@@TruthUnites Hey, Gavin. Hope you are well. I was wondering if you engage with all the comments, or just ones made by more known individuals? Was hoping you would respond to the argument I posted.
If you're wondering about Orthodoxy, then perhaps speak to some Orhtodox people? If you truly wish to understand something, why would you get your understanding on that subject from someone who rejects it?
I'm Orthodox and watched that video by Ruslan, and the number of times Protestants in the comments called me or the Orthodox Church heretics and pagan was pretty consistent. I actually encounter this regularly from Calvinists but it's hard to say which denomination I enteracted with in Ruslan's particular video. I will say this, the gospel itself is exclusive. Jesus claimed to be THE only way to the Father. Jesus established a church, His one body, I don't see why Protestants would have an issue with exclusivity. The church has a right to bind and loose and anathmatize those who teach heresy. And this was an issue right out of the gate of the Reformation with those on differing sides condeming and fighting wars over those differences. I know of many God fearing and wonderful Protestants who have done great things out of their love and devotion to Christ. We must seek understanding and be able to dialog regardless if we disagree and do so in love.
Christ is exclusive...but I do not see Christ exclusive in regards to the church AT ALL. “Teacher,” said John, “we saw someone driving out demons in your name and we told him to stop, because he was not one of us.” “Do not stop him,” Jesus said. “For no one who does a miracle in my name can in the next moment say anything bad about me, for whoever is not against us is for us. Mark 9:38-39 1. If submission to the apostles was essential, why didn't Jesus tell them that it was no big deal and to just let them go their own way without submitting to the authority of the apostles? And if not true for the apostles how much less for those claiming to be their "successors"? 2. How in the WORLD could they drive out demons unless they truly had Christ's authority? Read the book of Acts and see what happens to those trying to cast out demons without true faith!
@@hexahexametermeter "For us" is not the same as "with us" or "one of us", as clearly indicated by the verse. There were pagan Romans and Greeks who didn't hate or persecute the Christians and in fact accepted Christ among their pantheon of existing deities. There are also hindus who do this today. Does that mean they are followers of Christ? No, obviously.
@@hexahexametermeter The interpretation assumes a Protestant paradigm in that the church is just anyone who believes in Jesus. Well, Protestants will then start narrowing the list down to remove Mormons or JW's, otherwise you'd have to say just let them be because they "believe" in Jesus too. The interpretation also fails to account for the establishment of the church at Pentecost. Prior to this time, that structure was not in place (although it was being built), however, the principles of which come from the old testament and are enacted in how the church is governed. Once the church was established at Pentecost, submission to the Apostles was absolutely necessary and you can read that in Acts 15; their ruling was binding on the church. What Mark 9 is forbidding is sectarianism, something very prevalent in Protestantism.
Yeah cool, the ruling in acts 15 was binding because it was the whole church (and was not overseen by Peter, mind you--Peter was the one in the wrong and represented the heresy.) And at the same time you dont have the "oh, youre not a true church" nonsense like you do today and still exists between east and west churches. I love that we protestants can totally bypass your red tape. God isnt confined to your selfish possessiveness of the Gospel. You also see that in acts. The Ethiopian Eunich comes to mind. Meanwhile you Romans and Orthodox can figure out which one of you is the "true church". Control freaks.
@@Hoi4o Absolute nonsense. You think actively casting out demons is on par with being passively "not being against Christians"? Jesus is TOTALLY legitemizing the practice because the work of God is beyond even the control of the disciples themselves. You seem to miss the very fact that they were casting out demons by the power of Christ, because you are so myopically focused on control. Noone can cast out demons except by Christ alone. You are making the same case as the Pharisees did against Jesus--that they must be casting out demons by the power of demons.
Great video: once claim that's difficult for Protestants is whether Protestant ecclesiology existed before the Reformation. Could you make a video on that?
That would be an interesting video. I think the standard answer is that it is what was modeled in the Bible and can be seen in some 1st century documents, but after that the ecclesiology was much closer (but not identical) to those in the ancient churches.
The Other Paul did a couple streams on this topic a couple years ago. I think he did a good job distinguishing between the Roman/EO understanding of the Episcopacy and a more Anglican one and showing how the R/EO view doesn't fit with the evidence. I would argue that the scriptures, our ultimate foundation, are more concerned with the goings on of local congregations and is silent on the matter of larger organizational structures within the Church. Ultimately I think scripture leaves such things up to circumstance, giving Christians the freedom to organize in whatever way would fit their needs best. TOP's streams: ruclips.net/video/xr_2SydH3gM/видео.html ruclips.net/video/ZIZlV7QhjCg/видео.html
I think by that you mean the attitude that there is salvation outside specific church institutions? I don't know whether or not it did properly exist prior to Protestantism because virtually every split prior to it had featured as the standard norm, anathemas written by both parties against each other. So in a sense, this might be new, but I think like the other commenter mentioned, it is far more in line with what we see in the early church and the Bible than the "paranoid pretention" that existed leading up to the Reformation with RC and EO, and all the rest anathematizing each other without qualm.
I converted to Orthodoxy in 2016 after losing our son to suicide and the protestant church we attended just ignored us and did not come to support us...I found grace, a merciful God and the fullness and truth of the Christian life and salvation...
I'm sad that the protestant church you attended was so callous towards you in your suffering. They failed you. I hope you find lasting peace in orthodoxy, and I'm glad you're still interested in the dialog between protestantism and orthodoxy, as is shown by you watching this video.
@@KevinSmile thank you for your post. I was raised a conservative Lutheran with a wonderful grounding in scripture and the gospel. I have many families that are Catholic and I too find a richness in that expression of Christianity. But I have noticed and found a disturbing trend in a lot of protestant and non-denominational churches toward watering down the gospel to get more people in the front door instead of challenging them with the gospel the truth of the Gospel. I believe that scripture tells us that there will be a time of apostasy and it even mentions that will there be anybody of faith when Christ returns. That saddens and worries me.
I am born and raised Greek Orthodox, I then had my doubts on Orthodoxy so I looked into Protestantism. What I can say is this, I love my brothers and sisters from the Protestant faith but the church/churches-because they keep splintering off is/are a bit watered-down. So I came to the conclusion that the Orthodox faith is closer to the time of Christ. Any frustrations that Luther had with the Catholic church then I think he should have looked to the Orthodox faith. So, I completely agree with Jonathan Pageau here.
@@georgiakiriaki in Christian history Luther actually did contact the Orthodox Church looking to move that direction but I think the divides of Western Europe in Eastern Europe and the language just. Made it unlikely to come together. But he did contact them.
@@Anita-silver Yes. If I am honest I too am considering conversion to EO. It's so hard, all the arguments feel very weighted towards the Orthodox side since the Orthodox are the ones actually engaging. This is one of the few good arguments I've heard.
For me personally, the best decision was to visit an orthodox monaster for a view times. It got me out of the vicious circle of endless rational analysis. I always recommend this to inquierers. No pressure though, just a recommendation!
I’m not going to lie, lately I’ve been diving more into church history and the different traditions and their beliefs and overall, I get more and more demoralized. You have traditions like Roman Catholics and orthodoxy that both claim to be the “one true church” and that there is no salvation outside the church, etc. And when I zoom out and look at the big picture, I can’t help to feel an overwhelming feeling of grief and anguish. It’s like no matter which way you turn in the Christian faith there are different groups that all believe the same core essentials; that they are a sinner who has placed their faith fully in Jesus Christ and his resurrection, Jesus is divine, etc. but yet they are so quick to-almost pridefully-condemn fellow believers to Hell because they don’t believe in the exact same doctrine and tradition you believe. And yes, there were different heresies that arose a long the way that no doubt should be condemned as heresy, but the average lay man Christian doesn’t spend hours a day studying church history and different theological matters. These schisms and different interpretations aren’t apparent to them. And while I may disagree with say, a Coptic Christian or a Nestorian, I’m not going to sit here and say their faith and belief in Christ and what did for them isn’t genuine or sincere. Sure they have theological issues (according to my perspective), but at the end of the day, they are putting their faith in Christ and believing his resurrection. It’s like… “congrats, you found your way to Christianity and Jesus. Now go join a church and be with a body of believers and get baptized. Oh… and one more thing… you better make sure you choose the RIGHT church. You have like fifty different options in front of you and half of them all believe only their church is saved and everybody else is damned to hellfire for eternity, and the other half a mix mosh of different traditions that ultimately pick and choose what that like about the other church’s and put them together it a “soup” that has no real historical foundation (this is basically most 21st century non reformed protestant churches). Choose wisely, only eternity is on the line.”
Don't be demoralized. Read the Catechism of the Catholic Church on ecumenical efforts and how damnation can only happen in case of mortal sin which means full knowledge, willful and on a grave matter. Also don't be deceived, Protestants had no problem calling the Pope Antichrist and the Catholics pagans damned to hell. Gavin Ortlund is over stating his case. In my experience as a Catholic convert from protestantism I've seen vitriol primarily from Protestants who still today call us pagans. Gavin is not honest here. However I encourage you to look into the Catholic Church more so than any other Church because all the creeds use the word Catholic, it's not surprising then that the true Church has maintained emphasis on its title.
"You ask, will the heterodox be saved... Why do you worry about them? They have a Saviour Who desires the salvation of every human being. He will take care of them. You and I should not be burdened with such a concern. Study yourself and your own sins... I will tell you one thing, however: should you, being Orthodox and possessing the Truth in its fullness, betray Orthodoxy, and enter a different faith, you will lose your soul forever." Blessed St. Theophan the Recluse (1815-1894)
@@PreciousBloodOfJesus7777 Uhhhh yeah. They're local congregations, all in communion with one another, and under one authority. It never ceases to amaze me the things people will say, LOL!
Yes! Online discussion almost always focuses on one person's opinion on salvation outside the church (i.e. Pageau, Bishop Baron for Catholicism, others in both camps) instead of looking at OFFICIAL church teaching on things. When considering divergent traditions, we have to look at official teaching rather than individual opinions.
For Catholicism, the fullness of the church view is official church teaching. It’s in Lumen Gentium (one of the main documents from the second Vatican Council). It’s not a contradiction from the Noah’s Ark view (since all non-Catholics experience an imperfect communion with the church), and it’s not a modern innovation, since it’s based on the ideas of material & formal heresy and schism and the objective effectiveness of the sacrament of baptism at uniting non-Catholics to the Church, which are both ancient ideas. Essentially the Catholic view is that, because of their baptism, Protestants experience an imperfect communion with the Catholic Church. They could be saved based on that communion because though they may formally believe heretical things (like denying a post-Mortem state of sanctification, like purgatory), they have may not given matter to that heresy because of coming from an environment where they would not have good reason to believe otherwise. Sure, people haven’t always talked this way, but it is the logical conclusion of ancient theological principles, making it a development in the truest sense. Hope this helps!
@@michaeljefferies2444I know Vatican II’s teaching on salvation of those outside communion with Rome. I think it is out of step with historic Roman Catholic teaching, which explicitly denies salvation to anyone out of communion with Rome.
@@colinbrown9476 My point is that you said Barron's view wasn't representative of "official" church teaching. My point is that it is official church teaching, it's from a dogmatic constitution in an ecumenical council. And Protestants do have communion with Rome in the Roman Catholic view. That was the point of my previous comment. I think the charitable thing to do is to say that it is not a contradiction to re-articulate how we think about certain things based on new information, as long as the core ideas remain (like the necessity of salvation through Christ and his Church alone). I don't know about your views personally, but most Protestants I meet today would not say that people from uncontacted tribes who have never heard the name of Jesus are automatically damned, however, most Protestants in history have had the view that explicit faith in Jesus is necessary. Biblically, this is also understandable. Does this make most Protestants inauthentic?
The official teaching is that there is no salvation outside the Church. He's looking at this from a very legalistic and systematic mindset. That's not how the Church works. He also doesn't understand what "no salvation outside the Church" actually entails. It's more nuanced than "everyone who isn't a card carrying member of the Church on earth goes to Hell."
@@CosmicMystery7 I understand the Roman church's position today allows for the possibility of salvation outside the church. The problem from my vantage point is that it seems to be a very new view on salvation outside the church (and people of other faiths in general). For instance, Unam Sanctam: "...we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff." I don't think it is uncharitable to take that statement at face value to mean you have to be Roman Catholic (subject to the Roman pontiff) to be saved. I am not subject to the Roman pontiff. Therefore, according to church teaching, I am missing something necessary for salvation. Which would mean I am damned according to historic Catholic teaching. To say that conclusion is uncharitable does not make much sense to me. It was Rome that declared Protestants heretics and schismatics, Rome that pronounced anathemas, Rome that persecuted Protestants for centuries. Then when Protestants take Rome's anathemas and decrees against them seriously (anathema also means "damned" by the way), it's uncharitable?
Dude, I'm so thankful for you and what you are doing for the Church. You've really helped me better understand who God is. God is using you to help strengthen the faith of his sheep across the globe.
This video was very helpful Gavin. I have been dealing with ecclesial anxiety recently and videos like this help me get back on track to just focusing on Christ and His promises.
I experience that too, ecclesial anxiety (good term for it). I think sometimes I read or listen to too much on the Internet and it gets to be too much. Need to simplify and trust God.
@@Mrdllish777 So many EO/Cath pop apologetic lies flooded that comment section. I have been in World War 2 telling them things like that source you quoted is a well known FORGERY
I disagree. I believe this video presents a misrepresentation by taking texts and phrases out of context, particularly from Orthodox sources and Pageau. He implied extensive research on elder fathers and saints, but lacked in depth understanding. He seemed to just pick out what was fitting for this video. It's disappointing to see the text referenced in The Holy Standards book manipulated out of context. For example from the text he quoted,; "That the dignity of the Bisdhop is so neccessary in the Church, that without him, neither Church nor Christian could either be or be spoken of. For he, as a successor of the Apostles, having received in continued succcession by the imposition of hands and the invocation of the All-Holy Spirit the grace that is given him of the Lord of binding and loosing, is a living image of God upon the earth, and by a most ample participation of the operation of the Holy Spirit, who is the chief functuary, is a fountain of all the Mysteries[Sacraments] of the catholic Church, through which we obtain salvation. And he is, we affirm, as necessary to the Church as breath is to man, or the sun to the world. Whence it has also been eleganty said by some in the commendation of the dignity of the High Priesthood, "What God is in the heavenly Church of the first-born (cf. Hebrews 12:23), and the sun in the world, that every High Priest is in his own particular Church, as though him the flock is enlightened, and nourished, and becomes the temple of God" (cf. Ephesians 2:21)."
Gavin, I always appreciate your thoughts, sometimes agreeing, sometimes disagreeing and sometimes wishing I could ask you questions to flesh out your arguments more. As a Protestant reared in the Holiness tradition through the Church of the Nazarene, I have seen the exclusive claims of Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism, however, at least at the lay level, we Protestants and Evangelicals often are pretty exclusive. When I was growing up(I am 69) Catholics were considered heretical and at least the Catholic laity looked on Protestants the same way. It saddens me now that the Body of Christ was so fractured and remains mostly the same today. My prayer is for Unity. And I agree with whoever suggested that you should talk to Jonathan, he is a deep thinker.
I felt a draw to orthodoxy during my journey of theological study. The liturgy, the imagery, it all spoke to me so much more than Protestant churches that I grew up in (although it could have just been because the mysticism spoke to my knowledge seeking nature). As I studied orthodoxy, their exclusivity was the same red flag I encountered. I just could not believe that the power of the Holy Spirit was restricted to a single institution. I consider orthodox, Catholic, Lutheran, Anglican, Baptist etc. to be my brethren in Christ as long as they profess and live the faith. God knows who is in his sheepfold and I trust him. Thanks for this video Gavin!
I think you missed the point of the video. First, he stated he was simply using Orthodoxy as a convenient example of something that's common throughout Christianity. Second, the point of the video is that Orthodoxy was exclusive in past centuries but has changed. Using exclusivity as a reason for not joining the Orthodox church today is nonsensical given that the Orthodox church is not exclusive.
All non Christians feel the exact same way about Christianity. Christ taught that few people find the narrow path and even fewer will be chosen to follow it
@Jy3pr6 exactly, and these protestants keep getting so offended with their "we accept that you have Christ too, why can't you accept we have him?" Sillyness, but then have no problem accepting that 6 billion of the 8 billion people on planet will all suffer in Hell. No one within the Church is on the business of telling Christ where has to be. If he wants to save billion plus Hindus before me then so be it. I can't fathom that per se, but I'll accept whatever he tells me his will is.
@@Jy3pr6 because in the post-19th century when Orthodox was beginning to encounter far more western thought and far more western Christians contemplating and entering the Eastern Churches the previous unanimous teachings of exclusively and especially the stronger versions of such argument have softened. Although Roman Catholic has more officially updated its dogmatic stances on the condition of souls found outside of its own institution walls, the East has in official and unofficial capacities acknowledged degrees of brotherhood with Protestants and Roman Catholics. The perhaps unsurprising tendency of Protestants who have converted as well as Roman Catholic surrounded by Protestant, Eastern Orthodox converts from Protestantism rarely shed the notion that they has simply left a denomination for a better one and not that they for the very first time have become Christian.
I think one thing that may be of importance to note here is that there is a strong meta narrative within Orthodox or Eastern thinking of what is called the "both and." This runs somewhat counter to this hyper rational post enlightenment dualism that we find in reformed or protestant thinking, or in the West general. Simply put it's the notion that when we are dealing with divine things. , we are often in a paradox of sorts, where two seemingly contradictory things can be true to an extent, often with an addendum to both. So yes,we do have a dogmatic teaching that no salvation lies outside Christ's church... Not unlike most protestants believe that no salvation lies outside of faith in Christ. However there is also an individual as well as a communal component to our salvation and we don't believe salvation to be some sort of a fixed thing or a singular event, as in many protestant confessions.So yes, an Orthodox Christian can lose his or her salvation. There is also a strong acknowledgment that salvation is a mystery of God. So while dogmatically Yes we adhere to the notion that it will not be found outside of the church, We also acknowledge that the Holy Spirit can act how and where it wishes and we give no last word on any one individuals salvation. We are often encouraged by our Priests to "live in the tension" between two difficult realities...this is a good example of that. We hold fast to the teachings of the Church but we also believe in God's mercy and Justice.
Live in the tension, but ignore the character of Christ? He didn't come to give us a lottery system, nor did he come to give us unlimited and unconditional grace. It's fascinating to me that both the Catholic and Orthodox church largely believe anyone outside of its confines are damned. Who is right? What if you're both wrong? That's a lot of assured believers claiming exclusivity of salvation.
Thank you for this Gavin, I've been listening to a lot of orthodox stuff recently because I appreciate the sense of holiness they bring to the faith, which I feel Protestantism lacks, but the downside is my own reassurance has been wobbling (a lot!). I feel Orthodoxy has something to offer to those of us who seek a sense of the sacred we find lacking in our own churches (when/why did we drop the word 'holy' from Communion? Why are we so casual about it?); Why are we almost offhand, in the way we offer up prayer & worship? I long for a sense of the sacred/holy in our approach to God & the restoration of some prayer practices. I'd love to hear you speak on that?
Had a deep dive into EO from a Baptist upbringing. All of the anathemas (icons, bread, filioque, etc) were just ignored at the greek EO church. Gavin and Brian Wolfmueller both were lights in the darkness. Now glad to be Lutheran (LCMS specifically). Hope you can find a path that gives you rest.
It sounds like the church(es) you've been going to just don't take it seriously. Holy Communion is partaken of in many churches I've visited, all of which are Protestant and sound in their theology. I highly recommend looking into finding more authentic church communities to visit if this is a concern. Also there's an online community Gavin helped start that you can join, which has a ton of awesome people who like helping out fellow brothers who have questions or are struggling in the faith.
A lot of the issues you are describing are symptomatic of low-church American Evangelicalism, not Protestantism as a whole. Check out confessional Lutheranism and Anglicanism.
Only part of the way in, but this is the biggest reason why Im a Protestant. If you're *consistently* Roman Catholic or Orthodox, you *must* see other Christians as damned to hell over minute differences and dogmas that clearly just dont have anything to do with salvation. Dogmas that werent believed as necessary to salvation in the first 5 centuries. That's a huge problem.
@Qwerty-jy9mj I'm grateful for that (and of course saddened by Protestants who have called you pagan), but I've been called a non Christian and so has Gavin by EO and RC Christians. I'd wager to say that, if you think I'm a Christian, that's a very happy inconsistency.
@@Qwerty-jy9mj Thank the Lord you don’t but unfortunately your church does. All eastern orthodox churches are call to formally and ritually curse every year all that disagree with them. The document they use to curse all non-orthodox is called the synodikon of orthodox and is supposed to be read yearly on the feast or orthodoxy Here is an official description by the by the patriarch, of Constantinople at the synod of Jassy in 1642 regarding what an anathema means (after excommunicating the heretic in question from the church it then adds to the excommunication): “And let them be subjected to an eternal anathema, and excommunicated by the Father, the Son and The Holy Spirit, the only God, one in nature, both in the present life and that which is to come, and cursed and unforgiven and unabsolved after death, and partakers of eternal punishment” (acts and decrees of the synod of Jerusalem, page 100)
A few things: (1) Ortlund characterizes what he calls “the historic view” as “If you’re outside the Ark of the Church you are not saved.” My main problem with this view is that it presupposes a binary “you’re in or you’re out” view of salvation, which is across the board not what Orthodox Christians believe nor have ever believed historically. Salvation is about deification through union with Christ, and that’s a process. (2) Ortlund is correct that the view of “we know where the Church is not but where the Church isn’t” is a modern view, and because of this it’s a view I don’t affirm. The Church is the Orthodox Church, and to not be in the Orthodox Church is to be outside the Body of Christ. However, to say someone is not in the Church is not the same as saying that the Spirit is not at work in them. The Northern Kingdom of Israel was not “part of the Church” because they did not have the Davidic king, true sacrifice in the temple, etc, but God still sends them prophets and works through them. St. Maximos the Confessor says the Spirit works outside the Church, but always for the purpose of uniting people with the Church. (3) Ortlund says “I have not been able to find any historical affirmation that those outside the Orthodox Church can be saved.” Here’s one: St. Gregory the Great praying the pagan emperor Trajan out of hell: ( academic.oup.com/book/1885/chapter-abstract/141638221?redirectedFrom=fulltext ). Similarly, while I think Roman Catholics and Protestants are in error and outside the Church, I think it is possible for them to be saved by coming into union with the Church after death if they did not become part of the Church in this life. (4) Ortlund is correct that some Orthodox theologians and saints in the last century speak of the impossibility of the salvation of those outside the Church. I would agree with this, with the important caveat made before, I think people can be reconciled with the Church after death, much like Trajan. It’s also important to take into account that a lot of these statements were made in the face of Orthodox Christians trying to defend themselves against aggressive evangelization from Catholics and Protestants. (5) To refute his claim that “no one from the 9th - 19th century speaks of salvation of other groups” I’d point to how St Theophylact of Ohrid in the 11th century speaks about Latin Christians in his time, in which he affirms that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father alone (thus Theophylact denies the filiqoue) but simply said this should be attributed to the poverty of the Latin language and not to them being damned. Also it’s not like the 5th century council of Chalcedon happened and immediately there was a monophysite church and an Orthodox Church and immediately in 1054 there was a Latin church and an Orthodox Church - these schisms took literal centuries to solidify and in many cases important fathers and theologians affirm that those they disagree with (including those who affirm things like the filioque and monophysitism) are in the Church.
great response! He is presupposing protestant heretical views of salvation and using it to interpret the orthodox church fathers', hence there is no true theology outside the True Church, Gavin does not understand Orthodox theology
Great response. I would love to see if Gavin cares enough to engage. Additional thoughts: His defense of the Protestant view of ecclesiology is self-contradictory in that he dismisses the idea of the Church residing in a single institution, but is fine with it residing in several defined institutions, even though some of these hold contradictory ideas and even anathematize one another. He is essentially trading visible, physical boundaries for a fabricated unity of ideas which doesn’t actually exist.
I mean you basically admitted he was right but then added a little Mormon spice to it. You SO GENEROUSLY consign Christ followers to Hell and then say maybe you'll be nice enough to pray us out. Collective narcissism does wonders for humility.
_which is across the board not what Orthodox Christians believe nor have ever believed historically._ Depending on who you ask, of course. The official position is if you're outside the EO church, you're damned to hell. The non-official position is what you said in the 2nd point.
