point. I never said there was a distinction back then. I did say that the father aren't catholic or orthodox or Lutheran because they aren't. The mere fact that I included Lutheran should have indicated that I was speaking in the modern sense. I am completely aware of the original meaning of Catholics being universal. You're assuming things that I never said. And plenty of orthodox refute Clement of Rome. Probably because he taught Sola Fide And besides, by your logic wouldn't Augustine and Ambrose and Jerome be in your tradition since they were technically a part of the church. Are you gonna say orthodox don't refute them? Also Lutheran do inherit the apostolic church. Just like how the great schism didn't discredit you the split with Rome didn't discredit Lutherans. They were monks, priests and bishops who were brought up with that tradition and after leaving Rome's control they still continued to quote saints and maintain their ancient traditions. They weren't a separate group adopting only certain aspects of a foreign religion. They always respected the apostolic church.
Thank you. My views on justification would prevent me from being Eastern Orthodox, as well the lack of a historical and scriptural basis for the apostolic authority of the church, and the Eastern Orthodox anthropology, specifically original sin and our fallen nature.
@JL-XrtaMayoNoCheese My words were poorly chosen. I should have said that it is not significant in convincing me as I do not believe that the church was guided by only oral tradition, as though the scriptures were not authoritative until canonized. Thank you for the reply.
What do you mean by a lack of apostolic authority? If by that you mean Apostolic succession, that is that apostolic authority was handed down from the apostles to the bishops and then their successors down the centuries, then my question is where do you not find apostolic succession in the Apostolic Fathers? They reference the doctrine of apostolic succession throughout their works, the earliest reference would be in 1 Clement (dated to late first century) in the 44th chapter which says "Our apostles also knew, through our Lord Jesus Christ, that there would be strife on account of the office of the episcopate. For this reason, therefore, inasmuch as they had obtained a perfect fore-knowledge of this, they appointed those [ministers] already mentioned, and afterwards gave instructions, that when these should fall asleep, other approved men should succeed them in their ministry."
As a Protestant looking into and deeply considering Orthodoxy, my understanding of apophatic theology in the Orthodox church is significantly different from this. Apophatic theology refers to the inability to comprehend the essence of God (e.g. His face on Mt. Sinai), but cataphatic theology speaks of God's energies or operations (e.g. His back on Mt. Sinai) which St. Basil says in Letter 234 (well before Ps. Dionysus, if we're assuming him to be a later figure) come down to us and by which we can speak of God cataphatically, and thus, this is how we worship "what we know" as Basil says. My understanding of hesychasm is that the goal is to see the uncreated light of God, which are his energies, not merely to sit in His unknowable essence, and also to be transformed through theosis back into the likeness of God from which we fell and participate in the Divine Life. The essence and energies are not parts of God from which He is composed any more than the hypostases of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are parts of God. God is simple, but in God there are real particularities and distinctions which are not contingent or accidental or separable. Likewise the East also speaks of the energies of God, His goodness, justice, omnipotence, etc. by analogy, because our understandings of these concepts don't fully encapsulate the fullness of their reality in God. Obviously, I'm not an Orthodox theologian, so take this understanding with a grain of salt, but that is what I understand from figures like Dr. David Bradshaw, and from reading some of St. Basil and St. Gregory Palamas.
Ah yes, tell someone to debate, and immediately insult them afterwards. Thankfully clowns like yourself make up a minority in American Orthodoxy and basically non existent in Europe
My understanding is that in the EO church, veneration of icons is commanded and that those who do not venerate are declared anathema and must be excommunicated. Requiring icon veneration for salvation? Is this not a "different gospel" as warned by Paul in his letter to the Galatians? How did Peter and Paul and others preach the gospel throughout the book of Acts, resulting in salvation for thousands with no mention of icon veneration?
I second that request because there seems to be some very subtle nuances between the two that aren't easily defined, with the exception of Lutherans believing that you can only lose your salvation due to a loss of faith, whereas the Anglicans believe that it is impossible if you are truly a Christian to begin with.
I love jay dyer but I strongly recommend anybody who's gonna debate him to have a badass moderator or he will talk over you. lol. peace from a confessional Lutheran Jay D.
I challenge any Orthodox to answer how they can reconcile the Orthodox works based salvation with the following Bible verse: “For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing, it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast” Ephesians 2:1-22.
Who do we believe? The Church who has taught since 33AD that salvation is a faith justified by works (James 2:24) or do we believe some dude on the internet 2,000 years later entirely removed from the Apostolic tradition who has no right to interpret the Bible in such an authoritative manner as he is right now?
@@JetShanghai “And we, too, being called by His will in Christ Jesus, are not justified by ourselves, nor by our own wisdom, or understanding, or godliness, or works which we have wrought in holiness of heart; but by that faith through which, from the beginning, Almighty God has justified all men; to whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen.” St. Clement of Rome First Epistle
B Peperkorn they are based on feelings rather than truth. And it doesn’t matter how tight the community is Mormons have some of the tightest communities yet teach some of the worst heresies
@@atanasiogreene8493 Nondenominational Christianity is not based on feelings. The difference is that we aren't religious... just as Jesus wasn't. It is about a relationship with God, not about a religious appearance.
Estefanía L. It’s all about feelings it’s Baptist Christianity with feelings inducing music and message, the Bible is not used very often in services it’s more about the pastors opinions, life advice and interpretations. And Christianity is a religion and having a relationship with God is part of it, www.christianpost.com/voices/christianity-is-a-religion-not-a-relationship.html
Estefanía L. It’s baptist theology and sometimes they incorporate Pentecostalism as in the case of hillsong and Calvary chapel. The pastors remove there denominational title to bring in more people if you compare your beliefs with a Baptist they are exactly the same. Nondenominational (Baptist) pastors tend to be wishy washy as to not offend like removing the cross , not keeping with biblical laws on modesty, and they change there stance on certain issues. There is no such thing as nondenominationalism it’s just repackaged Baptist theology to get young people. as soon as a supposedly non-denominational church has made decisions about what happens in worship, whom and how they will baptize, how and with what understanding they will celebrate holy communion, what they will teach, who their ministers will be and how they will be ordered, or how they relate to those churches, these decisions have placed the church within the stream of a specific type of denominational tradition. Nondenominationalism is a very new thing and was created by men it is a religion of men and follows men just look at who you face during church you see a screen with your pastor, apostolic Christians who were created by Christ and the apostles face Christ and do not put emphasis on pastor
2:04 It's definitely not a thoughtless action when we pray. We Orthodox Christians put a lot of thought into our prayers. If you mean deep meditation prayers of Orthodox Christian monks on Mount Athos or even the ascetic Desert Fathers that is quite rare. It's called Hesychasm, in which stillness (hēsychia) is sought through uninterrupted Jesus prayer ("Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner"). Only some hardcore Orthodox Christian monks do it often, which is similar to some deep meditation/prayers done by Buddhist monks but also by some Catholic monks as well (Francis of Assisi and Franciscan monks).
@@Mygoalwogel And my friend, I see that you are into The Lutheran Chorale and Reformation hymnody! IT IS THE BEST! So bright, radiant, and there is always a joyful resolution! I loved the setting of "Awake, My Heart, With Gladness" you posted on the playlist. Phenomenal bass and tenor
@@droegeboycreations9199 Goodness, I didn't realize that list was public. How embarrassing. Anyhow, my wife, a musician, likes for her donkey of a husband to bray the bass as best he can in church.
Exactly if everything could be found in scripture Jesus would’ve had no need for Apostles and establishing his church. I believe our savior wanted tradition and the mysteries of the holy spirt obtained through a relationship developed in fellowship.
@BR0D1E Orthodoxy is Christianity. Everything else is just so called Christianity out of Orthodox 'Economia.' Everything else is a deviation from the one true church. Here in the US there are thousands of so called Christian sects but they are not really Christian. I know you are going to try to tell me Orthodoxy is false and you are Christian. Please save it.....I'm not interested...heard all the spiel before....read your church history. And don't try to tell me history does not matter...IT DOES.
So a person can't convert to Orthodox only following reason? Like, I can convert to mormonism only following my heart, what doesn't make me to do so is reason.
@@Lay-Man For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false testimony, slander. If your heart is pure and your desire is only for truth, God will lead you to orthodoxy. If your heart is corrupt like a corrupt tree, it will lead you to anything that is false. So yes, your heart, if it is perverted could lead you to Mormonism. What has Roman catholicism with a scolastic and legalistic approach to spirituality become? A cesspool of perversion.
@@CJohn33 Ah, I see. But honestly, how can we know that our hearts are not leading to a false idea? I have the idea that reason can lead to truth, the heart can do this too, but almost always it's erroneous. And I agree, I don't like to mix spirituality with reason by any means! I think spirituality comes after knowing the truth and living according to it?
Orthodoxy is ancient. It has clear apostolic ties. It's powerful. It's seriously tough. It's (ostensibly) conservative. It's incredibly beautiful. It's personal and yet emphasizes the Church as the real, functioning Body of Christ. It focuses on a God of dispassionate but unchanging love. It's like walking into the ocean after the wading pool of much of modern Protestantism, BUT.... its noetic focus cannot always give clear answers to questions modern, logic-oriented, but truly seeking people ask, and the Orthodox laity doesn't seem to be empowered to really witness for Christ. Some of Orthodoxy is also deeply rooted in the culture, royalty, wars, and general politics of certain regions and countries. Sometimes it mistakes cultural "tradition" for true church "Tradition," (so do some Southern Baptists....I won't be a hypocrite here) and it may ascribe practices such as certain feasts (the entrance of the Theotokos into the Temple) and the veneration of icons to the earliest church when these might have developed somewhat later. And, yes, because of controversy, it cemented and formed part of its deep identity around a specific view of icons, disregarding Paul's instructions that sometimes we need to act in love about certain controversial issues so as not to hurt others' consciences. I'm not even near the pay-grade to discuss deep theology. There is SO much richness and potential for deep spiritual growth in Orthodoxy...and yet it has not yet understood that it speaks a completely different language from Protestants, and it sometimes confuses and offends them NOT by the core doctrines of Christianity, but by practices that are precious to those in certain cultures, but completely baffling and even shocking to those from other cultures. Of course the political and military actions by certain high church leaders have been questionable, to say the least, although perhaps some of these have been done under duress. I still don't know, honestly.
Protestant converting to Orthodoxy currently. It's the best decision my family and I have made. I hope all Protestants will give it a chance and experience the fullness of the faith and truth. God bless!
@@keandominique5102 Mary is the mother of Jesus who is the Son of God. Jesus the Son of God is God. Therefore Mary is the Mother of God. From Luke 1:28: ..."“Greetings, O favored one, the Lord is with you!”29 But she was greatly troubled at the saying, and tried to discern what sort of greeting this might be. 30 And the angel said to her, “Do not be afraid, Mary, for you have found favor with God. 31 And behold, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus." Notice the angel Gabriel says she has found favor with God, that she is full of grace (pure in spirit and body). Luke 1:46-49 46 And Mary said: "My soul magnifies the Lord, 47 and my spirit rejoices in God my Savior, 48 for he has looked on the humble estate of his servant. For behold, from now on all generations will call me blessed; 49 for he who is mighty has done great things for me, and holy is his name." Notice "all generations shall call me blessed". The Orthodox and Roman Catholics uphold this scripture. Lastly Martin Luther said "Mary is the highest woman and the noblest gem in Christianity after Christ... She is nobility, wisdom, holiness personified. We can never honor her enough".
@@electricrevenue8131 why do you orthodox and Catholics make stuff up just to support your false theories about the divinity of Mary , the quotes you mentioned above only proves how Mary humbled herself before god , she found favor in god just as Miriam , Deborah , Huldah did ..she was blessed just as other saints and prophets were .. Mary was no perpetual virgin , she was a sinner and awaits judgement on the final day Gospel: Matthew 12:46-50 While he was still speaking to the people, behold, his mother and his brothers stood outside, asking to speak to him. But he replied to the man who told him, “Who is my mother, and who are my brothers?” And stretching out his hand toward his disciples, he said, “Here are my mother and my brothers! For whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother, and sister, and mother.”
God's desire is not for us to know more about him (apophasis, cataphasis, analogy, or any other method) but rather to know him. He reveals himself in and through Christ Jesus. I am Eastern Orthodox.
Progger_Frogger they don’t put it on the same plane. It’s simply the lens through which scripture is interpreted. Why do you think there are hundreds of different Protestant sects in the west? -no emphasis on tradition and views of the early church fathers, which refuted ancient heresies that have now popped up again since the Protestant reformation. If I have bad eye sight and need glasses to read my Bible, am I’m putting my glasses on the same plane as scripture?
The orthodox Church sold actual indulgences* for the forgiveness of sins, which could be gifted to other people. The Ecumenical Patriarch fully acknowledges this fact and has honored Christos Yannaras, the scholar who documented this abuse.
If wr repent without doing anything about it, to put legs on your faith ( Penance ) have we truly turned around ???? Indulgences were only one form of "" doing something about it "".
Interesting vid. How about a top 5 or 10 reasons why Lutheranism has collapsed (or reasons why people believe so), eg. Lutheran Church of Sweden with woman priests, homosexuals and even atheist priests. Not trolling, I’ve heard different theories in the Roman Catholic and Orthodox world of it, would be interesting to heard a Protestants view of challengers in the world of Protestantism.
Firstly: Are you a father? Do you have children? If you have, you will understand what I will now tell you. As a father you must have set some rules for your children like "you must not play with a knife, or you'll get hurt". "You shall not stick your hands in electrical socket or you'll get electrocuted". "Be extra careful when you cross a street or a car may hit you". Now, suppose your child breaks any one of these rules and suffers the consequences it has been warned about, what would you do? Wouldn't you cry and hurt (maybe more than your child) and try to heal the wounds even at your own cost? Why would you do that? Because as a father you have nothing else for your child but LOVE. You wish your child just to be well and healthy. Would your child owe you a DEBT after he hurt himself with a knife because he broke your rules? Would you ask for "satisfaction" from your child or anyone else for insulting your 'justice'? I think not. And if you reprimand him or even slap him as a 'punishment' it would just be out of love to prevent him from 'breaking the rules' and hurting himself again. Now, if you as a human father (and a child of the western way of thinking, as you say) would have such feelings for your children, why do you say that our HEAVENLY father has to be 'compensated' for our sins, that there is a "debt" that we had to "pay" or someone else (Jesus) had to pay it for us to satisfy some supposed 'divine justice?' Why do you demand from the ALL GOOD God to expect 'legal satisfaction' from his sinful children, something that even you (the spiritual child of Augustine) would not expect from your own 'law breaking' child? Sin is an AILMENT with terrible consequences for our soul. It brings wounds that are very hard, almost impossible, to heal, and results to eternal death. It is just TRAGIC (because we are in the image of God and have free will) and our heavenly father suffers for our doom as much as we do (well anthropically speaking). And this is why He sent His Son to shed His divine blood in order to HEAL us, deliver us from death, and show us how much he loves us. There is not such a thing as a 'Divine justice' that had to be satisfied. God is ALMIGHTY, ALL-SOVEREIGN, God is everything there is, now and forever and for all ages, as he revealed Himself to Moses: 'I am". He is bound not even to his own justice, He does as He pleases and could have even saved us in any other way or even annihilate us and the devil and build a new world from scratch. He CHOSE to save us by His own willing sacrifice because he is SACRIFICIAL LOVE, that's the just way He is and wants to be. This is the belief of the early church, this is the belief of the Orthodox Christians, this is the belief that moves the heart of every man to tears and brings divine "eros" in our hearts for God, and the effort not to make Him sad with our own self-destructive sins.
