Thanks everyone for watching and to those who commented. Just to address a few concerns: 1) Lots of comments are saying, "this is an emotional appeal," even though I anticipated that response and explicitly addressed it at 7:07. The concern is not emotionalism, but obedience to Jesus. Granted, we disagree on what it means to obey Jesus in discerning the church, but that should be the point of discussion, not emotion. See my discussion there and throughout. 2) Some are saying, "why are you only quoting one bishop to represent all of Orthodoxy, rather than encouraging people to talk to their priest?" Again, I addressed this at 3:41. Theophan is a saint and a contemporary father of the church so his views can't be dismissed as his own private view. They have more authority than an individual priest. Further, the whole goal of this video was to do a deep dive on one figure; I have given more of a serial survey in my prior video mentioned here at 2:15, where I walk through an array of saints and councils. 3) Others are appealing to another quote attributed to Theophan the Recluse. I am uncertain about the authenticity of this quote; we often find it cited on the internet but it seems to come to us indirectly (most commonly cited from Seraphim Rose) and I cannot locate the original source. The quote is also ambiguous: it cautions against worrying about the salvation of the non-Orthodox, perhaps hinting at its possibility (though still reflecting the same exclusivity about the “truth” and “heresy”). Hence my effort here at a careful exegesis of this longer letter Theophan, where his view of the non-Orthodox is given a fuller array of categories (heretics, false prophets, preaching another Christ, etc.), which I hope provides a fuller and more rounded portrait of his view. At any rate, however you interpret this particular quote, the basic concern of institutional exclusivity is not changed. For a fuller portrait of the entire late medieval and early modern Orthodox view, see my video "Does Eastern Orthodoxy Have the "Fullness of the Faith?" 4) Others are saying, “if you think the EO can be saved, why do you even care if Protestants become EO?” The answer to that is the truth matters. Just because salvation may be possible in a given context does not mean that its errors do not have serious consequences. I will keep trying to read comments as I have time; thank you all for engaging the video.
@@TruthUnites "the truth matters". So you attacked EO because the truth matters for them, but you excuse your attack because the truth matters to you.... Isn't it a little bit counterintuitive?
Hi Gavin, Just wanted to say I appreciate your channel. You and Redeemed Zoomer were my first introduction to Orthodoxy which I am now actively converting to. I came from a Baptist background and watched pretty much all of your videos pertaining to Orthodoxy (and a handful of other RUclipsrs cautioning against Orthodoxy).I really wanted to hear as much opposition to what I was doing before I made the choice. I especially enjoyed your conversation with Fr Demetrios Bathrellos. Even though I am converting, I do still enjoy listening to your videos. God bless you!
@@TruthUnites Hi Gavin, I’m confused about your 3rd paragraph. Since the additional quote being cited is “ambiguous” (in your opinion), you pretty much dismiss it? Seems convenient considering it demonstrates a stance contrary to the case that you built during the video.
Gavin, it seems you have applied a Roman Catholic view of saints and church fathers, which is that they cannot err on matters of doctrine. This is not the view of the EO church. Saint and Church Fathers err. Sainthood does not grant perfect knowledge. EO ecclesiology would be a good topic of study for you.
@@sheldonthorpe4797 I'm not even saying to be condescending. I would probably sooner be martyred than betray the Orthodox Faith and go back to something like Evangelical or Baptist. It's so empty, and you can't help but painfully know this after experiencing Orthodoxy.
@KoiDotJpeg if God's Word and promises untarnished and unadulterated by ceremonial accretions are empty, then ok. Enjoy your liturgies. May you be blessed.
@FaithinChristCrucified divine "ceremonial accretion," because we do things the the way the Church always has. I don't think you guys realize how far back it all goes. Chrismation as a Sacrament is written about by the 3rd century.
I'm so glad you that find beautiful and allows you to connect with God! I pray that your church helps you to hold fast to Christ. I do just hope you remember that the problems go both ways. While Evangelical churches can be shallow and naive, Orthodox churches can sometimes be totally devoid of the Holy Spirit, despite having the liturgy and the beauty, etc. This is especially true in parts of Eastern Europe and Russia, where it's often a "cultural orthodoxy," rather than genuine faith. There are many, many people who leave Orthodoxy because they finally find Jesus and their hearts are transformed because of someone outside the EO church sharing the gospel with them. You'll find some of them in this comment section, and I suspect that story is significantly more common than the other way around, at least outside the the united states, where we have our own kind of cultural Christianity. Ultimately, we should all be thrilled when a person gives their life to Jesus, even if that's not in the exact same way we did.
Hello Gavin! This message is from an Orthodox priest who really likes your RUclips channel. I have found your studies, and your knowledge of the Church Fathers, to be really surprising and helpful! I even refer to them at my own parish (depending on the issue, as you'd expect!). Thank you for portraying such a peaceful posture even with those you disagree with. But I wouldn't make a comment if that's all I had to say on a video like this! In my opinion, you have a tendency, on this issue of the salvation of the non-Orthodox, to take quotes out of context and make absolute but incorrect conclusions. I'll give a few examples. The first example is from this video. From this letter of Saint Theophan, you make an absolute conclusion about the salvation of non-Orthodox. However, this letter was written in a very particular context which you said yourself in the video: that an Evangelical preacher was seemingly preaching among Russian Orthodox people, the implication being this took place in Orthodox Russia. As a pastor myself, I would immediately suspect that such a preacher would be doing this in order to win converts from the Orthodox Faith to his flock. In other words, this letter does not come as the result of two friends from two denominations, both faithful Christians in their own spheres, sitting down with each other and sharing their thoughts about each other's salvation; it is a defense of the flock, protecting the sheep from wandering astray from a potential poacher. I would expect nothing less from you if an Orthodox preacher were among your Baptist parishioners trying to convert people; I might even expect to hear you say, "Icons are an accretion, and may border on idolatry." You might find it extreme to call Orthodox idolaters, but it is not unreasonable for you to suggest it if you are encouraging your Baptist parishioner to remain Baptist. In addition, St. Theophan's advice is given to the Orthodox Christian who may be considering leaving the Church about the consequences he would face for leaving. On the issue of the status of the non-Orthodox themselves outside of the particulars mentioned in St. Theophan's letter, other commenters here have produced another quote from St. Theophan, who is open to the possibility for their salvation. I don't think we need to set St. Theophan against himself as if he were of two minds on the issue. The next example concerns your view of the Seventh Ecumenical Council and its anathemas of those who do not venerate icons. From what I can recall you saying in other videos, you believe these anathemas condemn a substantial number of well-meaning Christians, yourself included, who are outside the Orthodox Church. However, I believe you are taking the Seventh Council out of context. Anathemas are used internally, not externally. In other words, the Council anathematizes those within the Church who say such things, not those outside. As St. Paul says himself, "For what have I to do with judging those also who are outside? Do you not judge those who are inside?" (1 Cor 5:12). The last example I want to use is from your discussion of the "ark of salvation theory." As I've seen in your videos, you believe that the Orthodox Church has changed its stance on the salvation of non-Orthodox to being exclusive, reaching the height of this thinking in the medieval era and only abating in the past century. You take this as evidence that Orthodoxy's claim to never change its doctrinal stances is demonstrably false. However, this is also out of the very specific contexts in which Church Fathers wrote on these issues. Let me explain. In the period of the Early Church (up to even the Great Schism of 1054), the phrase "Catholic Church" had very obvious meaning -- it was the Church you found throughout the world, whether in India or Britain. The Early Church had no origin other than the apostles. All other churches (usually called schisms and heresies) were typically localized, and all had founders of their groups. These schisms/heresies were typically defined by open rejection of the Church, and attempting to proselytize members of the Church into joining their faction. At such a time, no wonder the Church spoke so clearly about salvation being within the Church, in a time of conflict with these non-Orthodox groups, and to keep the faithful from wandering away. Then, consider the Medieval period. Following the Great Schism, within only 150 years, the Roman Catholics were in open war against the Orthodox -- not with the pen, but the sword. They sacked Constantinople, installed a Latin Kingdom, and launched Crusades against the Kievan Rus in order to 'resubmit' them to the Bishop of Rome. The Roman Catholics were actually successful in conquering and converting many Orthodox into what is today called the Eastern Rite. I see it as no wonder, then, that the Orthodox would speak so vehemently against them, especially as concerns salvation. You have a very good video on the problems with pre-Reformation Roman Catholicism that I think helps prove this point. However, today, there are numerous differences with these two previous periods: 1) The vast majority of Christians are not in armed conflicts with one another, but live in relative peace. 2) Unlike in the period of Early Christianity, it is not factually clear who that "Catholic Church" is anymore. Even if you read piles of books, like-minded and well-meaning Christians come to very different conclusions. It is not the "slam-dunk" like it would have been in the 3rd century. 3) The schisms and heresies of the past were often defined, in especially their early years, by rejecting the Orthodox Church from which they divided. However, today's atmosphere is completely different. Most Christians of the world have been historically separated from the Orthodox Church for a thousand years, some even more. Most of them don't even know about Orthodoxy; and if they do, they probably have no idea, or motivation, to research it. This is why I agree with Metropolitan Philaret (Voznesensky), who said: "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’ (1 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." When you consider, then, how much of the context surrounding this conversation has changed, I find it no wonder that modern Orthodox saints and authors are more open to the salvation of non-Orthodox. Much like St. Paul's own epistles, we must understand them not just based on their bare content, but to whom they are written and for what purpose. I believe it is incorrect to make absolute statements, therefore, using our Tradition as if it can be divorced from historical context. But I do want to add, and really mean: You do excellent work. I am sorry for all the toxic Orthodox responses you get online. I hope the 'tone' of my text appeared as peaceful as you are always in your videos. God bless you and thank you!
thank you for your charitable and thoughtful response! I am always so glad when we can argue well -- and I know that online reactions don't represent any tradition at its best.
I have a question for you: What is the EO church’s stance on eschatology? I’m not sure of all the details; however, I know you guy’s teach Jesus is coming back. But how do you justify the EO stance on being the one true church and being infallible in its teaching, when it is clear Jesus already returned in 70ad?
@@ProphetGreg94Are you a full preterist? We believe the destruction of the Temple in 70 AD was typologically related to the End, but not the Second Coming of Christ.
@@sgtshdfg I appreciate your answer. Where do you get the idea that it merely typological? 70ad was the reality, not a shadow. What scriptural justification is there to assert that it was merely typological? Jesus posited that his coming would be before the "passing of that generation" (Matthew 24: 30, 34). And we know that the destruction of the man of "lawlessness" occurs at the "brightness of the Lord's coming" (2 Thessalonians 2:3-4, 8). But that happens before the fall of the temple, since this takes place while the man of lawlessness "takes" his "seat in the temple" [Herodian temple destroyed in 70ad]. But then that means that the second coming's timing is constrained to that first century, since it doesn't take place AFTER the destruction of the temple, but before it. In addition, along those same lines, the second coming that Paul mentions in 2nd Thessalonians is not a different coming from the one mentioned in 1 Thessalonians 4, which is undeniably a recapitulation of Matthew 24, and it is in fact the resurrection. It is that same resurrection of Daniel 12, that Daniel informs us takes place immediately after the time of great "distress" (v.1), which is the great tribulation Jesus mentioned (Matthew 24:21). But that was in the first century too (revelation 1:9).
@@sgtshdfg So how can the EO church continue to assert a yet future coming, when it is clearly in contradiction with scripture? And with such assertions it is done so baselessly. Since the only second coming that can be referenced is the "coming" Jesus already fulfilled in the first century.
“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.” ~ St. Theophan the Recluse
So I should never consider converting to a Orthodox as a Protestant if I'm not absolutely certain I will forever stay an Orthodox. In light of this quote, God might save me as a Protestant but will definitely damn me if I leave Orthodoxy. Good to know.
"They worship me in vain; their teachings are merely human rules.' You have let go of the commands of God and are holding on to human traditions.” Mark7:7
Your church is fading away and your theology is elementary. Good. Evangelicalism lead to the huge amount of atheists we have in our culture now. Your pastors have failed and your theologians are frauds.
„My name will be great among the nations, says the LORD Almighty, and in every place incense and pure offerings will be brought to me, because my name will be great among the nations," says the LORD Almighty.“ Malachi 1:11 I really wonder why there are barely any Reformed Churches that include incense in their worship.
@@omonia1511 Amen! But, isn't the prophet Malachi from the Old Testament? Are Christians commanded by LORD JESUS to keep the ceremonial laws of Torah? Did His apostles keep them? Who is the God's Temple in the New Testament? A building made by human hands? Jesus Body? Or the body of born again believers of the Holy Spirit?
I was recently on Mount Athos and encountered a grace-filled elder, it was life-changing. Where are such people in Protestant churches? Where is your St Paisios? The results of Orthodox is the strongest claim. It still produces holy people
Yes, because the contrast between the level of goodness displayed by the Greeks and the Russians compared to Catholic and Protestant nations is very stark.
@@pigzcanfly444Perhaps you’re missing the essence of this comment; that, the result of submission to Orthodoxy’s “life-changing” traditional / liturgical way is evidenced by said grace-filled elder. I’ve been watching many such videos. The overwhelming sense I get from the fathers is their deep reverence what is sacred and their fidelity to the apostolic traditions as they received, which is inform by their reverence for Christ Jesus.
@skydome777 ultimately if you asked these men what they trust in for their salvation it will become the sacrament keeping and upholding of their traditions. I understand how it feels to live surrounded by hypocrisy but we are all hypocrites according to God's standard and this by definition makes all of us less than good in the first place. According to 1 John we need merely believe that Jesus is the Christ and we have overcome the world. No work required there. That isnt to say that doing good works is not necessary to show God's love to our fellow man but we do this purely out of love rather than a need to fulfill a quota or boasting about what we accomplished to get to heaven. The Bible clearly refutes this notion time and again and yet after my discussions with EO I have noticed it as the trend. I asked one recently how one is saved and he replied "Go to the EO chruch." It's on a live broadcast that anyone can listen to and he kept saying that he only accepted what his bishops and priests say about the scriptures. I asked him to read several passages with me and he declined saying that he was not qualified to state his opinion on these passages. So much for freedom in Christ if this is what the EO religion has its people doing. Jesus made the way to heaven very easy. People just refuse to accept what He did and think it wasn't enough instead. Trust in Jesus alone for your salvation and everything else is your discipleship.
“Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it.” Matthew 7:13-14
@@OrthoSky I thought He was The Way as well. It just feels like you are trying to find a way that this institution is indispensable to finding God. Some men in the west have been walking in the true way for generations, and they knew nothing or almost nothing about this particular institution.
@ I don’t get what you are getting at. Walking through the narrow gate and walking the Orthodox way of life if the same thing as walking with Christ because he is the way.
Raising my children in the Eastern Orthodox Church has been such a blessing. I converted 12 years ago and feel awash in beauty and the Lord’s Grace. When y’all are tired of “striving about words to no profit” go visit your local Parish and see the good work being done for your salvation. Be a part of something that endures!
@@orthochap9124it doesn't. Everything we need to know is in the bible, and your fake traditions contradict the bible, therefore they couldn't have come from the apostles. Orthodoxy is pagan apostasy and idolatry.
@@kingjames5527 read the Didache before you say such things. There are definitive aspects within our tradition that are clearly apostolic. Furthermore we continue worship according to the pattern set out to Moses, but Protestants do not. They choose their own way to worship God like Nadab and Abihu. Furthermore if there was a single thing that Jesus said for the Church to do outside of Scripture then oral tradition exists in the Church and is valuable. Clearly the New Testament doesn’t present itself as a manual, but the apostles set out a clear pattern of worship that is shared by all Orthodox churches to this very day.
Going from a Slavic baptist to orthodox, I found the only difference is icons in church, we still had pastor confessions, and the communion was the body and blood not a symbol, we had to do works like behave good to be saved, and we called everyone that’s not baptist a heretic and they do Christianity wrong. We even had a service dedicated to showing the church on how Pentecostals have demons and they showed a lot of examples of people falling and screaming. And other Protestant churches near me are all either liberal, non denominational, or very small so I’d rather be orthodox, it changed my life to actually believe in Christ for once in my life, I even joined the choir.
@@Instynctofficial If you guys have the “truth”, then how did you guys not get your eschatology correct? You guys think Jesus is coming back. Jesus posited that his coming would be before the "passing of that generation" (Matthew 24: 30, 34). And we know that the destruction of the man of "lawlessness" occurs at the "brightness of the Lord's coming" (2 Thessalonians 2:3-4, 8 ). But that happens before the fall of the temple, since this takes place while the man of lawlessness "takes" his "seat in the temple" (v.4) [Herodian temple destroyed in 70ad]. But then that means that the second coming's timing is constrained to that first century, since it doesn't take place AFTER the destruction of the temple, but BEFORE it, because there has to be a temple standing for the lawless one "take his seat" in! In addition, and along those same lines, the second coming that Paul mentions in 2nd Thessalonians is not a different coming from the one mentioned in 1 Thessalonians 4, which is undeniably a recapitulation of Matthew 24; and this happens to also be the time of the resurrection. It is that same resurrection of Daniel 12 (which Jesus alludes to in Matthew 24:15), that Daniel informs us takes place immediately after the time of great "distress" (v.1), which is the great tribulation Jesus mentioned (Matthew 24:21). But that was in the first century (revelation 1:9). This being the case, why does the church continue to shout from the roof tops that we are on the cusp of a yet-future coming of Jesus, when his parousia had already taken place in 70ad!?
It's difficult for Protestants to properly understand many Orthodox writings, because the Protestants are often very black and white thinkers and obsessed with the margins and edge cases. What is the context of Theophan's letter? It is to someone who is already Orthodox who is being offered a Protestant Gospel. Of course from the Orthodox perspective, a Protestant version of salvation such as "Just believe in Jesus and you will be saved, you don't need priests/communion" is an incomplete and false Gospel. It's a completely natural thing for Orthodox to say "Here is how you are saved: you are baptized, you take communion, go to confession and follow your priest's directions." This shouldn't be interpreted as a judgment on someone in a situation where they have no chance to receive these things. According to Gavin's own interpretation of Theophan's thinking, someone who is a catechumen but who was martyred before having a chance to receive communion, cannot be saved. But this is absurd, and Orthodox tradition has always taught that such people's deaths counted as a "baptism of blood" which united them to the Church. Clearly Theophan believes in exceptions to his own description of how to be saved, but he isn't interested in describing them because this is a letter aimed at pastoral care.
Right? I think it stems from the reformation. People think their interpretation is always correct. Then people like Gavin extend that to church history and writings. This whole video is very clearly “Gavin’s opinion” but he presents it as the ultimate authority. Hopefully the viewers see that. I think they do
@@daniels4669 If you guys have the “truth”, then how did you guys not get your eschatology correct? You guys think Jesus is coming back. Jesus posited that his coming would be before the "passing of that generation" (Matthew 24: 30, 34). And we know that the destruction of the man of "lawlessness" occurs at the "brightness of the Lord's coming" (2 Thessalonians 2:3-4, 8 ). But that happens before the fall of the temple, since this takes place while the man of lawlessness "takes" his "seat in the temple" (v.4) [Herodian temple destroyed in 70ad]. But then that means that the second coming's timing is constrained to that first century, since it doesn't take place AFTER the destruction of the temple, but BEFORE it, because there has to be a temple standing for the lawless one "take his seat" in! In addition, and along those same lines, the second coming that Paul mentions in 2nd Thessalonians is not a different coming from the one mentioned in 1 Thessalonians 4, which is undeniably a recapitulation of Matthew 24; and this happens to also be the time of the resurrection. It is that same resurrection of Daniel 12 (which Jesus alludes to in Matthew 24:15), that Daniel informs us takes place immediately after the time of great "distress" (v.1), which is the great tribulation Jesus mentioned (Matthew 24:21). But that was in the first century (revelation 1:9). This being the case, why does the church continue to shout from the roof tops that we are on the cusp of a yet-future coming of Jesus, when his parousia had already taken place in 70ad!?
Well said. Indeed the three bar Cross itself shows that Holy Orthodoxy recognizes the possibility of salvation for those who have not been able to fully enter the sacramental life of the Church. St. Dismas, pray for us!
@@ProphetGreg94 One of the wonderful things about being Orthodox, is that I am no longer burdened by questions such as "if the Church has the Truth, why does she disagree with me?" Instead I am blessed by questions such as "if I am a Christian, why am I not bearing fruits worthy of repentance? Lord have mercy!"
Im Protestant but seems like we are telling EO what they believe and they say no we don’t believe that, and we just say no you have to believe that because of this guy said this. We should let them speak for themselves. This letter was in context of an EO leaving the church of course his letter is going to be firm and direct. This same guy also has been quoted elsewhere that it is possible for others to be saved. It’s a mystery. Theophan the Recluse. “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 don’t think EO converts have to say now all westerners are all 100% lost, it’s just not the case. This doesn’t seem fair to them.
His question “why do you worry about them?” Is telling. Christians care for the unbeliever and WANT others to believe and evangelize. To have this flippant attitude towards the unbeliever betrays his claim of being in Christ.
Astounding people here make the claim Dr. Ortlund is taking these quotes out of context he does not understand what Theophan is saying. Theophan sounds very clear and direct with what he says.
“There is no need for us to tell Christians who are not Orthodox that they are going to hell or that they are antichrists; but we must also not tell them that they will be saved, because that’s giving them false reassurance, and we will be judged for it. We have to give them a good kind of uneasiness - we have to tell them that they are in error.” This is what we must do; give them a “good uneasiness.” - Saint Paisios.
The whole point of the video is that it contradicts historical Orthodox theology to say that. And you're acting like some marketing department for the Orthodox church by deliberately hiding that fact.
@@Hvllow99i am at my wits end today. Trying to be open minded, seeking truth. Listening to beliefs and doctrines and hearing Catholics and EO make the same claims against each other. Searching for an answer, realizing everyone’s been arguing for almost 2000 years. I love Jesus and I want to serve him wholeheartedly. But I must say that today I am churched out.
@@ayyboogie619lol same. Don’t have anything against Catholics or orthodox, but there is so much fighting it’s insane. Not interested in going to any churches Protestant included. It’s a joke
It’s puzzling why being outside the Church strikes such a dissonant chord, given that historically, the Church has consistently regarded those beyond its bounds in just this way. Only if one were to invent an “invisibility cloak” to obscure the Church’s boundaries could the notion of being “outside” seem so foreign or out of place.
This "invisibility cloak" term intrigues me: do you not think that God alone knows who are His? If so, it is possible that someone can be fully involved in the externals of Church membership in an EO context and not be...Christian? So there is an invisibility element to those are truly His. Do you not think this is the case?
@TheB1nary Your question makes no sense within the context of Orthodox belief. To be "Christian" is by definition to be part of the Church. But being a "Christian" does not guarantee that you will end up in heaven. You are using the word "Church" to indicate a category that we don't think exists.
Hi Gavin, I am an Orthodox Christian, and a convert from Protestantism. I want to add a bit of context here to what St. Theophan is writing by including a quote from another letter, which I think may be relevant: "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." --- St. Theophan the Recluse I think St. Theophan's problem is more with Orthodox christians leaving the Orthodox Church than anything else.
That is such a good point about Theophan's text being for Orthodox Christians, and not for others. Those who do not Orthodoxy cannot be judged for turning from something they don't know. And Orthodoxy doesn't judge them for it.
The quoted text actually sounds a lot worse. St. Theophan refers to Orthodoxy as the "Truth" and what Protestants believe as a "different faith" and a diversion from Orthodox orthodoxy as a betrayal. Pretty stark language. He even says "They have a Savior" which could be interpreted as Protestants have a different theology or that Protestants have a Savior that is not the Orthodox Savior.
@@Cletus_the_Elderwell they do have a different theology and do to differences in Christology I think you could argue to some extent they do have a different savior. Just as most Christians would admit the Christ of the JWs or Mormons is different than that of the rest of Christianity.
@@Cletus_the_Elder So you think St Theophan believes this other being actually exists and will take take care of them, then? This is absurd. And yes, Orthodoxy is the truth and heterodoxy is a deviation from the truth...obviously.
Thank you Gavin! As a long-standing Protestant that has deeply engaged with your videos, this one has made me more encouraged to join Eastern Orthodoxy! I've outlined some reasons below... I'm 26, I grew up in an evangelical Baptist church in France, son of two Baptist missionaries, and ended up working for 4 years for the Church of England helping to run training for priests on church growth. I engaged wholeheartedly with Baptists, Conservative Evangelicals, Charismatics, 'Middle of the Road' Anglicans, Anglo-Catholics, as well as Liberal and Conservative versions of each. I came to find that Protestant "denominations" matter, as they shape the lens through which we view Jesus' teachings, even the way we read the Bible! Thus, there is no way of simply being a "Biblical" church. Not only that, Jesus' direct legacy was not a text. He didn't write anything. His legacy was Himself, and the Holy Spirit at work through His followers - the Church. What did these people do? They became bishops, priests, they consecrated church buildings, they fashioned liturgies, they kept the Holy Sacraments... This pattern of being is the true "lens" through which we should engage with God. This is the true faith of the apostles, this is the mark of a True Church! Back to my experience, I observed how normal an impulse it is for human beings to want to wholly engage with their church ie. their 'denomination'. "Everyone is responsible for their own discipleship" is a common mantra that summed this feeling up well for me. The underbelly of Protestant thinking has a deep (and I believe holy) desire for ALL of Jesus, the BEST, the MOST of the fruit of the Spirit. It is the current force driving charismatic movements up and down the US and the world. I'd call this Christian radicalism as I believe it is the same force behind Trad-Caths and Hyper Charismatics. However... 1) I found it impossible to wholeheartedly embrace a single denomination (Why have a separate denomination if you cannot commit to it fully? If you don't believe it to contain the 'fullness of the faith' in some way?) 2) I found that the yearning for radicalism in Protestantism sadly mostly leads to false doctrine, and for some reason simply does not resist the test of time. The rise and decline of Methodism and of the Jesus movement in the 60s are notable examples, as well as the liberalisation of current mainline Protestant denominations. If you can change fundamental aspects of Christianity such as the lived expression (or acting out) of the Church (priests/monks never ordained other priests before Martin Luther for example?), it becomes very difficult to justify not changing other fundamentals of the faith such as sexuality. - Yes but that's not Biblical you might argue - Yet there is a growing amount of learned biblical scholars that are wholeheartedly in support of women leadership or same sex marriage! In contrast to this - How is it that older churches have managed to survive and thrive for so long? If they are wrong, why are they so correct on many issues? This question and others ultimately led me to Eastern Orthodoxy. --- On the topic of salvation outside the Church, Gavin, the same criticism you pose to the EO, the same can be asked of Protestants concerning people from other faiths who either have never heard of Jesus or have been raised in a context which makes becoming Christian a lot harder. Does Jesus want the salvation of the whole human race? Yes He does! Has He offered this opportunity of salvation in the same way to everyone on Earth? Clearly not! Thanks be to God that He is a far more loving judge and Father than we ever could hope of being or can imagine. However, which is the "narrow path", the way of salvation that has been offered to us through Christ? It is to become a disciple of His. We become a disciple of Jesus by following in the footsteps of other disciples (not by following texts as these texts are not readily available or properly understood!). Those disciples developed and compiled doctrine through councils. The Eastern Orthodox church, despite the faults of its members, is the only one that stands in full step with those councils, and thus, can justifiably claim to hold onto the historic view of being a "One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church" (not Many Unholy UnCatholic and UnApostolic churches) - this has historically denoted a visible organisation of human beings, not a mere abstract concept! Heretics, even those with only slight disagreements were deemed separate to the Church and thus separate to Christ's body. What does that mean for their salvation? The same as it does for life long (and 'good-fruit-bearing') Muslims - God knows best! --- The topic of icons and especially praying to (dead) saints were a particular hurdle, and one I am currently still working through. However, is it idolatry? Factually, spiritually, my observation is that it simply isn't. The saints are only deemed as saints BECAUSE of Jesus. NEVER IN COMPETITION of Him. My counter question is: Why is it that most (if not all) historic churches venerate the saints? Is that a cause for "the great apostacy" of historic churches that some Protestant denominations explicitly or implicitly believe in? Is that really a plausible reading of the history of Christ's Church, that the majority of Christians in history somehow "had it wrong" or "missed the point"? Are we really that "enlightened" today? I'll stop there and just finish with this note: This is a comment written in passion, with probably many mistakes in form and substance, but I hope it to be edifying for Protestants who are curious as to the reasons one might embark on such a perilous (but SO REWARDING) journey!
@@simon-y2b If you guys have the “truth”, then how did you guys not get your eschatology correct? You guys think Jesus is coming back. Jesus posited that his coming would be before the "passing of that generation" (Matthew 24: 30, 34). And we know that the destruction of the man of "lawlessness" occurs at the "brightness of the Lord's coming" (2 Thessalonians 2:3-4, 8 ). But that happens before the fall of the temple, since this takes place while the man of lawlessness "takes" his "seat in the temple" (v.4) [Herodian temple destroyed in 70ad]. But then that means that the second coming's timing is constrained to that first century, since it doesn't take place AFTER the destruction of the temple, but BEFORE it, because there has to be a temple standing for the lawless one "take his seat" in! In addition, and along those same lines, the second coming that Paul mentions in 2nd Thessalonians is not a different coming from the one mentioned in 1 Thessalonians 4, which is undeniably a recapitulation of Matthew 24; and this happens to also be the time of the resurrection. It is that same resurrection of Daniel 12 (which Jesus alludes to in Matthew 24:15), that Daniel informs us takes place immediately after the time of great "distress" (v.1), which is the great tribulation Jesus mentioned (Matthew 24:21). But that was in the first century (revelation 1:9). This being the case, why does the church continue to shout from the roof tops that we are on the cusp of a yet-future coming of Jesus, when his parousia had already taken place in 70ad!?
“The mercies of God are not bound by the visible boundaries of the Church. God alone knows the heart, and He judges not as man judges. God’s ways are beyond our understanding, and His grace can act upon all who seek Him sincerely.” “We do not have the right to judge the fate of those outside the Church. Rather, we trust in the boundless mercy of God, who desires that all men come to the knowledge of the truth and be saved. He will judge each according to his heart.” “The Church is the vessel of salvation, and yet, we cannot say that grace is absent from those who sincerely seek God, even if they do not yet know the fullness of the truth. God prepares each soul in His own way.” - SAINT THEOPHAN THE RECLUSE we take someone’s theology, not three pages of it. Also, yeah, what he said is accurate, anglicans we’re going into well established Russian EO neighborhoods and calling people to the name of Christ, that’s fine, but also a slightly off interpretation. Of course people are going to reject that.
