Eastern Orthodoxy - The One True Church?
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 20 фев 2024
- For the better part of 2,000 years the question of who gets to interpret scripture has been the key challenge to the church. The answer to questions of faith, doctrine, and praxis often depend on the interpretation (and application) of a particular text or passage of scripture and have historically resulted in fierce disagreement. In the face of this uncertainty a variety of new institutions and movements, often cults, have sprung up in the last several hundred years claiming divine authority to interpret scripture, either by virtue of a supposedly restored Apostolic succession or some form of continuity with the early church. The Mormon church claims their “quorum of the twelve apostles” is the restored priesthood of Christ on earth. Jehovah’s witnesses assert that 1st-century Biblical Christianity was restored through the New World Translation of the Bible and the Watchtower and Tract Society in Philadelphia. And in recent years in the West an old authority is seeing renewed interest and conversions: the Eastern Orthodox Church, which claims to be the one true Church and to alone possess the authority to interpret scripture. But does their claim of direct continuity with Apostolic and early church practice hold up to scrutiny? Tune in now as we discuss.
Ministry Partners:
Private Family Banking:
Email: chuck@privatefamilybanking.com
Website: privatefamilybanking.com/chuc...
For a free copy of a new book "Protect Your Money Now! How to Build Multi-Generational Wealth Outside of Wall Street and Avoid the Coming Banking Meltdown" by Private Family Banking Partner, Chuck DeLadurantey, go to www.protectyourmoneynow.net
*For setting up a free 30-Minutes Private Family Banking consultation go to:
calendly.com/familybankingnow... 
Развлечения
Starts about 8:20
I am glad you are doing this! Because of Feminism in the Protestant church - many are being drawn into Eastern Orthodoxy
And Catholicism as well
@@JW-tg1nn - yep…. Because of Feminism and all the SIMPy men - in the Protestant/Evangelical Church - telling men/boys - they must sing Reckless Love, etc. - they r bailing on Protestantism - because it’s too “Cringe” - as it goes against God’s design for Masculinity
@@JW-tg1nn traditional teaching*
@JW-tg1nn young men are drawn to apparent strength. Islam is false, but some young men are drawn to the veneer of strength it projects - even though Islam has been losing for the past 300+ years
@JW-tg1nn I agree. All I was doing is calling it like it is. The issue, as Pastor Joel mentioned, is that many Protestant churches are highly feminized
Fair point explaining that my love of architecture can accidentally lead people to EO
I’d push back, saying I think a desire for beauty is in all men regardless, so it’s important that Protestant recapture the beauty we used to have, or else it feeds the illusion that EO has beauty and we don’t
You are right. There’s definitely a balance. Evangelicals have embraced minimalism in every. It’s not good.
Eastern Orthodox deserves an Oscar for cinematography.
This video was very timely. I have been researching the EOC and RCC recently.
Same!!
Keep researching because there was a lot of misinformation in this video from these so-called "experts."
@@icxcnika7722ok larper
From what I can tell the Mormons make the most sense.
I have investigated dozens of churches.
It seems that they look at everything from a 30,000 foot view, an eternal view. where every other religion seems to look at everything through a microscopic here and now with blinders on view.
The Mormons understanding of the things of God are incredible. I’ve never heard anywhere else.
@@troyt5564 cap
The EOC is unapologetically patriarchal and traditional. And that attracts young men
Love this format! Our mens bible study is similar every week. Everyone has the responsibility to bring the message to the table.
As an Oriental Orthodox Christian, I can see many misrepresentations in this video, including even the map. I don't think you have a good understanding of the Orthodox Church, tbh.
They understand. They are blatant liars.
EO brother here. I agree.
The Orthodox " we are the one true church"
The Catholics "we are the one true church"
The Mormons " we are the one true church"
The Muslims " we are the true people of Allah
The Jehovah's Witness "we are the one true church"
Oness pentecostal " we are the one true church"
The protestants "we are not unified nor true church"
@@glassman7961 neither are Catholics so what is your point?
