For the past 6 months I, as a Protestant born-again evangelical, have been studying Church history to help me understand how the split in Christendom occurred. My desire to know about the split resulted in re-reading our Lord's high priestly prayer in which He expresses that His followers are united as He and the Father are united. It grieves my heart that there is such a split in the body of Christ. I have read numerous articles and watched numerous RUclips videos from the perspectives of Roman Catholics, Orthodox and Protestants. Just last week your videos started popping up on my RUclips feed. Oh my gosh, what a blessing. I immediately subscribed after listening to the first video and told my wife I have found a Protestant of kindred spirit who has vast knowledge in Church history and communicates with a kind, humble spirit. I told my wife I learned a new word "Irenic"...YES! Dr. Ortlund, thank you from the bottom of my heart for putting out these videos. I look forward to watching as many of your videos as possible. You are demonstrating for the body of Christ (Protestants, Roman Catholics and the Orthodox) the ministry of reconciliation with a spirit of love. Blessings upon you brother!!
@The Early Church Was Evangelical and Protestant dogmatic fools are the biggest threat to the church. Soften your heart to your brothers and sisters in Christ.
It feels easier in the moment to just want to lose our cool and just tirade on the other side and tell them off. It's not really easier though, because it feels awful in my spirit when I've done that. There's no peace, just anger and self righteousness. What has been peaceful and become second nature over time is to live in that echumenical spirit. It's ok if they don't agree. I don't feel self righteous, because I asking God to lead me in truth and all of us will find out we were wrong on certain doctrinal issues when we know all things when we're glorified.
14:44 onward on irenicism! “It is not compromise. It is not weakness. It will take all the strength you have. You have to cling to the Holy Spirit to not fall into the vitriol.” “It’s not needed just sometimes; it is needed precisely for the tough times. And I believe it reflects God’s heart for the church today.” Wow. I wish every Christian on social media would hear and heed these words.
What is the difference between irenicism and compromise? Because I find it hard to find common ground with people who e.g. intentionally break the second commandment (icon veneration), albeit they don‘t regard it as that.
@@dartheli7400 Good question. Here’s the problem: while you and I see it as a clear violation of Scripture, the EO church does not (which I see that you already acknowledged after going back and re-reading your comment). It would be one thing if they said, “Yep. We’re violating that commandment and we don’t care.” But the thing is, they’re not doing that. And you have literally millions of people in that church who have inherited a tradition that is very, very deeply engrained into their culture and spirituality. Moreover, they have inherited a long standing teaching tradition in the EO church that tells them that the practice of icon veneration is NOT a violation of the second commandment and that the second commandment is still valid but applies to other things. Not only are they taught that it is not a violation of the second commandment, but they are taught that this practice is good, proper, meaningful, and even required, in light of the incarnation. In other words, it’s very likely not a case of willful and outright violation in the minds of these people. So it requires understanding and patience to have discussions in a productive manner. So I’d say that while there’s definitely a time and a place for calling people out on their willful violation of scripture, we have to recognize those times where the reasoning behind the alleged “violation” is complex and therefore very difficult, if not impossible, for the “violator” to easily recognize.
Great video! I attended an Eastern Orthodox church service to see what it was like a year ago, and while I was talking with some of the members after the service, one of them mentioned this dialogue between the Patriarch and Lutheran theologians. He never mentioned where I could find it, so I'm glad you covered it in this video! Looking forward to reading it myself when I have some free time.
ruclips.net/video/LNO29Q4ppXk/видео.html. I humbly suggest that you watch at least one video from the other side, rather than just one from a protestant pastor who is mining the early church for polemics against the orthodox church. If you are not from a church that accepts more than two sexes, consider what your response will be should you be asked to respond to someone who believes that gender is fluid. Don't you think that you will be still correct, and viewed as arrogant still? That is where the lie of Gavin's video is.
I’ll admit that I, all too often, can be the first one to get snarky in an online debate. I look back and I cringe. As a Protestant I really appreciate your videos and your kindness towards those who differ. Your videos offer great insights but also convict me of my un-Christ-like behavior sometimes. Lord have mercy. Thank you again for your channel. It is a blessing.
It's not only you. It is very hard with people so deceived and nasty. It's a learning process to not get angry and lash out back at them, especially when they are doing personal attacks.
@@joycegreer9391 After awhile it just becomes second nature to not take it personally, and to just be able to gracefully back off. I just say a prayer. I've been there though w/ that anger welling up, not saying I haven't. I'm not sure what was key to the shift where it's not hard anymore? I'd say praying and putting echumenism as number one, under our many biblical admonitions to show one another love, grace, peace, gentleness. Praise God, He's doing a work in me. He will in you too. It really is lovely to just not have that oppositional spirit well up all the time.
@@saintejeannedarc9460 I think it becomes easier with practice. At first comments are very shocking, especially when there is so much vitriol and false accusations. It takes practice to not take personally and offensively, to keep reminding that it is that person's problem as they don't know you at all. With practice you get to see everything people can dish out and the repetition of their claims and false accusations. It gets easier to become impersonal and better at writing responses. It is a work in progress to always speak the truth in love and not react to false accusations and insults. It's sure not always easy!
@@joycegreer9391 I don't really get insults much. Political forums can get cray-cray. What I'm finding a bit more challenging again is the elitism and arrogance of the usually the Orthodox. Yeah, gotta take some deep breaths sometimes.
I use to really struggle with finding the “one true church” your channel has been great for easing that anxiety in my life. I personally feel the best in the conservative Lutheran type of churches. If I had to choose a second choice it would probably be some sort of conservative Anglican. In the end though I think all the true believers are the one true church regardless of their denomination
Yes, praise God. That's the heart of echumenism. My Christian background was never one church either, but it was by default on the protestant side. Now I can attend Catholic Mass w/ comfort too. It took some getting used to, and I had to learn a lot. God prodded me several years ago, and pretty much said, that if I'm truly echumenical and strive for unity, I have to incl. Catholics too. So I obeyed. The ex Catholic, now evangelical members of my family were all concerned I was going to convert. I was open if that's what God called me to do, but that's not what my branching out was about.
@@saintejeannedarc9460What is your take on how the Catholic church treats Mary? I don't look for a divisive answer. I think certain traditions that certain Catholics do seem to attribute too much to the saints, especially Mary. And I'm curious how a person with more insight views that topic.
I LOVED your call to irenicism at the end! It's something you inspire me in. I temperamentally can be argumentative, and your consistent call to this truly has affected me.
The Lutherans and the Orthodox had a completely different phronema. I think the differences were actually much wider than perhaps we realize. The Orthodox have weathered a very long history of preserving the faith through strict adherence to the councils and tradition. Asking their patriarch to humbly consider compromising is like asking a teacher to consider changing his country’s constitution. He has no ability to step so far outside the bounds of his role. Since then, the western phronema has found its way into Eastern Orthodoxy and some of them have begun to craft bridge-like language to modify their position to be more palatable to western ears, but the Orthodox views are more substantial than just being intellectual arguments.
I am not a Lutheran, but I have worshipped in a Lutheran church in the past and consider Lutherans my brothers in Christ. I am from a Christian Churches/Churches of Christ background myself, and used to attend Parkland Christian Church in Washington state, which for a time was holding its services on the campus of Pacific Lutheran University, so there was a lot of working and worshiping together going on, and I think we all learned much from each other. I see a lot more unity among various Protestant and Independent churches than I do between us and either Orthodox or Catholic (and I've bumped into the condescension from one of my Catholic friends so I can understand what the Tubingen brothers were dealing with).
For a long time I went to a protestant-Zwingli church. In my exchange semester I went to a Lutheran church. I was so clueless that I thought it was a catholic church. We always repeated a creed and it said catholic in that creed.😅 There were only around 5 to 10 people in that church, whereas the pastor was the only local person. Now I go to an independent church. I agree with you that there is a lot of unity with the various protestant and independent churches. But I would also say locally, the divide between protestant and catholic is also not that big. But the gap is certainly bigger, but there is regular working with each other.
What's amazing to me is how the eastern orthodoxy attitude is basically the same today. "You call yourselves theologians". I wouldn't be shocked to hear that from the mouths EO today. I struggle to understand how dismissive it seems.
I've experienced the same. It didn't seem good enough to listen and even just not say anything if I disagreed- it seemed like they expected me to grovel
Orthodox rarely fail to prove they are the most arrogant camp of Christians I have come across. Why wouldn't they be though. They are the only ones saved, even though they are by far the minority among the branches of Christianity. It's a cultish attitude, and cultists don't tend to be gracious to those outside their belief system. Their elitism tells them they are above simple bible imperatives of grace, love, patience, kindness, meekness and gentleness, because they have all the answers and are straight from the apostles. History belies this, but they believe it.
Amen. True humility I heard that. Been studying HUMILITY and the more I look for it the less I see in myself and the body of the church. It should be overflowing
I have the book and have read it. My personal opinion: the Patriarch, in his first response to the Augsburg Confession, did not openly condemn it. He did however, happen to state the creed without the filioque. He only made some cautious criticism otherwise. It could have gone well. But the Lutherans sent a response letter that goes on for pages about the filioque. You’d think they would have known the East had rejected Florence even if it was somewhat after the fact, but they seem to think the East had accepted it, and to add insult to injury they spent pages going over filioque and mentioning Florence more than once. It’s hard not to think this was rather insulting to the Patriarch. Yes, his first response was somewhat patronizing but his second response, well, you could tell he was annoyed about them forcing a response on the filioque. Then he spends most of his response on that. But it was no surprise that he wanted them to become Orthodox. I personally wish they would have avoided the filioque (since everyone could foresee how that would go anyway) and then we might seen a more charitable response on their other articles.
Orthodox hold to the traditions handed out from the apostles. There is no way the Orthodox, whatever their qualms against Catholics may be, would ditch essential teachings of Christianity to go along with a willful misreading and quartering of the Bible by infighting, murderous and self-styled "Reformers".
Very interesting point. The Protestants maintained much of the Western attitudes and never had a problem with the Filioque. Some background history of the previous century helps to understand the Western sort of cluelessness. The Council of Florence/Konstanz failed to unite East and West, though it almost happened. Islam was barking at the door, but was repulsed from going further West. The infidels had almost made it to Vienna. Conciliarism failed to be addressed though most bishops would have probably voted for it. The reason was war between France and the Papal states (or something like that). So while the East was constantly facing their failures with Islam as the reminder of apostasy and how a heresy can actually be very successful, the Westerners were concerned with their own internal problems exclusively. A family divided against itself cannot stand. And so we know the history. Interesting postscript: As recently as the 2000s the Anglican Church affirmed the Creed minus the Filioque which they first removed back in the 1980s. May revelation, joy and peace abound to you and your household of faith in the power and fellowship of the Gospel: "Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ and you shall be saved, you and your house."
Those are important points to know about the Lutheran response. I think the filioque was one of the biggest points for the Catholic/Orthodox split, along w/ the papacy. I definitely agree on the papacy, but presuming to know the deeper aspects of the nature of the trinity and be willing to split a church on it. No. It's funny, because Catholics and esp. Orthodox are usually content w/ some things being a deep mystery that we'll never have ultimate understanding about in our earthly form. There's some good natured ribbing about Orthodox and mysteries, and I've seen in their comments that they quite enjoy that and take it well. It's too bad that the Lutherans didn't know enough to leave one of the biggest sore spots alone.
A useful comment, based on one or two others I saw that seem to have been deleted, is that Gavin is not at all wishy-washy or offended by the exclusivity of salvation and it's being through Christ alone. What he opposes is the way that Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy have inserted themselves between people and Christ and made participation in their organizational hierarchy mandatory for salvation (at least in the past). This is not at all to say that he, or Protestantism as a whole, deny that to be saved one's faith must be in Christ alone. Further, his intent is not to demand that all others come to accept his views, but that they not attempt to anathematize people out of the church for holding different views.
It’s not really as simplistic as you’re making it sound. The view was that participation in Christ was mandatory for salvation, which includes the sacraments. Both the Romans and the Greeks saw each others sacraments as invalid. So it’s less about having the right “church hierarchy” and more about having the right Eucharist, which they saw as tainted due to church corruption/teaching of heresy. Nearly all of the early Protestants saw sacramental participation as necessary for salvation too. The widespread rejection of the “necessity” of the Eucharist and baptism is a super modern accretion in the Protestant world. But they allowed that other church structures although they had theological issues in their view still had valid sacraments.
@@harrygarris6921 that's exactly what I mean - at the time when Protestantism arose both the Orthodox and Roman Catholic churches anathematized those who held different views on those issues and we're not a direct member of their organization. Regardless of modern day lapses in the street-level practice of Protestantism, the doctrines they have still do uphold the value of the Eucharist and baptism, though at times in different forms and with different language. They do not however, condemn all those who disagree with their expression of these sacraments.
@@harrygarris6921erm, please explain to me what you mean by "participation in Christ is mandatory, which includes sacraments"....are you saying that faith + sacraments = salvation??
Christ said He will build a church with His apostles (which He picked one by one). He did not say read only the bible and interpret it as you want. So yes, we have to participate and listen to His church. "If they still refuse to listen, tell it to the church; and if they refuse to listen even to the church, treat them as you would a pagan or a tax collector." Do you want to be a pagan or a tax collector?
@@joekey8464 Christ did indeed say that, and he indeed did not say to read our Bibles or take his word and use it to mean whatever we want. Protestantism also has never said that nor implied it. The drive of Protestantism is to return to the Apostolic teachings and practices that people, over time, have corrupted and added too. Thus historic Protestantism aims to be as close to the original teachings of Christ as possible, and thus is a part of the one true and Apostolic Church - the Bride of Christ. Yet for all this, Protestantism has never attempted to anathematize and exclude those from other traditions they believe have doctrinal errors, but have - from the very beginning up to the present day - maintained that they too are members of Christ's Church. And we would never attempt claim that those in these traditions should be treated "as pagans and tax collectors". Unfortunately the same does not always seem to be true of Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy. It is my hope and prayer that that will continue to change though and that Christ's love will triumph over human divisions.
It seems like the big difference between Protestantism and Orthodoxy is that Orthodoxy has strong dogmatic convictions about theology and the Church, whereas Protestantism is a bit more relativistic and willing to accept different ideas. It also seems like Protestantism doesn't submit to a higher authority outside of its own interpretation of the Bible.
Protestantism does not have a "relativistic" view of the church; we just think the church is institutionally fractured (and thus coheres in multiple institutions).
@@TruthUnites Okay, so Protestantism dogmatically asserts that the "church" (lowercase?) does not find its identity within a single communion of believers who all accept the same deposit of faith, but rather, the church exists across various communions and is comprised of individuals who may have varying interpretations of Christian teaching, but whom all are part of God's community. Is this accurate? Also, I would be curious what you believe about Orthodox and Catholics who venerate icons. Do you believe that their potentially idolatrous activity would put them outside of the church? Would an Orthodox Christian or Roman Catholic need to accept a Protestant view of icons to avoid the sin of idolatry and be safely part of the "church" as Protestant's define it? In other words, do Orthodox and Catholic Christians need to assent to important Protestant doctrines that pertain to salvation to be considered part of the church as Protestantism defines it?
@@TruthUnites you have a very modernist (ecumenical) view. For instance people like Oliver Cromwell didn't share your modernist sympathies. You don't seem to want to acknowledge the Protestant wars in England for instance. Or Cromwell unapologetically invading Ireland and butchering Irish Catholics. Yeah....very ecumenical.
@@dustinneely I don't dont seem to remember Dr. Ortlund (or anyone else) denying protestant wars in England. Or regarding Cromwell (of all people) as infalliable
It seems to me that this should not be surprising that the orthodox would respond that way. The orthodox do not understand ecclesiology to be a second order theological issue, considering that apostolic succession is fundamental to access to the sacraments, which are seen as a central part of the application of salvation to the person, in both the catholic and orthodox view. The protestants reject that notion of succession and ecclesiology and then seem surprised when they are met with rejection. I’m not attempting to make a case for either side on this right now. Just pointing out that it seems strange that the protestants would be surprised by rejection by Catholic or orthodox at the time when the protestants are rejecting something that is central to both the Catholic and Orthodox faith.
@@joycegreer9391 No, that's because Protestants are innovators. The Protestant doctrine is novel, it was never believed before, and it has brought extreme division in Christianity now with everyone mocking us for having so many denominations when pretty much all of them are Protestant divisions.
@@joycegreer9391 Where do you think the theology of the trinity came from? The canon of scripture? Methods of Baptism, the Eucharist, marriage etc? The Church. What you do today comes from tradition defended by Saints and Martyrs.
Awesome video! I love the charge at the end, that we are not compromising by suggesting that true Christians (and true churches) exist outside of Protestantism.
If we are really bible believing Christians, then how could we claim that Catholic and Orthodox are not true Christians as well. They see Christ as ultimate redeemer and Lord. It's much more formal, but it's the same at its core. I think most protestants don't realize that and want to nitpick on what is different, than what is actually the same. It takes a fair bit of studying to get through the different language they use.
And really it is not arrogance as Gavin puts in, quite uncharitably if I may add. No one got drowned (Anabaptists), burnt at the stake or had their heads removed. None of the protestants hands were free of blood. There are many churches that are totally independent from each other, and they just agree to the same seven ecumenical councils. Any independent protestant church can sign up and it is not about being exclusive, or insisting on being part of a larger organization. There were some young Christians who started out as Campus Crusade folks, then started their churches, and via a few camps they realized they wanted to joint the Orthodox Churches and did. Go you do likewise.
Hey, Dr. O. I received that book as a loan a while ago from an Orthodox friend who is a deacon. Fascinating episode in church history! I think one of the driving forces behind the differential responses to ecumenism historically is the difference in ecclesiology between the Lutherans and the Greek Orthodox, leading to a different stance on catholicity. That "institutional exclusivism" of what I call the "Imperial churches" (i.e. those churches who can trace their hierarchy back to the episcopal and diocesan structure of the state church of the Late Roman Empire) is kind of baked in to that late Imperial state-church structure. You can see that institutional exclusivism develop in the relationship between the Eastern Roman Church and the church of Rome in the early medieval period, and between Constantinople and other churches on the fringes of her empire and in competing states (i.e. the Coptic, Ethiopian and Armenian churches and the recognized church of the Sassanian Empire that was called the "Nestorian" church). The issue of church and state and how we understand that in the broader context of ecclesiology is just as vital as the theological differences in understanding differing approaches to ecumenical relations. "Free churches" can have the biggest tent for catholicity, as they are not bound to the necessity of the historic episcopate rooted in the church of the Roman Empire. However, this freedom has its downsides too, especially in America, in which the first amendment allowed for the proliferation of many Restorationist cults such as the Mormons, JWs, and in a more qualified sense the Seventh Day Adventists (not to mention the rise of theological Liberalism). There are no simple answers for how to proceed in ecumenical relations. There is a great book by Thomas A. Howard called the "Pope and the Professor" on the lives of Pius IX and Dr. Johan von Dollinger, their fateful clash at Vatican I, and Dollinger leading the first modern ecumenical dialogues in the Bonn Reunion conferences. Would love to see you do a video on Dollinger and/or the Bonn Reunion conferences and how we can apply the lessons learned in then to today. Thanks, Dr. O, and Grace and Peace!
The historic episcopate (and episcopacy, generally) did predate the Constantinian shift. I would say that the model fit well within an imperial/monarchical system, but the structure as a legitimate development is still a well attested feature of historic catholicity (and not purely a byproduct of state-church).
If the apostle John had approved of the monarchical episcopate, and it seems likely that he did, I think you can make a pretty good case that the institution is of divine appointment.
@@Jimmy-iy9pl Chapter and verse? Roman Catholic scholarship is clearly not with the "traditional" view of RC conservatives. If you want to make the argument that historical development is divine (i.e. the Newman Hypothesis) okay. That can be debated. But scholarship, including conservative scholarship, is pretty uniform on the fact that the monarchical episcopate is not a New Testament concept and developed at a later point in history. I think that is fatal to the case of the Imperial churches as their dogmatic statements assume the Apostolic Succession as the Apostles specially appointing bishops as priests in their place. This is not biblically nor historically tenable. Btw, why are the bishops in the modern Imperial churches mandated to be unmarried? Seems this violates the principle of married bishops in 1 Timothy 3, 4 and Titus 1, thus breaking alleged Apostolic succession, as the mandate of unmarried bishops violates the qualifications.
@DrBob-gr5ru The scholarship pretty universally attests that the three-fold order began as "apostle, bishop-presbyter, and deacon", that's why it's called apostolic succession (by the churches which regard that model as essential). Bishops are only important as such if they are in the line of the apostles, who are the truly essential office of leadership.
