Byzantine debate #1 | (Orthodox vs Protestant): Is the Orthodox Church the only One True Church?
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 28 май 2021
- Father Patrick Ramsey (Orthodox) and Dr. Gavin Ortlund (Protestant) meet to debate Ecclesiology in a new debate series called "Byzantine Debates". This debate is the first in this series and it is on the topic: "Is the Orthodox Church the only One True Church? ". You can support this effort through Patreon: / accordingtojohn
Subscribe to my RUclips Channel and tap the bell icon in order to be notified every time I upload a new interview, video or debate.
Timestamps from an awsome viewer
2:35 Fr. Patrick’s Opening Statement
17:20 Dr. Gavin’s Opening Statement
32:38 Fr. Patrick’s First Rebuttal
40:09 Dr. Gavin’s First Rebuttal
47:43 Fr. Patrick’s Second Rebuttal
53:02 Dr. Gavin’s Second Rebuttal
58:27 Fr. Patrick’s Cross Examination
1:14:20 Dr. Gavin’s Cross Examination
1:31:25 Fr. Patrick’s Closing Statement
1:36:14 Dr. Gavin’s Closing Statement
1:41:30 Q&A
#ByzantineDebates #OrthodoxvsProtestant #Ecclesiology
Do leave a comment with your thoughts! I will ask everyone to be respectful to both Father Patrick Ramsey and Dr. Gavin Ortlund that have prepared for weeks to participate in this debate. They were very kind to accept my invitation to this debate and I am really grateful for both of them! On Monday God willing I and Fr. Patrick will do a review so it will be helpful for us if you let us know your thoughts. (The debate review is on my Patreon account www.patreon.com/accordingtojohn)
Some clarifications for the debate that you will understand better after you have seen it:
1. At 2:31:20 I said it existed a variant and that the variant is "schism". I saw wrong, there is no variant so all manuscripts read "heresies".
2. At times my brain stopped working and I called Dr. Gavin "Father Gavin".
AND••• subscribe to this youtube channel and hit the bell icon for notifications every time a new video is uploaded.
Thanks for organizing the debate John! I will enjoy watching the review. I hope this starts a new trend of me being called "father Gavin" ...
@@TruthUnites Haha when you become an Orthodox priest we will all gladly call you that ;)) But yes, thank you for this debate! Organizing it was the easy part, being the one debating is the difficult part
Do not delete my post as you already did. Love the truth.
-The question is actualy wrong, or sureal, even tragic irony. I was Greek othodox. Orthodoxy in not a Church in Christ in general, it does not have, nor even know the Gospel (I am not exagerating), and based on the New Testament it has no succesion fom the apostles since it teaches contradicting teaching to them; a true succesor bears the teachings he was taught by the apostles, so GAME OVER. Hence orthodoxy is not a Christian religion, just like Jw and mormonism isn't; like those, it only uses some terminology found in the Bible. So don't be naive. I cannot believe that a Protestant would even participate in such a debate. The Protestant brother is missing the whole forest and just staring at a bush (not even a tree).
PS. Anyone Greek can find my deabte with orthodox believers on my Greek apologetic website: www.ipertisalithias.gr/#2
2) Why not use Scripture to debunk his claims, is my question.
3) At 58:41 the priest asks how he defines a Christian. Does it still need defining? A Christian is a Christlike believer that follows Jesus Christ; the students of Christ were called Christian in Antioche. So a student of Christ is a Christian. What's this about not using the orthodox definition, why do we need it? Being a Christian is about following the will of the Lord as revealed in the Bible through His Holy SPirit, regardless of how much aware I am of it (the parameters of His will), of how much I was taught of it. So don't confuse the issue.
4) The brother speaks of the othodox believers comparing them to a person going to a baptist church and being saved and completely changed... This NEVER HAPPENS IN ORTHODOXY. If it does, the person leaves to become Protestant. It seems the brother has no clue and may think that orthodox believers are like that priest; ask yourself,how can a maryworshiper that bapitzes children have salvation and guidance form the Lord, He has actually replaced Christ with what he calls "church", that is, mainly the special priesthood. Orthodox believers have no salvific experience of receiving the Spirit, they are dead spiritually and just play along with their rituals. Some are decent people, I mean why not, but that's beside the point. I am telling you they are not saved since they don't even know the Gospel. They are Mary and saint worshippers, don't be deceived by people like this priest. He is just a front.
@@outofthebox7 Dear friend, I have not deleted any post of yours.
@@outofthebox7 CS lewis was a protestant and spoke well of the Orthodox church. Billy Graham would even preach in Orthodox churches. I have talked to Protestant friends and they have an ok view of them. I think you need to chill bro...
*Timestamps*
2:35 Fr. Patrick’s Opening Statement
17:20 Dr. Gavin’s Opening Statement
32:38 Fr. Patrick’s First Rebuttal
40:09 Dr. Gavin’s First Rebuttal
47:43 Fr. Patrick’s Second Rebuttal
53:02 Dr. Gavin’s Second Rebuttal
58:27 Fr. Patrick’s Cross Examination
1:14:20 Dr. Gavin’s Cross Examination
1:31:25 Fr. Patrick’s Closing Statement
1:36:14 Dr. Gavin’s Closing Statement
1:41:30 Q&A
Thanks!
I am Orthodox but I was very impressed with Dr. Gavin. I dont mean that to be condescending but it is a breath of fresh air to actually hear someone quoting our councils and saints and dealing with them, instead of trying to nuke strawmen built out of words from modernist academics from the last 50 years, like some other critics on RUclips who try to farm views by bashing Orthodoxy.
Hope you'll find the truth and never be an orthodox again because it's very very wrong...
@@adrianstoian2484 I hope you recognize the daemon feeding off your trauma and guiding your thoughts and come to understand the One True Assembly of Christ, so you can find warmth and comfort in the Light of the Lord Rather than burn in the presence.
@@BarbaPamino huh?
@@adrianstoian2484 what you think is the Holy Spirit guiding you is not. Its a demon. The true Holy Spirit has not revealed himself to you yet.
@Neil D we belong to the church and they are our councils because we still follow what those councils concluded.
Best Orthodox vs Protestant debate I've ever seen. Both made thoughtful points and maintained civil dispositions.
I think we are getting to a really amazing time on earth where technology is starting to let us enjoy each other's differences and come together with respect. Not implying that everyone is right because we all maybe wrong. Just that we can have educated conversation about heartfelt ideologies without having heartfelt conversations about educational ideologies. We can be civil without being quick to anger.
‘educated conversation about heartfelt ideologies without having heartfelt conversations about educational ideologies’ Nice
Being civil is a good thing but not the only thing. I have to admit I’m put off by Fr. Ramsey’s attitude at times that seems flippant to me. When asked by Ortland whether he’s going to be damned, he handles it in a way that’s really odd to me when he basically seems to affirm that. I’ve noticed this attitude among Orthodox in general
@@l21n18
I was raised Protestant but now embrace the Orthodoxy. I think the point you are making has only one clear biblical response. Niether Protestant nor Orthodox can know the eternal fate of another, however the fruit of one's life is evidence of the divine nature.
@@PETERJOHN101 point is This isn’t academic debate after all
Wonderful, respectful debate. Dr. Ortlund represented the Protestant position well. Though I am myself a Protestant, I am encouraged to see ongoing dialogue from the Orthodox.
Best debate I've heard on this topic!! Thank you for mutual respect. God bless.
This was absolutely fantastic. Thank you so much for setting this up and thank you to Father Patrick and Dr Gavin for having such an illuminating and insightful conversation. It was a blessing.
It'll be nice. Thanks for the informative content.
Judge a tree by its fruit, judge a church by its saints
Deep. 👍🏻
Yeah, judge the catholic church by how many saints they murdered...
@@adrianstoian2484 What does the catholic church have to do with this debate?
@@adrianstoian2484 John wycliffe was no saint
@@sylvaindurand1817 It's the same thing available for orthodox
Wow, honestly as protestant who has been leaning EO for the past year, Ortlund just smacked him around. Schismatic bishops take their entire flock down to hell with them? How is that justice? Is God not just? This type of EO fundamentalism is just nonsensical. You would realistically need an extensive education in history and theology just to determine who is right between the EO and OO on Christology, and then its not even garaunteed you'd come to the right answer. Fr Patrick never addressed that argument.
This topic is one of the main things keeping me from Orthodoxy (along with my society just being deeply protestant). To have to say everyone I've known in all the churches I've been in and even my own family aren't actually Christians is just obviously false. I've seen the fruits of the Spirit in too many lives to affirm that. A bad tree cannot bear good fruit.
We are not saved by membership of a particular institution. St Paul clearly says if you confess with your mouth Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart he rose from the dead you will be saved.
I don't think Fr. Ramsey represented the ODX view. I'm sorry for his disabusing you of Orthodoxy.
@@EricBryant Eh Im still open to Orthodoxy. A ton that I love in the EO church. I think I may come back around to considering the catechumanate in the future
@@adrummingdog2782 not to try to be condescending but, how do you square your last paragraph with the EO position of
Ecclesiam nulla salus, meaning "outside the Church there is no salvation".
If I don't believe that membership in an institution is necessary for salvation and I know that there are many who are saved who aren't members of an institution, why would I join any fellowship which claims at its core that those who aren't a part of it aren't saved?
This is personally a point of impass I have with both RC and EO. I've also noticed that in the last few years both have tried to soften their stance on this issue but classically this has been the default position of both.
@@maddhatter1219 I don't square it away, I'm not EO. This is one of the things that makes me hesitant about converting. I'm comfortably Anglican at the moment. If I do become RC or EO then I would probably still hold this as a private opinion.
Sincerely, it is a breath of fresh air to have truly knowledgeable and respectful people debate and discuss topics like this.
I appreciate both sides here and hope we can learn from one another to better walk our path to Christ.
As a Catholic, I could listen to these 2 guys all day. Thank you both Dr Gavin and Fr Patrick for your gift to communicate these theological topics.
Catholic church isn't the church of god...
@@adrianstoian2484 if it isn’t then I will let my Lord and savior Jesus Christ tell me face to face when after this life I’ve done my best to give Him honor. I know you mean well my brother. In the mean time if you have a sec say a prayer for me because wether I am right or wrong I truly love our Lord.
@@kevinmc62 After you die there is no hope. I appreciate you love God, but if you truly love Him you will find Him. If you want to discover I will present to you why Catholicism is very wrong, then you can either agree or disagree, but at least you'll know.
So all Christians before Martin Luther went to hell??? So what is the True Church Of God??? Tell us the big secret.
I believe your statement that if I truly love Him I will find Him. We have found common ground. God bless
Thank God for this debate!
Really enjoyed the Q&A portion. And how refreshing for them to treat each other with respect.
This was beautiful. Thank you.
A very edifying conversation with Fr. Ramsay and Dr. Ortlund. Thanks for hosting!
Great stuff. Thank you.
Thank you Gavin. I'm impressed with the Protestant / Western arguments and I wasn't expecting to be.
Very good video excellent debate
I'm thankful for these debates. 🙏
2:41:29 - Dr. Ortlund was especially gracious here; it’s refreshing to see such kindness.