This is what's so troubling about videos like this, although I'm trying to make the charitable assumption and assume that this is unintentional misrepresentation, rather than deliberate. As you show, St. Theophan wrote many things that would cut directly against the interpretation of this letter that Gavin is giving here. If you say that his views are authoritative because he's a bishop and a saint, and so he can't just be dismissed, you have to take **all** of his writings together. The way Gavin is interpreting him goes against St. Theophan's own words. It's exactly what people do with the Scriptures, by pulling isolated verses and opposing them to other verses, without trying to see how they work together. You can pick things in isolation and build whatever narrative you want to build, but if your read of what an author is saying contradicts the totality of their writings and thoughts, your narrative is a false one. The same thing was true with his most recent video on icons. When he referred to his view of the scholarly consensus, Eusebius, Fr. Price, etc. I had a couple that was inquiring into Orthodoxy who were shaken by what they heard. Rather than argue with them, I just had them read Eusebius's writings, read what Fr. Price actually said about Eusebius, etc. and compare that to what the video said, without offering my own commentary. They came away very angry at Dr. Ortlund, saying that they felt like he had lied to them. I don't agree with that and told them so. I don't believe it's a deliberate deception. But I do hope that people will read the sources in question for themselves, rather than trusting what someone else says about them.
@@AmericanwrCymraeg if dr Gavin makes unintentional mistakes out of his ignorance, his words can't be trusted just because he is sincere. If he twists facts knowingly and intentionally his words can't be trusted because of the ill intentions. In both cases his words can't be trusted.
@@AmericanwrCymraeg At this point it really seems deliberate. Gavin repeatedly dismisses quotes that contradict his narrative and doubles down on using a different measure for Orthodoxy (and Catholicism) than for his own tradition. He might think he's genuine, but everything he's saying just betrays motivated reasoning.
@@Mere-Theism It’s because when you really look into “Protestant Theology”, it’s all smoke and mirrors. There is no sin, no need to obey anything, no need to even DO anything, “just accept Jesus into your heart” and then proceed to tell everyone else who lives their faith according to a tradition that “they’re wrong.”
I just want to say that I love all of my Christian brothers and sisters and non-Christian people for that matter. I know it's difficult because we are all seeking the fullness of truth and it's not always easy. I pray everyday that I might get closer and I hope we all can.
I’m a Roman Catholic currently exploring EO. Ngl, this video just showed me that EO is very very very similar to RC on all these issues. Evangelicals are too far separated from the historic beliefs of the early church.
Don't leave communion with the Church but yeah dude... Protestantism isn't even close to being the Church of Christ. Orthodox at least have valid sacraments. Those wouldn't avail you if you become a formal heretic which is the situation you would find yourself in. The orthodox at least grew up in it, so they are merely material heretics and may still be disposed to the grace in the sacraments.
"It is not for us to define the state of those who are outside the Orthodox Church. If God wishes to grant salvation to some who are Christians in the best way they know, but without ever knowing the Orthodox Church-that is up to Him, not us. But when He does this, it is outside the normal way that He established for salvation-which is in the Church, as a part of the Body of Christ." - Fr. Seraphim Rose
And catholicism led to reformation. Praise God for reformation!! So many people loving God and getting saved. Atheism is a result of a culture abandoning God. Strong Christian protestant churches having nothing to do with atheism
@@roses993 So God created the reformation for so many different sects who do not agree and then say, God does not exist, so atheism it is? What a gross blasphemer you are.
Thank you for all the hard work, Dr. Ortlund. This was quite timely. EO seems to be drawing a lot of young people at the moment and I think there isn't enough Protestant engagement with it. Keep up the amazing work!
Well besides orthodoxy not being well known yet in the west, its growing, EO is more predominant in europe, yet EO is drawing ppl to it because of the traditional aspect but evem more so than that is the fullness of the truth which speaks to the soul/heart. Few protestants are informed/equipped to engage EO, while EO is prepared for protestants, RC, etc This teases the depth & caution that EO contains.
There's been a significant amount of Protestant engagement...and it's been the definition of cringe. Most of them look exactly like this video: A few spicy quotes are produced, the Protestant commentator adds 5 personal assumptions (just like they do with Scripture) and act automatically like that's the truth while everyone else in the room laughs at them. Rinse and repeat.
This is such an untapped area. So glad to see you covering it. My parents got married in the Greek Orthodox church (I'm Greek on my Dad's side), and I grew up with a lot of random info about the religion and the church. (Plus, our yearly visits to the Greek Fest they held cuz... Baklava.) But I never saw it seriously examined until recently since many people seem to be converting to it.
Wow interesting ! Im a former protestant who converted to orthodoxy. Hope you begin to rexamine thoroughly! Just as there are bad parishs/churches or cultural/lukewarm christians all over doesnt negate the said group/churchs truth & teachings. Godspeed melissa!
Greek churches (in America at least) are very eeehhh and lukewarm. I’m not saying all Greek Orthodox folks are like this, because there are obviously pious and genuine people and parishes in Greek Orthodoxy, but here in the States, Greek Orthodoxy has a reputation of being basically a “cultural club.” Many Greek Orthodox folks go to church solely to mingle with other Greek people, and anyone visiting the church from outside of that group is considered weird. Very sad, to be honest. But there is a growing contingency of faithful Americans finding Orthodoxy. Melissa, I don’t know that you have encountered this. It would be super interesting if you were to visit an Orthodox Church (OCA, ROCOR, Antiochian, or Serbian) and make a video about your experience. Would love to see it.
@@MelissaDoughertyThe Greek Orthodox is the most mystical of the E. O. Churches. The belief in the importance of Grace which probably under a different name, is understood by the Jewish community as well makes the E.O. important path to spiritual ascension. The RC Church view that Grace as defined as something we may get which we don't deserve is too vague to be helpful; something saint do but no one else will accomplish. This idea is incorrect.
“Do not read any books on “spirituality” by Catholics, Protestants, psychologists, or anyone who is not Orthodox, because they will only mix you up. There may be wisdom or insights in some of these, but only in our Orthodox Faith is there to be found the whole path of salvation, the infallible way of coming to God.” ~Seraphim Rose I don’t have to think or ask myself anything. I am a bad judge and I am mislead by my feelings and conclusions all the time. I can’t trust myself. So I do not trust my own interpretations. Lord Jesus Christ, have mercy on me!
But did you not yourself judge to trust Orthodoxy? There is no getting away from you making a judgement, and the choice of which authority to trust is one that only you can make.
@@ArkEleven1Yes, of course. I am not saying I can’t judge for myself. But I have studied the life of the saints and their homilies and put more trust in them than in myself.
@@2ichtwerker Realizing one's own inability to discern and trusting to the Holy Spirit speaking and working through the Orthodox Church the last 2,000yrs is a sign of spiritual maturity, wisdom and faith.
Your last words are what resonated with me - "the utter lack of love". I was born and raised in an EO church but have been pulling away over the last couple years when I began do a deep dive into studying scripture. One huge factor for my pulling away is the realization that there was a HUGE lack of love taught and demonstrated within the church. It was all rules, exclusivity, fasting requirements and extremely long and frequent church services where you must stand almost the entire time. We were taught that there no salvation outside of the church. We were also taught it was a big sin to even pray with anyone outside of the church. Our church doors were never open to unbaptized outsiders - they are able to enter but must stay in the entryway of the church and are forbidden to come into the actual church. If you try to pray (cross yourself and bow) you will actually be told to stop by a church elder. It always seemed that the only neighbors we were truly supposed to love were the ones within our church. Just seems to be so un-Christ like!!!!!!
what kind of EO Church did you say you attended? crossing yourself and bowing was restricted wow that is not like any Orthodox Church I have ever visited......and it is true outside of the Body of Christ (also called the Church) there is no salvation, I think that is actually Scripture.....all the controversy here is who gets to say they are the real Church......and all those things you experienced at the OE church well in my decades of going to Christian denominations I am afraid I experienced the same and worse.....I finally realized I should be trying to live the commands of Christ first before I tried to take the speck out of my brothers eye. Try not to hold that bad behavior of everybody that claims they are a Christian, and does not act like one against Christ
Another great accomplishment Gavin! Thank you for such a clear presentation....again done with love and firm fidelity to God's Word. May the Lord multiply this video's reach to His glory and people's blessing.
Goodness, this was excellent. The sober, austere, ceremonial nature of the Eastern Orthodox tradition must slake the thirst of many Protestants, whose Protestant leaders are in disagreement with church "fathers," leaders, and saints pre-Reformation and even post-Reformation, whose liturgy changes with the mood of the time, whose history seems relatively shallow, whose clergy seem to pursue the activities of the secular world. One of the many things I love about this channel is that it allows Protestants to tap into history and claim the history of the faith in-between the New Testament and Martin Luther as ours, too.
You can claim it all you want but it’s dishonest. For every church father you can claim as “your own” I show you how thoroughly Catholic they really are.
Fact is they were apart of the catholic church friend & you cant claim them but you can cite them all you want in vain. But while there are faithful protestants due to their faith, does not make their church true. It is because of Gods mercy that they can see paradise...
The document you read @17:00 doesn't contain "have faith in the divine mysteries" but rather have faith and receive grace ... through the devine mysteries
Years ago I looked into Orthodoxy and attended the OC for over a year. I even helped my cousin to convert but never was able to bring myself to join. Because Protestantism has a “plainness” to it, many are overwhelmed by the beauty and history of Orthodoxy. The biggest unsettlement for me was that members (especially converts) were always praising and extolling the beauties and virtues of the church, but you would never hear them exhibiting the same language and excitement about Christ our Savior. After some years when the novelty wears off, one is left with a church very similar to all other churches - with problems, inconsistencies, and even scandals. Praise God he is condescending to save us despite our churches! 😸 thank you for making this video!
@@julesgomes2922 The Church IS the body of Christ... 1 Corinthians 12:12-27. Of course you wouldn't realize that as a Protestant especially the part where Paul says "so that there should be no division in the body, but that its parts should have equal concern for each other." This is the problem with the sole focus on a personal relationship with Jesus. It isn't just a personal relationship with Jesus, it is a loving relationship with your neighbor, your enemies, your family.
“you would never hear them exhibiting the same language and excitement about Christ our Savior.” I find this a bit hard to believe. The icon of Christ is always the largest icon in the church. And there are usually multiple icons of Christ displayed throughout. Orthodox prayer life centers around the Jesus Prayer. Most of the liturgy is prayers to the holy trinity. And have you ever skimmed through an orthodox prayer book? It’s littered with prayers and hymns about Christ. Sure we give attention to the holy saints, but nothing in comparison to Christ.
@@jamesbishop3091 it’s also worth noting on top of this great statement that we don’t attribute any “special powers” to the Saints, rather it is through them crucifying their passions that allowed Christ to use them as vessels and work great miracles through them, who are beacons of His light. It is Christ working through all of the saints, thus by venerating saints we are actually by in large venerating Christ
Watching it now, and you're right on. It's downright disturbing to see how many people are willing to say "yeah and it's BaSeD to say my fathers, mothers, mentors, and friends who all showed the fruits of the Spirit worship a FaKe Jesus and are gonna go to hell #imsoedgy". Like....the sheer callousness there. My word.
100%. It’s shocked me for a long time how many people might love their family heritage and living family and then actively move to EO alone, not realizing they are joining a confession that says that person’s ancestors and immediate family who are Christian are actually empty vessels. They either have no idea or think it’s not a required belief, negating the whole appeal of the “unchanged” church.
@TheologyVisualized The same argument, literally the same argument, was used by pagans multiple times early in Church history, to stop people from converting to Christ, that by doing so, they were saying that all of their ancestors were in Hell. Should they have remained pagan, rather than accept the exclusivity claimed by Christ? Note : it's not an adequate response to say that their ancestors were pagans, while here we're talking about fellow Christians. The logic of the argument and its emotional appeal work equally well in either case. What's important is what the Scriptures teach, what is true, and what is pleasing to God. In either case, this is a caricature of what we actually believe.
@@AmericanwrCymraeg Thank you! I am reminded of the saying I have heard several times: "We know where the Holy Spirit is, we don't know where he is not". I have not heard any Orthodox Priest say that everyone outside of Orthodoxy is damned. That would be like putting God in a box and knowing exactly what he should be doing, which is exactly what Orthodoxy does not do. (Protestant inquirer in Wales)
I have been Pentecostals most my life. I love God, Love Jesus and absolutely Love the discipleship and guidance of Holy Spirit. That being said Holy Spirit has been guiding me towards Orthodox. I can see some of the folks comments about orthodoxy as a state church being possibly empty of the Spirit for some that were raised purely in tradition. But that hasn’t been the experience for me. I am very much so filled with The Holy Spirit and have a hard time not crying during any worship, any prayers, etc. and I can and do perceive His presence, Jesus Presence and God The Fathers Grace and mercy all over the place at my local Orthodox Church. I’m talking walk inside and you feel like you got light up and are covered in goose bumps from head to toe. I guess what I am saying is that As long your bringing Holy Spirit with you via baptism of the Spirit I don’t see how orthodox couldn’t be an amazing church to become a member of.
Eastern Heterodox church has departed from the true orthodoxy since the time they abandoned the teaching of St. Cyril Lucaris. The official teaching has led many to so many heterodox teachings, many of which are even contradictory one to another. Return home, my Friend, to the faith once delivered unto the saints.
@@PresbapterianCyril Lucaris is not considered a saint by the whole Church. Gurther, he simply got things wrong. We know from history that his views were new. (If they even were his views. It's not certain that the document you know of was actually authored by him.)
@Presbapterian He is only considered a Saint by the Greek Orthodox Church. He was never canonized in the other Churches. We're still one with them, but that's not how the Church works.
"Jesus answered him, 'Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God.'” Orthodox, Protestant, Catholic - it all means nothing. Unless you have been made new by an encounter with the Spirit of God, you are outside of Christ, and it doesn't matter what church you belong to.
And the "encounter with the Spirit of God" means ______? Please fill the blank. The way you answer the question will show what Christian tradition you lean towards.
@anselman3156 Do you not think that statement means anything? My point is every part of Christianity agrees with your statement that you must have an "encounter with the Spirit of God." But each one has a different understanding of what that means and how to do it.
Being joined to the Orthodox Church is a tremendous blessing, and it certainly matters, but indeed it doesn't stop there. We still have to cooperate with the grace of the Holy Spirit in order to become truly Orthodox. In order to be made new, in other words. That our souls may be healed, in other words. If think my work here is done, I cease to live a life of repentance, and repentance is exactly what this live we've been given is for. Nobody can say Jesus is Lord except by the Holy Spirit, but He offers us much more than a single encounter with this salvific truth. We have many examples in the lives of the Saints, to show us what God can do with the life of a sinner such as myself, if only I strive to love the Lord my God, with all my heart, with all my soul, and with all my strength.
As an Anglican (Anglo Catholic) I am happy to identify with the doctrine of the ancient undivided Church, and lament the mutual enmity between the various factions who have gone way beyond that in developing their distinctive doctrines based more on speculations and evolving traditions that on divine revelation and the Apostolic deposit which is secured in the Bible and the three ancient Creeds and earliest ecumenical councils. I think Anglicanism has a better history of eirenic ecumenical outreach to Christians of differing traditions. That created an atmosphere of desire for reunion of Christendom, which influenced many Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox and Protestants, but which is strongly resisted by the exclusivists..
Dr. Ortland’s question hit the nail on the head. I think there is a major danger of idolatry of the Orthodox Church. That was my experience.. I knew many that basically worshiped Orthodoxy. I suppose there are temptations in every denomination. For me, Orthodoxy became a barrier, blocking my relationship with Christ. It was very strange. Plus the intense pride in Orthodoxy wasn’t good for me either. As for converts, the honeymoon period wears off so hopefully they are there for Christ Himself. No liturgy is more beautiful than the triune God.
One can make an idol out of anything. I understand your point, but once you get out of the orthobro trad sphere on social media you see that no one really does that
@@King_Immanuel When I was Orthodox, I had no interaction with an “OrthoBro Trad Sphere”.. All my experience was completely at the parish level. It was a long time ago. Before the internet made priests famous.
@@kevinmac8629 Whatever happened to the diplomatic “not the fullness of the faith” line? Thats the one they used to feed converts. Then when the converts are on the inside, the truth comes out. My favorite were the stoney silences when anyone mentioned the Armenians or Byz Catholics in a positive way or when a parishioner marries a Maronite in Lebanon. I am just happy they started saying heterodox instead of heretic. Much nicer. My friends who are still EO are the best ones. That was God’s mercy on me.
@@erichenkel4393you guys are murdering each other on the Ukraine-Russian battlefield. Your priests are blessing weapons of war to help murder each other more. Get real with your man-made religion that has NOTHING to do with Jesus.
@@MusculusPulveriGrace can be outside of the church and works of the spirit depending on the person or whatever the case may be, but the body of Christ is the Eastern Orthodox Church, it is one body.
@@MusculusPulverithen why does Christ tell his apostles to make bishops teach them properly and make sure this continues saying they carry the grace of God if there isnt a historical institution? if you deny this then you deny the early church, the source of everything protestantism comes from, you unroot yourself when you admit you deny Christ's promise.
I find that appreciating Eastern Orthodoxy in person is far more apparent than Eastern Orthodoxy online. It is represented very poorly online, often by quite loud, rude, and obnoxious catechumins and fresh converts... which only serves to diminish the claims that are made. In person, away from the often loud, rude, and obnoxious personalities found online, Eastern Orthodoxy shines. All this coming from someone who is completely comfortable not being Eastern Orthodox, strengths and weaknesses may be more objectively observed and respected.
I totally agree. I've been Orthodox for over 30 years (convert from RC), and the current trend for recent converts 'teaching' on their RUclips channels, with little humility, is somewhat shocking. It bears no resemblance to parish worship and parish life and Orthodox ethos.
I'm EO, and the majority of people online who I've interacted with that are representing EO, and even telling other people to convert to EO, aren't even EO themselves! It's crazy.
I've found TLM communities and the Latin mass quite similar. Much better in person, horrible online. Though I do think online EO might do better than online "trads".
Here in England, I simply don’t know anybody in the Orthodox Church. I form my view of Orthodoxy from what I see online and in the news. In theory, the Russian and Ukrainian Orthodox Churches need to get back together and send a joint mission to England to persuade the English to admit that John Fisher and Thomas More were fake saints.
@@inrmds Jesus posited that his coming would be before the "passing of that generation" (Matthew 24: 30, 34). And we know that the destruction of the man of "lawlessness" occurs at the "brightness of the Lord's coming" (2 Thessalonians 2:3-4, 8 ). But that happens before the fall of the temple, since this takes place while the man of lawlessness "takes" his "seat in the temple" (v.4) [Herodian temple destroyed in 70ad]. But then that means that the second coming's timing is constrained to that first century, since it doesn't take place AFTER the destruction of the temple, but BEFORE it, because there has to be a temple standing for the lawless one "take his seat" in! In addition, and along those same lines, the second coming that Paul mentions in 2nd Thessalonians is not a different coming from the one mentioned in 1 Thessalonians 4, which is undeniably a recapitulation of Matthew 24; and this happens to also be the time of the resurrection. It is that same resurrection of Daniel 12 (which Jesus alludes to in Matthew 24:15), that Daniel informs us takes place immediately after the time of great "distress" (v.1), which is the great tribulation Jesus mentioned (Matthew 24:21). But that was in the first century (revelation 1:9). This being the case, why does the church continue to shout from the roof tops that we are on the cusp of a yet-future coming of Jesus, when his parousia had already taken place in 70ad!?
My spiritual path has been as follows: I was born in a Roman Catholic culture. I was baptized as an infant. I went to catechism class. But I never had communion in the Roman Catholic Church. I was, however, influenced by the esthetics of the Christian faith. Specifically, I was always fascinated by the Passion of Christ as depicted in the Bible, iconography and film. As a teenager, I was questioning everything. I became an agnostic, leaning towards atheism. However, I was still very much fascinated with the teachings and person of Christ. Then, two things changed my mind into becoming a Christian. Philosophical arguments regarding the origin of the universe convinced me of God’s existence. And the transformation I witnessed of people who converted to Christ convinced me to make the practical commitment to become a Christian. It was in a Seventh Day Adventist Church that I decided to start my spiritual path in Christianity. The reason is that in my neighborhood, Adventists lived a life more consistent with their preaching, and had a more intellectual approach to questions of doctrine and matters of truth. Most of the other churches in my neighborhood, both Catholic and Protestant, tended to dismiss questions rather than answer them. My Adventist Bible teacher always taught me and prayed to God asking to “teach us and guide us to the Truth”. Therefore, I continued studying more Scripture, more theology, more spiritual teachings and more church history. After years of studying (20 years, to be precise) I came to the conclusion that Orthodoxy was the best, most perfect, expression of the Christian faith. It is theologically superior. It is esthetically superior. It is morally superior. It is spiritually superior. So, I found my home in Orthodoxy. Now, with that context established, I want to answer Ortlund’s question. There is One Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. That Church is a visible Church. Just as Christ is the Image of the Invisible, the Church is the visible Body of Christ. Only through Christ can one be saved. That is, only through His Body the Church can any soul be united to Christ and saved. Now, what about the souls of those who have only known Christ through the Roman Catholic Church or through a Protestant tradition? Are they saved? Can they be saved? My opinion is that God will judge them according to their deeds, and have mercy on them according to their faith. It is possible for God to save a soul who is moving towards God and calling upon Christ, even if they are ignorant of who the Church is. Especially, because the Church prays for their souls’ salvation. But just as I cannot say that a Buddhist is saved even if they hold Christ in the highest esteem, I also cannot affirm that a Protestant or a Roman Catholic is saved. I cannot even say whether an Orthodox believer is saved. I can only pray that God has mercy on them and on me. What I can say is that the Orthodox Church is the One Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church founded by Christ and that we ought to join ourselves to the visible Body of Christ. As we do this, we must work out our salvation with fear and trembling, while praying for the salvation of the whole world, judging actions while leaving the judging of souls to God. As Saint Paul Apostle did in 1st Corinthians 5:5, when disciplining a believer: “to deliver such an one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.” 1 Corinthians 5:5 KJV .KJV Therefore, those outside the Church can be saved by God’s mercy and through the prayers of the Church. But they must be taught clearly their error and disciplined harshly. So, if you are a Protestant or a Roman Catholic, I entreat you to come home to the Orthodox Church. Join yourself to the visible Body of Christ, and enjoy the grace flowing from the Head to all His members. Become part of the Bride and receive the perfect gifts given to Her as a dowry by the Bridegroom, Jesus Christ. This is a hard saying and not everyone can receive it. But some will receive it sooner or later and become stronger in their union to Christ through His Church. Pray for me that I myself don’t make shipwreck of my faith. Lord, have mercy.
You write about Catholics and Protestants "God will judge them according to their deeds." God does judge, but he judges all and only Christ's sinless life and work on the cross saves you from that judgement. You don't appear to understand the first about the Gospel.
This is an alluring feature of Orthodoxy for edge-lord theobros. I have a friend who is an orthodox priest, and he told me how concerned he is about the volatile personalities who jump from cagey Calvinism to Orthodoxy, with little desire to pursue true holiness. They love the liturgy, traditions, and debate, but hate their non-Orthodox opponents in word and deed.
It sounds like you guys are coping. (Although I can't say I am surprised.) Instead of addressing the serious and legitimate concerns against the Protestant position (something Gavin rarely does), the best you can do to cope with the growing number of conversions from Protestantism to Orthodoxy is to either dismiss them altogether, reduce them, or minimize the valid reasons why many leave. It is an obvious tactic of deflection due to the current state of Protestantism's inability to adapt and account for its deficiencies. Instead, you try to sweep them under the rug and hope no one notices. By marginalizing (potential and actual) converts and branding them as "orthobros," it is surely not an effective apologetic strategy to persuade them or others to your position.
@@icxcnika7722 so the bad behavior of these Orthobro converts should just be ignored then? Deflection? Seriously? I could say the same about you. You're sweeping legitimate concerns under the rug.
@@morghe321 "so the bad behavior of these Orthobro converts should just be ignored then?" Tell me this, what do you gain from having to adress the behavior of every single overzealous convert? Can you add another hour to your life by worrying about their behavior? Who has the time? If I had to spend every waking moment of my life worrying about "cage stage Calvinist" Reformed bros, arguing about soteriology and some meaningless theological opinion held by Charles Hodge, I would get nothing done in terms of personal daily devotion. // Deflection? Seriously? I could say the same about you. You're sweeping legitimate concerns under the rug// Don't _tu quoque_ fallacy me. The fact that many potential converts have converted for legitimate reasons, be they doctrinal or theological concerns, means that Protestantism isn't delivering the scriptural clarity the reformers promised. Furthermore, yes, you are deflecting. You are casting aspersions on converts by psychologizing their reasons for converting. By minimizing, reducing, and impugning their motives for conversion, all you do is slander them, like a cult that shuns those who leave. This is a typical coping mechanism employed by many cultic institutions that seek to justify and deal with the shortcomings of their own system when said system fails to facilitate uniformity, unity, and harmony.
Thank you, Dr. Ortlund. I had attended an Eastern Orthodox Divine Liturgy this weekend and was surprised when the priest’s sermon focused entirely on the saint whose day the liturgy was being held for. There was no mention of evangelism, forgiveness of sins, Christ’s Kingdom, it was all focused on following the liturgy. The grass is not always greener, guys. If you are some form of protestant and you leave for Eastern Orthodoxy, you are giving up good, long sermons focusing on teaching the word.
Protestant here who has attended a couple of Divine Liturgies. Were you able to follow along with the Liturgy? Because all of those things you say weren't in the sermon are in the Liturgy. Long sermons aren't the be-all, end-all of Christian worship.
@@WeakestAvenger The liturgy was actually quite difficult to follow. It switched from Greek to English at random points between hymns. And in the liturgy, the priest and deacon were off doing their own thing in front of the altar. It made me feel like I was only observing the service and never actually participating in it. That is another issue I had, that the service was mostly in Greek. It negates the idea of the catholic (universal) church the Orthodox claim they are. If I can’t partake in the full liturgy, why bother? Your church will always be a tiny minority if you don’t preach to the people in a language they understand.
Orthodox sermons are always to do with the feast or the story of the saint of the day, relating it to our lives and path to Christ. The worship is more important than the preaching. Bible and book study groups deal with other aspects, but the services are choc-o-bloc with the other things you mention.
Keep in mind that priests should be most concerned with the needs of the parishioners. His preaching is also not required to speak to the text directly. The homily is not academic Bible study time. It is the time for the flock to be given the medicine they need, which might mean hearing about the Saint being celebrated.
@@wormius7350 Because a particular Church's services were in Greek, that negates the universality of Orthodoxy? There's a Korean language Protestant church not far from my house. If I visited, would that negate Protestantism? Most Orthodox parishes in the United States worship in English. Those that don't are often responding to the needs of the people in the congregation. Some do hold on to their language of ethnic heritage too long, but that's true elsewhere as well. Growing up as a Protestant, our services still had a lot of German in them.
I grew up with Russian Otrhodox tradition and customs and I can tell hands down that some Americans are very naive, because they are looking for a historic church, BUT the modern Eastern Orthodox Church IS NOT AS historic as Early church. I do appreciate rich tradition and all that is good there, however you have to guys consider following things: lots of superstitions, sectic thinking, political nationalistic imperialism perspectives, mix with worldly ideas (as long as you are baptized, probably infant with no consent of yours and come to church occasionally and confess your sins - that’s nice, but your life remains almost as of atheist or agnostic), wierd traditions (along with good you get the bad ones), not to mention this hierarchy of legalism and religious system. Now some few years later after my conversion experience and transformation I came to re-consider some views and I stopped demonizing Eastern Orthodox church and saw the good part. Since nobody got it all right and we all need each other. But the Gospel was preached to me and more clearly revealed through evangelical Protestant friends and then I met Jesus and really started reading Bible, praying and saw my life changed. I do believe there are genuine Orthodox Christians and I encourage and cheer on everybody as long as they pursue Christ and His word and what He accomplished, not the religious system. And I tell you for me mostly it was superstitions and some wierd ideas and not being taught of the word of God. For some people it might have been very harsh legalism and bondage - I came dry out of the water and God showed mercy on me in many ways. I totally understand you if you are burnout on Pentecostal, charismatic or evangelical religious form, legalism or some cult, but it doesn’t mean you have to get yourself into another religious system. Dr. Outland has a good point, guys!!! We should be followers of Jesus and grow in the knowledge of God and we all are His church, One body, orthodox, eastern, Armenian, catholic, reformed, Protestant, non-denominational.
@@kingattila506but that’s the problem with our Christianity… I was an atheist or agnostic in the heart. Nobody cared. Believe the Gospel through Protestant friends. Beware!!! I don’t batch on orthodox. But in my opinion and experience many people are just unbelievers wearing tradition clothes. It can be the same with many catholics and Protestants. That’s why Luther is right. We need to preach the Gospel of Grace every day, because we forget it every day… we need to remember it and awaken to it. Be orthodox if you will, but many orthodox don’t even believe what Early Church fathers actually taught about salvation through Christ and His atonement alone… and the West also in problems. We need a Reformation! Wake up and come back to the truth that is in Jesus!
Another great video! I appreciate all the thought you put into these. As a protestant myself, there are elements of this argument I don't quite buy. A half-formed thought for now: If my church were in that situation --only church in town, and a Catholic evangelist came and was preaching in the community --I'd expect my church leaders to have some initial strong and uncharitable reactions to it. I don't think they would go "anyone not against us is for us." They'd use much the same language as Theophan does. They'd say "he's preaching Christ but appending heresy to it and you should stay away."
You have said what I have been trying to say to my eastern brothers for a long time in a nutshell. The taking for granted of the west and the people (Catholic, Protestant, Anglican, Evangelical, etc.) it has brought forth and the beauty they have preached and lives they have lived for Christ. I am Roman Catholic but most of my readings, meditations, and inspirations come from people like Jonathan Edward’s, George Muller, Wurmbrand, NT Wright, and YOU!
@IsaacArellano-n4u Indeed! And I wish Protestants wouldn't discount the beautiful works and teachings of other Protestants like Joseph Smith and the Jehovah's Witnesses! There's such beaity in their theology and teachings that should be appreciated.