The issue is that you are praising the Lutherans for having a moden mindset and rebuking Patriarch Jeremiah for having an ancient mindset. Did the Church ever talk to the heretics as if both were on the same level? Never. Would you talk to a Muslim or a Jew as if you had something to learn from them concerning the Faith? Surely not. What you have in mind is the modern "ecumenical" dialogue, which of course did not exist at the time. Protestantism was the prerequisite for this dialogue. The Patriarch simply treated the Lutherans with kindness and condescension to their lack of familiarity with the Apostolic Faith, that which had always been believed by all and everywhere, by all that is by the Orthodox, excluding of course the heretics. He tried to correct the Protestants on their errors, but when the latter proved to be stubborn, after (two or) three rebukes he let them go. That's the Scriptural approach. Ecumenism with its endless pointless dialogues is not the Scriptural approach. Concerning the docrtine of the Church, of course the Church, being guided by the Holy Spirit, is inerrant. How else could it be? Each individual has free well and thus can fall into error, but the Church is the Body of Christ, how can the Body of Christ err?
This is so, so good! If only the modern followers of Luther and Calvin were as ecumenical as their founders! And I realize, in some way Calvin and Luther were pretty strident toward other groups! It almost seems, in my experience, modern Protestants who identify as Lutherans, Calvinists, and generally Evangelical are often woefully ignorant of the theology of Luther and Calvin and of others whom they criticize...and perhaps that's one reason they are so divisive today. They mischaracterize the other side so badly!
Sadly, many orthodox Protestants today have abandoned Ecumenism as a liberal tendency. American Evangelicals are often restorationist and look down on church history with suspicion. Confessional Lutherans and Reformed are often defensive about maintaining their own tradition. This results in Ecumenical statements, like the Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification, being made by liberal Protestants, and therefore they are oftentimes more concerned with being nice than engaging the actual differences.
When I was a Lutheran I visit Reformed churches frequently and have fellowship with them as brothers and sisters in Christ. We have a lot of agreements in many doctrines and It made me happy tho there are also many parts where we get to disagree, but still I love those guys.
Hahahahaha hahahaha hahahaha... We must at least give some measure of credit to folks like Luther and Calvin for at least trying to reach out to an Apostolic Church after Rome recognized them as heretics (if for no other reason than "successful heresy" requires the backing of as many bishops as possible, regardless of whether from West or East)
@wayned803 Luther was no Heretic. The corrupt papacy only declared hom heretical because Luther threatened their earthly power, but had no biblical backing. Luther even challenged them to their faces to back up their claims with scripture, and they could not.
@@Stigma-ba115 Luther was and will always remain a heretic according to both East and West. Sola Scriptura is a heresy, denial of the real presence in the Eucharist is heresy, denial of Purgatory in the West and post death purification on the East is heresy, denial of an institutional Church founded by Christ which continues to this day is heresy. According to the witness of a nun who had a vision, Luther is damned.
Gavin, continually blessed by this channel. It pushes me to be a better Protestant who more firmly is ruled by the primacy of God's Word, and the authority of the foundation set by the apostles- and really wrestling to figure out what that foundation is in the natural revelation from God we've been given in our histories. We can be more unified, apostolic, catholic, and cheerfully dedicated to holiness that springs from the Lord of Truth as we commit all our institutional visible assemblies to reforming ourselves to conform to his Headship led by his Spirit, animating his Body/Temple/Church as the pillar and buttress of Truth. To really study history as God's revelation in time of fallible reflections of His Voice via real Spiritual artifacts and meditations meant to edify us, presupposing Scripture's unique ontological and internal claims about itself having the right as God's ontologically unique instrument of his Voice to infallibly norm all else, and seeing ourselves clearly as a medieval reform and resourcement historical movement, rather than a single visible ecclesiological hegemon of chaos and nominalism, is to start wrestling with what the beauty of what it means to be Protestant (and reformed catholics).
I am a quia confessing Book of Concord evangelical catholic. As a "Lutheran" I encourage everyone to read the Book of Concord--very few have or will. Very few really understand our theological paradigm. When you read the BoC, you will want to pick up Luther, Gerhard and Chemnitz....and that's just for starters.
I'm so glad I read this book a year ago because that's not the impression I got from the Eastern side. Why do you assume the Patriarch was being patronizing especially after you admitted that its like to very different cultures. From the Patriarch's vantage points he sees it as the German academics interested in joining "The Church" not a discussion between "two churches". So of course in the last letter the Patriarch is filled with grief and desires to discuss no further because the Lutheran side has made up their mind on eccesiology and their private interpretation of true doctrine. (He's adhering to the book of proverbs at that point to not argue with scholars) If the Reformers aren't interested in reforming why should the Patriach continue to go back and forth? That's not how Orthodox Christianity works. Was the Patriarch supposed to compromise the Churches rich faith and history to appease the Lutherans new found 16th century tradition? Dr.Gavin from an Orthodox perspective that's nonsense.
@@Giorginho The Lutherans were being cordial in their view that catholicity can be enjoyed between believers in different traditions, Jeremias was only going to be cordial with them if they joined the EO church. It was never going to work out, as they say.
Thank you for briefly walking us through this unique moment in church history. I love being catholic (URCNA - Continental Reformed) and finding "new" (old) ways to practice my catholicity. Your videos are so helpful in showcasing apostolic expressions of catholicity rooted in the scriptures as opposed to the rigid expressions rooted in ecclesiological exclusivism, protestant and non-protestant alike. So, thank you for that!
I have little idea what you just said, because Catholics sure do talk funny. It's just my light hearted way of saying that we can have a language barrier, because of different traditions. It is great to see Catholics and Orthodox in here and enjoying what Dr. Ortlund so graciously offers as information for bridge building.
Do you feel you may be neglecting a major hang up with any discussion of ecumenicism between Lutherans and Orthodox--namely, the importance of Apostolic Succession to the Orthodox? It's the same for the Western Church. Their view was (is) that the one way to have real catholic unity is through a bishop ordained in Apostolic Succession. East and West have always been in agreement on this. They point to exhortations from the Apostles, Ignatius, Irenaeus, etc. It's the main reason Catholics believe Orthodox have valid ordinations and sacraments even thought they're considered schismatics. This puts Jeremiah's "condescension" towards the Lutherans in a proper context. If Apostolic Succession was the basis of Catholicity for 1,500 years, then the Lutherans were trying to have their cake and eat it. They wanted the freedom to interpret Scripture and operate their churches however they desired (without regard to any spiritual oversight or obligation beyond their own fidelity to Scripture, Creeds and Confessions). This view of catholicity was foreign to Rome and Constantinople. More than schismatics, the Reformers were considered rebels (or anarchists). So, perhaps Jeremiah disliked the fact that the Lutherans were presuming their position that one can remain "catholic" without the necessary "spiritual pedigree" if you will. From Jeremiah's perspective, the points of disagreement with the Lutherans were points of unity with Rome. Thanks for the video!
Great video Dr. Ortlund. Have you ever had discussions with an Orthodox priest who was born in Eastern Europe? Would you ever make a video with a priest who is not only part of Orthodoxy but is also part of the Eastern culture (Greek, etc) discussing Orthodoxy and the Protestant faith? A Greek Orthodox priest.... I know that there is a lot of culture more than anything behind the Orthodox faith so it would be interesting to hear a conversation between an Eastern Orthodox priest (who is actually part of the native Eastern European culture) and you discuss sola scriptura, salvation, & other topics.
This is a really good idea. Dr. ortlund, I hope you can get some air time with Trenham. He's well versed in Reformed theology and would make an excellent dialogue partner.
Trenham is an unapologetic EO priest, having come out of Reformed Protestant Evangelicalism and having written and spoken clearly against the theology of the Reformation. See his book, _Rock and Sand_, as well as his numerous videos contra the 5 solas.
@@hughmccann919 Thank you for sharing this! I thought he was of Greek descent. I had no idea. I think it would be great for Dr. Ortlund to do a video with a Greek Orthodox priest from Greek descent because a lot of their ties to the Orthodox faith is history and culture. I will edit my comment. Thank you again for sharing! I appreciate it.
God is the TRUTH, ONE TRUTH. God's truth is not relative. Shouldn't we care enough to get together and ask the Holy Spirit to clarify the TRUTH for us?
I read this book. I didn’t read Jeremiah as being condescending at all. I think the Protestant Theologians had a couple of “spicy” statements themselves . Dr. Ortlund could have recited those too. In part, these “micro-aggressions “ (good grief, I can’t believe I typed that) are probably due to differences in culture. I did feel the Lutherans were a little more contentious. The exchange in the book was illuminating and is very valuable as Dr. Ortlund says. The Orthodox could have easily compromised themselves in order to be in communion with a western group, which could have been to their benefit, but they did not. Both sides stood their ground. I think this was appropriate. The ecumenical issue is serious. I disagree with Ortlund on the catholicity issue. I also don’t think the Orthodox had a duty to treat the Protestant view as being on par with theirs. It’s not just “my idea vs your idea”. This is a common mindset today. This is the challenge in the modern world. The Orthodox position was ancient and did not have the errors that arose in Rome. It was not a new idea that was there to be compared with other new ideas. The Lutheran viewpoint arose out of the conflict with Rome and was conditioned by it. Rome shaped the Protestant viewpoint both where they agreed and where they did not. As Ortlund rightly points out, the Orthodox were different. I doubt the Reformation would have gained traction had it arose in an Orthodox country. The issues that set off the Reformation were not present in Orthodox Christianity. The trigger was not there. The later developments in Protestantism went way beyond the original complaints of Luther. It took on a life of its own. The Lutherans had constructed a significantly different Christianity by the time they had the exchange with the Orthodox. I don’t think the exchange was timely. It is more timely today. I hope the discussion continues.
Someone else who read this book mentioned what Gavin did not. That the Lutherans went on about the filioque at great length and were pressing on a big contentious sore spot. They thought dialogue may have went better if they had not.
@@saintejeannedarc9460 yes I realize having watch many of Gavin's videos to get the other view (I just converted from Baptist to Orthodox) is that his agenda is clearly polemic and is not to seek unity. Still he 'steel man's " the protestant case, so once I can get past it I am home free. lol
I agree. I didn’t feel as if Jeremiah was being condescending at all. Using the “fatherly” type of language makes perfect sense considering the Orthodox are about 1500 years older than the Protestants. I thought it was appropriate.
In so much as Protestant individuals practice Catholic-Orthodox theology, they are behaving in alignment with Christ. In so much, as they detour from it, they are caught up in division (diablos).
This was an enjoyable listen. I spoke with a Coptic priest and he mentioned this exact dialogue. I thought for a few weeks I was aligning with the orthodox church on some doctrines but I disagree too much on certain major issues to ever convert.
Didn't Luther himself confer with an Ethiopian higher up and determine that essentially their doctrines of justification were similar if not identical? But yes, Lutherans do absolutely present a better "catholicity" and always have, to the dismay of more "reformed" brothers!
Thank you for the video! It would be great if you could also make a video concerning the Reformed-Orthodox dialogues under Cyril Lucaris, and the Council of Jerusalem after his death.
Referring to the Lutherans as “sons” is not in the least bit condescending from the Patriarch. It shows commonality and familiarity. The Patriarch refers to all non bishop-Christians as children. And as the Patriarch not further engaging with the Lutherans after they refused correction, this is again how a patriarch would respond to disent. Him not continuing to argue with the Lutherans was him being polite. Part of the issue is the cultural difference. It makes sense that Gavin would see the Lutherans as polite but not the Patriarch as being polite because their culture is more similar to his. However, the Patriarch treated the Lutherans very kindly according to his own culture.
That's an interesting aspect to add and I'm sure Gavin was aware of this. What he is drawing out here is the essential difference that to the Protestants, the Orthodox church was Christian, but to the Orthodox, when it became clear that the Protestants were not going to compromise their theology and join with Eastern Orthodoxy, they cut off the dialogue and refused to acknowledge the validity of their faith.
However the EOs response is in lock step with their views of Christians outside of their church (basically anathema). I would consider he wasn't being condescending if they didn't already have such a view against non-EO for centuries.
@@ElvisI97 I don’t think viewing people as outside of the Church is synonymous with being condescending. The Lutherans were holding onto and refusing to repent of a (in the East’s eyes) heresy that had been condemned for over 500 years.
I know this probably just looks to most Protestants like the EO (or RC) Church are rigid, elitist, exclusive, and will only acknowledge others being in good faith if those Christians are already on “the same team”. But I would encourage you to try to see past the response instantiated here as something beyond hard-headedness and arrogance. That impression comes off very clearly, in favor of the Protestants, in the video. What doesn’t come across is that this interaction is not happening in a vacuum. It’s been over a millennia and a half since Christ’s coming. If you believe that Christians should belong to the Church that Christ founded, then new Churches, groups, sects should not be springing up. Anything new that does come on the scene SHOULD instantly send off alarm bells that there has been a deviation from what Christ founded. The Protestant comes off to the EO’s, not as cordial, but as saying “we respect you so please also will you respect my obviously invalid Church that some guy set up a couple minutes ago”. That might not be how you see it, but you need to try to understand how things were perceived in their proper historical context.
I understand what you’re trying to get at here, but I think the idea of an “obviously invalid church set up five minutes ago” as a way of framing things is an example of the rigidity and assumed superiority. That Lutheranism is not a church is not obvious at all. On some of the doctrinal issues at play, I think it’s fairly obvious in the opposite direction (for example, icon veneration).
@@TruthUnites That might have sounded harsh, but I phrased it that way to underscore why Protestants are not met on the level playing ground they think it is. The lack of historical precedent to their institution implicates a departure from apostolic lineage, and thus from the historical particular ministry of Christ. That is the way that Protestantism is going to be met by Christian Church bodies with an ancient pedigree and it’s important for Protestants to grapple with that perspective when dealing with RC, ECs, etc. That is simply the point I mean to convey.
To put the issues a little more in the foreground from your reply, Christianity is not just about doctrines and Jesus did not just teach ideas. He was a particular man and established a particular, visible Church on His apostles. Of course doctrine is important. But to ignore the importance of belonging to visible institutions with credible claims of succession from what Christ established, in favor of merely doctrinal descent claimed by a reading of Scripture is how these interactions are premised with opposition from the outset.
@@MrTeaSPoon12 Thanks for the reply. I think I understand what you’re trying to say, but again the idea that protestants are wrong to expect a “level playing ground” is part of the very mentality that we find reflective of arrogance. The eastern orthodox view of icon veneration has zero historical precedent for the first 500 years of church history. So when you assert that we have no historical basis, it doesn’t seem to be grasped that we’re saying the exact same thing about many aspects of your tradition. Someone is right, and someone is wrong, but it shouldn’t be assumed at the outset.
@@MrTeaSPoon12 on this comment, we totally agree that Christianity is not just about doctrines, and that there is a visible church. We simply do not restrict that church to the Eastern orthodox institution.
I recently left the Baptist church and started going to an Eastern Orthodox Church in search of the ‘ancient faith’. It’s been a few months and quickly realized things that didn’t sit well with my conscience. 1. Ecumenism and everything it stands for. Protestant martyrs dying in vain (from their pov) not being able to pray with others, no matter your faith in Christ and what fruit you bore, you’re damned outside the eastern church. 2 the extreme views of Mary. They believe that she lived in the Temple in the Holy of Holies for 12 years and a lot of other things that I was unaware of and would’ve been mentioned in scripture if true. 3 my previous baptism meant nothing and would have been made to be baptized again and it all just feels very legalistic. They definitely don’t believe in assurance of salvation and being saved by faith. These are just a few things. I say all that to them say I found this RUclips channel and it has helped me IMMENSELY!! Thank you Gavin.
Dr. Ortlund, could you give an example of what you consider to be an exclusivitst ecclesiology that you do not find to be condescending when dialogue occurs? For example, do you think Church of Christ people are necessarily condescending when doing dialogue because they believe themselves to be the Church? Also: why do you talk frequently about acceptance from Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholics if you consider them to be erroneous on many points?
So basically, the Orthodox Church just responded by saying "Either join us or leave us alone, bye". That's so sad to hear. In an alternate reality, it would be very interesting to see what would have happened had the Orthodox been more open to collaboration. Could there have been more unity and not nearly as many splinter groups emerging shortly after Luther? I guess we'll never know...
a sect originates or evolves from other sects, but sects do not "join together" or collaborate into some kind of hybrid form. It just doesn't happen, not in Christianity or any religion.
Believing that one’s church cannot error, could explain how Patriarch Kirill is so effectively able to further his and Putin’s horrific agenda regarding Ukraine. Kirill is shockingly and ruthlessly powerful, yet faithful Russians seem to blindly follow him no matter how ugly the situation.
Kirill is not the church. He is a bishop in the church but he isn't the orthodox equivalent of the Pontiff. Every man may hold error but the greater body of Christ's bride cannot error for long unless the promise of Christ isn't true.
Gavin, I’ve heard about a meeting between a monk from the Ethiopian Orthodox Tewhado church and Martin Luther (often noted by orthodox people in my native country Ethiopia). Do you know anything about the supposed exchange between the two?
I'm not sure you'll read this comment, but here are my thoughts. You quote that the Lutherans have a better version of catholicity than the orthodox or catholics, with the quote at 13:36. In that quote, the Lutherans say that "who hold the right interpretation of Christ". This brings the question of who holds the right interpretation. I think they are equally un-catholic, in the way that you define it, by saying that you must have to have the same interpretation.
A definition of your view of catholicity is required here . I think your coming from a quite different understanding of its implications . A short video with regards is needed
The friendly relations of Anglicans and Eastern Orthodoxy, especially early 20th century, is worth looking into. Anglican theologian Eric L Mascall does an eirenic consideration of the relation of Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Anglican and Protestant understandings of grace in his Gifford Lectures (available online). Also his book Christ, the Christian and the Church, recently re published. Jordan Cooper the Lutheran You Tuber also has comparisons of Lutheranism and Orthodoxy. I think he has studied Mannermaa the Finnish Lutheran theologian who has tried to find some common ground with Orthodox, in his work Christ Present in Faith, on Luther's view of justification. You might have encountered these already. If not, I hope you may find some material in them to consider.
This episode was unknown to me. I am sure to many others as well. Very cool. Beautiful conclusions drawn from this episode even though I disagree with his perspective on Jeremiah II.
Was this video a response to my last comment Ha ha? I think it boils down to sola scriptura and a fundamental disagreement on the role and definition of "The Church" as the body of Christ. Ecuminism has an allure because we are called to love one another. However if there is no line in the sand, we see where that leads (35,000 denominations that all hold conflicting views).
@@justicebjorke2790 Indeed, one could (on paper) pursue such a ludicrous route and potentially end up with any number of denominations they wanted based on self-determined criteria (and, indeed, that actually IS how many of these somewhat silly numbers are reached). But 'meaningful or accurate' was not an unimportant afterthought of an inclusion in my reply - there was a reason for its inclusion.
@@Mic1904 would protestants say that the patriarch was faithful to the scriptures here? "A man that is a heretic, after the first and second admonition, abandon" (Titus 3:10)
@@aheadofmetal Well, now, there's an interesting question. Because if, indeed, one is to abandon a person who persists in division and heresy after the second admonition, what would that look like in practical and in ecclesiastical church terms? As in, you and I are both in 'the Church', one of us declares something that the other deems divisive and heretical, and the other then 'abandons' them having nothing more to do with them - what does that look like in the context of the church? Where are you or I going in that situation?
@@Mic1904 I believe Josiah Trenham made a comment on the schism of 1054, which I think likely holds true to your comment. Something to the effect of, "The sin occures on both sides, the party who falls away and the one who ultimately allows the division to continue." I think that is likely good pastoral advice, but Im honestly out of my depth on this one. I think it is also easy to look back in time with 20/20 vision and say "oh, Obviously Martin Luther should have humbled himself and returned home". But if I was a 16th century peasant in Germany under papal rule, I probably would have followed Luther and the reformers. I wouldnt have had the benefit of any knowledge of church history, Orthodoxy or "free information". Interesting thought exeriment anyway...
Hi Dr Ortlund, I am an Orthodox Christian. The EO Church understands itself to be The One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. There is no wiggle room there for us and I believe you know that. Therefore, I really see no point in you engaging us ecumenically. In being faithful to our ecclesiology, we will only manage to come across as proud and rigid to you. I know your beliefs don't allow for it, but expediently, I think it would be better if you didn't consider us Christian at all. It would save a lot of misunderstanding and grief. It's two different worlds. Two trains passing each other in the night. Never the twain shall meet. But from the bottom of my heart, I wish you well.
Thanks for the comment. I am aware of the EO claim. The fact that you do not consider me in the church does not require that I do not consider EO as Christians.
Catholicism- church is above Jesus words. Mary doctrines even if invented over 300 yrs after Christ, we still believe in them. For uncertain reason, we believe we are the one true church even if book of acts church had zero statues, zero praying to saints, zero mary doctrines, zero indulgences, zero pencances.
Timestamp: 11:30 Titus 3:10-11 "As for a man who is factious, after admonishing him once or twice, have nothing more to do with him, 11 knowing that such a person is perverted and sinful; he is self-condemned." The Holy Ecumenical Patriarch Jeremiah II followed Scripture.