On Justification, have you noticed that for the first 1200 years or so of Christianity your understanding of it really didn't exist? Sure, you can pick up threads along the Augustine/Anselm route, but it really doesn't exist generally and fully-orbed until the reformation. You have here, one reason why I am Orthodox.
As an EO I disagree with you, but I found it enjoyable to listen to your reasoning. Thank you for making this video. I think it is very important to be able to defend your faith as 1 Peter 3:15 reminds us: _Always be ready to give a logical defense to anyone who asks you to account for the hope that is within you, yet do it with gentleness and respect._ I think you did so very well, logically, but with gentleness and respect. I hope I can speak that way on things I disagree. Still, I hope you reconsider your position. Pride of intellect, and being set apart from the Church can lead us places we don't wish to be.
Well, I won't pretend I'm religious, cuz I'm not, but I will point out to you that the Orthodox denomination was the fist to ever exist and I don't think there's any purer form of faith than the one you have in the original church, so... perhaps adopt Orthodoxy? Not to mention that if you compare the Eastern Roman Orthodox Catholic Church (that's the full name of the Eastern Orthodox Church) with the Western Catholic Church, the former is often described as "the church of happiness", while the latter as the "church of suffering"! Hope this helps with your choice! Not that I care which one you choose tbh, as I don't believe in any of it, but I thought I might present to you the objectively better option so you can in turn have a happier life!
Another Orthodox 'convert' here. With respect to iconography in the Orthodox Church, the importance of iconography is not grounded in a supposed widespread or central use in the spiritual practice of the 'early church'. Iconography and its role in EO spirituality clearly develop in line with the theology of the Church in a way similar to that of Trinitarian and Christological controversies. From the Orthodox perspective, we believe that the Holy Spirit guides the Church into robust expressions of truth and worship, icons are part of this Tradition (life of the Holy Spirit) in the Church. I shared a similar approach to analyzing Orthodoxy and approach to reading the Holy Fathers when I first arrived as an inquirer. Ultimately, I think coming to grips with 'what' the Church actually IS forms an integral moment in the conversion narratives of those who find themselves stumbling into Orthodoxy from the Latin or Protestant faiths. As a former protestant minister, I shared your critiques almost verbatim, I realized that the very questions I was asking had to evolve as they were informed heavily by my own perspective and 'tradition'. Thanks for your engaging points and contribution to Christian dialogue on the internet!
Interesting. I usually hear that the Orthodox church is the unchanged church from the time of the apostles, not that it has developed in its practice. I have read the church fathers for years now and knew that this narrative that the Orthodox church has not changed is false.
@@caseyshaneperkins It's not that doctrines change. It's that there really wasn't much "doctrine" regarding iconography until later. Iconography did exist in the early Church, for example, in the catacombs. But there were also people that had an aversion to icons. Just as there were people that viewed the Holy Trinity one way and others who viewed the Trinity another way. Or the natures of Christ, or other stuff like that. I don't think saying that doctrine regarding iconography was established at a later time means that we switched up our doctrine. Just like the idea of Jesus being co-eternal God with the Father being established at a council doesn't mean that we developed the divinity of Christ. The doctrine was established at a later time because it was something that was very important to address with the rise of the heresy of iconoclasm. Just as divinity of Christ was established at the council of Nicea in response to the heresy of Arianism. I think that's what people mean when they say the Church is "unchanged", that once Christianity establishes doctrine on a particular thing, the job of Orthodoxy is to uphold it. When they say Orthodoxy is unchanged, they mean the Faith has remained consistent. Christian teaching has been upheld. Change? Sure. A living organism changes and grows and develops. Of course there's going to be _change_ in some form. We're not still in the catacombs, nor do we take Communion daily or eat it as part of a larger meal like they did.
You say you believe in Augustinian beliefs and original sin, so what do you say about the recent book from Dr. Ken Wilson who shows the connection between Augustine’s interpretation of Scripture coming straight from his Manichaen and Stoic influences and not orthodox Christianity? Dr. Wilson studied the early church and read Augustine in chronological order and had his dissertation published by Oxford. He’s since had a book published for the layman to understand his findings. I’ve posted the link to his book below in another comment. If you think he’s incorrect, can you do a response video in the future? Dr. Wilson presents some very strong evidence for his conclusion.
Dr. Jordan B Cooper With all due respect, shouldn’t you be interested in seeing where Augustine really got his beliefs and what influenced him to teach things the church leaders before him didn’t teach? Even before Dr. Wilson’s extensive work first published by Oxford and later into a popular book this year, I had read other scholars who came to similar conclusions.
@@jeremiahb9718 Can I recommend a book from Mark J. Boone? www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/1498229395/ref=dbs_a_w_dp_1498229395 I also haven't read your book but I really don't see the stoics influence in Augustine, at least not anymore than whats in the apostolic fathers. I see more of a neo-platonic influence than anything. But I agree with Mark that Augustine uses plato's method for reasoning through and understanding scripture but he still bases his theology on scripture supremely. I can say that after reading his confessions that he references scripture a LOT.
@@albusai the holy scriptures say, that we should not worship idols but only God. Also Christ says "become saints, because I am Saint" so when I kiss an icon, I am not worshipping the wood, or the colour, but the God who is honoured throughout the saints. I'll give you an example. If a man go to war, his mother will kiss his photo, because she can't kiss her son. So she loves the paper and the ink or her son? However there is still a lot of people who think that the wood is holly. But orthodoxy says that if an icon is destroyed, the wood that remains must burn.
@@albusai also, the baptism of infants is performed for some reasons. Firstly, in the early years, people were baptized in a mature age, in order to know what they are doing. But , due to infant mortality, and a lot of infants were dying without being baptized. So church decided to baptize infants, and teach them after. Additionally, an another reason is that, it it's better for people to be baptized when they are infants, because they can receive holly communion from a small age. However, it isn't a must to be baptized in infancy, if the parents don't won't to baptize their kids.
Further discussion on the difference between the uses of icons/art between Lutheran perspective and the Orthodox would be interesting. I know the East as you said attaches almost sacramental value to their veneration. While Lutherans do not venerate to the same level, it is common practice to bow to crucifixes or some pastors kiss the gospel book. Is there a distinction in practice here or is only a theoretical theological difference?
This is a great video. Once one doubts Sola Scriptura (and I don't mean the characatured version painted by some Orthodox and RC), then it is easier to see the truth of the Orthodox position. Your point about the Orthodox emphasis on the participatory aspect of Justification against the forensic aspect is quite compelling. I do know some Orthodox Christians who endorse more of a balance of forensic and participatory, but I think you're right that the emphasis more often is on the latter for the Orthodox. I like how you said that were you to leave Lutheranism, you would prefer Orthodoxy over Roman Catholicism. Me too. I'm allured by Orthodoxy as a disenchanted Protestant, but I'm definitely taking my time to feel settled in spirit before I make any conversion. I hadn't realized Theosis is Neo-Platonic. That doesn't bother me so much, as I love Plato! Augustine was influenced substantially by Plato also. I prefer the Orthodox view of Original Sin for two reasons. First, psychologically speaking, shame is no good for the human psyche, and I think the Orthodox position is less shame-based. Second, I think the Orthodox view upholds the dignity of humanity being in the Imago Dei more strongly. I feel Protestantism went too far towards the total depravity side here, which I think is harmful psychoemotionally. Again, this all hinges on Sola Scriptura. I believe in Prima Scriptura, not Sola Scriptura. I think Sola Scriptura commits one to a view of Scripture being infallible and of highest authority. I think both of these are false. Scripture isn't infallible, as can be seen by its contradictions. Sola Scriptura apologists have to perform some amazing philosophical gymnastics to argue away the obvious contradictions. With the Orthodox, I believe the Church is on equal authority with Scripture. That said, if I choose to remain in the Protestant tradition, I'd definitely go Lutheran, Episcopalian, or perhaps Methodist.
Tomato sn4y, I have no idea what you are trying to say. Do you not speak English? Well done for trying! Even if it doesn't make sense. "Cope, your scripture is just a bunch of failed books." Cope? What do you mean by that word? It normally means to deal with something. Deal with what? My scripture? What do you think my scripture is? Failed books? As in they are falling apart with the pages falling apart? Is your mummy there? Maybe she can help you?
I am an Orthodox Catechumen from Protestantism, trying to inform myself before making the definite choice of going to the Orthodox church. Thank you for this video.
@NorthernFire9 Thanks for the advice! The view of atonement was one of the things I was most agreeing with (the Christus Victor model). My main concerns for now are around dogmatism. I have a huge reverence for the Church Fathers, but I feel like there is little space given to new ideas, to putting into question dogmas (and I don't mean this in the purpose of breaking dogmas, but making them more strongly applicable and helpful for today's day and age). For example the early Church was open to adopt secular philosophies into their practice (St. Augustine and neoplatonism), and invent new things (hesychast tradition and corpus of practices). But I feel like it's not the case anymore. Like it stopped evolving in some sense. I do not support subjugating the church to the standards of modern popular culture, trying to make it "cool". But I am a great supporter of the idea that instead of rejecting modern psychology, science, and cognitive science, it should embrace it and give it new life under the light of Christ. Imagine how more widespread and understood the hesychastic practices could be if we spoke about them as we speak of eastern meditation! How easier it would be to understand spiritual beings by combining them to Jung's concept of archetype! I know some Orthodox Christians do that, (for example Jonathan Pageau), but I haven't seen that be embraced by the leaders of the Church.
I'm in the exact same boat. I'm a new catechumen but having 2nd thoughts. Not sure I can throw away all saints post schism and all Augustinian philosophy.
+Dr. Jordan B Cooper -- FINALLY! Like an answer to an unspoken prayer, I have been waiting for this type of video on the EO for quite sometime *_and_* being disappointed with the audio quality of a similar video you dropped earlier in the year or last year. Bravo! Now if you could only debate Jay Dyer (unless it went down already he's scheduled to go up against some RC any day now). Hey, we can hope can't we? :P
+Dr. Jordan B Cooper -- I should probably try to lighten up and give Mr. Dyer a chance (re: I can be quite abrasive at times as some Roman Catholics found out the hard way in the comment section to one of your older videos) but he is "guilty as sin" when it comes to being an ever-typical Orthodox. What little I have seen and heard (e.g., a 3+ hour length video allegedly refuting the anti-Trinitarian views of a RUclipsr named *RockingMrE* I downloaded months ago) can be nauseating and taxing toward one's mental reserves. It's bad enough I have to hear traditionalist RC's within the nationalist circles I run in here on You[Lose], but hearing that fool say "dis, dat, and dem" regarding Protestantism makes me want to hunt him down and get all Vlad Tepes on his rear end!
+Dr. Jordan B Cooper -- Okeedoke. I just got back from doing a bit of reconnaissance (mainly the 'History' section of my YT channel) and if you want to get a third-party stance on Jay Dyer check out the channel of *The Kurgan* and get an earful of *_"JAY DYER THE LIAR"_* which I just stumbled upon moments ago. The one that I saw a two weeks ago is entitled *_"Jay Dyer Debate challenge issued"_* (I left one post in the comment section). His most recent video has him spending roughly two or three minutes in the beginning giving information on the upcoming debate between him and Mr. Dyer, and then moving on to the business as usual. I can't blame him for having a distaste for Jay Dyer and dismissing him out of hand. FYI: I could have done so but I did not cite any of those video links in order to cut down on the possibility of this post (or any others at this point in time here or elsewhere) being shadow-banned, auto-deleted, or showing up as spam on your own channel.
Hopefully he never does, that juvenile scholastic form of Orthodoxy would leave a terrible impression. Fr Josiah or Fr Peter Heers would be much better.
Why do Lutherans put so much emphasis on Paul. Paul never knew Christ in His human nature. Mary on the other hand knew Jesus from conception to the ascension. She knew Jesus better than anyone in history yet in all Protestants will discount her and go all in on a person who never met the Christ. Paul had a AH HA moment and used his education to explain it. Paul was one of the elites of his time and his life compared to the Beatitudes his seems to contract Christ teachings in many ways. If Paul were illiterate what would you have? Always go to the Blesside Mother. The Eastern Orthodox get that so did every Christian until the Revolt.. . Monasteries across Germany contained 900 years of stored labor with in their wall and no army to protect them. Luther known to me mental stole that wealth from the monks. It was the greatest transfer of wealth in history. 900 years of stored labor was taken in just one decade.. He used that wealth to fuel his movement and later went back and developed his theology.
@@albusai If that is what you got out of what I said may God help you. You should consider taking a reading comprehension course and practice reading for five or ten years then maybe read the Bible.
"Legal" or "Courtroom" language was used to be easily explained to humans. It doesn't mean we have a full understanding of what is happening though. That's why the Orthodox call a lot of things a mystery.
Yes, I was thinking that a lot of that language comes from St. Paul making things easily understandable for his audience in that day. My family is Roman Catholic, but at the age of 17 I joined a Protestant/Pentecostal Church. Within the past 3 years I have been heavily drawn towards Eastern Orthodoxy as it just seems to have the most balance.............kinda like a full balanced meal : ) Sorry for the crude analogy 😅
@@henrysmith5784 There's a lot of things in orthodoxy where the nature of Christ has the best explanations but the iconography and liturgical worship is clearly based off the continuity of the early christians that belonged to various jewish sects. There's so much cultural and historical context that Orthodoxy overlooks because a lot of the headcanon has been accepted several centuries after the new testament. It took them around the birth of Islam to finally get on board with the virgin birth. tl;dr the church fathers disagreed with each other and are not infallible.
How do you handle the radical claim Orthodox Christians make that their traditions have been so consistent for almost 2,000 years? Everyone I know that is Orthodox always makes that claim ☦️
This seems to be the go-to argument they make. "The Ancient Faith" or the "Ancient Church". Considering that they have also innovated on at least one aspect (look up St. Gregory Palamas and his hesychastic theology).
Христо Мартунков, граф Лозенски Wrong. Hesychasm is a spiritual practice and you’re not forced to practice it, it’s not Dogma. Our dogma hasn’t changed in 2,000+ years. Some things can develop, but not our dogma. These are small t traditions. No one claims everything is exactly the same (we’re not antiquarians). For example, we don’t meet in home churches like 1st Century Christians did. You are mixing Tradition and tradition.
Yea, we need to point out all the Calvinist, Baptist, and Luthern saints and founding fathers. I for one know the Saint John thd Baptist started the baptist movement, so southern baptists are the true Christians.
@@TheRealRealOK I'm not mixing anything. Hesychasm is a spiritual practice based on the theology of Gregory Palamas adopted in 14th century Byzantium. This is not a small tradition, it is an official Orthodox position and a recommended spiritual practice. You may not be antiquarians, but the Orthodox have a tendency to debate even the smallest issue, e.g. whether one should make the sign of the cross with 2 or 3 fingers. Because God cares about the exact fashion you make this sign, yeah, sure.
I noticed that it seems like a lot of Eastern Orthodox folks have come on here not to really talk doctrine per se, but to attack Cooper personally and yell that "our church was founded in 33 AD by Jesus" which totally begs the question.
Re: St. Athanasius talking about paying back a debt, you said that it's an example of forensic categories -- but is it? Forensics revolves around crimes, not debt, though...yes?