As a former EO convert, I can say for myself one of the biggest appeals to the Orthodox Church is this idea that you have a unified body that can interpret the scriptures for you. However, when you get into the church you realize it’s not as unified as they would claim. The unity comes through the life of the church and participation of sacraments. That said you can have someone like David Bentley Hart who is practically speaking, if not outright, a universalist on one side and someone like Fr. Josiah Trenham on the other side who would argue that only those within the Orthodox Church can be saved. There are also disagreements about which canons are binding and interpretations of church fathers (which should be included and areas where they erred). And if you really want to start a dumpster fire on any Orthodox chat board, just bring up toll houses. The unity is institutional and sacramental, but the idea that the church has this unified understanding of the interpretation of the faith is simply false.
ruclips.net/video/IysmQUWtyFU/видео.htmlsi=bakDmMnXRc7dgcvB This is what the channel Theoria has to say about church unity. She makes the case that unity is about practice and life transformation rather than a post enlightenment articulation of views.
This isn't a response to it in the way you're implying. It's just saying that people in the past had a different view of the Orthodox church's position on what constitutes the body of Christ than people today do. It was not a response about whether any particular view is correct or incorrect. If you're looking for a counterpoint to Pageau's view that the Orthodox church is closer to pure true faith than other traditions are, this video doesn't do that.
Gavin is correct about his major premise - many modern Orthodox Christians have an incorrect ecclesiology that crept into the Church, unfortunately. This is nothing new in that many heresies over the centuries have “infected” the minds and souls of some in the Church, only to be rooted out at a later time by the grace of God. Metropolitan Kallistos, as good of a man he was, was wrong in his book, and unfortunately through his book he very much so popularized this idea. In the consensus of the saints, however, you will find surprising consistency regarding this subject - this is why Orthodox Christianity’s cry is to “follow the saints”, as they are ambassadors of the Holy Gospel, the living proof of its reality, given to us from age to age. A key point that Gavin misunderstands, however, is the Orthodox understanding of salvation- it is a dynamic word, with many meanings, as attested to by St Paul who says in various places that one “has been saved”, “is being saved”, and “will be saved”. We Orthodox reject that those outside the Church can be “saved” in one sense; they can’t be deified, can’t be partakers of the divine nature, can’t yet grow into the full stature of Christ. They may be virtuous, but they are just a bud waiting to blossom. However, they can be “saved” at the second coming of Christ, according to His inscrutable judgment. We leave this to God.
Perfect timing of this video. I'm currently in RCIA to become Roman Catholic (lifelong Charismatic) and something that was brought up on Catholic Answers radio program recently stopped me in my tracks and made me rethink my conversion all over...one of the hosts stated that salvation is possible outside of the Catholic Church BUT if a Catholic was to become a Baptist (or any other denomination), that person would lose their salvation because they are blatantly denying Christ. That statement SCREAMS "Pharisee" and "legalism" and irked me to my core. In fact, that single phrase has made me question my entire motives of becoming a Catholic and I'm struggling on what to do next. To make a statement like that one is calling Jesus Christ a liar, just as you stated in the video. Not sure if the radio host's comment is official Catholic doctrine, something I need to look into personally or speak to me priest about. But if so, I'm not sure I can continue a faith that explicitly damns people to hell just because they worship God differently than them.
The Gospel is very clear on how salvation works and if one believes in the trinitarian God and that Jesus, being God's Son came in the flesh to die to atone for our sins, repents, and becomes baptized then we're saved. Are you still a Catholic catachumen?
lowxclazz I can relate. I had recently decided to return to the Catholic church. I then encountered their "missing Mass is a mortal sin" doctrine. I am now attending an Episcopal church, perhaps you would enjoy Episcopal better. They don't require attendance, also they dont teach veneration to Mary. Episcopal is similar to Catholic, but without the heavy pressure to follow man-made dogma.
@@pugetsound1272 God dealt in a like manner to his people in the old covenant? what makes you think the new covenant would imply laziness. read leviticus and the commemoration of the feasts>
I hear you sister (or brother lol) This is PRECISELY what stopped me in my tracks when looking into EO. And I read it on an official website, from a Father. It seems to me, after years of studying at this point, that EO and the Catholic Church have created their own traditions and held people to those traditions as "law". Very similar from my vantage point to what the Pharisees did. If Christ is the way, the truth and the life, and no one comes to the Father except through Him, then why are we making it that you actually need Him aaaaaaand the additional traditions to get to the Father? If you follow Christ, you are now a part of His Church. The Church does not have the power to save, Christ alone does. We do not call upon the name of the Church, we call upon His name.
It’s seems the hang up here can be due to language, and how it’s understood. “The Eastern Orthodox Church teaches that fullness of the means of salvation-Sacraments, Holy Tradition, the teachings of the Ecumenical Councils, etc.-is preserved within the Church. It sees the Church as the Body of Christ, within which believers participate in the divine life through the Holy Mysteries (Sacraments), especially the Eucharist. At the same time, the Orthodox Church recognizes the mystery of God’s grace and mercy, which can operate beyond human understanding and limitations. The concept of “oikonomia” (economy) in Orthodox canon law and theology allows for pastoral flexibility and acknowledges that God’s grace can work in ways and places beyond our comprehension. This concept can extend to the question of salvation, reflecting a hope and trust in God’s boundless love and mercy for all humanity. “ This doesn’t mean the church has changed or Jonathan’s way describing is some how new or modern. It’s means the word and meaning of salvation is more nuanced, and not merely a “so I’m in!?” as the western perspective often seeks to grant / wants to land upon. I share this not a means to debate nor judge, but in hopes of offering clarity as these things often end in an attempt to force our human understanding upon it, and we tend to want to draw lines in the sand instead of leaning on and begging for God’s mercy in all things.
@@TruthUnitesthe historical evidence shows protestantism started in the 16th century, with a short referendum of some heretics going back maybe 3 centuries beforehand. You are well known by the Catholic and Eastern Orthodox community to quote mine references, and you falling under the delusion that people will buy into the arguments you build is a bigger delusion than the very reality you have created for yourself where early church fathers are prostestant because they differed, ignoring their general consensus and blantant submission to councils and the church. I never thought of this day coming in my own generation but what's left of protestantism is already a very similar picture to jehova witnesses.
The question of the salvation of non-Orthodox believers outside the Church is a theological topic that has been approached in various ways within the Eastern Orthodox tradition. The Orthodox Church generally asserts that it is the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church and holds the fullness of the faith. However, there are diverse views within the tradition regarding the salvation of those outside the Orthodox communion. Historically, certain Eastern Orthodox theologians have expressed a more inclusive understanding of salvation. Some have highlighted the mystery of God's judgment and mercy, leaving room for the possibility of salvation for individuals who, for reasons beyond their control, did not have the opportunity to know or embrace the Orthodox faith. The Orthodox perspective often emphasizes the transformative encounter with Christ and the working of God's grace in the lives of individuals. This allows for the acknowledgment that God's mercy is not limited by visible boundaries. It's important to note that while some Orthodox theologians have expressed inclusivity, there are also more conservative views within the Orthodox Church that stress the significance of being within the visible boundaries of the Orthodox Church for salvation. Ultimately, this is a nuanced and complex theological issue within Eastern Orthodoxy, and views on the salvation of non-Orthodox believers may vary among theologians and communities within the Orthodox tradition.
So variance is cool, as long as you remain in the ark of the church.... Protestants believe that people will vary in their beliefs on a lot of things, minor issues especially. "Whether we live or die, we do it to the Lord."
The SCRIPTURES say clearly: those who are baptized and believe are saved. Only unbelief condemns. WAKE UP OH DREARY BYZANTINES. Leo III’s attack on you was justified, for you paraded around the walls of Constantinople a altar of Mary, with figures of gold, and icons, hoping that they, this mysterious ‘mother of the universe’ goddess, would save you from the sacks of the barbarians. And it was also justified for, your church has been preaching that non-alignment with a kingdom on earth - which Christ condemns for only a kingdom of heaven and new earth are to be established - condemns you to hell. Nay, for the gospel says, only unbelief in Christ condemns.
@@GenericRUclipsGuy The concept of Sola Scriptura (meaning "Scripture alone"), which is a key tenet of some branches of Protestant Christianity, holds that the Bible alone is the ultimate authority for Christian faith and practice. However, this concept was not taught by Second Temple Judaism historically, nor is it embraced by Karaite Judaism today in the way it is understood within Protestantism. During the Second Temple period (roughly 516 BCE to 70 CE), Jewish religious practice was heavily influenced by a combination of Scripture, oral tradition, and interpretive frameworks. The Torah (the first five books of the Hebrew Bible) was certainly central, but oral traditions and interpretations were also highly regarded, especially among the Pharisees. The Pharisees, for example, believed in the authority of both the written Torah and the oral law (which was later written down in the Mishnah). They did not adhere to a strict Sola Scriptura concept but emphasized the necessity of oral tradition in interpreting the written text. The Sadducees, on the other hand, rejected many of the oral traditions upheld by the Pharisees and based their beliefs more strictly on the written Torah, but even their approach was not identical to Sola Scriptura. They relied on their own interpretations of the written text and did not follow a rigid “Scripture alone” framework. So, during the Second Temple period, there was no consensus among Jewish groups about relying solely on Scripture. Most groups, particularly the Pharisees, believed in a combination of oral traditions and Scripture to understand the faith. This differs significantly from the Protestant understanding of Sola Scriptura. Karaite Judaism, which emerged much later (in the 8th-9th century CE), rejects the oral law (Talmud) and relies solely on the Hebrew Bible (Tanakh) for religious guidance. In this sense, Karaites do place a strong emphasis on Scripture as the ultimate authority, which might seem similar to Sola Scriptura. However, there are important distinctions: Karaites believe in interpreting Scripture according to their own understanding, and they do not accept the rabbinic traditions or the Talmud that Rabbinic Judaism considers authoritative. Unlike the Protestant idea of Sola Scriptura, where the Bible is often seen as self-explanatory or interpreted within the context of Church tradition (depending on the branch of Protestantism), Karaite Judaism involves individual or community-based interpretations of the Hebrew Scriptures without appealing to an overarching religious authority like the Church or the Talmud. Sola Scriptura in Protestantism places the Bible as the sole authority for Christian doctrine, often rejecting any formal tradition or magisterium (as seen in the Reformation movement). However, most Protestant traditions, especially the Reformed and Lutheran, still maintain some reliance on the creeds and teachings of early Church Fathers in their interpretive frameworks. Karaite Judaism rejects oral tradition but does not have the same framework as Sola Scriptura because it is focused exclusively on the Hebrew Bible (not the New Testament) and encourages a personal or community-based interpretation of the Scriptures, which is more fluid than the Protestant approach that tends to be more tied to fixed theological doctrines derived from the Bible. To claim that Second Temple Judaism or Karaite Judaism historically taught Sola Scriptura would be incorrect. Second Temple Judaism incorporated oral tradition along with Scripture, while Karaite Judaism shares a closer emphasis on Scripture alone but has important differences from the Protestant understanding of Sola Scriptura. Neither tradition reflects the exact formulation or theological framework that Sola Scriptura represents in Protestant Christianity.
@@kenfollowyeshuacrawford4284 Good information, but what’s your point? Clearly the Pharisees and Sadducees didn’t teach Sola Scriptura, and Christ condemned them, and to have traditions and doctrines which mirror that of the enemies of Christ is spitting on the face of the one who was, for three days, the furthest polar opposite from treasure the world has ever seen, humbling himself above all mankind and dying on the cross for our sins and resurrected. John Wycliffe argued against the traditions of the Catholic Church, and that was triggered by him seeing an unknown man in a market comparing a painting of the great luxurious pope next to the crucified Jesus. But traditions of luxury are not as bad as some traditions I see today, such as Mary being a divine figure and being perfect, or church bishops pushing to exclude some sinners from heaven.
@@kenfollowyeshuacrawford4284 the Pharisees and Sadducees were condemned by Christ for their ignorance of scriptures and their contradictory traditions. Many traditions in the Catholic and Orthodox Churches, though some are, are not usually contradictory to the scriptures, though some important ones are, yet others such as incense and luxurious ceremonial rituals and dressings may seem like they are neither contradictory nor extrabiblical, yet those practices are both useless, simply impressing mystical and luxury practices upon guests. I may argue though, that the luxuries of the churches are very spiteful towards Christ.
Brilliant video, Gavin! You’ve put into words a lot of important points that people often do not consider, or even know about while discussing these important matters, especially the historic context and inconsistencies that may arise in contrast to the original view of the early church. Looking forward to more such insights in the future.
As a greek protestand who is familiar with orthodoxy, I see all those western orthodox christians as soft orthodox. Jonathans ecumanical views are indeed hard to be found within orthodox tradition and culture.
@@CanditoTrainingHQ I personally don't view him as a soft individual, I was more referring to his positions as an orthodox (he doesn't seem like a hardcore orthodox) Personally I quite like the guy.
@michaelpelidis9088 that's what I meant by soft lol. His views dance around blurred edges and aren't representative of others in the west. Just himself. Never said I didn't like him.
Dr Gavin, I am so grateful for your channel and the videos you post! I am from southeast Europe, a small country - Serbia! Majority of people are nominally East Orthodox Christians, and I was born like one of them. But, I gave my life to Jesus about 12 years ago, and unfortunately gave myself into evangelising people just couple years ago. But still, I am struggling to evangelize my brothers and sisters from EO church as they see me as a sectarian heretic and do not even want to hear a word of the Gospel I have to share with them. And I am not even going hard on them, but just trying to share Bible verses and still it is not good as for them, the only thing that matters is what their priest says during liturgy, and nothing outside of that, or coming from a person that is not "theologically" sound. I am on a second year of Baptist Theological School and I have been learning so much about Christian faith and more and more about history of the church and I am even trying to create topics to discuss with my EO friends from the historic standpoint, but it is still not valid, as I am not EO. There are rare examples when I can have some theological conversation, but those happen very very rare... I am deeply grateful for your channel and for addressing important topics from the Protestant standpoint as I am more and more leaning towards Reformed theology myself. I know that theology does not save people, but Christ does, but still, this channel and your efforts dr Gavin help me a lot in my efforts to share Christ with people I love and cherish and wouldn't like for them to be eternally separated from our God.... May God bless you brother! You are such a blessing for my life and my ministry!
I am a Georgian Orthodox Church member, I am also Georgian. As a Christian I do not have right to determine who will be saved and who will not, so be more careful until judge someone, only God knows.
It would be much easier if you act : Matthew 7 :: NIV. "Do not judge, or you too will be judged. For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you. "Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye?
I recently had the thought that the ancient western church, The Latin Catholic Church, was mostly affected by the Protestant Reformation but escaped Islam and Communism while the Eastern churches Gavin mentioned were acutely affected by Islam and Communism but escaped the Protestant Reformation.
Thank you for another great video! You said that in the case of the Church Fathers, establishing their view of exclusivism is rather difficult. It seems to me that this topic would interest me the most, because I have at least the the impression that in the first five centuries the ancient Christians had a different ecclesiological paradigm than the Protestants in the sixteenth century or today. Above all, their emphasis on visible yet institutional unity combined with exclusivity is disturbing. If you were planning to make a video on this subject, I would greatly appreciate it. God bless you!
Hi! I think it's more a case that back then there was just "the Church"... You (as, for instance, Irenaeus would point to in the 2nd century, or the 3rd and 4th century "giants" in the faith) were either "in". or "out"... "out" were they who immediately or eventually excommunicated themselves through inadequate, heretical views. But! The 5th, 11th and 16th century "splits" happened! But! - as Gavin points out - God "works with what he's got - even if organisationally fragmented from an Orthodox or Roman Catholic perspective - which major on Apostolic succession and the transmission of a particular tradition : )
Visible Body is NOT limitation of the action of the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit acts wherever He wants. The Church has NEVER limited the Holy Spirit to Her. It's what you have to understand. Ortlund says that Orthodoxy teaches something that it doesn't. The Church has never taught confinement of the Holy Spirit.
Around 20:45 "then the practical utility of it seems to be greatly reduced..." I laughed for a full minute, and then I want to say, I Profoundly appreciate your work here, and your exhibition of great patience, regarding an issue that Constantly troubles me- the issue of authority, both in the church and spreading into government. I thank God for this video, and pray to Him in Jesus' name, and get back to work
Eastern Orthodox here, and convert from Evangelicalism. Good on you to remark on this issue. There's a sense in which Pageau is correct, but only in our paradigm of thinking. We believe that all truth is God's truth and that God's grace is "everywhere present and fillest all things". This does not, however, mean that the Church is a hierarchy. You are either in the Church or you're not. Where you err though is that we don't view membership in the Orthodox Church as a status of salvation. We view it as the plan, design, and best chance of salvation, as participation in the life of Christ is necessary for union with Christ. I think Pageau has been surrounding himself with so many non-Orthodox people that it's hard for him to not be Ecumenical, and so he tries to articulate things in a more palatable way. Not saying that's good or bad... It just is. Protestants don't understand us at all, and so trying to communicate with them is really an exercise of translation. One can say that Protestantism preserves more of God's truth than say Muslims or Buddhists, and at the same time say definitively that Protestants are not inside the Church founded by Christ, and at the same time, not have that be a condemnation of eternal salvation. That's all possible within the Orthodox frame of mind. But because that doesn't compute in a Protestant mind, some of us tend to air on the side of a more charitable tone.
Gavin spent almost this entire video talking about how MODERN day EO members say the being in EO church is not necessary for salvation, but ALL of the historical judgements of the EO Church throughout its history have AFFIRMED the Ark view, just like the RC Church.
Very helpful, Gavin. As someone who hasn't delved deeply into historical sources (and needs to) I greatly appreciated you citing EO sources directly to explain your point. This was very clarifying.
I have been BLESSED by this video today. Every since converting to Christianity in my heart (I’m a cradle Russian Orthodox) but I was never taught the gospel , only brought to church on holidays. I converted to Christ at 23 years old and have NOT looked back since! I first started attending a baptist church but then people from my Orthodox Church started telling me that they are the one true institution of Christ and that everyone else is heretical. This gave me so much confusion and fear and I have been studying theology and ecclesiology ever since. The most peace I get though is through your channel when you speak on these topics. I believe that an institution is to be judged on the fruits of the spirit just like Jesus teaches us! And in many orthodox churches I did not see true fruits (but there are many that have them). I just want to say that your outlook on the spirit not being limited to one institution is so true! I pray that people can have calmness in their hearts by following the true teachings of Jesus and not falling into pseudo-Phariseecal traps of fear of damnation if they are not of a certain institution.
You are more of an insider to Orthodoxy and I'm on the outside It appears to me from my dealings w/ them, that so many are far more in love w/ and prideful of their ancient traditions, and endless claims of exclusivity, than they seem to be w/ Christ. When I encounter protestant Christians and many Catholics, they are just really in love w/ God, and it shows in their language and actions. The Orthodox are said to be the highest earners of Christians, yet have the lowest rates of giving to charity. The giving to charity part was actually polled, but I never hear of Orthodox food banks, or all the wonderful community helps the Salvation Army does. Protestants and Catholics really shine in al those charitable respects. I don't hear of the Orthodox evangelizing or sending missionaries either. Really shows the fruit.
@@saintejeannedarc9460 yeah I don’t notice orthodox giving out to communities other than monasteries that may provide locally in some way but are still reliant on locals donations. The evangelizing part is what gets me. It feels like orthodoxy still remains such a “mysterious” church out in the west because they do not evangelize Christ? But seriously this is a case by case basis. But I understand what you mean. I do on the other hand really respect a lot of their theology , especially the doctrine on theosis. But to me I feel like orthodox gatekeeper their churches
Similar for me, a cradle Roman Catholic, and the Holy Spirit led me into protestant congregations when I was in my mid-20s. It was hard to leave the RCC because of that "No Salvation Outside..." teaching that they taught me in catechism at a young age. Capturing and retaining the members through fear tactics strikes me as a sign of a false cult. Fear not, our Redeemer lives! No church died for us; only Jesus Christ suffered and died as He made complete propitiation for every one of ours sins! 😊
@@jennacuna3674 I've heard of some Orthodox churches so exclusive, they don't even both to put a sign. Those tend to be the ethnic Orthodox where all the immigrants know where their local Orthodox church is. They don't care about newcomers, or winning souls. Whereas protestant churches have outreach. They will have signs that all are welcome, they will post in papers and let the community know they are opening, etc. They will have youth groups and encourage members to invite people to retreats. They have Alpha meetsing and the outreach is endless. Catholics are terrific at community charities, as are protestants.
I'm an American who became Orthodox, specifically in the Russian Church. It's not fair to compare the worst of one group with the best of another. You see the difference between communities and fruits in the literature that they produce. Western communions emphasize intellectual study of the Scripture or emotional "worship". Orthodoxy emphasizes spiritual struggle and wisdom. When I read Western Christian literature, it's interesting and intriguing. When I r ad Orthodox literature, I feel the same way as I do when I read the NT, as if I ate spiritual food. Many times I literally lose my appetite because I'm so satisfied with the spiritual sweetness of what I read. People can express themselves poorly, especially babushkas and other lay people. I agree, it isn't helpful to try to scare someone into not leaving your community. But it's only a recent phenomenon that a lot Protestants don't do this. Not too long ago, many would be no different in this regard and many still are. Я надеюсь, что однажды вы дадите Церкви ваших предков еще один шанс. По моему мнению, она самая чудесная и глубокая в мире.
I'll be honest - As a Catholic and former Protestant, the biggest problem with Protestantism (arguably) is that Orthodoxy seems to debunk it. Calvin and Luther and Zwingli and so on claimed to be returning to early Christianity, and Calvin in particular claimed to be informed by the early Church Fathers (I.E., certain passages from St. Augustine) - but the Orthodox have existed for 2000 years alongside the Catholics and their ENTIRE thing is preserving the traditions of the Apostles and the early Church. Catholics hold to Sacred Tradition as well, but believe the Church also has the authority by the Holy Spirit to expand and recontextualize on teachings as doctrine develops. This is where things like the Filioque and the Immaculate Conception come into play. Orthodoxy IS, more of less, early Christianity, and yet it looks nothing like Protestantism. If the 'Reformers' truly wanted to reform, rather than revolutionize, the Church (and denied the authority claims of the Western Church), they might've tried to fashion the Church more to Orthodox Christianity or simply become Orthodox themselves. Rather, they introduced theological novums like Sola Scriptura and Sola Fide that NO ONE in the early Church held to.
Read the Augsburg confessions, Chemitz' examination of the council of Trent and other historic protestant writings. They appeal to numerous church fathers to back up the ideas of Sola fide and Sola scriptura. Luther didn't just wake up one morning and think, "Hey, here's some cool ideas no one believed before me, let's reform the church because of it." Also if you're convinced that Eastern orthodoxy is more or less early Christianity (it isn't, things like icon veneration were accretions throughout church history in the 7th century as Gavin has demonstrated) why bother being Roman Catholic instead of EO? Seems a strange case of cognitive dissonance.
@@TheJoeschmoe777 First of all, I'm not sure how you could use the Church Fathers to justify Sola Scriptura if you believe Scripture is the sole authority on matters of doctrine. That's a bit internally inconsistent. Sola Scriptura would have to come directly from Scripture, by definition. From what I understand, Luther struggled with scrupulosity greatly, sometimes attending confession multiple times a day. This was the root of Sola Fide. He also observed obvious corruption in the Church, which was tied to doctrinal developments rooted in Tradition like Purgatory, and devised Sola Scriptura. Scrupulosity is a spiritual illness, and Church corruption is an unavoidable consequence of Christ trusting the very human apostles and their successors to operate the Church. Icon veneration did most certainly NOT begin in the 7th century. Some hold that iconography began with St. Luke, but we have surviving icons dating back to at least the 6th century. Many early icons used oils as finish which did not preserve the icons well, and many more were destroyed during the wave of iconoclasm in the 8th century. Most of what I can find suggests iconography began, at the latest, in the 4th century. I'm not Orthodox because I don't believe that Christianity must necessarily always look like early Christianity. Doctrine can develop. Liturgy can develop. We mustn't make an idol of Tradition, important as it is. I also believe that Christ made Peter the rock of His Church, and the preeminent apostle, and so I believe Peter's successor is still head over the other successors of the Apostles. The Orthodox themselves acknowledge the Bishop of Rome as first among equals, and always have.