I was raised Baptist the in high school I became an Episcopalian (to shut up my girlfriend) and came to love the church. Then in the late 80s they started getting off track (female priests the guy bishops) and I couldn’t take it anymore and had too many problems with what the Roman Catholic taught. So long story short in 91 I was received into the Orthodox Church. I knew I was home the moment I walked into the church. I look at things that the Church that has been around since the beginning and hasn’t changed is probably got things right and if I disagree with them then I probably be the one to change my beliefs.
My question would be: how can “all” love the gospel of Christ if we have different “gospels”? My concern for RCC and EO members is they are putting their faith into a “false” gospel. I hope I am wrong but both affirm human works as part of justification and that is contradictory to the gospel of Christ. I call all Christians who affirm complete trust in Christ and His gospel as family, regardless of the name on their church. At the same time, I currently see RCC and EO as people that need to be evangelized too, am I wrong? Do they believe in the gospel of Christ?
I can totally understand this. If you’re at all familiar with the Jesus movement or the charismatics, back in the mid-20th century, you may have heard that it affected Roman Catholics too. I don’t know about EO. It could be helpful to compare this to the household of Cornelius in Acts; since the Holy Spirit fell on them, Peter was able to recognize them as true believers. As far as the doctrinal stuff, you have to keep in mind that both of those traditions are so ancient and have so many teachings they hold to, that some of those teachings are going to be self-contradictory, so individual adherents to the faith are really going to have to pick and choose which teachings they personally hold most important. For example, RC and EO believe in the truth of the Bible, so any member of their church could technically read the Bible and believe it.
I’d also like to point out that there are some people who may be in more “correct” denominations who may not truly be born again anyway and may need to be evangelized. The correctness of a group’s teaching is only one of several factors that can influence whether a person in it is truly born again.
@@reepicheepsfriend I whole heartedly agree with much of what you said. Any one who isn’t born again, regardless of their church identity, need to be told about the gospel of Christ. We get faith through hearing the gospel of Christ, my concern is that the gospel of Christ, the gospel of grace isn’t preached in Catholic church’s or EO church’s. We 100% need more than head knowledge of the gospel, we need the Holy Spirit given through faith in Christ, at the same time if we have a wrong head knowledge of the gospel then it will affect our heart and potentially our salvation as paul tells us in Gal 1. How can we “come” together when different gospels are preached in different churches? I don’t think we can, unless we all submit to our Lord Jesus Christ and His gospel of grace.
@circle.dot.raindrops good, glad to hear that Catholics believe in faith alone in Christ Alone by grace alone and nothing of yourselves what so ever contributes in any way towards your justification before God. Our righteousness before God is the righteousness of Christ through Faith in Him alone. So glad Catholics affirm and believe this.
@circle.dot.raindrops you keep working for your salvation. I’m gonna go with the gospel of grace, the gospel of Christ. Not some man made gospel that doesn’t save
Respectfully, I don't think this was an entirely fair assessment of Jeremias' correspondence with the Lutheran theologians from Tubingen. -Regarding Jeremias' addressing the Lutherans as sons, I think it very unlikely that this was intended to be condescending. In Orthodoxy, priests and bishops frequently address people as sons or daughters as a function of their office. This would go double for the Ecumenical Patriarch. As an Orthodox Christian, I would interpret this form of address as a form of affection and would feel very warmly received by it. Furthermore, I think his addressing these non-Orthodox Christians as sons speaks to a generosity of soul and a desire for bonds of love to be formed between them. -I don't think the differing visions of Catholicity critique is entirely fair, considering the historical context. The Protestant attitude of considering Christians from different traditions as being true Christians, while I don't completely disagree with it, was an innovative way of looking at things that resulted from the Reformation. Orthodoxy never went through the Reformation, so this way of viewing things would have been completely alien to Jeremias. As such, I don't think it is fair to hold him to that standard. -Regarding Jeremias' ending the theological discussion, I think there are a few important facets to consider: Jeremias lived under the thumb of the Ottomans, and as such his freedom was severely restricted. Much of his day-to-day concern was likely dedicated to the survival of his flock and the preservation of their right to worship and operate independently of the Ottomans. Jeremias was also deposed from his office and then reinstated between his second and third letters. As such, this correspondence was likely not the highest priority for him. Secondly, I'm sure that many of you have had theological discussions with somebody and after a time, you realize that they are so dug-in that they are not going to change their minds no matter what you say to them. I have had many such relationships. There comes a point where further theological discussion is mostly fruitless, and all you can do is try to love them as well as you can. This is how I perceive Jeremias' decision to end the correspondence.
TruthUnites, Your reverence for Luther makes me think you're also a traditional and true Catholic. Do you have videos where you discuss this? Since you adhere to the Evangelical Protestant label, I am curious what you like least of its mainstream positions and what you like most from that of the RCC. For what it's worth, I'm a former Southern Baptist - now Catholic leaning toward a traditional and Orthodox position. What I think I like least about RCC is that catechesis never truly ends, but that's also what I like most about it. Some rules I feel like I've internalized long ago, and here comes a humbling reminder of my continuous need for spiritual conversion. What I like most about my Evangelical Protestant brothers - particularly one of my best friends - is the ability to quote scripture and know the broader context. What I feel completes that characteristic is the Catholic approach of understanding the senses or genre being used (i.e. allegorical, anagogical, etc.). This is why I think Jordan Peterson and Jonathan Pageau and Bishop Barron are so effective at spreading the Word. It's well-rounded in a sense that you can tell they know God and continue to pursue Him.
Dr. Gavin is afraid from catholicism 1. He believes in the 5 Solas 2. He believes that salvation is through faith alone. No need to be part of an institution 3. He has good evidence to show mary doctrines are unfounded 4. Bible is ultimate authority for him Sorry!!😅
So what would unity look like in this case? After all, from Jeremiah's perspective, this was just the Western church fragmenting even further after splitting off from the one true church in 1054. How do Lutherans unite with Orthodox when Catholics and Orthodox have much more in common than Orthodox and Protestants?
Gavin, excellent and timely video on a personal level. I was exploring the EO church but ultimately rejected in favor of Lutheranism. Unfortunately it led to a schism in my own home. I ultimately couldn’t accept the EO view on justification and their exclusivistic view on their church being the one true church. It was far too sectarian than what the Bible seems to describe as those belonging to Christ’s church. One question however based on the Lutheran’s quote at the end. Can we really even say, from a Lutheran view, or even broadly Reformed/Protestant view that the EO church has the same Gospel? I currently would hold that we have different views on the Gospel. The anathema’s of the 7th ecumenical council seem to preclude agreement on what counts as the Gospel. I am curious where you would land on this; can we really say there is agreement on the Gospel between the two groups?
@@Jimmy-iy9pl The ultimate core gospel is that Christ died to redeem sinners to God. We all hold that view as Christians. That where echumenism can always exist w/ our core values as Christians.
Any church claiming to be the only and one true church is in error. I totally understand each church believing it has more of the truth than other churches. Even though that's not at all measurable by us, and only by God, that's the main reason why one adheres to one faith tradition over another.
1. The 16th century Orthodox Patriarch of Constantinople was never going to compromise with the Lutherans on (A) the episcopacy based on apostolic succession, (B) the number of sacraments as seven, (C) praying to the saints, particularly to Panagia (translated as All-Holy, the Eastern Orthodox name for the mother of Jesus) and (D) the veneration of icons. 2. If their dialogue continued, perhaps they might have considered developing a theology of the Pope as the Antichrist that was one of Martin Luther's teachings contained in his 1537 Smalcald Articles which became authoritative in Lutheranism when added to the Book of Concord in 1580. Luther's final written testament in 1545 was Against the Papacy, An Institution of the Devil, published one year before his death. 3. As it is, the Patriarch cut it short and for four and one half centuries since then there has been no major theological agreement ever enacted between Orthodoxy and Protestantism. 4. However, at the conclusion of the Catholic Church's Second Vatican Council on December 7, 1965, there was issued the JOINT CATHOLIC-ORTHODOX DECLARATION OF HIS HOLINESS POPE PAUL VI AND THE ECUMENICAL PATRIARCH ATHENAGORAS I (of Constantinople) whose No. 5 reads: "Pope Paul VI and Patriarch Athenagoras I with his synod realize that this gesture of justice and mutual pardon is not sufficient to end both old and more recent differences between the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church." "Through the action of the Holy Spirit those differences will be overcome through cleansing of hearts, through regret for historical wrongs, and through an efficacious determination to arrive at a common understanding and expression of the faith of the Apostles and its demands." "They hope, nevertheless, that this act will be pleasing to God, who is prompt to pardon us when we pardon each other. They hope that the whole Christian world, especially the entire Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church will appreciate this gesture as an expression of a sincere desire shared in common for reconciliation, and as an invitation to follow out in a spirit of trust, esteem and mutual charity the dialogue which, with Gods help, will lead to living together again, for the greater good of souls and the coming of the kingdom of God, in that full communion of faith, fraternal accord and sacramental life which existed among them during the first thousand years of the life of the Church."
High-level visits and discussions between the LWF (Lutheran World Federation) and the Ecumenical Patriarchate, the spiritual leadership of the Orthodox world, began in 1967. Plans for a global ecumenical dialogue between the two sides began shortly afterwards and were developed over the following decade. The international Lutheran-Orthodox Joint Commission met for the first time in Espoo, Finland, in 1981 and has been working continuously since then, creating common ground on different topics and agreeing on a number of joint statements. Significant common statements include Salvation: Grace, Justification and Synergy (1998) and Baptism and Chrismation as Sacraments of Initiation into the Church (2004). The topic of the current phase of dialogue, which began in 2019, is focused on the Holy Spirit in the life of the Church. The Evangelical Church in Germany (EKD), which includes Reformed and United churches in its membership, has been especially active in encouraging regional dialogues with Orthodox churches. Intensive Lutheran-Orthodox dialogue has also been carried out in Finland. Documents agreed upon and produced by regional dialogues since the 1960s include following dialogues: Finnish Lutheran Church - Russian Orthodox Church EKD (Evangelical Church in Germany) - Russian Orthodox Church EKD - Ecumenical Patriarchate EKD - Romanian Orthodox Church Federation of Evangelical Churches (BEK) [DDR] - Russian Orthodox Church BEK [DDR] /EKD - Bulgarian Orthodox Church Lutheran-Orthodox dialogue in the U.S. Estonian Evangelical Lutheran Church - Estonian Apostolic Orthodox Church - from Lutheran World Federation, "Lutheran - Orthodox dialogue"
@@mj6493 1. Is there anything in these agreements you mentioned between Lutherans and Orthodox on, for example, (A) the episcopacy being rooted in apostolic succession, (B) seven sacraments, i.e., the Seven Holy Mysteries, (C) prayers to saints including the mother of Jesus and (D) the veneration of icons? These four doctrines are common among the Catholic, Eastern and Oriental Orthodox Churches and the Assyrian Church of the East. To my knowledge, these four doctrines are not in common between Protestants and Orthodox. 2. Is there anything in these agreements between Lutherans and Orthodox about the Pope, the Catholic Bishop of Rome, being the Antichrist? Starting with Martin Luther, all of the 16th century Protestant Reformers were unanimous in teaching that the Pope is the Antichrist. These included those who both (A) formally taught this in their writings and (B) initiated movements that continue on to the present day, as in the aforementioned Luther (Lutheranism), John Calvin (Reformed), Thomas Cranmer (Anglicanism), and Calvin's student John Knox (Presbyterianism). 3. Following in the 17th century, (A) the free-lance Anglican clergyman John Wesley and founder of Methodism also taught the Pope is the Antichrist, as did (B) the 1646 Westminster Confession of Faith that became authoritative for the Church of Scotland and related Presbyterian churches worldwide and (C) the 1689 London Baptist Confession of Faith that the Reformed Churches adhere to. 4. The reason I mention this is that since there are contemporary Protestants who believe that the Pope is Antichrist, I would like to suggest to them an opening for fellowship with contemporary Orthodox who also hold similar views about the papacy. For example, Orthodox apologist and male enhancement supplement salesman Jay Dyer recommends in his December 1, 2022 youtube video 'Top 15 Orthodox Books - Introduction to Orthodox Theology' the book Orthodox Faith and Life in Christ by St. Justin Popovic. 5. According to Orthodox Wiki, Fr. Justin Popovic (1894-1979) "was formally glorified as saint by the Holy Synod of the Serbian Orthodox Church on May 2, 2010, and commemorated on June 1 each year." 6. In the aforementioned video, Jay Dyer states at 20:32-56: "This classic text by St. Justin Popovic, Orthodox Faith and Life in Christ, firstly because the essay that deals with the critique of natural theology and this is the great vindication of the stuff that I've said for so long that the Orthodox do not do natural theology the way that the Latins do and, you know, a lot of people got upset with that. They thought I was making it up. No, I'm just getting it from this (holding up the book). I'm just repeating what our saints say." Further at 20:57 - 21:15, Dyer states of Fr. Popovic's book: "Likewise he has great critiques of papalism at a philsophical, cultural, geopolitical level so all those things are also very key, very relevant and very necessary if you want to understand Orthodox theology." 7. Published in paperback in 1994, Orthodox Faith and Life in Christ by St. Justin Popovic contains the following passage from its chapter Reflections on the Infallibility of European Man: "In the kingdom of humanism the place of the God-man has been usurped by the 'Vicarious Christi', and the God-man has thus been exiled to heaven...In the history of the human race there have been three principal falls: that of Adam, that of Judas, and that of the pope...the dogma of papal infallibility is not only a heresy but the greatest heresy against the True Church of Christ, which has existed in our temporal world as a theanthropic body ever since the appearance of the God-man. No other heresy has revolted so violently and so completely against the God-man Christ and His Church as has the papacy with the dogma of the pope-man's infallibility. There is no doubt about it. This dogma is the heresy of heresies, a revolt without precedent against the God-man Christ on this earth, a new betrayal of Christ, a new crucifixion of the Lord, this time not on wood but on the golden cross of papal humanism. And these things are hell, damnation for the wretched earthly being called man."
@@annakimborahpa These ecumenical dialogues usually result in lengthy statements that affirm common ground but also highlight areas of continuing conversation. Here’s a sample from dialogue on the apostolicity of the Church: 12. The church is apostolic because it is built upon the foundation of the apostles, of which Christ is the chief cornerstone (Ephesians 2:20), sent by his Father for the salvation of the world (John 3:16). The Church is apostolic in several senses. First, the original meaning of the word “apostolic” refers to one who is sent. The apostles are called apostles because they were sent by Christ to proclaim the Gospel to the whole creation (Mark 16:15). The Church is apostolic inasmuch as it continues to be obedient to Christ’s command to proclaim the Gospel to all nations and to baptize them into the Church (Matthew 28:19). Second, the Church is apostolic in that it devotes itself “to the apostles’ teaching and the fellowship, to the breaking of bread and the prayers” (Acts 2:42). This means that the Church maintains the living tradition received by the apostles from Christ, which includes both right teaching (orthodoxia) and right practice (orthopraxia). a. The Orthodox affirm the apostolicity of the Church also as the continuation of the apostolic tradition, which is maintained by the historic succession of bishops as the heads of local eucharistic communities, which include the whole people of God. Thus the whole Church as communion across time and space does not look simply backward but forward because it is eschatological in character. b. Lutherans understand the Church to be in succession to the Church of the apostles, teaching apostolic doctrine, preaching the gospel purely, and administering the sacraments rightly. Some Lutherans also point to their line of historic succession reaching back past the Reformation to the undivided Church, while other Lutherans emphasize the first two senses of the church’s apostolicity without denying the value of historic succession. Lutherans did not intend to start a new or other Church but to be faithful to the apostolic witness transmitted by the Church in the Scriptures, creeds, and ecumenical councils, especially evident in Lutheran teaching on the Trinity and the person of Christ. As Melanchthon comments in the Apology to the Augsburg Confession, “We have not said anything new here” (VII-VIII.7). All of these lengthy statements are available online. Regarding Lutheran statements on the papacy, I’d encourage caution. The 16th century polemic got pretty ugly on both sides. Lutherans today recognize this and are able to contextualize those statements historically and move forward toward better understanding.
@@mj6493 Thank you for the courtesy of your reply. 1. You wrote: "These ecumenical dialogues usually result in lengthy statements that affirm common ground but also highlight areas of continuing conversation." Response: Would "continuing conversation" be a euphemism for disagreement between the Lutherans and Orthodox? 2. Regarding 12 b., were the Lutherans actually "faithful to the apostolic witness transmitted by the Church in the Scriptures, creeds, and ecumenical councils"? A. The Lutherans rejected the Council of Trent's teaching that the number of sacraments is seven, which the Orthodox Churches (Eastern & Oriental), as well as the Assyrian Church of the East have accepted. B. As a result, the Lutherans rejected the scriptural evidence for four of the seven sacraments: (1) Confirmation: Acts of the Apostles 8:14-17 (2) Holy Orders: Genesis 14: 18-20; Psalm 110:4; Hebrews 7; Luke 22:14-20 (3) Marriage: Matthew 5:31-32; Ephesians 5:21-33 (4) Anointing of the Sick: James 5:14-15 3. The Lutherans, if they are faithful to Martin Luther's Smalcald Articles contained in the authoritative Book of Concord, reject the invocation of saints where he stated: “The invocation of saints is also one of the Antichrist’s abuses that conflicts with the chief article and destroys the knowledge of Christ.” Doesn't that mean the rejection of the Second Council of Nicaea's (A.D. 757) blessing the practice of venerating sacred images, which is first and foremost praying to Christ, His saints and His angels through their images? 4. Based upon 1-3 above, would it be accurate for Lutherans to include with Philip Melenchthon's statement “We have not said anything new here” the clarification of 'but rather we have subtracted'? 5. However, I say that Martin Luther actually added three new teachings which were adopted by all the subsequent 16th century Protestant Reformers, including Calvin, Cranmer and Knox: A. Justification by faith alone: (1) That on his own authority in his German translation of the Bible, Luther added the word ALONE (Allein) to Romans 3:28 to read, "For we hold that a man is justified by faith ALONE (Allein)" to justify his doctrine of Sola Fide, i.e., Justification by Faith Alone. [Michael Davies, Cranmer's Godly Order (Ft. Collins, Colorado, 1995), p.25.] (2) That he wrote the following regarding his addition of the word ALONE (Allein) to Romans 3:28: "If your papist worries you about the word 'alone', just tell him plainly that Dr. Martin Luther will have it so, and says: 'Papist and donkey are one and the same thing; sic volo, sic jubeo, stat pro ratione voluntas.' ["I wish it, I command it. Let my will take the place of a reason." (Luther quoting the Latin from 1st-2nd AD author Juvenal's satirical poems Satyrai)] For we must not be the pupils or disciples of the papists, but on the contrary their masters and judges. We ought to swagger and hammer on their donkey-heads, and, as Paul challenged the sanctimonious fools of his day, so I will also challenge these donkeys of mine." [G.W. Bromiley, Thomas Cranmer Theologian (London, 1956), p.36.] (3) That in addition to the above concerning Romans 3:28, Luther also wrote: "I am sorry now that I did not add the word 'all' so that it would read 'without all works of all laws', and thus ring out loudly and completely. However, it shall stand as it is in my New Testament, and though all the Papist-donkeys go mad about it, they shall not move me from this." [A. Hilliard Atteridge, Martin Luther (London, 1940), pp.19-20.] B. That the Catholic Mass is an abomination before God: (1) "I declare that all the brothels (though God has reproved them severely), all the manslaughters, murders, thefts and adulteries have wrought less abomination than the popish mass." [Martin Luther, D Martin Luthers Werke, Kritische Gesamtausgabe (Weimar, 1833), vol. XV, p. 774] (2) "It is indeed upon the Mass as on a rock that the whole Papal system is built, with its monasteries, its bishoprics, its collegiate churches, its altars, its ministries, its doctrine, i.e., with all its guts. All these cannot fail to crumble once their sacrilegious and abominable Mass fails." [Martin Luther, Against Henry, King of England, 1522, D Martin Luthers Werke, Kritische Gesamtausgabe (Weimar, 1833), vol. X, p. 220] C. And, of course, the teaching contained in Martin Luther's final published testament Against the Papacy, An Institution of the Devil where he personally addressed the Bishop of Rome with these words: "I would not dream of judging or punishing you, except to say that you were born from the behind of the devil, are full of devils, lies, blasphemy, and idolatry; are the instigator of these things, God’s enemy, Antichrist, desolater of Christendom, and steward of Sodom." [Against the Roman Papacy, an Institution of the Devil, 1545, pg. 363 of Luther’s Works, Vol. 41] Since you wrote, "The 16th century polemic got pretty ugly on both sides", could you provide me anything ugly on the Catholic side that matches Martin Luther's seemingly unparalleled gift for invective and insult as exemplified in the quote immediately above? Personally, I think that in his final years Luther was experiencing dementia brought on by years of excessive alcohol intake under the forms of wine and beer. 6. Regarding the papacy, perhaps a majority of Lutherans "are able to contextualize those statements historically and move forward toward better understanding", as well as doing the same mental compartmentalization with Martin Luther's second to last published work, his 1543 Against The Jews And Their Lie that four centuries later the Third Reich quoted as justification for the genocide of European Jewry. 7. However, some contemporary Lutherans, as well as other current day Protestants, persist in teaching the Pope is the Antichrist that involves an eschatological connotation in which this demonic institution will persist until vanquished by Jesus Christ at His Second Coming. For example: A. In Ready to Harvest's youtube video of April 10, 2022, 'What is the Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod? (WELS)' the narrator states at 10:30-50: 'A very small part of the WELS lengthy treatise on the Pope being the Antichrist says': "Since Scripture teaches that the Antichrist would be revealed and gives the marks by which the Antichrist is to be recognized (2 Thessalonians 2:6-8), and since this prophecy has been clearly fulfilled in the history and development of the Roman Papacy, it is Scripture that reveals that the Papacy is the Antichrist." B. In the 21st century, the 1689 London Baptist Confession of Faith received a translation update into modern English published by The Founders Ministry, an independent association within the Southern Baptist Convention headed by Tom Ascol, who in 2022 made an unsuccessful bid for presidency of the SBC coming in second with approximately 40% of the vote. Chapter 26, Article 4 of that confession reads: "The Pope of Roman Catholicism cannot in any sense be head of the church; rather, he is the antichrist, the man of lawlessness, and the son of destruction, who exalts himself in the church against Christ and all that is called God. The Lord will destroy him with the brightness of his coming" (alluding to 2 Thessalonians 2:2-9).