I accidentally reported your comment, in my notifications it only appeared numbers which usually is spam. I can't see a way to undo it, but I read that youtube will not remove it if it's kosher. If youtube removes your comment please let me know so that I can try to fix it
@@AccordingtoJohn No worries! Thank you for hosting the debate :;)
I have never heard of Dr Orlund but I think I love this brother after this
For Dr. Gavin: On Salvation outside the Orthodox Church
Gregory of Nazianzus took a rather broad view in his understanding of membership in the body of Christ. In the funeral oration for his father's death in 374, Gregory stated: "He was ours even before he was of our fold. His manner of life made him one of us. Just as there are many of our own who are not with us, whose lives alienate them from the common body, so too there are many of those outside who belong really to us, men whose devout conduct anticipates their faith. They lack only the name of that which in fact they possess. My father was one of these, an alien shoot but inclined to us in his manner of life."
I'm totally new to christianity in general, but what about Roman's 2:14-16? Wouldnt that be the answer to those who have not heard the gospel from any church or denomination? Maybe even those that have heard it and rejected it?
@@sneakybeaver8866 it is God's call, not ours. We know God is just and God is loving. Which means that He has enough provisions for those who haven't heard the Gospel. In respect of those who heard it, I cannot say except the same from above + the following: if you heard the Gospel AND BELIEVED IT, don't reject it (for reasons like family, friends, customs, shame or persecution). Because it was given to you, together with the power to believe it (yes, faith itself is a gift), for A REASON.
Augustine: there's saved Christians among the heterodox. Orthodox: Augustine says there no salvation outside the church? Huh?
With reference to the above question, it is particularly instructive to recall the answer once given to an inquirer by Saint Theophan the Recluse. The blessed one replied more or less thus: "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."
Basically still affirming that they are outside the body and that the real members are part of the living institution of the godhead
My favorite part is how they let each other talk and didn't interrupt each other at all. Very respectful.
That was a beautiful intro, Father Patrick!
As an Orthodox Christian I just want to say that Dr. Ortlund is a class act. I really, really like him and they way he debates with respect and in a calm, cool and collected manner. I don't buy his arguments, but that's another matter :)
same
Which ones?
Anyone who claims to be the one true church is suspect. I wouldn’t buy any of their arguments at all with that absurd claim. Salvation isn’t found in a church, it’s found in resting in Christ. Imagine thinking someone can repent and trust in Christ but still go to hell because they aren’t Eastern Orthodox or Roman Catholic. You’re essentially calling Christ a liar.
@@KnightFelwe don’t think that, we make no calls on who goes to Hell. Not everyone who is visibly in the Church is saved, neither is everyone outside it damned. That’s why we pray for all in repose. Not a universalist btw. But, Christ Himself says those who call Him Lord won’t all be going to Heaven. So, is Christ wrong on your understanding of justification? Those people accepted Christ as Lord yet got rejected, why is that so in your system? If Christ is not wrong, it means it’s more than this rational acceptance. You have to be a member of Christ’s body, which the Church is. And the Church isn’t just one building, it’s the entirety of the faith. I’m much more suspicious of those who claim the early church apostatized to justify their ahistorical sect. If a Mormon can argue that point, you’re off to a bad start. Just as being in a church helps the soul, drinking from a well keeps us safe from all sorts of pathogens.
I get it, I used to be a Calvinist. The Church Fathers were my first step away from it.
Its the apostolic faith seen in tve early church. I mean the gates of hell cannot overcome the church. Its obvious from the variety of protestant belief that the opposite is that there is one chruch upholding the truth
I was a bit surprised that Sola Scriptura wasn't addressed in this debate. But I suppose that it is a whole topic in and of itself and a separate debate. But I thought this was excellent. As a Lutheran, I can see both sides of this. Great job!
1:05:39 Gavin does refer to sola scriptura, he just doesn't' bother bringing Latin into the debate. 😅
As an Orthodox Christian I think this priest did not do the best job, esp. during Dr. Gavin's rebuttal period. Imo, Fr. Patrick was too legalistic and sounds like he's coming from an Augustinian background by the way he understands infants dying without baptism.
From the Antiochian Church's website: Will unbaptized children go to hell if they die?
No. The Orthodox Church does not believe that children are born guilty of Adam’s sin and that unless freed of that guilt through baptism and communion they will die without God’s mercy. Such a notion is pernicious both for its barbarism and for its distortion of God. Do we really think that God is so small that He is bound by our rites, the rites He has given us? God is sovereign, and He will have mercy on whom He has mercy and judgment on whom He has judgment (Romans 9:15).
You really think God will not immediately embrace innocent children into his loving embrace, when He himself became incarnate as one?
"We believe Holy Baptism, which was instituted by the Lord, and is conferred in the name of the Holy Trinity, to be of the highest necessity. For without it none is able to be saved, as the Lord says, “Whoever is not born of water and of the Spirit, shall in no way enter into the Kingdom of the Heavens.” {John 3:5} And, therefore, baptism is necessary even for infants, since they also are subject to original sin, and without Baptism are not able to obtain its remission. Which the Lord showed when he said, not of some only, but simply and absolutely, “Whoever is not born [again],” which is the same as saying, “All that after the coming of Christ the Savior would enter into the Kingdom of the Heavens must be regenerated.” And since infants are men, and as such need salvation, needing salvation they need also Baptism. And those that are not regenerated, since they have not received the remission of hereditary sin, are, of necessity, subject to eternal punishment, and consequently cannot without Baptism be saved."
- Confession of Dositheus
www.crivoice.org/creeddositheus.html
@@Galmala94Yes but you need to have true faith first and then your baptized. Just like in the early early church and Bible. And babies/infants can’t make that decision.
I saw the unity version of the Nicene Creed without Filioque was used in the Hong Kong Methodist Church in Holy Thursday worship 2021, which was published by Hong Kong Christian Council in 2019. During the drafting process of the unity version, the Eastern Orthodox Metropolitanate of Hong Kong and Southeast Asia which is the member of HKCC was consulted.
The text is required to mark the annotation when using Filioque.
We Reformed Protestants gladly claim Dr. Ortlund!
I’m impressed Dr Orlund calls him Fr.
I respect the respect shown. I know many Protestants refuse to use Fr as a title when addressing a Orthodox Priest.
@@markomarko494 I watch most of Dr Gavin's content and am amazed by his respect for all traditions and the beliefs he critiques - Catholic, Orthodox, even Atheist. He is a model pastor-theologian and historian. I wish more baptists and reformed churchmen were like him.
@Zachary Trent ?
@Zachary Trent Why is this a problem for him? Dr. Ortlund recognizes the validity of the office of bishop... He just believes that during the time of the apostles it was not distinguished from the office of elder.
His claim is that the elevation of the office of bishop over that of elder is not universally practiced, as testified in these early writings.
H byapealing to scriptures he's cconsesding hi argument
Dr. Gavin made a few errors here.
1. We do not assume whom God will or will not have mercy on.
2. Babies are going to heaven based on the readings I can find in Orthodoxy.
3. The Harrowing of Hades is a prime example of God's ability to look at people's circumstances and have mercy on them inspite of this.
4. Numerous Protestants particularly calvinists hold to this exclusionary view of the Church.
It is worth repeating that God saving someone in spite being outside the church does not undermine the claim of being the true church.
The debate's question is actualy wrong, or sureal, even tragic irony. I was Greek othodox. Orthodoxy in not a Church in Christ in general, it does not have, nor even know the Gospel (I am not exagerating), and based on the New Testament it has no succesion fom the apostles since it teaches contradicting teaching to them; a true succesor bears the teachings he was taught by the apostles, so GAME OVER. Hence orthodoxy is not a Christian religion, just like Jw and mormonism isn't; like those, it only uses some terminology found in the Bible. So don't be naive. I cannot believe that a Protestant would even participate in such a debate. The Protestant brother is missing the whole forest and just staring at a bush (not even a tree).
PS. Anyone Greek can find my deabte with orthodox believers on my Greek apologetic website: www.ipertisalithias.gr/#2
2) Why not use Scripture to debunk his claims, is my question.
3) At 58:41 the priest asks how he defines a Christian. Does it still need defining? A Christian is a Christlike believer that follows Jesus Christ; the students of Christ were called Christian in Antioche. So a student of Christ is a Christian. What's this about not using the orthodox definition, why do we need it? Being a Christian is about following the will of the Lord as revealed in the Bible through His Holy SPirit, regardless of how much aware I am of it (the parameters of His will), of how much I was taught of it. So don't confuse the issue.
4) The brother speaks of the othodox believers comparing them to a person going to a baptist church and being saved and completely changed... This NEVER HAPPENS IN ORTHODOXY. If it does, the person leaves to become Protestant. It seems the brother he has no clue and may think that orthodox believers are like that priest; how can a maryworshiper that bapitzes children have salvation and guidance form the Lord, He has actually replaced Christ with what he calls "church", that is, mainly the special priesthood. Orthodox believers have no salvific experience of receiving the Spirit, they are dead spiritualy and just play along with their rituals, I am telling you they are not saved since they don't even know the Gospel. They are Mary and saint worshippers, don't be deceived by people like this priest. He is just a front.
@@outofthebox7 cultist
Which readings did you find that say unbaptized babies are saved?
@@outofthebox7 really your place a lot of merit on your biased experience seen through your own emotional lens. I don’t know what you mean by the priest being a front, but much of what you say is just talking points. The conversion experience you speak of is emotionalism and there are countless folks who become atheists after having such experiences. The Gospel you believe in is a couple hundred years old
Great debate on both sides. I wish Fr. Patrick would have been more emphatic in his rebuttals regarding the filioque and the division between Moscow and Constantinople.
the division between Moscow and Constantinople is nothing more than familial bickering. It will get straightened out like it has so many times before. This is not really a new thing in the church. Someone screws up, everyoene gets annoyed and pens a bunch of letters and eventually it gets sorted out. There have been many of these minor disputes. In the course of a 2000 year church people will do people things and it gets sorted out eventually.
@@gzpz5954
Funny enough, the split of 1054 was viewed in the same way. Most people thought that it was just egotistical leaders bickering and would barely be a footnote.
I'm not saying this current split is gonna last, but the mentality you have with it now was the majority view back then as well. Sometimes what is familial bickering gets reinforced. But hypothetically if this issue didn't get resolved and these two permitly separated, would that disqualify the people of either group from being Christian?
@@JP-rf8rr There's no theological difference between the two: rather the US State Department is puppeting the EP for purely geopolitical reasons (i.e. to attack Russia). Mike Pompeo very famously, bragged on camera, that US intelligence intentionally created (fake) rival "Orthodox churches" in Ukraine, Montenegro, etc.
The EP is very clearly in the wrong, as invading the canonical territory of another Bishop (to set up a rival fake Ukrainian bishop vis-à-vis Metropolitan Onufry whom all have long recognized), violates many Ecumenical Church canons.
@@StJames37
The US didn't create the Ukraine orthodox church. At best pompeo admitted to pressuring people to acknowledge the Ukrainian church supposedly for religious freedom but likely also for politics. But not to attack Russia, to halt Russia's agression specifically against Ukraine. This church can arguably trace itself back to the metropolis of Kyiv which existed under the EP till 1686. (You could argue that's the real trespass of territory). Ever since the Soviet union finally collapsed the metropolitan of kyiv has been trying to be an autocephaly (long before the supposed US interference).