Not Orthodox myself, but the imbalance and misunderstandings in this presentation (gracious and respectfully delivered though it was) really went to solidify my thinking on the reality of the continuation of consistent Patristic thought within Eastern Orthodoxy over and above Protestantism... Western traditions which contain much presupposition and novelty built on the back of 'later life' Augustinian thought. (if I had to be a mainline Protestant though I would definitely be a Lutheran! 😊)... The rebuttal vid of this vid is a good watch
@@dave1370 in context, yes, because, of course, context is everything. I'm quite sure that if Athanasius and Martin Luther were to sit down and converse about the nature of the Atonement, Human Nature, the Church and Soteriology, they would not see eye to eye on a great deal.
I’m starting to read a book called “An Existential Soteriology” by Fr. Joshua Schooping. He makes a case that PSA is in the scriptures and Orthodox can’t get away from it and uses church fathers to make the case and how it actually is within the concepts of Theosis. Very good book! God bless!
The orthodox Church is a Ancient Church who establish disaples people they have to know a true I,m not judgemental ,but each of us have to speak a true and facts orthodox Guy from Serbia compare our holidays which we celebrate in orthodox Church with other church and you will see that holidays In orthodox Church is just biblical we have to speak about true dear brothers and sisters in Jesus Christ..
The Evangelist Luke was the first iconographer, he drew Holy Icons of the Theotokos holding Jesus Christ as a baby ( the first drawn Icon). In the early church very few people were literate further displaying the importance of having Icons that depict events important to the faith
@@jimmysheehan5496 Why because he's mean? His arguments are air tight. He's proven he can formally debate. Just watch his debate with dillahunty, Trent Horn, and classical theist.
![Natanael Cano - Amor Eterno [Official Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/EO4prCs6WpM/mqdefault.jpg)
I was an active and devout Anglican/Episcopalian for decades. I converted to the Orthodox Church 8 years ago. My only regret is that I did not convert many years ago.
God Bless you
Bless you my brother.
Love from Orthodox Serbia
Irish Catholic born and bred. Becoming Orthodox was the best decision I ever made. Like you, I wish I had done it sooner.
Which Orthodox group did you join?
@@canadiannavigator3346 Why did you leave the Catholic Church to join the Orthodox Church? Which group did you decide to join?
I'm Orthodox, and while we obviously disagree on some key points, I felt like this video was respectfully done and I appreciate that.
Ikarus720 are you Coptic ?
@@itsgiosilva1437 Antiochian.
8
Agreed.
Iv had great conversations with an orthodox even tho we disagreed he still prayed for me and I appreciate that
I was atheist when I believed in God i prayed for a long time to reveal to me His true Church. God revealed it to me in a dream, the name of the Church and the name of the priest. Imagine becoming Orthodox Christian in Japan, a not so christian country. That’s God’s ninja move!!
I'm not Christian but Sanatana Dharma and my Grandfather recently died I went to his funeral and was in the church and was stunned by the sear beauty of the iconography and place definitely a good place.
@Nero IV Then why did God command that the tabernacle, and the first and second temples be so ornate?
@Nero IV Go fiddle yourself.
Time and again, heretics universalize their own subjective error as theistically sanctioned. Over and over.
Wait you live in Japan ? Mate I gotta respect that , you live there with all those gurus and magic and sexual stuff that Japanese people do.....and yet you try to be an orthodox, enough said you are something I couldn’t reach even in my dreams
As an orthodox, u were really respectful and ur focus wasnt on things like opinion and emotions as some prots I have met on the internet but theological. Although I disagree on the points u made, I came to realize that Lutherans are more truth holding than the other protestant denominations bc of their view on babtism and Eucharist.
God bless🤗
They allow female priest and have rainbow everywhere. And not the biblical rainbows.....
@@arnoldvezbon6131 Not the fundamental Lutherans
@@theobamiumchronicles2838 Not yet lol
@@arnoldvezbon6131 The gay ones don't hold to traditional beliefs.
@@theobamiumchronicles2838 Neither do protestants. That is literally the reason Protestantism exists. It's a rejection of traditional Christianity.
I grew up Protestant, and fell away from the faith as a teen. After an over a decade of being a drug addict I found Jesus Christ of Nazareth at age 30. I spent serious time alone rebuilding my life with just my Bible. After serious prayer to find the right church; I found myself at the Greek Orthodox Church, and I am so glad I found it! I find its worship and liturgy to be beautiful in ways that I have never experienced. To be honest many Protestant churches now just give a motivational speech in between rock concerts, and as a professional musician it did not work for me. I believe many will find Christ through different ways, but as I grew in Christ I found Orthodoxy to be for me.
Why is this comment section so hostile? He’s just stating the reasons why he disagrees with EO . If anyone reading this can’t be charitable about something as well-intentioned as this video, they have a lot bigger problems to deal with in their walk with God than attempting to root out someone else’s supposed heresy. Seriously.
Most of them are ortho larpers, orthodox Christian aren’t like this, remember the church is hospital and we’re all sinners
EO converts are just cage stagers.
because this is the internet, everyone acts militant and offensive
@@Kauahdhdhd I see so we should just let people misrepresent our faith without correction?
@@arnoldvezbon6131 yo can you tell me what I wrote earlier I can’t see it
Great to see so many Brothers and Sisters finding the right path of Christianity through Orthodoxy.
God bless you all . Love from Orthodox Serbia
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serbia
Slav Defendov
Srbija zije za naveky
Long live Serbia
Slovensko and Srbija forever friends and brothers.
Yeah, Ive found it in Jesus Christ, taught in a sound doctrine church like mine:an evangelical reformed fellowship. From now on, I'm so glad to be an orthodox Christian indeed! 🙏
I love all my Serbian Orthodox brothers and sisters,greetings from a Orthodox Romanian!
J.Inhan.....right on fellow orthodox Christian....faith based on THE WORD OF GOD and THE WORK ACCOMPLISHED BY CHRIST. Evangelical, reformed New testament Christianity. To God be ALL the glory!!
Great video Dr. Cooper. I don't know why this is, but EVERY single time there is any video on RUclips like this, any video countering Eastern Orthodox theology, the comments are filled with almost *exclusively* Orthodox believers defending their church, with TONS of likes. I don't understand why, moreso than any other subgroup of Christendom - it's like they seek these videos out and dislike them/make their voice heard. Very strange, it happens on every single video I've ever seen on the subject, from any channel. Don't know if you noticed that too.
Anyway, I appreciate this video. There is a growing trend in Reformed/Lutheran/Anglican circles to head to Constantinople, for a variety of reasons. I think it's super important to have men like yourself lay out with clarity that it's not the right path, from the lens of Scripture or even looking at the Fathers. While there is much to be admired in Orthodoxy, I think the mystical nature of the theology overpowers many into converting into a church that isn't the Apostolic, solid institution they might think.
*Orthodox Compline prayer to Mary:*
_On the terrible day of judgment, deliver me from eternal punishment and make me an heir of your Son's glory_
*The orthodox Church sold actual indulgences* for the forgiveness of sins, which could be gifted to other people. The Ecumenical Patriarch fully acknowledges this fact and has honored Christos Yannaras, the scholar who documented this abuse.
Patriarch Nikon I insisted that his liturgical innovations were “necessary for salvation,” and excommunicated and condemned the Old Orthodox churches for rejecting his public heresy. All other bishops accepted his heresy. The Russian Orthodox bishops today were all ordained by his invalidated succession.
I've just realized the phenomenon you're talking about and absolutely agree
With many centuries of occupation by islamic rulers, the Orthodox church has needed to be extremely militant and insular to survive. That attitude is almost in its DNA today and seen in the aggressive and overpowering responses you see on the internet. There is also the assumption among existing Orthodox and converts to Orthodoxy that old = pure/correct. As anyone can see from the history of Popes and Patriarchs, that is very flawed thinking.
@@johnpowers3013 I totally agree. It's providential that this reply came today, as just last night I was researching about some of the most infamous Popes and Patriarchs. Speaking of which, what are some of the most infamous patriarchs you can think of? Bad popes are easy to find, but because of the national context of many EO countries, the historical data is more sparse.
Would be great to hear you discuss-debate Lutheran doctrine and Eastern Orthodoxy with Father Josiah Trenham
That's a great idea! I'd be very interested in that also. How can we make that happen?
Or Jay Dyer
@@gzoro8645 Cooper is scared of Jay
@@scipioafricanus2195 EXACTLY. 👌
I'm Orthodox myself and even I'm scared of Jay that man is the terminator, I do like him tho.
I'm Eastern Orthodox and I personally don't see a problem with drawing from both modes from the two traditions of Theosis that you talk about. Most of the Orthodox I know draw from both and Dr. Bogdan Bucur does an awesome job in talking about Theosis from Scripture as well as from the Fathers (from both modes). I've been Orthodox for 13 years now and I have no regrets.
I'm Orthodox Romanian just like dr Bogdan Bucur!
There is a sense within Protestantism, that Greek Philosophy is mistrusted, just for the fact that it is ultimately pagan and non monotheistic.
@@ronaldfelix1000 as a former Southern Baptist I agree with you. I have been Orthodox now for 30 years and believe that God deliberately led me this way. Not to say that God will lead everyone there but God seems to speak to me most clearly through Orthodox belief in worship. I initially went from Southern Baptist to Roman Catholicism and then to orthodoxy. Wow one can get carried away if not careful I do believe that there are aspects of Greek philosophy or if you want to call it Hellenism that in a way God did speak in earlier times. Certainly one should not discount the influence of Hellenism since the events of the New testament occurred in a very Hellenistic context as well as Jewish.
Most orthodox Christians are openly racist and ethnonationalist that goes against the teachings of the new testament. The original church was actually established by jews with gentile converts.
In the New Testament, Paul demands active unity in the church, a unity that explicitly joins together differing ethnic groups because of their common identity in Christ. Paul proclaims that, in Christ, believers form a brand-new humanity. The old barrier of hostility and division between ethnic groups has been demolished by the cross; and now, all peoples are to be one in Christ (Rom. 4; Gal. 3-4; Col. 3; Eph. 2).
Christians of other ethnicities aren’t just equal to us; they are joined to us.
Paul insists that the primary identity of Christians is to be based on their union with Christ-not on traditional sociological, geographical, and ethnic connections. Again, the implications are profound. Christians of other races aren’t just equal to us; they are joined to us. As Christians, we’re all part of the same body, united by the presence of the same Holy Spirit who indwells us all. We’re not just friends or fellow worshipers in the same religion, but brothers and sisters in the same family.
Favortism is a sin and likned to the lawbreakers of old. Orthodox and other ethno based churches are a taint
@@SimpleMinded221, have you personally met most Orthodox Christians? If not then you can't speak on what most Orthodox Christians are. I've been Orthodox for 15 years and in my personal experience I can say for every one bad or racist experience I had there were 500 good or nonracist experiences.
As far as your claim of ethno nationalism I think you're exaggerating the actual reality on the ground. I'm Antiochian and so my Parish was started by immigrants from Syria, but at my parish you will find people from Iraq, Jordan, Palestine, Syria, Lebanon, Greece, Serbia, Egypt, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Ukraine, Russia, Romania, some countries from Asia, and people like me (from America).
Also the unity seen in both New Testament Scripture and in the early church Fathers is unity in doctrine, unity in fellowship or intercommunion.
We believe that our Faith or Religion trumps ethnicity, and so any Orthodox Christian is allowed to have Holy Communion at any Orthodox Church that is in Communion. And we also believe that any Orthodox Christian can marry another Orthodox Christian, and so you're exaggerating the reality on the ground plus by talking this way you reveal your ignorance of ancient canons in 4th and 5th century canons in Canon law (in regards to Ecclesiology).
2:47 Saint John of Damascus from the 8th century spoke of how God uses analogy to communicate something about himself long before Thomas Aquinas. He uses this fact in his argument on the use of images in the church.
Whoa, St John of Damascus who wrote 5 centuries earlier than Aquinas uses concepts later adopted by Thomas? Who had also read a lot lot of the Greek fathers? mind blowing, dude...
@@jpmisterioman twitter.com/Jay_D007/status/1078721120231219206
@@jpmisterioman Why the unneeded sarcasm?
I greatly appreciate the seriousness, thoughtfulness and care used in creating this video.
The sweetness of graces that flow from the Monasteries, the monks/nuns, visiting holy sites, reading the lives of the saints, the authentic athoritative connection to historical biblical accounts tradition and even culture, etc. Just give yourself more time and pray. I am a former 7th day adventist, former pentecostal, former non denominational, former roman catholic, now Antiochian Orthodox.
@@cheeseymanish read: "The gurus, the young man, and Elder Paisios." "Wisdom of the holy fathers" "Rock and Sand" any writings from Fr. Seraphim Rose, Elder Ephraim, Elder Joseph the hesychast, Elder Paisios, Elder Porphyrios, St. Anthony the Great, etc will totally change your life. Many if not all of these holy men are npw canonized or to be canonized Saints in the church.
@@AbuSefein89 How would you answer to the typical protestant objection that the church of the bible was different from what came after(i.e., relics, liturgy, etc) ?
@@jpmisterioman any unbiased research into early christianity inevitably leads to rome then further east until you hit Jerusalem. Christianity would not exist without Orthodoxy. The bible was written by them, everything we know about Christ comes from them. Many of the churches mentioned in scriptures still stand to this day and can be visited. One in particular is the church of St. Peter in Antioch, St. Ignatius of Antioch was St. Peter's successor. They were of the early church bishops. Read what was written by St. Ignatius of Antioch. none of the early church fathers were protestant, protestantism didnt exist lol
@@AbuSefein89 Why did you left roman catholicism?
The early church was corrupted with paganism, hero worship, and power struggles. I have little faith in any of the writings outside those of the original Apostles.
Dr. Cooper, thank you for your sincerity and charity in all your videos. It truly gives me hope that we can all come to the Table and be one with Christ.
you can, at the altar in the one, holy, catholic, undivided Orthodox christian Church.
Former protestant here (I was an evangelical before becoming lutheran, and the lutheran church I joined is my tribal church), I thanked God for He showed me the way by making me hard to breath when entering an Orthodox church around my uni, it's just my personal experience, but happened was I was searching for God for a long time. Learning about Anglican, the Latin, Islam, Buddhism, and even once an atheist. But I heard about a weird church, a church from eastern europe and the middle east, claiming to be the direct continuation of the church, saying that the 4 Patriarchates come from them, and that the Latins are a tyrant and the prots are their weird offspring, yes I knew Orthodoxy from a debate on the internet. And I look it up, funnily enough they had around a thousand converts in my country, a muslim country, and another funny thing is that, that is near. So yeah I go there, and once I entered the Church, the beauty just caught me off guard, and I felt that breathing is hard, and tears are coming out of eyes. I sat down and started to pray, and the tears never stopped until I get out of the church. At that moment I thanked God and said to myself "So this is the way", I go home and cried for hours, to note, I'm a man, and I believe that a man shouldn't cry, but I cried. That day I also look up how to become a cathecumen and talk to the priest the next week.
I hope anyone would read this, and I may not prove anything and my conversion is purely because of emotions, but I believe that it was God's work.
Interesting journey. What country?
@@bpeper1365 I'm from Indonesia
That could very well be Good talking to you.
How did you get past all the accretions to the faith in Orthodoxy like venerating icons? It makes me cringe, personally.
@@Apologia14 Define “accretion” and I’ll give you several Protestant accretions. Ironic how you guys love to use that word…
Thank you for all you do for the Kingdom of God. Godspeed and God's peace be with you.
I don't know many thinks about comparative theology but based on my little experience on it, I would say that the Orthodox Church is not just intellectual or rationally centralized, it erges a very deep profound communion with divinity, a personal relationship with God. It's not just words and obeying to rules, it's about transforming the self through your everyday action, showing compassion and understanding and patience and humility!