Consult an Orthodox monk in your area to inform you better. Reaching your own conclusions spreading confusion under the influence of the Evil one, isn't too wise.
Although I am new to Orthodoxy and I am still a Catechumen, I see exactly what Theophan is saying in his letter and where the misunderstanding and disagreement comes from. In a protestants mind, he believes he is "saved" because he believes in christ. Meaning a protestant believes that If he dies believing in Jesus and having repented of his sins, he will go to heaven. And although this is also the concept of salvation to an Orthodox, An Orthodox doesn't profess to be saved and doesn't assume that if he dies he will go to heaven. The Orthodox teaching is that one must always strive to be closer to christ and continue in the sacraments to have the best chance of going to heaven. Although an Orthodox can look at the life of an individual after he dies and say with almost certainty, but not 100% certainty, that some people made it to heaven, as The Church does with canonized saints. Theophan is also saying that just because the preacher is preaching what sounds like sound doctrine, he also will eventually teach heresy, and also his simplistic view of salvation is leading people astray in and of itself. Because the preacher was taught by people who have different interpretations than The Orthodox church, he will have people believing in things that are not correct and are heresy. He is saying that The Orthodox Church got its beliefs and traditions from Jesus and the apostles themselves, so they alone know the correct interpretation and fullness of faith. Roman Catholics added onto those teachings, which caused the protestants to break away from them, and they took away from the fullness of the teachings and traditions of The Church. Two people can hear the same basic fundamentals of the Gospel and take away completely different interpretations, In fact you can read the Whole Bible cover to cover, but without having somebody there to answer questions and misunderstandings, you could be believing in an interpretation that was not taught by Jesus and the apostles. And like I said I am still learning and praying to God to reveal his whole truth and show me the way, so I am not trying to say I am an expert but just commenting on what I see and believe to be true and what I got from this video.
I had a similar thought, considering the worldview of this Russian priest, he isn't wrong in what he is saying. When we anachronise the word salvation limited to the Protestant definition, this leads tl a lot of misunderstanding and quote mining where the paradigm being presented is actually slightly different from what is intended in the meaning.
@stayready6170 You say we can read the whole Bible, but without having somebody there to answer questions and misunderstandings, we could be believing a false interpretation. That is definitely the case when we attempt to read without the Holy Spirit! But how do you know the people answering your questions are not leading you astray? They cannot prove to you that their current views of the scriptures go back to the 1st century, and they are warned by Paul who said, "I fear, lest somehow, as the serpent deceived Eve by his craftiness, so your minds may be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ" (II Cor. 11:3). Yet you say "his simplistic view of salvation is leading people astray". So your solution is to enter into the endless complexity and "mystery" of the Eastern Orthodox religion, which claims they alone can correctly interpret scripture - yet they are nowhere to be found in much of the Western world. Think my friend - this is the very departure from the "simplicity that is in Christ Jesus" Paul warned us about.
@@stayready6170 this is something I hear a lot from EO converts: “our definition of salvation is so different from yours, none of your critiques land.” I think that is missing Gavin’s point; however you define salvation, whatever nuances you give it-regardless of how different it is from the Protestant understanding-let’s just assume it does mean something completely different, whatever IT is, it is only for those within the EO institution. That’s the exclusivist claim which Gavin is talking about. If you feel good about believing that then great! I certainly do not. Especially if the EO definition of salvation does indeed have to do with healing from the corruption of sin.
@@bornagainbach2731 So why is it that you have different people who “guided by the Holy Spirit” have different interpretations? And why so many denominations? You have one group of people who believe they are predestined to go to heaven and if you are not randomly chosen by God to be the elect, you are going to hell and there’s nothing you can do about it. You have another group that believe that all you have to do is say a prayer to Jesus and accept him into your heart and that you sealed and saved and that after no sin too great to separate you from heaven(once saved always saved) And we have another group of people who believe in the true definition of baptism and communion, yet they have female pastors and homosexual clergy, and you have another group of people who believe the Holy Spirit makes them speak in “Angelic languages” and fall on the floor when the pastor blows air on them. And another group who “speak in tongues” who are into prosperity, and another who are Oneness Pentecostals, not to mention the modern new heretical doctrine of “The Rapture” and the false interpretation of the millennial reign of Christ. And don’t get me started on Christian Zionists. All claim to be guided by the “Holy Spirit” All one has to do is study church history to find out who, with the real Holy Spirit, and knowledge and tradition passed on from the apostles, decided what books were to be in the Bible and what books were out. It is the same people who wrote the Nicene creed with the help of the true Holy Spirit and knowledge and tradition of the apostles. The same Nicene creed that defines what it means to be a Christian, that is the basis for every Trinitarian believing church. Except all the Protestant churches take out the last part of the Nicene creed that says “I believe in One Holy Apostolic Catholic Church.” So to answer your question, how do I know who is not gonna lead me astray? I’m gonna go with the One Holy Apostolic Catholic Church who with the Holy Spirit defined for the world what Christianity is in writing and who put the Bible together.
Great video as always. After being discouraged from RC with the issues surrounding the Papacy, I am turning to evaluating EO and will use this topic as a main point of contention.
Gavin, I appreciate the resource presented in this video. I was not aware of this letter from Fr. Theophan despite being an Eastern Orthodox Catechumen. I found nothing scandalizing, though, after watching the video, so I suppose that means I at least know what I am getting into. I agree, though, I do love the directness with which Fr. Theophan speaks in this letter. I would like to respond with a few notes from myself, as an Eastern-Orthodox Catechumen- both for you and others considering your arguments against Orthodoxy. I apologize for wordiness, but I want to lay out our understanding of what you brought up (as best as I can, and in no capacity an official representative of the Church, since I am not yet Baptized). 6:30 - The entire point of this passage in Mark 9 is that if he is truly for Christ, he will wind up in The Church eventually anyways and be united with them. Also, this was before Pentecost, when The Church was set up 16:35 - Regarding this "Simple, repentance-based Gospel message," I simply do not think there is any proof in Scripture of such a requirement of "The Gospel" to be so "simple." In fact, I think what Fr. Theophan presents around 21:30 is fairly reasonable, and not that complicated; only complicated in comparison to the common Evangelical Gospel preached these days. My Deacon said to me the other day: The Faith is not supposed to be complicated. It's supposed to be lived. If you sincerely seek Christ and life in him within the Church, you will fulfill what Fr. Theophan has listed. 19:15 - The only place "justified by faith alone" appears in Scripture is in James 2. "You see then that a man is justified by works, and NOT by faith only." James directly tells us that we are also justified by works. The common reading of Protestants that this is only about external Justification in the eyes of others doesn't make any sense, and it makes us a slave to the perceptions of others. The Confession of Dositheos, Decree 13, explains this well: "We believe a man to be not simply justified through faith alone, but through faith which works through love, that is to say, through faith and works. But [the idea] that faith can fulfill the function of a hand that lays hold on the righteousness which is in Christ, and can then apply it unto us for salvation, we know to be far from all Orthodoxy. For faith so understood would be possible in all, and so none could miss salvation, which is obviously false. But on the contrary, we rather believe that it is not the correlative of faith, but the faith which is in us, justifies through works, with Christ. But we regard works not as witnesses certifying our calling, but as being fruits in themselves, through which faith becomes efficacious, and as in themselves meriting, through the Divine promises {cf. 2 Corinthians 5:10} that each of the Faithful may receive what is done through his own body, whether it be good or bad." I know, perhaps, this may seem like an overplayed response, using James 2 (I'm sure you see it all the time), but it must be said. James very clearly lays out the role works have in our Salvation: James 2:22 - Do you see that faith was working together with his works, and by works faith was made perfect?" 21:25 - "That sounds pretty exacting" - well, it is. 1 Timothy 3:15 - The Church is the Pillar and Ground of Truth. Rebelling against the Church is rebelling against the Truth, and Christ, as it is the BODY of Christ. I don't think he says anything unreasonable. 23:30 - Correct, no salvation outside of the Church. If someone is saved outside the Church, it is because God mystically unites them to the Body of Christ, The Church, when they die because he finds it fitting. This is an extraordinary circumstance though, not the normative means of salvation. And I find this no more scandalizing than saying "Christianity is the only true religion." As far as this "serious concern of 2,000,000,000 Christians in the West"... I find this simply to be an emotional appeal. 24:45 - "Is the Eastern Orthodox Church the savior instead of Jesus" - The Orthodox Church IS The Body of Christ. So it is not either/or, but one and the same. The Church is the Body of Christ here on Earth. Christ has given us the Orthodox Church and the Sacraments for our Salvation. Idolatry of the Church would be very difficult to achieve, because you'd have to first embrace a misunderstanding that the Church is a separate entity from Christ, and then hold it in higher regard than God himself. The only example of this that may come to mind is the Orthobro phenomena, where Orthobros idolize an IDEA of the Church they have in their head as this based, red-pilled, political thing as opposed to Death to the World, Spiritual transformation. 29:16 - Seeing as this entire video uses Theophan as the de facto view of Salvation in Orthodoxy, I think it would only be fair to also include this quote from him about Salvation of the Heterodox. "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" Frankly, this painting of the two options you frame is very deceptive and is, again, more of an appeal to emotion. "Either he is wrong and his entire tradition is wrong, or all these other 2,000,000,000 are damned." Yet, as you should see from this quote FROM THEOPHAN, it is not that cut and dry. 30:00 - How do we explain with this supposed second of our only 2 logical conclusions, the miracles, the hospitals, empire of Christianity, etc outside of Orthodoxy? I will do my best to answer (even though this was a false dichotomy you provided to use, since as shown above, Fr Theophan does not leave it so cut and dry. 1) Miracles themselves can never be proof of which faith is the true faith. There are "miracles" that occur in other religions outside of Christianity. Appealing to these other "miracles" does not prove anything, really. Within Orthodoxy, we can take miracles such as the wonderworking Icons as affirmations that strengthen our faith, but not proof of the Church in and of themselves. because as you say, Pentecostals could go "But look here! We have faith healings and speaking in tongues!" and Catholics may say "Look! We have Eucharistic Miracles." I think his Bible verse may address your appeal to miracles: Matthew 7 - v22 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?’ v23 And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!’ 2) As far as Matthew 7:18 - A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a bad tree bear good fruit - will have to get back to this, however, using this to disprove any ecclesiastical exclusivity is a dangerous game, because then you as a heretic, or member of another religion, can point to the good deeds you have done as proof that your religion/sect is a "good tree." So I don't think regardless this disproves our views. 3) Number games are irrelevant when it comes to Doctrine and Dogmas of the Faith. This applies both outside of Christianity, and "within" Christianity, speaking inter-denominationally. 30:45 - Again, a mischaracterization, requiring us to unambiguously label all outside the Church, all actions, teachings, people, as all-together "completely dark, heretical, falsehood." There are bits of truth and goodness even in other RELIGIONS. However, they are still outside the Church, and are still riddled with falsehood. Feeding a homeless man from the kindness of your heart is a good work and Godly act whether you're Orthodox, Protestant, Buddhist, Luciferian, etc. I find your characterization of the conclusions of Orthodoxy to be pretty baseless and misleading, to be honest. 31:00 Once again. Even though you erroneously conclude the universal, unambiguous damnation of all non-Orthodox, a quote from the SAME MAN WHOSE LETTER YOU ARE READING: "You ask, will the heterodox be saved... Why do you worry about them? They have a Savior 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." Bearing in mind Matthew 7:1 - "Judge not, lest ye be judged." There are very few situations where can know an individual to be damned for certain. But we know that as Orthodox Christians, WE must be in the Church to be saved. There is a big emphasis on focusing on our own sins and deep, continued repentance that you seem to be either unaware of or not mentioning in this video. 32:30 - I will only bring up that despite what you say about Calvin, he set up a very strict Theocracy in which he punished people who went against him or his teachings. This buddy-buddy modern Protestant ecumenism is just as much an innovation as you often accuse the views of some modern Orthodox as being. I also think it's silly to act like Protestantism is this united front, when the historical practice has been closed-communion (especially among Lutherans). Since communion is, in part, a statement of theological agreement, being in the same Church. If this view of Protestantism you have were the case, would not all Protestants practice open communion with each other?
34:30 - "Can you really stand before Christ and say you submitted to a system that requires you to reject 85% of those who can say the Apostles Creed" ... 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. Matthew 7:14 - Because narrow is the gate and difficult is the way which leads to life, and there are few who find it. Again, just an appeal to emotion. Yes, it is the hard truth that most Christians are outside the Church. That doesn't make it any less correct. The New Testament is dripping with warnings of false doctrine, apostasy, false prophets, wolves in sheeps' clothing, etc. We MUST remain vigilant. I hope others considering or critical of Orthodoxy found this response to Gavin helpful.
Great writeup, and it's nice to see your view as a catechumen. I've been struggling with my doubts about protestantism and am heavily looking into orthodoxy. Thank you for clearly laying out this rebuttal.
@@sezcerjan4431 I am humbled, glad you liked this response. I recommend you attend an Orthodox Divine Liturgy, first and foremost. Experience the faith first, dive into learning and material after, is how I would do it. I knew I was home when I attended my first service. May God bless your journey, my friend. I pray you join me in coming home to the Church.
@@pogodonuts Glory to God, thank you for the comment. I am humbled my reply was beneficial to you. I highly recommend you visit a Divine Liturgy (with a bit of research beforehand) to experience a taste of the faith firsthand. This is what really did it to me. It was foreign, I was confused, there were some alarm bells ringing from my Protestant background... but I knew I was home. May God bless you in your journey, and I pray you follow me home :)
As an Orthodox Christian I appreciate your comments and pov . The ongoing problem with Protestant churches are that they are seeming built on sand and not the Rock that is the gospels and holy tradition. This seems to only belong to the Orthodox at this epoch . Although many parish priests seem to look the other way and just hope for their flock to realize the narrow path . The Protestant seems to be way off the path ? God have mercy on us sinners and may we be forgiven through Jesus Christ at that final hour
Another great video, Dr. Ortlund! The Lord is using you mightily in this entire debate and discussion. I pray many will find the assurance of salvation through your ministry.
The Greeks founded mathematics (Pythagoras). The Greeks founded Geometry (Euclid). The Greeks founded physics (Thales-Democritus). The Greeks founded philosophy (Plato). The Greeks founded logic (Aristotle). The Greeks founded poetry and theater (Homer, Aeschylus, Sophocles, Euripides). The Greeks founded medicine (Hippocrates, Galen).The Greeks founded architecture and sculpture (Pheidias, Iktinos).The Greeks founded sports (Olympic Games). The Greeks established the laws of the state and the Republic (Solon-Pericles). The Greeks founded the art of rhetoric (Protagoras-Demosthenes). The Greeks founded the Christian letters (Three Hierarchs). And the Gospels were written in Greek. This is the greatest boast of the Greek language. (Elder Timotheus Kilifis)
Thanks for the video! Before I get into the meat of my comment: disclaimer that I am indeed a Protestant, not EO. I do have to say, I’m not sure I understand the point of this type of argument. EO ecclesiology does not take the statements of a single bishop to be dogmatic or “authoritative for the whole tradition”. That’s simply a misunderstanding of their structure. Even if one were to accept the validity of that claim, the fact that the argument is essentially “they used to say A and now they say B” is not a defeater for their claims. You can look back in pretty much any tradition’s history and find something said that they no longer affirm. For example, Lutherans no longer kill Anabaptists. Most independent Church of Christ congregations no longer say that they’re the only true Christians. Most Baptists no longer say that Catholics aren’t saved. To find a bunch of old personal statements that have been opposed by actual authoritative teaching and use them as a warning of “this is what you’re agreeing with” just seems… dishonest? Anachronistic? Genuinely confused? It’s like someone pulling out Luther’s antisemitism and claiming that Lutheranism endorses it. I don’t know, because Gavin seems like a great guy, so I want to give him the benefit of the doubt. But this is just… odd.
@@TruthUniteshi Dr Ortlund! Love your videos, thanks for all the work you put into them and the benefit they’ve been to me personally. 😊 Respectfully, the statements at that timestamp are still a misunderstanding of EO ecclesiology. For the EO (and Catholics I believe) a persons sainthood does not confer authoritative status on any particular thing they say. So, as this is a personal letter and not a doctrinal pronouncement, I do think this can safely be categorized as “personal belief”. Especially in light of Theophan’s other famous quote about the salvation of the heterodox. Additionally, I’m unaware of “contemporary Church Father” being a category within EO thought. Googling the phrase only brought up a single podcast episode using that term for him. Could you clarify that term/claim for me at all? Thanks again!
@@TheBillyDWilliamsI’m orthodox, and I’m also unfamiliar with the term “contemporary church father”. Seems like Dr. Ortlund is using the term to make his argument appear stronger. Thank you for pushing back on him.
@@TheBillyDWilliams hello! Thanks for watching, and glad the videos have been beneficial! I said "contemporary father," not "contemporary Church Father." You will find the former label used in print for authoritative more recent theologians. Its actually used in the very text I held up and cited in this video. In Eastern Orthodox theology, saints are typically taken as having a level of theological authority, but if you disagree, you can disregard Theophan and just go with the entire millennium preceding him, which affirmed the same view. I document this in my video "Does Eastern Orthodoxy Have the "Fullness of the Faith?"
And how is that any different from the "cage stage" Reformed bro or Rad Trad? I've encountered many Reformed bros who brag about how many systematics they've read of their proficiency in Greek hermeneutics, etc... That each tradition has its overzealous converts is a problem we all have. It's not specific to one tradition.
My dad was an Orthodox priest. A few things he mentioned over the years. 1) God can save anyone, but everyone in heaven is Orthodox. Also that does not imply universalism. 2) If non-Orthodox are saved it will be through the work, prayers and presence of Christ's body, the Church, on earth. 3) Salvation is identical to being Orthodox, tautologically. Being saved means you are Orthodox and being Orthodox means you are saved. 4) There are 3 realms, a) What we know is the church; b) What we know is not the Church; c) What we don't know is or is not the Church.
All that to say that non-Orthodox are not saved. #2 is a tease though, but it is a conditional "*If* non-Orthodox are saved. Why shouldn't I understand that just to mean that non-Orthodox can be saved ... if they become Orthodox?
@@HohoCamacho Not at all. It means that you may possibly be saved without ever formally joining the Orthodox church, but that the Church should not try to figure out where, when and how God accomplishes that, and that the Church being the body of Christ will be ONE, UNITED in belief after this world has passed away. God's justice is a purifying fire. Whatever is not pure in any of us is incompatable with it. So we are saved once, but we continue to throw off the dead skin of the old man, and the vestiges of sin in our minds and bodies. They are incompatible with God.
Hi Dr. Ortlund, Your argument boils down to the following (1) EO requires one to believe no individual outside of the visible boundaries of the canonical EO church can be saved; (2) People outside of the visible boundaries of the canonical EO church can be saved; Therefore, we should reject (3) one should join the EO church. This fails for several reasons. First, (1) is demonstrably false. EO are not required to hold that each individual outside of the visible boundaries of the church is damned. You point to statements condemning certain heterodox *groups* -which does not translate (as you assume) into a judgment as to every *individual* member of these groups at any point in time and for any reason. This is a fallacious inference. Plus, even if your interpretation of these statements were correct (and I think they generally are not), your argument still fails because it ignores the distinction between theologoumenon and dogma. An EO is not required to affirm a theologoumenon, even if it is the overwhelming majority view; and the status of individuals outside of the church is not a subject of a binding dogma, even if you could argue that it is the subject of a prevailing theologoumenon. Thus, (1) fails because you are mistaking statements condemning groups as necessarily entailing condemnation of every individual who is ever a member of that group at any point in time for any reason; and also because you are mistaking evidence of a prevailing theologoumenon as evidence of dogma. Second, even (1) were true (and it is not), your argument still fails because we have more epistemic warrant for (3) than for (2). So, we should sooner reject (2) than reject (3). One man's modus ponens is another man's modus tollens. Third, even if (1) and (2) were correct, this would still not be a reason for rejecting (3). You would need to show that other churches are available to join that do not require one to believe even more false beliefs. One could still reasonably accept (3), while accepting 1&2 on the ground that joining other churches would require one to believe more and worse errors than (1). Finally, I think it is interesting that the way you argue about EO is very similar to the evidentialist framework that Plantinga faults atheists for assuming. The question for someone considering EO is a paradigm level one. The irony is that the common ground from which you purport to critique EO is actually not ground to which your paradigm gives you justified access.
Your last sentence in your last paragraph is interesting. Are you saying Protestantism doesn’t have a theological foundation to state universal principles that it define what every Protestant believes?
Something I’ve noticed with these videos (specifically when they’re addressing anything concerning the Eastern Orthodox Church) is that the vast majority of the comments contain absolutely no responses to the actual claims made in the video (which Gavin always does a great job carefully articulating), but rather sink to insults, ad-hominems, question-begging assertions, and what-aboutisms. I’d love to see some actual engagement from EO’s that doesn’t resort to one of those types of responses.
There are numerous responses addressing his claims directly, just like there are numerous comments from Protestants saying various vile and slanderous things about us. And vice versa. But people see what tends to confirm their own feelings of their side being more virtuous and disregard and overlook anything that contradicts that.
@@AmericanwrCymraeg Well you’re right about that. I’ll take your word for it (in regard to their being numerous comments addressing his claims directly) because what you’re saying is generally true about all internet comments. But honestly, af the point that I posted that comment I hadn’t seen a single response from any EO-defenders (not a single one) that had responded to Gavin’s claims directly.
@@youcatastrophe6434the responses that be in the tone, and have the content that you are speaking of, must have been early ones. I haven’t seen any yet.
@ Well, perhaps you’re right. I haven’t been keeping up. But at the time of writing that comment, I had not seen anyone on the EO side engage with or respond to the claims of the video. But that was the day the video was released.
Here is a quote from the 19th century Russian theologian Aleksey Khomyakov (1804-1860). He was a contemporary of St Theophan the Recluse "Inasmuch as the earthly and visible Church is not the fullness and completeness of the whole Church which the Lord has appointed to appear at the final judgment of all creation, she acts and knows only withinn her own limits; and...does not judge the rest of mankind, and only looks upon those as excluded, that is to say, not belonging to her, who exclude themselves. The rest of mankind, whether alien from the Church, or united to her by ties which God has not willed to reveal to her, she leaves to the judgement of the great day" - The Church is One, Part 2
I love the art of the Catholic Church and of Orthodox Church. I will never believe that Jesus needs or wants all that. He wants us to care for the least of these. He wants us to simplify it down. Salvation comes from Christ, Share the Gospel, love one another and work hard and care for one another. Faith will produce Fruit, it will no way around that. If The Holy Spirit live in you, it will not cause anything that does not Glorify God. I know my human Dad wants his kids to love one another, keep generations going. I see God wanting the same.
You noted: "It does seem weird to assume that just because someone is within the church they don't need to have the gospel preached to them people in the church all the time routinely need the gospel to be preached to them afresh." I would agree, but my understanding of the EO perspective is that their lifelong, diligent application of and devotion to the mystical rituals, sacraments, icons, etc. IS their sustaining "preaching" of the Gospel afresh, as it can only be found in the Church's sacred acts, and experienced as the beginnings of theosis. They do not particularly think of the Gospel as Protestants do, apart from its one time saving event in baptism, thereafter the Gospel is worked out in the process ultimately leading to theosis.
Preaching the gospel cannot be done by not preaching. Nothing else is preaching the gospel. It can be nice, it can be all sorts of things but it cannot be preaching the gospel if it isn't preaching.
@@katskillz The point in your paragraph 2 goes well with my observation. If it is not necessary to remind people of the gospel that saves, then that Church becomes a "folk religion". Case in point, your great, great, great grandfather found Christ and converted to Him, he raised his children, grand children strictly in Church, they also raises theirs in the Church and all are members by "birth". That is what I mean by folk religion. Yous see, God has no grandchildren thus the necessity of presenting the gospel on every opportunity. There is no other tradition that understand this as Protestants. Every person must be born of God individually through the preaching of the Gospel. Orthodox Church does not evangelise. The story which Gavin is narrating in not to be tossed out of the window, it is a reality.
@@Nolongeraslave I agree, I just wanted to (hopefully) accurately present the EO's own position to the best my understanding. I believe it to be wrong, and the main reason it is wrong is because the EO theology mistakenly takes a specific doctrine of theosis / deification and makes it the central dogma around which ALL other doctrines and practices must flow from or fortify their belief in. This is not how the early Church fathers understood things. Nevertheless, they are blind to the courtroom framing of justification and condemnation in Pauline soteriology. They are blind to the comprehensive pervasiveness of original sin requiring a substitutionary atonement where Adam and his spiritual family stand in a position of demerit needing satisfaction for sin a state of being, by means of a substitute. And they are adamently blind to the distinction between the Content of Gospel and the Consequences of the Gospel. Thus for them ecclesiology basically is soteriology. If one, in their system, is diligently tending to the collective dynamics of the Church's praxis, then one is saved individually, period.
Gavin, we have more than a dozen Protestants who are currently catachunens in our church right now. To a person, every one of them is converting because they want to live a more spiritual life. I fail every day, but Orthodoxy demands that we "abide in Christ". That's far more important than your cautionary tale in this video. Prayer, fasting, and acts of mercy - that's the Orthodox way of life.
Love your content and I can't wait to watch your video. I have a close godly friend who is EO and very enthusiastic about it being the "Church". Makes it a little difficult to speak to him about our differences but I appreciate EO.
Yeah, their last discussion was just getting to the important distinctions (that I think Gavin mostly misses or glosses over in his critiques) at the end. I wish he'd dialogue about these concerns more instead of just copy/pasting quotes and professing that his interpretation of them are representative of what the church teaches
One of the biggest Protestant objections to Eastern Orthodox is the absence of "once saved, always saved" theology because Orthodox don't presume to judge for God, (salvation AND damnation are uncertain) yet you argue a false claim that EO believe heterodox are damned. It is very easy to determine who is within or without the one true (Orthodox) church, but it is impossible to say who will be saved or damned. The more that Protestants return to their "roots" the more they will (re)discover Holy Orthodoxy, against which the gates of hell will not prevail. No single saint speaks for the Church. This is a straw man argument. If you revisit Ephesians, you will see that the Church is one! One body of Christ, one Church. If you wish to be in the body of Christ, join His one Church...Orthodoxy forever! "Where the Spirit is, there is the Church". We can be certain that the Spirit is present in the Orthodox Church, but we cannot be certain of where it is not!
OH, I believe there is one true church which is the mystical body of Christ which exists everywhere in the world. But it certainly is not the EO or the RCC. It consists of those whom God has chosen; not by "joining" some silly organization making claims they have no right to make, OR by praying some unscriptural magic prayer. Most of you on all sides have nothing more than a mere Christian flavored religion of no consequence. And the sad part is you think you're being bold when all you're doing is hiding behind others. I can't do that and take myself seriously.
Gavin, from the bottom of my heart, thank you for what you do. You and Jordan Cooper are the only forces that have held me back from leaving Protestantism by making me a Classical Protestant.
"Classical Protestant" meaning sola scriptura which leads us to doctrinal relativism and fragmentation. You can be an "evangelical" and to believe that Jesus did not die for every single or that Jesus died for every single person, you can believe that salvation can not be lost or to believe that salvation can be lost and that is a total disgrace, these are important doctrines, a christian does not live his christian life the same way if you believe one thing or the opposite. Yes this is classical protestantism from luther´s times. The debate between luther and zwingli made clear that sola scriptura is false, worthless to decide which teaching is authentic and what is heresy. Classical protestantism has division in its DNA.
I attend a Baptist church and am Christian. Sometimes I visit a Greek Orthodox church. It offers a time to get out of what is comfortable and worship God that feels more contemplative for me. Possibly because I don't know what's going on or the language other than God is present and that is all I need to know. They don't judge me for not venerating icons and know I won't partake of communion. I see the appeal but our Baptist church changed my life and God is with us in the protestant church too.
Dear Dr. Ortlund, I thank you very very much for this strong and masculine response to the fallacy that salvation is only possible/ available in the Orthodox church. As an ex Catholic who was ostracised by my family for having become an evangelical Christian, I was getting puzzled and appalled as to why many Christians and Evangelical Theologians were converting to Roman Catholicism. How does a Christian embrace these dogmas which carry the penalty of being anathemised if not adhered to the bodily assumption of Mary and her perpetual virginity?? I was so convinced that the Orthodox church was the right move to make vefore listening to this very robust theological polemic that salvation is by one's faith in the Lordship of Jesus Christ and in His death on the Cross and His physical bodily resurrection and not on a particular denomination. Thank you very very very much for giving me the confirmation to stay put in my Evangelical church with the assurance of being saved by faith in Jesus Christ alone!! God bless you richly in every single area of your life, Pastor Ortlund.