Ok conflicting news. It's a question of objective Church and general history to ascertain which Church has apostolic succession and which 'churches' are breakaway and heretical.
@pavloskyprianou6968 not conflicting when all churches have erred, including those with "apostolic succession," so what is the standard? All have erred one time or another. Pope Francis is excommunicated Conservative bishops left and right. Yet he falls under heresy for his current stances compared to Vatican 2.
@@MatchObox OK. Where has the Orthodox Church erred?
Sound Doctrine is missing concerning the High Standard of Righteousness meticulously explained in the Bible but too often ignored by Bible teachers and preachers. For example how many are seeking Righteousness First. How many are on the "Path" of Righteousness that grows brighter and brighter unto that Glorious Day?
Check out ex orthodox priest Joshua Schooping who is now a reformed pastor.
Once again, massive applause from your Premillennial brother! Fully on the post-millenial vision to see Christ's rule on earth, through the church, living as a light unto the nations, subduing every false religion and lie before the world eventually turns against us...and Jesus comes back in vengeance to reign and put our enemies beneath our feet once and for all.
Eastern orthodoxy and "the spiritual disciplines" are Satan's failed attempt to launch the same attack, pulling on the same human lust for salvation by self-efforted, man-approved, biblically bankrupt, external rituals and works.
Amen, Ephesians 2, John 10, John 6, Titus 3, Romans 3, 5, 8 and 9 all destroy the RC and EO positions on justification and sanctification, Soli Deo Gloria
I'm just starting the video and my notifications are turned off.
Ex-jehovah's witness here. I've tossed around the idea of going eo since I got shunned back in 2018. My biggest issue with most mainstream protestantism is not looking at the spirit realm stuff (ie watchers and that kind of stuff), how secular they are now, and the refusal to admit we inherit back the earth/physical realm. Also, as an exjw I find closed communion and all the rules very triggering. For over 30 years my life was controlled by men in NYC. I am not going to do that again.
However, I have found peace in the Anglican church and since I have moved I've found two liturgical denominations I want to check out.
Christ is King.
Joel, could you call your next conference Right responsference?
Too good to not do 😅
😂
“Soccer is just complicated jogging” 😂😂😂
💯
L take from an American superiority complex.
@@icxcnika7722have some more vodka ivan
I worked with Muslims for 15 years and now the past 7 years with Oriental Christians. Starting new churches among them. Their tradition plays the “Chinese telephone game”, there is no written texts - they claim their beliefs are “apostolic” but not NT apostolic. It is traditions handed down. Also, most don’t know how to pray, have read the Bible, and almost none understand the gospel. They say, I became a Christian when I was baptized as a baby. Orthodox are similar to Muslims, law, works, and God willing one will go to heaven. This is oversimplified, but sums it up.
dang that’s really sad
I agree.
Sounds like you were in Egypt or Ethiopia.
Are you even aware of where the current canon of the Bible came from? How do you think it was created? Are you not aware there was no canon of bible for almost six centuries? Do you know what they used in creation of the current canon? Do you know what the Septuagint is? They answer to all these is no. You probably think your KJV bible is the whole truth when you couldn't even answer why you believe in this canon of the Bible or how the original canon of the Bible was created.
Unfortunately, you lost all credibility when you started talking about Confucius and Taiwan in relation to the eastern of EO. Edit all that out as it drags down literally everything else you say that has some validity.
I think the point being made was that the East is influenced by a totally different way of thought. They do not think and see the world through the same lenses as Westerners.
And also equating EO with OO.
thank you for this awaited information!! would love to keep seeing solid studies on the reality of EO.
Joel, can you debate one of these big orthodox apologists like you debated Leighton? That would be helpful.
Well Oriental Orthodox Christians are way more than 20M. There are over 50M in Ethiopia alone (they made up 45 - 50% of the population, estimated to be around 120M).