This isn't so much about US wanting to attack Russia, but the Ukrainian people refusing to be under control from Moscow (state and church).
The US was just the straw that finally pushed to EP to recognize the Ukrainian church.
But this is all besides the point since my main point was that attitudes surrounding this schism are similar to the one in 1054.
@@JP-rf8rr Your presuppositions on this issue are problematic. The US absolutely manipulated the creation of the schistmatic "Ukrainian Orthodox Church - Kiev Patriarchate" via their geopolitical tool: EP Bartholomew.
This schismatic nationalist "Church" is the minority in Ukraine. Indeed, the majority of Orthodox in Ukraine have stayed under Moscow's leadership - notwithstanding the fascist Kiev regime's coersion, threats, and open persecution of the true Church under Metropolitan Onuphry (who is a very holy man: basically a living Saint). The EP broke tonnes of Ecumenical canons about invading the canonical territory of another Bishop; and, he is the clear aggressor. It's no coincidence that only the very weakest Bishops with tiny flocks (i.e. the EP and Alexandria) - whom the US easily can compromise and manipulate - are the ones recognizing the new fake nationalist "church".
As an atheist that came to Jesus without the aid of a church but through buying a Bible and reading it , I have a really hard time with the arguments from tradition, ironically my first Bible was a catholic Bible I didn't understand the difference, but after reading and examining the claims of Jesus I have determined them to be true , the issue I have with Catholic and Othodoxy views are without the church I cannot get to where they are as none of that was recorded so if all churches were burned tomorrow and the next generation only had the Bible to build their faith on it wouldn't look like what we have today
If every temple, or "church" were burned down, the Church as the body of Christ, the communion of believers, would survive. On the other hand, if all the Bibles were burned, Protestantism would disappear with them. But the Church would survive, guided by Christ, and would even be able to recreate the Bible.
@@geogabegalan so the Bible is the most quoted book in the entire world you would have to burn all copies of the Bible and all work that mentions it... then kill every Protestant in order for your theory to come close to working... my point is not a literal destruction my point is even using a Roman Catholic Bible , without having someone by my side to tell me about church tradition and catholic history, ecumenical councils, changes to the catechism etc.... the Bible dosent lead to the church as you see it today sorry if this idea upsets
@@geogabegalan true, I met Jesus without ever holding a bible in my hand, the kingdom of God is within you, thats the catch, there are many so called wanna be christians but very few believers and these you wont find in classic churches.
That's a strong testimony. God bless brother!
I'm glad you converted! I was an atheist for 20 years until I came to Christ.
You have to understand that the Bible itself is a product of tradition. In the first centuries, a lot of "gospels" and other texts were circulating, and was the Church who established the canonicity and compiled the Bible. Many differences within the faith are extremely complex issues that required centuries of debates, and while you may think that those issues are irrelevant, the answers to those questions (like the Trinity, Divinity of Christ, natures of Christ, Liturgical worship, etc.) shape the way we pray, read the Bible and ultimately act in the world.
You need infinite lifetimes to understand and decipher all the mysteries contained in the scriptures, and the Church have the task to protect the purity of what we already know.
Dr. Ortlund could use Fr Patricks analogy of a torn garment and just widen it to say that all of the current schisms are really only partial tears in the garment and will be mended in the end, just as schisms have been mended before
Great video! I’d love to see more Protestant-Orthodox dialogue.
Thank you! Are there some orther guests you would recommend?
@@AccordingtoJohn I’m a baptist, and Ortlund is definitely my favorite in this area, but from a Lutheran perspective, Jordan Cooper is great too.
@@Qhaon Ah yes, I recently heard him with Jimmy Akin. I think about it! Thanks!
@@AccordingtoJohn Jay Dyer and Dr Ortlund; Fr Peter Heers and Dr Ortlund
Frank Turek is a great debater. A former Roman Catholic and now protestant. He held his own well with Christopher Hitchens.
How could I have missed that video ? Those are two of my favorite apologist !!
What struck me is how Dr. Gavin pointed out how strict the fathers were about ecclesiology. It goes to show that the trend of people being relaxed about it in the Orthodox Church shows how we have fallen from the patristic ideal. Anyone who tries to hold to this position is called a trad as if it wasn't normative in the Church for centuries. Who are we to widen the road to accommodate numbers our job is to preach the truth and evanelize.
It is perhaps accurate that the Orthodox Church has become relaxed about ecclesiology. However, I believe it is even more accurate to note that Protestants are even more lax with some denominations having almost none at all.
It is correct for us Orthodox not to judge individuals; we are not God to grant salvation or deny it. However we can and should say those outside of the Orthodox Church are in the greatest danger because of false/wrong theology and that they should move towards truth and look at Orthodoxy.
Regarding the baptism issue; the thief is baptized in his own blood. Also he has no chance to join a local church lead by a Apostle and enter church in the normal way. The thief in that moment of meeting Jesus for the very first time does ALL he can; confesses his sins, accepts his punishment, recognizes the divinity of Jesus Christ, and asks for mercy from Jesus Christ, looks towards the resurrection of Jesus Christ. There was nothing else he could do.. That is asked of all of us in or outside the Orthodox Church , have you done all you can in every aspect? Narrow path indeed.
Yeah for sure man, he managed to make me more zealous about Orthodoxy. It's seems that we have been slipping away a bit in this regard.
@@markomarko494 You are correct. The thing that many in the Orthodox Church today do not understand is that only God judges. There is no magic formula for salvation, and we cannot say which of those who are not attending an Orthodox church may be saved for the same reason we cannot say that someone who attends an Orthodox Church may be saved. Those who do not follow the Way shown to us, however, put themselves in peril for they can stumble and fall because of the schismatic theology they are being taught.
For centuries, we have prayed every morning, "Heavenly King, Comforter, the Spirit of truth,
who are present everywhere filling all things, Treasury of good things and Giver of life, come and dwell in us. Cleanse us of every stain, and save our souls, gracious Lord.
Holy God, Holy Mighty, Holy Immortal, have mercy on us."
Clearly, Orthodox ecclesiology hasn't become relaxed. Rather, we have a certain group of people who want to make a big deal about being in the church and to bash people who are outside the church and therefore take the place of God as judge. This has never been the attitude of the church, and it is not the Orthodox way.
Basically, our refusal to say that anyone who is not attending an Orthodox Church will not be saved is because we know it is not wise to speak on behalf of God concerning matters that he has not fully revealed to us. It is not "relaxing" ecclesiology; it is what the church has historically taught. One can believe "There is no salvation outside the Church" while understanding that God may save some whom are seeking Him, but have not arrived at Orthodoxy.
@@INFJPhilosopher that doesn't mean w should promote the dangerous idea that salvation outside the church is possible. It may be possible but it is unknowable to what extent.
Great discussion by both, I heard nothing to change my Baptist view and it was perhaps even strengthened by this discussion. Thank you for the great energy and commitment from you all.
What an absurd statement. To believe the faith that Christ passed down to His apostle’s most closely resembles the Baptist tradition is absurd and laughable. You can’t even get justification right. Alister Mcgraff has just admitted to this.
@@co6742 what was absurd about my statement? I didn't claim any of the things you said. As for bringing up Alistair McGrath, what does this prove? My faith doesn't rest in such men.
@@loungefly3452 And if you’re not claiming what I said, as all denominations try to, then why are you following it? The faith Christ passed down to His Apostle’s is the faith we should emulate.
Really 🙄
@@co6742 and the best source for that is found in the bible
If I were debating the Orthodox as a Catholic, I would like Dr. Gavin on my team😂
really good debate, thank you! I have maximum respect for both sides, although I myself am on the orthodox side. Dr. Ortlund has very good points and I wish him all the best.
Here is what saint Augustine said about Christians outside the Church: "But though the doctrine which men hold be false and perverse, if they do not maintain it with passionate obstinacy, especially when they have not devised it by the rashness of their own presumption, but have accepted it from parents who had been misguided and had fallen into error, and if they are with anxiety seeking the truth, and are prepared to be set right when they have found it, such men are not to be counted heretics." Saint Augustine, letter 43.
Quoting Augustine is like quoting Thomas Jefferson. Yeah, he says some good stuff, but dang dude, he's freaking crazy and shouldn't be taken too seriously.
@@JLeppert yeah tell that to the fathers of the ecumenical councils who praise him to no end
@@JesseDLC the difference is that in the end, the councils don't diefy him, or misuse his words.
@@JLeppert Augustine is a saint S confirmed in the liturgy and the 5th council
@@shiningdiamond5046 I'm aware. He's still crazy with a lot that he talks about. Not everything he says is agreed upon. Because he's a human being.
A very good debate. I appreciated the respectful style of both participants. I learned a lot from both participants. I am a protestant. I felt the case articulated by Dr Ortlund was clear, particularly that a self-claim by the orthodox church that they are the true apostolic derived church needs evidence - other churches/denominations say the same. I did not hear an answer to this aragument.
Church history, Church father’s and doctors would absolutely disagree w/ your protestant leanings. You can’t name one Church Father/Doctor/Saint who would corroborate protestant Dogma in any respect.
@@co6742 What I loved about the debate was the respectful tone - listening to each other's position and responding to its content. I know that that Dr. Ortlund intentionally adopts an irenic style in his debates and videos. It leads to constructive dialog. I have found the same with my family and friends who are Orthodox. And, the older I get, the more I realize my need for humility to be equally matched with my convictions. It's helping me learn. While I stay strong in my Protestant theology, one of the things I have learned in discussion with Orthodox believers is just how much we agree on. We worship the same God and Savior. We even do it together at each others churches. Starting there, on the immense common ground we share (Eph 4:1-6), the discussion of differences is healthy.
So, to be able to respond in any way to your comment, which has a lot of absolutes (all, absolutely, not one, any respect), I would need to know what aspect of Protestant dogma you refer to, given that much of Protestant theology is aligned with Catholic and Orthodox doctrine too. What elements are at odds with which church fathers?
@@colinmichaelis3379 I’m actually Catholic but wanted to listen to this debate. And to your question, the topic of protestants denying transubstantiation. Especially the case when no Church Father/Doctor/Bishop denied truth of transubstantiation until the 16th century in Germany. No where in history was the Eucharist thought of as merely symbolic until the 16th century.
@@co6742 Daniel - that helps. Thanks. Two comments. 1) Your statement about the Protestant view being merely symbolic is wrong. That is a caricature/straw man of the Protestant view. 2) I can think of a lot of people who could answer your question much better than I can on transubstantiation. Actually, one of them is Dr. Ortlund. In fact he has a video on this topic here and he is far more comprehensive and eloquent than I could be. I really think that you will find this helpful. ruclips.net/video/OcC2JNJ86rY/видео.html. And he covers my first point too.
@@ColinMichaelis Incorrect, protestants merely believe the body and blood of Christ to be symbolic.
Completely new to Orthodoxy. I'm inquiring about it from a lifelong Protestant background. If you do another debate, I would love to see Fr. Josiah Trenham debate someone, maybe, Jeff Durbin. That would be amazing. I am so awakened to the Orthodox church, I'm not sure I can go back. Praying for the Lord to give me clarity.
May God bless you! I just traveled the same path and Orthodoxy has a fullness of faith that cannot be replicated and yet I am thankful for my background in Protestantism. I pray that you will find clarity during this season!