It’s more like, the standard to be in the faith is: faith in Christ the only Son of God and baptism in the Triune name of God, not extra particulars like which particular organization which teaches Christ and baptizes in the Triune name. The standard of kicking out all of “x” denomination that isn’t orthodox is arbitrary and violates the nature of the faith once delivered
Forgive me Gavin. Are you trying to be ironic? Bishop Theophan wrote a private letter cautioning his parishioner to be careful before jettisoning his parish life in favor of an exotic new tradition that Bishop Theophan had serious reservations about. It seems to me that the only difference between this and what you are doing is that he NEVER intended this letter to be published, whereas you are publishing your message to the faceless masses. What do you make of your pastoral responsibility to be sensitive to the listener's individual circumstances? Bishop Theophan isn't making wholesale counsel as you are here. If you'd like to promote "Truth in the service of Unity" (isn't that what "Truth Unites" means?), why not pick this quote from a different Russian bishop around the time of Theophan?: Met. Philaret of Moscow: I do not presume to call false any church which believes that Jesus is the Christ. The Christian Church can only be either purely true, confessing the true and saving Divine teaching without the false admixtures and pernicious opinions of men, or not purely true, mixing with the true and saving teaching of faith in Christ the false and pernicious opinions of men. ...You expect now that I should give judgment concerning the other half of contemporary Christianity, but I do no more than simply look out upon them; in part I see how the Head and Lord of the Church heals the many deep wounds caused by the old serpent in all the parts and limbs of this body, applying now gentle, now strong, remedies, even fire and iron, in order to soften hardness, to draw out poison, to cleanse the wounds, to separate out malignant growth, to restore spirit and life in the half-dead and numbed structures. In such wise I attest my faith that in the end the power of God will evidently triumph over human weakness good over evil, unity over division, life over death. Or others from other periods (even though you are arguing that a more pastorally ecumenical tone is unique to the 21st century)?: St. Mark of Ephesus: We need investigation and conversation in matters of theological disputation so that compelling and conspicuous arguments may be considered. Profound benefit is gained from such conversation, if the objective is not altercation but truth, and if the motive is not solely to triumph over others. Inspired by grace and bound by love, our goal is to discover the truth, and we should never lose sight of this, even when the pursuit is prolonged. Let us listen amicably so that our loving exchange might contribute to consensus. St. Gregory of Nazianzen: For we are not seeking victory, but to gain brethren, by whose separation from us we are torn. This we concede to you in whom we do find something of vital truth, who are sound as to the son. We admire your life, but we do not altogether approve of your doctrine. …I will even utter the Apostle’s wish. So much do I cling to you, and so much do I revere your array, and the color of your continence, and those sacred assemblies, and the august virginity, and purification, and the psalmody that lasts all night and your love of the poor, and of the brethren, and of strangers, that I could consent to anathema from Christ, and even to suffer something as one condemned, if only you might stand beside us, and we might glorify the Trinity together. Met. Evlogy: On the heights of their spiritual lives have not the Saints passed beyond the walls that separate us, walls which, according to the grand saying of Metropolitan Platon of Kiev, do not mount us as far as heaven? Fr. Sergius Bulgakov: Unity is something already given and something we must attain to. Fr. Georges Florovsky: The highest and most promising ‘ecumenical virtue’ is patience.
It might have started as private…but it’s been published by somebody and available to 7+ BILLION people for reading and discernment. Which Gavin did and decided to share his response to any of those 7+ billion people willing to give him a listen. Your position is equivalent to someone sharing a picture in a private Facebook group and then getting upset with someone else years later who shares the picture after it’s circulated across Facebook and other social media platforms by millions of users. Doesn’t make sense.
@@jayv3264 Hi Jayv3264. Thanks for replying. I think I understand where you're coming from. The thrust of what I'm trying to get at is regarding why Dr. Gavin chooses this particular quote to represent "the" Orthodox "position?" I provided several other quotes by important Orthodox men throughout history that are not representative of the ugly perspective that Dr. Gavin seems to insist we all have toward non-Orthodox. It just feels irresponsible to me that Dr. Gavin is using his "Truth Unites" branding to actually seemingly use "truth" as a sword that he insists divides us. Frankly, I don't know what Dr. Gavin's aim really is. If it were ecumenical, irenic, discussion with the aim of truth "uniting" us, he would dialogue with the copious like-minded Orthodox people out there. Rather, it feels like his project is very defensive. In the intro of his new book he flatly states that he is writing to Protestant people who he wants to understand the validity of Protestantism instead of leaving Protestantism. Fair enough. It just feels very evident that he is leading his Protestant listeners/readers to believe that he himself can speak authoritatively about "the" Orthodox perspective while simultaneously painting an ugly picture of Orthodoxy. I don't appreciate that Dr. Gavin seems to be abusing his stated ecumenical "Truth Unites"/"irenic" branding to serve is very defensive apologetic orientation. Does that make sense? If you're a Protestant, that's wonderful. I'm not saying you shouldn't be. I'm just saying that Dr. Gavin's project leaves Orthodox listeners frustrated for these reasons. But like you insinuated, I certainly don't have to tune into Dr Gavin if I don't want to. Everyone is entitled to their own perspective and motivations. You said in your comment that I don't make sense. Does what I'm saying here make more sense? It's about using "irenicism" as a proposed mask for very defensive apologetics. He is shoving so many words in Orthodox mouths that we don't get a chance at "irenic" discussion where truth has a chance to "unite" us. Thanks. Have a good day.
I call this argument "Christian Hinduism" and its actually one of the reasons why I'm leaving protestantism. It's an extremely emotional argument that every tiny splinter sect of Christianity uses to include themselves in the church and to avoid the question "why has the visible church not held my opinions for the first 1500 years?" It encourages indifferentism and makes truth a matter of taste and sport instead of necessity. It's the "there's many paths to God" for Christianity. Historically, this resulted in a rapid degeneration of doctrine in protestant sects, because it's too "mean" to say that if you persist in your sins you won't be saved. Gavin talks about the good fruits of protestant demonimations and uses this as a proof that protestantism is part of the church, but do other faiths not have these as well? Do Mormons not have great families and give to charity? Does Islam not encourage strong family bonds and an active prayer life? Do we affirm these faiths because it would be too mean to do otherwise? Every argument Gavin makes in this video can be reworded slightly and used to extend salvation beyond Christ to other faiths. Gavin denies the authority of the appointed successors of the apostles and invents a new doctrine of the "invisible church" that no one held for 1500 years, just so that he can affirm his own authority and invent his own individual form of Christianity. On top of that protestants will water down truth and doctrine to include the people and beliefs they individually like into the plan of salvation.
You wrote: "Every argument Gavin makes in this video can be reworded slightly and used to extend salvation beyond Christ to other faiths." The problem is that there is only one true faith: faith in Jesus as one's Savior/Redeemer from all of one's sins by His propitiatory, finished, once-and-done sacrifice on the cross. Can a Mormon be saved? Yes, if his trust lies in Christ and not in his Mormonism (with its temple ordinances). Can a Catholic be saved? Yes, if his trust lies in Christ and not in his Catholicity (with its Sacraments). Get the picture? It's a lot harder to pinpoint any Protestant denomination that teaches its members to trust in their denominational membership; Protestant churches teach faith in Christ alone. Authority was delegated by Jesus to all disciples. Look at the sending of the Twelve, followed soon afterward by the sending of the Seventy... none of whom were "ordained in Apostolic succession." He spoke to Peter in Matt. 16, but soon afterward Jesus spoke very similarly to the gathered disciples in Matt. 18. And in Mark 16 Jesus told the disciples that "he who believes" will preach the Gospel, cast out demons, heal the sick, etc. Brother, that is the _authority of every believer!_
For 200 yrs Rome killed all the earliest church elders 😢 then along come Constantine = Rome who rebuilt Christians simple prayer houses, that Rome destroyed...into gaudy decorated huge "churches" and put the preacher on the payroll... Now, what exactly did Jesus say about the church and taking money for spreading the gospel?? Do you even remember? And what was Jesus only commandment?
You're making a fallacious and circular argument and frankly arguing in bad faith. Protestantism is assumed guilty, EO assumed innocent. In another way of speaking, your conclusion (that Protestantism is false while Eastern Orthodoxy is true) is one of your premises. Some of the things you say are outright lies, like Gavin (more properly, Protestants in general) make an individual version of Christianity, as if one can belong to a Protestant church and not subscribe to its confessions. You also just assume that Christianity was in stasis for 1500 years. The Protestant contention is that these institutions that claim authority were formed over time, and have evolved doctrinally, and implemented numerous man-made traditions as dogmas.
I am an Orthodox Christian and I will not betray my faith - St Peter the Aleut To give up what I have now to go back to where I was….it will never happen. I am not the most pious, the most smart, but I am an Orthodox Christian and I will die an orthodox Christian
Gavin, the same question that you encourage Protestants to ask about Eastern Orthodoxy concerning the latter's willingness to damn all the beauty, goodness, wonder, and dedication found in other forms of Christianity is also what you should encourage Christians at large to ask themselves regarding other faiths: Can you make peace with a religious view that relegates faithful Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, Humanists, and others to some eternal punishment merely for not being Christian, irrespective of what they believe and how they live?
We can make peace, of course, and are supposed to live in peace with everyone as much as we can. We cannot agree theologically with groups we have irreconcilable theological differences with. Also we don't condemn anyone to hell, or want anyone to go to hell. It's simply a reality which exists, which we have no control over. It doesn't mean we want people to go there or persecute them for not believing as we do.
We have peace with other religions. Those who do not want to be with Christ in Heaven simply will not be based on their free will. It's like if 1 person drove to a mountain and the other person to a lake then of course that's their respective destination. A Christian may invite others to the mountain but the hike is hard. We can't force them up it if they really want to get a solid tan by the lake instead.
@@CreationGrid You didn't understand how the word "peace" is being used in this context. You shouldn't believe in good conscience that only people who agree with your specific theology will be blessed by God for eternity.
@@KingoftheJuice18 I don't think you're understanding our religion and theology. The Bible does not teach that anyone is good or superior, it teaches that all humans are corrupt and going to hell by default. Hell is eternal separation from God, and we are born apart from God because of our wicked nature. If you want to go into God's house, you have to enter based on the conditions he establishes. Just like if you want to come into my house, or I into yours, there are some conditions, yes? We are told not to abuse or oppress anyone, or use force to bring people into our religion. However, we cannot change our holy text because other people don't like the message. Jesus said he would be a stumbling block for many, and not everyone would be able to accept his message. We also don't have any authority to determine who gets into heaven and who doesn't.
@@Procopius464 But you don't have to believe everything your religion may have taught in the past. In fact, you don't believe or take literally everything your religion says. Based on what you've written, I'm guessing that you don't believe in a literal "lake of fire," even though the NT talks specifically about a lake of fire. We must use the minds and reason that God gave us to determine the genuine meaning of holy texts. It's not an escape clause to say that Jesus told us that his teachings wouldn't make sense. You're making God sound very bad. According to you, a person is born condemned through absolutely no fault of their own. The only way that someone can escape this condition, according to you, is to become a Christian. It doesn't matter how you live or if you believe in the one God in another faith-you're condemned. Fortunately, that's not the truth about God, because such a God would not be worthy of reverent, adoring worship, only of fear.
As an Orthodox Christian I appreciate your comments and pov . The ongoing problem with Protestant churches are that they are seeming built on sand and not the Rock that is the gospels and holy tradition. This seems to only belong to the Orthodox at this epoch . Although many parish priests seem to look the other way and just hope for their flock to realize the narrow path . The Protestant seems to be way off the path ? God have mercy on us sinners and may we be forgiven through Jesus Christ at that final hour . There is a strong belief that if your not Orthodox, your not saved . However, the Orthodox also believe that God is the judge and everyone will meet the judgement as an individual. The reason that the Orthodox are so strong on being Orthodox as the one true faith is that when we go off the narrow path , as Protestants often do more and more as they are divided more and more , the Protestant is going further from the narrow path and follows the way of the contemporary world . The Orthodox has a couple of thousand years of very little change and ignores the vagaries of time .
I was Protestant for 25 years. I became Orthodox after 5 years of inquiring and attending divine Liturgy for a year and I haven't looked back. There is nothing as fulfilling as the Orthodox faith. There is nothing like Divine Liturgy.
I'm sure you have very "fulfilling" experiences, and like Gavin said, there is beauty in Orthodox services. But you should really "look back" if you would live a life with Christ based on GOD'S WORD...instead of man made traditions.
@@matthiasbrandt1252Apologies for being blunt, but Protestants do not escape from tradition. The very interpretative framework you use for scripture either consciously or unconsciously is itself an inherited tradition. The way your church is structured is in a tradition. It’s been 2000 years since Christ, there is no way to escape that our interaction with the faith is at least somewhat mediated by tradition.
Comments are not interacting enough with the anathemas EO have declared which do make salvation extremely exclusive within their tradition (their interpretation and organization of the church). This is very problematic and does not appear consistently applied by EO. We Protestants do not have that same problem as we have grounds within our system to aknowledge the inclusion of non-Protestants in the church.
@lcs-salam Sure, but you still have a standard for who is part of the church. It's like you're mad that another church has a standard that doesn't include you. If we said "Mormonism is anathema," you would have no problem with it. Guess what? Theophan is correct. There is no salvation in your church. This has never been disputed and has never changed in Orthodoxy. Salvation is the process by which you are transformed to be more Christ-like. Your theology is man-made and does not have the transforming power of Christ's church. Can you get to heaven without that? Sure, by God's mercy, just like the thief on the cross. But we don't know how often that happens, and you are playing with fire and doing the spiritual equivalent of drunk-driving by relying on it. You think you are safe because you believe in forensic justification, an interpretation of scripture that was invented in the 16th century by the mere man Martin Luther, and which scholars agree was not present before that time.
@@EpistemicAnthony I'm not mad, but I am two things. 1) Confused about the inconsistency among Orthodox people on this subject and 2) Grieved that Orthodoxy makes a narrow door more narrow in a way God doesn't. Adding a burden by traditions of men, like the Pharisees did. I agree there is a progressive aspect of salvation. Being transformed by the renewing of our minds and partaking of the divine nature happen more and more in the Christian life. This prepares us for the glory to come, as well as evidences we're actually on our way there. Perseverance in holiness and faith is both a grace from God and a responsibility of the believer. I believe I am safe through God because He is merciful, I am a sinner, and I have come to Him through Jesus. We do disagree on how the righteousness of God is credited to a believer. I am not terribly concerned if previous generations in the church misunderstood this from the Scriptures. There are things within your tradition I can make a case were not present in previous generations either. As a Protestant, I am open to the church needing to reform by repenting of error and embracing God's truth as revealed in His Word. This is what Jesus calls the churches in Revelation 2-3 to do. Sadly your understanding of the church does not allow this (correct me if I'm wrong). I appreciate you are seeking to be consistent with the teachings of Orthodoxy, from what I can see. We may disagree but we shouldn't be ashamed of what we believe. If you believe a Protestant like me is anathema, as your church teaches, it is right you warn me of that and not treat me as a brother. I wish you'd see it differently though of course.
@lcs-salam 1. Where do you see inconsistency in Orthodoxy on this manner? Every Orthodox person agrees there is no salvation outside the church. We have said this over and over, and we have said that you are misunderstanding this statement over and over. 2. Is it us that made the narrow gate narrower, or is it others that made the narrow gate broader? 3. What's more likely: That the generations before you all the way to the Apostles "misunderstood" scripture on justification, or that Martin Luther misunderstood scripture and invented a new view on Justification, which you were then taught was fact? Personally, I think the first option is far more plausible. The people that knew all the Apostles in person know better how to interpret their writings than you or Martin Luther do. I appreciate your comment and your kindness. I think you will one day become Orthodox.
@@EpistemicAnthony 1) You can search up ecumenicism among Orthodox to other traditions. It's pretty out there. I also regularly see Orthodox "laity" extending the right hand of fellowship to Catholics and Protestants alike. The idea of salvation exclusively within Orthodoxy doesn't appear so strong among many I've interacted with online. 2) Of course we disagree on this. It should make us go back to Jesus' words in Scripture and test all things though. What is the measuring rod? Who defines what is too narrow or too broad? Isaiah cried, "To the Law and the Testimony! If they do not speak according to this word, there is no light in them." 3) It was not Luther alone who began to see one is justified by faith. There are records of this view in some form or another throughout church history, going back to the earliest fathers. Sacramentalism developed over time. Orthodox concede this (I forget the term that is used). While the exact nuances of justification may have developed further during the Reformation, the basic truth that the grace of God meets us upon repentance and faith by the merits of Jesus - this is underneath a lot. But ideas of theosis, and mystical expressions of our union with Jesus, as you Orthodox have written extensively about, this clearly was not represented in the earliest patristics but developed over time as well. The theology of desert fathers, for example, is distinct in its own respects. Protestantism has this too. However, Rome anathematized us. I'm grateful for the kind dialogue as well.
Very often the answer of priests and Saints is the same: "Work on your salvation! If you are worried about your non-Orthodox family and friends, pray for them". And I appreciate the rigorist approach, remind me that this is not a game, and I shouldn't be collecting weird theological opinions, the path is narrow and a little mistakes have serious consequences in the long run. I don't understand why you keep pressing this point. In our traditions we have people who think that only people in the Eastern Orthodox Church will be saved, we have (hopeful) universalists, we have people in between and the majority: those who tell you to pray, go to Church, fast and remember that God is infinitely more merciful than you are.
The problem is that the rigorists have an easier time defending their position in line with their canonical teachings and teachings of various Saints. However, the EO priests who are either open to salvation outside the church rarely defend their case from tradition but rather seem to be within the spirit of ecumenism.
@@ElvisI97 They are more vocal and people are more "scandalized" by them, but I don't think there is more evidence for the "no salvation outside the visible Church" position. For example, the Church doesn't even affirm that Judas is in hell. As St. Maximus said: "May God keep me too from condemning anyone and saying that no one but myself is saved" Even priest that are very "rigid", like Fr. Peter Heers, when pressed on this issue he respond the same: "I don't know, that is God's business".
What a wonderful video. This video put into words my biggest problem with Eastern orthodoxy, and this exclusionist mentality is the reason I left. My only problem with this video is that it didn't come out sooner! God bless you dr. Ortlund, May this reach the heart of many so they don't have to go through the pain that I and many others have over ecclesial anxiety.
Hi Tana Grant. I'm so disappointed that Dr. Gavin is promoting such division and promoting false impressions. Please also consider this statement from another Russian bishop from the same time period (that wasn't quote mined from a personal letter of his, as this Theophan quote was). There is tremendous conciliarity within the Orthodox Church: Met. Philaret of Moscow: I do not presume to call false any church which believes that Jesus is the Christ. The Christian Church can only be either purely true, confessing the true and saving Divine teaching without the false admixtures and pernicious opinions of men, or not purely true, mixing with the true and saving teaching of faith in Christ the false and pernicious opinions of men. ...You expect now that I should give judgment concerning the other half of contemporary Christianity, but I do no more than simply look out upon them; in part I see how the Head and Lord of the Church heals the many deep wounds caused by the old serpent in all the parts and limbs of this body, applying now gentle, now strong, remedies, even fire and iron, in order to soften hardness, to draw out poison, to cleanse the wounds, to separate out malignant growth, to restore spirit and life in the half-dead and numbed structures. In such wise I attest my faith that in the end the power of God will evidently triumph over human weakness good over evil, unity over division, life over death.
You simply chose to be of the world. I chose to follow Christ and his clearly established church. It's not my concern what happens to family. I love them and God is just, so I have hope. But at the end of the day it's "Thy will be done." Not "My will be done." God is just and love Anyone that doesn't make it to heaven doesn't deserve to be there
Orthodox people who deny that we believe there is no salvation outside of the Church need to hear this and be rebuked so thank you Gavin for accurately displaying through Theophan what we believe. I knew this teaching leaving Protestantism into Eastern Orthodoxy almost a year ago and this teaching Gavin is elaborating on is actually one of the big reasons I knew it was the truth. This idea that all people who claim to be Christians must be saved is nowhere to be found in Scripture. Mark 9 does not justify being a heretic and teaching a false gospel. Jesus said Not everyone who calls him Lord will be saved...this is the exact problem Gavin has with Eastern Orthodoxy which teaches exactly what Christ taught! There is only one church because there is only one visible distinguishable covenant body and bride of the Lord. I say this as lovingly as I can but Gavin doesnt understand our obsession with church because he doesnt understand theosis...the concept of the church of God being literally conjoined to Christ. We become one with Him in the church. We receive His actual flesh and become His literal body. (Eph 4:30) To be one with the church is to be one with Jesus who deifies it. Thats what is missing in Protestantism. There is no true church or deification through the sacraments and priesthood EXACTLY as Theophan says and its not just him. Read Athanasius, Cyprian, Ambrose of Milan, Irenaeus, Ignatius (disciple of the apostle John), and especially Augustine of Hippo who Protestants claim to love and agree with. They all speak with one voice! "He can not have God for His father who does not have the church for his mother!" -Augustine
Hey I love holy orthodoxy and it quite hard for me this teaching because of people outside of the church who are seeking to love Jesus and live holy lives. I understand this but I do wonder if there is a little bit of nuance here
You're substituting faith in your denomination (EO) for faith in the _finished, once-for-all, propitiatory sacrifice of Christ on the cross_ for your complete redemption from sin. Nowhere do we read that Jesus required belief in a particular church organization for one's salvation & justification. You wrote: "This idea that all people who claim to be Christians must be saved is nowhere to be found in Scripture." But this is NOT the idea which Gavin and other Christians are conveying! You've presented a straw man. The idea Christians convey, which IS found (repeatedly) in Scripture, is that all who believe in Jesus as their Savior from sin _are saved_ and _will be saved,_ so long as they persevere in their faith in Jesus Christ (i.e., they do not apostasize). Yes, there is only one church... and it transcends all denominational barriers. God does not look at the name over the building's doorway; He looks for the blood of Christ applied through faith to the doorposts of a person's heart. Jesus' true church crosses all denominational lines. There are true, born-again Christians in practically all denominations. Likewise, there are plenty of faux Christians in all denominations. Denominationalism means nothing; faith in Christ's redemption at a personal level means everything, because through faith apart from works we are counted righteous by God as a gift of His grace.
@@rexlion4510 I know were you are coming from, but were there denominations in the early church and a variety of teaching and doctrines? was there not one understanding and one teaching and one church. I mean did Christ not say the holy spirit would lead you into all truth. frankly I was tired the many different versions of truth in protestant circles, and asked my self what did the early church believe How did they understand the gospel. Not saying this to debate and no hate on my part by any means, but if Christ is the truth does any lie come from him and his holy spirit.
@@rexlion4510the reason prots are leaving for EO is because the invisible church is a massive accretion on which protestantism rests, and it's illogical, it's not historical, it's fence jumping. Big reason I left protestantism after 30 years, it's simply not the true, visible, historic church Christ left that He promised would be lead by Him, that He'd never leave and that the Holy Spirit would guide into all truth. If the scripture is true and the church is the pillar and bulwark of truth as stated in scripture then any other church existing can't be the true Church, it makes Christ a liar.
Gal 3:26 for in -the Orthodox Church- Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith. -in the Orthodox Church.- Gal 3:27 For as many of you as were baptized into -the Orthodox Church- Christ have put on Christ.
I love it! Now do it for every pertinent verse in the entire New Testament! I’d get a kick out of it. lol Ok. Don’t actually do it. It would take too long. But it’s fun to think about.
Jesus says in Matthew 16:18, “…I will build My church and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.” There must be ONE church, one communion of believers which can trace its founding to the birth of the church at Pentecost and has faithfully kept the apostolic deposit of faith, or else Christ is a liar.
@@mamafortuin You wrote: "Jesus says in Matthew 16:18, “…I will build My church and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.” There must be ONE church, one communion of believers which can trace its founding to the birth of the church at Pentecost and has faithfully kept the apostolic deposit of faith" I agree that Jesus only builds one church, His church. But how do you get from Matt. 16:18 to the conclusion that the "one church" is _your denomination_ (be it Eastern Orthodox, or Roman Catholic, or any other hierarchical structure)? You _assume a particular definition_ of the word "church," a definition which fits your preconceptions and desires. At Pentecost, the believers were baptized with the Holy Spirit, and the external tongues of fire were mirrored spiritually in each follower of Christ, for they received a holy boldness and a 'fire in the belly' (so to speak) to share the Gospel of Jesus Christ. They also received the local Real Presence of _God the Holy Spirit indwelling them;_ the Spirit confirmed to them that they were joint heirs with Christ and He began to provide the personal guidance and enablement that each one needed. This is what each follower of Jesus should expect: to be regenerated (born again) by the indwelling Spirit and to have _intimate fellowship, personal guidance, and enablement_ to do the works God foreordained for each of us to walk in. These gifts of God's grace are not limited to the members of any one earthly organization: EO, RO, RC, Old Catholic, Maronite Catholic, Lutheran, Anglican, etc. God sees the heart of each person, and He responds to those who have living faith in Christ's propitiatory sacrifice for their remission of all their sins by regenerating them, living in them, and bearing good fruit through them as they cooperate in love and humble obedience. Thus, spiritually speaking, Jesus' church crosses all denominational lines. Similar to how the Israelites responded to God's promise in faith and applied the blood of an innocent lamb to the doorposts of their dwellings (and the death angel passed over them), God looks at one's 'heart' (the inner man) and, if the blood of Jesus the innocent Lamb of God has been applied through faith to the 'doorposts' of one's heart, Jesus' promise fully applies: "Truly, truly I say to you, _whoever believes in me _*_has_*_ eternal life"_ (John 6:47). John 3:14-18 "And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, so must the Son of Man be lifted up, that whoever believes in him -and joins the correct church group- may have eternal life. For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him. _Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed_ in the name of the only Son of God. Separating the "sheep" from the "goats" will be God's job; it is not the job of some patriarch, pope, or bishop. Belief (faith, trust in Jesus as one's Savior from all sin) is what God looks for when He is giving His gracious gifts of salvation, justification, and eternal life. Not a membership in "church X," but faith in Christ. Jesus builds His church in His own way, not according to man's ideas. Isa 55:9 "For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts." Peace.
![BLACK BAG - Official Trailer [HD] - Only in Theaters March 14](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Du0Xp8WX_7I/mqdefault.jpg)
Thanks everyone for watching and to those who commented. Just to address a few concerns:
1) Lots of comments are saying, "this is an emotional appeal," even though I anticipated that response and explicitly addressed it at 7:07. The concern is not emotionalism, but obedience to Jesus. Granted, we disagree on what it means to obey Jesus in discerning the church, but that should be the point of discussion, not emotion. See my discussion there and throughout.
2) Some are saying, "why are you only quoting one bishop to represent all of Orthodoxy, rather than encouraging people to talk to their priest?" Again, I addressed this at 3:41. Theophan is a saint and a contemporary father of the church so his views can't be dismissed as his own private view. They have more authority than an individual priest. Further, the whole goal of this video was to do a deep dive on one figure; I have given more of a serial survey in my prior video mentioned here at 2:15, where I walk through an array of saints and councils.
3) Others are appealing to another quote attributed to Theophan the Recluse. I am uncertain about the authenticity of this quote; we often find it cited on the internet but it seems to come to us indirectly (most commonly cited from Seraphim Rose) and I cannot locate the original source. The quote is also ambiguous: it cautions against worrying about the salvation of the non-Orthodox, perhaps hinting at its possibility (though still reflecting the same exclusivity about the “truth” and “heresy”). Hence my effort here at a careful exegesis of this longer letter Theophan, where his view of the non-Orthodox is given a fuller array of categories (heretics, false prophets, preaching another Christ, etc.), which I hope provides a fuller and more rounded portrait of his view. At any rate, however you interpret this particular quote, the basic concern of institutional exclusivity is not changed. For a fuller portrait of the entire late medieval and early modern Orthodox view, see my video "Does Eastern Orthodoxy Have the "Fullness of the Faith?"
4) Others are saying, “if you think the EO can be saved, why do you even care if Protestants become EO?” The answer to that is the truth matters. Just because salvation may be possible in a given context does not mean that its errors do not have serious consequences.
I will keep trying to read comments as I have time; thank you all for engaging the video.
@@TruthUnites "the truth matters". So you attacked EO because the truth matters for them, but you excuse your attack because the truth matters to you.... Isn't it a little bit counterintuitive?
Hi Gavin, Just wanted to say I appreciate your channel. You and Redeemed Zoomer were my first introduction to Orthodoxy which I am now actively converting to. I came from a Baptist background and watched pretty much all of your videos pertaining to Orthodoxy (and a handful of other RUclipsrs cautioning against Orthodoxy).I really wanted to hear as much opposition to what I was doing before I made the choice. I especially enjoyed your conversation with Fr Demetrios Bathrellos. Even though I am converting, I do still enjoy listening to your videos. God bless you!
@@TruthUnites Hi Gavin, I’m confused about your 3rd paragraph. Since the additional quote being cited is “ambiguous” (in your opinion), you pretty much dismiss it? Seems convenient considering it demonstrates a stance contrary to the case that you built during the video.
@@jamesbishop3091 bingo.
Gavin, it seems you have applied a Roman Catholic view of saints and church fathers, which is that they cannot err on matters of doctrine. This is not the view of the EO church. Saint and Church Fathers err. Sainthood does not grant perfect knowledge.
EO ecclesiology would be a good topic of study for you.
Converted to orthodoxy after 30 years as an evangelical four years ago. Never looked back.
@@sheldonthorpe4797 I'm not even saying to be condescending. I would probably sooner be martyred than betray the Orthodox Faith and go back to something like Evangelical or Baptist. It's so empty, and you can't help but painfully know this after experiencing Orthodoxy.
@@sheldonthorpe4797 many years! Glory to Jesus Christ ☦️
@KoiDotJpeg if God's Word and promises untarnished and unadulterated by ceremonial accretions are empty, then ok. Enjoy your liturgies. May you be blessed.
@FaithinChristCrucified divine "ceremonial accretion," because we do things the the way the Church always has. I don't think you guys realize how far back it all goes.
Chrismation as a Sacrament is written about by the 3rd century.
I'm so glad you that find beautiful and allows you to connect with God! I pray that your church helps you to hold fast to Christ.
I do just hope you remember that the problems go both ways. While Evangelical churches can be shallow and naive, Orthodox churches can sometimes be totally devoid of the Holy Spirit, despite having the liturgy and the beauty, etc. This is especially true in parts of Eastern Europe and Russia, where it's often a "cultural orthodoxy," rather than genuine faith. There are many, many people who leave Orthodoxy because they finally find Jesus and their hearts are transformed because of someone outside the EO church sharing the gospel with them. You'll find some of them in this comment section, and I suspect that story is significantly more common than the other way around, at least outside the the united states, where we have our own kind of cultural Christianity.
Ultimately, we should all be thrilled when a person gives their life to Jesus, even if that's not in the exact same way we did.
Hello Gavin! This message is from an Orthodox priest who really likes your RUclips channel. I have found your studies, and your knowledge of the Church Fathers, to be really surprising and helpful! I even refer to them at my own parish (depending on the issue, as you'd expect!). Thank you for portraying such a peaceful posture even with those you disagree with.
But I wouldn't make a comment if that's all I had to say on a video like this! In my opinion, you have a tendency, on this issue of the salvation of the non-Orthodox, to take quotes out of context and make absolute but incorrect conclusions. I'll give a few examples.