@@annakimborahpa Your response is way more than I have the time to respond to, but I’ll try to make a few comments.
Ecumenically speaking, “continuing conversation” might mean a failure to come to an agreed common statement, but it might simply mean that a particular subject of conversation is scheduled for a later date. You’ve certainly raked up a sizable collection of Lutheran invective. I can only reply that Luther was exceptional in his ability to use the most colorful and at times crass language to challenge his opponents. In my opinion, though, his charged polemic was coupled with a keen theological mind that set forth a Reformation that was overdue. Happily, there were more reasonable and constructive colleagues, like Philip Melanchthon and the later Lutheran scholastics, that gave form to the movement. Otherwise, the Reformation would have flamed out within Luther’s lifetime. I would again caution you about characterizing Lutherans with some of the anti-Catholic invective of the 16th century. Sure, there are some Lutherans who want to carry the worst of that era into the present moment, but most do not. Also, be careful about some of your claims about Lutheran doctrine. For example, Lutherans share with all Christians the two dominical sacraments, but that doesn’t mean that they have dispensed with the other rites. They still practice these rites, but because they don’t contain a physical element (like water, or bread and wine) combined with the Word of God, they are less inclined to call them sacraments. It’s largely a matter of definition, not theology. About the Mass, Luther was particularly speaking to the medieval abuses (i.e., the Mass as merit) not the Mass itself. He challenged any practice that obscured the Gospel. From the Augsburg Confession, Article 24: About the Mass, “Our churches are falsely accused of doing away with the mass, for we have kept the mass and celebrate it with the highest reverence.” On that, you would be better served by reading the Augsburg Confession and the Apology of the Augsburg Confession as a summary of Lutheran theology. Not everything Luther said or did was embraced by the movement that bears his name. I feel it’s also important to comment on Luther’s late in life invective against the Jews. To be clear, no modern Lutheran would defend his criticism of the Jews. Lutheran Churches have condemned this writing and have apologized to the Jewish community for his hurtful comments. It is one of the saddest episodes in the Reformation. Wouldn’t you likewise want to condemn the treatment of Jews in Catholic Spain during the Inquisition?
"We interpreted the scriptures to mean something no one before the 1500s believes". If you want to use the canon the church made then you should be a part of that church ☦
This video confirms the correctness of the response of the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople - write to us only on the matters of friendship and NOT on the matters of faith... as what you believe is NOT ancient Christian Faith delivered by the Lord to the Saints.
Does irenicism only include appreciation of certain truths found in Eastern Orthodoxy, or does it go further and regard Eastern Orthodoxy as a valid form of biblical Christianity?
04:59: This is a great point. But I found during my Orthodox catechism that the Eastern Orthodox actually do differ on the nature of Scripture. EO reject Sola Scriptura. They don't see Scripture really as having a more authoritative ontological nature than Tradition (theopneustos) doesn't mean for them what it means for us as reformed Christians. They don't just differ on the _interpretation_ of Scriptures, they differ on the very nature of Scripture. Scripture isn't the EO's highest authority. Really, Sola Fide and Sola Scriptura are the two foundation stones on which EO either stands or falls (along with Roman Catholicism).
I’m getting to a point where all three sides whether they’re right or wrong it’s not something I want to be a part of. Or anything divergent. I’m not deconstructing. I love Jesus by trying to keep his commands because that’s how he says to love him. I don’t care for all the big words anymore. All of us need to remember that narrow is the way that leads to life and wide is the way that leads to destruction. If you’re in a big group that all agree, maybe you should take a look at yourself. And start noticing those solitary people, the quiet ones that are watching all the sides. And fully engaged with the spirit and the word.
The divided body is deeply tragic and sad. I see both sides. The Orthodox see themselves as the defenders of the true faith; the true church. I can respect that. And truth be told, they have a good claim to it. And while I am turned off by the sectarianism and politics of the institution, I am drawn to the actual practice of true, ancient piety, discipleship, holiness, and training in godliness. Orthodoxy at its best is glorious. On the other hand, St. Peter’s revelation has to be taken to heart by all Christians: “Truly I understand that God shows no partiality, but in every nation anyone who fears him and does what is right is acceptable to him.” (Acts 10:34-35)
Well clearly the Reformers were very humble and devoted to unity. In other news, it appears the UMC is about to make a proclamation on something, so we should get our cigars handy, because probably at least three new denominations are gonna be born as a result
@@1984SheepDog I'm hoping one day Gavin does a video about the Calvin vs Sadoletto debate with the result that at least one Protestant viewer has the initially unsettling but ultimately beneficial epiphany of "Uhm...why is this lawyer arguing with a solemnly sworn and sacramentally ordained successor of the Apostles of Jesus?"
The filioque was one of the primary reasons that the Great Schism happened, of course the Orthodox weren't going to overlook that with the Reformers. Adherence to the filioque is a rejection of the original Nicea-Constantioplitan creed, which is the clearest exposition of the Orthodox faith. The Reformers didn't adhere to the creed, so of course the Orthodox viewed them as being of a different faith.
That is the position today that Eastern Orthodox say, but it is ex post rationalization that does not stand up to historical facts. Regarding the Filioque, The Creed at Nicea in 325 said nothing of procession (and the earlier Apostles Creed, the baptismal Creed of the Church of Rome, dating to the time of Saint Hippolytus of Rome says nothing of procession). At Constantinople in 381 AD, the Eastern Church, mostly Greek Bishops from regions near Constantinople added to the Creed unilaterally (stop and think about that). At Ephesus in 431 AD, the Creed was recited in its original Nicene form. It wasn't till the Council of Chalcedon in 451 that Constantinople was given "Ecumenical status". Now by the time of Chalcedon in 451 AD, where it was the Latin Theological formula and Doctrine of Pope Saint Leo the Great which became the dogmatic Christological definition regarding the hypostatic union of the Divine and Human natures of Christ, the same Pope Leo in Letter 15 in the sub-section "The Priscillianists' denial of the Trinity refuted" clearly teaches the Filioque. Now, was Pope Saint Leo the Great unorthodox for teaching the Filioque? (you can find Pope Leo the Great's Letter 15 at newadvent). So the Eastern Orthodox approved Pope Saint Leo the Great as "Peter speaking through Leo" at Chalcedon in 451 AD when years before he taught the "Filioque" You can't have it both ways. Prior to Pope Leo the Great, numerous Fathers in the West taught the Filioque.Saint Hillary of Poitiers (The Trinity circa 356 AD). Saint Ambrose in Milan teaches it in his work on the Holy Spirit (381 AD), Saint Augustine teaches it numerous writings, and in the East, it is clear that Saint Cyril of Alexandria teaches it in his work "On the Trinity" (423 AD). Nicea in 325 AD said do not change the Creed, they (Constantinopile in 381 AD) did unilaterally). Rome saw the addition to the Creed as not changing the faith but Rome understood the procession of the Holy Spirit to mean from the Father "through the Son" (a Patre per filium), which was a valid expression of the procession that was also found in the works of Hillary and Augustine, although they preferred from the Father and Son. Maximus the Confessor, viewed the Filioque as a valid expression of the Creed that did not conflict with the procession "a Patre per filium". It was Patriarch Photios 1 who was from what gather, the first to assert the Filioque was heretical. That of course was also due to other conflicts he had with the Pope in Rome. So both expressions from the Catholic point of view that I noted above, are valid. But the rigid Eastern position that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father "alone" which seems to often theorized from the Roman view makes it hard to see how the Son and Holy Spirit are different. Under both expressions, regardless if the Creed states the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and Son or the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son, the Source of the Trinity is still the Father according to Catholic Doctrine.
@@palermotrapani9067 Well that’s a lot of history I can’t respond to out of my own ignorance. But it still stands that this would have been the EP’s position, hence why he would respond the way he did.
@@benwiegold5051 The issue with the Lutherans, who held to the Filioque, dealt with way more issues beyond just that. Ecclesiology, sacraments (all 7), the eucharistic theology of the Lutherans, soteriology, sola fide, among them.
@@palermotrapani9067 Of course, these are all reasons that the EP would have viewed them as not being part of the same church, but given the context regarding Rome, my only point is that the Filioque would have been top of the list. I think it’s the first point addressed in the EP’s 3rd letter actually.
@@benwiegold5051 Ok, my understanding is we are looking at why the EO viewed the Lutherans has not only schismatics, but holding to many heretical doctrines. Rome does not require the Filioque to be said in the Eastern Churches that are in communion with Rome. They can say the Creed without it.
So true Dr Gavin Irenicism is most certainly the way to go, although this is very difficult at times when it comes to certain aspects of doctrine. Even reading in the Gospels Jesus Himself had a few skirmishes with those who believed in the God of the Bible
Bro. Gavin, is there anything to be said, in the search for the "true church," about the fruit (Matthew 7:20)? If we are to know true prophets by their fruit, can we know which congregation "speaks for Christ" more surely by _their_ fruit? If so, are there differences between Protestant and Orthodox (and Roman Catholic) on what is meant by fruit. If not, can it be any kind of guide? If the question isn't clear, I'll be glad to clarify. Thanks, my friend! Love your channel!
As we have said before, so I say again now, if any man is preaching to you a gospel contrary to what you received, he is to be accursed! Galatians 1:9 NASB This book of God's word won't let me believe Rome has the gospel. I will unite with all who actually trust Christ alone for peace with God.
I see Sola Scriptura as a compromise because you must assume the text is self-sufficient. Clearly it is not. Sola Fide is often described as a forensic declaration. However, this contradicts James' understanding. Even the demons have faith and tremble. So then, by what does God judge you? By actions (works). Too many protestant churches almost promote atheism, just live in faith good luck!
The early Church was exclusive as you acknowledge. I wonder why? The answer to that question is the key to the differences, pretty simple. Be honest with the answer to that question and you will convert to Orthodoxy, Christ’s Church formed at Pentecost, and prophesied throughout the Old Testament.
@@mthf5645 What? Those councils occurred when it was all one Church, in order to explicate doctrine, not invent it, and also counter heresy that threatened the Christian faith.
I am not sure how I feel about this video. I do appreciate your commitment for Christians to love one another but this is a bit bias against the Orthodox side. This is a but extreme comparison but I see the Orthodox as meeting a Mormon for the first time. They see their beliefs as completely wrong. To deny the "correct" interpretation of Holy Scripture and the True Presence of the Eucharist is to literally deny Christ. Same as in the Marburg Colloquy with Luther and Zwingli. It is easy to say we need to focus on a mere Christianity but one side will obviously see themselves as correct. To compromise is blasphemous.
I disagree, and the Orthadox were familiar with everything the Lutherans believed. It was nowhere near meeting a Mormon. I think this was fair coverage.
@@Mrdllish777 yes but that's Gavin's opinion. If the Orthodox Church disagrees with Lutheran scholarship they're not required to give up their faith for the sake of "unity". That's not how true unity works.
The only dogma of Eastern Orthodox that stands in the way of communal relations with Protestants, is the belief that all are condemned to hell if not a member of the Eastern Orthodox Church. There is a large swath of Protestants who think orthodox aren’t Christians because of the issue of “sola fide” however that part of Protestantism’s once held view is changing quite rapidly the more both sides learn about each other. But to believe that anyone outside Eastern Orthodoxy is damned, is a very very difficult doctrine to defend based on scripture, and while I agree with you that it is extremely dangerous to “give up” doctrines for the sake of unity, especially if those doctrines are deeply held convictions, it’s also extremely dangerous to hold fundamental convictions that are not in scripture.
I can see the view that Jeremiah was condescending but I don’t know if I agree with it. Am I the only one who kind of loves Jeremiah? Based and fatherly. There’s no need to wrestle together for the truth when it’s already been recognized by the Church. Ex: number of and reason for sacraments.
There is not one church father who thought the number of sacraments was 7. Not a single one. Locking oneself into that view and blocking out dialogue is neither based nor fatherly.
@@TruthUnitesfair enough. I see the thinking. But we’re not saying ECFs recognized and taught the number of sacraments. But the Church eventually and authoritatively did. And the Lutherans disagreed. Their prerogative. But the Catholic and Orthodox Churches are not obligated to rehash what’s already been recognized. Someone either agrees or they don’t.
Hey Gavin, have you encountered any of the more recent Orthodox theologians that are saying the same thing about the number of sacraments in the fathers? They're taking more of a maximalist view now of what a sacrament is, but they'd still say more than two. Do you have any thoughts on that?
The EO patriarch would say the same thing to Roman Catholics when it comes to the Filioque, purgatory, papacy etc. Hopefully that helps you see why this mentality can make unity across institutional lines impossible.
My friend, you have missed something in your video - something very crucial in my opinion. During those times, the Greeks were subject to the Ottoman, and the Patriarchate had a double role: To preserve the Eastern Orthodox faith and to preserve the Greek-Roman nation, by keeping it subject and representing it to the Sultan. Such was the deal between the Patriarchate and Mehmed II, the Conquerer. The Patriarch could hope for a Crusade from the West that would liberate Constantinople, but at the same time he should be extremely cautious in his conduct to the West, which was always unpleasant for the Sultan. The morale was low, the antagonism for the seat of the Patriarch was fierce, there were traitors everywhere, and with the slightest suspicion that he was dealing for some kind of alliance with Western powers, he could loose his head. In my opinion, we can't be sure whether Jeremiah expressed religious arrogance towards the Lutheran theologians or just tried to find a diplomatic way to disconnect with them, either for the fear of the Sultan or because he didn't wish to take position in the Catholic-Protestant conflict. After all, the only powers that were still waging wars against the Ottoman were under the juristiction of the Pope: It was Genoa and Venice. Germany was still far away, incapable of any help to the enslaved Greeks. Another attempt for religious understanding with the Protestant realm was made during the leadership of the westernphile Patriarch, Cyril Lucaris, who initiated a dialogue with the Calvinists - a dialogue who was encouraged by the English and the Dutch and discouraged by the French and the Austrians... As you may understand, Jesus and true faith was not the main menu in this dialogue, at least from the Orthodox part. Lucaris even offered to accept all the doctrines of Calvinism, something that lead to an anticipated opposition from the Church that he lead. He was dethroned thrice and his efforts ended when the Sultan ordered his death through strangulation.
@@joeoleary9010 jews had four factions and one were the Pharisees who created the synagogues commentaries and the rabbinical tradition, not the biblical Israel or tribe of Judah. Modern rabbinical traditions are not biblical they are Talmundic.
@@captainmarvel76927 Pick any or all factions, and try to see this charge of "man made" from a Jewish perspective. We took their scriptures, added on our own while explaining the OT as we liked, and then declared that Judaism was dead and our new product was the Real Deal. Hence my chuckle.
I think you've misunderstood the tone of the EP. If people approach him with his titles and expressing a desire for union, he's going to see them as offering to be spiritual sons. It's literally an informal institution within Orthodoxy. Then he offers correction and instruction about how to move forward. As it becomes clear that's not what's happening, he changes his tone. From his perspective, these are divisive sectarians that will not submit to anybody's judgments and feigned the offer for union. A good parallel would be the discussions between Christians who have embraced the novel views on gender that have cropped up and those who hold to the historical forms. The former get frustrated when their positions aren't treated as equals at the table. The latter, to whom I belong, don't think such a novel and innovative view should be treated as an equal. It is something new and different. I will speak to the person for a little while, but there comes a point when I tell them we need to agree to disagree and move on. They also likewise approach with "We want to have dialogue," but it is rarely more than an attempt to draw me into their camp. Both sides end up frustrated. I think this is a very good parallel to what happened. Jeremiah also embraced catholicity. "Catholic" wasn't an inclusive theological term until fairly recently. It started in Ignatius, and its entire purpose was to exclude people that weren't in his church. That's its purpose in the creed; all creeds are by nature exclusionary. "Catholic" is from Aristotle's attributes of καθ' εκαστων and καθ' καθολων with the former meaning "individual" or "particular" attributes and the latter denoting attributes that are part necessary for a complete example of something. I have hazel eyes, which are not catholic for a human. I have a head. That is catholic for a human. In the sense used in the first centuries (with no exceptions I can think of), "catholic" is used to describe the body that is complete, lacking nothing to be a proper church. The sectarians, by contrast, are lacking something. "Universal" as a definition comes later, and the irenic across communions much later. The patriarch would use the oldest definition, which is still in use among Orthodox (cf. Zizioulas' work on it).
For the past 6 months I, as a Protestant born-again evangelical, have been studying Church history to help me understand how the split in Christendom occurred. My desire to know about the split resulted in re-reading our Lord's high priestly prayer in which He expresses that His followers are united as He and the Father are united. It grieves my heart that there is such a split in the body of Christ. I have read numerous articles and watched numerous RUclips videos from the perspectives of Roman Catholics, Orthodox and Protestants. Just last week your videos started popping up on my RUclips feed. Oh my gosh, what a blessing. I immediately subscribed after listening to the first video and told my wife I have found a Protestant of kindred spirit who has vast knowledge in Church history and communicates with a kind, humble spirit. I told my wife I learned a new word "Irenic"...YES!
Dr. Ortlund, thank you from the bottom of my heart for putting out these videos. I look forward to watching as many of your videos as possible. You are demonstrating for the body of Christ (Protestants, Roman Catholics and the Orthodox) the ministry of reconciliation with a spirit of love. Blessings upon you brother!!
Thank you so much for these kind words, Steve! I am so thrilled that my videos have been of use to you. God bless you in your study.
Hey Steve, I thought it was just me. That was great to read 👍
@The Early Church Was Evangelical and Protestant jeez that’s quite harsh
@@justicebjorke2790 Jewish sects. NT 101. Jesus' entire ministry was a protest against certain Jewish ideas and practices.
@The Early Church Was Evangelical and Protestant dogmatic fools are the biggest threat to the church. Soften your heart to your brothers and sisters in Christ.
Oh man this was good: “Irenicism is *not* compromise. It is *not* weakness. It’ll take all the strength you have.” 🔥 🔥 🔥
Yes, that is a hard way to be.
It feels easier in the moment to just want to lose our cool and just tirade on the other side and tell them off. It's not really easier though, because it feels awful in my spirit when I've done that. There's no peace, just anger and self righteousness. What has been peaceful and become second nature over time is to live in that echumenical spirit. It's ok if they don't agree. I don't feel self righteous, because I asking God to lead me in truth and all of us will find out we were wrong on certain doctrinal issues when we know all things when we're glorified.
14:44 onward on irenicism!
“It is not compromise. It is not weakness. It will take all the strength you have. You have to cling to the Holy Spirit to not fall into the vitriol.”
“It’s not needed just sometimes; it is needed precisely for the tough times. And I believe it reflects God’s heart for the church today.”
Wow. I wish every Christian on social media would hear and heed these words.
What is the difference between irenicism and compromise? Because I find it hard to find common ground with people who e.g. intentionally break the second commandment (icon veneration), albeit they don‘t regard it as that.
@@dartheli7400 Good question. Here’s the problem: while you and I see it as a clear violation of Scripture, the EO church does not (which I see that you already acknowledged after going back and re-reading your comment). It would be one thing if they said, “Yep. We’re violating that commandment and we don’t care.” But the thing is, they’re not doing that. And you have literally millions of people in that church who have inherited a tradition that is very, very deeply engrained into their culture and spirituality. Moreover, they have inherited a long standing teaching tradition in the EO church that tells them that the practice of icon veneration is NOT a violation of the second commandment and that the second commandment is still valid but applies to other things. Not only are they taught that it is not a violation of the second commandment, but they are taught that this practice is good, proper, meaningful, and even required, in light of the incarnation.