This was very good, but I wish you would bring Pastor Joshua Shooping back again to discuss this. He has very deep knowledge on the subject.
😂 wrong
@@dustinneelyHe does.
@@IAMFISH92 Schooping is a liar and an apostate.
God bless the one true church
Love from Australia ❤
Eastern Orthodoxy is when you care more about being trad than the truth.
Or when you care more about tradition, truth and history over 16th century innovations and juridical novums.
what Truth are they missing?
@@icxcnika7722or you just fell for marketing and eastern mysticism crap
@@PurePuritan
or maybe you simply you and other Reformed and much of Protestantism can't function outside of the cognitive dimension of a man made 16th century reductionistic theological paradigm that specializes in stripping the liturgy by applying a minimalist principle entangled with the disenchanted medieval nominalism and puritanical scholasticism, where rational thinking prevails, and mystery, ritual and beauty have been driven out.
Maybe that's you? Surely since you think you know so much about my own motivations.
This is actually a quite succinct way of saying it, because that's literally what all this is about. They care more about the alleged apostolic tradition than the truth of scripture.
Can someone provide a reference for the definition of Sola Sciptura? Is this a doctrine that is officially described somewhere? Or where is it most truly reflected?
Just look it up brother. Sola Scriptura literally means “scripture alone” which refers to the truth that scripture alone is the sole infallible rule of faith. The church is not infallible and men are not infallible. Scripture is God breathed and designed that the man of God may be complete and ready for any good work.
Just look it up.
Just trying to really dial it in. I've heard several times where a protestant apologist will say something like, "Well that's not what Sola Scriptura actually says."
Just trying to make sure we're all looking at the same goal posts. "Scripture Alone" doesn't mean much in itself.
You could create a few shorts from this discussion. Enjoying listening.
I think the attraction to EO or RC has to do with esthetics, beauty, virtue and praxis. They consistently uphold form and praxis that feel ancient, that are beautiful and feel pure. It is not about theatricals, drama or mystery. It is to have something feel higher than every mundane thing in the world, to feel part of something with a continuity to the past (many people nowadays don't even know their father much less anything more than four generations back). The protestant churches feel too chaotic, too changing, too rationalistic, reductionistic and minimalistic. People don't want to be lectured only. They want to feel part of something deeper and more sanctified. The writings of Tolkien portrays much of what they long for; something feeling ancient, pure, good and beautiful. Ignore this longing at your peril as have most of the protestant churches. Even the RCC have lost parishioners whenever they try to "actualize" and "modernize" liturgy.
10:34
No, protestants do not agree on 98% of things, including salvation.
Starts at 00:08:20
@~21:40 you mentioned St. Cyril. That's incorrect. The correct one is Kyrillos Loukaris, a greek theologian, who became the Greek Patriarch of Alexandria as Cyril III and Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople as Cyril I. The best known sainted Cyril is St. Cyril of Alexandria (5th century) and one less known sainted cyril is St. Cyril of Jerusalem (4th century). Both are more than a 1000 years before the reformation. These are easily confused.
they were speaking of cyril lucaris
Cyril Loukaris IS canonized as a saint by the EP and Alexandria.
This video has led me so much closer to Orthodoxy. You all have shown just how true the Orthodox Church is and that the gates of hell have not prevailed against the Church Christ established ☦️
I can smell your lying tongue
based
This is the equivalent of what a Muslim posts on a trinity proofs video.
@@ChadGrindstaffExactly haha
18:16 equating mandatory islamic pilgrimages to the requirement of priests and icons is nonsensical. Those are not the same thing at all.
The Catholics and the Orthadox remind me of the pagans. Pagans worship many gods and have a god to turn to for most any situation. The Catholics seem to do the same with their many saints that they pray too. They have a saint for every situation to turn to.
Saying the Orthodox church is the one and only true church is sanctimonious ( meaning they are above everyone ). A true Church wouldn't marry divorced people or use leavened bread, as the Orthodox church does. The Orthodox church totally ignore Jesus and God on these two biblical doctrines.