The first example is from this video. From this letter of Saint Theophan, you make an absolute conclusion about the salvation of non-Orthodox. However, this letter was written in a very particular context which you said yourself in the video: that an Evangelical preacher was seemingly preaching among Russian Orthodox people, the implication being this took place in Orthodox Russia. As a pastor myself, I would immediately suspect that such a preacher would be doing this in order to win converts from the Orthodox Faith to his flock. In other words, this letter does not come as the result of two friends from two denominations, both faithful Christians in their own spheres, sitting down with each other and sharing their thoughts about each other's salvation; it is a defense of the flock, protecting the sheep from wandering astray from a potential poacher. I would expect nothing less from you if an Orthodox preacher were among your Baptist parishioners trying to convert people; I might even expect to hear you say, "Icons are an accretion, and may border on idolatry." You might find it extreme to call Orthodox idolaters, but it is not unreasonable for you to suggest it if you are encouraging your Baptist parishioner to remain Baptist. In addition, St. Theophan's advice is given to the Orthodox Christian who may be considering leaving the Church about the consequences he would face for leaving. On the issue of the status of the non-Orthodox themselves outside of the particulars mentioned in St. Theophan's letter, other commenters here have produced another quote from St. Theophan, who is open to the possibility for their salvation. I don't think we need to set St. Theophan against himself as if he were of two minds on the issue.
The next example concerns your view of the Seventh Ecumenical Council and its anathemas of those who do not venerate icons. From what I can recall you saying in other videos, you believe these anathemas condemn a substantial number of well-meaning Christians, yourself included, who are outside the Orthodox Church. However, I believe you are taking the Seventh Council out of context. Anathemas are used internally, not externally. In other words, the Council anathematizes those within the Church who say such things, not those outside. As St. Paul says himself, "For what have I to do with judging those also who are outside? Do you not judge those who are inside?" (1 Cor 5:12).
The last example I want to use is from your discussion of the "ark of salvation theory." As I've seen in your videos, you believe that the Orthodox Church has changed its stance on the salvation of non-Orthodox to being exclusive, reaching the height of this thinking in the medieval era and only abating in the past century. You take this as evidence that Orthodoxy's claim to never change its doctrinal stances is demonstrably false. However, this is also out of the very specific contexts in which Church Fathers wrote on these issues. Let me explain.
In the period of the Early Church (up to even the Great Schism of 1054), the phrase "Catholic Church" had very obvious meaning -- it was the Church you found throughout the world, whether in India or Britain. The Early Church had no origin other than the apostles. All other churches (usually called schisms and heresies) were typically localized, and all had founders of their groups. These schisms/heresies were typically defined by open rejection of the Church, and attempting to proselytize members of the Church into joining their faction. At such a time, no wonder the Church spoke so clearly about salvation being within the Church, in a time of conflict with these non-Orthodox groups, and to keep the faithful from wandering away.
Then, consider the Medieval period. Following the Great Schism, within only 150 years, the Roman Catholics were in open war against the Orthodox -- not with the pen, but the sword. They sacked Constantinople, installed a Latin Kingdom, and launched Crusades against the Kievan Rus in order to 'resubmit' them to the Bishop of Rome. The Roman Catholics were actually successful in conquering and converting many Orthodox into what is today called the Eastern Rite. I see it as no wonder, then, that the Orthodox would speak so vehemently against them, especially as concerns salvation. You have a very good video on the problems with pre-Reformation Roman Catholicism that I think helps prove this point.
However, today, there are numerous differences with these two previous periods: 1) The vast majority of Christians are not in armed conflicts with one another, but live in relative peace. 2) Unlike in the period of Early Christianity, it is not factually clear who that "Catholic Church" is anymore. Even if you read piles of books, like-minded and well-meaning Christians come to very different conclusions. It is not the "slam-dunk" like it would have been in the 3rd century. 3) The schisms and heresies of the past were often defined, in especially their early years, by rejecting the Orthodox Church from which they divided. However, today's atmosphere is completely different. Most Christians of the world have been historically separated from the Orthodox Church for a thousand years, some even more. Most of them don't even know about Orthodoxy; and if they do, they probably have no idea, or motivation, to research it. This is why I agree with Metropolitan Philaret (Voznesensky), who said: "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’ (1 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."
When you consider, then, how much of the context surrounding this conversation has changed, I find it no wonder that modern Orthodox saints and authors are more open to the salvation of non-Orthodox. Much like St. Paul's own epistles, we must understand them not just based on their bare content, but to whom they are written and for what purpose. I believe it is incorrect to make absolute statements, therefore, using our Tradition as if it can be divorced from historical context.
But I do want to add, and really mean: You do excellent work. I am sorry for all the toxic Orthodox responses you get online. I hope the 'tone' of my text appeared as peaceful as you are always in your videos. God bless you and thank you!
thank you for your charitable and thoughtful response! I am always so glad when we can argue well -- and I know that online reactions don't represent any tradition at its best.
I have a question for you:
What is the EO church’s stance on eschatology?
I’m not sure of all the details; however, I know you guy’s teach Jesus is coming back. But how do you justify the EO stance on being the one true church and being infallible in its teaching, when it is clear Jesus already returned in 70ad?
@@ProphetGreg94Are you a full preterist? We believe the destruction of the Temple in 70 AD was typologically related to the End, but not the Second Coming of Christ.
@@sgtshdfg I appreciate your answer. Where do you get the idea that it merely typological? 70ad was the reality, not a shadow. What scriptural justification is there to assert that it was merely typological? Jesus posited that his coming would be before the "passing of that generation" (Matthew 24: 30, 34). And we know that the destruction of the man of "lawlessness" occurs at the "brightness of the Lord's coming" (2 Thessalonians 2:3-4, 8). But that happens before the fall of the temple, since this takes place while the man of lawlessness "takes" his "seat in the temple" [Herodian temple destroyed in 70ad]. But then that means that the second coming's timing is constrained to that first century, since it doesn't take place AFTER the destruction of the temple, but before it. In addition, along those same lines, the second coming that Paul mentions in 2nd Thessalonians is not a different coming from the one mentioned in 1 Thessalonians 4, which is undeniably a recapitulation of Matthew 24, and it is in fact the resurrection. It is that same resurrection of Daniel 12, that Daniel informs us takes place immediately after the time of great "distress" (v.1), which is the great tribulation Jesus mentioned (Matthew 24:21). But that was in the first century too (revelation 1:9).
@@sgtshdfg So how can the EO church continue to assert a yet future coming, when it is clearly in contradiction with scripture? And with such assertions it is done so baselessly. Since the only second coming that can be referenced is the "coming" Jesus already fulfilled in the first century.
“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.”
~ St. Theophan the Recluse
This shines a light on the attempt made in this video.
I thought this was Fr. Seraphim Rose
Edit: Fun fact, it's not. Even more fitting that it is from the man whose letter Gavin is reading
Barring the differences between Catholicism and Orthodoxy, as a Catholic, St Theophan sounds pretty based
So I should never consider converting to a Orthodox as a Protestant if I'm not absolutely certain I will forever stay an Orthodox. In light of this quote, God might save me as a Protestant but will definitely damn me if I leave Orthodoxy. Good to know.
@@ryanhwang4143God is not mocked. Having heard the voice of truth but continuing in disobedience will make one’s own punishment more severe.
"They worship me in vain; their teachings are merely human rules.' You have let go of the commands of God and are holding on to human traditions.” Mark7:7
Your church is fading away and your theology is elementary. Good. Evangelicalism lead to the huge amount of atheists we have in our culture now. Your pastors have failed and your theologians are frauds.
„My name will be great among the nations, says the LORD Almighty, and in every place incense and pure offerings will be brought to me, because my name will be great among the nations," says the LORD Almighty.“ Malachi 1:11
I really wonder why there are barely any Reformed Churches that include incense in their worship.
@@omonia1511 Amen! But, isn't the prophet Malachi from the Old Testament? Are Christians commanded by LORD JESUS to keep the ceremonial laws of Torah? Did His apostles keep them? Who is the God's Temple in the New Testament? A building made by human hands? Jesus Body? Or the body of born again believers of the Holy Spirit?
@ The verse is clearly describing Gentiles worshiping God -> New Testament.
I was recently on Mount Athos and encountered a grace-filled elder, it was life-changing. Where are such people in Protestant churches? Where is your St Paisios?
The results of Orthodox is the strongest claim. It still produces holy people
Yes, because the contrast between the level of goodness displayed by the Greeks and the Russians compared to Catholic and Protestant nations is very stark.
That is to assume that any of us are good when Jesus made it quite clear that God alone is good.
@@pigzcanfly444Perhaps you’re missing the essence of this comment; that, the result of submission to Orthodoxy’s “life-changing” traditional / liturgical way is evidenced by said grace-filled elder. I’ve been watching many such videos. The overwhelming sense I get from the fathers is their deep reverence what is sacred and their fidelity to the apostolic traditions as they received, which is inform by their reverence for Christ Jesus.
@skydome777 ultimately if you asked these men what they trust in for their salvation it will become the sacrament keeping and upholding of their traditions. I understand how it feels to live surrounded by hypocrisy but we are all hypocrites according to God's standard and this by definition makes all of us less than good in the first place.
According to 1 John we need merely believe that Jesus is the Christ and we have overcome the world. No work required there. That isnt to say that doing good works is not necessary to show God's love to our fellow man but we do this purely out of love rather than a need to fulfill a quota or boasting about what we accomplished to get to heaven. The Bible clearly refutes this notion time and again and yet after my discussions with EO I have noticed it as the trend.
I asked one recently how one is saved and he replied "Go to the EO chruch." It's on a live broadcast that anyone can listen to and he kept saying that he only accepted what his bishops and priests say about the scriptures. I asked him to read several passages with me and he declined saying that he was not qualified to state his opinion on these passages. So much for freedom in Christ if this is what the EO religion has its people doing.
Jesus made the way to heaven very easy. People just refuse to accept what He did and think it wasn't enough instead. Trust in Jesus alone for your salvation and everything else is your discipleship.
Best I can do is Todd White
“Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it.” Matthew 7:13-14
Is the Orthodox Church the narrow gate, or is Christ?
@ Christ is the narrow gate but Orthodoxy is the path we walk once we enter that gate.
@@OrthoSky I thought He was The Way as well. It just feels like you are trying to find a way that this institution is indispensable to finding God. Some men in the west have been walking in the true way for generations, and they knew nothing or almost nothing about this particular institution.
@ I don’t get what you are getting at. Walking through the narrow gate and walking the Orthodox way of life if the same thing as walking with Christ because he is the way.
@@OrthoSky I am trying to say that walking the Orthodox way of life is A WAY to walk in THE WAY, which is Christ.
Raising my children in the Eastern Orthodox Church has been such a blessing. I converted 12 years ago and feel awash in beauty and the Lord’s Grace.
When y’all are tired of “striving about words to no profit” go visit your local Parish and see the good work being done for your salvation. Be a part of something that endures!
The Wordnof God endures! And so does the gospel. That is more important than man traditions, images, looooong liturgies etc
@@roses993the Liturgy includes the gospel
@@roses993what if part of the gospel message includes that which the apostles handed down liturgically to the Churches they founded?
@@orthochap9124it doesn't. Everything we need to know is in the bible, and your fake traditions contradict the bible, therefore they couldn't have come from the apostles.
Orthodoxy is pagan apostasy and idolatry.
@@kingjames5527 read the Didache before you say such things. There are definitive aspects within our tradition that are clearly apostolic. Furthermore we continue worship according to the pattern set out to Moses, but Protestants do not. They choose their own way to worship God like Nadab and Abihu.
Furthermore if there was a single thing that Jesus said for the Church to do outside of Scripture then oral tradition exists in the Church and is valuable. Clearly the New Testament doesn’t present itself as a manual, but the apostles set out a clear pattern of worship that is shared by all Orthodox churches to this very day.
orthodox inquirer here, soon becomming a catechumen. Plenty of answers when you look for them to these objections. Orthodoxy is truth! Godbless
Going from a Slavic baptist to orthodox, I found the only difference is icons in church, we still had pastor confessions, and the communion was the body and blood not a symbol, we had to do works like behave good to be saved, and we called everyone that’s not baptist a heretic and they do Christianity wrong. We even had a service dedicated to showing the church on how Pentecostals have demons and they showed a lot of examples of people falling and screaming. And other Protestant churches near me are all either liberal, non denominational, or very small so I’d rather be orthodox, it changed my life to actually believe in Christ for once in my life, I even joined the choir.
@@Instynctofficial If you guys have the “truth”, then how did you guys not get your eschatology correct? You guys think Jesus is coming back.
Jesus posited that his coming would be before the "passing of that generation" (Matthew 24: 30, 34). And we know that the destruction of the man of "lawlessness" occurs at the "brightness of the Lord's coming" (2 Thessalonians 2:3-4, 8 ). But that happens before the fall of the temple, since this takes place while the man of lawlessness "takes" his "seat in the temple" (v.4) [Herodian temple destroyed in 70ad].
But then that means that the second coming's timing is constrained to that first century, since it doesn't take place AFTER the destruction of the temple, but BEFORE it, because there has to be a temple standing for the lawless one "take his seat" in!
In addition, and along those same lines, the second coming that Paul mentions in 2nd Thessalonians is not a different coming from the one mentioned in 1 Thessalonians 4, which is undeniably a recapitulation of Matthew 24; and this happens to also be the time of the resurrection. It is that same resurrection of Daniel 12 (which Jesus alludes to in Matthew 24:15), that Daniel informs us takes place immediately after the time of great "distress" (v.1), which is the great tribulation Jesus mentioned (Matthew 24:21). But that was in the first century (revelation 1:9).
This being the case, why does the church continue to shout from the roof tops that we are on the cusp of a yet-future coming of Jesus, when his parousia had already taken place in 70ad!?
@Instynctofficial I am fascinated by the concept of Protestantism in other countries like that. Interesting to see how it all gets expressed.
@@ProphetGreg94 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
It's difficult for Protestants to properly understand many Orthodox writings, because the Protestants are often very black and white thinkers and obsessed with the margins and edge cases. What is the context of Theophan's letter? It is to someone who is already Orthodox who is being offered a Protestant Gospel. Of course from the Orthodox perspective, a Protestant version of salvation such as "Just believe in Jesus and you will be saved, you don't need priests/communion" is an incomplete and false Gospel.
It's a completely natural thing for Orthodox to say "Here is how you are saved: you are baptized, you take communion, go to confession and follow your priest's directions." This shouldn't be interpreted as a judgment on someone in a situation where they have no chance to receive these things. According to Gavin's own interpretation of Theophan's thinking, someone who is a catechumen but who was martyred before having a chance to receive communion, cannot be saved. But this is absurd, and Orthodox tradition has always taught that such people's deaths counted as a "baptism of blood" which united them to the Church.
Clearly Theophan believes in exceptions to his own description of how to be saved, but he isn't interested in describing them because this is a letter aimed at pastoral care.
Right? I think it stems from the reformation. People think their interpretation is always correct. Then people like Gavin extend that to church history and writings.
This whole video is very clearly “Gavin’s opinion” but he presents it as the ultimate authority. Hopefully the viewers see that. I think they do
@@daniels4669 If you guys have the “truth”, then how did you guys not get your eschatology correct? You guys think Jesus is coming back.
Jesus posited that his coming would be before the "passing of that generation" (Matthew 24: 30, 34). And we know that the destruction of the man of "lawlessness" occurs at the "brightness of the Lord's coming" (2 Thessalonians 2:3-4, 8 ). But that happens before the fall of the temple, since this takes place while the man of lawlessness "takes" his "seat in the temple" (v.4) [Herodian temple destroyed in 70ad].
But then that means that the second coming's timing is constrained to that first century, since it doesn't take place AFTER the destruction of the temple, but BEFORE it, because there has to be a temple standing for the lawless one "take his seat" in!
In addition, and along those same lines, the second coming that Paul mentions in 2nd Thessalonians is not a different coming from the one mentioned in 1 Thessalonians 4, which is undeniably a recapitulation of Matthew 24; and this happens to also be the time of the resurrection. It is that same resurrection of Daniel 12 (which Jesus alludes to in Matthew 24:15), that Daniel informs us takes place immediately after the time of great "distress" (v.1), which is the great tribulation Jesus mentioned (Matthew 24:21). But that was in the first century (revelation 1:9).
This being the case, why does the church continue to shout from the roof tops that we are on the cusp of a yet-future coming of Jesus, when his parousia had already taken place in 70ad!?
Well said. Indeed the three bar Cross itself shows that Holy Orthodoxy recognizes the possibility of salvation for those who have not been able to fully enter the sacramental life of the Church. St. Dismas, pray for us!
@@ProphetGreg94 One of the wonderful things about being Orthodox, is that I am no longer burdened by questions such as "if the Church has the Truth, why does she disagree with me?" Instead I am blessed by questions such as "if I am a Christian, why am I not bearing fruits worthy of repentance? Lord have mercy!"
I don't think you fully understand classical Protestant soteriology
The one question you must ask before you become Eastern Orthodox :
Why didn’t I do this sooner?
Won't be part of a racist church that doesn't want to evangelize, they never reach places and countries protestantism reached ages ago
Im Protestant but seems like we are telling EO what they believe and they say no we don’t believe that, and we just say no you have to believe that because of this guy said this. We should let them speak for themselves. This letter was in context of an EO leaving the church of course his letter is going to be firm and direct. This same guy also has been quoted elsewhere that it is possible for others to be saved. It’s a mystery.
Theophan the Recluse. “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 don’t think EO converts have to say now all westerners are all 100% lost, it’s just not the case. This doesn’t seem fair to them.
I agree
Exactly right!
Nicely put
Exemplary humility & intellectual honesty. Thank you X
His question “why do you worry about them?” Is telling. Christians care for the unbeliever and WANT others to believe and evangelize. To have this flippant attitude towards the unbeliever betrays his claim of being in Christ.
Thanks!
Astounding people here make the claim Dr. Ortlund is taking these quotes out of context he does not understand what Theophan is saying. Theophan sounds very clear and direct with what he says.
¡Gracias!
“There is no need for us to tell Christians who are not Orthodox that they are going to hell or that they are antichrists; but we must also not tell them that they will be saved, because that’s giving them false reassurance, and we will be judged for it. We have to give them a good kind of uneasiness - we have to tell them that they are in error.” This is what we must do; give them a “good uneasiness.” - Saint Paisios.
Their is never a clear answer in Othodox teachings it seems.
The whole point of the video is that it contradicts historical Orthodox theology to say that. And you're acting like some marketing department for the Orthodox church by deliberately hiding that fact.
@@Hvllow99i am at my wits end today. Trying to be open minded, seeking truth. Listening to beliefs and doctrines and hearing Catholics and EO make the same claims against each other. Searching for an answer, realizing everyone’s been arguing for almost 2000 years. I love Jesus and I want to serve him wholeheartedly. But I must say that today I am churched out.
@@ayyboogie619 Seek Christ, don’t prioritize seeking church. If you seek him with all your heart, you fill find him.
@@ayyboogie619lol same. Don’t have anything against Catholics or orthodox, but there is so much fighting it’s insane. Not interested in going to any churches Protestant included. It’s a joke
It’s puzzling why being outside the Church strikes such a dissonant chord, given that historically, the Church has consistently regarded those beyond its bounds in just this way. Only if one were to invent an “invisibility cloak” to obscure the Church’s boundaries could the notion of being “outside” seem so foreign or out of place.
This "invisibility cloak" term intrigues me: do you not think that God alone knows who are His? If so, it is possible that someone can be fully involved in the externals of Church membership in an EO context and not be...Christian? So there is an invisibility element to those are truly His. Do you not think this is the case?
You have omitted the potential of fractures WITHIN the church.
@@TheB1naryThey aren’t ready for this convo.
@TheB1nary Your question makes no sense within the context of Orthodox belief. To be "Christian" is by definition to be part of the Church. But being a "Christian" does not guarantee that you will end up in heaven. You are using the word "Church" to indicate a category that we don't think exists.
The only dissonance is Theophan's, throwing out a "heretic" here and a "they are far from the truth" there.
Hi Gavin, I am an Orthodox Christian, and a convert from Protestantism. I want to add a bit of context here to what St. Theophan is writing by including a quote from another letter, which I think may be relevant:
"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." --- St. Theophan the Recluse
I think St. Theophan's problem is more with Orthodox christians leaving the Orthodox Church than anything else.
That is such a good point about Theophan's text being for Orthodox Christians, and not for others. Those who do not Orthodoxy cannot be judged for turning from something they don't know. And Orthodoxy doesn't judge them for it.
The quoted text actually sounds a lot worse. St. Theophan refers to Orthodoxy as the "Truth" and what Protestants believe as a "different faith" and a diversion from Orthodox orthodoxy as a betrayal. Pretty stark language. He even says "They have a Savior" which could be interpreted as Protestants have a different theology or that Protestants have a Savior that is not the Orthodox Savior.
@@Cletus_the_Elderwell they do have a different theology and do to differences in Christology I think you could argue to some extent they do have a different savior. Just as most Christians would admit the Christ of the JWs or Mormons is different than that of the rest of Christianity.
@@Cletus_the_Elder So you think St Theophan believes this other being actually exists and will take take care of them, then? This is absurd.
And yes, Orthodoxy is the truth and heterodoxy is a deviation from the truth...obviously.
@@outsideanarchism5650 they can’t have a different savior, because only one Savior exists.
Thank you Gavin! As a long-standing Protestant that has deeply engaged with your videos, this one has made me more encouraged to join Eastern Orthodoxy!
I've outlined some reasons below...
I'm 26, I grew up in an evangelical Baptist church in France, son of two Baptist missionaries, and ended up working for 4 years for the Church of England helping to run training for priests on church growth. I engaged wholeheartedly with Baptists, Conservative Evangelicals, Charismatics, 'Middle of the Road' Anglicans, Anglo-Catholics, as well as Liberal and Conservative versions of each.
I came to find that Protestant "denominations" matter, as they shape the lens through which we view Jesus' teachings, even the way we read the Bible! Thus, there is no way of simply being a "Biblical" church. Not only that, Jesus' direct legacy was not a text. He didn't write anything. His legacy was Himself, and the Holy Spirit at work through His followers - the Church. What did these people do? They became bishops, priests, they consecrated church buildings, they fashioned liturgies, they kept the Holy Sacraments... This pattern of being is the true "lens" through which we should engage with God. This is the true faith of the apostles, this is the mark of a True Church!
Back to my experience, I observed how normal an impulse it is for human beings to want to wholly engage with their church ie. their 'denomination'. "Everyone is responsible for their own discipleship" is a common mantra that summed this feeling up well for me. The underbelly of Protestant thinking has a deep (and I believe holy) desire for ALL of Jesus, the BEST, the MOST of the fruit of the Spirit. It is the current force driving charismatic movements up and down the US and the world. I'd call this Christian radicalism as I believe it is the same force behind Trad-Caths and Hyper Charismatics.
However...
1) I found it impossible to wholeheartedly embrace a single denomination (Why have a separate denomination if you cannot commit to it fully? If you don't believe it to contain the 'fullness of the faith' in some way?)
2) I found that the yearning for radicalism in Protestantism sadly mostly leads to false doctrine, and for some reason simply does not resist the test of time. The rise and decline of Methodism and of the Jesus movement in the 60s are notable examples, as well as the liberalisation of current mainline Protestant denominations. If you can change fundamental aspects of Christianity such as the lived expression (or acting out) of the Church (priests/monks never ordained other priests before Martin Luther for example?), it becomes very difficult to justify not changing other fundamentals of the faith such as sexuality. - Yes but that's not Biblical you might argue - Yet there is a growing amount of learned biblical scholars that are wholeheartedly in support of women leadership or same sex marriage!
In contrast to this - How is it that older churches have managed to survive and thrive for so long? If they are wrong, why are they so correct on many issues? This question and others ultimately led me to Eastern Orthodoxy.
---
On the topic of salvation outside the Church, Gavin, the same criticism you pose to the EO, the same can be asked of Protestants concerning people from other faiths who either have never heard of Jesus or have been raised in a context which makes becoming Christian a lot harder.
Does Jesus want the salvation of the whole human race? Yes He does! Has He offered this opportunity of salvation in the same way to everyone on Earth? Clearly not! Thanks be to God that He is a far more loving judge and Father than we ever could hope of being or can imagine.
However, which is the "narrow path", the way of salvation that has been offered to us through Christ? It is to become a disciple of His. We become a disciple of Jesus by following in the footsteps of other disciples (not by following texts as these texts are not readily available or properly understood!). Those disciples developed and compiled doctrine through councils. The Eastern Orthodox church, despite the faults of its members, is the only one that stands in full step with those councils, and thus, can justifiably claim to hold onto the historic view of being a "One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church" (not Many Unholy UnCatholic and UnApostolic churches) - this has historically denoted a visible organisation of human beings, not a mere abstract concept! Heretics, even those with only slight disagreements were deemed separate to the Church and thus separate to Christ's body. What does that mean for their salvation? The same as it does for life long (and 'good-fruit-bearing') Muslims - God knows best!
---
The topic of icons and especially praying to (dead) saints were a particular hurdle, and one I am currently still working through. However, is it idolatry? Factually, spiritually, my observation is that it simply isn't. The saints are only deemed as saints BECAUSE of Jesus. NEVER IN COMPETITION of Him.
My counter question is: Why is it that most (if not all) historic churches venerate the saints? Is that a cause for "the great apostacy" of historic churches that some Protestant denominations explicitly or implicitly believe in? Is that really a plausible reading of the history of Christ's Church, that the majority of Christians in history somehow "had it wrong" or "missed the point"? Are we really that "enlightened" today?
I'll stop there and just finish with this note:
This is a comment written in passion, with probably many mistakes in form and substance, but I hope it to be edifying for Protestants who are curious as to the reasons one might embark on such a perilous (but SO REWARDING) journey!
Solid
Welcome to the Church, brother
@@simon-y2b “Let them be one as I and my father are one.” Beautifully expressed and thanks for sharing!
Glory to God ☦
@@simon-y2b If you guys have the “truth”, then how did you guys not get your eschatology correct? You guys think Jesus is coming back.
Jesus posited that his coming would be before the "passing of that generation" (Matthew 24: 30, 34). And we know that the destruction of the man of "lawlessness" occurs at the "brightness of the Lord's coming" (2 Thessalonians 2:3-4, 8 ). But that happens before the fall of the temple, since this takes place while the man of lawlessness "takes" his "seat in the temple" (v.4) [Herodian temple destroyed in 70ad].
But then that means that the second coming's timing is constrained to that first century, since it doesn't take place AFTER the destruction of the temple, but BEFORE it, because there has to be a temple standing for the lawless one "take his seat" in!
In addition, and along those same lines, the second coming that Paul mentions in 2nd Thessalonians is not a different coming from the one mentioned in 1 Thessalonians 4, which is undeniably a recapitulation of Matthew 24; and this happens to also be the time of the resurrection. It is that same resurrection of Daniel 12 (which Jesus alludes to in Matthew 24:15), that Daniel informs us takes place immediately after the time of great "distress" (v.1), which is the great tribulation Jesus mentioned (Matthew 24:21). But that was in the first century (revelation 1:9).
This being the case, why does the church continue to shout from the roof tops that we are on the cusp of a yet-future coming of Jesus, when his parousia had already taken place in 70ad!?
“The mercies of God are not bound by the visible boundaries of the Church. God alone knows the heart, and He judges not as man judges. God’s ways are beyond our understanding, and His grace can act upon all who seek Him sincerely.”
“We do not have the right to judge the fate of those outside the Church. Rather, we trust in the boundless mercy of God, who desires that all men come to the knowledge of the truth and be saved. He will judge each according to his heart.”
“The Church is the vessel of salvation, and yet, we cannot say that grace is absent from those who sincerely seek God, even if they do not yet know the fullness of the truth. God prepares each soul in His own way.”
- SAINT THEOPHAN THE RECLUSE
we take someone’s theology, not three pages of it. Also, yeah, what he said is accurate, anglicans we’re going into well established Russian EO neighborhoods and calling people to the name of Christ, that’s fine, but also a slightly off interpretation. Of course people are going to reject that.
This is what's so troubling about videos like this, although I'm trying to make the charitable assumption and assume that this is unintentional misrepresentation, rather than deliberate.
As you show, St. Theophan wrote many things that would cut directly against the interpretation of this letter that Gavin is giving here. If you say that his views are authoritative because he's a bishop and a saint, and so he can't just be dismissed, you have to take **all** of his writings together. The way Gavin is interpreting him goes against St. Theophan's own words. It's exactly what people do with the Scriptures, by pulling isolated verses and opposing them to other verses, without trying to see how they work together. You can pick things in isolation and build whatever narrative you want to build, but if your read of what an author is saying contradicts the totality of their writings and thoughts, your narrative is a false one.
The same thing was true with his most recent video on icons. When he referred to his view of the scholarly consensus, Eusebius, Fr. Price, etc. I had a couple that was inquiring into Orthodoxy who were shaken by what they heard. Rather than argue with them, I just had them read Eusebius's writings, read what Fr. Price actually said about Eusebius, etc. and compare that to what the video said, without offering my own commentary. They came away very angry at Dr. Ortlund, saying that they felt like he had lied to them. I don't agree with that and told them so. I don't believe it's a deliberate deception. But I do hope that people will read the sources in question for themselves, rather than trusting what someone else says about them.
@@AmericanwrCymraeg if dr Gavin makes unintentional mistakes out of his ignorance, his words can't be trusted just because he is sincere. If he twists facts knowingly and intentionally his words can't be trusted because of the ill intentions.
In both cases his words can't be trusted.
"we take someone's theology, not the pages of it"
So well said 👍❤️
@@AmericanwrCymraeg At this point it really seems deliberate. Gavin repeatedly dismisses quotes that contradict his narrative and doubles down on using a different measure for Orthodoxy (and Catholicism) than for his own tradition. He might think he's genuine, but everything he's saying just betrays motivated reasoning.
@@Mere-Theism It’s because when you really look into “Protestant Theology”, it’s all smoke and mirrors. There is no sin, no need to obey anything, no need to even DO anything, “just accept Jesus into your heart” and then proceed to tell everyone else who lives their faith according to a tradition that “they’re wrong.”
I just want to say that I love all of my Christian brothers and sisters and non-Christian people for that matter. I know it's difficult because we are all seeking the fullness of truth and it's not always easy. I pray everyday that I might get closer and I hope we all can.
I’m a Roman Catholic currently exploring EO. Ngl, this video just showed me that EO is very very very similar to RC on all these issues. Evangelicals are too far separated from the historic beliefs of the early church.
Don't leave communion with the Church but yeah dude... Protestantism isn't even close to being the Church of Christ. Orthodox at least have valid sacraments. Those wouldn't avail you if you become a formal heretic which is the situation you would find yourself in. The orthodox at least grew up in it, so they are merely material heretics and may still be disposed to the grace in the sacraments.