@@bradyhayes7911. I would agree with you that there are not as many accretions in EO as in Rome, but they’re there nonetheless. Also, there were Lutheran scholars at the time of the Reformation who contacted an EO patriarch and, after a couple of exchanges, were completely rebuffed. Calvin was thoroughly immersed in patristics and would quote the fathers left, right, and center. In fact, he famously claimed that “the fathers are ours.” A number of patristics scholars will say that the content of written Scripture and oral Tradition in the early church were thought of as co-terminous, and the one merely corroborated the other. This is essentially a Sola Scriptura view. Also, Sola Fide is there, large as life, in both the writings of the Apostle Paul and the Apostolic Fathers. But you can choose to ignore that fact, if you like.
Other than iconography, which I already addressed, what other accretions do you ascribe to the Orthodox? And how do you know that they have no basis in Oral Tradition? Calvin frequently quoted St. Augustine on predestination, but Augustine wavered on soteriology at many different points in his life. If we're getting into Patristics and Calvinism, the view that God's sovereignty renders human free will null is found no where in the Patristics and is thoroughly refuted by Sirach 15:11-20. Oral Tradition and Scripture cannot contradict each other, but they aren't necessarily 1:1 in substance. For example, the primacy of the Bishop of Rome follows from Matthew 16:18 but isn't explicit in Scripture, and yet we have it in tradition from the early Church onward. St. Cyprian of Carthage says: "The Lord says to Peter: ‘I say to you,’ he says, ‘that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church.’ . . . On him [Peter] he builds the Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep [John 21:17], and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair [cathedra], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were that also which Peter was [i.e., apostles], but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair." The term "Trinity" and our understanding of it also comes from Tradition, but isn't explicit in Scripture. The sinlessness of Mary is another huge example that we see in St. Ignatius and St. Augustine, among many others. Another major issue is that there are things you DO see in all of Church history that you don't see in much of Protestantism - Dr. Ortlund is a Baptist, and Baptists lack both litugy and a sacramental approach to Christianity. Most Baptists also reject the Real Presence in the Eucharist. All three of these things were unanimous in Early Christianity. Sola Fide is in Scripture if you add "alone" to passages like Romans 4 and Galations 2, and read them to the exclusion of James 2. No one denies that we are initially justified by grace, through faith. The question is over whether we need to work out our salvation in fear and trembling thereafter, and the view that one cannot lose salvation or that one's deeds are irrelevant is found NO WHERE in early Church history. @@HannahClapham
@@bradyhayes7911dude practically all of protestantism is an accretion these days. With the exception of a handful of well studied individuals there is just a total sprawl. And because they have a tradition of needing to justify their hostile disposition towards the Catholic Church (which is much more in line with Orthodox despite some significant differences) they get things twisted. Apostolic succession, the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist, conflicting ideas about baptism, thinking that Jesus had brothers... Just the tip of the iceberg
I was born and raised Evangelical Protestant. My entire family was very non denominational for my entire life to the present with a few agnostics sprinkled in. It wasn’t until 2020 and 2021 that I came to know and hear about Eastern Orthodox Christianity ☦️ and it was just everything I could’ve needed and wanted for my soul and spiritual life. Thank God that I was baptized and chrismated back in November last year into the Orthodox Church! It is just so rich with the Holy Spirit and feels so much like a home for the soul. Kyrie Eleison! Glory to Christ!
Thank You Brother, i find your teaching of great value. I am constantly learning from you, & finding an ever increasing peaceful assurance welling up within me. I have been tossed around by every wind of doctrine, and i felt like i was drowning in amongst all the exclusivists rhetoric, then thankfully, i found your channel! May The Lord continue to bless you & utilise you to help and heal His people everywhere.. 🙏
The video puts forth an argument that over time the exclusivity of Orthodoxy has relaxed. It's a statement you can classify as accurate or inaccurate but how does it stir up powerful feelings for you? I am curious what about the video provoked tears.
@@patrickbarnes9874for me it's the reminder of the assurance of our salvation (those of us who have placed our faith in Jesus Christ). Salvation isn't exclusive to any one denomination
@patrickbarnes9874 probably on the assurance of salvation. I'd guess the commenter felt the depth of hearing 100% certainty of salvation. That being said that isn't my view lol. But I get the emotional appeal.
@@patrickbarnes9874Gavin’s message at the end re: ecclesial anxiety and assurance of salvation spoke so directly to my decade+ experience agonizing over Orthodoxy. The whole video was intellectually engaging, but then when he flipped over to pastor-mode, idk. It snuck up on me.
@@OMNIBUBB I’m glad it made you feel good, but would you be interested in engaging intellectually to learn how the position is actually unsound? I can show this to you, and explain a way that is Biblical and sound. Only if you would like to hear it though.
There is not "one true institution"...they were first called Christians at Antioch. ALL believers who know, worship & follow Jesus & God's word w/ fruit of the Spirit are the family of God & the church. Anyone who places an institution/ denomination above "God's family" has an erroneous loyalty & focus.
You can literally see the apostolic succession. Not that hard, just see the apostles who established the 5 seas that still exist now. It's only Rome that has fell in shism but technically still closer to the one true church.
@@ilovechrist914Rome is the only one of the 5 ancient sees that *hasn’t* fallen. The other 4 don’t exist anymore. That reason alone is a major point in Catholicism’s favor for claiming to be the original Church founded by Christ.
Yes, "there's no salvation outside of the true Church" only for those who abide by the discipline, dogma, and mysteries of the Church. That is to say, those who received Holy Orthodox Baptism/Chrismation but have not lived the Christian life or have fallen away their salvation is in question. "The Spirit moves where it will" (In 3.8) reminds us that the Holy Spirit dwells externally with It's Grace to those who are pure in heart though outside the Church. While we must attempt to convert all outside The Body of Christ, we are not permitted to judge anyone out there who never heard a good witness of Christ. Heretics and apostates are only worthy of Orthodox criticism. Even the act of "excommunication" is a Love call to return to the Church. --A Monk of the Orthodox Church
Amen and Amen!! Thank you Gavin for your scholarship and pastor's heart. The Lord God has blessed you to be a blessing to all brothers and sisters in Christ Jesus. Again I say Amen!!
I was raised Protestant my whole life. The more I read my Bible and prayed, the more I began to see that Protestantism just couldn’t be it. I prayed that the Lord would lead me and guide me into all truth. I stumbled on a Hank Hanegraff video on Orthodoxy (providentially). The theology was impressive. I found a local Orthodox Church. My first visit there, I knew I had come home. My husband was against it at first, but after a few months he was fully on board. We were baptize into the Orthodox Church Sept. 30th! Glory to God! We are home and we are in His body, the Church He established. Please come and see! Test it. Don’t follow the naysayers but experience the Divine Liturgy and the life of the Church for yourself. Learn about Orthodoxy by talking to an Orthodox priest and attending the services. You can never understand Orthodoxy outside the mind of the Church. There is so much more than we have been led to believe. Glory to God for His goodness and that the Orthodox Faith has come to America!
I was also raised Protestant my whole life, though I have not regularly attended church (any church) in about 20 years. It was just becoming too much of a circus, and I was always searching for a "better church" but never really finding one. Recently I've been feeling a draw to Orthodoxy. The zeal and passion for Christ these people have is infectious, and it really feels like a "church". Unfortunately there are no Orthodox churches close to me, so at the moment I'm just enjoying them through RUclips.
The theological debate over the Filioque clause, which concerns the phrase "and the Son" in relation to the procession of the Holy Spirit, has been a significant point of contention between Eastern Orthodoxy and Western Christianity, particularly the Roman Catholic Church. Historically, Eastern Orthodox theologians and Church leaders have strongly opposed the addition of the Filioque to the Nicene Creed. It's crucial to understand that theological positions and perspectives can evolve over time, and there has been a nuanced historical development on this issue. While there were periods of tension and disagreement, the situation has changed in recent times. 1. **Historical Opposition:** - In the past, especially from the 9th to the 19th century, Eastern Orthodox theologians strongly opposed the Filioque. Some considered it a deviation from the original Nicene Creed and an affront to the Eastern Orthodox understanding of the procession of the Holy Spirit. 2. **Contemporary Perspectives:** - In more recent times, there have been efforts toward dialogue and understanding between Eastern Orthodoxy and Western Christianity. Ecumenical discussions have aimed at finding common ground and resolving historical theological disagreements. 3. **Varied Views:** - It's important to note that views within Eastern Orthodoxy on the implications for salvation based solely on the affirmation or rejection of the Filioque may vary among theologians and Church leaders. The nuanced perspectives within Eastern Orthodoxy acknowledge the mystery of God's judgment and mercy. In contemporary discussions, there is a recognition that salvation is ultimately a matter of God's grace and not solely determined by theological formulations. Ecumenical dialogues and efforts seek to foster understanding and unity among Christian traditions, acknowledging the complexity of historical disagreements.
Your position is crystal clear Sir. Other institutions are hypocrites to not even admit that they explicitly say that others are damned outside their "instition".
Hi, convert to Orthodoxy here: Let me make a distinction: when the Orthodox, historically or modernly, use the Ark analogy, it’s speaking broadly. There is no other Church; Christ didn’t establish multiple churches; the Apostles didn’t adhere to different faiths or preach multiple discordant versions of it; ancient Israel had one Passover, with one Temple, and one valid priesthood, and only one Messiah. The Apostles warned strongly against schism and false belief. So the Ark analogy has never gone away, and these more modern statements that we hear from Pageau and the late Met. Kallistos (Timothy) Ware are not dogmatic assertions, but gentle statements meant to soften the traditional exclusivity which sounds so harsh to modern ears. Yet what they’re saying isn’t false: God is sovereign and saves whoever he wishes. We have the Good Thief as an example of someone who was clearly outside of the faith, was never baptized or communed, and yet his repentant heart confessed to God, asking forgiveness, and we Orthodox regard him to be the first person ever admitted to Paradise. We have also other examples, such as the cruel pagan Emperor Trajan, who martyred countless Christians, in the erroneous thinking that Rome’s loss of faith in the pagan gods made the Empire weak. Yet his soul was rescued out of hell through the consistent prayers St. Gregory the Great. So the context of modern Orthodox speakers and writers isn’t wrong, but it’s exceptions known only to God. Those outside the Church today would be like those who claim to worship Christ in His day, but didn’t follow the Apostles. Christ said: “for whoever is not against us is for us. Truly I tell you, anyone who gives you a cup of water in my name because you belong to the Messiah will certainly not lose their reward..” But this doesn’t mean that Protestant beliefs or Roman beliefs aren’t errors. Indeed, they all deviate from the Apostolic Faith to varying degrees, and only Orthodoxy is the singular Body of Christ, with Him serving as High Priest. All other beliefs, whether schismatic sects or paganism, are merely false temples erected to error and falsehoods. Return to the original, and be saved.
I very much like the idea that we know that salvation and grace is found within the Church. That is what we are given. Can people outside Orthodoxy find grace? That's up to God. Personally, I think that Catholics have valid sacraments. If I look at their fruits, they seem like they are producing saints. Some protestants are also very saintly. Am I to say that the Spirit doesn't work in them to transform them and save them? Of course not. That would be rather foolish. Not to mention that the context of the teachings of the fathers was very, very different. They haven't lived in a situation with 2 major Christian hierarchies, some smaller ones (non-Chalcedonian) and a bunch of random whatever-thing protestants have going.
_Yet his soul was rescued out of hell through the consistent prayers St. Gregory the Great_ Is this taught as dogmatic truth that you can pray people out of hell? Can someone pray Hitler out of hell in the orthodox church? _Return to the original and be saved_ I think the frustrating thing about dialogues like these is in one breath you'll say that non-Orthodox Christians are not damned for not being orthodox, but then you'll end by implying that they kind of are. It sends so many mixed signals, it's baffling.
@@duckymomo7935 Christ only began one holy, catholic, and apostolic Church; not 12 different churches: For it has been declared to me concerning you, my brethren, by those of Chloe’s household, that there are [f]contentions among you. 12 Now I say this, that each of you says, “I am of Paul,” or “I am of Apollos,” or “I am of Cephas,” or “I am of Christ.” 13 Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul? (1 Cor. 1:11-13)
Thank you for this excellent presentation. I experienced a lot of anxiety and intimidation caused by a few members of the EO church asserting that their way is the only way. Even though I knew without a doubt that I'd been saved, they still caused me a lot of stress because I was worried I might be being disobedient to God if I didn't convert to EO.
EO here: I also hold a hierarchical view like Jonathan in the video. While I agree there is no historical explicit official statements, there are some things to consider: . Baptisms and ordinations from anti-chalcodonian and Latin traditions after the schism were accepted when conducted in proper form . The Pope was still spoken of using his title as “pope of old Rome” after the schism in all correspondence . There is no official statement that those outside the visible church are damned as there was in the Latin church at Florence . St Gregory of Nyssa believed in a form of catharsis and apektasis for those even outside the church . St Isaac the Syrian was a member of a “Nestorian” communion and still regarded as a canonised Saint . “Blessed” Theodoret is still honoured despite the official condemnation of many of his earlier writings by the 5th EC . St Paul mentions different levels of glory for each star in heaven . Jesus said His father’s house has many mansions . While the “ark” view is the most common view, we cannot take analogies as true in every aspect without nuance and to the exclusion of other models . St Symeon of Thessaloniki wanted to restore the ancient privileges to old Rome and the pope if they repent of their heresy - there was no need to reordain the west
I do think it would be pretty cool to have a good faith dialogue with an Orthodox scholar. I've recommended Fr. Stephen De Young before. I imagine it would be a great discussion.
I haven’t heard from the modern Orthodox theologians or priests that believers in Christ are damned. The response usually is: “only God knows the heart of a man and only He can judge”. Reading diaries of Alexander Schmemmen I could sense that he wasn’t very happy with the rigidity of the “tradition” and “churchianity “…
You won't hear many "modern" Orthodox say this. It was replaced by the "We can only say where the church / Holy Spirit is not where it is not" rhetoric. But this is new. That isn't the historic or canonical position of the Orthodox Church. That those outside the Orthodox Church were outside the ark of salvation was in fact the prevailing, official view. Look up Triumphalism.
@@EricBryant we do not believe there is salvation outside the Church. Pageau is not speaking for the Church and Im sure he would never claim that he is speaking for Orthodoxy. That is not to say the Church absolutely declares the fate of non christians. And yes, protestants are absolutely NOT CHRISTIAN. The simple answer is they are not saved, but we cannot say they are damned either. We dont know. But Protestants are anathema and not saved. No ifs or buts.
@@EricBryant It's a very different time today than it was much earlier in Church history where well hearted people find themselves in false Christian traditions through no fault of their own. These sorts of positions are not so rigid as you make them seem.
@@Journey_of_Abundance I was a catechumen for 2 yrs. And I could not be Chrismated unless I agree with all Orthodox teachings. And yes the Orthodox Church officially IS just that exclusive, I know it from personal experience.
Gavin's explication of the protestant view is perfectly illustrated in the following story lifted from the life of John Wesley: "The story is told that John Wesley, a founder of Methodism, changed his view about church division after a dream in which he was first transported to the gates of Hell. He asked, “Are there any Presbyterians here?” “Yes,” was the reply. “Any Roman Catholics?” “Yes.” “Any Congregationalists?” “Yes.” He hesitated, then said, “Not any Methodists, I hope!” To his dismay the answer was “Yes.” Suddenly in his dream he stood at the gate of Heaven. Once again he asked, “Are there any Presbyterians here?” “No,” was the reply. “Any Roman Catholics?” “No.” “Any Congregationalists?” “No.” Then he asked the question which most interested him: “Are there any Methodists here?” He was shocked to receive the same stern reply, “No!” “Well then,” he asked in surprise, “please tell me who IS in Heaven?” “CHRISTIANS!” was the jubilant answer."
I love Gavin's work, but he glosses over his statement of a doctrine just popping up six hundred years into church history. A great example of this would be Calvin's doctrine on the perseverance of the Saints. No one in church history, including Calvin , taught this doctrine for the first 15 centuries of the church.
Isaac of Ninevah (7th century) belonged to the Church of the East, not the Eastern Orthodox Church, & was accepted as an EO saint. This speaks to the possibility in the EO view of people outside the visible/institutional Church not only being saved, but of being worthy of veneration as saints of the Church. However, as someone who has been inquiring deeply into Eastern Orthodoxy for years now, I too find those quotes you pulled from the Confession of Dositheus troubling and cannot agree with them at all. I'm not entirely sure how binding that 1672 Council of Jersualem is for EO Christians. I think that a dialogue with Seraphim Hamilton on this topic would be very fruitful. He's an EO Christian who is deeply familiar with Church history, canons, councils, dogma, etc. and from what I understand, he is not a sacramental rigorist nor a institutional exclusivist in terms of who can be saved. He's a very irenic, charitable, and clear-minded thinker, and I think that a dialogue with him could really bring out some of the theological and historical nuances of this topic, especially in terms of what EO Christians can and cannot consistently believe about the bounds of the Church and the bounds of salvation. God bless!
I'm inquiring atm while attending an anglican parish, for almost 2 years, will be doing catechism soon. Not easy that's forsure hehe. Have you read seraphims work on protestantism? Or his course I believe it is? Planning to get it soon
@triplea6174 I haven't read much of Seraphim's content on Protestantism, though I've listened to quite a lot of his stuff, some of which addresses Protestantism. His course looks solid but I haven't had the time to check it out yet. I've visited some Anglican parishes as well during my time attending an EO parish regularly, and could see myself possibly going the Anglo-Catholic route if for some reason I couldn't go all the way to Eastern Orthodoxy, though as of now I'm closer to Orthodoxy. May God guide us both! 🙏
From my perspective, I don't know why I would become a protestant rather than be within the Orthodox church and believe/affirm that more ecumenical view. I can disagree with the view the majority of Orthodox theologians have taken during a portion of its history. However, I see no problem with its strict attitude in general, telling people they need to join. You may or may not be saved outside the Orthodox church, but if you know a higher truth (Orthodoxy) you're now responsible to struggle for unity with that truth. Therefore its not right to have a lax attitude, although I agree with a more sympathetic attitude towards those who would seriously struggle to be able to join the Orthodox church. Orthodoxy at least struggles to keep a traditional practice of faith, with its liturgy, sacraments etc., why would I leave those? Why would I leave its superior aesthetic beauty, or its emphasis on mysticism? I don't think you have an argument for protestantism here.
One would need to define what they mean by "Protestant" first since it's such a multi-faceted word with all sorts of meaning nowadays. Aesthetic beauty is not present in Protestantism? That's unfortunate to believe. But anyway, what makes someone a Christian is that they are relying on Jesus Christ alone for salvation, resting in the Father's love, and being guided by the Holy Spirit, not whether they picked the right institution or not.
Gavin, thank you for giving the biblical truth that Jesus is the truth and the way to salvation and the Father. His word and promises are truth. Thank you for the final comments to people who are scared of damnation, as long as you trust and follow Jesus Christ, He is the only way.
Remember the words of Paul to the Phillipian jailor: "Believe in the doctrine of the One True Church, and thou shalt be saved." Wait, that wasn't it...
Awe, it isn't? But but, the Catholics always tell me it says that. Orthodox don't deign to talk to us. They don't consider us the same religion and they don't evangelize, just preen on how they are the only ones saved.
@@neildegraide2297 The line is in the very Gospel presentation. If you affirm the Gospel by trusting in Jesus Christ for salvation, you will be saved, regardless of what false popes or bishops might declare to the contrary.
Thank you for this, Gavin. Many Protestants are attracted to Orthodoxy because most people just think of it as "Catholicism without the pope," but it's a lot different than that. They deny specific doctrines such as original sin and see it more as a corruption, penal substitutionary atonement and prefer Christus Victor or some other theory of Atonement, believe in the sinlessness of Mary but deny the Catholic view of the immaculate conception, they believe in the "essence/energies" distinction of Palamism instead of strict divine simplicity, etc.
I dont know how to feel at this moment jaaja, I really love their theology, its really beautiful and everything has a meaning, i think that what makes it so beautiful is how the see God, and love tradition and the bible in a way that its not common between protestant in these days. i know that in the USA you have Strong Lutheran churches. But i am from Colombia and in here if you are not part of the big Evangelicals churches or non denom, well you have catholic. I really love tradition and dont like that much Calvinism so i dont know what to do, There is only one orthodox church in my city, but i dont know the way :,)
There is no salvation outside of the church. The church is the body of Christ. Jesus is the head. We are “Christ” and saved only while in the body. Calvinism has caused so much damage. Salvation is hard, is a struggle for the Christian. Christ has provided the way to salvation, were need to believe, have faith in Jesus to do as he has said he’ll do for those who persevere to the end.
@@cimmbasso no, Salvation is in Christ and him alone. Acts 4:12. 12 Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to mankind by which we must be saved.” Or, will you throw out Luke’s letter?
the one issue i'm having is this - is there any precedent for the protestant invisible church idea within the early centuries of Christianity? is there any precedent for agreeing w Gavin? I want to hold what Gavin does, but was that what the early church believed?
I personally havn't found that to be the case. I think part of the reason Gav is so successful is he makes apparently modest claims that arnt really designed to sell anyone on Protestantism, but more that they are set up to cast enough "reasonable doubt" to prevent someone from being Orthodox or Catholic. It's like the implication that protestants "invented" being nice to other denominations....but like before protestantism you really didn't even have "denominations" you had schisms, sure, with the OOs and the RCs and the EOs but the both of those schism were way more complex than a clean break and none of them included the wide scale open revolts and ripping apart of society that you had in the west when Protestants came into existence. So even if it was true that there wasn't any nuance in let's say 1600 by Orthodox and Catholics in categorizing different types of heritics (and there certainly was) at that point protestantism was a brand new type of schism that hadn't really been seen before, I mean give people a century or 2 to see how everything pans out and figure out how you relate to this new heresy that is ripping the known world to pieces.... That said is obvious the Church: Orthodox or Catholic have always made distractions and had a higharchy of how "wrong" different sects are.
@@mrjustadude1 i have engaged with baptists online and their arguments often in regards to the traditional "denominations" is always in a odd defensive manner that makes it seem that they themselves doubt what they hold
This is exactly the reason that has kept me from becoming Orthodox. I love the Orthodox liturgy, I love the beauty of their churches, I agree with the Orthodox view of the trinity. I agree with the perpetual virginity of Mary and have no problem calling her theotokos. (I still struggle with some of the other dogmas) I’m past the arguments against intercessory of the Saints. I still struggle a little bit with icon venation. But I could never bind my conscience or the conscience of my family to the anathemas of other Christain.
The video opens with the Noah's ark view of the past being contrasted with the hierarchical view of the present. You are saying that you agree with the doctrines of Orthodoxy today but you could never join the church because of the exclusivity, but the entire point of the video is that the Orthodox church no longer holds the view that you're objecting to. It makes no sense to say you agree with everything an organization believes today but you won't join it today because of a view the organization held in the past which the organization today also disagrees with.
@@patrickbarnes9874Genuine question: does the Eastern Orthodox Church believe in the infallibility of official doctrine from councils or bishops? I know Roman Catholics believe anything officially declared by the Pope or the councils to be infallible. Anyways, the major talking point that Orthodox and Roman Catholic apologists use is that “the church has stayed the same since the first century”. Well, if your church dogmatically decreed that everyone outside of that church is eternally cursed and then eventually changed its position on that, doesn’t that disprove that whole argument? The whole allure of converting to these traditions for many people is that they’re getting back to the unchanging tradition of the apostles. When you lift up the covers and shine a flashlight on the issue, it’s not unchanging. These traditions have verifiably changed a lot.
@@patrickbarnes9874 Not all orthodox doctrines but enough for me to worship there. It was “impossible” for the EO church to error in there councils and cannons as they were led by the Holy Spirit. Yet the church has made clear what is anathema and who is anathematized. (See the Synodikon of Orthodoxy for more details) I’ve put this on another comment but will put it here as well. Here is an official description by the by the patriarch, of Constantinople at the synod of Jassy in 1642 regarding what an anathema means (after excommunicating the heretic in question from the church it then adds to the excommunication): “And let them be subjected to an eternal anathema, and excommunicated by the Father, the Son and The Holy Spirit, the only God, one in nature, both in the present life and that which is to come, and cursed and unforgiven and unabsolved after death, and partakers of eternal punishment” (acts and decrees of the synod of Jerusalem, page 100)
@@patrickbarnes9874 BTW, all eastern orthodox churches are call to formally and ritually curse all that disagree with them yearly on the feast of orthodoxy when they read the synodikon of orthodox. Most churches don’t do this, though they are supposed to, for obvious reasons. Here are a few of the anathema’s. The Synodikon of Orthodoxy Anathema against all that “innovate” or “enact” anything “outside of Church Tradition and the teaching and institution of the holy and ever-memorable fathers” (The Holy Standards, pg 530) Anathema against those who do not ” confess with heart and mouth that he is a child of the Eastern Church baptized in the Orthodox style… shall be outside of our Church and shall be anathematized “ (The Holy Standards, pg 567) Anathema against those who do not affirm that Christ had leaven bread at the Mystic (last) supper, while also condemning the Armenian Orthodox Church. I could go on with more anathema’s but you get the point. Again the EO church has made it clear what an anathema is and what they are declaring when anathematizing others. “To be outside of the EO Church is to be outside of the body of Christ and to be outside of the body of Christ is to be outside of Christ himself . Anathema I simply can love my Orthodox bothers and sisters in Christ but like I stated in my original comment, I simply can’t bind my conscience or the conscience of my family to this.