In other words, it’s very likely not a case of willful and outright violation in the minds of these people. So it requires understanding and patience to have discussions in a productive manner.
So I’d say that while there’s definitely a time and a place for calling people out on their willful violation of scripture, we have to recognize those times where the reasoning behind the alleged “violation” is complex and therefore very difficult, if not impossible, for the “violator” to easily recognize.
Great video! I attended an Eastern Orthodox church service to see what it was like a year ago, and while I was talking with some of the members after the service, one of them mentioned this dialogue between the Patriarch and Lutheran theologians. He never mentioned where I could find it, so I'm glad you covered it in this video! Looking forward to reading it myself when I have some free time.
ruclips.net/video/LNO29Q4ppXk/видео.html. I humbly suggest that you watch at least one video from the other side, rather than just one from a protestant pastor who is mining the early church for polemics against the orthodox church. If you are not from a church that accepts more than two sexes, consider what your response will be should you be asked to respond to someone who believes that gender is fluid. Don't you think that you will be still correct, and viewed as arrogant still? That is where the lie of Gavin's video is.
I’ll admit that I, all too often, can be the first one to get snarky in an online debate. I look back and I cringe. As a Protestant I really appreciate your videos and your kindness towards those who differ. Your videos offer great insights but also convict me of my un-Christ-like behavior sometimes. Lord have mercy. Thank you again for your channel. It is a blessing.
thanks for your kind words. we are all in a continual process of repentance and becoming more like Christ. Thank God he gives us grace along the way.
It's not only you. It is very hard with people so deceived and nasty. It's a learning process to not get angry and lash out back at them, especially when they are doing personal attacks.
@@joycegreer9391 After awhile it just becomes second nature to not take it personally, and to just be able to gracefully back off. I just say a prayer. I've been there though w/ that anger welling up, not saying I haven't. I'm not sure what was key to the shift where it's not hard anymore? I'd say praying and putting echumenism as number one, under our many biblical admonitions to show one another love, grace, peace, gentleness. Praise God, He's doing a work in me. He will in you too. It really is lovely to just not have that oppositional spirit well up all the time.
@@saintejeannedarc9460 I think it becomes easier with practice. At first comments are very shocking, especially when there is so much vitriol and false accusations.
It takes practice to not take personally and offensively, to keep reminding that it is that person's problem as they don't know you at all.
With practice you get to see everything people can dish out and the repetition of their claims and false accusations. It gets easier to become impersonal and better at writing responses.
It is a work in progress to always speak the truth in love and not react to false accusations and insults. It's sure not always easy!
@@joycegreer9391 I don't really get insults much. Political forums can get cray-cray. What I'm finding a bit more challenging again is the elitism and arrogance of the usually the Orthodox. Yeah, gotta take some deep breaths sometimes.
I use to really struggle with finding the “one true church” your channel has been great for easing that anxiety in my life. I personally feel the best in the conservative Lutheran type of churches. If I had to choose a second choice it would probably be some sort of conservative Anglican. In the end though I think all the true believers are the one true church regardless of their denomination
Yes, praise God. That's the heart of echumenism. My Christian background was never one church either, but it was by default on the protestant side. Now I can attend Catholic Mass w/ comfort too. It took some getting used to, and I had to learn a lot. God prodded me several years ago, and pretty much said, that if I'm truly echumenical and strive for unity, I have to incl. Catholics too. So I obeyed. The ex Catholic, now evangelical members of my family were all concerned I was going to convert. I was open if that's what God called me to do, but that's not what my branching out was about.
@@saintejeannedarc9460What is your take on how the Catholic church treats Mary? I don't look for a divisive answer. I think certain traditions that certain Catholics do seem to attribute too much to the saints, especially Mary. And I'm curious how a person with more insight views that topic.
You‘re comment begs the question as to who the true believers are. What are the criteria for being a true believer?
Scripture and the Gospel....or rely on men! But which men? They all claim to be God's infallible mouthpiece in one form or way.....
I LOVED your call to irenicism at the end! It's something you inspire me in. I temperamentally can be argumentative, and your consistent call to this truly has affected me.
The Lutherans and the Orthodox had a completely different phronema. I think the differences were actually much wider than perhaps we realize. The Orthodox have weathered a very long history of preserving the faith through strict adherence to the councils and tradition. Asking their patriarch to humbly consider compromising is like asking a teacher to consider changing his country’s constitution. He has no ability to step so far outside the bounds of his role.
Since then, the western phronema has found its way into Eastern Orthodoxy and some of them have begun to craft bridge-like language to modify their position to be more palatable to western ears, but the Orthodox views are more substantial than just being intellectual arguments.
Are you Orthodox?
I am not a Lutheran, but I have worshipped in a Lutheran church in the past and consider Lutherans my brothers in Christ. I am from a Christian Churches/Churches of Christ background myself, and used to attend Parkland Christian Church in Washington state, which for a time was holding its services on the campus of Pacific Lutheran University, so there was a lot of working and worshiping together going on, and I think we all learned much from each other. I see a lot more unity among various Protestant and Independent churches than I do between us and either Orthodox or Catholic (and I've bumped into the condescension from one of my Catholic friends so I can understand what the Tubingen brothers were dealing with).
For a long time I went to a protestant-Zwingli church. In my exchange semester I went to a Lutheran church. I was so clueless that I thought it was a catholic church. We always repeated a creed and it said catholic in that creed.😅
There were only around 5 to 10 people in that church, whereas the pastor was the only local person.
Now I go to an independent church.
I agree with you that there is a lot of unity with the various protestant and independent churches. But I would also say locally, the divide between protestant and catholic is also not that big. But the gap is certainly bigger, but there is regular working with each other.
What's amazing to me is how the eastern orthodoxy attitude is basically the same today.
"You call yourselves theologians".
I wouldn't be shocked to hear that from the mouths EO today.
I struggle to understand how dismissive it seems.
I've experienced the same. It didn't seem good enough to listen and even just not say anything if I disagreed- it seemed like they expected me to grovel
Maybe you think its dismissive because its actually right and you are having a hard time of letting go a 500 year old tradition?
@@Giorginho 😂
@@Giorginho No, it is just their pride and thinking they are right.
Orthodox rarely fail to prove they are the most arrogant camp of Christians I have come across. Why wouldn't they be though. They are the only ones saved, even though they are by far the minority among the branches of Christianity. It's a cultish attitude, and cultists don't tend to be gracious to those outside their belief system. Their elitism tells them they are above simple bible imperatives of grace, love, patience, kindness, meekness and gentleness, because they have all the answers and are straight from the apostles. History belies this, but they believe it.
Amazing how so little has changed haha. We have faster correspondence but the attitude issues are still most important!
Thank you for this!
Amen. True humility I heard that. Been studying HUMILITY and the more I look for it the less I see in myself and the body of the church. It should be overflowing
I have the book and have read it. My personal opinion: the Patriarch, in his first response to the Augsburg Confession, did not openly condemn it. He did however, happen to state the creed without the filioque. He only made some cautious criticism otherwise. It could have gone well. But the Lutherans sent a response letter that goes on for pages about the filioque. You’d think they would have known the East had rejected Florence even if it was somewhat after the fact, but they seem to think the East had accepted it, and to add insult to injury they spent pages going over filioque and mentioning Florence more than once. It’s hard not to think this was rather insulting to the Patriarch. Yes, his first response was somewhat patronizing but his second response, well, you could tell he was annoyed about them forcing a response on the filioque. Then he spends most of his response on that. But it was no surprise that he wanted them to become Orthodox. I personally wish they would have avoided the filioque (since everyone could foresee how that would go anyway) and then we might seen a more charitable response on their other articles.
Orthodox hold to the traditions handed out from the apostles. There is no way the Orthodox, whatever their qualms against Catholics may be, would ditch essential teachings of Christianity to go along with a willful misreading and quartering of the Bible by infighting, murderous and self-styled "Reformers".
Very interesting point. The Protestants maintained much of the Western attitudes and never had a problem with the Filioque.
Some background history of the previous century helps to understand the Western sort of cluelessness. The Council of Florence/Konstanz failed to unite East and West, though it almost happened. Islam was barking at the door, but was repulsed from going further West. The infidels had almost made it to Vienna. Conciliarism failed to be addressed though most bishops would have probably voted for it. The reason was war between France and the Papal states (or something like that).
So while the East was constantly facing their failures with Islam as the reminder of apostasy and how a heresy can actually be very successful, the Westerners were concerned with their own internal problems exclusively.
A family divided against itself cannot stand. And so we know the history.
Interesting postscript: As recently as the 2000s the Anglican Church affirmed the Creed minus the Filioque which they first removed back in the 1980s.
May revelation, joy and peace abound to you and your household of faith in the power and fellowship of the Gospel:
"Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ and you shall be saved, you and your house."
Those are important points to know about the Lutheran response. I think the filioque was one of the biggest points for the Catholic/Orthodox split, along w/ the papacy. I definitely agree on the papacy, but presuming to know the deeper aspects of the nature of the trinity and be willing to split a church on it. No. It's funny, because Catholics and esp. Orthodox are usually content w/ some things being a deep mystery that we'll never have ultimate understanding about in our earthly form. There's some good natured ribbing about Orthodox and mysteries, and I've seen in their comments that they quite enjoy that and take it well.
It's too bad that the Lutherans didn't know enough to leave one of the biggest sore spots alone.
I was wondering if he was responding to something else, like the situation at the time. Thanks for your insight.
I like your channel. Your respectable even in your debate.
10 years from now - this will be one of the most important and influential christian yt vids of all time. amen!
Why
Gavin, thanks for taking on this very difficult subject!
A useful comment, based on one or two others I saw that seem to have been deleted, is that Gavin is not at all wishy-washy or offended by the exclusivity of salvation and it's being through Christ alone. What he opposes is the way that Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy have inserted themselves between people and Christ and made participation in their organizational hierarchy mandatory for salvation (at least in the past). This is not at all to say that he, or Protestantism as a whole, deny that to be saved one's faith must be in Christ alone. Further, his intent is not to demand that all others come to accept his views, but that they not attempt to anathematize people out of the church for holding different views.
It’s not really as simplistic as you’re making it sound. The view was that participation in Christ was mandatory for salvation, which includes the sacraments. Both the Romans and the Greeks saw each others sacraments as invalid. So it’s less about having the right “church hierarchy” and more about having the right Eucharist, which they saw as tainted due to church corruption/teaching of heresy.
Nearly all of the early Protestants saw sacramental participation as necessary for salvation too. The widespread rejection of the “necessity” of the Eucharist and baptism is a super modern accretion in the Protestant world. But they allowed that other church structures although they had theological issues in their view still had valid sacraments.
@@harrygarris6921 that's exactly what I mean - at the time when Protestantism arose both the Orthodox and Roman Catholic churches anathematized those who held different views on those issues and we're not a direct member of their organization. Regardless of modern day lapses in the street-level practice of Protestantism, the doctrines they have still do uphold the value of the Eucharist and baptism, though at times in different forms and with different language. They do not however, condemn all those who disagree with their expression of these sacraments.
@@harrygarris6921erm, please explain to me what you mean by "participation in Christ is mandatory, which includes sacraments"....are you saying that faith + sacraments = salvation??
Christ said He will build a church with His apostles (which He picked one by one). He did not say read only the bible and interpret it as you want. So yes, we have to participate and listen to His church.
"If they still refuse to listen, tell it to the church; and if they refuse to listen even to the church, treat them as you would a pagan or a tax collector."
Do you want to be a pagan or a tax collector?
@@joekey8464 Christ did indeed say that, and he indeed did not say to read our Bibles or take his word and use it to mean whatever we want. Protestantism also has never said that nor implied it. The drive of Protestantism is to return to the Apostolic teachings and practices that people, over time, have corrupted and added too. Thus historic Protestantism aims to be as close to the original teachings of Christ as possible, and thus is a part of the one true and Apostolic Church - the Bride of Christ.
Yet for all this, Protestantism has never attempted to anathematize and exclude those from other traditions they believe have doctrinal errors, but have - from the very beginning up to the present day - maintained that they too are members of Christ's Church. And we would never attempt claim that those in these traditions should be treated "as pagans and tax collectors".
Unfortunately the same does not always seem to be true of Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy. It is my hope and prayer that that will continue to change though and that Christ's love will triumph over human divisions.
You're doing the job well. Thank You. Keep going.
All the content you put out is so fascinating, and I have learned so much!
It seems like the big difference between Protestantism and Orthodoxy is that Orthodoxy has strong dogmatic convictions about theology and the Church, whereas Protestantism is a bit more relativistic and willing to accept different ideas. It also seems like Protestantism doesn't submit to a higher authority outside of its own interpretation of the Bible.
Protestantism does not have a "relativistic" view of the church; we just think the church is institutionally fractured (and thus coheres in multiple institutions).
@@TruthUnites Okay, so Protestantism dogmatically asserts that the "church" (lowercase?) does not find its identity within a single communion of believers who all accept the same deposit of faith, but rather, the church exists across various communions and is comprised of individuals who may have varying interpretations of Christian teaching, but whom all are part of God's community. Is this accurate? Also, I would be curious what you believe about Orthodox and Catholics who venerate icons. Do you believe that their potentially idolatrous activity would put them outside of the church? Would an Orthodox Christian or Roman Catholic need to accept a Protestant view of icons to avoid the sin of idolatry and be safely part of the "church" as Protestant's define it? In other words, do Orthodox and Catholic Christians need to assent to important Protestant doctrines that pertain to salvation to be considered part of the church as Protestantism defines it?
@@TruthUnites you have a very modernist (ecumenical) view. For instance people like Oliver Cromwell didn't share your modernist sympathies. You don't seem to want to acknowledge the Protestant wars in England for instance. Or Cromwell unapologetically invading Ireland and butchering Irish Catholics. Yeah....very ecumenical.
@@dustinneely
I don't dont seem to remember Dr. Ortlund (or anyone else) denying protestant wars in England.
Or regarding Cromwell (of all people) as infalliable
@@dustinneely Yes do forget all the millions tortured and killed by the RCC...smh.
It seems to me that this should not be surprising that the orthodox would respond that way. The orthodox do not understand ecclesiology to be a second order theological issue, considering that apostolic succession is fundamental to access to the sacraments, which are seen as a central part of the application of salvation to the person, in both the catholic and orthodox view. The protestants reject that notion of succession and ecclesiology and then seem surprised when they are met with rejection.
I’m not attempting to make a case for either side on this right now. Just pointing out that it seems strange that the protestants would be surprised by rejection by Catholic or orthodox at the time when the protestants are rejecting something that is central to both the Catholic and Orthodox faith.
That's because Protestants stand on the truth of the Gospel, not manmade beliefs and traditions like apostolic succession.
@@joycegreer9391 No, that's because Protestants are innovators. The Protestant doctrine is novel, it was never believed before, and it has brought extreme division in Christianity now with everyone mocking us for having so many denominations when pretty much all of them are Protestant divisions.
@@joycegreer9391manmade? poor understanding you have
@@williampumpernickel4929 Indeed, scripture poor understanding you have.
@@joycegreer9391
Where do you think the theology of the trinity came from? The canon of scripture? Methods of Baptism, the Eucharist, marriage etc?
The Church.
What you do today comes from tradition defended by Saints and Martyrs.
Really appreciated this! Thanks again Dr O!
Awesome video! I love the charge at the end, that we are not compromising by suggesting that true Christians (and true churches) exist outside of Protestantism.
If we are really bible believing Christians, then how could we claim that Catholic and Orthodox are not true Christians as well. They see Christ as ultimate redeemer and Lord. It's much more formal, but it's the same at its core. I think most protestants don't realize that and want to nitpick on what is different, than what is actually the same. It takes a fair bit of studying to get through the different language they use.
And really it is not arrogance as Gavin puts in, quite uncharitably if I may add. No one got drowned (Anabaptists), burnt at the stake or had their heads removed. None of the protestants hands were free of blood. There are many churches that are totally independent from each other, and they just agree to the same seven ecumenical councils. Any independent protestant church can sign up and it is not about being exclusive, or insisting on being part of a larger organization. There were some young Christians who started out as Campus Crusade folks, then started their churches, and via a few camps they realized they wanted to joint the Orthodox Churches and did. Go you do likewise.
God bless you. I appreciate your work here. I hear the same quotes and understand them a little different. But thank you for what you do.
Hey, Dr. O. I received that book as a loan a while ago from an Orthodox friend who is a deacon. Fascinating episode in church history! I think one of the driving forces behind the differential responses to ecumenism historically is the difference in ecclesiology between the Lutherans and the Greek Orthodox, leading to a different stance on catholicity. That "institutional exclusivism" of what I call the "Imperial churches" (i.e. those churches who can trace their hierarchy back to the episcopal and diocesan structure of the state church of the Late Roman Empire) is kind of baked in to that late Imperial state-church structure. You can see that institutional exclusivism develop in the relationship between the Eastern Roman Church and the church of Rome in the early medieval period, and between Constantinople and other churches on the fringes of her empire and in competing states (i.e. the Coptic, Ethiopian and Armenian churches and the recognized church of the Sassanian Empire that was called the "Nestorian" church).
The issue of church and state and how we understand that in the broader context of ecclesiology is just as vital as the theological differences in understanding differing approaches to ecumenical relations. "Free churches" can have the biggest tent for catholicity, as they are not bound to the necessity of the historic episcopate rooted in the church of the Roman Empire. However, this freedom has its downsides too, especially in America, in which the first amendment allowed for the proliferation of many Restorationist cults such as the Mormons, JWs, and in a more qualified sense the Seventh Day Adventists (not to mention the rise of theological Liberalism). There are no simple answers for how to proceed in ecumenical relations.
There is a great book by Thomas A. Howard called the "Pope and the Professor" on the lives of Pius IX and Dr. Johan von Dollinger, their fateful clash at Vatican I, and Dollinger leading the first modern ecumenical dialogues in the Bonn Reunion conferences. Would love to see you do a video on Dollinger and/or the Bonn Reunion conferences and how we can apply the lessons learned in then to today. Thanks, Dr. O, and Grace and Peace!
Thanks Dr. Bob! I got into Dollinger a little bit in my recent video on Vigilius -- just a little
The historic episcopate (and episcopacy, generally) did predate the Constantinian shift. I would say that the model fit well within an imperial/monarchical system, but the structure as a legitimate development is still a well attested feature of historic catholicity (and not purely a byproduct of state-church).
If the apostle John had approved of the monarchical episcopate, and it seems likely that he did, I think you can make a pretty good case that the institution is of divine appointment.
@@Jimmy-iy9pl Chapter and verse? Roman Catholic scholarship is clearly not with the "traditional" view of RC conservatives. If you want to make the argument that historical development is divine (i.e. the Newman Hypothesis) okay. That can be debated. But scholarship, including conservative scholarship, is pretty uniform on the fact that the monarchical episcopate is not a New Testament concept and developed at a later point in history. I think that is fatal to the case of the Imperial churches as their dogmatic statements assume the Apostolic Succession as the Apostles specially appointing bishops as priests in their place. This is not biblically nor historically tenable. Btw, why are the bishops in the modern Imperial churches mandated to be unmarried? Seems this violates the principle of married bishops in 1 Timothy 3, 4 and Titus 1, thus breaking alleged Apostolic succession, as the mandate of unmarried bishops violates the qualifications.
@DrBob-gr5ru The scholarship pretty universally attests that the three-fold order began as "apostle, bishop-presbyter, and deacon", that's why it's called apostolic succession (by the churches which regard that model as essential). Bishops are only important as such if they are in the line of the apostles, who are the truly essential office of leadership.
The issue is that you are praising the Lutherans for having a moden mindset and rebuking Patriarch Jeremiah for having an ancient mindset. Did the Church ever talk to the heretics as if both were on the same level? Never. Would you talk to a Muslim or a Jew as if you had something to learn from them concerning the Faith? Surely not. What you have in mind is the modern "ecumenical" dialogue, which of course did not exist at the time. Protestantism was the prerequisite for this dialogue.
The Patriarch simply treated the Lutherans with kindness and condescension to their lack of familiarity with the Apostolic Faith, that which had always been believed by all and everywhere, by all that is by the Orthodox, excluding of course the heretics. He tried to correct the Protestants on their errors, but when the latter proved to be stubborn, after (two or) three rebukes he let them go. That's the Scriptural approach. Ecumenism with its endless pointless dialogues is not the Scriptural approach.
Concerning the docrtine of the Church, of course the Church, being guided by the Holy Spirit, is inerrant. How else could it be? Each individual has free well and thus can fall into error, but the Church is the Body of Christ, how can the Body of Christ err?
Well said
Love these kinds of videos 😍
I enjoy listening to you!!! Thanks a lot for all your work. So enlightening and edifying!
I'm so glad!
Very helpful Gavin! Thank you!
This is so, so good! If only the modern followers of Luther and Calvin were as ecumenical as their founders! And I realize, in some way Calvin and Luther were pretty strident toward other groups! It almost seems, in my experience, modern Protestants who identify as Lutherans, Calvinists, and generally Evangelical are often woefully ignorant of the theology of Luther and Calvin and of others whom they criticize...and perhaps that's one reason they are so divisive today. They mischaracterize the other side so badly!