Loving the set up! Thank you Gavin for being a breath of fresh air when you disagree with someone.
"It is not for us to define the state of those who are outside the Orthodox Church. If God wishes to grant salvation to some who are Christians in the best way they know, but without ever knowing the Orthodox Church-that is up to Him, not us. But when He does this, it is outside the normal way that He established for salvation-which is in the Church, as a part of the Body of Christ." - Fr. Seraphim Rose
And therein lies the issue. Fr. Rose's own position is heterodox by historical Orthodoxy.
@@renrichardson6517Where there are 3 orthodox, there are 4 opinions
Rose died in the 1980s. As we have said over and over, we are speaking of the 9th-19th centuries, from which 20th century innovations depart.
Foolish. Christ saves all who repent and put their trust in Him. That’s the real church.
@@KnightFel Oneness Pentecostals have nothing to fear then.
Tom Holland has also explicitly made the claim that the reformation led to modern day atheism in the west.
And catholicism led to reformation. Praise God for reformation!! So many people loving God and getting saved. Atheism is a result of a culture abandoning God. Strong Christian protestant churches having nothing to do with atheism
@@protestanttoorthodox3625 and?
@@roses993 So God created the reformation for so many different sects who do not agree and then say, God does not exist, so atheism it is? What a gross blasphemer you are.
@@ProphetGreg94 The reformation was a movement led by Satan.
I have loved ones who are in this tradition. Your presentation is very helpful in understanding their concerns and their views. Thank you so much!
Thank you for all the hard work, Dr. Ortlund. This was quite timely. EO seems to be drawing a lot of young people at the moment and I think there isn't enough Protestant engagement with it. Keep up the amazing work!
Well besides orthodoxy not being well known yet in the west, its growing,
EO is more predominant in europe, yet EO is drawing ppl to it because of the traditional aspect but evem more so than that is the fullness of the truth which speaks to the soul/heart. Few protestants are informed/equipped to engage EO, while EO is prepared for protestants, RC, etc
This teases the depth & caution that EO contains.
There’s been a lot of Protestant engagement against Holy Orthodoxy. The Protestant position is simply untenable. It’s that simple.
Not one known Protestant apologist online has done a good job against any Orthodox apologist.
There's been a significant amount of Protestant engagement...and it's been the definition of cringe. Most of them look exactly like this video: A few spicy quotes are produced, the Protestant commentator adds 5 personal assumptions (just like they do with Scripture) and act automatically like that's the truth while everyone else in the room laughs at them. Rinse and repeat.
Because protestantism is a walking corpse of a religion, and young people are tired of being forcibly separated from Christ by their organizations.
This is such an untapped area. So glad to see you covering it.
My parents got married in the Greek Orthodox church (I'm Greek on my Dad's side), and I grew up with a lot of random info about the religion and the church. (Plus, our yearly visits to the Greek Fest they held cuz... Baklava.) But I never saw it seriously examined until recently since many people seem to be converting to it.
Hello!!!
Wow interesting ! Im a former protestant who converted to orthodoxy. Hope you begin to rexamine thoroughly! Just as there are bad parishs/churches or cultural/lukewarm christians all over doesnt negate the said group/churchs truth & teachings. Godspeed melissa!
Are we protestants, the jw's of eastern orthodoxy. Just some offshoot cult of the EO ?
Greek churches (in America at least) are very eeehhh and lukewarm. I’m not saying all Greek Orthodox folks are like this, because there are obviously pious and genuine people and parishes in Greek Orthodoxy, but here in the States, Greek Orthodoxy has a reputation of being basically a “cultural club.” Many Greek Orthodox folks go to church solely to mingle with other Greek people, and anyone visiting the church from outside of that group is considered weird. Very sad, to be honest.
But there is a growing contingency of faithful Americans finding Orthodoxy. Melissa, I don’t know that you have encountered this. It would be super interesting if you were to visit an Orthodox Church (OCA, ROCOR, Antiochian, or Serbian) and make a video about your experience. Would love to see it.
@@MelissaDoughertyThe Greek Orthodox is the most mystical of the E. O. Churches. The belief in the importance of Grace which probably under a different name, is understood by the Jewish community as well makes the E.O. important path to spiritual ascension. The RC Church view that Grace as defined as something we may get which we don't deserve is too vague to be helpful; something saint do but no one else will accomplish. This idea is incorrect.
“Do not read any books on “spirituality” by Catholics, Protestants, psychologists, or anyone who is not Orthodox, because they will only mix you up. There may be wisdom or insights in some of these, but only in our Orthodox Faith is there to be found the whole path of salvation, the infallible way of coming to God.”
~Seraphim Rose
I don’t have to think or ask myself anything. I am a bad judge and I am mislead by my feelings and conclusions all the time. I can’t trust myself. So I do not trust my own interpretations.
Lord Jesus Christ, have mercy on me!
No one comes to Christ. He comes to them.
But did you not yourself judge to trust Orthodoxy? There is no getting away from you making a judgement, and the choice of which authority to trust is one that only you can make.
@@ArkEleven1Yes, of course. I am not saying I can’t judge for myself. But I have studied the life of the saints and their homilies and put more trust in them than in myself.
Amen!
@@2ichtwerker Realizing one's own inability to discern and trusting to the Holy Spirit speaking and working through the Orthodox Church the last 2,000yrs is a sign of spiritual maturity, wisdom and faith.
Your last words are what resonated with me - "the utter lack of love". I was born and raised in an EO church but have been pulling away over the last couple years when I began do a deep dive into studying scripture. One huge factor for my pulling away is the realization that there was a HUGE lack of love taught and demonstrated within the church. It was all rules, exclusivity, fasting requirements and extremely long and frequent church services where you must stand almost the entire time.
We were taught that there no salvation outside of the church. We were also taught it was a big sin to even pray with anyone outside of the church. Our church doors were never open to unbaptized outsiders - they are able to enter but must stay in the entryway of the church and are forbidden to come into the actual church. If you try to pray (cross yourself and bow) you will actually be told to stop by a church elder. It always seemed that the only neighbors we were truly supposed to love were the ones within our church. Just seems to be so un-Christ like!!!!!!
what kind of EO Church did you say you attended? crossing yourself and bowing was restricted wow that is not like any Orthodox Church I have ever visited......and it is true outside of the Body of Christ (also called the Church) there is no salvation, I think that is actually Scripture.....all the controversy here is who gets to say they are the real Church......and all those things you experienced at the OE church well in my decades of going to Christian denominations I am afraid I experienced the same and worse.....I finally realized I should be trying to live the commands of Christ first before I tried to take the speck out of my brothers eye. Try not to hold that bad behavior of everybody that claims they are a Christian, and does not act like one against Christ
Another great accomplishment Gavin! Thank you for such a clear presentation....again done with love and firm fidelity to God's Word. May the Lord multiply this video's reach to His glory and people's blessing.
Goodness, this was excellent. The sober, austere, ceremonial nature of the Eastern Orthodox tradition must slake the thirst of many Protestants, whose Protestant leaders are in disagreement with church "fathers," leaders, and saints pre-Reformation and even post-Reformation, whose liturgy changes with the mood of the time, whose history seems relatively shallow, whose clergy seem to pursue the activities of the secular world. One of the many things I love about this channel is that it allows Protestants to tap into history and claim the history of the faith in-between the New Testament and Martin Luther as ours, too.
You can claim it all you want but it’s dishonest. For every church father you can claim as “your own” I show you how thoroughly Catholic they really are.
Fact is they were apart of the catholic church friend & you cant claim them but you can cite them all you want in vain. But while there are faithful protestants due to their faith, does not make their church true. It is because of Gods mercy that they can see paradise...
@@CurtosiusMaximus828 that was to the op's comment, im in agreement, reread brother.
@@triplea6174 my apologies brother. 💪🏻
@@CurtosiusMaximus828 Wow.. high on the Popium I see...
The document you read @17:00 doesn't contain "have faith in the divine mysteries" but rather have faith and receive grace ... through the devine mysteries
Years ago I looked into Orthodoxy and attended the OC for over a year. I even helped my cousin to convert but never was able to bring myself to join. Because Protestantism has a “plainness” to it, many are overwhelmed by the beauty and history of Orthodoxy. The biggest unsettlement for me was that members (especially converts) were always praising and extolling the beauties and virtues of the church, but you would never hear them exhibiting the same language and excitement about Christ our Savior. After some years when the novelty wears off, one is left with a church very similar to all other churches - with problems, inconsistencies, and even scandals. Praise God he is condescending to save us despite our churches! 😸 thank you for making this video!
Issues with other parishioners isn’t a good argument against the Church itself and its teachings.
I agree. It's the same with converts to the Roman Church. They continually exalt the church but hardly speak of Christ.
@@julesgomes2922 The Church IS the body of Christ... 1 Corinthians 12:12-27. Of course you wouldn't realize that as a Protestant especially the part where Paul says "so that there should be no division in the body, but that its parts should have equal concern for each other." This is the problem with the sole focus on a personal relationship with Jesus. It isn't just a personal relationship with Jesus, it is a loving relationship with your neighbor, your enemies, your family.
“you would never hear them exhibiting the same language and excitement about Christ our Savior.”
I find this a bit hard to believe. The icon of Christ is always the largest icon in the church. And there are usually multiple icons of Christ displayed throughout.
Orthodox prayer life centers around the Jesus Prayer. Most of the liturgy is prayers to the holy trinity. And have you ever skimmed through an orthodox prayer book? It’s littered with prayers and hymns about Christ.
Sure we give attention to the holy saints, but nothing in comparison to Christ.
@@jamesbishop3091 it’s also worth noting on top of this great statement that we don’t attribute any “special powers” to the Saints, rather it is through them crucifying their passions that allowed Christ to use them as vessels and work great miracles through them, who are beacons of His light. It is Christ working through all of the saints, thus by venerating saints we are actually by in large venerating Christ
Watching it now, and you're right on. It's downright disturbing to see how many people are willing to say "yeah and it's BaSeD to say my fathers, mothers, mentors, and friends who all showed the fruits of the Spirit worship a FaKe Jesus and are gonna go to hell #imsoedgy". Like....the sheer callousness there. My word.
@@anglicanaesthetics Have you actually seen anyone say that or is this a calumnious extrapolation of what you think we're saying?
100%. It’s shocked me for a long time how many people might love their family heritage and living family and then actively move to EO alone, not realizing they are joining a confession that says that person’s ancestors and immediate family who are Christian are actually empty vessels. They either have no idea or think it’s not a required belief, negating the whole appeal of the “unchanged” church.
@TheologyVisualized The same argument, literally the same argument, was used by pagans multiple times early in Church history, to stop people from converting to Christ, that by doing so, they were saying that all of their ancestors were in Hell. Should they have remained pagan, rather than accept the exclusivity claimed by Christ?
Note : it's not an adequate response to say that their ancestors were pagans, while here we're talking about fellow Christians. The logic of the argument and its emotional appeal work equally well in either case.
What's important is what the Scriptures teach, what is true, and what is pleasing to God.
In either case, this is a caricature of what we actually believe.
@@AmericanwrCymraeg Thank you! I am reminded of the saying I have heard several times: "We know where the Holy Spirit is, we don't know where he is not". I have not heard any Orthodox Priest say that everyone outside of Orthodoxy is damned. That would be like putting God in a box and knowing exactly what he should be doing, which is exactly what Orthodoxy does not do. (Protestant inquirer in Wales)
This is so schitzo
I have been Pentecostals most my life. I love God, Love Jesus and absolutely Love the discipleship and guidance of Holy Spirit. That being said Holy Spirit has been guiding me towards Orthodox. I can see some of the folks comments about orthodoxy as a state church being possibly empty of the Spirit for some that were raised purely in tradition. But that hasn’t been the experience for me. I am very much so filled with The Holy Spirit and have a hard time not crying during any worship, any prayers, etc. and I can and do perceive His presence, Jesus Presence and God The Fathers Grace and mercy all over the place at my local Orthodox Church. I’m talking walk inside and you feel like you got light up and are covered in goose bumps from head to toe. I guess what I am saying is that As long your bringing Holy Spirit with you via baptism of the Spirit I don’t see how orthodox couldn’t be an amazing church to become a member of.
Former Protestant here now a Eastern Orthodox Christian convert! Never looking back. I’m home ☦️
Eastern Heterodox church has departed from the true orthodoxy since the time they abandoned the teaching of St. Cyril Lucaris.
The official teaching has led many to so many heterodox teachings, many of which are even contradictory one to another.
Return home, my Friend, to the faith once delivered unto the saints.
@@PresbapterianCyril Lucaris is not considered a saint by the whole Church. Gurther, he simply got things wrong. We know from history that his views were new. (If they even were his views. It's not certain that the document you know of was actually authored by him.)
@EpistemicAnthony
Hold on, which church are you a member of? I'm not sure why you would say Cyril Lucaris is not considered a saint.
@Presbapterian He is only considered a Saint by the Greek Orthodox Church. He was never canonized in the other Churches. We're still one with them, but that's not how the Church works.
When online orthodox say I’m home, it reminds me of some shit a woman would post on Facebook 😂
Baptist from the east Tennessee area. Thank you for your ministry, Gavin!
"Jesus answered him, 'Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God.'” Orthodox, Protestant, Catholic - it all means nothing. Unless you have been made new by an encounter with the Spirit of God, you are outside of Christ, and it doesn't matter what church you belong to.
Your idea of what that means is a particular interpretation of scripture from a denomination.
@@EpistemicAnthony What is your idea of "your idea of what that means"? What are you reading into the straightforward words of the comment?t
And the "encounter with the Spirit of God" means ______?
Please fill the blank.
The way you answer the question will show what Christian tradition you lean towards.
@anselman3156 Do you not think that statement means anything? My point is every part of Christianity agrees with your statement that you must have an "encounter with the Spirit of God." But each one has a different understanding of what that means and how to do it.
Being joined to the Orthodox Church is a tremendous blessing, and it certainly matters, but indeed it doesn't stop there. We still have to cooperate with the grace of the Holy Spirit in order to become truly Orthodox. In order to be made new, in other words. That our souls may be healed, in other words. If think my work here is done, I cease to live a life of repentance, and repentance is exactly what this live we've been given is for. Nobody can say Jesus is Lord except by the Holy Spirit, but He offers us much more than a single encounter with this salvific truth. We have many examples in the lives of the Saints, to show us what God can do with the life of a sinner such as myself, if only I strive to love the Lord my God, with all my heart, with all my soul, and with all my strength.
As an Anglican (Anglo Catholic) I am happy to identify with the doctrine of the ancient undivided Church, and lament the mutual enmity between the various factions who have gone way beyond that in developing their distinctive doctrines based more on speculations and evolving traditions that on divine revelation and the Apostolic deposit which is secured in the Bible and the three ancient Creeds and earliest ecumenical councils. I think Anglicanism has a better history of eirenic ecumenical outreach to Christians of differing traditions. That created an atmosphere of desire for reunion of Christendom, which influenced many Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox and Protestants, but which is strongly resisted by the exclusivists..
catholic larp
Dr. Ortland’s question hit the nail on the head. I think there is a major danger of idolatry of the Orthodox Church. That was my experience.. I knew many that basically worshiped Orthodoxy. I suppose there are temptations in every denomination. For me, Orthodoxy became a barrier, blocking my relationship with Christ. It was very strange. Plus the intense pride in Orthodoxy wasn’t good for me either. As for converts, the honeymoon period wears off so hopefully they are there for Christ Himself. No liturgy is more beautiful than the triune God.
@@Mlena7 Is Protestantism literally anti-christianity at this point?
One can make an idol out of anything. I understand your point, but once you get out of the orthobro trad sphere on social media you see that no one really does that
@@King_Immanuel When I was Orthodox, I had no interaction with an “OrthoBro Trad Sphere”.. All my experience was completely at the parish level. It was a long time ago. Before the internet made priests famous.
@@kevinmac8629 Whatever happened to the diplomatic “not the fullness of the faith” line? Thats the one they used to feed converts. Then when the converts are on the inside, the truth comes out. My favorite were the stoney silences when anyone mentioned the Armenians or Byz Catholics in a positive way or when a parishioner marries a Maronite in Lebanon. I am just happy they started saying heterodox instead of heretic. Much nicer. My friends who are still EO are the best ones. That was God’s mercy on me.
@@kevinmac8629 no
I’ve been told that Non-Orthodox Christian’s are not part of the body of Christ by an Orthodox Christian.
They aren’t, because the body of Christ cannot be split
@@erichenkel4393you guys are murdering each other on the Ukraine-Russian battlefield. Your priests are blessing weapons of war to help murder each other more. Get real with your man-made religion that has NOTHING to do with Jesus.
@@erichenkel4393the body of Christ is not found exclusively in an institution.
@@MusculusPulveriGrace can be outside of the church and works of the spirit depending on the person or whatever the case may be, but the body of Christ is the Eastern Orthodox Church, it is one body.
@@MusculusPulverithen why does Christ tell his apostles to make bishops teach them properly and make sure this continues saying they carry the grace of God if there isnt a historical institution?
if you deny this then you deny the early church, the source of everything protestantism comes from, you unroot yourself when you admit you deny Christ's promise.
I find that appreciating Eastern Orthodoxy in person is far more apparent than Eastern Orthodoxy online. It is represented very poorly online, often by quite loud, rude, and obnoxious catechumins and fresh converts... which only serves to diminish the claims that are made. In person, away from the often loud, rude, and obnoxious personalities found online, Eastern Orthodoxy shines. All this coming from someone who is completely comfortable not being Eastern Orthodox, strengths and weaknesses may be more objectively observed and respected.
As a non EO, I can respect this comment. 🙏
I totally agree. I've been Orthodox for over 30 years (convert from RC), and the current trend for recent converts 'teaching' on their RUclips channels, with little humility, is somewhat shocking. It bears no resemblance to parish worship and parish life and Orthodox ethos.
I'm EO, and the majority of people online who I've interacted with that are representing EO, and even telling other people to convert to EO, aren't even EO themselves! It's crazy.
I've found TLM communities and the Latin mass quite similar. Much better in person, horrible online. Though I do think online EO might do better than online "trads".
Here in England, I simply don’t know anybody in the Orthodox Church. I form my view of Orthodoxy from what I see online and in the news. In theory, the Russian and Ukrainian Orthodox Churches need to get back together and send a joint mission to England to persuade the English to admit that John Fisher and Thomas More were fake saints.
Excellent video, good information, thank you brother.
Most of these comments arent even adressing actual theology and the beliefs of the church. Its just saying how the converts can be rude lol
How is EO correct when they think Jesus is coming back when he already returned in 70ad?
@@ProphetGreg94 yeah your the odd one out on this one.
@@inrmds
Jesus posited that his coming would be before the "passing of that generation" (Matthew 24: 30, 34). And we know that the destruction of the man of "lawlessness" occurs at the "brightness of the Lord's coming" (2 Thessalonians 2:3-4, 8 ). But that happens before the fall of the temple, since this takes place while the man of lawlessness "takes" his "seat in the temple" (v.4) [Herodian temple destroyed in 70ad].
But then that means that the second coming's timing is constrained to that first century, since it doesn't take place AFTER the destruction of the temple, but BEFORE it, because there has to be a temple standing for the lawless one "take his seat" in!
In addition, and along those same lines, the second coming that Paul mentions in 2nd Thessalonians is not a different coming from the one mentioned in 1 Thessalonians 4, which is undeniably a recapitulation of Matthew 24; and this happens to also be the time of the resurrection. It is that same resurrection of Daniel 12 (which Jesus alludes to in Matthew 24:15), that Daniel informs us takes place immediately after the time of great "distress" (v.1), which is the great tribulation Jesus mentioned (Matthew 24:21). But that was in the first century (revelation 1:9).
This being the case, why does the church continue to shout from the roof tops that we are on the cusp of a yet-future coming of Jesus, when his parousia had already taken place in 70ad!?
Re: Orthodox "converts can be rude." Well, the fruit is known by the tree.
@@HohoCamacho And protestants have MAGA crazed people and lesbian pastors... You can't base your judgement off of the worst of us, nor can we of you
My spiritual path has been as follows:
I was born in a Roman Catholic culture. I was baptized as an infant. I went to catechism class. But I never had communion in the Roman Catholic Church. I was, however, influenced by the esthetics of the Christian faith. Specifically, I was always fascinated by the Passion of Christ as depicted in the Bible, iconography and film.
As a teenager, I was questioning everything. I became an agnostic, leaning towards atheism. However, I was still very much fascinated with the teachings and person of Christ. Then, two things changed my mind into becoming a Christian. Philosophical arguments regarding the origin of the universe convinced me of God’s existence. And the transformation I witnessed of people who converted to Christ convinced me to make the practical commitment to become a Christian.
It was in a Seventh Day Adventist Church that I decided to start my spiritual path in Christianity. The reason is that in my neighborhood, Adventists lived a life more consistent with their preaching, and had a more intellectual approach to questions of doctrine and matters of truth. Most of the other churches in my neighborhood, both Catholic and Protestant, tended to dismiss questions rather than answer them. My Adventist Bible teacher always taught me and prayed to God asking to “teach us and guide us to the Truth”. Therefore, I continued studying more Scripture, more theology, more spiritual teachings and more church history.
After years of studying (20 years, to be precise) I came to the conclusion that Orthodoxy was the best, most perfect, expression of the Christian faith. It is theologically superior. It is esthetically superior. It is morally superior. It is spiritually superior. So, I found my home in Orthodoxy.
Now, with that context established, I want to answer Ortlund’s question.
There is One Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. That Church is a visible Church. Just as Christ is the Image of the Invisible, the Church is the visible Body of Christ. Only through Christ can one be saved. That is, only through His Body the Church can any soul be united to Christ and saved.
Now, what about the souls of those who have only known Christ through the Roman Catholic Church or through a Protestant tradition? Are they saved? Can they be saved? My opinion is that God will judge them according to their deeds, and have mercy on them according to their faith. It is possible for God to save a soul who is moving towards God and calling upon Christ, even if they are ignorant of who the Church is. Especially, because the Church prays for their souls’ salvation. But just as I cannot say that a Buddhist is saved even if they hold Christ in the highest esteem, I also cannot affirm that a Protestant or a Roman Catholic is saved. I cannot even say whether an Orthodox believer is saved. I can only pray that God has mercy on them and on me. What I can say is that the Orthodox Church is the One Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church founded by Christ and that we ought to join ourselves to the visible Body of Christ. As we do this, we must work out our salvation with fear and trembling, while praying for the salvation of the whole world, judging actions while leaving the judging of souls to God. As Saint Paul Apostle did in 1st Corinthians 5:5, when disciplining a believer:
“to deliver such an one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.”
1 Corinthians 5:5 KJV
.KJV
Therefore, those outside the Church can be saved by God’s mercy and through the prayers of the Church. But they must be taught clearly their error and disciplined harshly.
So, if you are a Protestant or a Roman Catholic, I entreat you to come home to the Orthodox Church. Join yourself to the visible Body of Christ, and enjoy the grace flowing from the Head to all His members. Become part of the Bride and receive the perfect gifts given to Her as a dowry by the Bridegroom, Jesus Christ. This is a hard saying and not everyone can receive it. But some will receive it sooner or later and become stronger in their union to Christ through His Church.
Pray for me that I myself don’t make shipwreck of my faith. Lord, have mercy.
You write about Catholics and Protestants "God will judge them according to their deeds." God does judge, but he judges all and only Christ's sinless life and work on the cross saves you from that judgement. You don't appear to understand the first about the Gospel.
This is an alluring feature of Orthodoxy for edge-lord theobros. I have a friend who is an orthodox priest, and he told me how concerned he is about the volatile personalities who jump from cagey Calvinism to Orthodoxy, with little desire to pursue true holiness. They love the liturgy, traditions, and debate, but hate their non-Orthodox opponents in word and deed.
@@howwerwoss256 well spoken. Thank you. These Orthobros are basically all converts.
It sounds like you guys are coping. (Although I can't say I am surprised.)
Instead of addressing the serious and legitimate concerns against the Protestant position (something Gavin rarely does), the best you can do to cope with the growing number of conversions from Protestantism to Orthodoxy is to either dismiss them altogether, reduce them, or minimize the valid reasons why many leave. It is an obvious tactic of deflection due to the current state of Protestantism's inability to adapt and account for its deficiencies. Instead, you try to sweep them under the rug and hope no one notices. By marginalizing (potential and actual) converts and branding them as "orthobros," it is surely not an effective apologetic strategy to persuade them or others to your position.
@@icxcnika7722 so the bad behavior of these Orthobro converts should just be ignored then? Deflection? Seriously? I could say the same about you. You're sweeping legitimate concerns under the rug.
@@morghe321
"so the bad behavior of these Orthobro converts should just be ignored then?"
Tell me this, what do you gain from having to adress the behavior of every single overzealous convert?
Can you add another hour to your life by worrying about their behavior? Who has the time?
If I had to spend every waking moment of my life worrying about "cage stage Calvinist" Reformed bros, arguing about soteriology and some meaningless theological opinion held by Charles Hodge, I would get nothing done in terms of personal daily devotion.
// Deflection? Seriously? I could say the same about you. You're sweeping legitimate concerns under the rug//
Don't _tu quoque_ fallacy me. The fact that many potential converts have converted for legitimate reasons, be they doctrinal or theological concerns, means that Protestantism isn't delivering the scriptural clarity the reformers promised. Furthermore, yes, you are deflecting.
You are casting aspersions on converts by psychologizing their reasons for converting. By minimizing, reducing, and impugning their motives for conversion, all you do is slander them, like a cult that shuns those who leave.
This is a typical coping mechanism employed by many cultic institutions that seek to justify and deal with the shortcomings of their own system when said system fails to facilitate uniformity, unity, and harmony.
@@morghe321that's a horrible generalization.
Thank you, Dr. Ortlund. I had attended an Eastern Orthodox Divine Liturgy this weekend and was surprised when the priest’s sermon focused entirely on the saint whose day the liturgy was being held for. There was no mention of evangelism, forgiveness of sins, Christ’s Kingdom, it was all focused on following the liturgy.
The grass is not always greener, guys. If you are some form of protestant and you leave for Eastern Orthodoxy, you are giving up good, long sermons focusing on teaching the word.
Protestant here who has attended a couple of Divine Liturgies. Were you able to follow along with the Liturgy? Because all of those things you say weren't in the sermon are in the Liturgy.
Long sermons aren't the be-all, end-all of Christian worship.
@@WeakestAvenger The liturgy was actually quite difficult to follow. It switched from Greek to English at random points between hymns. And in the liturgy, the priest and deacon were off doing their own thing in front of the altar. It made me feel like I was only observing the service and never actually participating in it.
That is another issue I had, that the service was mostly in Greek. It negates the idea of the catholic (universal) church the Orthodox claim they are. If I can’t partake in the full liturgy, why bother? Your church will always be a tiny minority if you don’t preach to the people in a language they understand.
Orthodox sermons are always to do with the feast or the story of the saint of the day, relating it to our lives and path to Christ. The worship is more important than the preaching. Bible and book study groups deal with other aspects, but the services are choc-o-bloc with the other things you mention.
Keep in mind that priests should be most concerned with the needs of the parishioners. His preaching is also not required to speak to the text directly. The homily is not academic Bible study time. It is the time for the flock to be given the medicine they need, which might mean hearing about the Saint being celebrated.
@@wormius7350 Because a particular Church's services were in Greek, that negates the universality of Orthodoxy? There's a Korean language Protestant church not far from my house. If I visited, would that negate Protestantism?
Most Orthodox parishes in the United States worship in English. Those that don't are often responding to the needs of the people in the congregation. Some do hold on to their language of ethnic heritage too long, but that's true elsewhere as well. Growing up as a Protestant, our services still had a lot of German in them.
I grew up with Russian Otrhodox tradition and customs and I can tell hands down that some Americans are very naive, because they are looking for a historic church, BUT the modern Eastern Orthodox Church IS NOT AS historic as Early church. I do appreciate rich tradition and all that is good there, however you have to guys consider following things: lots of superstitions, sectic thinking, political nationalistic imperialism perspectives, mix with worldly ideas (as long as you are baptized, probably infant with no consent of yours and come to church occasionally and confess your sins - that’s nice, but your life remains almost as of atheist or agnostic), wierd traditions (along with good you get the bad ones), not to mention this hierarchy of legalism and religious system.
Now some few years later after my conversion experience and transformation I came to re-consider some views and I stopped demonizing Eastern Orthodox church and saw the good part. Since nobody got it all right and we all need each other.
But the Gospel was preached to me and more clearly revealed through evangelical Protestant friends and then I met Jesus and really started reading Bible, praying and saw my life changed.
I do believe there are genuine Orthodox Christians and I encourage and cheer on everybody as long as they pursue Christ and His word and what He accomplished, not the religious system.
And I tell you for me mostly it was superstitions and some wierd ideas and not being taught of the word of God. For some people it might have been very harsh legalism and bondage - I came dry out of the water and God showed mercy on me in many ways.
I totally understand you if you are burnout on Pentecostal, charismatic or evangelical religious form, legalism or some cult, but it doesn’t mean you have to get yourself into another religious system. Dr. Outland has a good point, guys!!! We should be followers of Jesus and grow in the knowledge of God and we all are His church, One body, orthodox, eastern, Armenian, catholic, reformed, Protestant, non-denominational.
I love this! Well said!
@@ilmarmeldre Amen!!!This is excellent.
Same argument as the atheist “I grew up Christian”
@@kingattila506but that’s the problem with our Christianity… I was an atheist or agnostic in the heart. Nobody cared. Believe the Gospel through Protestant friends. Beware!!!
I don’t batch on orthodox. But in my opinion and experience many people are just unbelievers wearing tradition clothes. It can be the same with many catholics and Protestants. That’s why Luther is right. We need to preach the Gospel of Grace every day, because we forget it every day… we need to remember it and awaken to it.
Be orthodox if you will, but many orthodox don’t even believe what Early Church fathers actually taught about salvation through Christ and His atonement alone… and the West also in problems. We need a Reformation! Wake up and come back to the truth that is in Jesus!
Hallelujah!! Well said...with love, truth, and kindness.
Another great video! I appreciate all the thought you put into these.
As a protestant myself, there are elements of this argument I don't quite buy.
A half-formed thought for now:
If my church were in that situation --only church in town, and a Catholic evangelist came and was preaching in the community --I'd expect my church leaders to have some initial strong and uncharitable reactions to it. I don't think they would go "anyone not against us is for us." They'd use much the same language as Theophan does. They'd say "he's preaching Christ but appending heresy to it and you should stay away."