The forensic, juridical language of scripture represents, by way of metaphor, the images and symbols of salvation, not its ontological contents. This is a seminal error of soteriology inherited by the Protestants from the Roman Catholics, which begins to take root first with the rise of Frankish influence in the West , culminating in the late scholastic period with Anselm's theory of atonement.
@@wiglafthegrnlander4757 I'm sure that's it.
@@jpmisterioman It isn't a "conspiracy". The Franks had a profound influence on the papacy and its development, independent of whether one buys into the more specific claims of Romanides or not. Observe the role of the Franks in the adoption of the Filioque by Rome, which Pope Leo III resisted (under pressure) to the point of having silver plates inscribed with the original Nicene-Constantinoplean Creed sans Filioque placed prominently in St. Peter's Basilica. This is covered in Anthony Siecienski's " Filioque: History of a Doctrinal Controversy" published by Oxford University Press.
The Franks also demonstrably influenced Western iconoclasm and rationalism, for which their theologians laid the groundwork in documents like the "Librini Carolini" which rejected Nicaea II and its affirmation of the veneration of icons while elevating the word (verbum) as the highest form of the sacred, a development which was obviously a precursor to the later Scholastic rationalism, with its reduction of the faith into an elaborate system of conceptual-propositional statements and deductions; from whence was spawned the entire Protestant religious outlook and everything which eventually emerged out of it, including Enlightenment and Western Liberalism and individualism.
So it's simply not correct to simply dismiss these connections as entailing the acceptance of some outlandish or otherwise dubious "conspiracy".
@@jpmisterioman That Pope Leo III personally accepted the Filioque as a theological point is trivial to the argument, the relevant point being that he took pains to resist its inclusion in the Creed, a fact which is evident in the inscription he added to the silver plates bearing the original Creed without the Filioque which he placed in St. Peter's:. ": "Haec Leo posui amore et cautela orthodoxae fidei" ("I, Leo, put these here for love and protection of orthodox faith"). This action was in response to pressure from the Franks to add the Filioque to the Creed. The "article" you sent conveniently never mentions any of this.
As for St. Gregory Palamas, you would simply be wrong as a matter of fact, footnotes or no footnotes, since the the "Palamite" theology is simply the elaboration of a theology which had already been taught by St Athanasuis, St. Basil, the Cappadocians, St. Maximos, St. John the Damascene and others, in addition to being enshrined at the Sixth Ecumenical Council. If it is merely ' Islamic Mysticism' as you say then that would put you in a bit of a pickle would it not? Since the RCC includes the Uniates in their communion, who both venerate Palamas as a saint and affirm the teaching of the Divine Energies as taught by the same, with the explicit approval of your Popes.
So merely attacking Romanides (who is simply one writer not the source of Orthodox teaching) isn't sufficient to substantiate your argument.
And if you knew anything about the subject you'd know that the teaching of St. Gregory has been codified by medieval Orthodox councils which are binding on all the Orthodox. So anyone saying St. Gregory Palamas is a heretic is in fact a heretic themselves, not only according to the Orthodox but your own Catholic "Uniates".
@@jpmisterioman Those plates bear witness to a consensus of faith and polity within the pre-schism universal Church from which Rome and the entire West deliberately deviated under the theological influence of Frankish theologians in response to the pressures of Frankish political machinations. This is not very difficult. Either the Church taught and accepted as a an authoritative deliverance of universally accepted Ecumenical Councils that Holy Spirit proceed hypostatically from the Father, or from the Father and Son together, or it did not. The action of Leo III at a time when the Church was still united, East and West, demonstrates that even the that bishop in whom Roman Catholicism later invested a charism of infallibility and absolute teaching authority upheld what the Orthodox today assert was the correct formulation of the Creed reflecting a recognition of not only what was held to be the normative theology of the whole Church but of the binding nature of Ecumenical Councils as highest authority over its dogmatic teaching. So the fact that some in the West had previously come to accept the filioque is merely a red herring which sidesteps the main argument regarding the papal claims about dogmatic authority and the nature of the polity of the Church and its universal teaching as expressed collegially at the Councils.
The rest of what you stated does not fare any better. If a dogma is true and held to be infallibly such, as is the Filioque by Rome (c.f. 4th Lateran Council, Council of Florence, etc), then it is absurd and a contradiction to say that a church which recognizes and is in communion with a "Holy See" which teaches the Filioque as a true dogma of the faith; that is held dogmatically to constitute the sole infallible teaching magisterium of the Church demanding docility and submission, is free to omit the Filioque and revert to the version of the Creed sung by the Orthodox who declare the Filioque to be a grave heresy. God is not the author of confusion. One Church with two differing views on the Holy Spirit and on Essence-Energies and Anthropology (Western body-soul/intellect vs Eastern Tripartite Body, Soul, Nous) entails the affirmation of a kind of spiritual schizophrenia. Far from demonstrating some elevated notion of spiritual unity that you suggest, it rather demonstrates quite forcefully that the RC church is a human institution whose primary concern is to enlarge its power and worldly influence, rather than to serve as a living expression and bulwark of that faith "delivered once and for all to the saints".
If you care about footnotes so much that you would assert that we should dismiss an author purely on such grounds, then to be consistent you must also summarily dismiss many other authors who didn't write in the style of professional academics adopted since the rise of Humanism and Enlightenment in the West. This would include all the ancient authors, the Holy Fathers East and West, and the Holy Scriptures. I hope by now you can see that such arguments serve as little more than petty smokescreens by those seeking to avoid having to honestly confront the substance of an opposing argument. It's moot however since, as I have already stated, one need not accept the expansive claims of Romanides thesis to acknowledge the significant role of the rise of the Franks in determining the trajectory of the papacy both political and ecclesiastical, and of Western theology in the Medieval period and beyond. The argument you are making is simply one of "guilt by association". This clearly won't work.
You stated that the Holy Fathers that preceded St. Gregory Palamas did not observe an distinction between Essence and Energies. That is a demonstrably false claim. Here are a few examples for your consideration:
“Essence and energy are not identical.” Cyril of Alexandria Thesaurus 18, PG 75:312c
Or consider Letter 234 of St. Basil:
"The question is, therefore, only put for the sake of dispute. For he who denies that he knows the essence does not confess himself to be ignorant of God, because our idea of God is gathered from all the attributes which I have enumerated. But God, he says, is simple, and whatever attribute of Him you have reckoned as knowable is of His essence. But the absurdities involved in this sophism are innumerable. When all these high attributes have been enumerated, are they all names of one essence? And is there the same mutual force in His awfulness and His loving-kindness, His justice and His creative power, His providence and His foreknowledge, and His bestowal of rewards and punishments, His majesty and His providence? In mentioning any one of these do we declare His essence? If they say, yes, let them not ask if we know the essence of God, but let them enquire of us whether we know God to be awful, or just, or merciful. These we confess that we know. If they say that essence is something distinct, let them not put us in the wrong on the score of simplicity. For they confess themselves that there is a distinction between the essence and each one of the attributes enumerated. The operations are various, and the essence simple, but we say that we know our God from His operations, but do not undertake to approach near to His essence. His operations come down to us, but His essence remains beyond our reach."
Also Observe Section 15 of Book 3 of St. John Damascene's "On the Exposition of the Orthodox Faith" entitled "Concerning the energies in our Lord Jesus Christ", where he clearly elucidates the position affirmed by St. Gregory Palamas and held by the Orthodox Church today:
www.newadvent.org/fathers/33043.htm
So none of what you are saying is true.
And this Marcus Plested person is not a dogmatic authority in the Orthodox Church and his views on EE are at variance with the established dogmatic teaching of the Church, besides not standing up to theological scrutiny. I could care less what he thinks.
@@demetrios4699 , thank you for such invested response, you have helped a person in need to understand better their faith. Thank you.
Are you really Augustinian if you are not communing infants? (Thats a half-joke)
I appreciate your approach Dr. Cooper, you are well researched and charitable. I am former reformed baptist and currently an EO catechumen. The anti-augustine approach of some Orthodox was a concern of mine when i began looking into Orthodoxy but there has been a lot of pushback to that and emphasizing that Augustine is a church father.
Overall, my thought throughout the whole video is how the east and west have developed different approaches to epistemology that combined could be an aid to one another. That this is the long term result and tragedy of schism. Something was lost when the east and west broke. How we should long for a united church.
I disagreed on almost everything, perhaps I should become orthodox
🤣
YES!
BECOME ORTHODOX™
Return home brother! We await with open arms!
@@coltonthedrummer problem with Orthodox Church is they only await but never go, and don't really care that much about going.
While I disagree as an Orthodox Christian I appreciate your respectful tone, and we are all united in our shared belief in Jesus Christ. On that, we pray together.
Can you imagine the apostles have a theolical debate with the common folks as they presented Christ's message? No it was "Hey, bud, do I have news for you".
Cooper, I don't know if you'll ever see this, but I just gotta say, whilst I think you fundamentally misunderstand Catholic theology, you're an incredibly intelligent man. I saw some people say that they think you should debate Dyer, but I think he would be a waste of your time. You're far more earnest, charitable, and intelligent. Keep up the videos. God bless you, my brother in Christ.
I appreciate this video and your respectful tone. I grew up LCMS and got my MDiv from Concordia Theological Seminary before I left for Orthodoxy. At least three of your five reasons were my own in terms of identifying real differences between Lutheranism and Orthodoxy, I just came to a different conclusion. My ultimate reason for leaving Lutheranism was ecclesiology. Again, thank you for the fair tone and content of your video.
I was working on applying to Concordia Theological when I converted. Question, have you ever pursued ministry in the Orthodox Church now?
Isaiah Poe - I plan on pursuing that in the next year or two, maybe through the diaconate program at one of the Orthodox seminaries.
Glory to God! I was accepted into CTS for fall of 2021 but deferred enrollment for a year, partially to figure out where I was between Lutheranism and Roman Catholicism. Just a month ago I was chrismated into the Holy Orthodox Church.
@@isaiahpoe you also became Orthodox? It has been far too long since we've talked.
@@evaneparat - God grant you many years!
I wish you could explain this at a non Ph.D level LOL 😂
@JL-XrtaMayoNoCheese LOL
Lol
@JL-XrtaMayoNoCheese made me laugh out!
@JL-XrtaMayoNoCheese LOL
@@zealousideal its true that sometimes eastern orthodoxy is very academic..at least in my native orthodox church..thats why i like to listen teaching of coptic church becouse its more understandable for simple people like me and very spiritual just like in very low protestant churches
When one is caught up in scholasticism, that person most likely will not see Orthodoxy.
Sounds like something a morman would say.
how? how is looking at the facts and using logic, reason, and scripture to determine the true church bad?
@@zealousideal thanks for your explanation, I agree
@@zealousideal It seems to me that the West uses the wrong tools to understand God, or at least fails to use the full complement of tools. The problem is that God can't be fully understood through the intellect. You can't put God under a microscope in a lab. You can't weigh or measure God. Nor can God be boxed in by definitions. Coming from the opposite approach, it would be as if someone tried to understand the theory of gravity by taking it on faith rather than examining the science behind the theory.
At some point you have to let God be a mystery and take a leap of faith. For me, that's what the Western church fails to do.
Because the moment you study theology the EO seems ridiculous...
I’m Orthodox and want to start by saying that I appreciate your approach in general, both in the respect you show and in the fact that you bothered to read our Saints and Fathers before sharing your opinion on them in the first place. Many people speak ill of them, and the Church, without doing even one single minute of due diligence and serious research first. I want to add some perspective to your second point, specifically where you said that the early Fathers talked about theosis as more something already accomplished than as an experience. The language may sound that way, but I encourage you to also think about the context in which they wrote - which was entirely as part of the sacramental, incarnational experience of the Church herself as living, breathing, worshipping members. Their ideas and writings cannot really be separated from the experience of theosis as undergone within the Church, and I may even suggest that if they mentioned it less than later writers, it’s because it was so fundamental that it could be assumed without giving explicit mention to it. Just something to think about!
Also, you are correct that the penal atonement and debt language is absolutely part of Orthodoxy. Many Orthodox deny it but they are incorrect, and largely “throwing the baby out with the bath water” simply because it sounds too Western or Protestant to them.
Pastor Dr. Cooper, peace be with you! I just wanted to say thank you for this video. I hope that your viewers will understand how well read and knowledgable you are on the topic of the Eastern Church. I am Orthodox myself, and I truly appreciate your even handed, well educated, and kind approach to Orthodoxy. I often wonder if the reason for the different outlooks held by Lutherans and Orthodox are due to the circumstances in which each has lived. For example, the Lutheran theologians and frankly Lutherans in the main, I find are more well studied and possess very capable analytical and legalistic reasoning. I would think that this is rooted in the brilliant academic and theological mind of Martin Luther; one may agree or disagree with him, but his intellect is vast and his love for Christ is as well. The Orthodox, on the other hand, have for so long existed as the Church in captivity, often under occupation or persecution and just hoping to keep it alive for another generation. That said, I can see the reason that the Orthodox emphasize a more mystical/spiritual approach is due to the suffering under the Ottoman Turks, the Bolsheviks, etc.
With regard to antipathy toward all things Western, I don't know that I see it in my own church, but on the intenet of things, there are some real hardliners. People who dismiss St. Augustine, for example, because Fr. John Romanides wrote against him. Anyway, I would suggest checking out the Western Rite movement. It seems to be strongest under the auspices of the Antiochian Patriarchate and ROCOR (Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia). I hope to be part of the reclaimation of Western Orthodoxy. We both carry the scars of Rome in one form or other, but for what it's worth, I love and respect the Lutheran Church very much as well. Martin Luther's 95 Theses sparked a revolution for me that brought me out of Roman error, and I have always loved the conviction of "to go against conscience is neither right nor safe; here I stand." I hope I did that justice. Anyway, this got long. Thanks for reading!
That's interesting about the Western Orthodox movemeny, I have a hard time seeing the Russian Orthodox supporting it though
@@wesmorgan7729 it's really cool. Interestingly,when I read the old liturgies, like the Sarum and Gallican, I can see the Lutheran liturgy being closer to them than to Rome and closer to them than Rome. The ancient undivided church had many liturgies though. The Roman mass was just one. But we shall see how it goes.
Your post was so well written and interesting that I didn’t realise how long it was until you mentioned it. 😊
Now here is a Christian response if I’ve ever seen one. As a Lutheran leaning Christian I feel like your comment was respectful, loving, shared your hopes for Christianity, and also maintained your personal theological convictions with excitement. If only all of us in Christ discoursed in such a loving way with each other. God bless you!
As an Orthodox Christian I appreciate your candor. While I can disagree with your points, I've come from Protestantism myself, I had a question for you regarding icons. I grant your argument that in the NT and early Church (I assume you're referring to the Ante-Nicene Father period) you don't find a emphasis on icons. However, at the 7th Ecumenical Council we do find a strong emphasis. Here is the relevant passage from that Council regarding icons:
"We define that the holy icons, whether in color, mosaic, or some other material, should be exhibited in the holy churches of God, on the sacred vessels and liturgical vestments, on the walls, furnishings, and in houses and along the roads, namely the icons of our Lord God and Savior Jesus Christ, that of our Lady the Theotokos, those of the venerable angels and those of all saintly people. Whenever these representations are contemplated, they will cause those who look at them to commemorate and love their prototype. We define also that they should be kissed and that they are an object of veneration and honor (timitiki proskynisis), but not of real worship (latreia), which is reserved for Him Who is the subject of our faith and is proper for the divine nature, ... which is in effect transmitted to the prototype; he who venerates the icon, venerated in it the reality for which it stands."