Sadly, many orthodox Protestants today have abandoned Ecumenism as a liberal tendency.
American Evangelicals are often restorationist and look down on church history with suspicion.
Confessional Lutherans and Reformed are often defensive about maintaining their own tradition.
This results in Ecumenical statements, like the Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification, being made by liberal Protestants, and therefore they are oftentimes more concerned with being nice than engaging the actual differences.
When I was a Lutheran I visit Reformed churches frequently and have fellowship with them as brothers and sisters in Christ. We have a lot of agreements in many doctrines and It made me happy tho there are also many parts where we get to disagree, but still I love those guys.
Hahahahaha hahahaha hahahaha... We must at least give some measure of credit to folks like Luther and Calvin for at least trying to reach out to an Apostolic Church after Rome recognized them as heretics (if for no other reason than "successful heresy" requires the backing of as many bishops as possible, regardless of whether from West or East)
@wayned803 Luther was no Heretic. The corrupt papacy only declared hom heretical because Luther threatened their earthly power, but had no biblical backing. Luther even challenged them to their faces to back up their claims with scripture, and they could not.
@@Stigma-ba115 Luther was and will always remain a heretic according to both East and West. Sola Scriptura is a heresy, denial of the real presence in the Eucharist is heresy, denial of Purgatory in the West and post death purification on the East is heresy, denial of an institutional Church founded by Christ which continues to this day is heresy.
According to the witness of a nun who had a vision, Luther is damned.
Gavin, continually blessed by this channel. It pushes me to be a better Protestant who more firmly is ruled by the primacy of God's Word, and the authority of the foundation set by the apostles- and really wrestling to figure out what that foundation is in the natural revelation from God we've been given in our histories.
We can be more unified, apostolic, catholic, and cheerfully dedicated to holiness that springs from the Lord of Truth as we commit all our institutional visible assemblies to reforming ourselves to conform to his Headship led by his Spirit, animating his Body/Temple/Church as the pillar and buttress of Truth.
To really study history as God's revelation in time of fallible reflections of His Voice via real Spiritual artifacts and meditations meant to edify us, presupposing Scripture's unique ontological and internal claims about itself having the right as God's ontologically unique instrument of his Voice to infallibly norm all else, and seeing ourselves clearly as a medieval reform and resourcement historical movement, rather than a single visible ecclesiological hegemon of chaos and nominalism, is to start wrestling with what the beauty of what it means to be Protestant (and reformed catholics).
I am a quia confessing Book of Concord evangelical catholic. As a "Lutheran" I encourage everyone to read the Book of Concord--very few have or will. Very few really understand our theological paradigm. When you read the BoC, you will want to pick up Luther, Gerhard and Chemnitz....and that's just for starters.
I'm so glad I read this book a year ago because that's not the impression I got from the Eastern side. Why do you assume the Patriarch was being patronizing especially after you admitted that its like to very different cultures. From the Patriarch's vantage points he sees it as the German academics interested in joining "The Church" not a discussion between "two churches".
So of course in the last letter the Patriarch is filled with grief and desires to discuss no further because the Lutheran side has made up their mind on eccesiology and their private interpretation of true doctrine. (He's adhering to the book of proverbs at that point to not argue with scholars)
If the Reformers aren't interested in reforming why should the Patriach continue to go back and forth? That's not how Orthodox Christianity works. Was the Patriarch supposed to compromise the Churches rich faith and history to appease the Lutherans new found 16th century tradition?
Dr.Gavin from an Orthodox perspective that's nonsense.
Yes, that's exactly what Gavin is saying or at least implying: Orthodox should compromise
His charitable tone doesn't trump his ridiculous position
@@Giorginho The Lutherans were being cordial in their view that catholicity can be enjoyed between believers in different traditions, Jeremias was only going to be cordial with them if they joined the EO church. It was never going to work out, as they say.
Thank you for briefly walking us through this unique moment in church history. I love being catholic (URCNA - Continental Reformed) and finding "new" (old) ways to practice my catholicity. Your videos are so helpful in showcasing apostolic expressions of catholicity rooted in the scriptures as opposed to the rigid expressions rooted in ecclesiological exclusivism, protestant and non-protestant alike. So, thank you for that!
I have little idea what you just said, because Catholics sure do talk funny. It's just my light hearted way of saying that we can have a language barrier, because of different traditions. It is great to see Catholics and Orthodox in here and enjoying what Dr. Ortlund so graciously offers as information for bridge building.
Do you feel you may be neglecting a major hang up with any discussion of ecumenicism between Lutherans and Orthodox--namely, the importance of Apostolic Succession to the Orthodox? It's the same for the Western Church. Their view was (is) that the one way to have real catholic unity is through a bishop ordained in Apostolic Succession. East and West have always been in agreement on this. They point to exhortations from the Apostles, Ignatius, Irenaeus, etc. It's the main reason Catholics believe Orthodox have valid ordinations and sacraments even thought they're considered schismatics. This puts Jeremiah's "condescension" towards the Lutherans in a proper context. If Apostolic Succession was the basis of Catholicity for 1,500 years, then the Lutherans were trying to have their cake and eat it. They wanted the freedom to interpret Scripture and operate their churches however they desired (without regard to any spiritual oversight or obligation beyond their own fidelity to Scripture, Creeds and Confessions). This view of catholicity was foreign to Rome and Constantinople. More than schismatics, the Reformers were considered rebels (or anarchists). So, perhaps Jeremiah disliked the fact that the Lutherans were presuming their position that one can remain "catholic" without the necessary "spiritual pedigree" if you will. From Jeremiah's perspective, the points of disagreement with the Lutherans were points of unity with Rome. Thanks for the video!
Great video Dr. Ortlund. Have you ever had discussions with an Orthodox priest who was born in Eastern Europe? Would you ever make a video with a priest who is not only part of Orthodoxy but is also part of the Eastern culture (Greek, etc) discussing Orthodoxy and the Protestant faith? A Greek Orthodox priest.... I know that there is a lot of culture more than anything behind the Orthodox faith so it would be interesting to hear a conversation between an Eastern Orthodox priest (who is actually part of the native Eastern European culture) and you discuss sola scriptura, salvation, & other topics.
This is a really good idea. Dr. ortlund, I hope you can get some air time with Trenham. He's well versed in Reformed theology and would make an excellent dialogue partner.
Trenham is an unapologetic EO priest, having come out of Reformed Protestant Evangelicalism and having written and spoken clearly against the theology of the Reformation. See his book, _Rock and Sand_, as well as his numerous videos contra the 5 solas.
@@hughmccann919 Thank you for sharing this! I thought he was of Greek descent. I had no idea. I think it would be great for Dr. Ortlund to do a video with a Greek Orthodox priest from Greek descent because a lot of their ties to the Orthodox faith is history and culture. I will edit my comment. Thank you again for sharing! I appreciate it.
This would be fascinating!
God is the TRUTH, ONE TRUTH. God's truth is not relative. Shouldn't we care enough to get together and ask the Holy Spirit to clarify the TRUTH for us?
I read this book. I didn’t read Jeremiah as being condescending at all. I think the Protestant Theologians had a couple of “spicy” statements themselves . Dr. Ortlund could have recited those too. In part, these “micro-aggressions “ (good grief, I can’t believe I typed that) are probably due to differences in culture. I did feel the Lutherans were a little more contentious.
The exchange in the book was illuminating and is very valuable as Dr. Ortlund says. The Orthodox could have easily compromised themselves in order to be in communion with a western group, which could have been to their benefit, but they did not. Both sides stood their ground. I think this was appropriate.
The ecumenical issue is serious. I disagree with Ortlund on the catholicity issue. I also don’t think the Orthodox had a duty to treat the Protestant view as being on par with theirs. It’s not just “my idea vs your idea”. This is a common mindset today. This is the challenge in the modern world. The Orthodox position was ancient and did not have the errors that arose in Rome. It was not a new idea that was there to be compared with other new ideas. The Lutheran viewpoint arose out of the conflict with Rome and was conditioned by it. Rome shaped the Protestant viewpoint both where they agreed and where they did not. As Ortlund rightly points out, the Orthodox were different. I doubt the Reformation would have gained traction had it arose in an Orthodox country. The issues that set off the Reformation were not present in Orthodox Christianity. The trigger was not there. The later developments in Protestantism went way beyond the original complaints of Luther. It took on a life of its own. The Lutherans had constructed a significantly different Christianity by the time they had the exchange with the Orthodox.
I don’t think the exchange was timely. It is more timely today. I hope the discussion continues.
Someone else who read this book mentioned what Gavin did not. That the Lutherans went on about the filioque at great length and were pressing on a big contentious sore spot. They thought dialogue may have went better if they had not.
@@saintejeannedarc9460 yes I realize having watch many of Gavin's videos to get the other view (I just converted from Baptist to Orthodox) is that his agenda is clearly polemic and is not to seek unity. Still he 'steel man's " the protestant case, so once I can get past it I am home free. lol
I agree. I didn’t feel as if Jeremiah was being condescending at all. Using the “fatherly” type of language makes perfect sense considering the Orthodox are about 1500 years older than the Protestants. I thought it was appropriate.
Excellent video!
Lutherans say the "right interpretation" is required, they are exclusivist as well. All Dr. Gavin does is appeals to emotion
@@mthf5645 No, Protestant is pure theology which includes humility. Something you lack as seen in another comment you made.
In so much as Protestant individuals practice Catholic-Orthodox theology, they are behaving in alignment with Christ. In so much, as they detour from it, they are caught up in division (diablos).
@@Danaluni59 But not biblical theology?
@@joycegreer9391biblical by their own interpretation
@@williampumpernickel4929 That's what everyone has. Read and study God's Word. Every individual is personally responsible.
This was an enjoyable listen. I spoke with a Coptic priest and he mentioned this exact dialogue. I thought for a few weeks I was aligning with the orthodox church on some doctrines but I disagree too much on certain major issues to ever convert.
I'm Eastern Orthodox and I would love to delve into those differences with you!
Copts are Oriental Orthodox not Eastern Orthodox.
Didn't Luther himself confer with an Ethiopian higher up and determine that essentially their doctrines of justification were similar if not identical?
But yes, Lutherans do absolutely present a better "catholicity" and always have, to the dismay of more "reformed" brothers!
Yes, Michael the Deacon of the Ethiopian Orthodox Church visited with Luther and approved the Augsburg and Lutheran Mass etc..
@@Athabrose Ok, thanks for that reply. Very interesting point of unity in Church history. We need more like that today!
No, just better catholicity than Roman Catholics.
@@joycegreer9391 Roman Catholics have done most of the ecumenical reach outs throughout history, and the word is itself most used by Catholics.
@@joycegreer9391 You care to explain yourself? How are Lutherans bested in this category?
Thank you for the video! It would be great if you could also make a video concerning the Reformed-Orthodox dialogues under Cyril Lucaris, and the Council of Jerusalem after his death.
Excellent explanation. Was there ever an eastern bishop that was closest to the Reformed tradition??
Referring to the Lutherans as “sons” is not in the least bit condescending from the Patriarch. It shows commonality and familiarity. The Patriarch refers to all non bishop-Christians as children.
And as the Patriarch not further engaging with the Lutherans after they refused correction, this is again how a patriarch would respond to disent. Him not continuing to argue with the Lutherans was him being polite. Part of the issue is the cultural difference.
It makes sense that Gavin would see the Lutherans as polite but not the Patriarch as being polite because their culture is more similar to his. However, the Patriarch treated the Lutherans very kindly according to his own culture.
That's an interesting aspect to add and I'm sure Gavin was aware of this. What he is drawing out here is the essential difference that to the Protestants, the Orthodox church was Christian, but to the Orthodox, when it became clear that the Protestants were not going to compromise their theology and join with Eastern Orthodoxy, they cut off the dialogue and refused to acknowledge the validity of their faith.
However the EOs response is in lock step with their views of Christians outside of their church (basically anathema). I would consider he wasn't being condescending if they didn't already have such a view against non-EO for centuries.
@@ElvisI97 I don’t think viewing people as outside of the Church is synonymous with being condescending. The Lutherans were holding onto and refusing to repent of a (in the East’s eyes) heresy that had been condemned for over 500 years.
I know this probably just looks to most Protestants like the EO (or RC) Church are rigid, elitist, exclusive, and will only acknowledge others being in good faith if those Christians are already on “the same team”. But I would encourage you to try to see past the response instantiated here as something beyond hard-headedness and arrogance. That impression comes off very clearly, in favor of the Protestants, in the video. What doesn’t come across is that this interaction is not happening in a vacuum. It’s been over a millennia and a half since Christ’s coming. If you believe that Christians should belong to the Church that Christ founded, then new Churches, groups, sects should not be springing up. Anything new that does come on the scene SHOULD instantly send off alarm bells that there has been a deviation from what Christ founded. The Protestant comes off to the EO’s, not as cordial, but as saying “we respect you so please also will you respect my obviously invalid Church that some guy set up a couple minutes ago”. That might not be how you see it, but you need to try to understand how things were perceived in their proper historical context.
I understand what you’re trying to get at here, but I think the idea of an “obviously invalid church set up five minutes ago” as a way of framing things is an example of the rigidity and assumed superiority. That Lutheranism is not a church is not obvious at all. On some of the doctrinal issues at play, I think it’s fairly obvious in the opposite direction (for example, icon veneration).
@@TruthUnites That might have sounded harsh, but I phrased it that way to underscore why Protestants are not met on the level playing ground they think it is. The lack of historical precedent to their institution implicates a departure from apostolic lineage, and thus from the historical particular ministry of Christ. That is the way that Protestantism is going to be met by Christian Church bodies with an ancient pedigree and it’s important for Protestants to grapple with that perspective when dealing with RC, ECs, etc. That is simply the point I mean to convey.
To put the issues a little more in the foreground from your reply, Christianity is not just about doctrines and Jesus did not just teach ideas. He was a particular man and established a particular, visible Church on His apostles. Of course doctrine is important. But to ignore the importance of belonging to visible institutions with credible claims of succession from what Christ established, in favor of merely doctrinal descent claimed by a reading of Scripture is how these interactions are premised with opposition from the outset.
@@MrTeaSPoon12 Thanks for the reply. I think I understand what you’re trying to say, but again the idea that protestants are wrong to expect a “level playing ground” is part of the very mentality that we find reflective of arrogance. The eastern orthodox view of icon veneration has zero historical precedent for the first 500 years of church history. So when you assert that we have no historical basis, it doesn’t seem to be grasped that we’re saying the exact same thing about many aspects of your tradition. Someone is right, and someone is wrong, but it shouldn’t be assumed at the outset.
@@MrTeaSPoon12 on this comment, we totally agree that Christianity is not just about doctrines, and that there is a visible church. We simply do not restrict that church to the Eastern orthodox institution.
I recently left the Baptist church and started going to an Eastern Orthodox Church in search of the ‘ancient faith’. It’s been a few months and quickly realized things that didn’t sit well with my conscience. 1. Ecumenism and everything it stands for. Protestant martyrs dying in vain (from their pov) not being able to pray with others, no matter your faith in Christ and what fruit you bore, you’re damned outside the eastern church. 2 the extreme views of Mary. They believe that she lived in the Temple in the Holy of Holies for 12 years and a lot of other things that I was unaware of and would’ve been mentioned in scripture if true. 3 my previous baptism meant nothing and would have been made to be baptized again and it all just feels very legalistic. They definitely don’t believe in assurance of salvation and being saved by faith. These are just a few things. I say all that to them say I found this RUclips channel and it has helped me IMMENSELY!! Thank you Gavin.
Dr. Ortlund, could you give an example of what you consider to be an exclusivitst ecclesiology that you do not find to be condescending when dialogue occurs? For example, do you think Church of Christ people are necessarily condescending when doing dialogue because they believe themselves to be the Church?
Also: why do you talk frequently about acceptance from Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholics if you consider them to be erroneous on many points?
So basically, the Orthodox Church just responded by saying "Either join us or leave us alone, bye". That's so sad to hear. In an alternate reality, it would be very interesting to see what would have happened had the Orthodox been more open to collaboration. Could there have been more unity and not nearly as many splinter groups emerging shortly after Luther? I guess we'll never know...
It's not sad. I wish the current Patriarch of Constantinople had the same attitude.
@@dustinneely Hurry and paint a picture for me so I can bow down to it.
a sect originates or evolves from other sects, but sects do not "join together" or collaborate into some kind of hybrid form. It just doesn't happen, not in Christianity or any religion.
@@jg7923 hurry and have a doctrinal dispute so you can break off and form another "church".
@@dustinneely Hurry and call yourself an old calendarist or true orthodox etc.
“Spiritual sons of my humble self” 😂
Believing that one’s church cannot error, could explain how Patriarch Kirill is so effectively able to further his and Putin’s horrific agenda regarding Ukraine. Kirill is shockingly and ruthlessly powerful, yet faithful Russians seem to blindly follow him no matter how ugly the situation.
Kirill is not the church. He is a bishop in the church but he isn't the orthodox equivalent of the Pontiff. Every man may hold error but the greater body of Christ's bride cannot error for long unless the promise of Christ isn't true.
Is there somewhere I can watch your sermons?
Gavin, I’ve heard about a meeting between a monk from the Ethiopian Orthodox Tewhado church and Martin Luther (often noted by orthodox people in my native country Ethiopia). Do you know anything about the supposed exchange between the two?
Great video!
I'm not sure you'll read this comment, but here are my thoughts. You quote that the Lutherans have a better version of catholicity than the orthodox or catholics, with the quote at 13:36. In that quote, the Lutherans say that "who hold the right interpretation of Christ". This brings the question of who holds the right interpretation. I think they are equally un-catholic, in the way that you define it, by saying that you must have to have the same interpretation.
Är du svensk?(Are you Swedish?)
A definition of your view of catholicity is required here . I think your coming from a quite different understanding of its implications . A short video with regards is needed
The friendly relations of Anglicans and Eastern Orthodoxy, especially early 20th century, is worth looking into. Anglican theologian Eric L Mascall does an eirenic consideration of the relation of Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Anglican and Protestant understandings of grace in his Gifford Lectures (available online). Also his book Christ, the Christian and the Church, recently re published. Jordan Cooper the Lutheran You Tuber also has comparisons of Lutheranism and Orthodoxy. I think he has studied Mannermaa the Finnish Lutheran theologian who has tried to find some common ground with Orthodox, in his work Christ Present in Faith, on Luther's view of justification. You might have encountered these already. If not, I hope you may find some material in them to consider.
This episode was unknown to me. I am sure to many others as well. Very cool. Beautiful conclusions drawn from this episode even though I disagree with his perspective on Jeremiah II.
Was this video a response to my last comment Ha ha? I think it boils down to sola scriptura and a fundamental disagreement on the role and definition of "The Church" as the body of Christ. Ecuminism has an allure because we are called to love one another. However if there is no line in the sand, we see where that leads (35,000 denominations that all hold conflicting views).
There are not '35,000 denominations' in any meaningful or accurate sense. This is a myth.
@@justicebjorke2790 Indeed, one could (on paper) pursue such a ludicrous route and potentially end up with any number of denominations they wanted based on self-determined criteria (and, indeed, that actually IS how many of these somewhat silly numbers are reached). But 'meaningful or accurate' was not an unimportant afterthought of an inclusion in my reply - there was a reason for its inclusion.
@@Mic1904 would protestants say that the patriarch was faithful to the scriptures here? "A man that is a heretic, after the first and second admonition, abandon" (Titus 3:10)
@@aheadofmetal Well, now, there's an interesting question. Because if, indeed, one is to abandon a person who persists in division and heresy after the second admonition, what would that look like in practical and in ecclesiastical church terms? As in, you and I are both in 'the Church', one of us declares something that the other deems divisive and heretical, and the other then 'abandons' them having nothing more to do with them - what does that look like in the context of the church? Where are you or I going in that situation?
@@Mic1904 I believe Josiah Trenham made a comment on the schism of 1054, which I think likely holds true to your comment. Something to the effect of, "The sin occures on both sides, the party who falls away and the one who ultimately allows the division to continue." I think that is likely good pastoral advice, but Im honestly out of my depth on this one.
I think it is also easy to look back in time with 20/20 vision and say "oh, Obviously Martin Luther should have humbled himself and returned home". But if I was a 16th century peasant in Germany under papal rule, I probably would have followed Luther and the reformers. I wouldnt have had the benefit of any knowledge of church history, Orthodoxy or "free information". Interesting thought exeriment anyway...
Can you do a video on Cyril Lucaris?
Yes, that would be great!
Hi Dr Ortlund, I am an Orthodox Christian.
The EO Church understands itself to be The One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. There is no wiggle room there for us and I believe you know that.
Therefore, I really see no point in you engaging us ecumenically. In being faithful to our ecclesiology, we will only manage to come across as proud and rigid to you.