You have said what I have been trying to say to my eastern brothers for a long time in a nutshell. The taking for granted of the west and the people (Catholic, Protestant, Anglican, Evangelical, etc.) it has brought forth and the beauty they have preached and lives they have lived for Christ. I am Roman Catholic but most of my readings, meditations, and inspirations come from people like Jonathan Edward’s, George Muller, Wurmbrand, NT Wright, and YOU!
That’s so encouraging to know, brother.
Eek. Not safe bro. You might as well read Arius
As a protestant, I'm truly glad to have you as my brother in Christ. ❤
If this bishop spoke for the whole Orthodox Church, sadly they can’t say the same. Amen brother, likewise!
@IsaacArellano-n4u Indeed! And I wish Protestants wouldn't discount the beautiful works and teachings of other Protestants like Joseph Smith and the Jehovah's Witnesses! There's such beaity in their theology and teachings that should be appreciated.
Gavin, thank you so much for the work you do. Bless you 🙏🏻
Consult an Orthodox monk in your area to inform you better.
Reaching your own conclusions spreading confusion under the influence of the Evil one, isn't too wise.
Amen!
It is frankly quite surprising to see how many defenses of Orthodoxy in the comments do not address the point of this video, nor even attempt to.
@@renrichardson6517 Your perception is different than mine. What parts do you think are being missed?
Mine did (above). Still no answers.
@@EpistemicAnthonyi agree. I think there are multiple answers that would, if not completely satisfactory, they could be a decent answer.
Are we reading different comment sections?
Although I am new to Orthodoxy and I am still a Catechumen, I see exactly what Theophan is saying in his letter and where the misunderstanding and disagreement comes from. In a protestants mind, he believes he is "saved" because he believes in christ. Meaning a protestant believes that If he dies believing in Jesus and having repented of his sins, he will go to heaven. And although this is also the concept of salvation to an Orthodox, An Orthodox doesn't profess to be saved and doesn't assume that if he dies he will go to heaven. The Orthodox teaching is that one must always strive to be closer to christ and continue in the sacraments to have the best chance of going to heaven. Although an Orthodox can look at the life of an individual after he dies and say with almost certainty, but not 100% certainty, that some people made it to heaven, as The Church does with canonized saints. Theophan is also saying that just because the preacher is preaching what sounds like sound doctrine, he also will eventually teach heresy, and also his simplistic view of salvation is leading people astray in and of itself. Because the preacher was taught by people who have different interpretations than The Orthodox church, he will have people believing in things that are not correct and are heresy. He is saying that The Orthodox Church got its beliefs and traditions from Jesus and the apostles themselves, so they alone know the correct interpretation and fullness of faith. Roman Catholics added onto those teachings, which caused the protestants to break away from them, and they took away from the fullness of the teachings and traditions of The Church. Two people can hear the same basic fundamentals of the Gospel and take away completely different interpretations, In fact you can read the Whole Bible cover to cover, but without having somebody there to answer questions and misunderstandings, you could be believing in an interpretation that was not taught by Jesus and the apostles. And like I said I am still learning and praying to God to reveal his whole truth and show me the way, so I am not trying to say I am an expert but just commenting on what I see and believe to be true and what I got from this video.
I had a similar thought, considering the worldview of this Russian priest, he isn't wrong in what he is saying. When we anachronise the word salvation limited to the Protestant definition, this leads tl a lot of misunderstanding and quote mining where the paradigm being presented is actually slightly different from what is intended in the meaning.
100% agree! The risk of heresy is too great to not be attached to the One Holy Apostolic Church.
@stayready6170 You say we can read the whole Bible, but without having somebody there to answer questions and misunderstandings, we could be believing a false interpretation. That is definitely the case when we attempt to read without the Holy Spirit! But how do you know the people answering your questions are not leading you astray? They cannot prove to you that their current views of the scriptures go back to the 1st century, and they are warned by Paul who said, "I fear, lest somehow, as the serpent deceived Eve by his craftiness, so your minds may be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ" (II Cor. 11:3). Yet you say "his simplistic view of salvation is leading people astray". So your solution is to enter into the endless complexity and "mystery" of the Eastern Orthodox religion, which claims they alone can correctly interpret scripture - yet they are nowhere to be found in much of the Western world. Think my friend - this is the very departure from the "simplicity that is in Christ Jesus" Paul warned us about.
@@stayready6170 this is something I hear a lot from EO converts: “our definition of salvation is so different from yours, none of your critiques land.” I think that is missing Gavin’s point; however you define salvation, whatever nuances you give it-regardless of how different it is from the Protestant understanding-let’s just assume it does mean something completely different, whatever IT is, it is only for those within the EO institution. That’s the exclusivist claim which Gavin is talking about. If you feel good about believing that then great! I certainly do not. Especially if the EO definition of salvation does indeed have to do with healing from the corruption of sin.
@@bornagainbach2731 So why is it that you have different people who “guided by the Holy Spirit” have different interpretations? And why so many denominations? You have one group of people who believe they are predestined to go to heaven and if you are not randomly chosen by God to be the elect, you are going to hell and there’s nothing you can do about it. You have another group that believe that all you have to do is say a prayer to Jesus and accept him into your heart and that you sealed and saved and that after no sin too great to separate you from heaven(once saved always saved) And we have another group of people who believe in the true definition of baptism and communion, yet they have female pastors and homosexual clergy, and you have another group of people who believe the Holy Spirit makes them speak in “Angelic languages” and fall on the floor when the pastor blows air on them. And another group who “speak in tongues” who are into prosperity, and another who are Oneness Pentecostals, not to mention the modern new heretical doctrine of “The Rapture” and the false interpretation of the millennial reign of Christ. And don’t get me started on Christian Zionists. All claim to be guided by the “Holy Spirit” All one has to do is study church history to find out who, with the real Holy Spirit, and knowledge and tradition passed on from the apostles, decided what books were to be in the Bible and what books were out. It is the same people who wrote the Nicene creed with the help of the true Holy Spirit and knowledge and tradition of the apostles. The same Nicene creed that defines what it means to be a Christian, that is the basis for every Trinitarian believing church. Except all the Protestant churches take out the last part of the Nicene creed that says “I believe in One Holy Apostolic Catholic Church.” So to answer your question, how do I know who is not gonna lead me astray? I’m gonna go with the One Holy Apostolic Catholic Church who with the Holy Spirit defined for the world what Christianity is in writing and who put the Bible together.
I grew up in the Eastern Orthodox Church and our priest in the '70s liked quoting CS Lewis. Fascinating commentary.
Some Russian Priests love CS Lewis and constantly quote him
Great video as always. After being discouraged from RC with the issues surrounding the Papacy, I am turning to evaluating EO and will use this topic as a main point of contention.
Check out Lutheranism. Reformed Romanism.
Study many books, but live in scripture. You'll see the EO doesn't square with scripture fully. I've had to lay it aside.
@@veritasquidestveritas But Protestantism does? Lmao. Protestantism is a false man-made trash heap.
If you want truth and valid sacraments, you will become RC or EO. There is no other option.
@@willw1753 Those two are mutually exclusive.
Gavin, I appreciate the resource presented in this video. I was not aware of this letter from Fr. Theophan despite being an Eastern Orthodox Catechumen. I found nothing scandalizing, though, after watching the video, so I suppose that means I at least know what I am getting into. I agree, though, I do love the directness with which Fr. Theophan speaks in this letter.
I would like to respond with a few notes from myself, as an Eastern-Orthodox Catechumen- both for you and others considering your arguments against Orthodoxy. I apologize for wordiness, but I want to lay out our understanding of what you brought up (as best as I can, and in no capacity an official representative of the Church, since I am not yet Baptized).
6:30 - The entire point of this passage in Mark 9 is that if he is truly for Christ, he will wind up in The Church eventually anyways and be united with them. Also, this was before Pentecost, when The Church was set up
16:35 - Regarding this "Simple, repentance-based Gospel message," I simply do not think there is any proof in Scripture of such a requirement of "The Gospel" to be so "simple." In fact, I think what Fr. Theophan presents around 21:30 is fairly reasonable, and not that complicated; only complicated in comparison to the common Evangelical Gospel preached these days. My Deacon said to me the other day: The Faith is not supposed to be complicated. It's supposed to be lived. If you sincerely seek Christ and life in him within the Church, you will fulfill what Fr. Theophan has listed.
19:15 - The only place "justified by faith alone" appears in Scripture is in James 2. "You see then that a man is justified by works, and NOT by faith only." James directly tells us that we are also justified by works. The common reading of Protestants that this is only about external Justification in the eyes of others doesn't make any sense, and it makes us a slave to the perceptions of others. The Confession of Dositheos, Decree 13, explains this well:
"We believe a man to be not simply justified through faith alone, but through faith which works through love, that is to say, through faith and works. But [the idea] that faith can fulfill the function of a hand that lays hold on the righteousness which is in Christ, and can then apply it unto us for salvation, we know to be far from all Orthodoxy. For faith so understood would be possible in all, and so none could miss salvation, which is obviously false. But on the contrary, we rather believe that it is not the correlative of faith, but the faith which is in us, justifies through works, with Christ. But we regard works not as witnesses certifying our calling, but as being fruits in themselves, through which faith becomes efficacious, and as in themselves meriting, through the Divine promises {cf. 2 Corinthians 5:10} that each of the Faithful may receive what is done through his own body, whether it be good or bad."
I know, perhaps, this may seem like an overplayed response, using James 2 (I'm sure you see it all the time), but it must be said. James very clearly lays out the role works have in our Salvation:
James 2:22 - Do you see that faith was working together with his works, and by works faith was made perfect?"
21:25 - "That sounds pretty exacting" - well, it is. 1 Timothy 3:15 - The Church is the Pillar and Ground of Truth. Rebelling against the Church is rebelling against the Truth, and Christ, as it is the BODY of Christ. I don't think he says anything unreasonable.
23:30 - Correct, no salvation outside of the Church. If someone is saved outside the Church, it is because God mystically unites them to the Body of Christ, The Church, when they die because he finds it fitting. This is an extraordinary circumstance though, not the normative means of salvation. And I find this no more scandalizing than saying "Christianity is the only true religion." As far as this "serious concern of 2,000,000,000 Christians in the West"... I find this simply to be an emotional appeal.
24:45 - "Is the Eastern Orthodox Church the savior instead of Jesus" - The Orthodox Church IS The Body of Christ. So it is not either/or, but one and the same. The Church is the Body of Christ here on Earth. Christ has given us the Orthodox Church and the Sacraments for our Salvation. Idolatry of the Church would be very difficult to achieve, because you'd have to first embrace a misunderstanding that the Church is a separate entity from Christ, and then hold it in higher regard than God himself. The only example of this that may come to mind is the Orthobro phenomena, where Orthobros idolize an IDEA of the Church they have in their head as this based, red-pilled, political thing as opposed to Death to the World, Spiritual transformation.
29:16 - Seeing as this entire video uses Theophan as the de facto view of Salvation in Orthodoxy, I think it would only be fair to also include this quote from him about Salvation of the Heterodox.
"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"
Frankly, this painting of the two options you frame is very deceptive and is, again, more of an appeal to emotion. "Either he is wrong and his entire tradition is wrong, or all these other 2,000,000,000 are damned." Yet, as you should see from this quote FROM THEOPHAN, it is not that cut and dry.
30:00 - How do we explain with this supposed second of our only 2 logical conclusions, the miracles, the hospitals, empire of Christianity, etc outside of Orthodoxy? I will do my best to answer (even though this was a false dichotomy you provided to use, since as shown above, Fr Theophan does not leave it so cut and dry.
1) Miracles themselves can never be proof of which faith is the true faith. There are "miracles" that occur in other religions outside of Christianity. Appealing to these other "miracles" does not prove anything, really. Within Orthodoxy, we can take miracles such as the wonderworking Icons as affirmations that strengthen our faith, but not proof of the Church in and of themselves. because as you say, Pentecostals could go "But look here! We have faith healings and speaking in tongues!" and Catholics may say "Look! We have Eucharistic Miracles." I think his Bible verse may address your appeal to miracles:
Matthew 7 - v22 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?’ v23 And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!’
2) As far as Matthew 7:18 - A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a bad tree bear good fruit - will have to get back to this, however, using this to disprove any ecclesiastical exclusivity is a dangerous game, because then you as a heretic, or member of another religion, can point to the good deeds you have done as proof that your religion/sect is a "good tree." So I don't think regardless this disproves our views.
3) Number games are irrelevant when it comes to Doctrine and Dogmas of the Faith. This applies both outside of Christianity, and "within" Christianity, speaking inter-denominationally.
30:45 - Again, a mischaracterization, requiring us to unambiguously label all outside the Church, all actions, teachings, people, as all-together "completely dark, heretical, falsehood." There are bits of truth and goodness even in other RELIGIONS. However, they are still outside the Church, and are still riddled with falsehood. Feeding a homeless man from the kindness of your heart is a good work and Godly act whether you're Orthodox, Protestant, Buddhist, Luciferian, etc. I find your characterization of the conclusions of Orthodoxy to be pretty baseless and misleading, to be honest.
31:00 Once again. Even though you erroneously conclude the universal, unambiguous damnation of all non-Orthodox, a quote from the SAME MAN WHOSE LETTER YOU ARE READING: "You ask, will the heterodox be saved... Why do you worry about them? They have a Savior 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."
Bearing in mind Matthew 7:1 - "Judge not, lest ye be judged." There are very few situations where can know an individual to be damned for certain. But we know that as Orthodox Christians, WE must be in the Church to be saved. There is a big emphasis on focusing on our own sins and deep, continued repentance that you seem to be either unaware of or not mentioning in this video.
32:30 - I will only bring up that despite what you say about Calvin, he set up a very strict Theocracy in which he punished people who went against him or his teachings. This buddy-buddy modern Protestant ecumenism is just as much an innovation as you often accuse the views of some modern Orthodox as being. I also think it's silly to act like Protestantism is this united front, when the historical practice has been closed-communion (especially among Lutherans). Since communion is, in part, a statement of theological agreement, being in the same Church. If this view of Protestantism you have were the case, would not all Protestants practice open communion with each other?
34:30 - "Can you really stand before Christ and say you submitted to a system that requires you to reject 85% of those who can say the Apostles Creed"
...
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.
Matthew 7:14 - Because narrow is the gate and difficult is the way which leads to life, and there are few who find it.
Again, just an appeal to emotion. Yes, it is the hard truth that most Christians are outside the Church. That doesn't make it any less correct. The New Testament is dripping with warnings of false doctrine, apostasy, false prophets, wolves in sheeps' clothing, etc. We MUST remain vigilant.
I hope others considering or critical of Orthodoxy found this response to Gavin helpful.
Great writeup, and it's nice to see your view as a catechumen. I've been struggling with my doubts about protestantism and am heavily looking into orthodoxy. Thank you for clearly laying out this rebuttal.
Wow, thoroughly well thought through and gracious rebuttal! Thank you for addressing these points (from a reformed prot inquiring into orthodoxy) 👍👍👍
@@sezcerjan4431 I am humbled, glad you liked this response. I recommend you attend an Orthodox Divine Liturgy, first and foremost.
Experience the faith first, dive into learning and material after, is how I would do it. I knew I was home when I attended my first service.
May God bless your journey, my friend. I pray you join me in coming home to the Church.
@@pogodonuts Glory to God, thank you for the comment. I am humbled my reply was beneficial to you. I highly recommend you visit a Divine Liturgy (with a bit of research beforehand) to experience a taste of the faith firsthand. This is what really did it to me. It was foreign, I was confused, there were some alarm bells ringing from my Protestant background... but I knew I was home.
May God bless you in your journey, and I pray you follow me home :)
As an Orthodox Christian I appreciate your comments and pov . The ongoing problem with Protestant churches are that they are seeming built on sand and not the Rock that is the gospels and holy tradition. This seems to only belong to the Orthodox at this epoch . Although many parish priests seem to look the other way and just hope for their flock to realize the narrow path . The Protestant seems to be way off the path ? God have mercy on us sinners and may we be forgiven through Jesus Christ at that final hour
Another great video, Dr. Ortlund! The Lord is using you mightily in this entire debate and discussion. I pray many will find the assurance of salvation through your ministry.
Thanks for your content bro!
The Greeks founded mathematics (Pythagoras). The Greeks founded Geometry (Euclid). The Greeks founded physics (Thales-Democritus). The Greeks founded philosophy (Plato). The Greeks founded logic (Aristotle). The Greeks founded poetry and theater (Homer, Aeschylus, Sophocles, Euripides). The Greeks founded medicine (Hippocrates, Galen).The Greeks founded architecture and sculpture (Pheidias, Iktinos).The Greeks founded sports (Olympic Games). The Greeks established the laws of the state and the Republic (Solon-Pericles). The Greeks founded the art of rhetoric (Protagoras-Demosthenes). The Greeks founded the Christian letters (Three Hierarchs). And the Gospels were written in Greek. This is the greatest boast of the Greek language. (Elder Timotheus Kilifis)
Thanks for the video! Before I get into the meat of my comment: disclaimer that I am indeed a Protestant, not EO.
I do have to say, I’m not sure I understand the point of this type of argument. EO ecclesiology does not take the statements of a single bishop to be dogmatic or “authoritative for the whole tradition”. That’s simply a misunderstanding of their structure.
Even if one were to accept the validity of that claim, the fact that the argument is essentially “they used to say A and now they say B” is not a defeater for their claims. You can look back in pretty much any tradition’s history and find something said that they no longer affirm. For example, Lutherans no longer kill Anabaptists. Most independent Church of Christ congregations no longer say that they’re the only true Christians. Most Baptists no longer say that Catholics aren’t saved.
To find a bunch of old personal statements that have been opposed by actual authoritative teaching and use them as a warning of “this is what you’re agreeing with” just seems… dishonest? Anachronistic? Genuinely confused? It’s like someone pulling out Luther’s antisemitism and claiming that Lutheranism endorses it.
I don’t know, because Gavin seems like a great guy, so I want to give him the benefit of the doubt. But this is just… odd.
hello! I suggest watching at 3:41 where I address this. God bless.
@@TruthUniteshi Dr Ortlund! Love your videos, thanks for all the work you put into them and the benefit they’ve been to me personally. 😊
Respectfully, the statements at that timestamp are still a misunderstanding of EO ecclesiology. For the EO (and Catholics I believe) a persons sainthood does not confer authoritative status on any particular thing they say. So, as this is a personal letter and not a doctrinal pronouncement, I do think this can safely be categorized as “personal belief”. Especially in light of Theophan’s other famous quote about the salvation of the heterodox.
Additionally, I’m unaware of “contemporary Church Father” being a category within EO thought. Googling the phrase only brought up a single podcast episode using that term for him. Could you clarify that term/claim for me at all?
Thanks again!
@@TheBillyDWilliamsI’m orthodox, and I’m also unfamiliar with the term “contemporary church father”. Seems like Dr. Ortlund is using the term to make his argument appear stronger. Thank you for pushing back on him.
@ ah, good to know. I won’t pretend to know EO tradition extensively, I’d just never heard that one before.
@@TheBillyDWilliams hello! Thanks for watching, and glad the videos have been beneficial! I said "contemporary father," not "contemporary Church Father." You will find the former label used in print for authoritative more recent theologians. Its actually used in the very text I held up and cited in this video. In Eastern Orthodox theology, saints are typically taken as having a level of theological authority, but if you disagree, you can disregard Theophan and just go with the entire millennium preceding him, which affirmed the same view. I document this in my video "Does Eastern Orthodoxy Have the "Fullness of the Faith?"
Listening to OrthoBros they definitely come off as "I am better than you".
Well no one attained unity with God with knowledge of theory, but submissions of one’s passions.
Especially converts.
And how is that any different from the "cage stage" Reformed bro or Rad Trad?
I've encountered many Reformed bros who brag about how many systematics they've read of their proficiency in Greek hermeneutics, etc...
That each tradition has its overzealous converts is a problem we all have. It's not specific to one tradition.
@@EricAlHarb Nobody can kil sin (passions) except by the Spirit (Romans). So you put the cart before the horse there.
@@TheB1nary it’s a both-and, God and man work together as in Christ the first born to kill the passions.
My dad was an Orthodox priest. A few things he mentioned over the years. 1) God can save anyone, but everyone in heaven is Orthodox. Also that does not imply universalism. 2) If non-Orthodox are saved it will be through the work, prayers and presence of Christ's body, the Church, on earth. 3) Salvation is identical to being Orthodox, tautologically. Being saved means you are Orthodox and being Orthodox means you are saved. 4) There are 3 realms, a) What we know is the church; b) What we know is not the Church; c) What we don't know is or is not the Church.
Memory eternal to your father!
All that to say that non-Orthodox are not saved. #2 is a tease though, but it is a conditional "*If* non-Orthodox are saved. Why shouldn't I understand that just to mean that non-Orthodox can be saved ... if they become Orthodox?
@@HohoCamacho Not at all. It means that you may possibly be saved without ever formally joining the Orthodox church, but that the Church should not try to figure out where, when and how God accomplishes that, and that the Church being the body of Christ will be ONE, UNITED in belief after this world has passed away.
God's justice is a purifying fire. Whatever is not pure in any of us is incompatable with it. So we are saved once, but we continue to throw off the dead skin of the old man, and the vestiges of sin in our minds and bodies. They are incompatible with God.
Hi Dr. Ortlund, Your argument boils down to the following
(1) EO requires one to believe no individual outside of the visible boundaries of the canonical EO church can be saved;
(2) People outside of the visible boundaries of the canonical EO church can be saved;
Therefore, we should reject
(3) one should join the EO church.
This fails for several reasons.
First, (1) is demonstrably false. EO are not required to hold that each individual outside of the visible boundaries of the church is damned. You point to statements condemning certain heterodox *groups* -which does not translate (as you assume) into a judgment as to every *individual* member of these groups at any point in time and for any reason. This is a fallacious inference.
Plus, even if your interpretation of these statements were correct (and I think they generally are not), your argument still fails because it ignores the distinction between theologoumenon and dogma. An EO is not required to affirm a theologoumenon, even if it is the overwhelming majority view; and the status of individuals outside of the church is not a subject of a binding dogma, even if you could argue that it is the subject of a prevailing theologoumenon.
Thus, (1) fails because you are mistaking statements condemning groups as necessarily entailing condemnation of every individual who is ever a member of that group at any point in time for any reason; and also because you are mistaking evidence of a prevailing theologoumenon as evidence of dogma.
Second, even (1) were true (and it is not), your argument still fails because we have more epistemic warrant for (3) than for (2). So, we should sooner reject (2) than reject (3). One man's modus ponens is another man's modus tollens.
Third, even if (1) and (2) were correct, this would still not be a reason for rejecting (3). You would need to show that other churches are available to join that do not require one to believe even more false beliefs. One could still reasonably accept (3), while accepting 1&2 on the ground that joining other churches would require one to believe more and worse errors than (1).
Finally, I think it is interesting that the way you argue about EO is very similar to the evidentialist framework that Plantinga faults atheists for assuming. The question for someone considering EO is a paradigm level one. The irony is that the common ground from which you purport to critique EO is actually not ground to which your paradigm gives you justified access.
Your last sentence in your last paragraph is interesting. Are you saying Protestantism doesn’t have a theological foundation to state universal principles that it define what every Protestant believes?
Brilliant.
EO is there apostate, and idolatrous cult. There is no salvation in that idolatrous pagan cult
@@tylerglenn7811 exactly
@@tylerglenn7811they don’t because Protestants lack the apostolic authority of the church
Something I’ve noticed with these videos (specifically when they’re addressing anything concerning the Eastern Orthodox Church) is that the vast majority of the comments contain absolutely no responses to the actual claims made in the video (which Gavin always does a great job carefully articulating), but rather sink to insults, ad-hominems, question-begging assertions, and what-aboutisms. I’d love to see some actual engagement from EO’s that doesn’t resort to one of those types of responses.
There are numerous responses addressing his claims directly, just like there are numerous comments from Protestants saying various vile and slanderous things about us. And vice versa. But people see what tends to confirm their own feelings of their side being more virtuous and disregard and overlook anything that contradicts that.
@@AmericanwrCymraeg Well you’re right about that. I’ll take your word for it (in regard to their being numerous comments addressing his claims directly) because what you’re saying is generally true about all internet comments.
But honestly, af the point that I posted that comment I hadn’t seen a single response from any EO-defenders (not a single one) that had responded to Gavin’s claims directly.
I literally see none of that, and so far before your comment saw several people responding to his claims, one being an Orthodox priest.
@@youcatastrophe6434the responses that be in the tone, and have the content that you are speaking of, must have been early ones. I haven’t seen any yet.
@ Well, perhaps you’re right. I haven’t been keeping up. But at the time of writing that comment, I had not seen anyone on the EO side engage with or respond to the claims of the video. But that was the day the video was released.
Here is a quote from the 19th century Russian theologian Aleksey Khomyakov (1804-1860). He was a contemporary of St Theophan the Recluse
"Inasmuch as the earthly and visible Church is not the fullness and completeness of the whole Church which the Lord has appointed to appear at the final judgment of all creation, she acts and knows only withinn her own limits; and...does not judge the rest of mankind, and only looks upon those as excluded, that is to say, not belonging to her, who exclude themselves. The rest of mankind, whether alien from the Church, or united to her by ties which God has not willed to reveal to her, she leaves to the judgement of the great day" - The Church is One, Part 2
I love the art of the Catholic Church and of Orthodox Church. I will never believe that Jesus needs or wants all that. He wants us to care for the least of these. He wants us to simplify it down. Salvation comes from Christ, Share the Gospel, love one another and work hard and care for one another. Faith will produce Fruit, it will no way around that. If The Holy Spirit live in you, it will not cause anything that does not Glorify God. I know my human Dad wants his kids to love one another, keep generations going. I see God wanting the same.
How do you what the Gospel is?
You noted: "It does seem weird to assume that just because someone is within the church they don't need to have the gospel preached to them people in the church all the time routinely need the gospel to be preached to them afresh."
I would agree, but my understanding of the EO perspective is that their lifelong, diligent application of and devotion to the mystical rituals, sacraments, icons, etc. IS their sustaining "preaching" of the Gospel afresh, as it can only be found in the Church's sacred acts, and experienced as the beginnings of theosis. They do not particularly think of the Gospel as Protestants do, apart from its one time saving event in baptism, thereafter the Gospel is worked out in the process ultimately leading to theosis.
Correct it seems weird or uncomfortable because the way the churchs theology & mindset flows.
Preaching the gospel cannot be done by not preaching. Nothing else is preaching the gospel. It can be nice, it can be all sorts of things but it cannot be preaching the gospel if it isn't preaching.
@@katskillz The point in your paragraph 2 goes well with my observation. If it is not necessary to remind people of the gospel that saves, then that Church becomes a "folk religion". Case in point, your great, great, great grandfather found Christ and converted to Him, he raised his children, grand children strictly in Church, they also raises theirs in the Church and all are members by "birth". That is what I mean by folk religion. Yous see, God has no grandchildren thus the necessity of presenting the gospel on every opportunity. There is no other tradition that understand this as Protestants. Every person must be born of God individually through the preaching of the Gospel. Orthodox Church does not evangelise. The story which Gavin is narrating in not to be tossed out of the window, it is a reality.
@@Nolongeraslave I agree, I just wanted to (hopefully) accurately present the EO's own position to the best my understanding.
I believe it to be wrong, and the main reason it is wrong is because the EO theology mistakenly takes a specific doctrine of theosis / deification and makes it the central dogma around which ALL other doctrines and practices must flow from or fortify their belief in. This is not how the early Church fathers understood things. Nevertheless, they are blind to the courtroom framing of justification and condemnation in Pauline soteriology. They are blind to the comprehensive pervasiveness of original sin requiring a substitutionary atonement where Adam and his spiritual family stand in a position of demerit needing satisfaction for sin a state of being, by means of a substitute. And they are adamently blind to the distinction between the Content of Gospel and the Consequences of the Gospel. Thus for them ecclesiology basically is soteriology. If one, in their system, is diligently tending to the collective dynamics of the Church's praxis, then one is saved individually, period.
I hope everyone in this chain realizes that preaching happens all the time within the Church. It doesn’t stop after catechism lol.
Gavin, we have more than a dozen Protestants who are currently catachunens in our church right now. To a person, every one of them is converting because they want to live a more spiritual life.
I fail every day, but Orthodoxy demands that we "abide in Christ". That's far more important than your cautionary tale in this video.
Prayer, fasting, and acts of mercy - that's the Orthodox way of life.
Love your content and I can't wait to watch your video. I have a close godly friend who is EO and very enthusiastic about it being the "Church". Makes it a little difficult to speak to him about our differences but I appreciate EO.
I would greatly appreciate if this was a topic of discussion between Dr. Ortlund and Fr. Stephen De Young
Agreed
I think he's already have a conversation with him, just not in depth
Yeah, their last discussion was just getting to the important distinctions (that I think Gavin mostly misses or glosses over in his critiques) at the end. I wish he'd dialogue about these concerns more instead of just copy/pasting quotes and professing that his interpretation of them are representative of what the church teaches
One of the biggest Protestant objections to Eastern Orthodox is the absence of "once saved, always saved" theology because Orthodox don't presume to judge for God, (salvation AND damnation are uncertain) yet you argue a false claim that EO believe heterodox are damned. It is very easy to determine who is within or without the one true (Orthodox) church, but it is impossible to say who will be saved or damned. The more that Protestants return to their "roots" the more they will (re)discover Holy Orthodoxy, against which the gates of hell will not prevail. No single saint speaks for the Church. This is a straw man argument.
If you revisit Ephesians, you will see that the Church is one! One body of Christ, one Church. If you wish to be in the body of Christ, join His one Church...Orthodoxy forever! "Where the Spirit is, there is the Church". We can be certain that the Spirit is present in the Orthodox Church, but we cannot be certain of where it is not!
Well said brother
OH, I believe there is one true church which is the mystical body of Christ which exists everywhere in the world. But it certainly is not the EO or the RCC. It consists of those whom God has chosen; not by "joining" some silly organization making claims they have no right to make, OR by praying some unscriptural magic prayer. Most of you on all sides have nothing more than a mere Christian flavored religion of no consequence. And the sad part is you think you're being bold when all you're doing is hiding behind others. I can't do that and take myself seriously.