Similar story to mine. Protestant inquiring about orthodoxy and I know ill never go back. Edit: now a catechumen
Many modern orthodox are wonderful and a few are saved but they have so many unbiblical doctrines such as prayers for saints and angels, veneration (not just nice art) of images, a sub-biblical view of Mary, monastics, and a solid lack-of-bible reading, not worse than the Romans but far worse than Protestants. There are a few more but not least, they believe that salvation is a mysterious fusion of grace and works. In fact, most of modern EOC (as is tradition) wrap every question in enigma and mystery, no doubt to hide the weakness of their exegeses.
So stay away!
I’m not mentioning the strengths, the greatest of which is their Trinitarianism, which is such an essential doctrine.
While I usually find Dr Ortlund convincing, I disagree with him on the question of Galations 5:20. In the NIV the translation is "dissensions, factions", in the NKJV it is "dissensions, heresies", the NLT says "dissension, division", the NRSV has "dissensions, factions". I think it might be possible to apply this to denominations.
The question then follows: Are you then condemned just because you are in one of the denominations even though you were not the one who created it and do not divide the church yourself?
Great debate. I think Dr. Ortlund demonstrated a strong command of Scripture and church history, especially on the development of the episcopacy. I also appreciated Dr. Ramsey's honest (but respectful) appraisal of those outside of the Eastern Orthodox Churches. I hope to see more interaction between these two.
Church*
@@RandyQuaker I've been corrected by Eastern Orthodox friends saying that Eastern Orthodoxy is a Communion of Churches.
Not necessarily
@@l21n18 Both are true. The "Orthodox Church" is one in so far as they have common doctrine and communion, but there are also distinct "Churches" (Russian Church, Greek Church, Serbian Church), which make up the one Church.
God bless Dr Gavin!
I think we must keep in mind when considering the response to the filoque and other heresies and the seemingly slow response is the "times". After the fall of the Western Roman Empire there began a language split between Greek speaking East and Latin speaking West. Additionally, the political atmosphere in the West became dispersed among many different states up to the crowning of Charlemagne a few centuries later, so the flow of information between the Western and Eastern Churches would have been "sketchy" at best. You'll notice once the Political atmosphere in the West settles down after the Holy Roman Empire is established that the debate over the filoque picks up steam and leads (along with other things) to the eventual great schism.
I think another future debate on why Dr Ortlund believes his version of Christianity is true would be really interesting if Dr Ortlund is willing (even if he believes Catholics & orthodox will be saved I really want to know how he has determined that).
In fairness to Dr. Ortlund, he is not attempting to argue for his own version of Christianity, as if he can rewrite Christianity to be whatever he wants it to be. His position is that his doctrinal views are attempting to be in line with what the apostles taught, as is recorded in Scripture. He values the role of tradition in interpreting Scripture, but his view is that tradition can be wrong and must always be evaluated against Scripture, which all parties agree is authoritative.
One example of this was his brief interaction with icons. Dr. Ortlund's claim cannot be reduced to "in my version of Christianity we don't use icons," but rather, "the written record of the apostles gives us no basis for making icons a dogma, and we do not see it in the early church either." That could be argued about of course, but it is a claim much more grounded in appropriate authority than simply Dr. Ortlund making up his own opinions about theology.
@@BaeGeeN258
Theres many facets of Christianity that might not be directly or cannot be taken directly from the apostles. Modern church services is one, in fact there were NO musical instruments in churches apart from the odd organ until the 19th century. Protestants don't care about this ahistorical practices being part of their tradition. Accountability partners & programs is another, whether one should smoke or not or tattoos for that matter etc also come to mind.
The question is not whether we can get everything from the apostles or not (as we obviously can't) the problem is how do we or can we authoritatively rule on such matters? The only authoritative principle we have is apostolic succession & without that we get a fracturing mess of 1000s of different protestant denominations.
@@ThruTheUnknown
My main point was that Dr. Ortlund is not trying to invent his own form of Christianity, but be as accurate as possible to apostolic teaching. Clearly, you believe he has failed at that goal. That's fine. That's why there is a debate about it. But let's be fair to what his goals (and other historically-grounded Protestants) are.
Even though you reject the sufficiency of Scripture, we can agree that Scripture is authoritative. It is also the only infallible form of written tradition, unless you are going to argue that there is another written source that is equally authoritative. If you know of such a source, please let me know so that I can look into it. Would you consider The Didache, the letters of Ignatius, or any of the other early church writings as having the same infallible and binding authority that Scripture does?
Remember, it's not as though Protestants by and large reject that there are valid authorities. Any good, biblically-grounded congregation is going to recognize that there are bishops/elders and deacons that must meet the requirements of passages such as 1 Timothy 3. The question of whether apostolic succession is one of those requirements is a live debate among Protestants, and hours can (and should) be spent talking about that. I agree with your concern about the issue, as it is very important.
If you agree that Scripture is the highest authority that all other authorities must submit to, then we can have a good discussion about how the Church has exegeted and been obedient to certain passages. One of the issues that Father Ramsey brought up was the massive infighting that broke out in the Church over the proper date to celebrate Easter, which continues until today in varying levels of intensity. Is it true that celebrating Easter on the "wrong" date should disqualify someone from being in the Church? I could be wrong, but it strikes me that the apostles would not have wanted us bickering over and excommunicating each other over something like that, especially in light of St. Paul's teaching that Christians are not to be judged over questions of "of food and drink, or with regard to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath" (Colossians 2:16). I am thankful that some of the Church Fathers spoke out against this controversy and fought for unity, but my point is that even if one side "wins" this argument by majority vote and authoritatively declares that one must celebrate Easter on a certain date in order to be a Christian, St. Paul may overrule them and tell them that they are in error.
This is just one example of division within the church caused by competing traditions, which needs to be adjudicated by appealing to Holy Scripture.
That is why I also bring up the issue of icons. I understand that for you, the matter about icons is settled because of an appeal to the 7th ecumenical council. For me, as someone who has seriously contemplated joining the Orthodox Church for over two years, I'm not quite at that spot yet. Again, the warnings against creating schism in the Church are too great for one to take the elevation of certain doctrines to dogma lightly. Right now, you and I both know that if I want to join the Orthodox Church but refrain from practicing its deep theology related to icons, I will not be allowed to join. Would Jesus, Paul, or the apostles be happy about the creation of that barrier? If it can be shown that these detailed doctrines are never taught by Holy Scripture, not universally understood/practiced in the first several hundred years of the church, and definitely not elevated to the level of dogma for hundreds of years after that, then why should that barrier be made now?
I'm not saying that the iconoclasts being fought in Nicea II were right, but is it possible that Nicea II overreacted? Could we say that they had some good things to say but also made significant mistakes... that their theology could still stand to be further refined? In Orthodoxy, the answer must be "no." Reform is impossible. When the decision is made, it stands. That supposed changelessness goes from being a huge strength to an insurmountable weakness the moment any error is introduced. At least, that's my understanding, but please feel free to correct me!
My point is that we are all accountable to Christ for what we believe. If I die today and Jesus asks me why I'm not in the Orthodox Church, I have to take responsibility and say "I could not agree with a clean conscience about all the specific tenants of Orthodox theology about icons, so the Orthodox Church would never have admitted me." If I'm wrong, that's a huge problem for me. But in the same vein, Jesus could ask the Orthodox leaders "Why did you wrongly exclude this disciple of mine who wanted to join the Church over a doctrine that I never commanded you to exclude others over?" And if they respond, "We take no responsibility because we were merely following the traditions of men in the faith who came before us," I'm not sure that will fly. That doesn't mean that there would be no forgiveness. I'm sure all of us believe false things even if we try our best. The Church is One, so I eagerly am looking forward to the day when Jesus sets all of our theology right and creates the unity that we all long for.
My apologies for the long message. Have a good Sunday!
EDIT: Sorry, one last thing, but I thought I would briefly mentioned that the issues you raised about modern worship ARE debated fiercely among Protestants. If you believe that the apostolic teaching is to prohibit the use of instruments, then you can easily find a Protestant church to attend that will agree with you. :) It sounds like you might prefer for all Protestant churches to be identical in faith and practice, but I'm grateful that we can peacefully remain united with one another and consider each other to be Christian over these secondary (adiaphora) doctrinal matters while still worshipping in a way that allows us to follow our consciences in purely worshipping Christ as He deserves. Obviously, Protestants are too diverse a group to say that everyone that claims the label "Protestant" is following apostolic teaching (there are A LOT of terrible congregations out there, especially among so-called "Progressive Christians"), but I think this attitude of "majoring on the majors" is an overall strength of the movement. This approach can be defended by applying the principle we learn from Roman 14:13-23, in which Paul talks about valid diversity in expression of worship and the importance of following one's conscience in regards to food laws. I would especially emphasize verse 23: "But whoever has doubts is condemned if he eats, because the eating is not from faith. For whatever does not proceed from faith is sin."
@@BaeGeeN258
You're creating a strawman of the orthodox position we don't hold anything above scripture but merely are trying to get protestants to understand that there needs to be a mechanism for the correct interpretation of scripture, protestants do not have any!!! Ergo why there is 1000s of protestant denominations.
As for the date of Easter to which orthodox churches is there a difference in the date of Easter? Even if there was a difference today between orthodox churches then there is a way to reconcile that through the advent of an ecumenical council. In protestantism there would be no way to reconcile that at all!!! All Dr Ortlund proves is how naive his own arguments are and how they only help disprove the protestant faith.
@@BaeGeeN258
Well said, my friend. I am a catechumen in the Orthodox Church and am struggling with these questions myself.
Great debate but the best quote was “everything goes to poor children, mine” lol
Glory be to God , who will have mercy on who He has mercy on.
How’s that relevant here
Amen!
@@l21n18 the title of the video is "is the Orthodox church the one true church". my comment is God will have mercy on who He has mercy on. meaning, it does not matter if we think church a is the one true church or if church b is the one true church or if all churches are the one true church. God will have mercy on who He has merch on.
0:00 Moderator Introduce Debators
No Division, Same Mind, 1 Body, 1 Communion, 1 Spirit, The Church is The Body of Christ, Foundation on Christ & His Apostles 8:20
9:04 True Faith, Common Testimony/Councils, Ecumenical Councils, Nicean Creed, Refutation of Herasy
12:11 Continuation of Churches ⛪️ Unbroken Succession
14:28 Born by a Father/a Priest, Rejection of Haresy
15:35 Not an exclusion, a Necessity of What The Church Is, Arms Open To All, Uncontradictory
16:59 Union: 1 God 1 Church
17:23 Dr Gavin
• Thank you
• Only Church means less than 12% of Christians are In The Church
• Cut off from Grace, from Salvation
20:37 • Israel & Judah - both His people
• Numerous Traditions produce Saints
• Apostolic Succession is claimed among multiple sects of Christianity
23:57 • Multiple Claims
• Transmission of church “The True church is wherever Jesus Christ is present.”
32:47 Addressing “Outside the Orthodox Church”
Good debate. Great channel. Maybe Jay Dyer will review this debate and sort all y’all out. 😁
Question from a curious Protestant: From an Orthodox perspective, how much of the problem with the Filioque clause is theological, and how much is an issue of authority (editing a creed without proper authority)? Are they both equally serious problems, or is one more serious than the other?