I know your beliefs don't allow for it, but expediently, I think it would be better if you didn't consider us Christian at all. It would save a lot of misunderstanding and grief. It's two different worlds. Two trains passing each other in the night. Never the twain shall meet.
But from the bottom of my heart, I wish you well.
Thanks for the comment. I am aware of the EO claim. The fact that you do not consider me in the church does not require that I do not consider EO as Christians.
Well said Orthodox brother ( or sister!)
“You don’t need to become a Lutheran”… just have to agree with our exact ideology
Catholicism- church is above Jesus words. Mary doctrines even if invented over 300 yrs after Christ, we still believe in them. For uncertain reason, we believe we are the one true church even if book of acts church had zero statues, zero praying to saints, zero mary doctrines, zero indulgences, zero pencances.
Timestamp: 11:30
Titus 3:10-11 "As for a man who is factious, after admonishing him once or twice, have nothing more to do with him, 11 knowing that such a person is perverted and sinful; he is self-condemned."
The Holy Ecumenical Patriarch Jeremiah II followed Scripture.
I was raised Baptist the in high school I became an Episcopalian (to shut up my girlfriend) and came to love the church. Then in the late 80s they started getting off track (female priests the guy bishops) and I couldn’t take it anymore and had too many problems with what the Roman Catholic taught. So long story short in 91 I was received into the Orthodox Church. I knew I was home the moment I walked into the church. I look at things that the Church that has been around since the beginning and hasn’t changed is probably got things right and if I disagree with them then I probably be the one to change my beliefs.
My question would be: how can “all” love the gospel of Christ if we have different “gospels”? My concern for RCC and EO members is they are putting their faith into a “false” gospel. I hope I am wrong but both affirm human works as part of justification and that is contradictory to the gospel of Christ. I call all Christians who affirm complete trust in Christ and His gospel as family, regardless of the name on their church. At the same time, I currently see RCC and EO as people that need to be evangelized too, am I wrong? Do they believe in the gospel of Christ?
I can totally understand this. If you’re at all familiar with the Jesus movement or the charismatics, back in the mid-20th century, you may have heard that it affected Roman Catholics too. I don’t know about EO. It could be helpful to compare this to the household of Cornelius in Acts; since the Holy Spirit fell on them, Peter was able to recognize them as true believers. As far as the doctrinal stuff, you have to keep in mind that both of those traditions are so ancient and have so many teachings they hold to, that some of those teachings are going to be self-contradictory, so individual adherents to the faith are really going to have to pick and choose which teachings they personally hold most important. For example, RC and EO believe in the truth of the Bible, so any member of their church could technically read the Bible and believe it.
I’d also like to point out that there are some people who may be in more “correct” denominations who may not truly be born again anyway and may need to be evangelized. The correctness of a group’s teaching is only one of several factors that can influence whether a person in it is truly born again.
@@reepicheepsfriend I whole heartedly agree with much of what you said. Any one who isn’t born again, regardless of their church identity, need to be told about the gospel of Christ. We get faith through hearing the gospel of Christ, my concern is that the gospel of Christ, the gospel of grace isn’t preached in Catholic church’s or EO church’s. We 100% need more than head knowledge of the gospel, we need the Holy Spirit given through faith in Christ, at the same time if we have a wrong head knowledge of the gospel then it will affect our heart and potentially our salvation as paul tells us in Gal 1.
How can we “come” together when different gospels are preached in different churches? I don’t think we can, unless we all submit to our Lord Jesus Christ and His gospel of grace.
@circle.dot.raindrops good, glad to hear that Catholics believe in faith alone in Christ Alone by grace alone and nothing of yourselves what so ever contributes in any way towards your justification before God. Our righteousness before God is the righteousness of Christ through Faith in Him alone. So glad Catholics affirm and believe this.
@circle.dot.raindrops you keep working for your salvation. I’m gonna go with the gospel of grace, the gospel of Christ. Not some man made gospel that doesn’t save
Respectfully, I don't think this was an entirely fair assessment of Jeremias' correspondence with the Lutheran theologians from Tubingen.
-Regarding Jeremias' addressing the Lutherans as sons, I think it very unlikely that this was intended to be condescending. In Orthodoxy, priests and bishops frequently address people as sons or daughters as a function of their office. This would go double for the Ecumenical Patriarch. As an Orthodox Christian, I would interpret this form of address as a form of affection and would feel very warmly received by it. Furthermore, I think his addressing these non-Orthodox Christians as sons speaks to a generosity of soul and a desire for bonds of love to be formed between them.
-I don't think the differing visions of Catholicity critique is entirely fair, considering the historical context. The Protestant attitude of considering Christians from different traditions as being true Christians, while I don't completely disagree with it, was an innovative way of looking at things that resulted from the Reformation. Orthodoxy never went through the Reformation, so this way of viewing things would have been completely alien to Jeremias. As such, I don't think it is fair to hold him to that standard.
-Regarding Jeremias' ending the theological discussion, I think there are a few important facets to consider: Jeremias lived under the thumb of the Ottomans, and as such his freedom was severely restricted. Much of his day-to-day concern was likely dedicated to the survival of his flock and the preservation of their right to worship and operate independently of the Ottomans. Jeremias was also deposed from his office and then reinstated between his second and third letters. As such, this correspondence was likely not the highest priority for him. Secondly, I'm sure that many of you have had theological discussions with somebody and after a time, you realize that they are so dug-in that they are not going to change their minds no matter what you say to them. I have had many such relationships. There comes a point where further theological discussion is mostly fruitless, and all you can do is try to love them as well as you can. This is how I perceive Jeremias' decision to end the correspondence.
TruthUnites,
Your reverence for Luther makes me think you're also a traditional and true Catholic. Do you have videos where you discuss this? Since you adhere to the Evangelical Protestant label, I am curious what you like least of its mainstream positions and what you like most from that of the RCC. For what it's worth, I'm a former Southern Baptist - now Catholic leaning toward a traditional and Orthodox position.
What I think I like least about RCC is that catechesis never truly ends, but that's also what I like most about it. Some rules I feel like I've internalized long ago, and here comes a humbling reminder of my continuous need for spiritual conversion. What I like most about my Evangelical Protestant brothers - particularly one of my best friends - is the ability to quote scripture and know the broader context. What I feel completes that characteristic is the Catholic approach of understanding the senses or genre being used (i.e. allegorical, anagogical, etc.). This is why I think Jordan Peterson and Jonathan Pageau and Bishop Barron are so effective at spreading the Word. It's well-rounded in a sense that you can tell they know God and continue to pursue Him.
Dr. Gavin is afraid from catholicism
1. He believes in the 5 Solas
2. He believes that salvation is through faith alone. No need to be part of an institution
3. He has good evidence to show mary doctrines are unfounded
4. Bible is ultimate authority for him
Sorry!!😅
So what would unity look like in this case? After all, from Jeremiah's perspective, this was just the Western church fragmenting even further after splitting off from the one true church in 1054. How do Lutherans unite with Orthodox when Catholics and Orthodox have much more in common than Orthodox and Protestants?
This is great
Gavin, excellent and timely video on a personal level. I was exploring the EO church but ultimately rejected in favor of Lutheranism. Unfortunately it led to a schism in my own home. I ultimately couldn’t accept the EO view on justification and their exclusivistic view on their church being the one true church. It was far too sectarian than what the Bible seems to describe as those belonging to Christ’s church.
One question however based on the Lutheran’s quote at the end. Can we really even say, from a Lutheran view, or even broadly Reformed/Protestant view that the EO church has the same Gospel? I currently would hold that we have different views on the Gospel. The anathema’s of the 7th ecumenical council seem to preclude agreement on what counts as the Gospel. I am curious where you would land on this; can we really say there is agreement on the Gospel between the two groups?
Its the only consistent position
It depends on what you would consider the Gospel.
So in résumé, both the Western Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox churches declare you heretics.
Food for thought.
@@Jimmy-iy9pl The ultimate core gospel is that Christ died to redeem sinners to God. We all hold that view as Christians. That where echumenism can always exist w/ our core values as Christians.
Any church claiming to be the only and one true church is in error. I totally understand each church believing it has more of the truth than other churches. Even though that's not at all measurable by us, and only by God, that's the main reason why one adheres to one faith tradition over another.
11:18 I laughed out loud at letter #3 😂
It seems like Jeremias was using the Matthew 10:14 principle- shaking the dust of his feet.
1. The 16th century Orthodox Patriarch of Constantinople was never going to compromise with the Lutherans on (A) the episcopacy based on apostolic succession, (B) the number of sacraments as seven, (C) praying to the saints, particularly to Panagia (translated as All-Holy, the Eastern Orthodox name for the mother of Jesus) and (D) the veneration of icons.
2. If their dialogue continued, perhaps they might have considered developing a theology of the Pope as the Antichrist that was one of Martin Luther's teachings contained in his 1537 Smalcald Articles which became authoritative in Lutheranism when added to the Book of Concord in 1580. Luther's final written testament in 1545 was Against the Papacy, An Institution of the Devil, published one year before his death.
3. As it is, the Patriarch cut it short and for four and one half centuries since then there has been no major theological agreement ever enacted between Orthodoxy and Protestantism.
4. However, at the conclusion of the Catholic Church's Second Vatican Council on December 7, 1965, there was issued the JOINT CATHOLIC-ORTHODOX DECLARATION OF HIS HOLINESS POPE PAUL VI AND THE ECUMENICAL PATRIARCH ATHENAGORAS I (of Constantinople) whose No. 5 reads:
"Pope Paul VI and Patriarch Athenagoras I with his synod realize that this gesture of justice and mutual pardon is not sufficient to end both old and more recent differences between the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church."
"Through the action of the Holy Spirit those differences will be overcome through cleansing of hearts, through regret for historical wrongs, and through an efficacious determination to arrive at a common understanding and expression of the faith of the Apostles and its demands."
"They hope, nevertheless, that this act will be pleasing to God, who is prompt to pardon us when we pardon each other. They hope that the whole Christian world, especially the entire Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church will appreciate this gesture as an expression of a sincere desire shared in common for reconciliation, and as an invitation to follow out in a spirit of trust, esteem and mutual charity the dialogue which, with Gods help, will lead to living together again, for the greater good of souls and the coming of the kingdom of God, in that full communion of faith, fraternal accord and sacramental life which existed among them during the first thousand years of the life of the Church."
High-level visits and discussions between the LWF (Lutheran World Federation) and the Ecumenical Patriarchate, the spiritual leadership of the Orthodox world, began in 1967. Plans for a global ecumenical dialogue between the two sides began shortly afterwards and were developed over the following decade.
The international Lutheran-Orthodox Joint Commission met for the first time in Espoo, Finland, in 1981 and has been working continuously since then, creating common ground on different topics and agreeing on a number of joint statements. Significant common statements include Salvation: Grace, Justification and Synergy (1998) and Baptism and Chrismation as Sacraments of Initiation into the Church (2004). The topic of the current phase of dialogue, which began in 2019, is focused on the Holy Spirit in the life of the Church.
The Evangelical Church in Germany (EKD), which includes Reformed and United churches in its membership, has been especially active in encouraging regional dialogues with Orthodox churches. Intensive Lutheran-Orthodox dialogue has also been carried out in Finland.
Documents agreed upon and produced by regional dialogues since the 1960s include following dialogues:
Finnish Lutheran Church - Russian Orthodox Church
EKD (Evangelical Church in Germany) - Russian Orthodox Church
EKD - Ecumenical Patriarchate EKD - Romanian Orthodox Church
Federation of Evangelical Churches (BEK) [DDR] - Russian Orthodox Church
BEK [DDR] /EKD - Bulgarian Orthodox Church
Lutheran-Orthodox dialogue in the U.S.
Estonian Evangelical Lutheran Church - Estonian Apostolic Orthodox Church
- from Lutheran World Federation, "Lutheran - Orthodox dialogue"
@@mj6493 1. Is there anything in these agreements you mentioned between Lutherans and Orthodox on, for example, (A) the episcopacy being rooted in apostolic succession, (B) seven sacraments, i.e., the Seven Holy Mysteries, (C) prayers to saints including the mother of Jesus and (D) the veneration of icons? These four doctrines are common among the Catholic, Eastern and Oriental Orthodox Churches and the Assyrian Church of the East. To my knowledge, these four doctrines are not in common between Protestants and Orthodox.
2. Is there anything in these agreements between Lutherans and Orthodox about the Pope, the Catholic Bishop of Rome, being the Antichrist? Starting with Martin Luther, all of the 16th century Protestant Reformers were unanimous in teaching that the Pope is the Antichrist. These included those who both (A) formally taught this in their writings and (B) initiated movements that continue on to the present day, as in the aforementioned Luther (Lutheranism), John Calvin (Reformed), Thomas Cranmer (Anglicanism), and Calvin's student John Knox (Presbyterianism).
3. Following in the 17th century, (A) the free-lance Anglican clergyman John Wesley and founder of Methodism also taught the Pope is the Antichrist, as did (B) the 1646 Westminster Confession of Faith that became authoritative for the Church of Scotland and related Presbyterian churches worldwide and (C) the 1689 London Baptist Confession of Faith that the Reformed Churches adhere to.
4. The reason I mention this is that since there are contemporary Protestants who believe that the Pope is Antichrist, I would like to suggest to them an opening for fellowship with contemporary Orthodox who also hold similar views about the papacy. For example, Orthodox apologist and male enhancement supplement salesman Jay Dyer recommends in his December 1, 2022 youtube video 'Top 15 Orthodox Books - Introduction to Orthodox Theology' the book Orthodox Faith and Life in Christ by St. Justin Popovic.
5. According to Orthodox Wiki, Fr. Justin Popovic (1894-1979) "was formally glorified as saint by the Holy Synod of the Serbian Orthodox Church on May 2, 2010, and commemorated on June 1 each year."
6. In the aforementioned video, Jay Dyer states at 20:32-56: "This classic text by St. Justin Popovic, Orthodox Faith and Life in Christ, firstly because the essay that deals with the critique of natural theology and this is the great vindication of the stuff that I've said for so long that the Orthodox do not do natural theology the way that the Latins do and, you know, a lot of people got upset with that. They thought I was making it up. No, I'm just getting it from this (holding up the book). I'm just repeating what our saints say." Further at 20:57 - 21:15, Dyer states of Fr. Popovic's book: "Likewise he has great critiques of papalism at a philsophical, cultural, geopolitical level so all those things are also very key, very relevant and very necessary if you want to understand Orthodox theology."
7. Published in paperback in 1994, Orthodox Faith and Life in Christ by St. Justin Popovic contains the following passage from its chapter Reflections on the Infallibility of European Man:
"In the kingdom of humanism the place of the God-man has been usurped by the 'Vicarious Christi', and the God-man has thus been exiled to heaven...In the history of the human race there have been three principal falls: that of Adam, that of Judas, and that of the pope...the dogma of papal infallibility is not only a heresy but the greatest heresy against the True Church of Christ, which has existed in our temporal world as a theanthropic body ever since the appearance of the God-man. No other heresy has revolted so violently and so completely against the God-man Christ and His Church as has the papacy with the dogma of the pope-man's infallibility. There is no doubt about it. This dogma is the heresy of heresies, a revolt without precedent against the God-man Christ on this earth, a new betrayal of Christ, a new crucifixion of the Lord, this time not on wood but on the golden cross of papal humanism. And these things are hell, damnation for the wretched earthly being called man."
@@annakimborahpa These ecumenical dialogues usually result in lengthy statements that affirm common ground but also highlight areas of continuing conversation. Here’s a sample from dialogue on the apostolicity of the Church:
12. The church is apostolic because it is built upon the foundation of the apostles, of which Christ is the chief cornerstone (Ephesians 2:20), sent by his Father for the salvation of the world (John 3:16). The Church is apostolic in several senses. First, the original meaning of the word “apostolic” refers to one who is sent. The apostles are called apostles because they were sent by Christ to proclaim the Gospel to the whole creation (Mark 16:15). The Church is apostolic inasmuch as it continues to be obedient to Christ’s command to proclaim the Gospel to all nations and to baptize them into the Church (Matthew 28:19). Second, the Church is apostolic in that it devotes itself “to the apostles’ teaching and the fellowship, to the breaking of bread and the prayers” (Acts 2:42). This means that the Church maintains the living tradition received by the apostles from Christ, which includes both right teaching (orthodoxia) and right practice (orthopraxia).
a. The Orthodox affirm the apostolicity of the Church also as the continuation of the apostolic tradition, which is maintained by the historic succession of bishops as the heads of local eucharistic communities, which include the whole people of God. Thus the whole Church as communion across time and space does not look simply backward but forward because it is eschatological in character.
b. Lutherans understand the Church to be in succession to the Church of the apostles, teaching apostolic doctrine, preaching the gospel purely, and administering the sacraments rightly. Some Lutherans also point to their line of historic succession reaching back past the Reformation to the undivided Church, while other Lutherans emphasize the first two senses of the church’s apostolicity without denying the value of historic succession. Lutherans did not intend to start a new or other Church but to be faithful to the apostolic witness transmitted by the Church in the Scriptures, creeds, and ecumenical councils, especially evident in Lutheran teaching on the Trinity and the person of Christ. As Melanchthon comments in the Apology to the Augsburg Confession, “We have not said anything new here” (VII-VIII.7).
All of these lengthy statements are available online.
Regarding Lutheran statements on the papacy, I’d encourage caution. The 16th century polemic got pretty ugly on both sides. Lutherans today recognize this and are able to contextualize those statements historically and move forward toward better understanding.
@@mj6493 Thank you for the courtesy of your reply.
1. You wrote: "These ecumenical dialogues usually result in lengthy statements that affirm common ground but also highlight areas of continuing conversation."
Response: Would "continuing conversation" be a euphemism for disagreement between the Lutherans and Orthodox?
2. Regarding 12 b., were the Lutherans actually "faithful to the apostolic witness transmitted by the Church in the Scriptures, creeds, and ecumenical councils"?
A. The Lutherans rejected the Council of Trent's teaching that the number of sacraments is seven, which the Orthodox Churches (Eastern & Oriental), as well as the Assyrian Church of the East have accepted.
B. As a result, the Lutherans rejected the scriptural evidence for four of the seven sacraments:
(1) Confirmation: Acts of the Apostles 8:14-17
(2) Holy Orders: Genesis 14: 18-20; Psalm 110:4; Hebrews 7; Luke 22:14-20
(3) Marriage: Matthew 5:31-32; Ephesians 5:21-33
(4) Anointing of the Sick: James 5:14-15
3. The Lutherans, if they are faithful to Martin Luther's Smalcald Articles contained in the authoritative Book of Concord, reject the invocation of saints where he stated: “The invocation of saints is also one of the Antichrist’s abuses that conflicts with the chief article and destroys the knowledge of Christ.” Doesn't that mean the rejection of the Second Council of Nicaea's (A.D. 757) blessing the practice of venerating sacred images, which is first and foremost praying to Christ, His saints and His angels through their images?
4. Based upon 1-3 above, would it be accurate for Lutherans to include with Philip Melenchthon's statement “We have not said anything new here” the clarification of 'but rather we have subtracted'?
5. However, I say that Martin Luther actually added three new teachings which were adopted by all the subsequent 16th century Protestant Reformers, including Calvin, Cranmer and Knox:
A. Justification by faith alone:
(1) That on his own authority in his German translation of the Bible, Luther added the word ALONE (Allein) to Romans 3:28 to read, "For we hold that a man is justified by faith ALONE (Allein)" to justify his doctrine of Sola Fide, i.e., Justification by Faith Alone. [Michael Davies, Cranmer's Godly Order (Ft. Collins, Colorado, 1995), p.25.]
(2) That he wrote the following regarding his addition of the word ALONE (Allein) to Romans 3:28: "If your papist worries you about the word 'alone', just tell him plainly that Dr. Martin Luther will have it so, and says: 'Papist and donkey are one and the same thing; sic volo, sic jubeo, stat pro ratione voluntas.' ["I wish it, I command it. Let my will take the place of a reason." (Luther quoting the Latin from 1st-2nd AD author Juvenal's satirical poems Satyrai)] For we must not be the pupils or disciples of the papists, but on the contrary their masters and judges. We ought to swagger and hammer on their donkey-heads, and, as Paul challenged the sanctimonious fools of his day, so I will also challenge these donkeys of mine." [G.W. Bromiley, Thomas Cranmer Theologian (London, 1956), p.36.]
(3) That in addition to the above concerning Romans 3:28, Luther also wrote: "I am sorry now that I did not add the word 'all' so that it would read 'without all works of all laws', and thus ring out loudly and completely. However, it shall stand as it is in my New Testament, and though all the Papist-donkeys go mad about it, they shall not move me from this." [A. Hilliard Atteridge, Martin Luther (London, 1940), pp.19-20.]