@@ogloc6308 The Papal throne has only spoken infallibly twice in the 2000 year history of then Church of Rome and that was to clarify teachings about the Theotokos.
What you say around 15:40 applies to the Catholic Church as well. Council of Florence states no one dying outside the Catholic Church can be saved "even if he pour out his blood for the Name of Christ". Nowadays the current version of the Catechism (paragraph 846) seeks to explain what "no salvation outside the church" means "reformulated positively"... ;-)
I really could've used this channel back in the early 2000's. Back then I was going through the sort of anxiety that Gavin is fighting against. During that time I started taking a look at Orthodoxy, and ultimately it was their exclusivity which pushed me away. Their idea that "no one but us is even a Christian" was so strong and widespread that I am genuinely amazed to see Orthodox today speaking about Protestants with anything but contempt.
Bob is ecumenical, he likes to pretend that the Eastern Orthodox, Catholic church, and protestant churches don't have any major theological differences.
@@morghe321 No. That’s not even what ecumenical means. There can be major differences, that don’t effect soteriology. I believe that to be the case, EO, RCC, and Prots are all saved. Bob believes this, and Gavin does too.
@@brando3342 I'm not saying that it's what it means. I meant that he is an ecumenist who likes to pretend that thare aren't any major theological differences. At least, that's the impression I get from him. He doesn't seem to be interested in talking about these differences, like Gavin does all the time. Or perhaps I'm wrong?
It’s hard to hear this from a channel called truth unites to tell us faithful Orthodox Christians that we really don’t know what we believe. As we approach Pascha in prayer, fasting and liturgy let’s pray Dr Gavin can find the true understanding of the orthodox faith through authentic dialogue and try to build a bridge to unite where we can.
I find it interesting, -there are so many times I'm in debate with a Catholic or Orthodox that they make this appeal, "You Protestants don't hold to traditional Protestantism: this is what Luther believed, here's what Zwingli believed, and Calvin believed ___. Where are you getting your modern beliefs?" Okay, but when we pull up how past generations of Catholics and Orthodox were emphatic that those outside their institution were damned, all of a sudden we got to get into interpretations. Not that Protestants claim they have infallible doctrine or perfect tradition. I have a saying which is meant to shut up Catholics and Orthodox on this issue: "Luther is not an Ecumenical Counsel." It doesn't matter what Luther says, he's not an infallible authority of doctrine. I have liberty to disagree with Luther, and Calvin, and Zwingli, -even my very own pastor. And so, when I come across a doctrine which seems to go against Scripture (like how John 15:26-27 is Jesus literally saying that He sends the Holy Spirit), I am able to follow Scripture rather than the traditions of men.
Gavin himself quoted Church Fathers who considered pagans could be saved. Saints in both the Catholic Church and the Orthodox churches. So just by that fact you are refuted. Gavin just arbitrarily refused to let us use common Church Fathers, he's not a serious person here.
"John 15:26 NKJV [26] “But when the Helper comes, whom I shall send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth who proceeds from the Father, He will testify of Me." - This doesn't affirm the Filioque. The issue with you protestants is you have the misguided belief that you can interpret scripture. You are not qualified nor smart enough to do so.
I gotta be honest that I dislike exclusivity Orthodox and Catholic say about themselves. No salvation outside their church, making fun of Protestant church building, making fun of Protestant gospel songs, those things really make me sad. I remember an orthodox open a Q&A session on Instagram and someone asked "do protestant go to Heaven?" and he answered "I love my protestant followers but sorry to be honest that they can't enter heaven" . I was really sad reading his answer
I am sorry that you have experienced mockery by Orthodox people, definitely not okay. But understand their perspective, heresy leads away from God, not to it. Do you believe a Muslim will be saved if they do not accept Jesus as their savior? That would probably make them unhappy as well but there is always boundaries.
@@sn00dles83 none definitely can enter heaven is they do not accept Christ as their Lord & Savior. I'll say the same. But to say muslim and protestan at the same position is just wrong. Protestant have faith in Jesus as Lord, second person of God and savior.
And that’s what I dislike about Protestantism. You truly are the “do whatever you want and it’s fine if you just say psych to God” group. Anything goes dude it’s all good bro. Everyone gets in. Meanwhile Jesus specifically said the way is narrow. But you don’t like thinking about that passage, it hurts your fee fees
I thank God for you, Gavin. This content is gold. I think it’d be cool to do more content on baptismal salvation and whether or not it’s biblical. I struggle with that area. If it doesn’t save you, then what does it do exactly? We’re supposed to be Baptized in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, but what does that mean exactly? I thought we were baptized in water, how is one baptized into a name? I’m just confused.
Thank you so much for clearly articulating the consistent and historic Protestant understanding of the church, and highlighting the inconsistencies that exist between the present EO view and the unanimous view it held throughout the past.
He didn't do that. He did not contrast the consistency of Protestantism with the inconsistency of Orthodoxy. He contrasted two views of exclusivity held at different times in Orthodoxy and pointed out its inconsistency in claiming it has remained unchanged. There is no consistent and historic Protestant understanding of the church. If there were, you'd have one Protestant denomination, not thousands.
@@patrickbarnes9874 He was very consistent, and so have the historic Protestant denoms been, in their definition of the church. If you watched the video he explained it explicitly at one point. And even if there weren't Protestantism doesn't make the absolutist claims of Rome and the EO in saying that every minutia of their beliefs are apostolic in origin, thus making their claim to legitimacy easily falsifiable by looking to history. And he has also refuted the claim about thousands of Protestant denoms - if you accept that there are thousands and thousands of them then you must also accept that there are more than 1000 EO denominations, because the same study that produced the first set of numbers also listed that about the EO.
I am Catholic and throughout my time being a Catholic convert from protestantism I've been called pagan and damned by Protestants almost every month literally. You are being willfully ignorant if you do not see just how vitriolic protestantism is. Martin Luther said the Pope was antichrist and you keep saying it today, what in the world is this behavior. Meanwhile the Catholic Church has maintained since Vatican 2 and even before that salvation can be found outside of the visible Church because all baptisms join the Catholic Church.
Great video. Personally I think the current setup looks great. Decent lighting and a ton of books! If the “real studio” is even better k can’t wait to see it!
I really appreciate your professionalism with these videos. I studied Eastern Orthodoxy for two years and prayerfully considered it. However, I had genuine questions and kept getting the same regurgitated responses that you've even mentioned. But something felt off the entire time that I could not shake. I have received my answers and thank you again, sir.
big fan, but i wish you put some of your conclusion content at the beginning too. EO and RC have characterized you as the 'gotcha guy' against their traditions, when reality is you're celebrating God's gracious shaping of his one invisible church to more clearly embrace each other, after 900 years of institutional jingoism. Protestants have largely walked back their anti-Catholic stances too! big fan
It wouldn't be so bad if just one Orthodox leader would admit just once that "maybe" the church has erred in a historical instance (anathematizing those who don't kiss icons with affection, canonizing the known murderer Constantine, claiming we only get to Christ through Mary, etc). But they won't. All you'll hear is that the Eastern church is perfect, is guided by the Holy Spirit, and cannot do wrong.
Almost every one of these claims is false or misleading. Let's explore them: 1. Holy Orthodoxy is composed of humans who make mistakes. We don't have a pope, much less a doctrine of papal infallibility. We even have instances where the laity have rejected decisions from the clergy (e.g. the Council of Florence). 2. What does it mean to kiss the icons "with affection?" Do you think there are Orthodox police watching everyone, from the time they enter the narthex, ensuring that they not only kiss all the icons in the church; but that they do so with the appropriate level of affection? Some of my brothers and sisters don't kiss any icons, for whatever reason: My priest has yet to ban them from the church. What you cannot do, from a position of public influence, is preach iconoclasm: If you do this, you will be directed by your priest or bishop to cease or repent. Failing to do so, you will be excommunicated. 3. St. Constantine the Great was a killer, for sure, a soldier and military leader. You know who else was a known killer? St. Paul. St. Constantine's conversion was a gradual one, and he was not baptized until near the end of his life. Do you have evidence that proves Constantine killed anyone as a baptized Christian? 4. We only get to Christ through Mary? It's weird that, as an Orthodox Christian, I've never heard this. She is the Theotokos, the Mother of God. The Father handpicked her to be so, and the Son loves and honors her. So, following Christ, we love and honor her. The Theotokos is a powerful intercessor with her son, naturally; but we can and do speak directly to Christ. I invite you to attend a service at a local Orthodox church, speak to the faithful and coffee hour, and see what Orthodoxy is all about for yourself.
Constantine supposedly still practiced the pagan rite of Sol Invictus despite proclaiming himself a Christian. It seems it was all for political purposes anyhow. Everyone who was a Christian was welcome to a good position in his club, and if they weren't, they wouldn't get a job.
Dr. Gavin, please visit St. Ignatius Orthodox Church in Franklin, TN and start a dialogue with the clergy there. Because the Orthodox Church claims exclusivity does not mean all who identify as Orthodox are saved or the non-Orthodox are not saved. Only the Lord knows who are His sheep and hear His voice.
This is my biggest stressor. I see issues in each church. I no longer feel I can be Protestant but I also don’t know how to deal with these difficult topics in Orthodoxy. I feel without a home at times.
I felt the same during my long (7 year) journey. I finally joined myself to the Roman Catholic Church 19 years ago this Easter and despite all its problems, I have not looked back. I increasingly focus most of my energy now (as I get older) on my prayer life and my spiritual life. There are many riches in the Catholic Church for these things.
You should go visit an Orthodox Church, we will welcome you with open arms! Orthodoxy is not something you can ever really just grasp between your ears. Go and experience the liturgy, stay for coffee hour, speak to the priest.
I feel like once you commit yourself to a church you already implicitly state that that particular church is the true church and is to benefit your salvation. You can’t escape making some implicit or explicit exclusive ecclesiastical statement. From my own Orthodox experience, knowledge and perspective, it is clear to me the Orthodox Church professes to be the one true Church, but doesn’t shut the door completely for the salvation outside the Church.
Nea, you people are part of a cult. The Orthodox Church adopted, whether willingly or unwillingly, cult tactics to keep people from leaving, from going over either to Catholics or Protestants, or even Islam.
Excellent work. It is disheartening that it is such a common response from Orthodox/Roman Catholics that Protestants simply "haven't read enough" (especially since it was the Reformation that revived the original Greek sources of the Fathers and NT). Invisible/mystic unity to the universal church is not only absent in medieval EO/RC theology, it is blatantly rejected consistently with absolute clarity, as you have shown many times in your content. It is a blessing that RC and EO Christians (including bishops) have began embracing Protestant soteriology over the last two centuries, but it certainly is a change in teaching.
@doubtingthomas9117 compared to WHICH Catholic or Orthodox soteriology? Because there is certainly far more than one. If you're actually asking, the magisterial Protestants were in agreement on soteriology, and their main appeal is the faith expressed in the 3 historic catholic creeds and the general councils. As for the restorationist and free church "anti-tradition" Christian movements, they do have a revolving door of soteriology. But they can't rightly be called Protestants, as they've abandoned the tradition
@@AB-dw2op yes, I am actually asking, because depending what doctrines you include or not under the umbrella of “soteriology”, there were some disagreements among the Magisterial Reformers. For instance, Calvinists would subscribe to the ideas of limited atonement and that a true believer could never fall from the faith to be finally lost again. Lutherans OTOH would affirm unlimited atonement and that a true believer could finally apostatize from the faith. Likewise Lutherans and classical Anglicans would affirm that baptism and holy communion are generally necessary for salvation, while many outside those traditions would deny that. BTW-I’m neither RCC nor EOC, but I’m pointing this out because I think it’s helpful to be precise.
Did Luther, Calvin, Zwingli & other reformer's use the same argument (Gavins) against the Catholic Church, or did they change over time, while parting ways from each other?
In Dr. Orthlund's other video, he shared some quotes from both Luther and Calvin that said Catholic churches are still true churches. They just believed the pope was an antichrist.
Confessional Lutheran here...Indeed, this is a great strength of the Reformation and that is a fabulous point relating this issue back to assurance. Christ alone. Amen.
Orthodoxy is a doctrine of demons. Idolatry, arrogance, fakery, pride, teaching as doctrine the precepts of men. It relies of its followers simply being followers and not readers of God's word because it they were to dissect the scriptures they'd see all the lies orthodoxy spreads about Mary, the concept of the eucharist, idolatry toward Maryand man-made objects and the real path to salvation, which excludes the need for Mary. You are liars and will be held accountable for misleading your families in to hell.
Thank you for this video. I am a Catholic myself, and I have heard this hierarchical view put forth more times than I can count. It’s basically the mainstream Catholic view right now, but as you pointed out, it runs completely contrary to the traditional doctrine of extra ecclesiam nulla salus. It’s very frustrating for me to hear the modern view all the time, and I’m sad to hear that it has entered some Orthodox circles, too. All one has to do is read the texts. I will say, though, that I’m not sure I follow your ecclesiology at the end there. But otherwise a fantastic video.
In the mid-70s while at UC Santa Barbara, I was marginally associated with a Christian group that grew out of Campus Crusade that was transitioning to Eastern Orthodoxy. I attended for a while and found it attractive, but in the end couldn't come to terms with icons.
1. What Dr. Ortlund perceives are changes in Catholic teaching, the Catholic Church considers as the development of doctrine that provides a clearer and greater understanding of previous teachings. Quoting theologians is one thing, but Catholics are not bound by their speculation. Rather, it is the official teachings of the magisterium by which Catholics are bound, but theologians can and do supply the ground work that later becomes codified, either by a Pope or an ecumenical council. 2. For example, the Franciscan Johns Duns Scotus first presented the theological rationale for Mary's immaculate conception in the 14th century. This was a traditional belief held by many in the Church, (in the East, Mary is not referred by her name but by the term Panaghia, which means The All-Holy). However, it was not until five centuries after Scotus' death that Pope Pius IX in 1854 solemnly declared the Immaculate Conception as a dogma revealed by God in the papal bull Effabilis Deus by quoting Scotus' rationale: "We declare, pronounce, and define that the doctrine which holds that the most Blessed Virgin Mary, in the first instance of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege granted by Almighty God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Saviour of the human race, was preserved free from all stain of original sin, is a doctrine revealed by God and therefore to be believed firmly and constantly by all the faithful." 3. Besides offering the hope of salvation to non-Catholic Christians in No. 15 of Lumen Gentium, the Second Vatican Council's Dogmatic Constitution On The Church, solemnly promulgated by Pope Paul VI on Nov. 21, 1964, the Catholic Church also offers this same hope to non-Christians, even to those who have not yet arrived at a belief in God, in No. 16: "Finally, those who have not yet received the Gospel are related in various ways to the people of God. (Mk. 1:15; cf. Mt. 4:17) In the first place we must recall the people to whom the testament and the promises were given and from whom Christ was born according to the flesh. (Cf. Rom. 9:4-5) On account of their fathers this people remains most dear to God, for God does not repent of the gifts He makes nor of the calls He issues. (Cf. Rom. 1 l:28-2) But the plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator. In the first place amongst these there are the Muslims, who, professing to hold the faith of Abraham, along with us adore the one and merciful God, who on the last day will judge mankind. Nor is God far distant from those who in shadows and images seek the unknown God, for it is He who gives to all men life and breath and all things, (Cf. Acts 17:25-28) and as Saviour wills that all men be saved. (Cf. 1 Tim. 2:4) Those also can attain to salvation who through no fault of their own do not know the Gospel of Christ or His Church, yet sincerely seek God and moved by grace strive by their deeds to do His will as it is known to them through the dictates of conscience. (Mk. 4:14) Nor does Divine Providence deny the helps necessary for salvation to those who, without blame on their part, have not yet arrived at an explicit knowledge of God and with His grace strive to live a good life. Whatever good or truth is found amongst them is looked upon by the Church as a preparation for the Gospel. (Lk. 12:32) She knows that it is given by Him who enlightens all men so that they may finally have life. But often men, deceived by the Evil One, have become vain in their reasonings and have exchanged the truth of God for a lie, serving the creature rather than the Creator. (Cf Rom. 1:21, 25) Or some there are who, living and dying in this world without God, are exposed to final despair. Wherefore to promote the glory of God and procure the salvation of all of these, and mindful of the command of the Lord, "Preach the Gospel to every creature" (Mk. 16:16), the Church fosters the missions with care and attention." 4. The bishops at the First Vatican Council were working on the dogmatic constitution on the church, but this council was abruptly adjourned by the pope in 1870 due to the outbreak of the Franco-Prussian war and the surrounding of the Vatican by troops of the newly Kingdom of Italy. It took another century and another council for this document to be issued. 5. Have Protestants have undergone their own development of dogma? The original 16th century Protestant Reformers were quite exclusive regarding salvation by denouncing (A) the pope as the Anti-Christ and (B) the Catholic Mass as an abomination before God: A. In 1580 Martin Luther's 1537 Smalcald Articles were added to the authoritative Book of Concord and contains the following: (1) Article IV, No. 10: "This teaching shows forcefully that the Pope is the very Antichrist, who has exalted himself above, and opposed himself against Christ because he will not permit Christians to be saved without his power, which, nevertheless, is nothing, and is neither ordained nor commanded by God." (2) Article II, No. 1: "That the Mass in the Papacy must be the greatest and most horrible abomination, as it directly and powerfully conflicts with this chief article, and yet above and before all other popish idolatries it has been the chief and most specious." [Quoting from the Book of Concord Org website] B. John Calvin's Institutes of the Christian Religion, Book IV is an exposition on the Pope, the Catholic Bishop of Rome as the Antichrist culminating in Chapter 18, No. 1: (1) "Bidding adieu to them, therefore, let my readers understand that I am here combating that opinion with which the ROMAN ANTICHRIST and his prophets have imbued the whole world ..." (2) ".. THAT THIS MASS, HOWEVER GLOSSED AND SPLENDID, OFFERS THE GREATEST INSULT TO CHRIST, suppresses and buries his cross, consigns his death to oblivion, takes away the benefit which it was designed to convey, enervates and dissipates the sacrament, by which the remembrance of his death was retained..." [Beveridge translation, P. 866, ntslibrary website, Institutes of the Christian Religion, pdf 874 of 944] C. Archbishop Thomas Cranmer of the Church of England: (1) “Whereof it followeth Rome to be the seat of Antichrist, and the pope to be very antichrist himself. I could prove the same by many other scriptures, old writers, and strong reasons.” (Works by Cranmer, vol.1, pp.6-7) (2) 39 Articles of Religion, Article 31, from the Book of Common Prayer: "Wherefore the sacrifices of Masses, in the which it was commonly said, that the Priest did offer Christ for the quick and the dead, to have remission of pain or guilt, were blasphemous fables, and dangerous deceits." 6. Does Dr. Ortlund concur with Luther, Calvin and Cranmer that (A) the Pope, the Catholic Bishop of Rome is the Antichrist and (B) the Catholic Mass is a blasphemous offense against God? Or has there been a development of doctrine in this aforesaid exclusivity? The only Lutheran denomination today that still teaches the Pope is the Antichrist, in conformity with the Book of Concord, is the Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod (WELS). In May of 1986, the Church of Scotland (Presbyterian) issued a Declaratory Act that removed the offending Catholic references from the original Westminster Confession of Faith, which had been held as official doctrine by that church for over 300 years.
Petition for Gavin to interview Jonathan Pageau! Please make this happen :)
That would be great
Yes!! I want this so bad. Talk icons!
Yes. As a Protestant who's interested listener of both (and a customer of Pageau's artwork) I'd love to hear them together.
Yes please please! Jonathan Pageau and his insights are so enriching, inspiring
Both of them are extremely formative for my development
Fascinating. Thank you for talking about this. I've been wondering about Eastern Orthodoxy myself.
Love your work Sister. Been studying this stuff for about a year or so
Glad you enjoyed, thanks for your work!
@@TruthUnitessame! I enjoy your videos and I learn a lot from them.
@@TruthUnites Hey, Gavin. Hope you are well. I was wondering if you engage with all the comments, or just ones made by more known individuals? Was hoping you would respond to the argument I posted.
If you're wondering about Orthodoxy, then perhaps speak to some Orhtodox people?
If you truly wish to understand something, why would you get your understanding on that subject from someone who rejects it?
I'm Orthodox and watched that video by Ruslan, and the number of times Protestants in the comments called me or the Orthodox Church heretics and pagan was pretty consistent. I actually encounter this regularly from Calvinists but it's hard to say which denomination I enteracted with in Ruslan's particular video.
I will say this, the gospel itself is exclusive. Jesus claimed to be THE only way to the Father. Jesus established a church, His one body, I don't see why Protestants would have an issue with exclusivity. The church has a right to bind and loose and anathmatize those who teach heresy. And this was an issue right out of the gate of the Reformation with those on differing sides condeming and fighting wars over those differences.
I know of many God fearing and wonderful Protestants who have done great things out of their love and devotion to Christ. We must seek understanding and be able to dialog regardless if we disagree and do so in love.
Christ is exclusive...but I do not see Christ exclusive in regards to the church AT ALL.
“Teacher,” said John, “we saw someone driving out demons in your name and we told him to stop, because he was not one of us.”
“Do not stop him,” Jesus said. “For no one who does a miracle in my name can in the next moment say anything bad about me, for whoever is not against us is for us. Mark 9:38-39
1. If submission to the apostles was essential, why didn't Jesus tell them that it was no big deal and to just let them go their own way without submitting to the authority of the apostles? And if not true for the apostles how much less for those claiming to be their "successors"?
2. How in the WORLD could they drive out demons unless they truly had Christ's authority? Read the book of Acts and see what happens to those trying to cast out demons without true faith!
@@hexahexametermeter "For us" is not the same as "with us" or "one of us", as clearly indicated by the verse. There were pagan Romans and Greeks who didn't hate or persecute the Christians and in fact accepted Christ among their pantheon of existing deities. There are also hindus who do this today. Does that mean they are followers of Christ? No, obviously.
@@hexahexametermeter The interpretation assumes a Protestant paradigm in that the church is just anyone who believes in Jesus. Well, Protestants will then start narrowing the list down to remove Mormons or JW's, otherwise you'd have to say just let them be because they "believe" in Jesus too. The interpretation also fails to account for the establishment of the church at Pentecost. Prior to this time, that structure was not in place (although it was being built), however, the principles of which come from the old testament and are enacted in how the church is governed. Once the church was established at Pentecost, submission to the Apostles was absolutely necessary and you can read that in Acts 15; their ruling was binding on the church. What Mark 9 is forbidding is sectarianism, something very prevalent in Protestantism.
Yeah cool, the ruling in acts 15 was binding because it was the whole church (and was not overseen by Peter, mind you--Peter was the one in the wrong and represented the heresy.) And at the same time you dont have the "oh, youre not a true church" nonsense like you do today and still exists between east and west churches. I love that we protestants can totally bypass your red tape. God isnt confined to your selfish possessiveness of the Gospel. You also see that in acts. The Ethiopian Eunich comes to mind. Meanwhile you Romans and Orthodox can figure out which one of you is the "true church". Control freaks.
@@Hoi4o Absolute nonsense. You think actively casting out demons is on par with being passively "not being against Christians"? Jesus is TOTALLY legitemizing the practice because the work of God is beyond even the control of the disciples themselves. You seem to miss the very fact that they were casting out demons by the power of Christ, because you are so myopically focused on control. Noone can cast out demons except by Christ alone. You are making the same case as the Pharisees did against Jesus--that they must be casting out demons by the power of demons.