There is usage of a Lectionary for set Bible readings during the service. Cyclical with a Church Year.
37:19 based, glad you guys saw my little experiment there
😂
I grew up in a Baptist Church that's what I am today good ol southern Baptist
👎🏼
I was Baptist till I started believing what the Bible said about baptism and the Lord's supper
@@ziffy88you went to a Baptist church until you misinterpreted it into hocus pocus.
In Protestantism there is also nondenominational churches. There are also the charismatic churches, Assembly of God, Four Square, maybe others I don’t know.
Non denoms are baptists
25:55
Exact same in the EO.
Start using the 1662 Book of Common Prayer in modern English, chant/sing the psalter, and encourage prayer & fasting to grow in sanctification........ And Evangelize and Catechize!!!
Its pretty simple...
1) Download the Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom.
2) Read the Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom.
3) Attend or stream a service of the local evangelical church of your choice. (Even the most exclusive of reformed varieties will do.)
4) Compare the words you would say and hear at both services.
5) Put your matches away and throw your strawmen in the compost bin.
Amen to that
It’s understandable that Calvinists are attacking EO (Redeemed Zoomer had a similar video a few days ago). Reformed groups are losing people in droves (mostly college educated, conservative men) to EO. My small southern parish of 50 has 12 catechumens, ten of which were born and raised Presbyterian or Reformed Baptist. However, there is no excuse for the misrepresentations of EO in this video. It gets basic facts wrong (the Assyrians and Orientals are you”under the banner” of EO?) and evidences a fundamental misunderstanding of Orthodoxy. I’d venture that none of these three people have ever spoken to an EO, much less attended a Divine Liturgy. If you are truly interested in what we believe, please don’t trust anything you see here. It is a gross misrepresentation (out of either ignorance or intentionally), which is evidence of why people are leaving reformed groups.
All I know is that you people are extremely proud, hateful, sarcastic & un-Christlike. You all think you are the one true church, while all others are not. Having spoken to a couple EO's online has shown me you trust in your own good works rather than the finished work of Jesus Christ. But you are nothing like Jesus Christ, nor is your doctrine from the Bible. I would venture to say that the majority of EO's are headed straight for hell, because of what I just described.
It’s hilarious that you didn’t actually dispute anything they claimed but instead did exactly what they said EO do. Which is claim that you have to go to an EO church to experience it or else you can’t understand that EO is false.😂
You are right that they misrepresented oriental and Syrian orthodox as EO. That bothered me too. Seems that the “expert” didn’t know all that much. That said, it seems your point that people are leaving reformed churches in droves is based solely on anecdotal evidence. You’re bothered by their false claim, granted it is false, yet you’re making a claim that it seems you have no evidence for. I can just as easily and truthfully say, I see young men flocking to reformed churches in droves. Perhaps you aren’t clear on the distinction between Protestant and reformed?
@@MasonGoss Good observation. They censored my comment lol
@@MasonGosswell, he did. They claimed that oriental orthodox and Syrian orthodox were Eastern Orthodox. It’s just not true. They separated 1500 years ago. That split is older than the Catholic and orthodox split by more than 500 years. Please stop making us look bad.
In reference to comments just after 21:10 .... One thing that these speakers are either ignorant of or choose to ignore is the fact that until the late 18th and early 19th century, you have very little (practically speaking: no) Orthodox activity outside of those "mother countries" where Orthodoxy had historically existed. The assumptions of the Orthodox teachings coming to the attention of Protestants at this time is that those teachers are speaking only to an Orthodox audience that was raised with virtually "no excuse": Orthodoxy was everywhere around them in their homelands. They were likely baptized Orthodox, and had every reason to live according to the historical teachings of the Orthodox Church. That being the case, they would have the right and proper provocation to say to such faltering and lapsed Orthodox Christians that to reject those specific, time-proven teachings of Orthodoxy was tantamount to personal damnation.