B. That the Catholic Mass is an abomination before God:
(1) "I declare that all the brothels (though God has reproved them severely), all the manslaughters, murders, thefts and adulteries have wrought less abomination than the popish mass." [Martin Luther, D Martin Luthers Werke, Kritische Gesamtausgabe (Weimar, 1833), vol. XV, p. 774]
(2) "It is indeed upon the Mass as on a rock that the whole Papal system is built, with its monasteries, its bishoprics, its collegiate churches, its altars, its ministries, its doctrine, i.e., with all its guts. All these cannot fail to crumble once their sacrilegious and abominable Mass fails." [Martin Luther, Against Henry, King of England, 1522, D Martin Luthers Werke, Kritische Gesamtausgabe (Weimar, 1833), vol. X, p. 220]
C. And, of course, the teaching contained in Martin Luther's final published testament Against the Papacy, An Institution of the Devil where he personally addressed the Bishop of Rome with these words:
"I would not dream of judging or punishing you, except to say that you were born from the behind of the devil, are full of devils, lies, blasphemy, and idolatry; are the instigator of these things, God’s enemy, Antichrist, desolater of Christendom, and steward of Sodom." [Against the Roman Papacy, an Institution of the Devil, 1545, pg. 363 of Luther’s Works, Vol. 41]
Since you wrote, "The 16th century polemic got pretty ugly on both sides", could you provide me anything ugly on the Catholic side that matches Martin Luther's seemingly unparalleled gift for invective and insult as exemplified in the quote immediately above? Personally, I think that in his final years Luther was experiencing dementia brought on by years of excessive alcohol intake under the forms of wine and beer.
6. Regarding the papacy, perhaps a majority of Lutherans "are able to contextualize those statements historically and move forward toward better understanding", as well as doing the same mental compartmentalization with Martin Luther's second to last published work, his 1543 Against The Jews And Their Lie that four centuries later the Third Reich quoted as justification for the genocide of European Jewry.
7. However, some contemporary Lutherans, as well as other current day Protestants, persist in teaching the Pope is the Antichrist that involves an eschatological connotation in which this demonic institution will persist until vanquished by Jesus Christ at His Second Coming. For example:
A. In Ready to Harvest's youtube video of April 10, 2022, 'What is the Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod? (WELS)' the narrator states at 10:30-50: 'A very small part of the WELS lengthy treatise on the Pope being the Antichrist says':
"Since Scripture teaches that the Antichrist would be revealed and gives the marks by which the Antichrist is to be recognized (2 Thessalonians 2:6-8), and since this prophecy has been clearly fulfilled in the history and development of the Roman Papacy, it is Scripture that reveals that the Papacy is the Antichrist."
B. In the 21st century, the 1689 London Baptist Confession of Faith received a translation update into modern English published by The Founders Ministry, an independent association within the Southern Baptist Convention headed by Tom Ascol, who in 2022 made an unsuccessful bid for presidency of the SBC coming in second with approximately 40% of the vote. Chapter 26, Article 4 of that confession reads: "The Pope of Roman Catholicism cannot in any sense be head of the church; rather, he is the antichrist, the man of lawlessness, and the son of destruction, who exalts himself in the church against Christ and all that is called God. The Lord will destroy him with the brightness of his coming" (alluding to 2 Thessalonians 2:2-9).
@@annakimborahpa Your response is way more than I have the time to respond to, but I’ll try to make a few comments.
Ecumenically speaking, “continuing conversation” might mean a failure to come to an agreed common statement, but it might simply mean that a particular subject of conversation is scheduled for a later date.
You’ve certainly raked up a sizable collection of Lutheran invective. I can only reply that Luther was exceptional in his ability to use the most colorful and at times crass language to challenge his opponents. In my opinion, though, his charged polemic was coupled with a keen theological mind that set forth a Reformation that was overdue. Happily, there were more reasonable and constructive colleagues, like Philip Melanchthon and the later Lutheran scholastics, that gave form to the movement. Otherwise, the Reformation would have flamed out within Luther’s lifetime.
I would again caution you about characterizing Lutherans with some of the anti-Catholic invective of the 16th century. Sure, there are some Lutherans who want to carry the worst of that era into the present moment, but most do not.
Also, be careful about some of your claims about Lutheran doctrine. For example, Lutherans share with all Christians the two dominical sacraments, but that doesn’t mean that they have dispensed with the other rites. They still practice these rites, but because they don’t contain a physical element (like water, or bread and wine) combined with the Word of God, they are less inclined to call them sacraments. It’s largely a matter of definition, not theology. About the Mass, Luther was particularly speaking to the medieval abuses (i.e., the Mass as merit) not the Mass itself. He challenged any practice that obscured the Gospel. From the Augsburg Confession, Article 24: About the Mass, “Our churches are falsely accused of doing away with the mass, for we have kept the mass and celebrate it with the highest reverence.” On that, you would be better served by reading the Augsburg Confession and the Apology of the Augsburg Confession as a summary of Lutheran theology. Not everything Luther said or did was embraced by the movement that bears his name.
I feel it’s also important to comment on Luther’s late in life invective against the Jews. To be clear, no modern Lutheran would defend his criticism of the Jews. Lutheran Churches have condemned this writing and have apologized to the Jewish community for his hurtful comments. It is one of the saddest episodes in the Reformation. Wouldn’t you likewise want to condemn the treatment of Jews in Catholic Spain during the Inquisition?
Great video Gavin.
"We interpreted the scriptures to mean something no one before the 1500s believes". If you want to use the canon the church made then you should be a part of that church ☦
This video confirms the correctness of the response of the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople - write to us only on the matters of friendship and NOT on the matters of faith... as what you believe is NOT ancient Christian Faith delivered by the Lord to the Saints.
Does irenicism only include appreciation of certain truths found in Eastern Orthodoxy, or does it go further and regard Eastern Orthodoxy as a valid form of biblical Christianity?
The funny part is that most Lutherans consider themselves closer to Orthodoxy than to most Protestant traditions with the exception of Anglicanism.
From what authority did Luther draw on to relable books of the Bible as Apocrypha? If he believes in Sola Scriptura why would he alter the Scripture?
04:59: This is a great point. But I found during my Orthodox catechism that the Eastern Orthodox actually do differ on the nature of Scripture. EO reject Sola Scriptura. They don't see Scripture really as having a more authoritative ontological nature than Tradition (theopneustos) doesn't mean for them what it means for us as reformed Christians. They don't just differ on the _interpretation_ of Scriptures, they differ on the very nature of Scripture. Scripture isn't the EO's highest authority.
Really, Sola Fide and Sola Scriptura are the two foundation stones on which EO either stands or falls (along with Roman Catholicism).
I’m getting to a point where all three sides whether they’re right or wrong it’s not something I want to be a part of. Or anything divergent. I’m not deconstructing. I love Jesus by trying to keep his commands because that’s how he says to love him. I don’t care for all the big words anymore. All of us need to remember that narrow is the way that leads to life and wide is the way that leads to destruction. If you’re in a big group that all agree, maybe you should take a look at yourself. And start noticing those solitary people, the quiet ones that are watching all the sides. And fully engaged with the spirit and the word.
Gavin, do you believe Catholics are saved?
Yes he does...
Some of them
The divided body is deeply tragic and sad. I see both sides.
The Orthodox see themselves as the defenders of the true faith; the true church. I can respect that. And truth be told, they have a good claim to it. And while I am turned off by the sectarianism and politics of the institution, I am drawn to the actual practice of true, ancient piety, discipleship, holiness, and training in godliness. Orthodoxy at its best is glorious.
On the other hand, St. Peter’s revelation has to be taken to heart by all Christians: “Truly I understand that God shows no partiality, but in every nation anyone who fears him and does what is right is acceptable to him.” (Acts 10:34-35)
The first question that pops up in my head is the following: Is icon veneration right and acceptable to God?
Man, what you say about genuine humility is spot on. We all see through a glass darkly. None of us are the Church TM! ⛪️
I can't wait to see you on Discord on Friday! Unfortunate the event starts at midnight where I am, but I am *not* missing it!
You should read the responses from the reformers after being asked to correct their errors.
Indeed, this a bit of one sided presentation of the topic.
What happened?
Do you know of people who have also talked about this topic?
Well clearly the Reformers were very humble and devoted to unity. In other news, it appears the UMC is about to make a proclamation on something, so we should get our cigars handy, because probably at least three new denominations are gonna be born as a result
@@wayned803 very humble people lol
@@1984SheepDog I'm hoping one day Gavin does a video about the Calvin vs Sadoletto debate with the result that at least one Protestant viewer has the initially unsettling but ultimately beneficial epiphany of "Uhm...why is this lawyer arguing with a solemnly sworn and sacramentally ordained successor of the Apostles of Jesus?"
So Jeremiah basically wrote
“Here I stand, I can do no other” ? 😜
😀
Have you dialogued recently with the American Orthodox Church?
The filioque was one of the primary reasons that the Great Schism happened, of course the Orthodox weren't going to overlook that with the Reformers. Adherence to the filioque is a rejection of the original Nicea-Constantioplitan creed, which is the clearest exposition of the Orthodox faith. The Reformers didn't adhere to the creed, so of course the Orthodox viewed them as being of a different faith.
That is the position today that Eastern Orthodox say, but it is ex post rationalization that does not stand up to historical facts. Regarding the Filioque, The Creed at Nicea in 325 said nothing of procession (and the earlier Apostles Creed, the baptismal Creed of the Church of Rome, dating to the time of Saint Hippolytus of Rome says nothing of procession). At Constantinople in 381 AD, the Eastern Church, mostly Greek Bishops from regions near Constantinople added to the Creed unilaterally (stop and think about that). At Ephesus in 431 AD, the Creed was recited in its original Nicene form. It wasn't till the Council of Chalcedon in 451 that Constantinople was given "Ecumenical status".
Now by the time of Chalcedon in 451 AD, where it was the Latin Theological formula and Doctrine of Pope Saint Leo the Great which became the dogmatic Christological definition regarding the hypostatic union of the Divine and Human natures of Christ, the same Pope Leo in Letter 15 in the sub-section "The Priscillianists' denial of the Trinity refuted" clearly teaches the Filioque. Now, was Pope Saint Leo the Great unorthodox for teaching the Filioque? (you can find Pope Leo the Great's Letter 15 at newadvent). So the Eastern Orthodox approved Pope Saint Leo the Great as "Peter speaking through Leo" at Chalcedon in 451 AD when years before he taught the "Filioque" You can't have it both ways.
Prior to Pope Leo the Great, numerous Fathers in the West taught the Filioque.Saint Hillary of Poitiers (The Trinity circa 356 AD). Saint Ambrose in Milan teaches it in his work on the Holy Spirit (381 AD), Saint Augustine teaches it numerous writings, and in the East, it is clear that Saint Cyril of Alexandria teaches it in his work "On the Trinity" (423 AD). Nicea in 325 AD said do not change the Creed, they (Constantinopile in 381 AD) did unilaterally). Rome saw the addition to the Creed as not changing the faith but Rome understood the procession of the Holy Spirit to mean from the Father "through the Son" (a Patre per filium), which was a valid expression of the procession that was also found in the works of Hillary and Augustine, although they preferred from the Father and Son.
Maximus the Confessor, viewed the Filioque as a valid expression of the Creed that did not conflict with the procession "a Patre per filium". It was Patriarch Photios 1 who was from what gather, the first to assert the Filioque was heretical. That of course was also due to other conflicts he had with the Pope in Rome. So both expressions from the Catholic point of view that I noted above, are valid. But the rigid Eastern position that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father "alone" which seems to often theorized from the Roman view makes it hard to see how the Son and Holy Spirit are different.
Under both expressions, regardless if the Creed states the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and Son or the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son, the Source of the Trinity is still the Father according to Catholic Doctrine.
@@palermotrapani9067 Well that’s a lot of history I can’t respond to out of my own ignorance. But it still stands that this would have been the EP’s position, hence why he would respond the way he did.
@@benwiegold5051 The issue with the Lutherans, who held to the Filioque, dealt with way more issues beyond just that. Ecclesiology, sacraments (all 7), the eucharistic theology of the Lutherans, soteriology, sola fide, among them.
@@palermotrapani9067 Of course, these are all reasons that the EP would have viewed them as not being part of the same church, but given the context regarding Rome, my only point is that the Filioque would have been top of the list. I think it’s the first point addressed in the EP’s 3rd letter actually.
@@benwiegold5051 Ok, my understanding is we are looking at why the EO viewed the Lutherans has not only schismatics, but holding to many heretical doctrines. Rome does not require the Filioque to be said in the Eastern Churches that are in communion with Rome. They can say the Creed without it.
So true Dr Gavin Irenicism is most certainly the way to go, although this is very difficult at times when it comes to certain aspects of doctrine. Even reading in the Gospels Jesus Himself had a few skirmishes with those who believed in the God of the Bible
Bro. Gavin, is there anything to be said, in the search for the "true church," about the fruit (Matthew 7:20)? If we are to know true prophets by their fruit, can we know which congregation "speaks for Christ" more surely by _their_ fruit? If so, are there differences between Protestant and Orthodox (and Roman Catholic) on what is meant by fruit. If not, can it be any kind of guide? If the question isn't clear, I'll be glad to clarify. Thanks, my friend! Love your channel!
As we have said before, so I say again now, if any man is preaching to you a gospel contrary to what you received, he is to be accursed!
Galatians 1:9 NASB
This book of God's word won't let me believe Rome has the gospel.
I will unite with all who actually trust Christ alone for peace with God.
thanks.. excellent words
I see Sola Scriptura as a compromise because you must assume the text is self-sufficient. Clearly it is not.
Sola Fide is often described as a forensic declaration. However, this contradicts James' understanding. Even the demons have faith and tremble. So then, by what does God judge you? By actions (works). Too many protestant churches almost promote atheism, just live in faith good luck!
The early Church was exclusive as you acknowledge. I wonder why? The answer to that question is the key to the differences, pretty simple. Be honest with the answer to that question and you will convert to Orthodoxy, Christ’s Church formed at Pentecost, and prophesied throughout the Old Testament.
@@mthf5645 No need to, the theology doesn’t constantly change.
@@mthf5645 What? Those councils occurred when it was all one Church, in order to explicate doctrine, not invent it, and also counter heresy that threatened the Christian faith.
I am not sure how I feel about this video. I do appreciate your commitment for Christians to love one another but this is a bit bias against the Orthodox side. This is a but extreme comparison but I see the Orthodox as meeting a Mormon for the first time. They see their beliefs as completely wrong. To deny the "correct" interpretation of Holy Scripture and the True Presence of the Eucharist is to literally deny Christ. Same as in the Marburg Colloquy with Luther and Zwingli.
It is easy to say we need to focus on a mere Christianity but one side will obviously see themselves as correct. To compromise is blasphemous.
I disagree, and the Orthadox were familiar with everything the Lutherans believed. It was nowhere near meeting a Mormon.
I think this was fair coverage.
The Point Gavin made brother was that both sides see themselves as correct not just 1 side. Exclusivity is what Gavin speaks against.
@@Mrdllish777 yes but that's Gavin's opinion. If the Orthodox Church disagrees with Lutheran scholarship they're not required to give up their faith for the sake of "unity".
That's not how true unity works.
The only dogma of Eastern Orthodox that stands in the way of communal relations with Protestants, is the belief that all are condemned to hell if not a member of the Eastern Orthodox Church. There is a large swath of Protestants who think orthodox aren’t Christians because of the issue of “sola fide” however that part of Protestantism’s once held view is changing quite rapidly the more both sides learn about each other. But to believe that anyone outside Eastern Orthodoxy is damned, is a very very difficult doctrine to defend based on scripture, and while I agree with you that it is extremely dangerous to “give up” doctrines for the sake of unity, especially if those doctrines are deeply held convictions, it’s also extremely dangerous to hold fundamental convictions that are not in scripture.
@@IC_XC_NIKA Because that’s how Protestantism works, and that’s the lense through which Gavin sees things, which I disagree with.
I can see the view that Jeremiah was condescending but I don’t know if I agree with it. Am I the only one who kind of loves Jeremiah? Based and fatherly.
There’s no need to wrestle together for the truth when it’s already been recognized by the Church. Ex: number of and reason for sacraments.
There is not one church father who thought the number of sacraments was 7. Not a single one. Locking oneself into that view and blocking out dialogue is neither based nor fatherly.
@@TruthUnitesfair enough. I see the thinking. But we’re not saying ECFs recognized and taught the number of sacraments. But the Church eventually and authoritatively did. And the Lutherans disagreed. Their prerogative. But the Catholic and Orthodox Churches are not obligated to rehash what’s already been recognized. Someone either agrees or they don’t.
Hey Gavin, have you encountered any of the more recent Orthodox theologians that are saying the same thing about the number of sacraments in the fathers? They're taking more of a maximalist view now of what a sacrament is, but they'd still say more than two. Do you have any thoughts on that?
@@GratiaPrima_ the mentality you are presenting is exactly that's being addressed in this video.
The EO patriarch would say the same thing to Roman Catholics when it comes to the Filioque, purgatory, papacy etc. Hopefully that helps you see why this mentality can make unity across institutional lines impossible.
My friend, you have missed something in your video - something very crucial in my opinion. During those times, the Greeks were subject to the Ottoman, and the Patriarchate had a double role: To preserve the Eastern Orthodox faith and to preserve the Greek-Roman nation, by keeping it subject and representing it to the Sultan. Such was the deal between the Patriarchate and Mehmed II, the Conquerer.
The Patriarch could hope for a Crusade from the West that would liberate Constantinople, but at the same time he should be extremely cautious in his conduct to the West, which was always unpleasant for the Sultan. The morale was low, the antagonism for the seat of the Patriarch was fierce, there were traitors everywhere, and with the slightest suspicion that he was dealing for some kind of alliance with Western powers, he could loose his head. In my opinion, we can't be sure whether Jeremiah expressed religious arrogance towards the Lutheran theologians or just tried to find a diplomatic way to disconnect with them, either for the fear of the Sultan or because he didn't wish to take position in the Catholic-Protestant conflict. After all, the only powers that were still waging wars against the Ottoman were under the juristiction of the Pope: It was Genoa and Venice. Germany was still far away, incapable of any help to the enslaved Greeks.
Another attempt for religious understanding with the Protestant realm was made during the leadership of the westernphile Patriarch, Cyril Lucaris, who initiated a dialogue with the Calvinists - a dialogue who was encouraged by the English and the Dutch and discouraged by the French and the Austrians...
As you may understand, Jesus and true faith was not the main menu in this dialogue, at least from the Orthodox part. Lucaris even offered to accept all the doctrines of Calvinism, something that lead to an anticipated opposition from the Church that he lead. He was dethroned thrice and his efforts ended when the Sultan ordered his death through strangulation.
The Greeks had long ago given up hoping the western Christians could free them from the Ottoman Yoke.
The legacy of man made churches
Makes me chuckle. How do you think the Jews feel about the genesis of Christianity as a church wholly separate from Judaism?
@@joeoleary9010 jews had four factions and one were the Pharisees who created the synagogues commentaries and the rabbinical tradition, not the biblical Israel or tribe of Judah. Modern rabbinical traditions are not biblical they are Talmundic.
@@captainmarvel76927 Pick any or all factions, and try to see this charge of "man made" from a Jewish perspective. We took their scriptures, added on our own while explaining the OT as we liked, and then declared that Judaism was dead and our new product was the Real Deal. Hence my chuckle.
@@joeoleary9010 ahhh, we 👀
@@captainmarvel76927
Yes, we
I think you've misunderstood the tone of the EP. If people approach him with his titles and expressing a desire for union, he's going to see them as offering to be spiritual sons. It's literally an informal institution within Orthodoxy. Then he offers correction and instruction about how to move forward. As it becomes clear that's not what's happening, he changes his tone. From his perspective, these are divisive sectarians that will not submit to anybody's judgments and feigned the offer for union.
A good parallel would be the discussions between Christians who have embraced the novel views on gender that have cropped up and those who hold to the historical forms. The former get frustrated when their positions aren't treated as equals at the table. The latter, to whom I belong, don't think such a novel and innovative view should be treated as an equal. It is something new and different. I will speak to the person for a little while, but there comes a point when I tell them we need to agree to disagree and move on. They also likewise approach with "We want to have dialogue," but it is rarely more than an attempt to draw me into their camp. Both sides end up frustrated. I think this is a very good parallel to what happened.
Jeremiah also embraced catholicity. "Catholic" wasn't an inclusive theological term until fairly recently. It started in Ignatius, and its entire purpose was to exclude people that weren't in his church. That's its purpose in the creed; all creeds are by nature exclusionary. "Catholic" is from Aristotle's attributes of καθ' εκαστων and καθ' καθολων with the former meaning "individual" or "particular" attributes and the latter denoting attributes that are part necessary for a complete example of something. I have hazel eyes, which are not catholic for a human. I have a head. That is catholic for a human. In the sense used in the first centuries (with no exceptions I can think of), "catholic" is used to describe the body that is complete, lacking nothing to be a proper church. The sectarians, by contrast, are lacking something. "Universal" as a definition comes later, and the irenic across communions much later. The patriarch would use the oldest definition, which is still in use among Orthodox (cf. Zizioulas' work on it).