Great video: once claim that's difficult for Protestants is whether Protestant ecclesiology existed before the Reformation. Could you make a video on that?
Coward
That would be an interesting video. I think the standard answer is that it is what was modeled in the Bible and can be seen in some 1st century documents, but after that the ecclesiology was much closer (but not identical) to those in the ancient churches.
The Other Paul did a couple streams on this topic a couple years ago. I think he did a good job distinguishing between the Roman/EO understanding of the Episcopacy and a more Anglican one and showing how the R/EO view doesn't fit with the evidence. I would argue that the scriptures, our ultimate foundation, are more concerned with the goings on of local congregations and is silent on the matter of larger organizational structures within the Church. Ultimately I think scripture leaves such things up to circumstance, giving Christians the freedom to organize in whatever way would fit their needs best.
TOP's streams:
ruclips.net/video/xr_2SydH3gM/видео.html
ruclips.net/video/ZIZlV7QhjCg/видео.html
I think by that you mean the attitude that there is salvation outside specific church institutions? I don't know whether or not it did properly exist prior to Protestantism because virtually every split prior to it had featured as the standard norm, anathemas written by both parties against each other. So in a sense, this might be new, but I think like the other commenter mentioned, it is far more in line with what we see in the early church and the Bible than the "paranoid pretention" that existed leading up to the Reformation with RC and EO, and all the rest anathematizing each other without qualm.
Yeah, it would have been called arch heresy
I converted to Orthodoxy in 2016 after losing our son to suicide and the protestant church we attended just ignored us and did not come to support us...I found grace, a merciful God and the fullness and truth of the Christian life and salvation...
I'm sad that the protestant church you attended was so callous towards you in your suffering. They failed you. I hope you find lasting peace in orthodoxy, and I'm glad you're still interested in the dialog between protestantism and orthodoxy, as is shown by you watching this video.
@@KevinSmile thank you for your post. I was raised a conservative Lutheran with a wonderful grounding in scripture and the gospel. I have many families that are Catholic and I too find a richness in that expression of Christianity. But I have noticed and found a disturbing trend in a lot of protestant and non-denominational churches toward watering down the gospel to get more people in the front door instead of challenging them with the gospel the truth of the Gospel. I believe that scripture tells us that there will be a time of apostasy and it even mentions that will there be anybody of faith when Christ returns. That saddens and worries me.
I am born and raised Greek Orthodox, I then had my doubts on Orthodoxy so I looked into Protestantism. What I can say is this, I love my brothers and sisters from the Protestant faith but the church/churches-because they keep splintering off is/are a bit watered-down. So I came to the conclusion that the Orthodox faith is closer to the time of Christ. Any frustrations that Luther had with the Catholic church then I think he should have looked to the Orthodox faith. So, I completely agree with Jonathan Pageau here.
I’m very sorry for your loss and that situation, but did you watch the video?
@@georgiakiriaki in Christian history Luther actually did contact the Orthodox Church looking to move that direction but I think the divides of Western Europe in Eastern Europe and the language just. Made it unlikely to come together. But he did contact them.
Please make more videos about this topic. Eastern Orthodoxy has very little engagement from Protestants.
How can it? No papacy means no grievance against them...
I would like this too as my son converted over years ago and is a monk at an EO monestary.
@@Anita-silver Yes. If I am honest I too am considering conversion to EO. It's so hard, all the arguments feel very weighted towards the Orthodox side since the Orthodox are the ones actually engaging.
This is one of the few good arguments I've heard.
For me personally, the best decision was to visit an orthodox monaster for a view times. It got me out of the vicious circle of endless rational analysis. I always recommend this to inquierers. No pressure though, just a recommendation!
cuz it's just ridiculous, even Catholics will all their issues doesn't get into the nonsense of EO
I’m not going to lie, lately I’ve been diving more into church history and the different traditions and their beliefs and overall, I get more and more demoralized. You have traditions like Roman Catholics and orthodoxy that both claim to be the “one true church” and that there is no salvation outside the church, etc. And when I zoom out and look at the big picture, I can’t help to feel an overwhelming feeling of grief and anguish.
It’s like no matter which way you turn in the Christian faith there are different groups that all believe the same core essentials; that they are a sinner who has placed their faith fully in Jesus Christ and his resurrection, Jesus is divine, etc. but yet they are so quick to-almost pridefully-condemn fellow believers to Hell because they don’t believe in the exact same doctrine and tradition you believe.
And yes, there were different heresies that arose a long the way that no doubt should be condemned as heresy, but the average lay man Christian doesn’t spend hours a day studying church history and different theological matters. These schisms and different interpretations aren’t apparent to them. And while I may disagree with say, a Coptic Christian or a Nestorian, I’m not going to sit here and say their faith and belief in Christ and what did for them isn’t genuine or sincere. Sure they have theological issues (according to my perspective), but at the end of the day, they are putting their faith in Christ and believing his resurrection.
It’s like… “congrats, you found your way to Christianity and Jesus. Now go join a church and be with a body of believers and get baptized. Oh… and one more thing… you better make sure you choose the RIGHT church. You have like fifty different options in front of you and half of them all believe only their church is saved and everybody else is damned to hellfire for eternity, and the other half a mix mosh of different traditions that ultimately pick and choose what that like about the other church’s and put them together it a “soup” that has no real historical foundation (this is basically most 21st century non reformed protestant churches). Choose wisely, only eternity is on the line.”
So true
Don't be demoralized. Read the Catechism of the Catholic Church on ecumenical efforts and how damnation can only happen in case of mortal sin which means full knowledge, willful and on a grave matter.
Also don't be deceived, Protestants had no problem calling the Pope Antichrist and the Catholics pagans damned to hell. Gavin Ortlund is over stating his case. In my experience as a Catholic convert from protestantism I've seen vitriol primarily from Protestants who still today call us pagans. Gavin is not honest here. However I encourage you to look into the Catholic Church more so than any other Church because all the creeds use the word Catholic, it's not surprising then that the true Church has maintained emphasis on its title.
I grew up Lutheran and they had the True Church claims. Everyone else was in theological error. It's the elitist mindset
This 100%!
Seriously, somebody frame this comment.
"You ask, will the heterodox be saved... Why do you worry about them? They have a Saviour Who desires the salvation of every human being. He will take care of them. You and I should not be burdened with such a concern. Study yourself and your own sins... I will tell you one thing, however: should you, being Orthodox and possessing the Truth in its fullness, betray Orthodoxy, and enter a different faith, you will lose your soul forever." Blessed St. Theophan the Recluse (1815-1894)
Yeah this guy doesn't care to know the actual Orthodox position. He's been banging on this strawman position for a while now.
Yet Jesus addresses 7 churches in revelation.
@@PreciousBloodOfJesus7777 7 churches that were all in communion and Orthodox!
and the Roman Catholics make the same claim (Council of Trent). No wonder many of us are stressed.
@@PreciousBloodOfJesus7777 Uhhhh yeah. They're local congregations, all in communion with one another, and under one authority. It never ceases to amaze me the things people will say, LOL!
Bless you, brother! Your videos have been a huge help for me personally as I wrestled through ecclesial anxiety.
Ecclesial Anxiety - I'm stealing that. Right there!
Yes! Online discussion almost always focuses on one person's opinion on salvation outside the church (i.e. Pageau, Bishop Baron for Catholicism, others in both camps) instead of looking at OFFICIAL church teaching on things. When considering divergent traditions, we have to look at official teaching rather than individual opinions.
For Catholicism, the fullness of the church view is official church teaching. It’s in Lumen Gentium (one of the main documents from the second Vatican Council). It’s not a contradiction from the Noah’s Ark view (since all non-Catholics experience an imperfect communion with the church), and it’s not a modern innovation, since it’s based on the ideas of material & formal heresy and schism and the objective effectiveness of the sacrament of baptism at uniting non-Catholics to the Church, which are both ancient ideas.
Essentially the Catholic view is that, because of their baptism, Protestants experience an imperfect communion with the Catholic Church. They could be saved based on that communion because though they may formally believe heretical things (like denying a post-Mortem state of sanctification, like purgatory), they have may not given matter to that heresy because of coming from an environment where they would not have good reason to believe otherwise.
Sure, people haven’t always talked this way, but it is the logical conclusion of ancient theological principles, making it a development in the truest sense.
Hope this helps!
@@michaeljefferies2444I know Vatican II’s teaching on salvation of those outside communion with Rome. I think it is out of step with historic Roman Catholic teaching, which explicitly denies salvation to anyone out of communion with Rome.
@@colinbrown9476 My point is that you said Barron's view wasn't representative of "official" church teaching. My point is that it is official church teaching, it's from a dogmatic constitution in an ecumenical council. And Protestants do have communion with Rome in the Roman Catholic view. That was the point of my previous comment.
I think the charitable thing to do is to say that it is not a contradiction to re-articulate how we think about certain things based on new information, as long as the core ideas remain (like the necessity of salvation through Christ and his Church alone). I don't know about your views personally, but most Protestants I meet today would not say that people from uncontacted tribes who have never heard the name of Jesus are automatically damned, however, most Protestants in history have had the view that explicit faith in Jesus is necessary. Biblically, this is also understandable. Does this make most Protestants inauthentic?
The official teaching is that there is no salvation outside the Church. He's looking at this from a very legalistic and systematic mindset. That's not how the Church works. He also doesn't understand what "no salvation outside the Church" actually entails. It's more nuanced than "everyone who isn't a card carrying member of the Church on earth goes to Hell."
@@CosmicMystery7 I understand the Roman church's position today allows for the possibility of salvation outside the church. The problem from my vantage point is that it seems to be a very new view on salvation outside the church (and people of other faiths in general). For instance, Unam Sanctam: "...we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff."
I don't think it is uncharitable to take that statement at face value to mean you have to be Roman Catholic (subject to the Roman pontiff) to be saved. I am not subject to the Roman pontiff. Therefore, according to church teaching, I am missing something necessary for salvation. Which would mean I am damned according to historic Catholic teaching.
To say that conclusion is uncharitable does not make much sense to me. It was Rome that declared Protestants heretics and schismatics, Rome that pronounced anathemas, Rome that persecuted Protestants for centuries. Then when Protestants take Rome's anathemas and decrees against them seriously (anathema also means "damned" by the way), it's uncharitable?
Dude, I'm so thankful for you and what you are doing for the Church. You've really helped me better understand who God is. God is using you to help strengthen the faith of his sheep across the globe.
This video was very helpful Gavin. I have been dealing with ecclesial anxiety recently and videos like this help me get back on track to just focusing on Christ and His promises.
I experience that too, ecclesial anxiety (good term for it). I think sometimes I read or listen to too much on the Internet and it gets to be too much. Need to simplify and trust God.
Christian youtube needs more Gavin Ortlund's.
Indeed. I was hoping Dr. Ortlund would give his take on that Ruslan interview, and now he has.
@@Mrdllish777 So many EO/Cath pop apologetic lies flooded that comment section. I have been in World War 2 telling them things like that source you quoted is a well known FORGERY
I think Theocast's channel is educational!
Christian RUclips needs more Gavin Ashendens.
I disagree. I believe this video presents a misrepresentation by taking texts and phrases out of context, particularly from Orthodox sources and Pageau. He implied extensive research on elder fathers and saints, but lacked in depth understanding. He seemed to just pick out what was fitting for this video. It's disappointing to see the text referenced in The Holy Standards book manipulated out of context. For example from the text he quoted,; "That the dignity of the Bisdhop is so neccessary in the Church, that without him, neither Church nor Christian could either be or be spoken of. For he, as a successor of the Apostles, having received in continued succcession by the imposition of hands and the invocation of the All-Holy Spirit the grace that is given him of the Lord of binding and loosing, is a living image of God upon the earth, and by a most ample participation of the operation of the Holy Spirit, who is the chief functuary, is a fountain of all the Mysteries[Sacraments] of the catholic Church, through which we obtain salvation. And he is, we affirm, as necessary to the Church as breath is to man, or the sun to the world. Whence it has also been eleganty said by some in the commendation of the dignity of the High Priesthood, "What God is in the heavenly Church of the first-born (cf. Hebrews 12:23), and the sun in the world, that every High Priest is in his own particular Church, as though him the flock is enlightened, and nourished, and becomes the temple of God" (cf. Ephesians 2:21)."
Gavin, I always appreciate your thoughts, sometimes agreeing, sometimes disagreeing and sometimes wishing I could ask you questions to flesh out your arguments more. As a Protestant reared in the Holiness tradition through the Church of the Nazarene, I have seen the exclusive claims of Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism, however, at least at the lay level, we Protestants and Evangelicals often are pretty exclusive. When I was growing up(I am 69) Catholics were considered heretical and at least the Catholic laity looked on Protestants the same way. It saddens me now that the Body of Christ was so fractured and remains mostly the same today. My prayer is for Unity. And I agree with whoever suggested that you should talk to Jonathan, he is a deep thinker.
As a former Nazarene, I agree 100%.
@@ErikGriffith-oo7zv now atheist??? :) :) :)
I felt a draw to orthodoxy during my journey of theological study. The liturgy, the imagery, it all spoke to me so much more than Protestant churches that I grew up in (although it could have just been because the mysticism spoke to my knowledge seeking nature). As I studied orthodoxy, their exclusivity was the same red flag I encountered. I just could not believe that the power of the Holy Spirit was restricted to a single institution. I consider orthodox, Catholic, Lutheran, Anglican, Baptist etc. to be my brethren in Christ as long as they profess and live the faith. God knows who is in his sheepfold and I trust him. Thanks for this video Gavin!
I think you missed the point of the video. First, he stated he was simply using Orthodoxy as a convenient example of something that's common throughout Christianity. Second, the point of the video is that Orthodoxy was exclusive in past centuries but has changed. Using exclusivity as a reason for not joining the Orthodox church today is nonsensical given that the Orthodox church is not exclusive.
All non Christians feel the exact same way about Christianity. Christ taught that few people find the narrow path and even fewer will be chosen to follow it
@Jy3pr6 exactly, and these protestants keep getting so offended with their "we accept that you have Christ too, why can't you accept we have him?" Sillyness, but then have no problem accepting that 6 billion of the 8 billion people on planet will all suffer in Hell.
No one within the Church is on the business of telling Christ where has to be. If he wants to save billion plus Hindus before me then so be it. I can't fathom that per se, but I'll accept whatever he tells me his will is.
@@patrickbarnes9874 What do you mean Orthodoxy was exclusive but not anymore?
@@Jy3pr6 because in the post-19th century when Orthodox was beginning to encounter far more western thought and far more western Christians contemplating and entering the Eastern Churches the previous unanimous teachings of exclusively and especially the stronger versions of such argument have softened. Although Roman Catholic has more officially updated its dogmatic stances on the condition of souls found outside of its own institution walls, the East has in official and unofficial capacities acknowledged degrees of brotherhood with Protestants and Roman Catholics.
The perhaps unsurprising tendency of Protestants who have converted as well as Roman Catholic surrounded by Protestant, Eastern Orthodox converts from Protestantism rarely shed the notion that they has simply left a denomination for a better one and not that they for the very first time have become Christian.
I think one thing that may be of importance to note here is that there is a strong meta narrative within Orthodox or Eastern thinking of what is called the "both and." This runs somewhat counter to this hyper rational post enlightenment dualism that we find in reformed or protestant thinking, or in the West general. Simply put it's the notion that when we are dealing with divine things. , we are often in a paradox of sorts, where two seemingly contradictory things can be true to an extent, often with an addendum to both. So yes,we do have a dogmatic teaching that no salvation lies outside Christ's church... Not unlike most protestants believe that no salvation lies outside of faith in Christ. However there is also an individual as well as a communal component to our salvation and we don't believe salvation to be some sort of a fixed thing or a singular event, as in many protestant confessions.So yes, an Orthodox Christian can lose his or her salvation. There is also a strong acknowledgment that salvation is a mystery of God. So while dogmatically Yes we adhere to the notion that it will not be found outside of the church, We also acknowledge that the Holy Spirit can act how and where it wishes and we give no last word on any one individuals salvation. We are often encouraged by our Priests to "live in the tension" between two difficult realities...this is a good example of that. We hold fast to the teachings of the Church but we also believe in God's mercy and Justice.
Live in the tension, but ignore the character of Christ? He didn't come to give us a lottery system, nor did he come to give us unlimited and unconditional grace. It's fascinating to me that both the Catholic and Orthodox church largely believe anyone outside of its confines are damned. Who is right? What if you're both wrong? That's a lot of assured believers claiming exclusivity of salvation.
Thank you for this Gavin, I've been listening to a lot of orthodox stuff recently because I appreciate the sense of holiness they bring to the faith, which I feel Protestantism lacks, but the downside is my own reassurance has been wobbling (a lot!). I feel Orthodoxy has something to offer to those of us who seek a sense of the sacred we find lacking in our own churches (when/why did we drop the word 'holy' from Communion? Why are we so casual about it?); Why are we almost offhand, in the way we offer up prayer & worship? I long for a sense of the sacred/holy in our approach to God & the restoration of some prayer practices. I'd love to hear you speak on that?
Had a deep dive into EO from a Baptist upbringing. All of the anathemas (icons, bread, filioque, etc) were just ignored at the greek EO church. Gavin and Brian Wolfmueller both were lights in the darkness. Now glad to be Lutheran (LCMS specifically). Hope you can find a path that gives you rest.
It sounds like the church(es) you've been going to just don't take it seriously. Holy Communion is partaken of in many churches I've visited, all of which are Protestant and sound in their theology. I highly recommend looking into finding more authentic church communities to visit if this is a concern. Also there's an online community Gavin helped start that you can join, which has a ton of awesome people who like helping out fellow brothers who have questions or are struggling in the faith.
You could seek a “high church” protestant church that takes the sacraments more seriously. I totally agree with you. God bless you
A lot of the issues you are describing are symptomatic of low-church American Evangelicalism, not Protestantism as a whole. Check out confessional Lutheranism and Anglicanism.
I am where you are too.
Only part of the way in, but this is the biggest reason why Im a Protestant. If you're *consistently* Roman Catholic or Orthodox, you *must* see other Christians as damned to hell over minute differences and dogmas that clearly just dont have anything to do with salvation. Dogmas that werent believed as necessary to salvation in the first 5 centuries. That's a huge problem.
Likewise
Never in my life have I told a protestant that they aren't Christian. I get told by protestants I'm a pagan all the time.
@Qwerty-jy9mj I'm grateful for that (and of course saddened by Protestants who have called you pagan), but I've been called a non Christian and so has Gavin by EO and RC Christians. I'd wager to say that, if you think I'm a Christian, that's a very happy inconsistency.
Myself as well.
@@Qwerty-jy9mj
Thank the Lord you don’t but unfortunately your church does.
All eastern orthodox churches are call to formally and ritually curse every year all that disagree with them. The document they use to curse all non-orthodox is called the synodikon of orthodox and is supposed to be read yearly on the feast or orthodoxy
Here is an official description by the by the patriarch, of Constantinople at the synod of Jassy in 1642 regarding what an anathema means (after excommunicating the heretic in question from the church it then adds to the excommunication):
“And let them be subjected to an eternal anathema, and excommunicated by the Father, the Son and The Holy Spirit, the only God, one in nature, both in the present life and that which is to come, and cursed and unforgiven and unabsolved after death, and partakers of eternal punishment” (acts and decrees of the synod of Jerusalem, page 100)
A few things:
(1) Ortlund characterizes what he calls “the historic view” as “If you’re outside the Ark of the Church you are not saved.” My main problem with this view is that it presupposes a binary “you’re in or you’re out” view of salvation, which is across the board not what Orthodox Christians believe nor have ever believed historically. Salvation is about deification through union with Christ, and that’s a process.
(2) Ortlund is correct that the view of “we know where the Church is not but where the Church isn’t” is a modern view, and because of this it’s a view I don’t affirm. The Church is the Orthodox Church, and to not be in the Orthodox Church is to be outside the Body of Christ. However, to say someone is not in the Church is not the same as saying that the Spirit is not at work in them. The Northern Kingdom of Israel was not “part of the Church” because they did not have the Davidic king, true sacrifice in the temple, etc, but God still sends them prophets and works through them. St. Maximos the Confessor says the Spirit works outside the Church, but always for the purpose of uniting people with the Church.
(3) Ortlund says “I have not been able to find any historical affirmation that those outside the Orthodox Church can be saved.” Here’s one: St. Gregory the Great praying the pagan emperor Trajan out of hell: ( academic.oup.com/book/1885/chapter-abstract/141638221?redirectedFrom=fulltext ). Similarly, while I think Roman Catholics and Protestants are in error and outside the Church, I think it is possible for them to be saved by coming into union with the Church after death if they did not become part of the Church in this life.
(4) Ortlund is correct that some Orthodox theologians and saints in the last century speak of the impossibility of the salvation of those outside the Church. I would agree with this, with the important caveat made before, I think people can be reconciled with the Church after death, much like Trajan. It’s also important to take into account that a lot of these statements were made in the face of Orthodox Christians trying to defend themselves against aggressive evangelization from Catholics and Protestants.
(5) To refute his claim that “no one from the 9th - 19th century speaks of salvation of other groups” I’d point to how St Theophylact of Ohrid in the 11th century speaks about Latin Christians in his time, in which he affirms that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father alone (thus Theophylact denies the filiqoue) but simply said this should be attributed to the poverty of the Latin language and not to them being damned. Also it’s not like the 5th century council of Chalcedon happened and immediately there was a monophysite church and an Orthodox Church and immediately in 1054 there was a Latin church and an Orthodox Church - these schisms took literal centuries to solidify and in many cases important fathers and theologians affirm that those they disagree with (including those who affirm things like the filioque and monophysitism) are in the Church.
These are the types of responses videos like this need! May God bless our journey.
great response! He is presupposing protestant heretical views of salvation and using it to interpret the orthodox church fathers', hence there is no true theology outside the True Church, Gavin does not understand Orthodox theology
Great response. I would love to see if Gavin cares enough to engage.
Additional thoughts:
His defense of the Protestant view of ecclesiology is self-contradictory in that he dismisses the idea of the Church residing in a single institution, but is fine with it residing in several defined institutions, even though some of these hold contradictory ideas and even anathematize one another. He is essentially trading visible, physical boundaries for a fabricated unity of ideas which doesn’t actually exist.
I mean you basically admitted he was right but then added a little Mormon spice to it. You SO GENEROUSLY consign Christ followers to Hell and then say maybe you'll be nice enough to pray us out. Collective narcissism does wonders for humility.
_which is across the board not what Orthodox Christians believe nor have ever believed historically._
Depending on who you ask, of course. The official position is if you're outside the EO church, you're damned to hell. The non-official position is what you said in the 2nd point.
As a former EO convert, I can say for myself one of the biggest appeals to the Orthodox Church is this idea that you have a unified body that can interpret the scriptures for you. However, when you get into the church you realize it’s not as unified as they would claim. The unity comes through the life of the church and participation of sacraments. That said you can have someone like David Bentley Hart who is practically speaking, if not outright, a universalist on one side and someone like Fr. Josiah Trenham on the other side who would argue that only those within the Orthodox Church can be saved. There are also disagreements about which canons are binding and interpretations of church fathers (which should be included and areas where they erred). And if you really want to start a dumpster fire on any Orthodox chat board, just bring up toll houses. The unity is institutional and sacramental, but the idea that the church has this unified understanding of the interpretation of the faith is simply false.
Their more unified in their doctrine than Protestants.
@@russellservice7997 yes, a little more, but not as unified as the Catholic church since they don't have a Magisterium.
Just some of the many reasons I also left Orthodoxy for confessional Lutheranism.
ruclips.net/video/IysmQUWtyFU/видео.htmlsi=bakDmMnXRc7dgcvB
This is what the channel Theoria has to say about church unity. She makes the case that unity is about practice and life transformation rather than a post enlightenment articulation of views.
That's kind of where I'm heading@@theodosios2615
This is great. I was just watching these ruslan vids with pageau and was wanting a good response to it. Thanks!
This isn't a response to it in the way you're implying. It's just saying that people in the past had a different view of the Orthodox church's position on what constitutes the body of Christ than people today do. It was not a response about whether any particular view is correct or incorrect. If you're looking for a counterpoint to Pageau's view that the Orthodox church is closer to pure true faith than other traditions are, this video doesn't do that.
And there still isn't a good response.
Than you for pointing this out Gavin. So many modern Orthodox converts gloss over this
Gavin is correct about his major premise - many modern Orthodox Christians have an incorrect ecclesiology that crept into the Church, unfortunately. This is nothing new in that many heresies over the centuries have “infected” the minds and souls of some in the Church, only to be rooted out at a later time by the grace of God.