Once you get to the early 1800's, you finally have missionary efforts extending outward into the New World, and encountering historically non-Orthodox lands and meeting Protestants who were largely ignorant of Orthodoxy, who then (as they do today) take offense at the teachings of the Orthodox Church, assuming that the Orthodox are speaking directly to them, when in fact they speaking internally. This constant fascination of some protestant/evangelical/reformed/etc folks with the Orthodox supposedly "damning" those outside of Her is simply false. You must bear in mind WHO the Orthodox teachings and canons and guidelines, etc are speaking to: the Orthodox, first and foremost. Those who have never had any exposure or experience with the Orthodox faith, who remain outside of the Church's doors, are not culpable for knowing or understanding a faith tradition that they were innocently ignorant of, even if some Orthodox persons might very-wrongly suggest such a thing. Can the non-Orthodox be saved? That is entirely up to the Lord. Christ saves. Do we want that salvation? The bigger question for any Orthodox Christian is always directed inward. Am I working our my salvation with fear and trembling? Am I repenting of my sins? Am I clinging to Christ? It's never a question about Christ, who has saved us, but always a question about my faithfulness to Him (and never a question about anyone else's faith or lack thereof).
Does everyone have to officially become Orthodox in order to be saved? Again, this is up to the Lord.
The answer to this very-specific soteriological question seems to me that the Orthodox Church teaches that God, being both just and merciful, if He condemns anyone will condemn only those that had every opportunity to embrace the fullness of the Christian faith and become Orthodox, but willfully and -with total knowledge- rejected that fullness found ONLY in Holy Orthodoxy. As far as those that willfully and knowledgeably leave the Orthodox faith and apostatize are concerned, we are forced to conclude that (barring their repentance) they will go to hell by their own choice. Whether that is where they find themselves in the end is entirely up to God, and we pray for His mercy on them , even as we ask for His mercy on us.
The real problem here, as always, is that folks such as these men are starting with their conclusions firmly in place, and then filling in the facts in order to support those presuppositions. Come to an Orthodox Church for a few services, my friends. Come and see exactly what we say and do instead of making these wrong-headed assumptions. You may not like what you see and you may have reasons for not liking them, but maybe, just maybe, we could put to rest some of the very-incorrect reasons you have for opposing Holy Orthodoxy and at least limit the discussion to actual facts instead of baseless arguments and factual errors (the Orthodox don't like St Augustine, who we consider a saint? Patriarch Cyril Lukaris was a Calvinst? Hardly, even if some of the teachings supposedly connected to him were refuted. Where exactly did you hear anathemas pronounced against Protestants specifically? Because there are no anathemas *specifically* against protestants that I have seen and would gladly be happy to see examples of this. It is difficult to find out what the Orthodox believe? This is laughable to the extreme).
God bless you guys, but-seriously- get your facts straight.
But then the EO would say well if scripture is infallible who compiled the Bible and by who's authority. They see a contradiction there.
Not “there are women who are saints”. All women who are saved are saints.
The anathamas are only for those WITHIN the Church. Protestants aren't apart of the Church. We do anathamaize doctrines and practices of other groups, but those anathamas only apply to anyone within trying to apply those teachings inside the Holy Orthodox Church. We do not, cannot, anathamazise non-Orthodox. Only God judges those outside the Church. Thats why we can say that there are many good Christian non-Orthodox. Also, anathamas can be repented of.
That’s not even slightly true. Please read the confession of Dositheus.
@@IAMFISH92it's true tho?
@@JacksonScott-os7kj It’s not. The anathemas do not apply to those only in the canonical church. Again, read The council of Jerusalem and the confession of Dositheus.
@@IAMFISH92 you misunderstand. If someone is anathematized they are barred from the eucharist and other sacraments and church life until repentance, if you are not in the church you cannot be removed like that, so you can just consider it a denouncement. Do you see what I'm saying? An anathema is a denouncement + removal of sacraments and church life. If you were never in the church then it's just a denouncement. In either case you would have to give up the anathematized position to either enter for the first time or to be allowed back in.