Do you follow this canon which directs Christian believers to venerate icons. If not, then how can you justify disregarding a direction of the Holy Catholic Church that is held without dispute between both Roman Catholic and Orthodox alike, as well as others? This Council and its canons predate the Protestant Reformation by many centuries, and was never, to my knowledge, challenged by any of the reformers, including Martin Luther himself.
He made a video on the 7th council already if you want to watch.
ruclips.net/video/JEvfagfyfug/видео.html
@@JP-rf8rr Thanks
@@JP-rf8rr Just watched his treatment of icons and the 7th Council. Basically his approach was that he wasn't too sure about the 7th Council being truly Ecumenical or correct about what it judged to be the true and authentic faith of Christians with regards to the use of icons. It came off to me like a "Johnny come lately" attitude of "I don't think I agree with the Council so I'm not going to accept it as true". All the while this Council is not debated or argued about but held in common between Roman Catholic and Orthodox alike who have many bones to pick with each other, especially the Orthodox, but not when it comes to icons and the 7th Council. There is universal agreement in this point. It just seems ridiculous to me to dismiss something from the undivided Church just because it offends your sensibilities. But that's really the crux of Protestantism in a nutshell. There's an awful lot of talk about Sola Scriptura and the Bible only, but when it comes down to it it's just up to the whim of the individual if something is accepted or not. And practically any interpretation of the Scriptures can be asserted by pretty much anyone to uphold any particular view someone would want to have. It's chaotic and has led to the vast array of disjointed churches and communities we witness today. Martin Luther might have intended a good thing, the reform of the Roman Catholic Church, but his followers and successive generations have turned his noble goal into something unrecognizable and terrible for the Faith.
@@justanotherlikeyou
I would say that your judgment is a little unfair, he isn't trying to justify some of his unbelief of things within the council to an orthodox. Instead he is justifying his use of icons to those who are overzealous about images with a brief mention of the council. That being said, his argument is more than it offends his sensibilities. He is basically saying that many of the people (especially the west) didn't comprehend the council's implications and the main focus was refuting Islam. His main justification is that a large portion of the Christian population didn't view icons that way and that was saw as perfectly acceptable. And the justification for the council's view of icons just doesn't seem convincing.
You can disagree with that but it's not as simple as having his sensibilities offended.
@@justanotherlikeyou I would like to direct your attention to 1 Corinthians 8, especially 11-13: "And so by your knowledge this weak person is destroyed, the brother for whom Christ died. 12 Thus, sinning against your brothers and wounding their conscience when it is weak, you sin against Christ. 13 Therefore, if food makes my brother stumble, I will never eat meat, lest I make my brother stumble."
So in context, this is referring to eating food that was originally offered to idols. It refers to the "stronger brother" as the one who knows that idols are nothing, and therefore does not sin by eating meat sacrificed to idols. It calls the one the "weaker brother" who has a more sensitive conscience towards this issue, and ultimately says that while it is not a sin in and of itself to eat meat sacrificed to idols, the stronger causes the weaker brother to sin when forcing him to go against his conscience. So I guess by all means, call us Protestants the weaker brothers. Notice it doesn't say to even try to convince the weaker brother that the stronger is right. It says it's not worth destroying the weaker brother's conscience. I think the 7th Council really does fall under this category, especially since there were Christians elsewhere who said it was not good to have images at all. As Jordan discussed in the relevant video, we Lutherans are definitely not iconoclasts in that we see images not as being sinful in and of themselves, or even kissing icons as sinful necessarily, some people still will feel in their consciences that they are treating them like idols. So we think it was wrong for the Council of Elvira to throw out images entirely, as Paul says the weaker brother is not to condemn the stronger brother. Paul on the other hand also says the stronger brother is not to look down on the weaker brother. I'm not entirely sure if the Eastern Orthodox "force" everyone in their parish to kiss and venerate icons, though, so I'd be interested to hear your thoughts. Thanks.
be an orthodox is making a bridge to heaven and GOD there might be 5 reason y not but 100000000000000000000 reason y i am
You maje the bridge?
@@albusai he has a point , stop trying to make a joke out of him , when I went to Portugal ( a very catholic country , which my father is from in case you are wondering why we went there ) I went to a church ( catholic) when I saw the priest there I.....didn’t see it felt anything inside him, it wasn’t like our priest here in Greece where when I go up to him I feel....differently.....I feel good.....in fact as I am speaking to you right now I am feeling good ( not trying to say that I am better than you or something, I am just saying the truth ) as an orthodox I can safely say that Orthodox Church just from the church alone is superior
Great video. My beliefs align more with the Lutheran church and these are some of the main reservations I have about Orthodoxy as well.
Same. Love all the people ive met along the way in my journey too
Hello friend. In order to have a more authentic view on Eastern Orthodoxy, I would propose you to have a look at the life and miracles of modern Orthodox saints, like e.g. St. Paisios of Mount Athos, St. Porphyrios of Kafsokalyvia, St. Iakovos Tsalikis of Evia, St. Nectarios of Aegina, St. Luke of Crimea, St. Joseph the Hesychast, etc. No matter what is the theological background of any individual, the divine experience of the saints is the safest guide for anyone to reach the truth of Orthodoxy.
@W D
"The Spirit inspires where he wills. And you hear his voice, but you do not know where he comes from, or where he is going." [John 3:8]
The Church always considered miracles to individuals (whether considered as Saints or not) as an expression of God's mercy to them and humanity in general. However miracles don't necessarily mean acceptance of one's state by God. Gor example we see in the New Testament cases of miracles done to men who either didn't follow Christ [Luke 9:49-50] or even ignored Him [Acts 10:1-6]. Similarily to that there are many cases of miracles even to non Christians like, e.g. Muslims or atheists.
That being said, miracles to individuals alone were never considered as a sign of genuineness of someone's faith. However when miracles are combined with genuine faith - i.e. faith that is being kept unaltered since the times of Apostles - then miracles can be considered as a seal of authenicity granted by God. This is exactly the case of miracles within Orthodoxy. Miracles without Orthodox-genuine faith don't proove anything apart from God's mercy towards men.
Nevertheless there is a case of miracles that can help someone to trace the original Church and these are the liturgical miracles which have a repetitive character. Take for example the blessing of the water: When a Roman-catholic priest blesses water he adds some salt in it so as to be natuarally preserved unrotten for few weeks, whereas when an Orthodox priest blesses water he doesn't put anything and the water is being miraculously preserved unrotten no matter how many months, years or decades might pass!
Similar to it is the miracle of the Holy Fire in the Holy Sepulcre of Jerusalem that takes place every Holy Saturday. That miracle is possible to take place ONLY by the prayer of the Orthodox Patriarch of Jerusalem. Everyone who has tried to replace him (like e.g. Roman-catholic, Armenian, etc.) has failed.
Thus, the issue of miracles on individuals should be adressed with caution and always having in mind that authenticity of faith can not solely be proven, but only to be strengthen by them.
@W D
My criterion was not whether I like Orthodoxy or not, but whether its faith has been kept unaltered or not.
As for the miracles happening solely in the Orthodox Church, kindly read again paragraphs 4 and 5 of my previous post. God never left seekers of Truth without tangible evidence.
@W D You are wrong. All Orthodox, Greeks, Russians, Serbians, Romanians, Arabs, Africans, etc., confess exactly the same Creed of Faith, as this was formed by the First and Second Ecumenical Councils, contrary to papists and protestants who have altered it. Disagreements may arise sometimes within Orthodoxy but these have to do with ecclesiastical matters and not with doctrines.
As for the Holy Bible, this was written by the Church through the inspiration of the Holy Ghost and since then it is authentically interpreted only within the Church. This of course doesn't mean that we may do with the Bible "whatever we like", but only to be consistent with its spirit under the light of the teaching of the Holy Fathers of the Church.
@W D Such things have happened multiple times in the past. Meetings and discussions, disagreements and reconciliations are part of Church's history since the very beginning. You shouldn't have short memory, neither confuse ecclesiastical with doctrinal issues. And yes, Russians are Orthodox the same as Greeks or any other who confesses our faith.
@W D Differences between Orthodoxy and Roman-catholicism are both doctrinal and ecclesiastical. The split started with the filioque dispute and papal claims about supremacy but during the centuries that passed since then the differences considerably increased. Here is an indicative list of them:
www.impantokratoros.gr/Papism-Falsehoods.en.aspx
After being an atheist for 28 years and being in the Anglican and then briefly the Roman church, I am grateful to the Lord that He finally brought me to a God honouring, bible-believing Baptist church.
God bless you all who worship Jesus rightly as your only Saviour.
That Bible that was put together by the Orthodox Church?
The original church is the orthodox church man, due to apostolic succession
💩
@@justjuol3703In Your dream
Apophatic theology started with Pseudo-Dionysius? I think you need to reexamine this statement from several different angles, but primarily through scripture and earlier church fathers.
Scripture
Old Testament
The Old Testament has plenty of examples of "the cloud/smoke" of God. Moses is not able to see God as He is but only His back side as He passes by. In Isaiah we read, "Truly You are God, who hide Yourself,
O God of Israel, the Savior" (Isaiah 45:15). "Who in the clouds shall be compared to the Lord? (Ps. 88:7 Lxx)" Ecclesiastes: "Do not be hasty with your mouth, and do not let your heart be quick to utter a word before God; For God is in heaven, and you are on earth; therefore, let your words be few (Ecc 5:1)."
New Testament
In the New Testament, "God alone has immortality, dwelling in unapproachable light, whom no man has seen or can see, to whom be honor and everlasting power. Amen" (1 Tim 6:16). "No one has seen God at any time" (John 1:18). "The peace of God, which surpasses all understanding, will guard your hearts and minds through Christ Jesus" (Philippians 4:7).
Patristics prior to Pseudo-Dionysius
Moving from there, there are examples in Clement of Alexandria, and plenty in the Cappodacian Fathers. Gregory of Nyssa, interpreting Phil 4:7, wrote "beyond reach not only of the human but of the angelic and of all supracosmic intelligence." Gregory Nazianzus wrote that "boundlessness" was the only thing that could somewhat be comprehended about the divine nature. Theology, according to Basil the Great, is "inexpressible by the human voice" and "incomprehensible to human reason." More: "our thought is weak, but our tongue is still weaker than our thought" and human language is "powerless to express the conceptions formed by the mind." The Holy Spirit, according to Basil is "incorporeal, purely immaterial, and indivisible...infinite in power, unlimited, unmeasured by times or aeons." The doctrine of predication, according to Basil, does not apply to God. The Divine Nature, according to Gregory of Nyssa, is "unlike anything known" and this is where any "proper conceptions about the Divine Nature" begins. It is impossible to "find among existing things a likeness of the object of our inquiry, sufficient in all respects for the presentation of the matter in hand by way of some kind of analogy and resemblance." More Nyssa: "Even if it were possible to draw an analogy for this from created things, such conjecturing about the transcendent from lower existences would not be altogether sound." According to Basil, it is illegitimate to theorize about the "immutability of the divine nature." There is no "common ground to the peculiar nature of human life and the peculiar nature of divine life, their distinctive properties standing entirely apart from each other." Any effort "to apply to the ineffable nature of God that common custom in human life of establishing differences of degree in society" must be completely renounced and repudiated.
I can go on and on in the Cappodacian Fathers. On and on and on and on. I have not even got part way down the tip of the iceberg. They speak of silence, thoughtlessness, etc, etc. So I think you need to reconsider your statements on apophatic theology, especially when you make such a mistake as to say it originated with Pseudo-Dionysius when there is no support in that statement at all. Even more so when you say that Thomas Aquinas thoroughly develops speaking by way of analogy, when plenty of eastern fathers use analogy and cataphatic theology.
Thank you. You helped a person in doubt. I am slowly reading my way through the ante-/post- Nicene fathers series of books and trying to get to grips with my faith and develop in myself a strong understanding (intellectual and emotional) of the Holy Trinity and all other aspects. And I noticed both use of affirmative and negative theology in the Fathers.
@@EmptyKingdoms I've since been marking apophaticism in the Bible when I come across examples. This list is far from complete; I haven't read through the entire thing trying to keep an eye out for apophaticism.
1 Timothy 1:17 Now to the King eternal, immortal (apophatic), invisible (apophatic), to God who alone is wise, be honor and glory forever and ever. Amen.
Colossians 2:3 in whom are hiden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge.
Philippians 4:7 and the peace of God, which surpasses all understanding, will guard your hearts and minds through Christ.
Ephesians 3:8 ...that I should preach among the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ.
Romans 11:33 Oh, the depth of the riches of both the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are His judgments and His ways past finding out.
Psalm 17:12 He made darkness His hiding place; His tabernacle was around Him, Dark water in the clouds of the sky.
13 Because of the brightness before Him, the clouds, the hail and the fiery coals passed through.
Pslam 138:6
Your knowledge has become too wondrous for me; it has become too overwhelming; I am unable to grasp it.
Wisdom of Sirach 43
28 How shall we ever be able to adequately praise Him? For He is greater than all His works.
30 Glorify the Lord and exalt Him as much as you are able, for He will surpass even that. And when you exalt Him, put forth all your strength; Do not grow weary, for you cannot exalt Him enough.
31 Who has seen Him and will describe Him? And who can magnify Him as He truly is?
32 There are yet many hidden things greater than these, for we have seen but few of His works.
Thank you for prefacing this video by saying that you don't fully understand Orthodox theology. This explains why you gave these reasons not to be EO. I encourage you to do some more investigation, and not just academic investigation, but attending an Orthodox service, talking to an Orthodox priest, etc.
1. The purpose of Apophatic theology is to avoid speculations and inaccurate statements about what we know of God. However, there are plenty of Cataphatic statements and doctrines that EO make about God. The difference is that these are revealed truths, as opposed to scholastic derivations based on human speculation and rationalism. The entire Nicene Creed is made up of Cataphatic statements. To imply otherwise is quite naive. Also, the essence/energies doctrine is crucial in terms of how we come to understand who God is. Because we cannot know Him in His essence, only that which has been revealed is given positive statements, otherwise, negative statements avoid making theological pitfalls. Think a bit about why the U.S. Constitution or the 10 commandments are made up of negative statements, mostly. There is a reason for this.
2. You never explained why the EO's articulation of Theosis is "neo-platonic." So I consider this a null and void argument. But Orthodoxy is very careful to avoid platonic theology, and again, the essence/energies distinction is crucial here because there is no dichotomy between the one and the many. Theosis simply means becoming gods by grace, what Christ is by nature. Union with God does not imply pantheism as with other Eastern religions. There is always a clear distinction between the created and the uncreated, and this will never change. As such, theosis is not neo-platonic in any sense.
3 & 4. The doctrine of justification did not gain prominence until the Reformers. While there is forensic language used throughout the NT, it merely expands our understanding of salvation and articulates it in a rich way. Fundamentally, salvation is not forensic according to the EO Tradition. While there is certainly forensic terminology that we use, the process of Salvation is not that God declares us innocent and pure when clearly we are not, but Salvation is truly an ontological transfiguration, and this is alluded throughout Scriptures OT and NT. EO rejects many of the Augustinian themes that give rise to the Western doctrine of "original sin" not as a cultural difference or a difference in thought. Augustine simply did not understand the Greek language and make proper translations from the Greek text of the NT. He understood original sin as genetic transmission and a guilt of the human race due to Adam's sin. Orthodoxy does believe in a doctrine of "original sin" more commonly referred to as "ancestral sin," and this is not based on speculation or mistranslation, but based on the anthropology of Christ which translates to the anthropology of humankind. Man has freewill because Christ had free will in his humanity as illustrated in the Garden of Gethsemane. Freewill is fundamental to EO theology, and Augustine sets a trajectory that leads to a more deterministic theology that is incompatible with EO.