Metropolitan Kallistos, as good of a man he was, was wrong in his book, and unfortunately through his book he very much so popularized this idea.
In the consensus of the saints, however, you will find surprising consistency regarding this subject - this is why Orthodox Christianity’s cry is to “follow the saints”, as they are ambassadors of the Holy Gospel, the living proof of its reality, given to us from age to age.
A key point that Gavin misunderstands, however, is the Orthodox understanding of salvation- it is a dynamic word, with many meanings, as attested to by St Paul who says in various places that one “has been saved”, “is being saved”, and “will be saved”.
We Orthodox reject that those outside the Church can be “saved” in one sense; they can’t be deified, can’t be partakers of the divine nature, can’t yet grow into the full stature of Christ. They may be virtuous, but they are just a bud waiting to blossom.
However, they can be “saved” at the second coming of Christ, according to His inscrutable judgment. We leave this to God.
You'd have to search pretty hard to find more insufferable people than EO converts.
Thank you. Just found your channel and it's great. You certainly have a gift for this. Keep it up 🙏
thanks, glad to be connected!
Perfect timing of this video. I'm currently in RCIA to become Roman Catholic (lifelong Charismatic) and something that was brought up on Catholic Answers radio program recently stopped me in my tracks and made me rethink my conversion all over...one of the hosts stated that salvation is possible outside of the Catholic Church BUT if a Catholic was to become a Baptist (or any other denomination), that person would lose their salvation because they are blatantly denying Christ.
That statement SCREAMS "Pharisee" and "legalism" and irked me to my core. In fact, that single phrase has made me question my entire motives of becoming a Catholic and I'm struggling on what to do next.
To make a statement like that one is calling Jesus Christ a liar, just as you stated in the video. Not sure if the radio host's comment is official Catholic doctrine, something I need to look into personally or speak to me priest about. But if so, I'm not sure I can continue a faith that explicitly damns people to hell just because they worship God differently than them.
The Gospel is very clear on how salvation works and if one believes in the trinitarian God and that Jesus, being God's Son came in the flesh to die to atone for our sins, repents, and becomes baptized then we're saved. Are you still a Catholic catachumen?
Hopefully your RCIA director can help you. It is not an easy question to answer in the comments section.
lowxclazz I can relate. I had recently decided to return to the Catholic church. I then encountered their "missing Mass is a mortal sin" doctrine. I am now attending an Episcopal church, perhaps you would enjoy Episcopal better. They don't require attendance, also they dont teach veneration to Mary. Episcopal is similar to Catholic, but without the heavy pressure to follow man-made dogma.
@@pugetsound1272 God dealt in a like manner to his people in the old covenant? what makes you think the new covenant would imply laziness. read leviticus and the commemoration of the feasts>
I hear you sister (or brother lol)
This is PRECISELY what stopped me in my tracks when looking into EO. And I read it on an official website, from a Father.
It seems to me, after years of studying at this point, that EO and the Catholic Church have created their own traditions and held people to those traditions as "law". Very similar from my vantage point to what the Pharisees did. If Christ is the way, the truth and the life, and no one comes to the Father except through Him, then why are we making it that you actually need Him aaaaaaand the additional traditions to get to the Father?
If you follow Christ, you are now a part of His Church.
The Church does not have the power to save, Christ alone does.
We do not call upon the name of the Church, we call upon His name.
It’s seems the hang up here can be due to language, and how it’s understood.
“The Eastern Orthodox Church teaches that fullness of the means of salvation-Sacraments, Holy Tradition, the teachings of the Ecumenical Councils, etc.-is preserved within the Church. It sees the Church as the Body of Christ, within which believers participate in the divine life through the Holy Mysteries (Sacraments), especially the Eucharist.
At the same time, the Orthodox Church recognizes the mystery of God’s grace and mercy, which can operate beyond human understanding and limitations. The concept of “oikonomia” (economy) in Orthodox canon law and theology allows for pastoral flexibility and acknowledges that God’s grace can work in ways and places beyond our comprehension. This concept can extend to the question of salvation, reflecting a hope and trust in God’s boundless love and mercy for all humanity. “
This doesn’t mean the church has changed or Jonathan’s way describing is some how new or modern.
It’s means the word and meaning of salvation is more nuanced, and not merely a “so I’m in!?” as the western perspective often seeks to grant / wants to land upon.
I share this not a means to debate nor judge, but in hopes of offering clarity as these things often end in an attempt to force our human understanding upon it, and we tend to want to draw lines in the sand instead of leaning on and begging for God’s mercy in all things.
you can assert that, but its not what the historical evidence shows. see the passages I worked through.
@@TruthUnitesthe historical evidence shows protestantism started in the 16th century, with a short referendum of some heretics going back maybe 3 centuries beforehand.
You are well known by the Catholic and Eastern Orthodox community to quote mine references, and you falling under the delusion that people will buy into the arguments you build is a bigger delusion than the very reality you have created for yourself where early church fathers are prostestant because they differed, ignoring their general consensus and blantant submission to councils and the church.
I never thought of this day coming in my own generation but what's left of protestantism is already a very similar picture to jehova witnesses.
The question of the salvation of non-Orthodox believers outside the Church is a theological topic that has been approached in various ways within the Eastern Orthodox tradition. The Orthodox Church generally asserts that it is the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church and holds the fullness of the faith. However, there are diverse views within the tradition regarding the salvation of those outside the Orthodox communion.
Historically, certain Eastern Orthodox theologians have expressed a more inclusive understanding of salvation. Some have highlighted the mystery of God's judgment and mercy, leaving room for the possibility of salvation for individuals who, for reasons beyond their control, did not have the opportunity to know or embrace the Orthodox faith.
The Orthodox perspective often emphasizes the transformative encounter with Christ and the working of God's grace in the lives of individuals. This allows for the acknowledgment that God's mercy is not limited by visible boundaries.
It's important to note that while some Orthodox theologians have expressed inclusivity, there are also more conservative views within the Orthodox Church that stress the significance of being within the visible boundaries of the Orthodox Church for salvation.
Ultimately, this is a nuanced and complex theological issue within Eastern Orthodoxy, and views on the salvation of non-Orthodox believers may vary among theologians and communities within the Orthodox tradition.
So variance is cool, as long as you remain in the ark of the church....
Protestants believe that people will vary in their beliefs on a lot of things, minor issues especially.
"Whether we live or die, we do it to the Lord."
The SCRIPTURES say clearly: those who are baptized and believe are saved. Only unbelief condemns. WAKE UP OH DREARY BYZANTINES. Leo III’s attack on you was justified, for you paraded around the walls of Constantinople a altar of Mary, with figures of gold, and icons, hoping that they, this mysterious ‘mother of the universe’ goddess, would save you from the sacks of the barbarians. And it was also justified for, your church has been preaching that non-alignment with a kingdom on earth - which Christ condemns for only a kingdom of heaven and new earth are to be established - condemns you to hell. Nay, for the gospel says, only unbelief in Christ condemns.
@@GenericRUclipsGuy The concept of Sola Scriptura (meaning "Scripture alone"), which is a key tenet of some branches of Protestant Christianity, holds that the Bible alone is the ultimate authority for Christian faith and practice. However, this concept was not taught by Second Temple Judaism historically, nor is it embraced by Karaite Judaism today in the way it is understood within Protestantism.
During the Second Temple period (roughly 516 BCE to 70 CE), Jewish religious practice was heavily influenced by a combination of Scripture, oral tradition, and interpretive frameworks. The Torah (the first five books of the Hebrew Bible) was certainly central, but oral traditions and interpretations were also highly regarded, especially among the Pharisees.
The Pharisees, for example, believed in the authority of both the written Torah and the oral law (which was later written down in the Mishnah). They did not adhere to a strict Sola Scriptura concept but emphasized the necessity of oral tradition in interpreting the written text.
The Sadducees, on the other hand, rejected many of the oral traditions upheld by the Pharisees and based their beliefs more strictly on the written Torah, but even their approach was not identical to Sola Scriptura. They relied on their own interpretations of the written text and did not follow a rigid “Scripture alone” framework.
So, during the Second Temple period, there was no consensus among Jewish groups about relying solely on Scripture. Most groups, particularly the Pharisees, believed in a combination of oral traditions and Scripture to understand the faith. This differs significantly from the Protestant understanding of Sola Scriptura.
Karaite Judaism, which emerged much later (in the 8th-9th century CE), rejects the oral law (Talmud) and relies solely on the Hebrew Bible (Tanakh) for religious guidance. In this sense, Karaites do place a strong emphasis on Scripture as the ultimate authority, which might seem similar to Sola Scriptura. However, there are important distinctions:
Karaites believe in interpreting Scripture according to their own understanding, and they do not accept the rabbinic traditions or the Talmud that Rabbinic Judaism considers authoritative.
Unlike the Protestant idea of Sola Scriptura, where the Bible is often seen as self-explanatory or interpreted within the context of Church tradition (depending on the branch of Protestantism), Karaite Judaism involves individual or community-based interpretations of the Hebrew Scriptures without appealing to an overarching religious authority like the Church or the Talmud.
Sola Scriptura in Protestantism places the Bible as the sole authority for Christian doctrine, often rejecting any formal tradition or magisterium (as seen in the Reformation movement). However, most Protestant traditions, especially the Reformed and Lutheran, still maintain some reliance on the creeds and teachings of early Church Fathers in their interpretive frameworks.
Karaite Judaism rejects oral tradition but does not have the same framework as Sola Scriptura because it is focused exclusively on the Hebrew Bible (not the New Testament) and encourages a personal or community-based interpretation of the Scriptures, which is more fluid than the Protestant approach that tends to be more tied to fixed theological doctrines derived from the Bible.
To claim that Second Temple Judaism or Karaite Judaism historically taught Sola Scriptura would be incorrect. Second Temple Judaism incorporated oral tradition along with Scripture, while Karaite Judaism shares a closer emphasis on Scripture alone but has important differences from the Protestant understanding of Sola Scriptura. Neither tradition reflects the exact formulation or theological framework that Sola Scriptura represents in Protestant Christianity.
@@kenfollowyeshuacrawford4284 Good information, but what’s your point? Clearly the Pharisees and Sadducees didn’t teach Sola Scriptura, and Christ condemned them, and to have traditions and doctrines which mirror that of the enemies of Christ is spitting on the face of the one who was, for three days, the furthest polar opposite from treasure the world has ever seen, humbling himself above all mankind and dying on the cross for our sins and resurrected. John Wycliffe argued against the traditions of the Catholic Church, and that was triggered by him seeing an unknown man in a market comparing a painting of the great luxurious pope next to the crucified Jesus. But traditions of luxury are not as bad as some traditions I see today, such as Mary being a divine figure and being perfect, or church bishops pushing to exclude some sinners from heaven.
@@kenfollowyeshuacrawford4284 the Pharisees and Sadducees were condemned by Christ for their ignorance of scriptures and their contradictory traditions. Many traditions in the Catholic and Orthodox Churches, though some are, are not usually contradictory to the scriptures, though some important ones are, yet others such as incense and luxurious ceremonial rituals and dressings may seem like they are neither contradictory nor extrabiblical, yet those practices are both useless, simply impressing mystical and luxury practices upon guests. I may argue though, that the luxuries of the churches are very spiteful towards Christ.
Brilliant video, Gavin! You’ve put into words a lot of important points that people often do not consider, or even know about while discussing these important matters, especially the historic context and inconsistencies that may arise in contrast to the original view of the early church. Looking forward to more such insights in the future.
As a greek protestand who is familiar with orthodoxy, I see all those western orthodox christians as soft orthodox. Jonathans ecumanical views are indeed hard to be found within orthodox tradition and culture.
To be fair, Jonathan is a soft and poetic person in general. I wouldn't say he's a great representation of the west.
@@CanditoTrainingHQ I personally don't view him as a soft individual, I was more referring to his positions as an orthodox (he doesn't seem like a hardcore orthodox) Personally I quite like the guy.
I’m a Greek Protestant too!
@@MrMfloor awesome
@michaelpelidis9088 that's what I meant by soft lol. His views dance around blurred edges and aren't representative of others in the west. Just himself. Never said I didn't like him.
Dr Gavin, I am so grateful for your channel and the videos you post!
I am from southeast Europe, a small country - Serbia! Majority of people are nominally East Orthodox Christians, and I was born like one of them. But, I gave my life to Jesus about 12 years ago, and unfortunately gave myself into evangelising people just couple years ago. But still, I am struggling to evangelize my brothers and sisters from EO church as they see me as a sectarian heretic and do not even want to hear a word of the Gospel I have to share with them. And I am not even going hard on them, but just trying to share Bible verses and still it is not good as for them, the only thing that matters is what their priest says during liturgy, and nothing outside of that, or coming from a person that is not "theologically" sound.
I am on a second year of Baptist Theological School and I have been learning so much about Christian faith and more and more about history of the church and I am even trying to create topics to discuss with my EO friends from the historic standpoint, but it is still not valid, as I am not EO.
There are rare examples when I can have some theological conversation, but those happen very very rare...
I am deeply grateful for your channel and for addressing important topics from the Protestant standpoint as I am more and more leaning towards Reformed theology myself.
I know that theology does not save people, but Christ does, but still, this channel and your efforts dr Gavin help me a lot in my efforts to share Christ with people I love and cherish and wouldn't like for them to be eternally separated from our God....
May God bless you brother! You are such a blessing for my life and my ministry!
Thank you for your ministry Gavin! I just finished a Sunday night series at my Baptist church that was based on your “Theological Retrieval” book!
I am a Georgian Orthodox Church member, I am also Georgian. As a Christian I do not have right to determine who will be saved and who will not, so be more careful until judge someone, only God knows.
It would be much easier if you act : Matthew 7 :: NIV. "Do not judge, or you too will be judged. For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you. "Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye?
Well, your church history doesn't support that position
@@SahihChristian How so?
I recently had the thought that the ancient western church, The Latin Catholic Church, was mostly affected by the Protestant Reformation but escaped Islam and Communism while the Eastern churches Gavin mentioned were acutely affected by Islam and Communism but escaped the Protestant Reformation.
Thank you for another great video!
You said that in the case of the Church Fathers, establishing their view of exclusivism is rather difficult. It seems to me that this topic would interest me the most, because I have at least the the impression that in the first five centuries the ancient Christians had a different ecclesiological paradigm than the Protestants in the sixteenth century or today. Above all, their emphasis on visible yet institutional unity combined with exclusivity is disturbing. If you were planning to make a video on this subject, I would greatly appreciate it.
God bless you!
Hi! I think it's more a case that back then there was just "the Church"... You (as, for instance, Irenaeus would point to in the 2nd century, or the 3rd and 4th century "giants" in the faith) were either "in". or "out"... "out" were they who immediately or eventually excommunicated themselves through inadequate, heretical views. But! The 5th, 11th and 16th century "splits" happened! But! - as Gavin points out - God "works with what he's got - even if organisationally fragmented from an Orthodox or Roman Catholic perspective - which major on Apostolic succession and the transmission of a particular tradition : )
The reformers still thought churches with incorrect confessions of faith ie Rome were not true churches and thus not salvific
Visible Body is NOT limitation of the action of the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit acts wherever He wants. The Church has NEVER limited the Holy Spirit to Her. It's what you have to understand. Ortlund says that Orthodoxy teaches something that it doesn't. The Church has never taught confinement of the Holy Spirit.
Around 20:45 "then the practical utility of it seems to be greatly reduced..."
I laughed for a full minute, and then I want to say, I Profoundly appreciate your work here, and your exhibition of great patience, regarding an issue that Constantly troubles me- the issue of authority, both in the church and spreading into government. I thank God for this video, and pray to Him in Jesus' name, and get back to work
Eastern Orthodox here, and convert from Evangelicalism. Good on you to remark on this issue. There's a sense in which Pageau is correct, but only in our paradigm of thinking. We believe that all truth is God's truth and that God's grace is "everywhere present and fillest all things". This does not, however, mean that the Church is a hierarchy. You are either in the Church or you're not.
Where you err though is that we don't view membership in the Orthodox Church as a status of salvation. We view it as the plan, design, and best chance of salvation, as participation in the life of Christ is necessary for union with Christ.
I think Pageau has been surrounding himself with so many non-Orthodox people that it's hard for him to not be Ecumenical, and so he tries to articulate things in a more palatable way. Not saying that's good or bad... It just is. Protestants don't understand us at all, and so trying to communicate with them is really an exercise of translation.
One can say that Protestantism preserves more of God's truth than say Muslims or Buddhists, and at the same time say definitively that Protestants are not inside the Church founded by Christ, and at the same time, not have that be a condemnation of eternal salvation. That's all possible within the Orthodox frame of mind. But because that doesn't compute in a Protestant mind, some of us tend to air on the side of a more charitable tone.
sounds like what Martin Luther said... there can be salvation outside of the church, but not outside of Christ.
Gavin spent almost this entire video talking about how MODERN day EO members say the being in EO church is not necessary for salvation, but ALL of the historical judgements of the EO Church throughout its history have AFFIRMED the Ark view, just like the RC Church.
Hey man, thank you for the great comment.
Very helpful, Gavin. As someone who hasn't delved deeply into historical sources (and needs to) I greatly appreciated you citing EO sources directly to explain your point. This was very clarifying.
I have been BLESSED by this video today. Every since converting to Christianity in my heart (I’m a cradle Russian Orthodox) but I was never taught the gospel , only brought to church on holidays. I converted to Christ at 23 years old and have NOT looked back since! I first started attending a baptist church but then people from my Orthodox Church started telling me that they are the one true institution of Christ and that everyone else is heretical. This gave me so much confusion and fear and I have been studying theology and ecclesiology ever since. The most peace I get though is through your channel when you speak on these topics. I believe that an institution is to be judged on the fruits of the spirit just like Jesus teaches us! And in many orthodox churches I did not see true fruits (but there are many that have them). I just want to say that your outlook on the spirit not being limited to one institution is so true! I pray that people can have calmness in their hearts by following the true teachings of Jesus and not falling into pseudo-Phariseecal traps of fear of damnation if they are not of a certain institution.
You are more of an insider to Orthodoxy and I'm on the outside It appears to me from my dealings w/ them, that so many are far more in love w/ and prideful of their ancient traditions, and endless claims of exclusivity, than they seem to be w/ Christ. When I encounter protestant Christians and many Catholics, they are just really in love w/ God, and it shows in their language and actions. The Orthodox are said to be the highest earners of Christians, yet have the lowest rates of giving to charity. The giving to charity part was actually polled, but I never hear of Orthodox food banks, or all the wonderful community helps the Salvation Army does. Protestants and Catholics really shine in al those charitable respects. I don't hear of the Orthodox evangelizing or sending missionaries either. Really shows the fruit.
@@saintejeannedarc9460 yeah I don’t notice orthodox giving out to communities other than monasteries that may provide locally in some way but are still reliant on locals donations. The evangelizing part is what gets me. It feels like orthodoxy still remains such a “mysterious” church out in the west because they do not evangelize Christ? But seriously this is a case by case basis. But I understand what you mean. I do on the other hand really respect a lot of their theology , especially the doctrine on theosis. But to me I feel like orthodox gatekeeper their churches
Similar for me, a cradle Roman Catholic, and the Holy Spirit led me into protestant congregations when I was in my mid-20s. It was hard to leave the RCC because of that "No Salvation Outside..." teaching that they taught me in catechism at a young age. Capturing and retaining the members through fear tactics strikes me as a sign of a false cult. Fear not, our Redeemer lives! No church died for us; only Jesus Christ suffered and died as He made complete propitiation for every one of ours sins! 😊
@@jennacuna3674 I've heard of some Orthodox churches so exclusive, they don't even both to put a sign. Those tend to be the ethnic Orthodox where all the immigrants know where their local Orthodox church is. They don't care about newcomers, or winning souls. Whereas protestant churches have outreach. They will have signs that all are welcome, they will post in papers and let the community know they are opening, etc. They will have youth groups and encourage members to invite people to retreats. They have Alpha meetsing and the outreach is endless. Catholics are terrific at community charities, as are protestants.
I'm an American who became Orthodox, specifically in the Russian Church. It's not fair to compare the worst of one group with the best of another. You see the difference between communities and fruits in the literature that they produce. Western communions emphasize intellectual study of the Scripture or emotional "worship". Orthodoxy emphasizes spiritual struggle and wisdom. When I read Western Christian literature, it's interesting and intriguing. When I r ad Orthodox literature, I feel the same way as I do when I read the NT, as if I ate spiritual food. Many times I literally lose my appetite because I'm so satisfied with the spiritual sweetness of what I read.
People can express themselves poorly, especially babushkas and other lay people. I agree, it isn't helpful to try to scare someone into not leaving your community. But it's only a recent phenomenon that a lot Protestants don't do this. Not too long ago, many would be no different in this regard and many still are.
Я надеюсь, что однажды вы дадите Церкви ваших предков еще один шанс. По моему мнению, она самая чудесная и глубокая в мире.
Thank you so much for your work, Dr. Ortlund. You are one of the champions of Christ today. God bless you
Awesome - this kind of teaching and encouragement is so necessary and helpful. Truth unites!
I'll be honest - As a Catholic and former Protestant, the biggest problem with Protestantism (arguably) is that Orthodoxy seems to debunk it. Calvin and Luther and Zwingli and so on claimed to be returning to early Christianity, and Calvin in particular claimed to be informed by the early Church Fathers (I.E., certain passages from St. Augustine) - but the Orthodox have existed for 2000 years alongside the Catholics and their ENTIRE thing is preserving the traditions of the Apostles and the early Church. Catholics hold to Sacred Tradition as well, but believe the Church also has the authority by the Holy Spirit to expand and recontextualize on teachings as doctrine develops. This is where things like the Filioque and the Immaculate Conception come into play.
Orthodoxy IS, more of less, early Christianity, and yet it looks nothing like Protestantism. If the 'Reformers' truly wanted to reform, rather than revolutionize, the Church (and denied the authority claims of the Western Church), they might've tried to fashion the Church more to Orthodox Christianity or simply become Orthodox themselves. Rather, they introduced theological novums like Sola Scriptura and Sola Fide that NO ONE in the early Church held to.
Read the Augsburg confessions, Chemitz' examination of the council of Trent and other historic protestant writings. They appeal to numerous church fathers to back up the ideas of Sola fide and Sola scriptura. Luther didn't just wake up one morning and think, "Hey, here's some cool ideas no one believed before me, let's reform the church because of it." Also if you're convinced that Eastern orthodoxy is more or less early Christianity (it isn't, things like icon veneration were accretions throughout church history in the 7th century as Gavin has demonstrated) why bother being Roman Catholic instead of EO? Seems a strange case of cognitive dissonance.
@@TheJoeschmoe777 First of all, I'm not sure how you could use the Church Fathers to justify Sola Scriptura if you believe Scripture is the sole authority on matters of doctrine. That's a bit internally inconsistent. Sola Scriptura would have to come directly from Scripture, by definition. From what I understand, Luther struggled with scrupulosity greatly, sometimes attending confession multiple times a day. This was the root of Sola Fide. He also observed obvious corruption in the Church, which was tied to doctrinal developments rooted in Tradition like Purgatory, and devised Sola Scriptura. Scrupulosity is a spiritual illness, and Church corruption is an unavoidable consequence of Christ trusting the very human apostles and their successors to operate the Church.
Icon veneration did most certainly NOT begin in the 7th century. Some hold that iconography began with St. Luke, but we have surviving icons dating back to at least the 6th century. Many early icons used oils as finish which did not preserve the icons well, and many more were destroyed during the wave of iconoclasm in the 8th century. Most of what I can find suggests iconography began, at the latest, in the 4th century.
I'm not Orthodox because I don't believe that Christianity must necessarily always look like early Christianity. Doctrine can develop. Liturgy can develop. We mustn't make an idol of Tradition, important as it is. I also believe that Christ made Peter the rock of His Church, and the preeminent apostle, and so I believe Peter's successor is still head over the other successors of the Apostles. The Orthodox themselves acknowledge the Bishop of Rome as first among equals, and always have.
@@bradyhayes7911. I would agree with you that there are not as many accretions in EO as in Rome, but they’re there nonetheless. Also, there were Lutheran scholars at the time of the Reformation who contacted an EO patriarch and, after a couple of exchanges, were completely rebuffed.