You should talk to an orthodox priest like Fr Moses McPherson.
48:31.... 200 people?? You have a confidence band for that stat?? Come on guys....
I would no longer defend remnant radio.
The west is more about Plato and the east is more about Confucius. As if EO doesn’t have its roots in Greece as well. Most of their Saints point to Greek philosophy and still use Greek terminology unlike Latin of the west. I’m not even EO but this just seems like dishonest arguments so far.
31:16 The EO mindset is very intellectual. Its often said that the rennaisance could not have occurred without the sacking of constantinople which brought much wisdom back to the west. Lastly, you shouldnt equate far eastern thinking such as buddhism or folk musticism with the EO, thats not apt at all. If you want a simple statement of faith, Nicene creed.
At 32:08 now. Bro. The EO are not asian mystics who have no logic........................
You are counting roman catholic as christian?
Seems some of the doctrines and practices that have evolved are incompatible
There’s nothing Christian about Roman Catholicism
I know, right? I don't think they do, probably saying it not to turn catholics off within the first 5 minutes, but it could confuse the topic
I think they were in terms of the statistics, but even then I do think they should’ve whittled that down to protestantism since catholicism is a false religion too
Keep telling yourself that 😂
Yes, whether you're Protestant dogmatic fundamentalist lenses allow for it or not, and so far as a proper articulation of nicene Christianity goes... Roman Catholicism confesses it thereby falling under the general umbrella of Christianity. Whether or not they're consistent is a different question, however unlike Mormons, Jehovah's witnesses, seventh-day Adventist at other cult groups which violate one or more of the main essential tenants of Nicene Christianity, Roman Catholicism confesses all the main tenants thereby falling under the umbrella of Christianity whether you like it or not. Unless you're claiming that you're not a nice and Christian, if so I'd love to know on what authority do you claim to know better than the men who drafted the Creed... Of which St Athanasius mentioned the Holy spirit's direct illumination in the council of nicaea.
Loads upon loads of misrepresentations and strawman arguments against EO in this video. It only encouraged me to remain EO. I’m trying to be objective when believing in the truth of God, I will become Protestant if I see a stunning case for it. I give them a fair chance all the time, I’ve watched a lot of Gavin Ortlunds videos as well.
So far, I have not been convinced by Protestantism.
Right off the bat, the speakers in this video made tons of easily debunked statements, such as saying that the oriental church is the same as EO, claiming that EO teaches that Christianity is fixed in one physical location (which is actually a Roman Catholic belief, not Orthodox), also the outrageous claim that individual Protestant denominations have more clarity in doctrine than EO… presuppositional arguments regarding St. Paul’s teaching on abandoning Jewish traditions, assuming it means ALL tradition, when every church father that existed stated that it was just a condemnation of following mosaic law and tradition, not EVERY tradition… using their own Protestant doctrine of eternal security and EO’s lack of salvific assurance for an individual as an argument, when it’s a well known fact that even Protestants can’t agree about once saved always saved… etc.
at the end of the video, I found it hypocritical for the speakers during the last 40 or so minutes to claim that EO Christians go by feelings to determine truth, and that Protestants go by objective knowledge.
It’s obviously the other way around. The whole premise of Protestant exegesis is determining the “truth” of scripture through feelings, aka “my own private interpretation”.
The EO ironically warns us against what’s called “prelest, or “spiritual delusions”, which we claim is caused primarily by feelings and thoughts that people interpret to be divine revelation. So the irony with his statement is that his criticism against us is our main one against THEM.
We are explicitly taught NOT TO GO BY OUR EXPERIENCES AND FEELINGS. That’s WHY the authority of The Church is IMPORTANT. THATS WHY WE MAKE THAT ARGUMENT IN THE FIRST PLACE!!
The Pentecostal/charismatic denominations really give the ultimate proof that this is the actual truth, that Protestantism is ultimately about feelings and not the search for objective truth.
