Thank you for watching Jon. Would it be helpful if we did another dive into Orthodoxy? Specifically on icons, view of sacraments, view of Mary, the worship service, etc?
2:45 EO having an Element of Gnosticism? That comment caught me somewhat off-guard. And I don’t actually think I disagree with Pastor Claude… But Isnt this channel Reformed? Thought that was typically the accusation against Calvinism. Any way, interesting interview! Claude seems like a cool guy. 35:00 mark. Agree. I think that there is a large push/interest into EO due to the simplicity + seemingly consistent teaching and from a US perspective, its an unmoving teaching that does not conform to culture. in protestantism, there is a trend of churches growing more and more progressive/ liberal. An ever changing church that goes with the secular culture with the Mega churches and progressive churches... which arent going to attract men. Like you said. EO seems Grounded. Rooted. Unmoving. This is correct. Protestantism is certainly not unmoving -- its proving that it conforms to the culture around it.
Thank you for your comments. This is a Reformed channel and I have heard of the gnostic accusations against Calvinism, which I of course reject. Based on on Calvinists appealing to the propositional truth in the Bible that, from what we believe, objectively (not subjectively) reveals the teachings of God’s sovereign hand in salvation. I definitely don’t think Protestantism, by definition, has to follow trends, but unfortunately has fallen into those traps recently.
I don’t think the EO is like the ancient church, when you read about the early Christians. Do they market themselves as such, sure! Much like the Catholics. The EOs belief in apostolic succession ensured the traditions changed. Like the Catholic Church, it certainly has morphed over time. Once Americans become more familiar with the EO, this will become clear. Eastern Orthodox, Catholics, and Protestants should certainly look into/study the early church history -- neither of which model those early churches.
There are innumerable issues one could take with EO claims to remain unchanged (which is not even something that actual orthodox hierarchs would claim), but to think that apostolic succession is one of them is a bit silly. Apostolic succession was the argument par excellence that heresiologists like Irenaeus used to argue against gnostic claims to have received a secret teaching (and, it should be noted that gnostics like Ptolemy argued the same in respect to their own received teaching). It is not difficult to see why the RC and EO would emphasize this aspect of their faith given this was an issue of central importance in the early church.
@@heremtica could you expand as I am not sure what you mean by this? apostolic succession as in the sense that they believe that the leaders of their church are able to add on to church doctrine.... as It is my understanding that they believe in the infalliability of the church... That the CHURCH is guided by the holy spirit more or less. Is that a misunderstanding? Thus, obviously, the traditions would change over time was the logic there, due to how they hold the signifance of the Church itself. Let me know where you disagree or where I am lacking in understanding.
@@anonymous-rw3td mate that's not what apostolic succession is. AS is the belief that the bishops of the Church are directly descended, in an unbroken line of appointment, from the Apostles themselves. This is the basis upon which early figures like Ignatius of Antioch argue the Eucharist is valid. I think you have in mind the Roman doctrine of doctrinal development that emerges out of Papal supremacy.
@@heremtica Right. I think I understand what AS is... I was just using that as a possible and logical justification for the EO having such a high significance in the infallibility of the church itself... As that thinking would stem from something.... no? But I'll defer to you. Apostolic Succession doesnt have anything to do with how the EO see's church infallibility. Thanks for the correction!
Check out Claude on the Here I Stand Theology YT channel.
Drop your thoughts on Eastern Orthodoxy in the comments here!
Enjoyed the thoughts thank you men!
@@GraysonHall-u6e Thank you!
Very helpful. Thank you guys
Thank you for watching Jon. Would it be helpful if we did another dive into Orthodoxy? Specifically on icons, view of sacraments, view of Mary, the worship service, etc?
2:45 EO having an Element of Gnosticism?
That comment caught me somewhat off-guard. And I don’t actually think I disagree with Pastor Claude…
But Isnt this channel Reformed? Thought that was typically the accusation against Calvinism.
Any way, interesting interview! Claude seems like a cool guy.
35:00 mark. Agree. I think that there is a large push/interest into EO due to the simplicity + seemingly consistent teaching and from a US perspective, its an unmoving teaching that does not conform to culture. in protestantism, there is a trend of churches growing more and more progressive/ liberal. An ever changing church that goes with the secular culture with the Mega churches and progressive churches... which arent going to attract men.
Like you said. EO seems Grounded. Rooted. Unmoving. This is correct. Protestantism is certainly not unmoving -- its proving that it conforms to the culture around it.
Thank you for your comments. This is a Reformed channel and I have heard of the gnostic accusations against Calvinism, which I of course reject. Based on on Calvinists appealing to the propositional truth in the Bible that, from what we believe, objectively (not subjectively) reveals the teachings of God’s sovereign hand in salvation.
I definitely don’t think Protestantism, by definition, has to follow trends, but unfortunately has fallen into those traps recently.
I don’t think the EO is like the ancient church, when you read about the early Christians. Do they market themselves as such, sure! Much like the Catholics. The EOs belief in apostolic succession ensured the traditions changed. Like the Catholic Church, it certainly has morphed over time.
Once Americans become more familiar with the EO, this will become clear.
Eastern Orthodox, Catholics, and Protestants should certainly look into/study the early church history -- neither of which model those early churches.
Food for thought thank you
There are innumerable issues one could take with EO claims to remain unchanged (which is not even something that actual orthodox hierarchs would claim), but to think that apostolic succession is one of them is a bit silly. Apostolic succession was the argument par excellence that heresiologists like Irenaeus used to argue against gnostic claims to have received a secret teaching (and, it should be noted that gnostics like Ptolemy argued the same in respect to their own received teaching). It is not difficult to see why the RC and EO would emphasize this aspect of their faith given this was an issue of central importance in the early church.
@@heremtica could you expand as I am not sure what you mean by this?
apostolic succession as in the sense that they believe that the leaders of their church are able to add on to church doctrine.... as It is my understanding that they believe in the infalliability of the church... That the CHURCH is guided by the holy spirit more or less. Is that a misunderstanding?
Thus, obviously, the traditions would change over time was the logic there, due to how they hold the signifance of the Church itself. Let me know where you disagree or where I am lacking in understanding.
@@anonymous-rw3td mate that's not what apostolic succession is. AS is the belief that the bishops of the Church are directly descended, in an unbroken line of appointment, from the Apostles themselves. This is the basis upon which early figures like Ignatius of Antioch argue the Eucharist is valid. I think you have in mind the Roman doctrine of doctrinal development that emerges out of Papal supremacy.
@@heremtica Right. I think I understand what AS is... I was just using that as a possible and logical justification for the EO having such a high significance in the infallibility of the church itself... As that thinking would stem from something.... no?
But I'll defer to you. Apostolic Succession doesnt have anything to do with how the EO see's church infallibility. Thanks for the correction!