Calvin was thoroughly immersed in patristics and would quote the fathers left, right, and center. In fact, he famously claimed that “the fathers are ours.”
A number of patristics scholars will say that the content of written Scripture and oral Tradition in the early church were thought of as co-terminous, and the one merely corroborated the other. This is essentially a Sola Scriptura view. Also, Sola Fide is there, large as life, in both the writings of the Apostle Paul and the Apostolic Fathers. But you can choose to ignore that fact, if you like.
Other than iconography, which I already addressed, what other accretions do you ascribe to the Orthodox? And how do you know that they have no basis in Oral Tradition? Calvin frequently quoted St. Augustine on predestination, but Augustine wavered on soteriology at many different points in his life. If we're getting into Patristics and Calvinism, the view that God's sovereignty renders human free will null is found no where in the Patristics and is thoroughly refuted by Sirach 15:11-20.
Oral Tradition and Scripture cannot contradict each other, but they aren't necessarily 1:1 in substance. For example, the primacy of the Bishop of Rome follows from Matthew 16:18 but isn't explicit in Scripture, and yet we have it in tradition from the early Church onward. St. Cyprian of Carthage says: "The Lord says to Peter: ‘I say to you,’ he says, ‘that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church.’ . . . On him [Peter] he builds the Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep [John 21:17], and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair [cathedra], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were that also which Peter was [i.e., apostles], but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair." The term "Trinity" and our understanding of it also comes from Tradition, but isn't explicit in Scripture. The sinlessness of Mary is another huge example that we see in St. Ignatius and St. Augustine, among many others.
Another major issue is that there are things you DO see in all of Church history that you don't see in much of Protestantism - Dr. Ortlund is a Baptist, and Baptists lack both litugy and a sacramental approach to Christianity. Most Baptists also reject the Real Presence in the Eucharist. All three of these things were unanimous in Early Christianity.
Sola Fide is in Scripture if you add "alone" to passages like Romans 4 and Galations 2, and read them to the exclusion of James 2. No one denies that we are initially justified by grace, through faith. The question is over whether we need to work out our salvation in fear and trembling thereafter, and the view that one cannot lose salvation or that one's deeds are irrelevant is found NO WHERE in early Church history. @@HannahClapham
@@bradyhayes7911dude practically all of protestantism is an accretion these days. With the exception of a handful of well studied individuals there is just a total sprawl. And because they have a tradition of needing to justify their hostile disposition towards the Catholic Church (which is much more in line with Orthodox despite some significant differences) they get things twisted. Apostolic succession, the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist, conflicting ideas about baptism, thinking that Jesus had brothers... Just the tip of the iceberg
Gavin is my favorite Protestant commentator. He motivates me, a Catholic, to learn more about my faith to address his arguments.
I was born and raised Evangelical Protestant. My entire family was very non denominational for my entire life to the present with a few agnostics sprinkled in. It wasn’t until 2020 and 2021 that I came to know and hear about Eastern Orthodox Christianity ☦️ and it was just everything I could’ve needed and wanted for my soul and spiritual life. Thank God that I was baptized and chrismated back in November last year into the Orthodox Church! It is just so rich with the Holy Spirit and feels so much like a home for the soul.
Kyrie Eleison! Glory to Christ!
darn I thought you decided to become an atheist
Oh wow!! Deep within me, I have been expecting your response to that podcast. God bless you immensely 🙏❤️✝️
Thank You Brother, i find your teaching of great value. I am constantly learning from you, & finding an ever increasing peaceful assurance welling up within me.
I have been tossed around by every wind of doctrine, and i felt like i was drowning in amongst all the exclusivists rhetoric, then thankfully, i found your channel!
May The Lord continue to bless you & utilise you to help and heal His people everywhere.. 🙏
Didn’t expect to tear up at the end of this video. Thanks so much for doing these videos, Gavin. They’re desperately needed.
The video puts forth an argument that over time the exclusivity of Orthodoxy has relaxed. It's a statement you can classify as accurate or inaccurate but how does it stir up powerful feelings for you? I am curious what about the video provoked tears.
@@patrickbarnes9874for me it's the reminder of the assurance of our salvation (those of us who have placed our faith in Jesus Christ). Salvation isn't exclusive to any one denomination
@patrickbarnes9874 probably on the assurance of salvation. I'd guess the commenter felt the depth of hearing 100% certainty of salvation. That being said that isn't my view lol. But I get the emotional appeal.
@@patrickbarnes9874Gavin’s message at the end re: ecclesial anxiety and assurance of salvation spoke so directly to my decade+ experience agonizing over Orthodoxy. The whole video was intellectually engaging, but then when he flipped over to pastor-mode, idk. It snuck up on me.
@@OMNIBUBB I’m glad it made you feel good, but would you be interested in engaging intellectually to learn how the position is actually unsound? I can show this to you, and explain a way that is Biblical and sound. Only if you would like to hear it though.
Also something that's difficult for me is - how can we have an OBJECTIVE standard for which institutions are part of the "one true church"
There is not "one true institution"...they were first called Christians at Antioch. ALL believers who know, worship & follow Jesus & God's word w/ fruit of the Spirit are the family of God & the church. Anyone who places an institution/ denomination above "God's family" has an erroneous loyalty & focus.
Continuity.
You can literally see the apostolic succession. Not that hard, just see the apostles who established the 5 seas that still exist now. It's only Rome that has fell in shism but technically still closer to the one true church.
@@ilovechrist914Rome is the only one of the 5 ancient sees that *hasn’t* fallen. The other 4 don’t exist anymore. That reason alone is a major point in Catholicism’s favor for claiming to be the original Church founded by Christ.
@@EC42904 lmao go home papist
Velichkovsky is one of my favorite saints. You just made me love him more. Thank you!
Yes, "there's no salvation outside of the true Church" only for those who abide by the discipline, dogma, and mysteries of the Church. That is to say, those who received Holy Orthodox Baptism/Chrismation but have not lived the Christian life or have fallen away their salvation is in question.
"The Spirit moves where it will" (In 3.8) reminds us that the Holy Spirit dwells externally with It's Grace to those who are pure in heart though outside the Church. While we must attempt to convert all outside The Body of Christ, we are not permitted to judge anyone out there who never heard a good witness of Christ.
Heretics and apostates are only worthy of Orthodox criticism. Even the act of "excommunication" is a Love call to return to the Church.
--A Monk of the Orthodox Church
Thank you for making this video. It blessed me greatly. May you continue to create content such as this.
Amen and Amen!! Thank you Gavin for your scholarship and pastor's heart. The Lord God has blessed you to be a blessing to all brothers and sisters in Christ Jesus. Again I say Amen!!
I was raised Protestant my whole life. The more I read my Bible and prayed, the more I began to see that Protestantism just couldn’t be it. I prayed that the Lord would lead me and guide me into all truth. I stumbled on a Hank Hanegraff video on Orthodoxy (providentially). The theology was impressive. I found a local Orthodox Church. My first visit there, I knew I had come home. My husband was against it at first, but after a few months he was fully on board. We were baptize into the Orthodox Church Sept. 30th! Glory to God! We are home and we are in His body, the Church He established. Please come and see! Test it. Don’t follow the naysayers but experience the Divine Liturgy and the life of the Church for yourself. Learn about Orthodoxy by talking to an Orthodox priest and attending the services. You can never understand Orthodoxy outside the mind of the Church. There is so much more than we have been led to believe. Glory to God for His goodness and that the Orthodox Faith has come to America!
Glory to God and welcome to His Church! ☦☦☦
@@Hoi4o thank you! Yes! Glory to God!
I was also raised Protestant my whole life, though I have not regularly attended church (any church) in about 20 years. It was just becoming too much of a circus, and I was always searching for a "better church" but never really finding one. Recently I've been feeling a draw to Orthodoxy. The zeal and passion for Christ these people have is infectious, and it really feels like a "church". Unfortunately there are no Orthodox churches close to me, so at the moment I'm just enjoying them through RUclips.
@@shaunsteele6926 God can make a way! Praying for you!
The theological debate over the Filioque clause, which concerns the phrase "and the Son" in relation to the procession of the Holy Spirit, has been a significant point of contention between Eastern Orthodoxy and Western Christianity, particularly the Roman Catholic Church. Historically, Eastern Orthodox theologians and Church leaders have strongly opposed the addition of the Filioque to the Nicene Creed.
It's crucial to understand that theological positions and perspectives can evolve over time, and there has been a nuanced historical development on this issue. While there were periods of tension and disagreement, the situation has changed in recent times.
1. **Historical Opposition:**
- In the past, especially from the 9th to the 19th century, Eastern Orthodox theologians strongly opposed the Filioque. Some considered it a deviation from the original Nicene Creed and an affront to the Eastern Orthodox understanding of the procession of the Holy Spirit.
2. **Contemporary Perspectives:**
- In more recent times, there have been efforts toward dialogue and understanding between Eastern Orthodoxy and Western Christianity. Ecumenical discussions have aimed at finding common ground and resolving historical theological disagreements.
3. **Varied Views:**
- It's important to note that views within Eastern Orthodoxy on the implications for salvation based solely on the affirmation or rejection of the Filioque may vary among theologians and Church leaders. The nuanced perspectives within Eastern Orthodoxy acknowledge the mystery of God's judgment and mercy.
In contemporary discussions, there is a recognition that salvation is ultimately a matter of God's grace and not solely determined by theological formulations. Ecumenical dialogues and efforts seek to foster understanding and unity among Christian traditions, acknowledging the complexity of historical disagreements.
Your position is crystal clear Sir. Other institutions are hypocrites to not even admit that they explicitly say that others are damned outside their "instition".
What does Messiah say. Read the Bible.
Hi, convert to Orthodoxy here:
Let me make a distinction: when the Orthodox, historically or modernly, use the Ark analogy, it’s speaking broadly. There is no other Church; Christ didn’t establish multiple churches; the Apostles didn’t adhere to different faiths or preach multiple discordant versions of it; ancient Israel had one Passover, with one Temple, and one valid priesthood, and only one Messiah. The Apostles warned strongly against schism and false belief. So the Ark analogy has never gone away, and these more modern statements that we hear from Pageau and the late Met. Kallistos (Timothy) Ware are not dogmatic assertions, but gentle statements meant to soften the traditional exclusivity which sounds so harsh to modern ears. Yet what they’re saying isn’t false: God is sovereign and saves whoever he wishes. We have the Good Thief as an example of someone who was clearly outside of the faith, was never baptized or communed, and yet his repentant heart confessed to God, asking forgiveness, and we Orthodox regard him to be the first person ever admitted to Paradise. We have also other examples, such as the cruel pagan Emperor Trajan, who martyred countless Christians, in the erroneous thinking that Rome’s loss of faith in the pagan gods made the Empire weak. Yet his soul was rescued out of hell through the consistent prayers St. Gregory the Great. So the context of modern Orthodox speakers and writers isn’t wrong, but it’s exceptions known only to God.
Those outside the Church today would be like those who claim to worship Christ in His day, but didn’t follow the Apostles. Christ said: “for whoever is not against us is for us. Truly I tell you, anyone who gives you a cup of water in my name because you belong to the Messiah will certainly not lose their reward..” But this doesn’t mean that Protestant beliefs or Roman beliefs aren’t errors. Indeed, they all deviate from the Apostolic Faith to varying degrees, and only Orthodoxy is the singular Body of Christ, with Him serving as High Priest. All other beliefs, whether schismatic sects or paganism, are merely false temples erected to error and falsehoods. Return to the original, and be saved.
I very much like the idea that we know that salvation and grace is found within the Church. That is what we are given. Can people outside Orthodoxy find grace? That's up to God. Personally, I think that Catholics have valid sacraments. If I look at their fruits, they seem like they are producing saints. Some protestants are also very saintly. Am I to say that the Spirit doesn't work in them to transform them and save them? Of course not. That would be rather foolish. Not to mention that the context of the teachings of the fathers was very, very different. They haven't lived in a situation with 2 major Christian hierarchies, some smaller ones (non-Chalcedonian) and a bunch of random whatever-thing protestants have going.
_Yet his soul was rescued out of hell through the consistent prayers St. Gregory the Great_
Is this taught as dogmatic truth that you can pray people out of hell? Can someone pray Hitler out of hell in the orthodox church?
_Return to the original and be saved_
I think the frustrating thing about dialogues like these is in one breath you'll say that non-Orthodox Christians are not damned for not being orthodox, but then you'll end by implying that they kind of are. It sends so many mixed signals, it's baffling.
The apostles inevitably have different churches
Can’t say one true church exists
@@duckymomo7935 Different congregations, all part of the One Church.
@@duckymomo7935 Christ only began one holy, catholic, and apostolic Church; not 12 different churches:
For it has been declared to me concerning you, my brethren, by those of Chloe’s household, that there are [f]contentions among you. 12 Now I say this, that each of you says, “I am of Paul,” or “I am of Apollos,” or “I am of Cephas,” or “I am of Christ.” 13 Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul? (1 Cor. 1:11-13)
Thanks so much Gavin, I was hoping you would address this!
Thank you for this excellent presentation. I experienced a lot of anxiety and intimidation caused by a few members of the EO church asserting that their way is the only way. Even though I knew without a doubt that I'd been saved, they still caused me a lot of stress because I was worried I might be being disobedient to God if I didn't convert to EO.
Cant the same be said about Christianity overall? Gavin very much belives for those who don’t believe his ideology they are going to hell
Christ is risen!
Glory to God!
Amén ✝️
Protestants say, "AMEN!"
EO here: I also hold a hierarchical view like Jonathan in the video. While I agree there is no historical explicit official statements, there are some things to consider:
. Baptisms and ordinations from anti-chalcodonian and Latin traditions after the schism were accepted when conducted in proper form
. The Pope was still spoken of using his title as “pope of old Rome” after the schism in all correspondence
. There is no official statement that those outside the visible church are damned as there was in the Latin church at Florence
. St Gregory of Nyssa believed in a form of catharsis and apektasis for those even outside the church
. St Isaac the Syrian was a member of a “Nestorian” communion and still regarded as a canonised Saint
. “Blessed” Theodoret is still honoured despite the official condemnation of many of his earlier writings by the 5th EC
. St Paul mentions different levels of glory for each star in heaven
. Jesus said His father’s house has many mansions
. While the “ark” view is the most common view, we cannot take analogies as true in every aspect without nuance and to the exclusion of other models
. St Symeon of Thessaloniki wanted to restore the ancient privileges to old Rome and the pope if they repent of their heresy - there was no need to reordain the west
I do think it would be pretty cool to have a good faith dialogue with an Orthodox scholar. I've recommended Fr. Stephen De Young before. I imagine it would be a great discussion.
fr sdy was a baptist minister too
I haven’t heard from the modern Orthodox theologians or priests that believers in Christ are damned. The response usually is: “only God knows the heart of a man and only He can judge”. Reading diaries of Alexander Schmemmen I could sense that he wasn’t very happy with the rigidity of the “tradition” and “churchianity “…
You won't hear many "modern" Orthodox say this. It was replaced by the "We can only say where the church / Holy Spirit is not where it is not" rhetoric. But this is new. That isn't the historic or canonical position of the Orthodox Church. That those outside the Orthodox Church were outside the ark of salvation was in fact the prevailing, official view. Look up Triumphalism.
@@EricBryant we do not believe there is salvation outside the Church. Pageau is not speaking for the Church and Im sure he would never claim that he is speaking for Orthodoxy. That is not to say the Church absolutely declares the fate of non christians. And yes, protestants are absolutely NOT CHRISTIAN. The simple answer is they are not saved, but we cannot say they are damned either. We dont know. But Protestants are anathema and not saved. No ifs or buts.
@@EricBryant It's a very different time today than it was much earlier in Church history where well hearted people find themselves in false Christian traditions through no fault of their own. These sorts of positions are not so rigid as you make them seem.
@@Journey_of_Abundance I was a catechumen for 2 yrs. And I could not be Chrismated unless I agree with all Orthodox teachings. And yes the Orthodox Church officially IS just that exclusive, I know it from personal experience.
@@EricAlHarb How do you know that Protestants aren't saved. You don't even know if YOU'RE saved.
Subscribed and first time commenting (I think) just to say...
I think this is a great idea
The interviewing of Jonathan Pageau, that is.
Great idea. Solid idea. Super greatly solid idea.
Gavin's explication of the protestant view is perfectly illustrated in the following story lifted from the life of John Wesley:
"The story is told that John Wesley, a founder of Methodism, changed his view about church division after a dream in which he was first transported to the gates of Hell. He asked, “Are there any Presbyterians here?” “Yes,” was the reply. “Any Roman Catholics?” “Yes.” “Any Congregationalists?” “Yes.” He hesitated, then said, “Not any Methodists, I hope!” To his dismay the answer was “Yes.”
Suddenly in his dream he stood at the gate of Heaven. Once again he asked, “Are there any Presbyterians here?” “No,” was the reply. “Any Roman Catholics?” “No.” “Any Congregationalists?” “No.” Then he asked the question which most interested him: “Are there any Methodists here?” He was shocked to receive the same stern reply, “No!”
“Well then,” he asked in surprise, “please tell me who IS in Heaven?”
“CHRISTIANS!” was the jubilant answer."
I love Gavin's work, but he glosses over his statement of a doctrine just popping up six hundred years into church history. A great example of this would be Calvin's doctrine on the perseverance of the Saints. No one in church history, including Calvin , taught this doctrine for the first 15 centuries of the church.
That was a bit of a head scratcher.
Isaac of Ninevah (7th century) belonged to the Church of the East, not the Eastern Orthodox Church, & was accepted as an EO saint. This speaks to the possibility in the EO view of people outside the visible/institutional Church not only being saved, but of being worthy of veneration as saints of the Church.
However, as someone who has been inquiring deeply into Eastern Orthodoxy for years now, I too find those quotes you pulled from the Confession of Dositheus troubling and cannot agree with them at all. I'm not entirely sure how binding that 1672 Council of Jersualem is for EO Christians.
I think that a dialogue with Seraphim Hamilton on this topic would be very fruitful. He's an EO Christian who is deeply familiar with Church history, canons, councils, dogma, etc. and from what I understand, he is not a sacramental rigorist nor a institutional exclusivist in terms of who can be saved. He's a very irenic, charitable, and clear-minded thinker, and I think that a dialogue with him could really bring out some of the theological and historical nuances of this topic, especially in terms of what EO Christians can and cannot consistently believe about the bounds of the Church and the bounds of salvation.
God bless!
I'm inquiring atm while attending an anglican parish, for almost 2 years, will be doing catechism soon. Not easy that's forsure hehe. Have you read seraphims work on protestantism? Or his course I believe it is? Planning to get it soon
@triplea6174 I haven't read much of Seraphim's content on Protestantism, though I've listened to quite a lot of his stuff, some of which addresses Protestantism. His course looks solid but I haven't had the time to check it out yet. I've visited some Anglican parishes as well during my time attending an EO parish regularly, and could see myself possibly going the Anglo-Catholic route if for some reason I couldn't go all the way to Eastern Orthodoxy, though as of now I'm closer to Orthodoxy. May God guide us both! 🙏
@cosmicfrog612 I see and interesting! And indeed brother godspeed on our journeys 🙏🫡
You can't complain about exclusivism when all your branches think they're the exclusive truth
From my perspective, I don't know why I would become a protestant rather than be within the Orthodox church and believe/affirm that more ecumenical view. I can disagree with the view the majority of Orthodox theologians have taken during a portion of its history. However, I see no problem with its strict attitude in general, telling people they need to join. You may or may not be saved outside the Orthodox church, but if you know a higher truth (Orthodoxy) you're now responsible to struggle for unity with that truth. Therefore its not right to have a lax attitude, although I agree with a more sympathetic attitude towards those who would seriously struggle to be able to join the Orthodox church. Orthodoxy at least struggles to keep a traditional practice of faith, with its liturgy, sacraments etc., why would I leave those? Why would I leave its superior aesthetic beauty, or its emphasis on mysticism? I don't think you have an argument for protestantism here.
One would need to define what they mean by "Protestant" first since it's such a multi-faceted word with all sorts of meaning nowadays.
Aesthetic beauty is not present in Protestantism? That's unfortunate to believe.
But anyway, what makes someone a Christian is that they are relying on Jesus Christ alone for salvation, resting in the Father's love, and being guided by the Holy Spirit, not whether they picked the right institution or not.
Gavin, thank you for giving the biblical truth that Jesus is the truth and the way to salvation and the Father. His word and promises are truth. Thank you for the final comments to people who are scared of damnation, as long as you trust and follow Jesus Christ, He is the only way.
Remember the words of Paul to the Phillipian jailor: "Believe in the doctrine of the One True Church, and thou shalt be saved."
Wait, that wasn't it...
Awe, it isn't? But but, the Catholics always tell me it says that. Orthodox don't deign to talk to us. They don't consider us the same religion and they don't evangelize, just preen on how they are the only ones saved.
This is a funny comment but it’s self refuting. Every Christian believes in one true church. It’s just a matter of where you draw the line.
@@neildegraide2297 The line is in the very Gospel presentation. If you affirm the Gospel by trusting in Jesus Christ for salvation, you will be saved, regardless of what false popes or bishops might declare to the contrary.
Paul actually teaches that the church is the pillar of truth. This was before there was a New Testament
Thank you for this, Gavin. Many Protestants are attracted to Orthodoxy because most people just think of it as "Catholicism without the pope," but it's a lot different than that. They deny specific doctrines such as original sin and see it more as a corruption, penal substitutionary atonement and prefer Christus Victor or some other theory of Atonement, believe in the sinlessness of Mary but deny the Catholic view of the immaculate conception, they believe in the "essence/energies" distinction of Palamism instead of strict divine simplicity, etc.
I dont know how to feel at this moment jaaja, I really love their theology, its really beautiful and everything has a meaning, i think that what makes it so beautiful is how the see God, and love tradition and the bible in a way that its not common between protestant in these days. i know that in the USA you have Strong Lutheran churches. But i am from Colombia and in here if you are not part of the big Evangelicals churches or non denom, well you have catholic. I really love tradition and dont like that much Calvinism so i dont know what to do, There is only one orthodox church in my city, but i dont know the way :,)
@@juandavidguarnizogutierrez4566God bless you! ☦️
Good they deny original sin, because it's false
I was told by an Orthodox Priest, I as a Protestant am NOT a Christian.
I mean you hear the same stuff coming from protestants towards Catholics and orthodox
Yep, they claim to be the Truth and that can produces fanaticism.
There is no salvation outside of the church. The church is the body of Christ. Jesus is the head. We are “Christ” and saved only while in the body. Calvinism has caused so much damage. Salvation is hard, is a struggle for the Christian. Christ has provided the way to salvation, were need to believe, have faith in Jesus to do as he has said he’ll do for those who persevere to the end.
@@cimmbasso no, Salvation is in Christ and him alone. Acts 4:12. 12 Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to mankind by which we must be saved.” Or, will you throw out Luke’s letter?
Not surprised. I've talked to Orthodox people online who say that Orthodoxy and protestantism aren't even the same religion.
the one issue i'm having is this - is there any precedent for the protestant invisible church idea within the early centuries of Christianity? is there any precedent for agreeing w Gavin? I want to hold what Gavin does, but was that what the early church believed?
I personally havn't found that to be the case. I think part of the reason Gav is so successful is he makes apparently modest claims that arnt really designed to sell anyone on Protestantism, but more that they are set up to cast enough "reasonable doubt" to prevent someone from being Orthodox or Catholic.
It's like the implication that protestants "invented" being nice to other denominations....but like before protestantism you really didn't even have "denominations" you had schisms, sure, with the OOs and the RCs and the EOs but the both of those schism were way more complex than a clean break and none of them included the wide scale open revolts and ripping apart of society that you had in the west when Protestants came into existence. So even if it was true that there wasn't any nuance in let's say 1600 by Orthodox and Catholics in categorizing different types of heritics (and there certainly was) at that point protestantism was a brand new type of schism that hadn't really been seen before, I mean give people a century or 2 to see how everything pans out and figure out how you relate to this new heresy that is ripping the known world to pieces....
That said is obvious the Church: Orthodox or Catholic have always made distractions and had a higharchy of how "wrong" different sects are.
@@mrjustadude1 i have engaged with baptists online and their arguments often in regards to the traditional "denominations" is always in a odd defensive manner that makes it seem that they themselves doubt what they hold
This is exactly the reason that has kept me from becoming Orthodox. I love the Orthodox liturgy, I love the beauty of their churches, I agree with the Orthodox view of the trinity. I agree with the perpetual virginity of Mary and have no problem calling her theotokos. (I still struggle with some of the other dogmas) I’m past the arguments against intercessory of the Saints. I still struggle a little bit with icon venation. But I could never bind my conscience or the conscience of my family to the anathemas of other Christain.