Very well said!
Gavin, from the bottom of my heart, thank you for what you do. You and Jordan Cooper are the only forces that have held me back from leaving Protestantism by making me a Classical Protestant.
"Classical Protestant" meaning sola scriptura which leads us to doctrinal relativism and fragmentation. You can be an "evangelical" and to believe that Jesus did not die for every single or that Jesus died for every single person, you can believe that salvation can not be lost or to believe that salvation can be lost and that is a total disgrace, these are important doctrines, a christian does not live his christian life the same way if you believe one thing or the opposite. Yes this is classical protestantism from luther´s times. The debate between luther and zwingli made clear that sola scriptura is false, worthless to decide which teaching is authentic and what is heresy. Classical protestantism has division in its DNA.
Awesome. I also love our protestant faith. BLESSINGS
Thanks for your works, Dr Gavin. God bless you immensely. It's refreshing. You've been a blessing to the body of Christ 🙏❤️✝️
I attend a Baptist church and am Christian. Sometimes I visit a Greek Orthodox church. It offers a time to get out of what is comfortable and worship God that feels more contemplative for me. Possibly because I don't know what's going on or the language other than God is present and that is all I need to know. They don't judge me for not venerating icons and know I won't partake of communion. I see the appeal but our Baptist church changed my life and God is with us in the protestant church too.
I love Gavin!!! He is the reason I have fallen in love with Theology and Protestantism.
Same here!!!😊 I love our protestant faith and the well articulated arguments he makes 😊
Which of the many false Protestant doctrines do you hold? Calvinism?
There are undoubtedly some of these uncomfortable truths that we just cannot ignore in good conscience and intellectual honesty.
Dear Dr. Ortlund, I thank you very very much for this strong and masculine response to the fallacy that salvation is only possible/ available in the Orthodox church.
As an ex Catholic who was ostracised by my family for having become an evangelical Christian, I was getting puzzled and appalled as to why many Christians and Evangelical Theologians were converting to Roman Catholicism. How does a Christian embrace these dogmas which carry the penalty of being anathemised if not adhered to the bodily assumption of Mary and her perpetual virginity??
I was so convinced that the Orthodox church was the right move to make vefore listening to this very robust theological polemic that salvation is by one's faith in the Lordship of Jesus Christ and in His death on the Cross and His physical bodily resurrection and not on a particular denomination.
Thank you very very very much for giving me the confirmation to stay put in my Evangelical church with the assurance of being saved by faith in Jesus Christ alone!!
God bless you richly in every single area of your life, Pastor Ortlund.
Sounds a lot like an atheist objection to Christianity… “But what about the indigenous people that never hear about Jesus?“
It’s more like, the standard to be in the faith is: faith in Christ the only Son of God and baptism in the Triune name of God, not extra particulars like which particular organization which teaches Christ and baptizes in the Triune name. The standard of kicking out all of “x” denomination that isn’t orthodox is arbitrary and violates the nature of the faith once delivered
Forgive me Gavin. Are you trying to be ironic? Bishop Theophan wrote a private letter cautioning his parishioner to be careful before jettisoning his parish life in favor of an exotic new tradition that Bishop Theophan had serious reservations about. It seems to me that the only difference between this and what you are doing is that he NEVER intended this letter to be published, whereas you are publishing your message to the faceless masses. What do you make of your pastoral responsibility to be sensitive to the listener's individual circumstances? Bishop Theophan isn't making wholesale counsel as you are here. If you'd like to promote "Truth in the service of Unity" (isn't that what "Truth Unites" means?), why not pick this quote from a different Russian bishop around the time of Theophan?:
Met. Philaret of Moscow: I do not presume to call false any church which believes that Jesus is the Christ. The Christian Church can only be either purely true, confessing the true and saving Divine teaching without the false admixtures and pernicious opinions of men, or not purely true, mixing with the true and saving teaching of faith in Christ the false and pernicious opinions of men. ...You expect now that I should give judgment concerning the other half of contemporary Christianity, but I do no more than simply look out upon them; in part I see how the Head and Lord of the Church heals the many deep wounds caused by the old serpent in all the parts and limbs of this body, applying now gentle, now strong, remedies, even fire and iron, in order to soften hardness, to draw out poison, to cleanse the wounds, to separate out malignant growth, to restore spirit and life in the half-dead and numbed structures. In such wise I attest my faith that in the end the power of God will evidently triumph over human weakness good over evil, unity over division, life over death.
Or others from other periods (even though you are arguing that a more pastorally ecumenical tone is unique to the 21st century)?:
St. Mark of Ephesus: We need investigation and conversation in matters of theological disputation so that compelling and conspicuous arguments may be considered. Profound benefit is gained from such conversation, if the objective is not altercation but truth, and if the motive is not solely to triumph over others. Inspired by grace and bound by love, our goal is to discover the truth, and we should never lose sight of this, even when the pursuit is prolonged. Let us listen amicably so that our loving exchange might contribute to consensus.
St. Gregory of Nazianzen: For we are not seeking victory, but to gain brethren, by whose separation from us we are torn. This we concede to you in whom we do find something of vital truth, who are sound as to the son. We admire your life, but we do not altogether approve of your doctrine. …I will even utter the Apostle’s wish. So much do I cling to you, and so much do I revere your array, and the color of your continence, and those sacred assemblies, and the august virginity, and purification, and the psalmody that lasts all night and your love of the poor, and of the brethren, and of strangers, that I could consent to anathema from Christ, and even to suffer something as one condemned, if only you might stand beside us, and we might glorify the Trinity together.
Met. Evlogy: On the heights of their spiritual lives have not the Saints passed beyond the walls that separate us, walls which, according to the grand saying of Metropolitan Platon of Kiev, do not mount us as far as heaven?
Fr. Sergius Bulgakov: Unity is something already given and something we must attain to.
Fr. Georges Florovsky: The highest and most promising ‘ecumenical virtue’ is patience.
It might have started as private…but it’s been published by somebody and available to 7+ BILLION people for reading and discernment. Which Gavin did and decided to share his response to any of those 7+ billion people willing to give him a listen. Your position is equivalent to someone sharing a picture in a private Facebook group and then getting upset with someone else years later who shares the picture after it’s circulated across Facebook and other social media platforms by millions of users. Doesn’t make sense.
@@jayv3264 Hi Jayv3264. Thanks for replying. I think I understand where you're coming from. The thrust of what I'm trying to get at is regarding why Dr. Gavin chooses this particular quote to represent "the" Orthodox "position?" I provided several other quotes by important Orthodox men throughout history that are not representative of the ugly perspective that Dr. Gavin seems to insist we all have toward non-Orthodox. It just feels irresponsible to me that Dr. Gavin is using his "Truth Unites" branding to actually seemingly use "truth" as a sword that he insists divides us. Frankly, I don't know what Dr. Gavin's aim really is. If it were ecumenical, irenic, discussion with the aim of truth "uniting" us, he would dialogue with the copious like-minded Orthodox people out there. Rather, it feels like his project is very defensive. In the intro of his new book he flatly states that he is writing to Protestant people who he wants to understand the validity of Protestantism instead of leaving Protestantism. Fair enough. It just feels very evident that he is leading his Protestant listeners/readers to believe that he himself can speak authoritatively about "the" Orthodox perspective while simultaneously painting an ugly picture of Orthodoxy. I don't appreciate that Dr. Gavin seems to be abusing his stated ecumenical "Truth Unites"/"irenic" branding to serve is very defensive apologetic orientation. Does that make sense? If you're a Protestant, that's wonderful. I'm not saying you shouldn't be. I'm just saying that Dr. Gavin's project leaves Orthodox listeners frustrated for these reasons. But like you insinuated, I certainly don't have to tune into Dr Gavin if I don't want to. Everyone is entitled to their own perspective and motivations. You said in your comment that I don't make sense. Does what I'm saying here make more sense? It's about using "irenicism" as a proposed mask for very defensive apologetics. He is shoving so many words in Orthodox mouths that we don't get a chance at "irenic" discussion where truth has a chance to "unite" us. Thanks. Have a good day.
A lot of people here saying "I'm not a Protestant but my Orthodoxy is whatever I say it is."
I call this argument "Christian Hinduism" and its actually one of the reasons why I'm leaving protestantism.
It's an extremely emotional argument that every tiny splinter sect of Christianity uses to include themselves in the church and to avoid the question "why has the visible church not held my opinions for the first 1500 years?" It encourages indifferentism and makes truth a matter of taste and sport instead of necessity. It's the "there's many paths to God" for Christianity. Historically, this resulted in a rapid degeneration of doctrine in protestant sects, because it's too "mean" to say that if you persist in your sins you won't be saved.
Gavin talks about the good fruits of protestant demonimations and uses this as a proof that protestantism is part of the church, but do other faiths not have these as well? Do Mormons not have great families and give to charity? Does Islam not encourage strong family bonds and an active prayer life? Do we affirm these faiths because it would be too mean to do otherwise? Every argument Gavin makes in this video can be reworded slightly and used to extend salvation beyond Christ to other faiths.
Gavin denies the authority of the appointed successors of the apostles and invents a new doctrine of the "invisible church" that no one held for 1500 years, just so that he can affirm his own authority and invent his own individual form of Christianity. On top of that protestants will water down truth and doctrine to include the people and beliefs they individually like into the plan of salvation.
You wrote: "Every argument Gavin makes in this video can be reworded slightly and used to extend salvation beyond Christ to other faiths."
The problem is that there is only one true faith: faith in Jesus as one's Savior/Redeemer from all of one's sins by His propitiatory, finished, once-and-done sacrifice on the cross. Can a Mormon be saved? Yes, if his trust lies in Christ and not in his Mormonism (with its temple ordinances). Can a Catholic be saved? Yes, if his trust lies in Christ and not in his Catholicity (with its Sacraments). Get the picture?
It's a lot harder to pinpoint any Protestant denomination that teaches its members to trust in their denominational membership; Protestant churches teach faith in Christ alone.
Authority was delegated by Jesus to all disciples. Look at the sending of the Twelve, followed soon afterward by the sending of the Seventy... none of whom were "ordained in Apostolic succession." He spoke to Peter in Matt. 16, but soon afterward Jesus spoke very similarly to the gathered disciples in Matt. 18. And in Mark 16 Jesus told the disciples that "he who believes" will preach the Gospel, cast out demons, heal the sick, etc. Brother, that is the _authority of every believer!_
@@likeich Well said. I’ve been thinking the same thing. It’s so frustrating and tiresome. Constantly moving the goalposts.
For 200 yrs Rome killed all the earliest church elders 😢 then along come Constantine = Rome who rebuilt Christians simple prayer houses, that Rome destroyed...into gaudy decorated huge "churches" and put the preacher on the payroll... Now, what exactly did Jesus say about the church and taking money for spreading the gospel??
Do you even remember? And what was Jesus only commandment?
You're making a fallacious and circular argument and frankly arguing in bad faith. Protestantism is assumed guilty, EO assumed innocent.
In another way of speaking, your conclusion (that Protestantism is false while Eastern Orthodoxy is true) is one of your premises.
Some of the things you say are outright lies, like Gavin (more properly, Protestants in general) make an individual version of Christianity, as if one can belong to a Protestant church and not subscribe to its confessions.
You also just assume that Christianity was in stasis for 1500 years. The Protestant contention is that these institutions that claim authority were formed over time, and have evolved doctrinally, and implemented numerous man-made traditions as dogmas.
Facts on facts brother
Thank God for the Orthodox
I am an Orthodox Christian and I will not betray my faith - St Peter the Aleut
To give up what I have now to go back to where I was….it will never happen. I am not the most pious, the most smart, but I am an Orthodox Christian and I will die an orthodox Christian
Before you become Orthodox go listen to a heterodox against Orthodoxy? Nah just follow Christ into His Church, the Orthodox Church.
Brother this is not an explanation of anything.
Gavin, the same question that you encourage Protestants to ask about Eastern Orthodoxy concerning the latter's willingness to damn all the beauty, goodness, wonder, and dedication found in other forms of Christianity is also what you should encourage Christians at large to ask themselves regarding other faiths: Can you make peace with a religious view that relegates faithful Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, Humanists, and others to some eternal punishment merely for not being Christian, irrespective of what they believe and how they live?
We can make peace, of course, and are supposed to live in peace with everyone as much as we can. We cannot agree theologically with groups we have irreconcilable theological differences with. Also we don't condemn anyone to hell, or want anyone to go to hell. It's simply a reality which exists, which we have no control over. It doesn't mean we want people to go there or persecute them for not believing as we do.
We have peace with other religions. Those who do not want to be with Christ in Heaven simply will not be based on their free will. It's like if 1 person drove to a mountain and the other person to a lake then of course that's their respective destination. A Christian may invite others to the mountain but the hike is hard. We can't force them up it if they really want to get a solid tan by the lake instead.
@@CreationGrid You didn't understand how the word "peace" is being used in this context. You shouldn't believe in good conscience that only people who agree with your specific theology will be blessed by God for eternity.
@@KingoftheJuice18 I don't think you're understanding our religion and theology. The Bible does not teach that anyone is good or superior, it teaches that all humans are corrupt and going to hell by default. Hell is eternal separation from God, and we are born apart from God because of our wicked nature. If you want to go into God's house, you have to enter based on the conditions he establishes. Just like if you want to come into my house, or I into yours, there are some conditions, yes? We are told not to abuse or oppress anyone, or use force to bring people into our religion. However, we cannot change our holy text because other people don't like the message. Jesus said he would be a stumbling block for many, and not everyone would be able to accept his message. We also don't have any authority to determine who gets into heaven and who doesn't.
@@Procopius464 But you don't have to believe everything your religion may have taught in the past. In fact, you don't believe or take literally everything your religion says. Based on what you've written, I'm guessing that you don't believe in a literal "lake of fire," even though the NT talks specifically about a lake of fire. We must use the minds and reason that God gave us to determine the genuine meaning of holy texts. It's not an escape clause to say that Jesus told us that his teachings wouldn't make sense.
You're making God sound very bad. According to you, a person is born condemned through absolutely no fault of their own. The only way that someone can escape this condition, according to you, is to become a Christian. It doesn't matter how you live or if you believe in the one God in another faith-you're condemned. Fortunately, that's not the truth about God, because such a God would not be worthy of reverent, adoring worship, only of fear.
As an Orthodox Christian I appreciate your comments and pov . The ongoing problem with Protestant churches are that they are seeming built on sand and not the Rock that is the gospels and holy tradition. This seems to only belong to the Orthodox at this epoch . Although many parish priests seem to look the other way and just hope for their flock to realize the narrow path . The Protestant seems to be way off the path ? God have mercy on us sinners and may we be forgiven through Jesus Christ at that final hour . There is a strong belief that if your not Orthodox, your not saved . However, the Orthodox also believe that God is the judge and everyone will meet the judgement as an individual. The reason that the Orthodox are so strong on being Orthodox as the one true faith is that when we go off the narrow path , as Protestants often do more and more as they are divided more and more , the Protestant is going further from the narrow path and follows the way of the contemporary world . The Orthodox has a couple of thousand years of very little change and ignores the vagaries of time .
I was Protestant for 25 years. I became Orthodox after 5 years of inquiring and attending divine Liturgy for a year and I haven't looked back.
There is nothing as fulfilling as the Orthodox faith.
There is nothing like Divine Liturgy.
I'm sure you have very "fulfilling" experiences, and like Gavin said, there is beauty in Orthodox services. But you should really "look back" if you would live a life with Christ based on GOD'S WORD...instead of man made traditions.
@@matthiasbrandt1252Apologies for being blunt, but Protestants do not escape from tradition. The very interpretative framework you use for scripture either consciously or unconsciously is itself an inherited tradition. The way your church is structured is in a tradition. It’s been 2000 years since Christ, there is no way to escape that our interaction with the faith is at least somewhat mediated by tradition.
@Dhavroch Right on, call it like it is.
So you rely on the experience?
@@matthiasbrandt1252😂 so Martin Luther, Calvin, zwingili didn’t introduce man made traditions 😂
Comments are not interacting enough with the anathemas EO have declared which do make salvation extremely exclusive within their tradition (their interpretation and organization of the church). This is very problematic and does not appear consistently applied by EO. We Protestants do not have that same problem as we have grounds within our system to aknowledge the inclusion of non-Protestants in the church.
@lcs-salam Sure, but you still have a standard for who is part of the church. It's like you're mad that another church has a standard that doesn't include you. If we said "Mormonism is anathema," you would have no problem with it.
Guess what? Theophan is correct. There is no salvation in your church. This has never been disputed and has never changed in Orthodoxy. Salvation is the process by which you are transformed to be more Christ-like. Your theology is man-made and does not have the transforming power of Christ's church. Can you get to heaven without that? Sure, by God's mercy, just like the thief on the cross. But we don't know how often that happens, and you are playing with fire and doing the spiritual equivalent of drunk-driving by relying on it.
You think you are safe because you believe in forensic justification, an interpretation of scripture that was invented in the 16th century by the mere man Martin Luther, and which scholars agree was not present before that time.
@@EpistemicAnthony I'm not mad, but I am two things. 1) Confused about the inconsistency among Orthodox people on this subject and 2) Grieved that Orthodoxy makes a narrow door more narrow in a way God doesn't. Adding a burden by traditions of men, like the Pharisees did.
I agree there is a progressive aspect of salvation. Being transformed by the renewing of our minds and partaking of the divine nature happen more and more in the Christian life. This prepares us for the glory to come, as well as evidences we're actually on our way there. Perseverance in holiness and faith is both a grace from God and a responsibility of the believer.
I believe I am safe through God because He is merciful, I am a sinner, and I have come to Him through Jesus. We do disagree on how the righteousness of God is credited to a believer. I am not terribly concerned if previous generations in the church misunderstood this from the Scriptures.
There are things within your tradition I can make a case were not present in previous generations either. As a Protestant, I am open to the church needing to reform by repenting of error and embracing God's truth as revealed in His Word. This is what Jesus calls the churches in Revelation 2-3 to do. Sadly your understanding of the church does not allow this (correct me if I'm wrong).
I appreciate you are seeking to be consistent with the teachings of Orthodoxy, from what I can see. We may disagree but we shouldn't be ashamed of what we believe. If you believe a Protestant like me is anathema, as your church teaches, it is right you warn me of that and not treat me as a brother. I wish you'd see it differently though of course.
@lcs-salam 1. Where do you see inconsistency in Orthodoxy on this manner? Every Orthodox person agrees there is no salvation outside the church. We have said this over and over, and we have said that you are misunderstanding this statement over and over.
2. Is it us that made the narrow gate narrower, or is it others that made the narrow gate broader?
3. What's more likely: That the generations before you all the way to the Apostles "misunderstood" scripture on justification, or that Martin Luther misunderstood scripture and invented a new view on Justification, which you were then taught was fact? Personally, I think the first option is far more plausible. The people that knew all the Apostles in person know better how to interpret their writings than you or Martin Luther do.
I appreciate your comment and your kindness. I think you will one day become Orthodox.
@@EpistemicAnthony 1) You can search up ecumenicism among Orthodox to other traditions. It's pretty out there. I also regularly see Orthodox "laity" extending the right hand of fellowship to Catholics and Protestants alike. The idea of salvation exclusively within Orthodoxy doesn't appear so strong among many I've interacted with online.
2) Of course we disagree on this. It should make us go back to Jesus' words in Scripture and test all things though. What is the measuring rod? Who defines what is too narrow or too broad? Isaiah cried, "To the Law and the Testimony! If they do not speak according to this word, there is no light in them."
3) It was not Luther alone who began to see one is justified by faith. There are records of this view in some form or another throughout church history, going back to the earliest fathers. Sacramentalism developed over time. Orthodox concede this (I forget the term that is used). While the exact nuances of justification may have developed further during the Reformation, the basic truth that the grace of God meets us upon repentance and faith by the merits of Jesus - this is underneath a lot. But ideas of theosis, and mystical expressions of our union with Jesus, as you Orthodox have written extensively about, this clearly was not represented in the earliest patristics but developed over time as well. The theology of desert fathers, for example, is distinct in its own respects. Protestantism has this too. However, Rome anathematized us.
I'm grateful for the kind dialogue as well.
The more you understand theology and the scriptures You will be orthodox 🎉💯
Very often the answer of priests and Saints is the same: "Work on your salvation! If you are worried about your non-Orthodox family and friends, pray for them". And I appreciate the rigorist approach, remind me that this is not a game, and I shouldn't be collecting weird theological opinions, the path is narrow and a little mistakes have serious consequences in the long run.
I don't understand why you keep pressing this point. In our traditions we have people who think that only people in the Eastern Orthodox Church will be saved, we have (hopeful) universalists, we have people in between and the majority: those who tell you to pray, go to Church, fast and remember that God is infinitely more merciful than you are.
The problem is that the rigorists have an easier time defending their position in line with their canonical teachings and teachings of various Saints. However, the EO priests who are either open to salvation outside the church rarely defend their case from tradition but rather seem to be within the spirit of ecumenism.
@@ElvisI97 They are more vocal and people are more "scandalized" by them, but I don't think there is more evidence for the "no salvation outside the visible Church" position. For example, the Church doesn't even affirm that Judas is in hell. As St. Maximus said: "May God keep me too from condemning anyone and saying that no one but myself is saved"
Even priest that are very "rigid", like Fr. Peter Heers, when pressed on this issue he respond the same: "I don't know, that is God's business".
What a wonderful video. This video put into words my biggest problem with Eastern orthodoxy, and this exclusionist mentality is the reason I left. My only problem with this video is that it didn't come out sooner! God bless you dr. Ortlund, May this reach the heart of many so they don't have to go through the pain that I and many others have over ecclesial anxiety.
The door is narrow
Hi Tana Grant. I'm so disappointed that Dr. Gavin is promoting such division and promoting false impressions. Please also consider this statement from another Russian bishop from the same time period (that wasn't quote mined from a personal letter of his, as this Theophan quote was). There is tremendous conciliarity within the Orthodox Church:
Met. Philaret of Moscow: I do not presume to call false any church which believes that Jesus is the Christ. The Christian Church can only be either purely true, confessing the true and saving Divine teaching without the false admixtures and pernicious opinions of men, or not purely true, mixing with the true and saving teaching of faith in Christ the false and pernicious opinions of men. ...You expect now that I should give judgment concerning the other half of contemporary Christianity, but I do no more than simply look out upon them; in part I see how the Head and Lord of the Church heals the many deep wounds caused by the old serpent in all the parts and limbs of this body, applying now gentle, now strong, remedies, even fire and iron, in order to soften hardness, to draw out poison, to cleanse the wounds, to separate out malignant growth, to restore spirit and life in the half-dead and numbed structures. In such wise I attest my faith that in the end the power of God will evidently triumph over human weakness good over evil, unity over division, life over death.
You simply chose to be of the world. I chose to follow Christ and his clearly established church. It's not my concern what happens to family. I love them and God is just, so I have hope. But at the end of the day it's "Thy will be done." Not "My will be done."
God is just and love
Anyone that doesn't make it to heaven doesn't deserve to be there
Awesome! May God lead u to a beautiful bible based church that teaches the true gospel😊❤
@roses993 The "true gospel" that was invented by Martin Luther, a man, 1500 years after Jesus walked the earth?
Praise the Lord for his word which gave us Protestantism
Orthodox people who deny that we believe there is no salvation outside of the Church need to hear this and be rebuked so thank you Gavin for accurately displaying through Theophan what we believe. I knew this teaching leaving Protestantism into Eastern Orthodoxy almost a year ago and this teaching Gavin is elaborating on is actually one of the big reasons I knew it was the truth. This idea that all people who claim to be Christians must be saved is nowhere to be found in Scripture. Mark 9 does not justify being a heretic and teaching a false gospel. Jesus said Not everyone who calls him Lord will be saved...this is the exact problem Gavin has with Eastern Orthodoxy which teaches exactly what Christ taught! There is only one church because there is only one visible distinguishable covenant body and bride of the Lord. I say this as lovingly as I can but Gavin doesnt understand our obsession with church because he doesnt understand theosis...the concept of the church of God being literally conjoined to Christ. We become one with Him in the church. We receive His actual flesh and become His literal body. (Eph 4:30) To be one with the church is to be one with Jesus who deifies it. Thats what is missing in Protestantism. There is no true church or deification through the sacraments and priesthood EXACTLY as Theophan says and its not just him. Read Athanasius, Cyprian, Ambrose of Milan, Irenaeus, Ignatius (disciple of the apostle John), and especially Augustine of Hippo who Protestants claim to love and agree with. They all speak with one voice! "He can not have God for His father who does not have the church for his mother!" -Augustine
Hey I love holy orthodoxy and it quite hard for me this teaching because of people outside of the church who are seeking to love Jesus and live holy lives. I understand this but I do wonder if there is a little bit of nuance here
You're substituting faith in your denomination (EO) for faith in the _finished, once-for-all, propitiatory sacrifice of Christ on the cross_ for your complete redemption from sin. Nowhere do we read that Jesus required belief in a particular church organization for one's salvation & justification.
You wrote: "This idea that all people who claim to be Christians must be saved is nowhere to be found in Scripture." But this is NOT the idea which Gavin and other Christians are conveying! You've presented a straw man. The idea Christians convey, which IS found (repeatedly) in Scripture, is that all who believe in Jesus as their Savior from sin _are saved_ and _will be saved,_ so long as they persevere in their faith in Jesus Christ (i.e., they do not apostasize).
Yes, there is only one church... and it transcends all denominational barriers. God does not look at the name over the building's doorway; He looks for the blood of Christ applied through faith to the doorposts of a person's heart. Jesus' true church crosses all denominational lines.
There are true, born-again Christians in practically all denominations. Likewise, there are plenty of faux Christians in all denominations. Denominationalism means nothing; faith in Christ's redemption at a personal level means everything, because through faith apart from works we are counted righteous by God as a gift of His grace.
@@rexlion4510 I know were you are coming from, but were there denominations in the early church and a variety of teaching and doctrines? was there not one understanding and one teaching and one church. I mean did Christ not say the holy spirit would lead you into all truth. frankly I was tired the many different versions of truth in protestant circles, and asked my self what did the early church believe How did they understand the gospel. Not saying this to debate and no hate on my part by any means, but if Christ is the truth does any lie come from him and his holy spirit.
@@rexlion4510the reason prots are leaving for EO is because the invisible church is a massive accretion on which protestantism rests, and it's illogical, it's not historical, it's fence jumping. Big reason I left protestantism after 30 years, it's simply not the true, visible, historic church Christ left that He promised would be lead by Him, that He'd never leave and that the Holy Spirit would guide into all truth. If the scripture is true and the church is the pillar and bulwark of truth as stated in scripture then any other church existing can't be the true Church, it makes Christ a liar.
What would be your argument against Catholics having a true Eucharist?
Orthodox view Protestants similar to how Protestants view Mormons?
You know Mormons aren't Trinitarians : your compassion is incoherent.
@@davidjanbaz7728 Do Orthodox view Protestants as having flawed trinitarian theology?
@@pigetstuck Yes, because they followed the Roman Catholics with their addition to the Nicean creed.
@@jbn668 if the Catholics went back to the original creed, would they then be part of the true church again?
@@pigetstuck Not unless they renounce other doctrines they added, like purgatory, infallible papacy etc.
I really appreciate this insightful video.
Gal 3:26 for in -the Orthodox Church- Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith. -in the Orthodox Church.-
Gal 3:27 For as many of you as were baptized into -the Orthodox Church- Christ have put on Christ.
I love it!
Now do it for every pertinent verse in the entire New Testament! I’d get a kick out of it. lol
Ok. Don’t actually do it. It would take too long. But it’s fun to think about.
Jesus says in Matthew 16:18, “…I will build My church and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.”
There must be ONE church, one communion of believers which can trace its founding to the birth of the church at Pentecost and has faithfully kept the apostolic deposit of faith, or else Christ is a liar.
@@mamafortuin You wrote: "Jesus says in Matthew 16:18, “…I will build My church and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.”
There must be ONE church, one communion of believers which can trace its founding to the birth of the church at Pentecost and has faithfully kept the apostolic deposit of faith"
I agree that Jesus only builds one church, His church. But how do you get from Matt. 16:18 to the conclusion that the "one church" is _your denomination_ (be it Eastern Orthodox, or Roman Catholic, or any other hierarchical structure)? You _assume a particular definition_ of the word "church," a definition which fits your preconceptions and desires.
At Pentecost, the believers were baptized with the Holy Spirit, and the external tongues of fire were mirrored spiritually in each follower of Christ, for they received a holy boldness and a 'fire in the belly' (so to speak) to share the Gospel of Jesus Christ. They also received the local Real Presence of _God the Holy Spirit indwelling them;_ the Spirit confirmed to them that they were joint heirs with Christ and He began to provide the personal guidance and enablement that each one needed. This is what each follower of Jesus should expect: to be regenerated (born again) by the indwelling Spirit and to have _intimate fellowship, personal guidance, and enablement_ to do the works God foreordained for each of us to walk in.
These gifts of God's grace are not limited to the members of any one earthly organization: EO, RO, RC, Old Catholic, Maronite Catholic, Lutheran, Anglican, etc. God sees the heart of each person, and He responds to those who have living faith in Christ's propitiatory sacrifice for their remission of all their sins by regenerating them, living in them, and bearing good fruit through them as they cooperate in love and humble obedience.
Thus, spiritually speaking, Jesus' church crosses all denominational lines. Similar to how the Israelites responded to God's promise in faith and applied the blood of an innocent lamb to the doorposts of their dwellings (and the death angel passed over them), God looks at one's 'heart' (the inner man) and, if the blood of Jesus the innocent Lamb of God has been applied through faith to the 'doorposts' of one's heart, Jesus' promise fully applies: "Truly, truly I say to you, _whoever believes in me _*_has_*_ eternal life"_ (John 6:47).
John 3:14-18 "And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, so must the Son of Man be lifted up, that whoever believes in him -and joins the correct church group- may have eternal life. For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him. _Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed_ in the name of the only Son of God.
Separating the "sheep" from the "goats" will be God's job; it is not the job of some patriarch, pope, or bishop.
Belief (faith, trust in Jesus as one's Savior from all sin) is what God looks for when He is giving His gracious gifts of salvation, justification, and eternal life. Not a membership in "church X," but faith in Christ. Jesus builds His church in His own way, not according to man's ideas.
Isa 55:9 "For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts."
Peace.