5. The 7th Ecumenical Council clearly lays out the importance and emphasis of icons. You are correct in saying that not all regions had a robust practice of iconography, but many regions did. This came to a head when iconoclasts were vehemently opposed to icons, and gave theological reasons for this. This became a Christological matter, which is why the veneration of icons goes beyond merely optional, but a true expression of the incarnation as God becoming man in a material sense through the incarnation. While we do not (or at least not supposed to) depict God the Father, as Roman Catholics have, we absolutely can and should depict God the Son (Jesus Christ) to remind us that he is truly man. The 7th council will tell you all you need to know about the importance of iconography (besides being used as a tool to the illiterate women and children, who learned primarily through images). And to this day, art is a language unto itself that communicates things that words simply cannot.
Having previously been Eastern Orthodox for twenty years I could add quite a bit to what was said. However, I will just point out one thing. The Exclusivity that one is obligated to believe and hold to is far more radical than the soft sell that most modern Eastern Orthodox Churches present. The true EO Ecclesiology is that there are no Christians outside EO. All outside her communion are under anathema/curse by the EO Church, and since they believe they have the Apostolic power to bind and loose, those outside her are believed to be cursed by God. Nicea 2 made this very clear as well as the Synodicon of Orthodoxy that anathematizes other Christians by name and group. The Synodicon is supposed to be read in Church once a year. Virtually no one does this because it is so scandalous. The so-called True Orthodox Churches who broke from World Orthodoxy have the real EO Ecclesiology, which World Orthodoxy has thrown under the bus. Those Protestants who are flirting with Eastern Orthodoxy be aware that you are being soft sold everything, from Icons, Mary, Salvation and a number of other things. If you are OK with being a Sectarian of such a radical nature, then perhaps it is a good fit for you. It took me years to get to the truth of what Eastern Orthodoxy really teaches. It is an Ocean, a deep well that takes years to really understand.
Thank you for posting this...I am an EO inquirer, and EO has been "too good be true" - so I've been looking for what's off. I'm personally ok with a lot of weird things, but if the OCA Church demands parishioners to belief in it's infallibility that's something I can't bear. Can you relate any historical documents or resources to determine their actual beliefs around salvation or other topics you've brought here? Also, what type of Church do you go to now?
It's a shame you don't debate Jay Dyer.
Martyn Crosse No he’s not, and I can’t believe I didn’t recognize that this is the Cooper guy Jay was going to debate, lol I had no idea, but it was pathetic to say he’s a conspiracy theorists, therefore I won’t debate him that’s cowardly, and frankly stupid how did Cesar get assassinated?
@@jpmisterioman
Everything you just wrote is an out and out lie. You have no factual basis for anything you just wrote.
Or debat Jonathan Pageau
No its not. Dyer is a total sperg.
A shame? Dyer doesnt debate. He berates.
I think the problem with justification is not the legal language, but the confusion of this language with the reality of the situation. It's like taking metaphor too literally. And Catholics also reject the notion that God really does set up a cosmic law court and conducts his business just like a judge. NT Wright deals with this quite well in his book(s) on Paul
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N._T._Wright
☦️May God make you change your mind and open your heart☦️
You orthodox people surely are blind.
We catholics love you and respect you, and never questioned your beliefs, we never even PERMITTED OURSELVES or even DARED to criticise you. While you orthodox act like we are something terrible.
Let me say, you orthodox totally have a non-christian behaviour like this.
Shame on this behaviour and may god forgive you for the sin of hate.
@@Bashkir Interesting point, but not true. I just prayed for him and you say it's hate. We all have free will. And about what Roman Catholics did in the past to Orthodox Christians, I rather not talk. Just type JASENOVAC in google or en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_clergy_involvement_with_the_Usta%C5%A1e
Срб СОССД.ГИХСБПМГ.амин
Here another hateful and unchristian thing coming from you, considering the past sins, while the purpose of Christianity is forgive and tend your hands to others you instead want another church of god like you to disappear and people to go away from it.
Mine is not a point, I am sick of the orthodox world hating us while we love you.
Срб СОССД.ГИХСБПМГ.амин
If you are talking about Crusades, these were political interests and religion was hardly used, the Church of Rome has condemned those acts already.
Saint John Baptist has saved the Roman Catholic Church and restored it to its original good state.
@@Bashkir No, I'm talking about 20th century. What Saint John has to do with Roman Catholics? He lived 1000 years before the Schism. The problem I have with Roman Catholics is that they are in heresy. I love all Christians but the TRUTH CAN BE ONLY ONE! Orthodox Church remain the same for 2000 years, and Roman Catholic Church changed a lot of things in service, in dogma etc. On Holy Liturgy, we pray for unity of ALL the Christians. But that unity can't be compromise between us but following the TRUTH. GOD BLESS YOU!☦️
"Orthodoxy does not have a strict catechism." We are catecheized by the holy liturgy.
Dude, this.
Scholasticism cannot make sense of its own categories!
No contradiction.
@@bertramga Saint Augustine in the Ancient 400's was a Medieval Scholastic?
Amen ☝🏽
We will actually agree on that there is legal language in the bible and talk on justification. The difference is that it's not the only way to think about salvation.
I don't really understand approaching the church fathers through a Lutheran perspective. You pick parts that they say that you like and agree with your points (like things on Justification) but overall, you're not going to agree with the church fathers in terms of iconography, sacraments, apostolic succession, so are you just agreeing with them on points that justify your church?
Well orthodox do that too, as well as Catholics. St irenaeus says things about mary that you orthodox would call heretical and teturlian says things about baptism that they would call heretical.
The fathers aren't orthodox or catholic or Lutheran, the fathers are the fathers. So any attempt to read the fathers in any of the 3 perspectives means mentioning the parts you like while ignoring the parts you don't. What I like about Jordan cooper is that he doesn't try and force the fathers into any of the 3 perspectives. He will point out that Clement believed in Sola Fide but also that Justin martyr taught salvation by faith and works.
@@JP-rf8rr I'm sorry but your comment just shows your poor understanding of church history. There was no distinction between "catholic" and "orthodox", as we understand it today, because there was just One Church, the Early Church (which was Catholic, which just mean universal).
The church fathers were part of that Church and so they are within the Roman Catholic and Orthodox Tradition.
Jordan Cooper is using these guys as though they are part of the Lutheran Tradition when really the Lutheran church condemns everything early as being in apostasy. What he tries to do is find authority in the church fathers by quote mining and taking them out of context to justify his clown church.
@@roflingsteaks
1. I never said that there was a distinction between Catholics and Orthodox then. I said the fathers aren't orthodox (as in modern or relatively modern orthodox) and they weren't Catholics (as in modern or relatively modern Catholics).
2. Both orthodoxy and Catholicism quote mine the church fathers ridiculously while claiming that the other side is taking them out of context (they clearly can't look in a mirror). I've even heard orthodox dismiss Clement of Rome because "he's Latin" (although I think if Clement agreed with orthodoxy then they'd happily ignore that)
Cooper on the other hand isn't quote mining. He genuinely discusses both the fathers who agree with him and disagree with him. And he doesn't force them into certain positions.
@@JP-rf8rr
"I said the fathers aren't orthodox (as in modern or relatively modern orthodox) and they weren't Catholics (as in modern or relatively modern Catholics)."
no you didn't lol. read what you said again "The fathers aren't orthodox or catholic or Lutheran, the fathers are the fathers". And then the point I made completely went over your head. Do you understand what it means when it's said that there were no distinctions in the early church? thus everything in the early church is within the Roman Catholic and Orthodox TRADITION? do you not understand that? No Orthodox is going to refute Clement of Rome because Clement of Rome was WITHIN TRADITION.
It's fine for modern Orthodoxy and modern Roman Catholicism to quote the early fathers because they are WITHIN TRADITION. What's wrong is Cooper looking for authority in them since they're not in tradition, or is he trying to make the point that the early church fathers were Lutheran? lmao
@@roflingsteaks
No you missed my point. I never said there was a distinction back then. I did say that the father aren't catholic or orthodox or Lutheran because they aren't. The mere fact that I included Lutheran should have indicated that I was speaking in the modern sense. I am completely aware of the original meaning of Catholics being universal. You're assuming things that I never said.
And plenty of orthodox refute Clement of Rome. Probably because he taught Sola Fide
And besides, by your logic wouldn't Augustine and Ambrose and Jerome be in your tradition since they were technically a part of the church. Are you gonna say orthodox don't refute them?
Also Lutheran do inherit the apostolic church. Just like how the great schism didn't discredit you the split with Rome didn't discredit Lutherans. They were monks, priests and bishops who were brought up with that tradition and after leaving Rome's control they still continued to quote saints and maintain their ancient traditions. They weren't a separate group adopting only certain aspects of a foreign religion. They always respected the apostolic church.
Thank you. My views on justification would prevent me from being Eastern Orthodox, as well the lack of a historical and scriptural basis for the apostolic authority of the church, and the Eastern Orthodox anthropology, specifically original sin and our fallen nature.
@JL-XrtaMayoNoCheese Thank you for the response. Interesting but not significant.
@JL-XrtaMayoNoCheese My words were poorly chosen. I should have said that it is not significant in convincing me as I do not believe that the church was guided by only oral tradition, as though the scriptures were not authoritative until canonized. Thank you for the reply.
What do you mean by a lack of apostolic authority? If by that you mean Apostolic succession, that is that apostolic authority was handed down from the apostles to the bishops and then their successors down the centuries, then my question is where do you not find apostolic succession in the Apostolic Fathers? They reference the doctrine of apostolic succession throughout their works, the earliest reference would be in 1 Clement (dated to late first century) in the 44th chapter which says "Our apostles also knew, through our Lord Jesus Christ, that there would be strife on account of the office of the episcopate. For this reason, therefore, inasmuch as they had obtained a perfect fore-knowledge of this, they appointed those [ministers] already mentioned, and afterwards gave instructions, that when these should fall asleep, other approved men should succeed them in their ministry."
As a Protestant looking into and deeply considering Orthodoxy, my understanding of apophatic theology in the Orthodox church is significantly different from this. Apophatic theology refers to the inability to comprehend the essence of God (e.g. His face on Mt. Sinai), but cataphatic theology speaks of God's energies or operations (e.g. His back on Mt. Sinai) which St. Basil says in Letter 234 (well before Ps. Dionysus, if we're assuming him to be a later figure) come down to us and by which we can speak of God cataphatically, and thus, this is how we worship "what we know" as Basil says. My understanding of hesychasm is that the goal is to see the uncreated light of God, which are his energies, not merely to sit in His unknowable essence, and also to be transformed through theosis back into the likeness of God from which we fell and participate in the Divine Life. The essence and energies are not parts of God from which He is composed any more than the hypostases of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are parts of God. God is simple, but in God there are real particularities and distinctions which are not contingent or accidental or separable. Likewise the East also speaks of the energies of God, His goodness, justice, omnipotence, etc. by analogy, because our understandings of these concepts don't fully encapsulate the fullness of their reality in God. Obviously, I'm not an Orthodox theologian, so take this understanding with a grain of salt, but that is what I understand from figures like Dr. David Bradshaw, and from reading some of St. Basil and St. Gregory Palamas.
Debate fr. Dr. Decan ananias he's a former Lutheran unless your gonna throw shade at him you gatekeeper.
Ananias would win hands down
Ananias is twice the intellectual this guy is, and he’s 3x the beard!
Ah yes, tell someone to debate, and immediately insult them afterwards. Thankfully clowns like yourself make up a minority in American Orthodoxy and basically non existent in Europe
Aa a Lutheran I appreciate Eastern Orthodoxy is not supporting purgatory, indulgences and papal infallibility.
My understanding is that in the EO church, veneration of icons is commanded and that those who do not venerate are declared anathema and must be excommunicated. Requiring icon veneration for salvation? Is this not a "different gospel" as warned by Paul in his letter to the Galatians? How did Peter and Paul and others preach the gospel throughout the book of Acts, resulting in salvation for thousands with no mention of icon veneration?
could you do “5 reasons I am not Anglican”?
Too easy tbh lmao
I second that request because there seems to be some very subtle nuances between the two that aren't easily defined, with the exception of Lutherans believing that you can only lose your salvation due to a loss of faith, whereas the Anglicans believe that it is impossible if you are truly a Christian to begin with.
Anglicans believe a true believer can forfeit salvation also (at least the non-Calvinist ones do).
There's only one reason: I'm not Anglican because...have you seen contemporary Anglicans????
5 reasons I'm not Christian Science when?
I'm Orthodox and #5 I agree with heavily
This went over my head...I need someone to send me the cliff notes
Cliff Notes - Convert to Orthodoxy
It is basically Christian mysticism.
@S Travis with a lot of imagery/icons in worship. Which I find really off-putting , as noted in this video.
It's counter spiritual to me.
Have you visited any monastery in Mount Athos? See it as a strong medicine to cure your heart and fix your mind.
This was brilliant Dr. Cooper. Thank you!
Debate Jay Dyer and Fr. Dc. Ananias (Norwegian Nous).
I love jay dyer but I strongly recommend anybody who's gonna debate him to have a badass moderator or he will talk over you. lol. peace from a confessional Lutheran Jay D.
I challenge any Orthodox to answer how they can reconcile the Orthodox works based salvation with the following Bible verse: “For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing, it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast” Ephesians 2:1-22.
I challenge you to explain how you have the capacity to interpret a book of Scripture the canon of which was established by the Orthodox Church
Who do we believe? The Church who has taught since 33AD that salvation is a faith justified by works (James 2:24) or do we believe some dude on the internet 2,000 years later entirely removed from the Apostolic tradition who has no right to interpret the Bible in such an authoritative manner as he is right now?
@@eunoeenchiridion6063I challenge you to not use question-begging in your answer.
@@JetShanghaian you try not begging the question in your answer.
@@JetShanghai
“And we, too, being called by His will in Christ Jesus, are not justified by ourselves, nor by our own wisdom, or understanding, or godliness, or works which we have wrought in holiness of heart; but by that faith through which, from the beginning, Almighty God has justified all men; to whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen.”
St. Clement of Rome
First Epistle
Can you please make a video on your views on nondenominationalism. Many families in my congregation have left Lutheranism for nondenominationalism.
B Peperkorn tighter communities lying pastors who take off labels and preach baptist theology
B Peperkorn they are based on feelings rather than truth. And it doesn’t matter how tight the community is Mormons have some of the tightest communities yet teach some of the worst heresies
@@atanasiogreene8493 Nondenominational Christianity is not based on feelings. The difference is that we aren't religious... just as Jesus wasn't. It is about a relationship with God, not about a religious appearance.