The video opens with the Noah's ark view of the past being contrasted with the hierarchical view of the present. You are saying that you agree with the doctrines of Orthodoxy today but you could never join the church because of the exclusivity, but the entire point of the video is that the Orthodox church no longer holds the view that you're objecting to. It makes no sense to say you agree with everything an organization believes today but you won't join it today because of a view the organization held in the past which the organization today also disagrees with.
@@patrickbarnes9874Genuine question: does the Eastern Orthodox Church believe in the infallibility of official doctrine from councils or bishops? I know Roman Catholics believe anything officially declared by the Pope or the councils to be infallible.
Anyways, the major talking point that Orthodox and Roman Catholic apologists use is that “the church has stayed the same since the first century”. Well, if your church dogmatically decreed that everyone outside of that church is eternally cursed and then eventually changed its position on that, doesn’t that disprove that whole argument?
The whole allure of converting to these traditions for many people is that they’re getting back to the unchanging tradition of the apostles. When you lift up the covers and shine a flashlight on the issue, it’s not unchanging. These traditions have verifiably changed a lot.
@@patrickbarnes9874
Not all orthodox doctrines but enough for me to worship there.
It was “impossible” for the EO church to error in there councils and cannons as they were led by the Holy Spirit. Yet the church has made clear what is anathema and who is anathematized. (See the Synodikon of Orthodoxy for more details)
I’ve put this on another comment but will put it here as well.
Here is an official description by the by the patriarch, of Constantinople at the synod of Jassy in 1642 regarding what an anathema means (after excommunicating the heretic in question from the church it then adds to the excommunication):
“And let them be subjected to an eternal anathema, and excommunicated by the Father, the Son and The Holy Spirit, the only God, one in nature, both in the present life and that which is to come, and cursed and unforgiven and unabsolved after death, and partakers of eternal punishment” (acts and decrees of the synod of Jerusalem, page 100)
@@patrickbarnes9874
BTW, all eastern orthodox churches are call to formally and ritually curse all that disagree with them yearly on the feast of orthodoxy when they read the synodikon of orthodox. Most churches don’t do this, though they are supposed to, for obvious reasons.
Here are a few of the anathema’s.
The Synodikon of Orthodoxy
Anathema against all that “innovate” or “enact” anything “outside of Church Tradition and the teaching and institution of the holy and ever-memorable fathers” (The Holy Standards, pg 530)
Anathema against those who do not ” confess with heart and mouth that he is a child of the Eastern Church baptized in the Orthodox style… shall be outside of our Church and shall be anathematized “ (The Holy Standards, pg 567)
Anathema against those who do not affirm that Christ had leaven bread at the Mystic (last) supper, while also condemning the Armenian Orthodox Church.
I could go on with more anathema’s but you get the point. Again the EO church has made it clear what an anathema is and what they are declaring when anathematizing others. “To be outside of the EO Church is to be outside of the body of Christ and to be outside of the body of Christ is to be outside of Christ himself . Anathema
I simply can love my Orthodox bothers and sisters in Christ but like I stated in my original comment, I simply can’t bind my conscience or the conscience of my family to this.
@@ogloc6308 The Papal throne has only spoken infallibly twice in the 2000 year history of then Church of Rome and that was to clarify teachings about the Theotokos.
This video made me smile at the end! Thank you so much for this! That outro music is a jam too! God bless you, Gavin.
Great stuff as always, Dr. Ortlund!
What you say around 15:40 applies to the Catholic Church as well. Council of Florence states no one dying outside the Catholic Church can be saved "even if he pour out his blood for the Name of Christ". Nowadays the current version of the Catechism (paragraph 846) seeks to explain what "no salvation outside the church" means "reformulated positively"... ;-)
I really could've used this channel back in the early 2000's. Back then I was going through the sort of anxiety that Gavin is fighting against. During that time I started taking a look at Orthodoxy, and ultimately it was their exclusivity which pushed me away. Their idea that "no one but us is even a Christian" was so strong and widespread that I am genuinely amazed to see Orthodox today speaking about Protestants with anything but contempt.
I heard Bob of Speakers Corner would love to have you on his channel for a chat! You share a lot of views. Would be so cool!
Naaaa
Bob is ecumenical, he likes to pretend that the Eastern Orthodox, Catholic church, and protestant churches don't have any major theological differences.
@@morghe321 No. That’s not even what ecumenical means. There can be major differences, that don’t effect soteriology. I believe that to be the case, EO, RCC, and Prots are all saved. Bob believes this, and Gavin does too.
@@brando3342 I'm not saying that it's what it means. I meant that he is an ecumenist who likes to pretend that thare aren't any major theological differences. At least, that's the impression I get from him. He doesn't seem to be interested in talking about these differences, like Gavin does all the time. Or perhaps I'm wrong?
@@morghe321 Do you believe there’s salvation outside your specific denomination?
It’s hard to hear this from a channel called truth unites to tell us faithful Orthodox Christians that we really don’t know what we believe. As we approach Pascha in prayer, fasting and liturgy let’s pray Dr Gavin can find the true understanding of the orthodox faith through authentic dialogue and try to build a bridge to unite where we can.
I find it interesting, -there are so many times I'm in debate with a Catholic or Orthodox that they make this appeal, "You Protestants don't hold to traditional Protestantism: this is what Luther believed, here's what Zwingli believed, and Calvin believed ___. Where are you getting your modern beliefs?"
Okay, but when we pull up how past generations of Catholics and Orthodox were emphatic that those outside their institution were damned, all of a sudden we got to get into interpretations. Not that Protestants claim they have infallible doctrine or perfect tradition. I have a saying which is meant to shut up Catholics and Orthodox on this issue: "Luther is not an Ecumenical Counsel." It doesn't matter what Luther says, he's not an infallible authority of doctrine. I have liberty to disagree with Luther, and Calvin, and Zwingli, -even my very own pastor. And so, when I come across a doctrine which seems to go against Scripture (like how John 15:26-27 is Jesus literally saying that He sends the Holy Spirit), I am able to follow Scripture rather than the traditions of men.
Gavin himself quoted Church Fathers who considered pagans could be saved. Saints in both the Catholic Church and the Orthodox churches. So just by that fact you are refuted. Gavin just arbitrarily refused to let us use common Church Fathers, he's not a serious person here.
Also remember Dantes Inferno and how pagans are saved in classic Catholic work of litteratur? Exactly you have no case.
"John 15:26 NKJV
[26] “But when the Helper comes, whom I shall send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth who proceeds from the Father, He will testify of Me." - This doesn't affirm the Filioque. The issue with you protestants is you have the misguided belief that you can interpret scripture. You are not qualified nor smart enough to do so.
I gotta be honest that I dislike exclusivity Orthodox and Catholic say about themselves. No salvation outside their church, making fun of Protestant church building, making fun of Protestant gospel songs, those things really make me sad. I remember an orthodox open a Q&A session on Instagram and someone asked "do protestant go to Heaven?" and he answered "I love my protestant followers but sorry to be honest that they can't enter heaven" . I was really sad reading his answer
I am sorry that you have experienced mockery by Orthodox people, definitely not okay. But understand their perspective, heresy leads away from God, not to it. Do you believe a Muslim will be saved if they do not accept Jesus as their savior? That would probably make them unhappy as well but there is always boundaries.
@@sn00dles83 none definitely can enter heaven is they do not accept Christ as their Lord & Savior. I'll say the same. But to say muslim and protestan at the same position is just wrong. Protestant have faith in Jesus as Lord, second person of God and savior.
The same I read by a lot of protestants. So what? Should I think all protestants think the same?
And that’s what I dislike about Protestantism. You truly are the “do whatever you want and it’s fine if you just say psych to God” group. Anything goes dude it’s all good bro. Everyone gets in. Meanwhile Jesus specifically said the way is narrow. But you don’t like thinking about that passage, it hurts your fee fees
Orthodox feel threatened by smart protestants I've noticed😊
MANY Orthodox still hold that view today.
Well, that's the problem of orthodoxy, they can't fully agreed with anything after the great schism.
I thank God for you, Gavin. This content is gold.
I think it’d be cool to do more content on baptismal salvation and whether or not it’s biblical. I struggle with that area. If it doesn’t save you, then what does it do exactly?
We’re supposed to be Baptized in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, but what does that mean exactly? I thought we were baptized in water, how is one baptized into a name? I’m just confused.
Thank you so much for clearly articulating the consistent and historic Protestant understanding of the church, and highlighting the inconsistencies that exist between the present EO view and the unanimous view it held throughout the past.
He didn't do that. He did not contrast the consistency of Protestantism with the inconsistency of Orthodoxy. He contrasted two views of exclusivity held at different times in Orthodoxy and pointed out its inconsistency in claiming it has remained unchanged. There is no consistent and historic Protestant understanding of the church. If there were, you'd have one Protestant denomination, not thousands.
@@patrickbarnes9874 He was very consistent, and so have the historic Protestant denoms been, in their definition of the church. If you watched the video he explained it explicitly at one point. And even if there weren't Protestantism doesn't make the absolutist claims of Rome and the EO in saying that every minutia of their beliefs are apostolic in origin, thus making their claim to legitimacy easily falsifiable by looking to history. And he has also refuted the claim about thousands of Protestant denoms - if you accept that there are thousands and thousands of them then you must also accept that there are more than 1000 EO denominations, because the same study that produced the first set of numbers also listed that about the EO.
I am Catholic and throughout my time being a Catholic convert from protestantism I've been called pagan and damned by Protestants almost every month literally. You are being willfully ignorant if you do not see just how vitriolic protestantism is. Martin Luther said the Pope was antichrist and you keep saying it today, what in the world is this behavior. Meanwhile the Catholic Church has maintained since Vatican 2 and even before that salvation can be found outside of the visible Church because all baptisms join the Catholic Church.
Great video. Personally I think the current setup looks great. Decent lighting and a ton of books!
If the “real studio” is even better k can’t wait to see it!
I really appreciate your professionalism with these videos. I studied Eastern Orthodoxy for two years and prayerfully considered it. However, I had genuine questions and kept getting the same regurgitated responses that you've even mentioned. But something felt off the entire time that I could not shake. I have received my answers and thank you again, sir.
big fan, but i wish you put some of your conclusion content at the beginning too. EO and RC have characterized you as the 'gotcha guy' against their traditions, when reality is you're celebrating God's gracious shaping of his one invisible church to more clearly embrace each other, after 900 years of institutional jingoism. Protestants have largely walked back their anti-Catholic stances too! big fan
This video was timely for me! Thanks once again Pastor Ortlund.
It wouldn't be so bad if just one Orthodox leader would admit just once that "maybe" the church has erred in a historical instance (anathematizing those who don't kiss icons with affection, canonizing the known murderer Constantine, claiming we only get to Christ through Mary, etc).
But they won't. All you'll hear is that the Eastern church is perfect, is guided by the Holy Spirit, and cannot do wrong.
Beware those who claim perfection. At heart, they are anti-Christ.
Almost every one of these claims is false or misleading. Let's explore them:
1. Holy Orthodoxy is composed of humans who make mistakes. We don't have a pope, much less a doctrine of papal infallibility. We even have instances where the laity have rejected decisions from the clergy (e.g. the Council of Florence).
2. What does it mean to kiss the icons "with affection?" Do you think there are Orthodox police watching everyone, from the time they enter the narthex, ensuring that they not only kiss all the icons in the church; but that they do so with the appropriate level of affection? Some of my brothers and sisters don't kiss any icons, for whatever reason: My priest has yet to ban them from the church. What you cannot do, from a position of public influence, is preach iconoclasm: If you do this, you will be directed by your priest or bishop to cease or repent. Failing to do so, you will be excommunicated.
3. St. Constantine the Great was a killer, for sure, a soldier and military leader. You know who else was a known killer? St. Paul. St. Constantine's conversion was a gradual one, and he was not baptized until near the end of his life. Do you have evidence that proves Constantine killed anyone as a baptized Christian?
4. We only get to Christ through Mary? It's weird that, as an Orthodox Christian, I've never heard this. She is the Theotokos, the Mother of God. The Father handpicked her to be so, and the Son loves and honors her. So, following Christ, we love and honor her. The Theotokos is a powerful intercessor with her son, naturally; but we can and do speak directly to Christ.
I invite you to attend a service at a local Orthodox church, speak to the faithful and coffee hour, and see what Orthodoxy is all about for yourself.
I think they really need to believe that, because some people cannot fathom Christ being perfect without His church being perfect
Constantine supposedly still practiced the pagan rite of Sol Invictus despite proclaiming himself a Christian. It seems it was all for political purposes anyhow. Everyone who was a Christian was welcome to a good position in his club, and if they weren't, they wouldn't get a job.
LOL, Apostle Paul literally Killed Christians before turning to Christ.
Dr. Gavin, please visit St. Ignatius Orthodox Church in Franklin, TN and start a dialogue with the clergy there.
Because the Orthodox Church claims exclusivity does not mean all who identify as Orthodox are saved or the non-Orthodox are not saved.
Only the Lord knows who are His sheep and hear His voice.
This is my biggest stressor. I see issues in each church. I no longer feel I can be Protestant but I also don’t know how to deal with these difficult topics in Orthodoxy. I feel without a home at times.
I understand this feeling.
I felt the same during my long (7 year) journey. I finally joined myself to the Roman Catholic Church 19 years ago this Easter and despite all its problems, I have not looked back. I increasingly focus most of my energy now (as I get older) on my prayer life and my spiritual life. There are many riches in the Catholic Church for these things.
You should go visit an Orthodox Church, we will welcome you with open arms! Orthodoxy is not something you can ever really just grasp between your ears. Go and experience the liturgy, stay for coffee hour, speak to the priest.
I feel like once you commit yourself to a church you already implicitly state that that particular church is the true church and is to benefit your salvation. You can’t escape making some implicit or explicit exclusive ecclesiastical statement.
From my own Orthodox experience, knowledge and perspective, it is clear to me the Orthodox Church professes to be the one true Church, but doesn’t shut the door completely for the salvation outside the Church.
The Coptic Orthodox Church is the church of the Martyrs and it welcomes you with open arms.
"Does Eastern Orthodoxy posess the fullness of the faith?"
Short answer: yes.
Long answer: yes.
Nea, you people are part of a cult. The Orthodox Church adopted, whether willingly or unwillingly, cult tactics to keep people from leaving, from going over either to Catholics or Protestants, or even Islam.
@@pitAlexx so??
Excellent work. It is disheartening that it is such a common response from Orthodox/Roman Catholics that Protestants simply "haven't read enough" (especially since it was the Reformation that revived the original Greek sources of the Fathers and NT).
Invisible/mystic unity to the universal church is not only absent in medieval EO/RC theology, it is blatantly rejected consistently with absolute clarity, as you have shown many times in your content. It is a blessing that RC and EO Christians (including bishops) have began embracing Protestant soteriology over the last two centuries, but it certainly is a change in teaching.
WHICH “Protestant soteriology”?
@doubtingthomas9117 compared to WHICH Catholic or Orthodox soteriology? Because there is certainly far more than one.
If you're actually asking, the magisterial Protestants were in agreement on soteriology, and their main appeal is the faith expressed in the 3 historic catholic creeds and the general councils.
As for the restorationist and free church "anti-tradition" Christian movements, they do have a revolving door of soteriology. But they can't rightly be called Protestants, as they've abandoned the tradition
@@AB-dw2op yes, I am actually asking, because depending what doctrines you include or not under the umbrella of “soteriology”, there were some disagreements among the Magisterial Reformers. For instance, Calvinists would subscribe to the ideas of limited atonement and that a true believer could never fall from the faith to be finally lost again. Lutherans OTOH would affirm unlimited atonement and that a true believer could finally apostatize from the faith. Likewise Lutherans and classical Anglicans would affirm that baptism and holy communion are generally necessary for salvation, while many outside those traditions would deny that.
BTW-I’m neither RCC nor EOC, but I’m pointing this out because I think it’s helpful to be precise.
@doubtingthomas9117 fair points. Sorry for coming out swinging ✝️
@@AB-dw2op No worries 🙂
YESSSSSS I was hoping you would see this
Did Luther, Calvin, Zwingli & other reformer's use the same argument (Gavins) against the Catholic Church, or did they change over time, while parting ways from each other?
Gavin is a Baptist. The people you mentioned would have had him executed for being a heretic. Not my judgement, that's just what they would have done.
In Dr. Orthlund's other video, he shared some quotes from both Luther and Calvin that said Catholic churches are still true churches. They just believed the pope was an antichrist.
Confessional Lutheran here...Indeed, this is a great strength of the Reformation and that is a fabulous point relating this issue back to assurance. Christ alone. Amen.
Yes. Orthodoxy is the true faith. It is the fullness of the faith. It is the faith of the Apostles given to us by Christ. ☦️
Orthodoxy is a doctrine of demons. Idolatry, arrogance, fakery, pride, teaching as doctrine the precepts of men. It relies of its followers simply being followers and not readers of God's word because it they were to dissect the scriptures they'd see all the lies orthodoxy spreads about Mary, the concept of the eucharist, idolatry toward Maryand man-made objects and the real path to salvation, which excludes the need for Mary. You are liars and will be held accountable for misleading your families in to hell.
Thank you for this video. I am a Catholic myself, and I have heard this hierarchical view put forth more times than I can count. It’s basically the mainstream Catholic view right now, but as you pointed out, it runs completely contrary to the traditional doctrine of extra ecclesiam nulla salus. It’s very frustrating for me to hear the modern view all the time, and I’m sad to hear that it has entered some Orthodox circles, too. All one has to do is read the texts. I will say, though, that I’m not sure I follow your ecclesiology at the end there. But otherwise a fantastic video.
In the mid-70s while at UC Santa Barbara, I was marginally associated with a Christian group that grew out of Campus Crusade that was transitioning to Eastern Orthodoxy. I attended for a while and found it attractive, but in the end couldn't come to terms with icons.
There’s lots of problems with EO. Find a solid Biblical church and plugged in with other solid believers.
@@MrMfloor What's more biblical than the Church that wrote and preserved the Bible?
1. What Dr. Ortlund perceives are changes in Catholic teaching, the Catholic Church considers as the development of doctrine that provides a clearer and greater understanding of previous teachings. Quoting theologians is one thing, but Catholics are not bound by their speculation. Rather, it is the official teachings of the magisterium by which Catholics are bound, but theologians can and do supply the ground work that later becomes codified, either by a Pope or an ecumenical council.
2. For example, the Franciscan Johns Duns Scotus first presented the theological rationale for Mary's immaculate conception in the 14th century. This was a traditional belief held by many in the Church, (in the East, Mary is not referred by her name but by the term Panaghia, which means The All-Holy). However, it was not until five centuries after Scotus' death that Pope Pius IX in 1854 solemnly declared the Immaculate Conception as a dogma revealed by God in the papal bull Effabilis Deus by quoting Scotus' rationale: "We declare, pronounce, and define that the doctrine which holds that the most Blessed Virgin Mary, in the first instance of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege granted by Almighty God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Saviour of the human race, was preserved free from all stain of original sin, is a doctrine revealed by God and therefore to be believed firmly and constantly by all the faithful."
3. Besides offering the hope of salvation to non-Catholic Christians in No. 15 of Lumen Gentium, the Second Vatican Council's Dogmatic Constitution On The Church, solemnly promulgated by Pope Paul VI on Nov. 21, 1964, the Catholic Church also offers this same hope to non-Christians, even to those who have not yet arrived at a belief in God, in No. 16:
"Finally, those who have not yet received the Gospel are related in various ways to the people of God. (Mk. 1:15; cf. Mt. 4:17) In the first place we must recall the people to whom the testament and the promises were given and from whom Christ was born according to the flesh. (Cf. Rom. 9:4-5) On account of their fathers this people remains most dear to God, for God does not repent of the gifts He makes nor of the calls He issues. (Cf. Rom. 1 l:28-2) But the plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator. In the first place amongst these there are the Muslims, who, professing to hold the faith of Abraham, along with us adore the one and merciful God, who on the last day will judge mankind. Nor is God far distant from those who in shadows and images seek the unknown God, for it is He who gives to all men life and breath and all things, (Cf. Acts 17:25-28) and as Saviour wills that all men be saved. (Cf. 1 Tim. 2:4) Those also can attain to salvation who through no fault of their own do not know the Gospel of Christ or His Church, yet sincerely seek God and moved by grace strive by their deeds to do His will as it is known to them through the dictates of conscience. (Mk. 4:14) Nor does Divine Providence deny the helps necessary for salvation to those who, without blame on their part, have not yet arrived at an explicit knowledge of God and with His grace strive to live a good life. Whatever good or truth is found amongst them is looked upon by the Church as a preparation for the Gospel. (Lk. 12:32) She knows that it is given by Him who enlightens all men so that they may finally have life. But often men, deceived by the Evil One, have become vain in their reasonings and have exchanged the truth of God for a lie, serving the creature rather than the Creator. (Cf Rom. 1:21, 25) Or some there are who, living and dying in this world without God, are exposed to final despair. Wherefore to promote the glory of God and procure the salvation of all of these, and mindful of the command of the Lord, "Preach the Gospel to every creature" (Mk. 16:16), the Church fosters the missions with care and attention."
4. The bishops at the First Vatican Council were working on the dogmatic constitution on the church, but this council was abruptly adjourned by the pope in 1870 due to the outbreak of the Franco-Prussian war and the surrounding of the Vatican by troops of the newly Kingdom of Italy. It took another century and another council for this document to be issued.
5. Have Protestants have undergone their own development of dogma? The original 16th century Protestant Reformers were quite exclusive regarding salvation by denouncing (A) the pope as the Anti-Christ and (B) the Catholic Mass as an abomination before God:
A. In 1580 Martin Luther's 1537 Smalcald Articles were added to the authoritative Book of Concord and contains the following:
(1) Article IV, No. 10: "This teaching shows forcefully that the Pope is the very Antichrist, who has exalted himself above, and opposed himself against Christ because he will not permit Christians to be saved without his power, which, nevertheless, is nothing, and is neither ordained nor commanded by God."
(2) Article II, No. 1: "That the Mass in the Papacy must be the greatest and most horrible abomination, as it directly and powerfully conflicts with this chief article, and yet above and before all other popish idolatries it has been the chief and most specious."
[Quoting from the Book of Concord Org website]
B. John Calvin's Institutes of the Christian Religion, Book IV is an exposition on the Pope, the Catholic Bishop of Rome as the Antichrist culminating in Chapter 18, No. 1:
(1) "Bidding adieu to them, therefore, let my readers understand that I am here combating that opinion with which the ROMAN ANTICHRIST and his prophets have imbued the whole world ..."
(2) ".. THAT THIS MASS, HOWEVER GLOSSED AND SPLENDID, OFFERS THE GREATEST INSULT TO CHRIST, suppresses and buries his cross, consigns his death to oblivion, takes away the benefit which it was designed to convey, enervates and dissipates the sacrament, by which the remembrance of his death was retained..."
[Beveridge translation, P. 866, ntslibrary website, Institutes of the Christian Religion, pdf 874 of 944]
C. Archbishop Thomas Cranmer of the Church of England:
(1) “Whereof it followeth Rome to be the seat of Antichrist, and the pope to be very antichrist himself. I could prove the same by many other scriptures, old writers, and strong reasons.” (Works by Cranmer, vol.1, pp.6-7)
(2) 39 Articles of Religion, Article 31, from the Book of Common Prayer:
"Wherefore the sacrifices of Masses, in the which it was commonly said, that the Priest did offer Christ for the quick and the dead, to have remission of pain or guilt, were blasphemous fables, and dangerous deceits."
6. Does Dr. Ortlund concur with Luther, Calvin and Cranmer that (A) the Pope, the Catholic Bishop of Rome is the Antichrist and (B) the Catholic Mass is a blasphemous offense against God? Or has there been a development of doctrine in this aforesaid exclusivity? The only Lutheran denomination today that still teaches the Pope is the Antichrist, in conformity with the Book of Concord, is the Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod (WELS). In May of 1986, the Church of Scotland (Presbyterian) issued a Declaratory Act that removed the offending Catholic references from the original Westminster Confession of Faith, which had been held as official doctrine by that church for over 300 years.
Thanks so much for this Gavin. It was definitely time someone addressed this.