When I was an Orthodox Catechumen I thought it was a big deal. When I became Catholic I realized how overblown it was. It was inserted to combat a heresy that did not exist in the east and many, many Catholics have 0 issues with it being taken out. Especially Byzantines. I'm Roman through and through so I say it but if the Church removed it I (anecdotal but I believe I speak for many trad Caths) it would be a non issue
It depends on who you ask. In the Church we grew up in it was never brought up. 26 years as an Orthodox and not once can I remember a priest or deacon ever mentioning it. It seems to me that it's mostly converts to Eastern Orthodoxy who tend to bring it up as a dividing issue, while cradle Orthodox are much more chill about it. Regarding the theology/authority question: the authority one is probably the biggest of the two. It's not that difficult to argue successfully that the theological issues w the filioque are resolvable. But that still leaves the question of whether or not it's licit to include it in the Liturgy.
@@JesseDLC Thanks for the response, that was helpful. By the way, I've never heard a Protestant church talk about this issue either.
@@anticoomer Thanks, interesting to hear your perspective.
Both problems. It is large because it alters Trinitarian theology which is the center of Orthodox theology. Orthodox start with the Trinity and Christology to understand doctrine. It makes sense because if you are off there 1,000 miles down the line you’re going to be way off on things like salvation, etc. Catholics tend to minimize this mainly because they struggle to see the after effects down the line.
Kallistos Ware, a Greek Eastern Orthodox bishop, has expressed this doctrine as follows:
"Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus. All the categorical strength and point of this aphorism lies in its tautology. Outside the Church there is no salvation, because salvation is the Church" (G. Florovsky, "Sobornost: the Catholicity of the Church", in The Church of God, p. 53). Does it therefore follow that anyone who is not visibly within the Church is necessarily damned? Of course not; still less does it follow that everyone who is visibly within the Church is necessarily saved. As Augustine wisely remarked: "How many sheep there are without, how many wolves within!" (Homilies on John, 45, 12) While there is no division between a "visible" and an "invisible Church", yet there may be members of the Church who are not visibly such, but whose membership is known to God alone. If anyone is saved, he must in some sense be a member of the Church; in what sense, we cannot always say.[3]
Florovsky also said that those who believe in Christ the Son of God have a "true ontological bond."
And Our Lord Himself said, "Those who are not against us are for us."
I am a Protestant who is seriously considering the EO church. While Dr. Ortland’s points appeal to my emotions, for me it boils down to this:
In most Protestant churches, denominational differences are waved away by the “invisible church” doctrine, where the one true Church is simply the body of all true believers, no matter which church they are member of, as long as that church holds the “essential faith” or some such rubric. To make that doctrine work, one must throw away the “essential faith” of the early church by reducing the meaning of the Eucharist and baptism to mere adiaphora. Daily, I am becoming more and more convinced that the EO church is, and always has been, the best protector of the early faith, which if I can trust it, removes the requirement of me "sola scriptura-ing" my way back to the first century church, if that were even possible.
Naturally, I want all people to be saved (especially my family!), but it does them little good to say that the specifics of the Eucharist and baptism hardly matter, so they should just choose the Trinitarian church that has the best praise band.
I feel like instead of writing 15 paragraphs I could have just read your 3 and said I agree lol.
@@colmwhateveryoulike3240 Perhaps you intended to reply to Mr. Yost elsewhere in the thread?
Well to be fair the church is also filled with church politics..especially in the councils ...
@@tomandrew6586 Pardon?
@@colmwhateveryoulike3240 Sorry, never mind. I misread your comment about "15 paragraphs." My error.
I don't know if Fr. Patrick's position on the salvation of Catholics and Protestants is truly the Orthodox position, but it is untenable for any Catholic or Orthodox of even remote spiritual maturity and experience. You experience within yourself, and you see in others, the powerful, profound, undeniable work of God causing conversion, regeneration, sanctification - even "theosis"! - and there is no way you can with sanity and honesty agree that salvation is limited only to those who are visibly/externally eastern Orthodox. It saddens me and frustrates me that Christians like Fr. Patrick can be so blind.
I understand what you are saying, and as someone who has been simultaneously enthralled and appalled by Orthodoxy, this deeply impacts me. I think about such stories of people whose lives were radically transformed in prison by a Protestant minister, but I also recognize, in a sense, the superior spiritual character of Orthodoxy. It calls to me on such a deep level, the denying of passions and every wickedness inside of us. I truly don't know what to believe about it, as the Early Church was extremely strict in regards to baptism and salvation (St. Cyprian, e.g.), as well as the damnable severity of dividing the Church. But in being "objective", I have to imagine what I would say if a Mormom asked me if he would be saved and I would probably have to have the same uncomfortable denial of the title "Christian" to a Mormon as an Orthodox might to a Protestant. If we are fair, the Protestant decision to limit the title of "Christian" to Trinitiarians is frankly, arbitrary, as Unitarians can defend their position from the Scriptures and still love Jesus as much as a Trinitarian Protestant. Recall Pope St. Gregory the Great, who commented to the (semi?)Arians how much he respected their reverence and devotion to Christ, even in their heresies. He wished himself anathema for their sakes! Such love! But I have to understand the Orthodox position fairly and not allow my emotional judgement to cloud my perception. You can refuse to damn people to hell without affirming that they are in the Church. In some sense, I cannot know for sure whether I am in the Church regardless. What if the Copts are correct, for example? But Orthodoxy is the religion of the thief on the Cross. In some sense all we can do is repent and beg for mercy.
@@j.athanasius9832 I think we need to interpret everything through the character of God. I honestly can’t help but wonder if a lot of people convert to Orthodox because they’re afraid to wrong and thus not be saved. Just a thought, not saying that’s true
Correct
You should invite Fr Josiah Trenham to do an Orthodox/ Protestant Debate.
I can ask him
@Dustin Neely Amen
I've been studying Orthodoxy for about a year now and I gotta say, Fr. Patrick is the first Orthodox person (in a professional setting) Ive heard that would say that non-orthodox are by default non-christians.
Although I take some offense to that and definitely puts pressure on me, it does seem more consistent given the definitions of the Church here.
That's not exactly true given the synodal position but you can only hold so many heresies until you're damned
It doesn’t seem like a workable position
@The Hesychast don’t think that’s historic either
@@shiningdiamond5046 Who are you to declare whether or not a person is damned? Are you God?
Reading comments. Definitely not checking this Patrick fella after this lol.
Thank you for the video and so respectful and kind debate! With all respect to Dr. Gavin Ortlund, some of his arguments against Orthodox Church reminded atheistic arguments against christianity in general. Like saying, "How can you believe that you are the only true Church?" is exactly like atheists ask "How can you believe that Christianity is the only true religion? What about all other religion?". Or when he asks, "What will be with people who aren't Orthodox after death?" - same question that some of atheists ask, "what will be with good people who aren't Christians?"
Dr Ortlund answers his own question in his opening statement after the 21:00 mark. The budding schism between Moscow and Constantinople is exactly the kind of thing that St Paul was addressing in Corinth. All of the above understand each other to still be in the church despite the schism, and the urgency in St Paul's words is so that it doesn't become an entrenched schism, like the ones referred to in the Coumcils, and spoken against categorically in the beautiful quotes of the Saints
22:00 among those that have apostolic succession, the distinguishing mark is continuity in the apostolic tradition and Orthodox faith
23:00 you need both
24:00 exactly. Just answered his own question at 22:00
25:00 many non-Christian religions claim to be the true religion too
26:00 yet Christ said: The Pharisees sit in Moses' seat, do as they say, not as they do.
27:00 first organism, then institution. Yeah, but both. Too frustrating. I'll stop now, sorry...
You can also answer a poll on who you thought won the debate. If you can't find it, you should be able to see it under the community tab
Dr. Gavin won hands down. Fr. Patrick rambled incessantly and was not clear at all.
I do not like the idea. This is supposed to be a search for truth, not a contest.
At 45:00, Dr. Ortlund sounds like he's straight quoting Melanchthon's Power and Primacy of the Pope. It's like a massage deep into my Lutheran scalp.
@2:28 FWIW:
αιρέσϵως occurs 12 times in ABP, including 3 OT. It is used in 1 Corinthians 11:19 and Galatians 5:20.
σχίσμα occurs 8 times in ABP, none in OT. It is used in 1 Corinthians 11:18 and not in Galatians 5.
I mean off the top of my head Gavin, St. Theophan the Recluse leaves that space and he is early 19th century saint. It's a bit of a niche concept but I'm sure you can find it prior to the 20th century.
I would also say that in the martyrdom of Perpetua with her brothers situation seems to leave room for it, but I don't mind to be corrected on that.
It's interesting that Dr. Ortlund's arguments against Bishops stems from the writings of Clement, Ignatius, Polycarp, etc when they were Bishops. So why would they explain themselves? The fact they wrote the letters which were followed by those who received them shows their "rank" in the Church at that time. Bishops' writings does not disprove Bishops, quite the opposite.
Clement doesn’t write to the Church in Corinth on behalf of himself nor does he appeal to his own unique authority, rather he writes on behalf of the whole church in Rome.
@@cristian_5305 That's true, but he was the leader of the Church in Rome when he wrote it. This is not historically disputed.
The same for Polycarp and Ignatius' writings, they don't claim to be anything but write encouragement and instruction. Historically they are acknowledged as Bishops, the authority handed down to them from the Apostles.
This is why their writings was read and followed (and why their writings were kept and survive to this day), because of their position within the Holy Church.
@Pedro Lourenço Yes, the Orthodox Church has the rank of Presbyter. Several Saints throughout the past two millennia have been such.
@Pedro Lourenço I believe it to be separate. It is admittedly hard to say authoritatively, but Saints are generally given specific titles (Bishop, Priest, Monk, Nun, Martyr, etc).
@Pedro Lourenço Good question Pedro. My understanding is that it was at one time used of a Church Leader who "took charge" of a Church in the absence of a Priest or Bishop (during times of persecution when many were jailed or Martyred), but I may be mistaken.
I would suggest this as a question You might ask RUclipsrs Orthodox Ethos, Jay Dyer, Patristic Nectar, etc. They are all very knowledgeable and can probably answer that question better than I.
1:59:49 that is a reference to Genesis 6 when the angels (sons of God) came to the daughters of men and their offspring were the Nephilim. The book of Jude references the book of Enoch (a book that is not scripture but contains jewish understandings most likely even some underlying truthful tradition but it is a fictional tale based on that tradition and believe) were that is also addressed. Paul is concerned about women being targeted by spiritual /angelic/ demonic forces (kind of like eve in the Garden).
Correct. 100% correct. When you realize this stuff, it changes everything you thought you once knew. Glad to see someone here who understands.
I was pleased to find out that although a Baptist Pastor, Ortlund has an Amillenial (Orthodox) view of eschatology. Thankfully he has had enough discernment to reject the various evangelical "rapture theorems" popular in non-reformed american baptist churches.
To a degree he makes me think of John Wesley (at least when it comes to eschatology) in that he has independently and through scholarly work came to almost the same theological view as that of Orthodoxy. However, like Wesley, his view seems to be tinged with cultural influence based on the circumstances of his birthplace and surrounding culture.
I pray that he will one day see that the work has already been done - the Orthodox Church has the complete, holistic faith that has once and for all fully been delievered to the saints.