Estefanía L. It’s all about feelings it’s Baptist Christianity with feelings inducing music and message, the Bible is not used very often in services it’s more about the pastors opinions, life advice and interpretations. And Christianity is a religion and having a relationship with God is part of it, www.christianpost.com/voices/christianity-is-a-religion-not-a-relationship.html
Estefanía L. It’s baptist theology and sometimes they incorporate Pentecostalism as in the case of hillsong and Calvary chapel. The pastors remove there denominational title to bring in more people if you compare your beliefs with a Baptist they are exactly the same. Nondenominational (Baptist) pastors tend to be wishy washy as to not offend like removing the cross , not keeping with biblical laws on modesty, and they change there stance on certain issues. There is no such thing as nondenominationalism it’s just repackaged Baptist theology to get young people. as soon as a supposedly non-denominational church has made decisions about what happens in worship, whom and how they will baptize, how and with what understanding they will celebrate holy communion, what they will teach, who their ministers will be and how they will be ordered, or how they relate to those churches, these decisions have placed the church within the stream of a specific type of denominational tradition. Nondenominationalism is a very new thing and was created by men it is a religion of men and follows men just look at who you face during church you see a screen with your pastor, apostolic Christians who were created by Christ and the apostles face Christ and do not put emphasis on pastor
2:04 It's definitely not a thoughtless action when we pray. We Orthodox Christians put a lot of thought into our prayers. If you mean deep meditation prayers of Orthodox Christian monks on Mount Athos or even the ascetic Desert Fathers that is quite rare. It's called Hesychasm, in which stillness (hēsychia) is sought through uninterrupted Jesus prayer ("Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner"). Only some hardcore Orthodox Christian monks do it often, which is similar to some deep meditation/prayers done by Buddhist monks but also by some Catholic monks as well (Francis of Assisi and Franciscan monks).
Yeah and how is repeating mantras until they lose meaning good or constructive to our faith? The fact that Buddhists do it should make us question it.
Thank you, Dr. Cooper! Very clarifying!
You seriously made a boardgame about the Smallcald War? That is the nerdiest and most admirable thing I've seen in a long time.
@@Mygoalwogel I will take that as a supreme compliment!
@@Mygoalwogel And my friend, I see that you are into The Lutheran Chorale and Reformation hymnody! IT IS THE BEST! So bright, radiant, and there is always a joyful resolution! I loved the setting of "Awake, My Heart, With Gladness" you posted on the playlist. Phenomenal bass and tenor
@@droegeboycreations9199 Goodness, I didn't realize that list was public. How embarrassing. Anyhow, my wife, a musician, likes for her donkey of a husband to bray the bass as best he can in church.
@@Mygoalwogel I am sure you've got skills, brother!
Debate Jay Dyer
5 Reasons why I am not Lutheran, 5 Solas.
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_solae
Exactly if everything could be found in scripture Jesus would’ve had no need for Apostles and establishing his church. I believe our savior wanted tradition and the mysteries of the holy spirt obtained through a relationship developed in fellowship.
Orthodoxy is a conversion of the heart, not the mind. You will never reason your way into Orthodoxy. Man's wisdom is foolishness to God.
@BR0D1E Orthodoxy is Christianity. Everything else is just so called Christianity out of Orthodox 'Economia.' Everything else is a deviation from the one true church. Here in the US there are thousands of so called Christian sects but they are not really Christian. I know you are going to try to tell me Orthodoxy is false and you are Christian. Please save it.....I'm not interested...heard all the spiel before....read your church history. And don't try to tell me history does not matter...IT DOES.
So a person can't convert to Orthodox only following reason? Like, I can convert to mormonism only following my heart, what doesn't make me to do so is reason.
@@Lay-Man For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false testimony, slander. If your heart is pure and your desire is only for truth, God will lead you to orthodoxy. If your heart is corrupt like a corrupt tree, it will lead you to anything that is false. So yes, your heart, if it is perverted could lead you to Mormonism. What has Roman catholicism with a scolastic and legalistic approach to spirituality become? A cesspool of perversion.
@@CJohn33 Ah, I see.
But honestly, how can we know that our hearts are not leading to a false idea?
I have the idea that reason can lead to truth, the heart can do this too, but almost always it's erroneous.
And I agree, I don't like to mix spirituality with reason by any means! I think spirituality comes after knowing the truth and living according to it?
@@Lay-Man Only by prayer, sincerity of heart and testing the spirits. This may take a very long time depending on the disposition of one's heart.
Orthodoxy is ancient. It has clear apostolic ties. It's powerful. It's seriously tough. It's (ostensibly) conservative. It's incredibly beautiful. It's personal and yet emphasizes the Church as the real, functioning Body of Christ. It focuses on a God of dispassionate but unchanging love. It's like walking into the ocean after the wading pool of much of modern Protestantism, BUT.... its noetic focus cannot always give clear answers to questions modern, logic-oriented, but truly seeking people ask, and the Orthodox laity doesn't seem to be empowered to really witness for Christ. Some of Orthodoxy is also deeply rooted in the culture, royalty, wars, and general politics of certain regions and countries. Sometimes it mistakes cultural "tradition" for true church "Tradition," (so do some Southern Baptists....I won't be a hypocrite here) and it may ascribe practices such as certain feasts (the entrance of the Theotokos into the Temple) and the veneration of icons to the earliest church when these might have developed somewhat later. And, yes, because of controversy, it cemented and formed part of its deep identity around a specific view of icons, disregarding Paul's instructions that sometimes we need to act in love about certain controversial issues so as not to hurt others' consciences. I'm not even near the pay-grade to discuss deep theology. There is SO much richness and potential for deep spiritual growth in Orthodoxy...and yet it has not yet understood that it speaks a completely different language from Protestants, and it sometimes confuses and offends them NOT by the core doctrines of Christianity, but by practices that are precious to those in certain cultures, but completely baffling and even shocking to those from other cultures. Of course the political and military actions by certain high church leaders have been questionable, to say the least, although perhaps some of these have been done under duress. I still don't know, honestly.
Protestant converting to Orthodoxy currently. It's the best decision my family and I have made. I hope all Protestants will give it a chance and experience the fullness of the faith and truth. God bless!
No thanks , orthodoxy is satanic ...
@@keandominique5102 if you say you're a Christian, please explain how Orthodox Christianity is satanic
@@electricrevenue8131 first off,Mary is not the mother of god .... she deserves no reverence ...
@@keandominique5102 Mary is the mother of Jesus who is the Son of God. Jesus the Son of God is God. Therefore Mary is the Mother of God.
From Luke 1:28: ..."“Greetings, O favored one, the Lord is with you!”29 But she was greatly troubled at the saying, and tried to discern what sort of greeting this might be. 30 And the angel said to her, “Do not be afraid, Mary, for you have found favor with God. 31 And behold, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus." Notice the angel Gabriel says she has found favor with God, that she is full of grace (pure in spirit and body).
Luke 1:46-49
46 And Mary said:
"My soul magnifies the Lord, 47 and my spirit rejoices in God my Savior, 48 for he has looked on the humble estate of his servant. For behold, from now on all generations will call me blessed; 49 for he who is mighty has done great things for me,
and holy is his name."
Notice "all generations shall call me blessed". The Orthodox and Roman Catholics uphold this scripture.
Lastly Martin Luther said "Mary is the highest woman and the noblest gem in Christianity after Christ... She is nobility, wisdom, holiness personified. We can never honor her enough".
@@electricrevenue8131 why do you orthodox and Catholics make stuff up just to support your false theories about the divinity of Mary , the quotes you mentioned above only proves how Mary humbled herself before god , she found favor in god just as Miriam , Deborah , Huldah did ..she was blessed just as other saints and prophets were .. Mary was no perpetual virgin , she was a sinner and awaits judgement on the final day
Gospel: Matthew 12:46-50
While he was still speaking to the people, behold, his mother and his brothers stood outside, asking to speak to him. But he replied to the man who told him, “Who is my mother, and who are my brothers?” And stretching out his hand toward his disciples, he said, “Here are my mother and my brothers! For whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother, and sister, and mother.”
Generally well done. Respectful criticism is a powerful thing.
With respect from an Orthodox brother.
God's desire is not for us to know more about him (apophasis, cataphasis, analogy, or any other method) but rather to know him. He reveals himself in and through Christ Jesus. I am Eastern Orthodox.
Sola Scriptura can be easily argued against.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sola_scriptura
@@SuperGreatSphinx ....?
Putting tradition on the same plane as Scripture can be easily argued against.
Progger_Frogger they don’t put it on the same plane. It’s simply the lens through which scripture is interpreted. Why do you think there are hundreds of different Protestant sects in the west? -no emphasis on tradition and views of the early church fathers, which refuted ancient heresies that have now popped up again since the Protestant reformation.
If I have bad eye sight and need glasses to read my Bible, am I’m putting my glasses on the same plane as scripture?
@@IAmisMaster There was tradition before scripture... that's the point your'e not understanding.
The orthodox Church sold actual indulgences* for the forgiveness of sins, which could be gifted to other people. The Ecumenical Patriarch fully acknowledges this fact and has honored Christos Yannaras, the scholar who documented this abuse.
If wr repent without doing anything about it, to put legs on your faith ( Penance ) have we truly turned around ???? Indulgences were only one form of "" doing something about it "".
Interesting vid. How about a top 5 or 10 reasons why Lutheranism has collapsed (or reasons why people believe so), eg. Lutheran Church of Sweden with woman priests, homosexuals and even atheist priests. Not trolling, I’ve heard different theories in the Roman Catholic and Orthodox world of it, would be interesting to heard a Protestants view of challengers in the world of Protestantism.
🤣🤣🤣
Firstly: Are you a father? Do you have children? If you have, you will understand what I will now tell you. As a father you must have set some rules for your children like "you must not play with a knife, or you'll get hurt". "You shall not stick your hands in electrical socket or you'll get electrocuted". "Be extra careful when you cross a street or a car may hit you". Now, suppose your child breaks any one of these rules and suffers the consequences it has been warned about, what would you do? Wouldn't you cry and hurt (maybe more than your child) and try to heal the wounds even at your own cost? Why would you do that? Because as a father you have nothing else for your child but LOVE. You wish your child just to be well and healthy. Would your child owe you a DEBT after he hurt himself with a knife because he broke your rules? Would you ask for "satisfaction" from your child or anyone else for insulting your 'justice'? I think not. And if you reprimand him or even slap him as a 'punishment' it would just be out of love to prevent him from 'breaking the rules' and hurting himself again. Now, if you as a human father (and a child of the western way of thinking, as you say) would have such feelings for your children, why do you say that our HEAVENLY father has to be 'compensated' for our sins, that there is a "debt" that we had to "pay" or someone else (Jesus) had to pay it for us to satisfy some supposed 'divine justice?' Why do you demand from the ALL GOOD God to expect 'legal satisfaction' from his sinful children, something that even you (the spiritual child of Augustine) would not expect from your own 'law breaking' child?
Sin is an AILMENT with terrible consequences for our soul. It brings wounds that are very hard, almost impossible, to heal, and results to eternal death. It is just TRAGIC (because we are in the image of God and have free will) and our heavenly father suffers for our doom as much as we do (well anthropically speaking). And this is why He sent His Son to shed His divine blood in order to HEAL us, deliver us from death, and show us how much he loves us. There is not such a thing as a 'Divine justice' that had to be satisfied. God is ALMIGHTY, ALL-SOVEREIGN, God is everything there is, now and forever and for all ages, as he revealed Himself to Moses: 'I am". He is bound not even to his own justice, He does as He pleases and could have even saved us in any other way or even annihilate us and the devil and build a new world from scratch. He CHOSE to save us by His own willing sacrifice because he is SACRIFICIAL LOVE, that's the just way He is and wants to be. This is the belief of the early church, this is the belief of the Orthodox Christians, this is the belief that moves the heart of every man to tears and brings divine "eros" in our hearts for God, and the effort not to make Him sad with our own self-destructive sins.
On Justification, have you noticed that for the first 1200 years or so of Christianity your understanding of it really didn't exist? Sure, you can pick up threads along the Augustine/Anselm route, but it really doesn't exist generally and fully-orbed until the reformation. You have here, one reason why I am Orthodox.
Paul disagrees with you.
As an EO I disagree with you, but I found it enjoyable to listen to your reasoning. Thank you for making this video. I think it is very important to be able to defend your faith as 1 Peter 3:15 reminds us:
_Always be ready to give a logical defense to anyone who asks you to account for the hope that is within you, yet do it with gentleness and respect._
I think you did so very well, logically, but with gentleness and respect. I hope I can speak that way on things I disagree. Still, I hope you reconsider your position. Pride of intellect, and being set apart from the Church can lead us places we don't wish to be.
You are confusing words for what faith is all about, and that is understanding. Once you have calmed your mind, you will understand.
I'm considering my denomination as I'm trying to become more devoted to my faith in God and this video helps!
Well, I won't pretend I'm religious, cuz I'm not, but I will point out to you that the Orthodox denomination was the fist to ever exist and I don't think there's any purer form of faith than the one you have in the original church, so... perhaps adopt Orthodoxy? Not to mention that if you compare the Eastern Roman Orthodox Catholic Church (that's the full name of the Eastern Orthodox Church) with the Western Catholic Church, the former is often described as "the church of happiness", while the latter as the "church of suffering"! Hope this helps with your choice! Not that I care which one you choose tbh, as I don't believe in any of it, but I thought I might present to you the objectively better option so you can in turn have a happier life!
You don’t need a denomination to become for devoted to our father
I am proud to be Greek Eastern Orthodox Christian ☦ ✝️ ❤ 💙
I am a reader in the orthodox church. I was a convert 10 yesrs ago. I have recently left the church.
May I ask why? I'm an inquirer.
Ditto ^
Same question, what made you leave if you don't mind me asking?
How can you be a reader and also have left the Church?
@arnoldvezbon6131 I don't know, I haven't heard anything different.
Another Orthodox 'convert' here. With respect to iconography in the Orthodox Church, the importance of iconography is not grounded in a supposed widespread or central use in the spiritual practice of the 'early church'. Iconography and its role in EO spirituality clearly develop in line with the theology of the Church in a way similar to that of Trinitarian and Christological controversies. From the Orthodox perspective, we believe that the Holy Spirit guides the Church into robust expressions of truth and worship, icons are part of this Tradition (life of the Holy Spirit) in the Church. I shared a similar approach to analyzing Orthodoxy and approach to reading the Holy Fathers when I first arrived as an inquirer. Ultimately, I think coming to grips with 'what' the Church actually IS forms an integral moment in the conversion narratives of those who find themselves stumbling into Orthodoxy from the Latin or Protestant faiths. As a former protestant minister, I shared your critiques almost verbatim, I realized that the very questions I was asking had to evolve as they were informed heavily by my own perspective and 'tradition'. Thanks for your engaging points and contribution to Christian dialogue on the internet!
Interesting. I usually hear that the Orthodox church is the unchanged church from the time of the apostles, not that it has developed in its practice. I have read the church fathers for years now and knew that this narrative that the Orthodox church has not changed is false.
@@caseyshaneperkins It's not that doctrines change. It's that there really wasn't much "doctrine" regarding iconography until later. Iconography did exist in the early Church, for example, in the catacombs. But there were also people that had an aversion to icons. Just as there were people that viewed the Holy Trinity one way and others who viewed the Trinity another way. Or the natures of Christ, or other stuff like that.
I don't think saying that doctrine regarding iconography was established at a later time means that we switched up our doctrine. Just like the idea of Jesus being co-eternal God with the Father being established at a council doesn't mean that we developed the divinity of Christ. The doctrine was established at a later time because it was something that was very important to address with the rise of the heresy of iconoclasm. Just as divinity of Christ was established at the council of Nicea in response to the heresy of Arianism. I think that's what people mean when they say the Church is "unchanged", that once Christianity establishes doctrine on a particular thing, the job of Orthodoxy is to uphold it. When they say Orthodoxy is unchanged, they mean the Faith has remained consistent. Christian teaching has been upheld.
Change? Sure. A living organism changes and grows and develops. Of course there's going to be _change_ in some form. We're not still in the catacombs, nor do we take Communion daily or eat it as part of a larger meal like they did.