This video was a giant emotional straw man argument. These men made zero attempts at refuting orthodoxy in the area of objective doctrine.
I’m not EO and I could tell how shallow and dismissive this analysis of their claims are. No facts and logic? They literally have documented historic continuity to the 1st century. Baptists, Anglicans, Lutherans…1300s at the earliest.
what do you mean by continuity? I heard this argument a lot and it was what had me almost move to EO. That was until I learned their idea of continuity in beliefs is really just not there. Take for example veneration. Multiple church fathers opposed iconography prior to Nicea 2. After Nicea 2, it was deemed to be anathema if you didn’t venerate icons. Once you begin to see the allure of EO start to fall apart, it’s easy to see how they’re probably just as confused on other topics
@@ChrisTisking12256multiple fathers were Arian heretics and denied the diety of Christ, do you apply the same logic there?
The historical evidence Moses wrote Genesis is scant, what about there?
Proverbs 3:5,6
How dare you call your self the one true church. The Bible is clear. All who put their trust in Christ make up the Church.
Only needing the Word, bread, wine, and water makes Protestantism infinitely more spiritual than the other traditions.
Huh?
@@TheB1nary the comment meat the EOC/RCC claims of superior spirituality may be undermined by their inclusion (and requiring) of endless physical/sensory elements.
Cope
@@f308gtb1977
EO doesn't claim superior spirituality by virtue of "sensory elements", but rather because the EO faith isn't cerebrally detached from material reality akin to that of a purely mental psychological recollection as is most of protestantism.
God’s power is not antithetical to working in and through his created objects.
It is assumed by obvious implications by proponents of iconoclasm that faith in Christ requires no visual content. However, a review of Scripture shows that seeing is not antithetical to believing, and that the two complement each other. When John the Baptist’s faith was wavering, Jesus told John’s followers: “Go back and report to John what you have seen and heard.” (Luke 7:22) Jesus told his disciples that in comparison to the Old Testament saints who lived prior to the coming of Christ and had to go by the prophetic promises of the coming of Christ, they were blessed to be able to see Christ with their own eyes and hear the words of Christ with their own ears. (Luke 10:23-24) Paul, in defense of his apostolic ministry, asked the Christians in Corinth: “Have I not seen Jesus our Lord?” (1 Corinthians 9:1) The Risen Christ commanded the Apostle John: “Write, therefore, what you have seen . . . .” (Revelation 1:19) Jesus told Nathaniel: “You believe because I told you I saw you under the fig tree. You shall see greater things than that. . . . . I tell you the truth, you shall see heaven open, and the angels of God ascending and descending on the Son of Man.” (John 1:50-52) And then, there is the verse we Orthodox love to quote to our non-Orthodox friends: “Come and see.” (John 1:46) ))
Can we as Christians pray to God without icons? The answer is an unequivocal Yes! Icons are meant only to aid us in prayer. They make visible the invisible reality of heaven. They remind us of the spiritual dimension, and so strengthen our faith in Christ. It is not as if icons were essential for our making contact with God.
Key to effective prayer is faith in Christ. But key to faith in Christ is right Christology. Having a heretical Christology derails one’s prayer and worship life. In Orthodoxy, especially in the Liturgy, the Christological and Trinitarian dogmas frame our prayers and our prayers express the dogmas of the Church. In order to pray genuinely one must be in a relationship with Christ, which is to have Christ as one’s God and Savior. Orthodox prayer is not like magic where one needs to perform special rites and utter magical formulas for something to happen. Christian prayer is grounded in God’s mercy to us sinners and in our response to him. Without faith, that is, without a personal commitment to Christ, the veneration of icons is an empty ritual; the presence of faith makes the veneration of icons a sacramental encounter with the Risen Christ.
Where the Christian West approach icons from the standpoint of anamnesis (memory), Orthodoxy stresses instead the epiphanic (revelatory) presence in icons.