Wesleyan is the tradition, John Wesley is the name you're after. The early Church wasn't unanimously amil, but they were unanimously not dispensational premil, that's for sure!
@@LeoRegum You are right! Edit made :)
I'd be interested in reading more about the Orthodox eschatology. Any recommendations?
@@colmwhateveryoulike3240 that article I linked contains an awesome paragraph:
"Too often modern Christians forget that the Church is not just an institution, but the Kingdom of God that is here but is still to come. The Church is described as the Bride of Christ. We are betrothed to Christ. The second coming is the wedding day and the final consummation. Therefore, we live this present life in two dimensions: as saved and yet hoping for salvation; as betrothed to Christ and yet in anticipation and anxiety for the consummation of the marriage; as joyful and yet penitent; as having everything and yet possessing nothing; as living in this world and yet “having here no continuing city”; as in the world yet not of the world; as being members of Christ’s Church, receiving the new life of baptism and eternal life in the Eucharist; and yet as striving to be made worthy of the Kingdom to come. This double character of Christian life is absolutely essential to the Church’s spirituality and role within society. "
@@colmwhateveryoulike3240 apparently it wont let me link out of here, it deleted my comment. You can just type into any search engine "orthodox eschatology, Fr. Vassilios Papavassiliou" and you'll find it, it's well worth your time.
Fr. Ramsey: I (and I'm sure many others) would be happy to buy you a better set up - better lighting, camera and mic. You should have a better set-up for how many times I have heard you speak & debate here on youtube! God bless.
How very nice of you
@@AccordingtoJohn Do you have his email? Not sure if it is public? I'll email him and state the same. Not sure how to get in touch with him. I can send you my e-mail if easier (or however you suggest is best to move forward on this?). Thanks John.
P.S. you could pass as my younger doppelganger! Where in Greece does your lineage hail from? (I assume you are Greek, too).
@@George-ur8ow yes I am from Epirus :) (although I was born In Sweden).
Mail me
@@AccordingtoJohn emailed you over the weekend amigo. Have a great start to the week!
Im a protestant and tbh i didnt know this was a debate over the first church. Very informal. But i personally dont believe that what church you are apart of matter if you believe that Jesus died and rose on the 3rd day, confess your a sinner and repent of your sins, accept Jesus as your personal savior. Thats in my Bible not anything of joining a certain church. I believe denomination stops at the gates of heaven
I agree and I worry if you reject such a simple truth as the Gospel you're outside of Jesus. It really does make me worry about the Orthodox people.
Wasn’t Gregory of Nyssa, a canonized saint, a universalist? Surely this would qualify as an example of the church historically having teachings that allow for eventual salvation of non-orthodox.
St. Gregory is canonized but never taught universalism.
No their is quite a bit of debate around that as some of his writings were more explorations of questions and some where explictly not universalist.
Plus Orthodox do not presuppose whom God will save outside his church and whom he will not. Fr. Seraphim Rose says we know where salvation can be found which is the EO church.
@@TJackson736 To clarify, I know it wasn’t universalism per se but what we might call Christian Universalism in which they go to hell but might eventually be saved.
St. Basil of Caesarea is the one who is thought to have believed a form of universalism. However, it is really more of theological opinion which is not corroborated by the majority of the Church Fathers and is not dogmatic.
Is the case of Saint Thecla praying for Falconilla an example of salvation / God's mercy for non-Orthodox and even non-Christian?
Who were these priests/bishops who compiled all the books into one and named it 'Bible'?
Ortlund vs dyer. Lets go
That's what I'm talking about!
he’s been exposed so many times. Promoting openly occult musicians and their satanic music. Endorsing drug use when reading the church fathers. Applauding and praising his now wife (who was his gf back then) for tarot reading on a live stream and on and on it goes. Insulting Christians with horrible insults and contradicting himself many times and then changing his position without acknowledging it. Very dangerous to rely on people with such a track record (and those things didn’t happen long ago) for theological, spiritual advice... also his Followers are some of the most aggressive and confrontational people on the internet. I’m not a fan of him at all. Search for Dyer exposed on RUclips. There should be some content.
@@arminius504 Butthurt?
I’m a Catholic so I have more in common with the Orthodox however Dr Orlund came out on top. Can you do Dr. Orlund vs Jay Dyer?
Jay Dyer doesnt seem to be a very nice person.
Jay Dyre would just turn it into a shouting match.
@@JP-rf8rr true
I hope you'll find Jesus and don't be a catholic anymore
@@adrianstoian2484
You can find Jesus AND be catholic.
Gavin frequently makes appeals to arguments of silence.
Also, even among Evangelicals, death apart from Christ results in going to hell, regardless of ignorance of the gospel. For some, that includes infants who are not baptized. For others, it doesn't.
Also, some Protestants believe one can fall away from the faith, and then be restored; whereas others hold that they cannot be restored. Each has a reason for arguing that position.
In fact, some Evangelical hold that disagreement with dispensationalism is heresy.
Hey, english-speaking Orthodox brothers, which Holy Bible translate do you use? Is it King James Bible?
I am currently Evangelical, but I find Gavin Ortlund’s opening lines to be more of an emotional appeal than a good argument. So only a small percentage of people claiming to be Christians actually are, what about all the rest? During the time of the Arian heresy most of the bishops and the emperor at the time were sympathetic to that heresy, Athanasias was in the minority, yet he was the one holding on to the true faith and that won out on the end through much perseverance and over time. So by Ortlund’s argument it would seem as though the Arians should have been considered part of the true church too?
I know he goes on to say that the differences between the early church fathers and the heretics were much bigger than the differences between different Christian groups today, but I’m not sure that’s true considering the wide range of beliefs amongst Protestant, charismatic, RC’s, etc.
You really answered your own question at the end.
And this doesn’t go against Gavin Ortlunds argument since he’s no arguing for all churches to be the same since the early church had different opinions and different canons, it was until the year 1000 they started going against each other for different things and differences.
By example and Early church father who preached premillenialism would be considered Christian by the early church but now would be considered a heretic.
If there is no salvation outside of the Orthodox Church, why don’t we see more of their missionaries in America?
There are lots of Orthodox churches in America. It is not like the Roman Catholic Church where ALL have to give the Vatican a share of their money. Remember that the temple where to worship was only in Jerusalem and now it’s universal
They don't evangelize like you.
If I start a new "church" next week is it just as valid as The Church that is mentioned hundreds of times in the New Testament? Where do you draw the line?
This is why scripture is important and interpretation. But orthodox don’t have exclusive right to interpretation. Many churches get things wrong. You cannot group all Protestant churches together.
Hello. Good to see you, G-d bless you... Polynesian, maybe?? That's what I think anyway.
Dr. Gavin: If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and looks like a duck, it's probably a duck.
Fr. Patrick: Even so, it's not a duck unless it's in my pond.
xD
😂😂😅🤣
😂😂😂😂
This is the best and simplest explanation of this debate I’ve seen 😂
@Reactionary Hermit either it’s a duck or it isn’t a duck
I hope I don't "drunk-blog" my commentary at every step but Dr. Ortlund is trying to pin down Fr. Patrick over salvation outside the OC particularly as expressed by pre 20th century theologians. I must say I'm no scholar or theologian but I would ask Dr. Ortlund if the same can't be asked of any other denomination or major theologian. Extra ecclesiam nulus sales is still the position of the Catholic Church, the Missouri and Wisconsin Lutheran Synods and a good number of protestants including Dr. O's fellow Baptists.
I used to be LCMS, and I’ll say they do not believe that only LCMS Lutherans will be saved. They think they’re the only ones who are right lol, but they don’t go that far.
Very nice debate, “for the sake of the angels” is talking about the genesis 6, you can check Michael heiser, (protestant) talking about it, Or Fr. Stephen da young in lord of spirits podcast from ancient faith (orthodox) they both agree that the passage you mention has to do with idolatry related with genesis 6 its a large subject to chew, but has nothing to do with the bishop though
St Nektarios says it refers to bishops. I have looked at the commentary of different Greek Orthodox scholars and they have the same interpretation. Historically, 4 interpretations are made. I find that the reference to bishops is the most logical since it is speaking about a letter that is written to a person.
With all respect to Dr. Ortlund but around 1:01:00 he states that the experience he has with people who changed from a state of being alcoholic and depressed to a believer and pastor, that is a clear sign for him that the Holy Spirit is working through that person in that church. What if we can demonstrate and show similar changes in non christian religions? (and I am sure there are such people). I think that wasn't a very good argument. I would even say that even atheists can experience dramatic positive changes. So we cannot be sure why the changes happen by the work of the Holy Spirit.
People have road to Damascus experiences at times. They always lead to Christ. I have a friend who was a zealous Muslim from India and had an encounter with Christ and is now a Christian pastor.
Similarly, God saved me from blowing my head off in my room when I was a teenager. Long story short. The Bible became alive that night and God spoke to me through His Word. I knew I had passed from death to life that night. That night He adopted me and my spirit bore witness with His Spirit that I was His Son.
@@howdy2496 I am happy for your experience. I have no doubt people encounter such experience, however with all respect, that cannot be used as an argument. Whoever can say that (and again, no offense), even people from various other religions, even no denominationals.
@@davidszaraz4605 I appreciate your response. However, I didn't have an experience (that sounds spooky). I had an encounter with God Himself. Trust me people from other religions don't encounter God and stay in a non Christian religion. They're the ones with experiences. Just like my former Muslim friend who persecuted Christians in India. He couldn't stay Muslim because he met Christ.
Sure, people have positive, life changing experiences without encountering Christ, however that's not what I'm talking about.
But I understand and appreciate your position and concern.
Every good and perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of the heavenly lights, who does not change like shifting shadows. (James, general epistle)
Well tbf I think it’s plausible to suggest that the Holy Spirit is working in the lives of every human despite religion
Just finished the debate. Thank you to everyone involved. I already had immense respect for both Pastor Gavin and Father Patrick and that has not changed. Thanks also for asking my question.
Now I am torn to some degree and I want to express how, without knowing exactly what I will say in this comment as I begin. This will help me clarify my own perspective but also invite feedback to perhaps stimulate development.
As an evolutionary ecologist by training, I already think the Orthodox Church have the strongest evolutionary claim to the fullness of Christian faith in general, which is why I am looking forward to being baptised soon. Jesus said it was appropriate for Him and I was never baptised as a Christian before I became atheist so that is a priority for me now and even were I to remain undenominated I would still want to be baptised and certainly no one suggests that the Orthodox baptism is anything but valid.
However, I would not join without fully agreeing. And it's hard to find full agreement with any church that dismisses the possibility of God saving anyone outside the Church when God Himself drew me closer to Him by His grace when I was an atheist willing to sacrifice everything to seek truth and love without expecting them to be revealed as one singular intelligent Creator being worthy of being called The Living God. God's sovereignty above and beyond the Church must be recognised and indeed, even the most militant and anti-ecumenical Orthodox priest I have found - Fr Peter Heers :) - does acknowledge this. Mark 9:38-41 also supports this, and one could perhaps read it into talk of God separating sheep from goats at the second coming. So it was that this in part drew me closer to Orthodoxy as someone who was raised and is inclined to non-denominationalism as an expression of my deep desire for church unity.