You say you believe in Augustinian beliefs and original sin, so what do you say about the recent book from Dr. Ken Wilson who shows the connection between Augustine’s interpretation of Scripture coming straight from his Manichaen and Stoic influences and not orthodox Christianity? Dr. Wilson studied the early church and read Augustine in chronological order and had his dissertation published by Oxford. He’s since had a book published for the layman to understand his findings. I’ve posted the link to his book below in another comment. If you think he’s incorrect, can you do a response video in the future? Dr. Wilson presents some very strong evidence for his conclusion.
Is he going to answer?
@@jeremiahb9718 I have not read the book.
Dr. Jordan B Cooper With all due respect, shouldn’t you be interested in seeing where Augustine really got his beliefs and what influenced him to teach things the church leaders before him didn’t teach? Even before Dr. Wilson’s extensive work first published by Oxford and later into a popular book this year, I had read other scholars who came to similar conclusions.
@@jeremiahb9718
Can I recommend a book from Mark J. Boone?
www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/1498229395/ref=dbs_a_w_dp_1498229395
I also haven't read your book but I really don't see the stoics influence in Augustine, at least not anymore than whats in the apostolic fathers.
I see more of a neo-platonic influence than anything. But I agree with Mark that Augustine uses plato's method for reasoning through and understanding scripture but he still bases his theology on scripture supremely. I can say that after reading his confessions that he references scripture a LOT.
I could give you 100 reasons why you should be Eastern Orthodox. But you’ll need to figure this one out on your own.
Well that was pointless!
To 😘 icons? Or baptize infants ?
@@albusai I guess that your comment implies that children should not be baptized?
@@albusai the holy scriptures say, that we should not worship idols but only God. Also Christ says "become saints, because I am Saint" so when I kiss an icon, I am not worshipping the wood, or the colour, but the God who is honoured throughout the saints. I'll give you an example. If a man go to war, his mother will kiss his photo, because she can't kiss her son. So she loves the paper and the ink or her son? However there is still a lot of people who think that the wood is holly. But orthodoxy says that if an icon is destroyed, the wood that remains must burn.
@@albusai also, the baptism of infants is performed for some reasons. Firstly, in the early years, people were baptized in a mature age, in order to know what they are doing. But , due to infant mortality, and a lot of infants were dying without being baptized. So church decided to baptize infants, and teach them after. Additionally, an another reason is that, it it's better for people to be baptized when they are infants, because they can receive holly communion from a small age. However, it isn't a must to be baptized in infancy, if the parents don't won't to baptize their kids.
I like this guy. Respectfully disagreeable. Even though i lean towards Eastern Orthodoxy i do appreciate protestant teachings on certain topics.
Further discussion on the difference between the uses of icons/art between Lutheran perspective and the Orthodox would be interesting. I know the East as you said attaches almost sacramental value to their veneration. While Lutherans do not venerate to the same level, it is common practice to bow to crucifixes or some pastors kiss the gospel book. Is there a distinction in practice here or is only a theoretical theological difference?
Perhaps it is the difference between venerating and just respecting/acknowledging.
@@zoomer9686 protestants*
Apophatic theology was used in the Church prior to the time of Pseudo-Dionysios.
This is a great video. Once one doubts Sola Scriptura (and I don't mean the characatured version painted by some Orthodox and RC), then it is easier to see the truth of the Orthodox position.
Your point about the Orthodox emphasis on the participatory aspect of Justification against the forensic aspect is quite compelling. I do know some Orthodox Christians who endorse more of a balance of forensic and participatory, but I think you're right that the emphasis more often is on the latter for the Orthodox.
I like how you said that were you to leave Lutheranism, you would prefer Orthodoxy over Roman Catholicism. Me too. I'm allured by Orthodoxy as a disenchanted Protestant, but I'm definitely taking my time to feel settled in spirit before I make any conversion.
I hadn't realized Theosis is Neo-Platonic. That doesn't bother me so much, as I love Plato! Augustine was influenced substantially by Plato also. I prefer the Orthodox view of Original Sin for two reasons. First, psychologically speaking, shame is no good for the human psyche, and I think the Orthodox position is less shame-based. Second, I think the Orthodox view upholds the dignity of humanity being in the Imago Dei more strongly. I feel Protestantism went too far towards the total depravity side here, which I think is harmful psychoemotionally.
Again, this all hinges on Sola Scriptura. I believe in Prima Scriptura, not Sola Scriptura. I think Sola Scriptura commits one to a view of Scripture being infallible and of highest authority. I think both of these are false. Scripture isn't infallible, as can be seen by its contradictions. Sola Scriptura apologists have to perform some amazing philosophical gymnastics to argue away the obvious contradictions. With the Orthodox, I believe the Church is on equal authority with Scripture.
That said, if I choose to remain in the Protestant tradition, I'd definitely go Lutheran, Episcopalian, or perhaps Methodist.
Don't the Orthodox see the church at the same level as Scripture, not at a higher one?
@@foodforthought8308 Yes. I misspoke. I corrected my comment. You're right: Orthodox set Scripture and Tradition as equal in authority.
You talk about obvious contradictions in scripture.
I don't see it that way.
There are no contradictions if you properly study the text in context.
Tomato sn4y, I have no idea what you are trying to say.
Do you not speak English?
Well done for trying!
Even if it doesn't make sense.
"Cope, your scripture is just a bunch of failed books."
Cope?
What do you mean by that word?
It normally means to deal with something.
Deal with what?
My scripture?
What do you think my scripture is?
Failed books?
As in they are falling apart with the pages falling apart?
Is your mummy there? Maybe she can help you?
>scripture is not infallible
Average convertdox moment
I am an Orthodox Catechumen from Protestantism, trying to inform myself before making the definite choice of going to the Orthodox church. Thank you for this video.
@NorthernFire9 Thanks for the advice! The view of atonement was one of the things I was most agreeing with (the Christus Victor model). My main concerns for now are around dogmatism. I have a huge reverence for the Church Fathers, but I feel like there is little space given to new ideas, to putting into question dogmas (and I don't mean this in the purpose of breaking dogmas, but making them more strongly applicable and helpful for today's day and age). For example the early Church was open to adopt secular philosophies into their practice (St. Augustine and neoplatonism), and invent new things (hesychast tradition and corpus of practices). But I feel like it's not the case anymore. Like it stopped evolving in some sense. I do not support subjugating the church to the standards of modern popular culture, trying to make it "cool". But I am a great supporter of the idea that instead of rejecting modern psychology, science, and cognitive science, it should embrace it and give it new life under the light of Christ. Imagine how more widespread and understood the hesychastic practices could be if we spoke about them as we speak of eastern meditation! How easier it would be to understand spiritual beings by combining them to Jung's concept of archetype! I know some Orthodox Christians do that, (for example Jonathan Pageau), but I haven't seen that be embraced by the leaders of the Church.
I'm in the exact same boat. I'm a new catechumen but having 2nd thoughts. Not sure I can throw away all saints post schism and all Augustinian philosophy.
+Dr. Jordan B Cooper -- FINALLY! Like an answer to an unspoken prayer, I have been waiting for this type of video on the EO for quite sometime *_and_* being disappointed with the audio quality of a similar video you dropped earlier in the year or last year. Bravo!
Now if you could only debate Jay Dyer (unless it went down already he's scheduled to go up against some RC any day now). Hey, we can hope can't we? :P
Everyone wants me to do this, seemingly, but I really need to know more about him.
+Dr. Jordan B Cooper -- I should probably try to lighten up and give Mr. Dyer a chance (re: I can be quite abrasive at times as some Roman Catholics found out the hard way in the comment section to one of your older videos) but he is "guilty as sin" when it comes to being an ever-typical Orthodox. What little I have seen and heard (e.g., a 3+ hour length video allegedly refuting the anti-Trinitarian views of a RUclipsr named *RockingMrE* I downloaded months ago) can be nauseating and taxing toward one's mental reserves. It's bad enough I have to hear traditionalist RC's within the nationalist circles I run in here on You[Lose], but hearing that fool say "dis, dat, and dem" regarding Protestantism makes me want to hunt him down and get all Vlad Tepes on his rear end!
+Dr. Jordan B Cooper -- Okeedoke. I just got back from doing a bit of reconnaissance (mainly the 'History' section of my YT channel) and if you want to get a third-party stance on Jay Dyer check out the channel of *The Kurgan* and get an earful of *_"JAY DYER THE LIAR"_* which I just stumbled upon moments ago. The one that I saw a two weeks ago is entitled *_"Jay Dyer Debate challenge issued"_* (I left one post in the comment section). His most recent video has him spending roughly two or three minutes in the beginning giving information on the upcoming debate between him and Mr. Dyer, and then moving on to the business as usual. I can't blame him for having a distaste for Jay Dyer and dismissing him out of hand.
FYI: I could have done so but I did not cite any of those video links in order to cut down on the possibility of this post (or any others at this point in time here or elsewhere) being shadow-banned, auto-deleted, or showing up as spam on your own channel.
It's nice you have so much confidence in your bishop.
you ever talked to Jay Dyer or Fr. Dcn. Anonias (Norwegian Nous)?
Hopefully he never does, that juvenile scholastic form of Orthodoxy would leave a terrible impression. Fr Josiah or Fr Peter Heers would be much better.
Don’t waste your time with Jay Dyer
Why do Lutherans put so much emphasis on Paul. Paul never knew Christ in His human nature. Mary on the other hand knew Jesus from conception to the ascension. She knew Jesus better than anyone in history yet in all Protestants will discount her and go all in on a person who never met the Christ. Paul had a AH HA moment and used his education to explain it. Paul was one of the elites of his time and his life compared to the Beatitudes his seems to contract Christ teachings in many ways. If Paul were illiterate what would you have? Always go to the Blesside Mother. The Eastern Orthodox get that so did every Christian until the Revolt..
.
Monasteries across Germany contained 900 years of stored labor with in their wall and no army to protect them. Luther known to me mental stole that wealth from the monks. It was the greatest transfer of wealth in history. 900 years of stored labor was taken in just one decade.. He used that wealth to fuel his movement and later went back and developed his theology.
So you going to take Paul’s writing out? 3/4 if the new testament ?
@@albusai If that is what you got out of what I said may God help you. You should consider taking a reading comprehension course and practice reading for five or ten years then maybe read the Bible.
One of the most historically inaccurate things I have ever read. That level of ignorance is hard to come by.
"Legal" or "Courtroom" language was used to be easily explained to humans. It doesn't mean we have a full understanding of what is happening though. That's why the Orthodox call a lot of things a mystery.
@Jesus Is My Savior Yeah It's an explanation, not the totality of what happens.
That language is more a result of the Latin and English. Concepts in the first century were different
Yes, I was thinking that a lot of that language comes from St. Paul making things easily understandable for his audience in that day.
My family is Roman Catholic, but at the age of 17 I joined a Protestant/Pentecostal Church. Within the past 3 years I have been heavily drawn towards Eastern Orthodoxy as it just seems to have the most balance.............kinda like a full balanced meal : )
Sorry for the crude analogy 😅
@@henrysmith5784 There's a lot of things in orthodoxy where the nature of Christ has the best explanations but the iconography and liturgical worship is clearly based off the continuity of the early christians that belonged to various jewish sects. There's so much cultural and historical context that Orthodoxy overlooks because a lot of the headcanon has been accepted several centuries after the new testament. It took them around the birth of Islam to finally get on board with the virgin birth.
tl;dr the church fathers disagreed with each other and are not infallible.
How do you handle the radical claim Orthodox Christians make that their traditions have been so consistent for almost 2,000 years? Everyone I know that is Orthodox always makes that claim ☦️
This seems to be the go-to argument they make. "The Ancient Faith" or the "Ancient Church". Considering that they have also innovated on at least one aspect (look up St. Gregory Palamas and his hesychastic theology).
Христо Мартунков, граф Лозенски Wrong. Hesychasm is a spiritual practice and you’re not forced to practice it, it’s not Dogma. Our dogma hasn’t changed in 2,000+ years. Some things can develop, but not our dogma. These are small t traditions. No one claims everything is exactly the same (we’re not antiquarians). For example, we don’t meet in home churches like 1st Century Christians did. You are mixing Tradition and tradition.
Yea, we need to point out all the Calvinist, Baptist, and Luthern saints and founding fathers.
I for one know the Saint John thd Baptist started the baptist movement, so southern baptists are the true Christians.
@@TheRealRealOK I'm not mixing anything. Hesychasm is a spiritual practice based on the theology of Gregory Palamas adopted in 14th century Byzantium. This is not a small tradition, it is an official Orthodox position and a recommended spiritual practice.
You may not be antiquarians, but the Orthodox have a tendency to debate even the smallest issue, e.g. whether one should make the sign of the cross with 2 or 3 fingers. Because God cares about the exact fashion you make this sign, yeah, sure.
@@ХристоМартунковграфЛозенски Those darn Orthodox who want to get things right unlike the schismatics and heretics who want it however they want...🤔
I noticed that it seems like a lot of Eastern Orthodox folks have come on here not to really talk doctrine per se, but to attack Cooper personally and yell that "our church was founded in 33 AD by Jesus" which totally begs the question.
Re: St. Athanasius talking about paying back a debt, you said that it's an example of forensic categories -- but is it? Forensics revolves around crimes, not debt, though...yes?
Well done brother 👍 U have done your reading & homework..
Not Orthodox myself, but the imbalance and misunderstandings in this presentation (gracious and respectfully delivered though it was) really went to solidify my thinking on the reality of the continuation of consistent Patristic thought within Eastern Orthodoxy over and above Protestantism... Western traditions which contain much presupposition and novelty built on the back of 'later life' Augustinian thought. (if I had to be a mainline Protestant though I would definitely be a Lutheran! 😊)... The rebuttal vid of this vid is a good watch
So you agree with Athanasius on the Canon, forensic justification, and the like?
@@dave1370 in context, yes, because, of course, context is everything. I'm quite sure that if Athanasius and Martin Luther were to sit down and converse about the nature of the Atonement, Human Nature, the Church and Soteriology, they would not see eye to eye on a great deal.
I’m starting to read a book called “An Existential Soteriology” by Fr. Joshua Schooping. He makes a case that PSA is in the scriptures and Orthodox can’t get away from it and uses church fathers to make the case and how it actually is within the concepts of Theosis. Very good book! God bless!
yep, PSA is essential to the gospel
Where in the world did you get those glasses? I love them.
I have not seen how great they are until i read your comment
The orthodox Church is a Ancient Church who establish disaples people they have to know a true I,m not judgemental ,but each of us have to speak a true and facts orthodox Guy from Serbia compare our holidays which we celebrate in orthodox Church with other church and you will see that holidays In orthodox Church is just biblical we have to speak about true dear brothers and sisters in Jesus Christ..
This guy swallowed all the blue pills he could lay his hands on.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue
I'm Catholic, and I even agree with this •-•
How so
Wow, what an insightful rebuttal.
The Evangelist Luke was the first iconographer, he drew Holy Icons of the Theotokos holding Jesus Christ as a baby ( the first drawn Icon). In the early church very few people were literate further displaying the importance of having Icons that depict events important to the faith
That doesn't mean you kiss a drawing genius. God is not in the painting, that just makes you an adherent of pantheism LOL
Debate Jay Dyer!
Jay Dyer is a horrible debater.
@@jimmysheehan5496 Why because he's mean? His arguments are air tight. He's proven he can formally debate. Just watch his debate with dillahunty, Trent Horn, and classical theist.
@@bradspitt3896 no it's because he is a bad debater. talking fast and mumbling is not good debate.
@@jimmysheehan5496 Both subjective things. Sounds fine to me.
@@bradspitt3896 This is wrong.
Why do I only see that Orthodox disagree with the video but don't specify the points? Like, they don't know what is wrong and just disagree?
Because these points have all ben addressed at nauseum.