Where the Reformed Christian may view religious pictures as having primarily a pedagogical function, i.e., as a stimulus to mental reflection, the Orthodox Christian sees icons as having a far more sacramental purpose, i.e., as a stimulus to prayer, a uniting of the spiritual with the physical, and beyond that, as a means to deepening one’s communion with Christ and the saints, who are far more present than we imagine.
The Christian painter renounces the naturalistic representation of space, so noticeable in the Roman art of this time. The Christian painter depicts neither depth nor shadow in his work. . . . . They are almost always represented face on, as we have already said. They address the viewer and communicate their inner state to him, a state of prayer.
Reformed Christians, and much of Protestantism, live in what author Max Weber described as a “disenchanted world” of modernity where rational thinking prevails, and magic and mystery have been driven out. For this reason, Reformed Christians are willing to allow for icons as creative expressions or visual illustrations, but balk at icons as sacramental vessels of divine grace. This difference in worldview underlies the disconnect sketched in the dialogue above. Converts to Orthodoxy have abandoned Weber’s “disenchanted world” for an earlier Christian worldview, where creation is viewed as sacramental, charged with divine grace, and not mere matter. In Orthodoxy, common objects like olive oil, basil leaves, palm branches, are blessed and used to reveal God’s merciful presence, along with the water of baptism, and the bread and the wine of Holy Communion. In Orthodoxy, the redemption of fallen creation, or rather the reenchantment of the world, begins right here and now. In the Divine Liturgy, material creation is taken and blessed, and then offered up, or rather reintegrated with the kingdom of heaven. In the Liturgy, the kingdom of God is not something we hear about but rather a reality we encounter through the worship of the Holy Trinity.
@@Lucian09474says the guy watching a video he knows he disagrees with, just to cope and seethe in the comments.
Orthodoxy is the original church and hasn’t changed. “ Protestantville” has a new Pope every month with a new interpretation of the Bible. I got tired of it. When you do the research- you can’t go back
☦️
These 3 are ignorant and revel in their ignorance.
orthodox use leaven bread,and leaven is sin. God cast those from the hebrew camp, if leaven was found within their home for 7 days.
Also, the orthdox church marries divorced people. Which is forbidden by Jesus.
Just say you don’t understand Protestantism or the Bible and move on.
Selective hearing is sadly a real thing, as you’ve demonstrated. Are you not aware of the plethora of things that have changed within Orthodoxy? Or the damning of non-orthodox Christians who don’t “venerate” icons? You don’t have good news; you have a system of deeply seeded willful hubris.
Love ya, brother, but I'll say it again: you jumping in full-bore with this Haunted Cosmos voodoo ain't good.
For many the appeal of Orthodoxy is they have a genuine claim to succession from the apostles. That’s a far more credible claim than any have in Protestantism, who through Luther, seized for itself authority out of thin air to appoint priests and start a splinter church.
But that isn’t true. It’s a false claim.
Yeah prove it’s genuine.
Well, salvation has piss all to do with a line of succession anyway. The Orthodox church, like the Catholic church, would be happier if men were illiterate serfs who lived and died in poverty in the shadow of an ornate cathedral. The service would be spoken mostly in a language they don't speak and the recited scriptures likewise. Both are medieval relics that lament the bygone era of ruling over ignorant men through compartmentalization while perverting the faith for temporal power.
@@BrantTheResidentCalvinist The burden of proof is on the rebels. Justify the existence of your ever further splintering cascade of fragmentation that is modern evangelicalism, in the absence of an authoritative mandate to do so. The Apostles walked with Christ, and were the authorities that established overseers, elders, etc. Participation in this hierarchy was fundamental to the early church, and apostolic succession. Maintaining a connection with the intention of Messiah, that what he spoke to them would be passed on, and the future generations would walk according to those traditions.
@@greysuit17 From whom did Martin Luther receive authority to appoint priests and establish a church?
Just because its simple doesn't make it right.
Luther was just as big a radical as the Pope. Glad I’m out of both