I feel the strongest appeal by Dr Gavin is this emotional argument not to consider anyone whose faith is in Christ to be damned just because their theology might be less than perfect. And there is Biblical teaching to back this up. We are not supposed to lean on our own understanding nor should we expect that God requires our judgment to be impeccable. It is in keeping with our humble acknowledgment of our own limitations that we trust in God. Surely those to whom God will say "I never knew you" will be damned because their religion was self-serving and not because their theology was less than perfect. The fact that church fathers and even the Apostles themselves did not always agree on everything indicates that God does not need complete understanding beyond disagreement in order to save us. His ways are higher than ours and perhaps our sense of schism is solely human?
But Jesus' way is inarguably joining His church body. And my sanctification is certainly aided by submitting in obedience to the church - specifically in my case to the Orthodox Church.
And so far the Orthodox Church has not failed to shine forth as valid and affirming of God's ways that I experienced and that the Bible has taught me. As a scientist faced with the reality of the mystical, I find no other church provides the necessary guidance regarding asceticism and discernment of demonic entities from the monastic traditions. As someone so inclined to lean on my own understanding, no other church has proven to walk the tightrope between erring on the side of being open to error or erring on the side of trying to explain mysteries beyond understanding. I have not found any theology without sound Biblical basis or at the very least enough tradition to allow benefit of doubt. Nowhere have I been able to see that they err from Christ.
I have, however, seen that there are discernable errors in the evolutionary branch of the Church family tree leading west. Dr Gavin would agree - indeed his videos on Roman Catholicism helped me solidify my perception. I have already expressed my suspicion that, had Rome remained Orthodox and not added bad practices and theology, the Protestant reformation would not have been justified. However, as acknowledged by Fr Patrick in response to my question in this debate, the Protestants had a hard time reversing flaws in a paradigm they were themselves still seeped in in ways that weren't always apparent. It seems to me that the Orthodox ability to avoid overcomplicated definitions of mysteries in favour of humble profession of faith in God's higher ways protected them from the gates of Hades so often embodied in men so inclined like myself to take pride in our own wisdom. Had the reformers who wrote to the Eastern Patriarchs been less focused on convincing them with argument, they may have been able to benefit from rediscovering this attitude and we might have avoided the inevitable systematic speciation cascade that comes from focusing on each tree in a forest rather than the forest itself.
This does not necessarily mean that any western churches are entirely wrong however. To suggest as much would be to fall into the very same trap as I have just blamed for the schism cascade. Just as Fr Patrick and other Orthodox clergy tend to countenance patience regarding slight tears in Orthodoxy, let us do the same with the large and small tears in the West. Dr Gavin is correct - the very major core elements of Christian theology are largely intact. We have much in common and ideally we should all have God's love in common rendering us with the same desire for Church unity that Dr Gavin displays so admirably.
That is why I was slightly disappointed when Fr Patrick expressed the Orthodox position against schismatic churches more strongly and less diplomatically than I have heard so far. Such that had I heard him on my initial exploration of Orthodoxy, I may have recoiled back to default non-denominationalism!
However... reminding myself that God's ways are higher than my own... and that God has already confirmed His presence in my church and blessing on my journey into it and that my spiritual discipline right now is to obey... I must remind myself to take pause. This emotional appeal to say that surely God will save everyone is not necessarily easy to simply accept because I would feel better that way. I do pray for God to save everyone including all my friends and family who are not Christian - some of whom are already asleep - but I must hope that He answered my prayers before He caused me to pray in many cases, and that they had a moment of choice like that of the good thief. The good thief never got baptised, nor attended church. He is testament to God's sovereignty beyond the church. His story was included in the Gospels for a reason, but Jesus also spoke of the narrow way that requires us to be watchful like the ten faithful virgins. Let us not idely accept dilution of proper theology or heresy that might lead us astray just because we love others enough to desire that they not be lost - it is clear no one, not even any saint, earns salvation - let us rather love others enough not to sugarcoat God's truth. Gavin appreciated Fr Patrick's cohesion and self-consistency in the harshness of his position for good reason. The good thief faced the harsh truth the other thief recoiled from. My friends and family do not benefit from my lack of conviction and failure to profess Christ. If I continue as I am I may as well hate them. If any of us would rather avoid argument or the possibility we can only be saved by grace including potentially that our own church needs to make some serious changes whether in theology or in zeal for evangelising the world, how can we say anything but "let them be anathema"? If God says "I never knew you" then that is what they will be.
It is a terrifying conclusion then that I seem to have come to, but I think it is consistent with the Bible, with the Gospel, with the Acts and epistles of the Apostles, and with The Revelation to John.
Without tempering that point, which is true, I seek some reassurance in the following scriptures, which Pastor Gavin and Fr Patrick both embodied in this debate that encouraged my own growth and development and - in spite of my initial sense of diminished resolve - a greater sense of imperative to press on with my shoulder to the plough: that is 1 Corinthians 13. I believe now more than ever that the Church body of Christ can overcome all these divisions, as Gavin says, with patience, humility, and prayer to God Who Is Love and Truth.
Jesus said we will be judged by the measure we judge and if Gavin and many others are judged on this basis, I honestly think we have as much reason to hope as he does with regards unbaptised infants. God rarely fails to surprise us with how merciful He is. Jesus often made things sound a lot simpler than our church doctrine. I can't suggest that there's a contradiction there but is there room to hope? Always, when we rely on God. From our perspective I think things are complicated and we demonstrate our faith by constantly seeking and choosing God at every junction and sacrificing ourselves to His sanctifying fire so we need to work out our salvation with fear and trembling trusting that God already has it in hand, and that all who freely repent and trust Him will be saved, including entering His Church body.
For now I pray each day that we all come to see the one true Christian, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church as God sees it. For me, all I know is that my baptism is my next step.
Thanks for the thoughtful comment, and your patience and forbearance in this part of your journey. I will keep you in my prayers. Have you come across the English novelist Paul Kingsnorth, recently baptized in Ireland?
@@carlahmed5737 Hi Carl, no I haven't, tell me more please. Thank you for praying for me. I need it right now to help me discern. God bless you.
@@colmwhateveryoulike3240 It's not that Paul's journey from vaguely/culturally christian, to athiest, to buddhist and then witch etc reminds me of what you've shared. . .more just that you're both recently/soon-to-be illumined Christ-followers in that beautiful part of these isles. Having said that though, having read through and listened to some of his work, I suspect he'd relate to what you wrote above. See, for example, his recently published "The Cross and the Machine" on Firstthings. com, which references Irish rationalist's John Moriarty's "devastating experiences of the mystical", or his interview a few weeks ago with Jonathan Pageau here on RUclips.
@@carlahmed5737 Aahh!! I have heard that interview yes! And a man in my church also brought him up. I must read more! Thank you for another reminder. I'm begining to think this might be hints coming from God at this point - maybe we are supposed to meet up or something. I'm trying to build something he'd probably be able to offer pointers on actually...
I enjoyed reading your comment. It was very humble, intelligent, and well-written. God bless you, brother.
The baptist church was founded by John The Southern Baptist. Check mate orthobros
Hahaha!
yeah their founding argument is not very solid this also includes the Catholics. it's simply does not hold up.
John Smyth was an ordained Anglican priest in 1594 A.D. in England that broke away from The Church of England.
I understood this as a joke about John the Baptist but maybe I'm wrong?
Its a joke
There is something very interesting that popped up in my mind while listening to the part that dr Gavin spoke about the Christians in a whole village casting out demons and defined the casting of demons can be done only from Christians through the power of Christ ( Dr Gavin says you can’t cast demons with the demon) . And here at Matthew 7:21 “Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven. 22 Many will say to Me in that day, ‘Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?’ 23 And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!’ “ so because someone casts out demons ( which does it in the name of Christ and means that considers himself Christian ) and performs miracles is saved/ has communion with God! We orthodox don’t even say that because we are within the Orthodox Church we are saved!!! We hang on to Paul’s saying Philippians 2: 12Wherefore, my beloved, as ye have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling.” We surely claim and will always do so that Orthodoxy is the true Church in which one can find true union with Lord and with one another, through the Holy Sacraments and obedience out of love to our Lord Jesus Christ! But truly, who at the end will be unified with God, it’s God’s final word. We repend everyday of our sins and try to obey God’s will by his Grace, we recognize our unworthiness and that nothing we do can save us, but only God Grace and Mercy!
Well your just one of many churches claiming to be the true church. Most dont even know what the true church really is or how to explain it. One thing is for sure is that the Roman Catholic and Orthodox church continues to practice some form of paganism leftover from the Roman Empire. Good bibical study and sound hermeneutics will reveal this easy to see truth unless you are blinded by the church Association you belong to forcing a biased approach
I almost forgot Dr ortlund is a baptist when I heard him defending the filioque. Nice debate.
Great debate. I am Greek (born in Greece), baptized in an orthodox church in Greece and come from a family traditionally firmly rooted in the church. In a difficult time in my life, while I was in college in Germany, german evangelical believers in the university showed love and patience to me, accepted me in their spiritual family and testified genuine brotherly love, practically, but also through teaching me the bible. Reading the bible with them, became a life changing experience.
Many years later, I reexamine orthodoxy and find the many and not so difficult to see flaws of evangelicalism. The focus and deeper understanding of the unity with the body of christ, with its implications being the most important takeaway. Unfortunately such foundations for rapprochement for not been examined.
It is clear though, that the displayed exclusivist stance by Father Patrick does not give glory to God.
Evangelicals interested in orthodoxy maybe should rather take a look at the socalled neo-orthodox movement.
The faith is what the faith is. Not our fault other christians schismed from the church in the distant past and we now have to deal with a mess. And we absolutely cannot apostasize or embrace heresy in the name of niceness.
but is it Father Patrick's stance that's exclusive, or the Irthodox Church's? I attend a Greek Orthodox Church but it's something I'm also weary about. But from early Church teachings and writings and canons, the Orthodox seems to have a clear stance that if you're not in the Church, you're not in the Church. Yes, there's hope of enconomia, (salvation outside of the norm) but it's not the norm and should not be relied on, but only a hope and exception.
Problem is, evangelicalism is so broad and varied, there is no single stance on this. Neo-Orthodoxy is also rejected by many Protestant teachers.
John Wesley did express theosis as entire sanctification or Christian perfection.
The Orthodox have never taught that unbaptised babies are “damned to hell”
no we actually believe that (greek orthodoxy)
I'm new to the discussion, so I'm definitely learning a lot here. But so far, this debate, polite though it is, has been quite a disappointment.
I'm almost 2 hours into this, and for the life of me, I cannot see how Father Ramsey is properly engaging with the issues laid out by Dr. Ortlund. It seems to me that Dr. Ortlund laid out a number of questions that required a succinct answer, and none was forthcoming from Father Ramsey - at least, none that made sense to me. Maybe it's the accent, but I don't think so.
For example...
- I heard no explanation as to why FRamsey believes the Orthodox church is exclusively the correct tradition when several denominations make the same claim. He has the burden of proof to **prove**, not just assert, that 1) his is true; 2) all others are false. To me, this is so obvious that any Orthodox leader would jump on it like a june bug. Surely I missed it. Because I didn't hear it.
- If the content of the apostolic tradition can be corrupted (the Ireneaus example was a perfectly fine example), what guarantee does FRamsey put on the table to show that the apostolic tradition was indeed *not* corrupted. Again, no direct reply.
- What on earth was the rabbit trail about angels in 1 Cor 11 going after? Any connection to "angels=bishops" requires massive support ..otherwise it's just eisegesis! And no support was given.
I'm willing to let the chips fall where they may in this debate. But I gotta tell you - FRamsey did a horrible job defending his position.
No offense.
Here's hoping other debates will be more fruitful.
Paul saying to put on a veil "for the angels" is a reference to the possibility of the angels who slept with women in the immediate post-fall times according to Father Stephen De Young in one of the Lord of Spirits podcasts.
It’s the Genesis 6Nephilim issue. Heiser has done great work with that.
@@arminius504 Yeah he was the first I came across. Fr De Young and Fr Daminick cover similar topics on Lord of Spirits podcast too. I recommend if you haven't already listened.
Correct. Dr. Michael Heiser and MANY scholars can back this up.
@@arminius504 He's the best. We need to pray for him without end. He has cancer. I understand why he doesn't debate, but he would mop the floor with both of these men here, in Christian love of course. His one sermon (you can find it on here) NAILS what it's all about, and 100% proves that these systems like Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism are false, as witnessed by Jesus himself. Go watch it if you haven't already. I try to to be nice to these people, but their arrogance and worship of church history really gets under my skin.
@@78LedHead Can you please copy the link and send it in a reply? Or can you give me the title of the sermon.
Am from Ethiopia (orentinal orthodox) i wish this father hears what our priests, and bishops say about Catholics and Eastern orthodox they say the same thing the father said about us they are Cut off and are not true orthodox.....i think Dr Gavin has good pionts.
I guess we'll just have to study, study, study, the rest of our lives. And hope we've found the one true pew!
Well actually the Oriental Orthodox Church existing quite favours the Eastern Orthodox position here. That is because the Oriental and Eastern Orthodox Churches split from each other on theological grounds in 451 CE, but still the two Churches remain very similar, which shows that Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox did not change in time, as, even though separate since 451, they look a lot alike... So here one can see about what the original Church looked like, and the Oriental and the Eastern Orthodox did not know of any "infallible Pope" with "supremacy" over the other Churches. So the fact that these two went separate from early on (ie 451 CE), but still remained so similar, shows what the original Church was like, as it would not be accident that they remained separated but managed after more than 1500 yeras to look so much alike; they just did not change...
Also the theological issue that they had was about whether Christs has one or two natures, but recent debate between these two Churches suggest that the issue is quite linguistic, as the two Churches appear to mean the same thing but with different words. Specifically the Eastern Orthodox talk about two Natures and one Hypostasis, while the Oriental Orthodox talk about one nature but they do agree that Christ was at the same time 100% man and 100% God while there was not something like a 50-50% combination or something.. So according to this, otherwise more analytic, definition they adhere to the same definition... Furthermore the difference could be the weight of the word "nature" ("physis" in Greek), as opposed to "hypostasis", in various native languages of the Oriental Orthodox Churches, given also that "nature" is a word with quite general meaning and this might assume differing meaning(s) in various languages. This, on the other hand, shows how much emphasis was put on details, as they tried to define everything, let alone keeping the tradition unchanged...
@@konstantinospapadopoulos7735 I'm very sympathetic to what you are saying (although I don't believe it was only linguistics and historical circumstances), but many Eastern and Orientals don't agree. Many Athonites don't agree. Historically both church have not agreed with you.
The joint agreements between the two church families have amounted to no real progress. Sure there is a lot of intercommunion on the ground. Many look the other way, but the Bishops won't officially join together because the historic tradition and the saints in each side of those traditions have anathematized each other and any union will simply split each church into liberal and traditional factions.
It is also not the case that the Eastern churches ceased to develop after the 5th c. The liturgy, ecclesiology, iconology, and hesychasm (both of the latter two were not historically part of the Coptic and Ethiopian church, but imported later from the Eastern Orthodox) are some examples of development of doctrine in the Orthodox churches.
@@adamhorstman3398 The Eastern Catholic churches were formed despite the hagiographical issues you mention (and no saints were lost), and to my knowledge, among their number there does not exist the factions you fear. Perhaps because of the uniting force of the Pope/Vatican? There are differences and debates, to be sure, but this does not preclude full communion.
@@natemup Eastern churches that have reentered into communion with Rome have of course separated from their mother churches by doing so and they have to affirm the doctrinal positions of the Roman Church as being their own, whether that is expressed in eastern or in Western language.
Of course there are some Eastern Catholic churches, namely the Melkites, that push back, but at the end of the day they know who Papa is. And of court the doctrinal innovations of Rome are the very things the Orthodox and Orientals have historically contested as the basis for ongoing schism.
A worthy dialog between two highly intelligent gentlemen (emphasis on this last word.) I found it extremely strange and a bit amusing (and I grew up a Baptist, and am not personally attacking Dr. Ortlund) that a Protestant would be arguing against any church's claim of being the "one true church," however. Normally, in my experience, it's been Baptists arguing that they were/are the "one true Church." Of course, that really aggravates the Church of Christ, because some of them claim the same distinction, I think. Of course, historically we have only to look at the treatment of the Anabaptists to see how far ecumenical brotherhood went among Protestants...Amish and Mennonites certainly DO remember it. As for Catholics, there are still Protestant debates online as to whether or not those who follow "Popery" can be saved, and until Vatican II...well, Protestants were heretics plain and simple. So, it's not like the rest of Christendom is or has always been all kum-bah-yah, and the Orthodox are the only ones claiming to be "the Church." Probably most groups felt they had a corner on the market of truth; otherwise why would those groups have formed in the first place? But, that's just my observation.
21:18-minute I like Dr. Gavins argument regarding Israel and Judah God seeing them as both his people, but I would apply this to the orthodox and catholic church since Protestantism did not come till the 1500s. I am a protestant looking into the history of the church and now going into orthodoxy. He also mentions Paul’s letter to the Corinthians explaining that though they had schisms in the church God still consider them his people. True but Paul was writing this letter to correct them.
Will the Heterodox Be Saved?
Archimandite (Metropolitan) Philaret, of blessed memory (+1985)
Question: "If the Orthodox faith is the only true faith, can Christians of other confessions be saved? May a person who has led a perfectly righteous life on earth be saved on the strength of his ancestry, while not being baptized as Christian?
Answer: "For He saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion. So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth [struggleth], but of God that showeth mercy" (Rom. 9:15-16). In the Orthodox Church we have the path of salvation indicated to us and we are given the means by which a person maybe morally purified and have a direct promise of salvation. In this sense St. Cyprian of Carthage says that "outside the Church there is no salvation." In the Church is given that of which Apostle Peter writes to Christians (and only Christians): "According as His divine power hath given unto us all things that pertain unto life and godliness, through the knowledge of Him that hath called us to glory and virtue: Whereby are given unto us exceeding great and precious promises: that by these ye might be partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust. And beside this, giving all diligence, add to your faith virtue; and to virtue knowledge, and to knowledge temperance; and to temperance patience, and to patience godliness; and to godliness brotherly kindness; and to brotherly kindness charity. For if these things be in you, and abound, they make you that ye shall neither be barren nor unfruitful in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ" (2 Pet. 1:3-8). And what should one say of those outside the Church, who do not belong to her? Another apostle provides us with an idea: "For what have I to do to judge them also that are without? Do not ye judge them that are within? But them that are without God judgeth" (1 Cor. 5:12-13). God "will have mercy on whom He will have mercy" (Rom 9:18). It is necessary to mention only one thing: that to "lead a perfectly righteous life," as the questioner expressed it, means to live according to the commandments of the Beatitudes-which is beyond the power of one, outside the Orthodox Church, without the help of grace which is concealed within it.
The question: Can the heterodox, i.e. those who do, not belong to Orthodoxy-the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church-be saved, has become particularly painful and acute in our days.
In attempting to answer this question, it is necessary, first of all, to recall that in His Gospel the Lord Jesus Christ Himself mentions but one state of the human soul which unfailingly leads to perdition-i.e. blasphemy against the Holy Spirit (Matt. 12:1-32). The Holy Spirit is, above all, the Spirit of Truth, as the Saviour loved to refer to Him. Accordingly, blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is blasphemy against the Truth, conscious and persistent opposition to it. The same text makes it clear that even blasphemy against the Son of Man-i.e. the Lord Jesus Christ, the incarnate Son of God Himself may be forgiven men, as it may be uttered in error or in ignorance and, subsequently may be covered by conversion and repentance (an example of such a converted and repentant blasphemer is the Apostle Paul. (See Acts 26:11 and I Tim. 1:13.) If, however, a man opposes the Truth which he clearly apprehends by his reason and, conscience, he becomes blind and commits spiritual suicide, for he thereby likens himself to the devil, who believes in God and dreads Him, yet hates, blasphemes, and opposes Him.
Thus, man's refusal to accept the Divine Truth and his opposition thereto makes him a son of damnation. Accordingly, in sending His disciples to preach, the Lord told them: "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved, but he that believeth not shall be damned" (Mk. 16:16), for the latter heard the Lord's Truth and was called upon to accept it, yet refused, thereby inheriting the damnation of those who "believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness" (II Thes. 2:12).
The Holy Orthodox Church is the repository of the divinely revealed Truth in all its fullness and fidelity to apostolic Tradition. Hence, he who leaves the Church, who intentionally and consciously falls away from it, joins the ranks of its opponents and becomes a renegade as regards apostolic Tradition. The Church dreadfully anathematized such renegades, in accordance with the words of the Saviour Himself (Matt. 18:17) and of the Apostle Paul (Gal. 1:8-9), threatening them with e ternal damnation and calling them to return to the Orthodox fold. It is self evident, however, that sincere Christians who are Roman Catholics, or Lutherans, or members, of other non-Orthodox confessions, cannot be termed renegades or heretics-i.e. those who knowingly pervert the truth...* They have been born and raised and are living according to the creed which they have inherited, just as do the majority of you who are Orthodox; in their lives there has not been a moment of personal and conscious renunciation of Orthodoxy. The Lord, "Who will have all men to be saved" (I Tim. 2:4) and "Who enlightens every man born into the world" (Jn. 1.43), undoubtedly is leading them also towards salvation In His own way.
With reference to the above question, it is particularly instructive to recall the answer once given to an inquirer by the Blessed Theophan the Recluse. The blessed one replied more or less thus: "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."
We believe the foregoing answer by the saintly ascetic to be the best that can be given in this matter.
Endnotes
* The Greek word for "heresy" is derived from the word for "choice" and hence inherently implies conscious, willful rejection or opposition to the Divine Truth manifest in the Orthodox Church.
From Orthodox Life, Vol. 34, No. 6 (Nov.-Dec., 1984), pp. 33-36.
I WANTED THIS TO HAPPENE
2:01:00 the head coverings . It was widely held in the ancient world that a woman’s hair is related to her fertility and reproduction. Paul was drawing on OT knowledge of Gen 6 when un clean spirits mated with humanity . His mind went back to that when addressing this sort of sexual purity issue .
I get that everyone is trying to be charitable and kind but come on, what in world is even going on here. Its like they grabbed someone from a psych unit to replace the actual guy Gavin was supposed to debate. The guy just rambled incoherently for minutes on end, read scripture without giving any assertion as to how they support his stance, or even articulating a stance at all. At any time.