Catholic position to salvation is very humble remember the bible say he who humbles will be....... We don't command God but we lay low allowing him to pick us for we trust him
1:17 Having left the Missouri Synod for the Orthodox Church, I find that I have a greater comfort now than I ever did before, for I know that I have been joined to the physical body of Christ of which St. Paul speaks, and that through the liturgical and sacramental life, the obedience to and counsel of a spiritual father, the asceticism and simplicity, and the celestial intercessions provided by her I may participate in the life of Christ. "Everyone falls alone," St. Cyprian writes, "but we are being saved in the community." No longer do the throes of spiritual autonomy hedge me about, that radical liberation of the soul which borders on nihilism, the fruit of that institutionalized adiaphoristic tyranny which ever isolates and atomizes each person under its communion. Spiritual individualism is the poisoned fruit of modernity, not a blessing of our Lord through His Church, yet it is the beating heart of the Lutheran tradition.
@@crossvilleengineering1238 Greetings, my friend. Christ is born! It is true what you say about asceticism being the heart of Orthodoxy, or perhaps a chamber of the heart along with prayer---and that is a breath of fresh air, might I say. Too many retort to the same unstudied buzzwords of "idolatry" and "Pelagianism" when describing the locus of Orthodox spirituality. Yet even your concept of asceticism here is deeply colored by Protestant individualism. Asceticism is always communal. The only exception is the rare case of a hermit blessed to live in such a way by the Church, tried by many years of living in a community and proven with ever-burning love to be heirs of the angelic life, as were St. John the Baptist and St. Elijah the Prophet from the Holy Scriptures. Yet this lot falls to exceedingly few, and even in living a life apart from the world, it is paradoxically one entirely for the world and for its salvation, girded by ceaseless prayer for the good and welfare of all mankind, and sharing hospitality and spiritual counsel with pilgrims, as did St. Paisios of Mt. Athos and St. Herman of Alaska of a more recent time. Yet we cannot allow ourselves to get caught-up over-exploring razor-thin caverns which neither of us can fit into. Every Orthodox Christian lives in a community of some sort, be it a monastery or a parish. We follow the prayer and fasting rules given to us by our priests and spiritual fathers, tailored especially to the needs of the person or the family, families praying and fasting together. Elder Ephraim of Arizona even writes that there are no individual monastic and familial spirits, but that the two are one, that Orthodox families do and ought to pray the hours together, to read the life of the saints at meals, that children ask for blessings from their parents, union with God being the common goal for all. Godparents devote their lives to prayer for and spiritual counsel of their godchildren, they take them up to receive communion together, and in some traditions even provide the Christian name for their godchildren. Little children help littler children up to venerate the icons. Families blend together during Divine Liturgy, to the degree that it appears all are truly one, one body of Christ and one family of God. Our individuality is preserved in that every person has slightly different gifts and spiritual needs---and this is only natural, the Blessed Trinity creates us all with a distinct who-ness to our personhood, that we might beautify and restore all facets of creation with the love of God, and offer back up to Him that which He has so freely given to us. Yet not all things pertain to our personhood, our individual who-ness, but some things to our human nature, our collective what-ness, and one of those is the need for community. Every person is going to have their own level of sanctity, yet we share one common path to the sanctified life: living through virtue in community. Such is the Orthodox life.
@@crossvilleengineering1238 - I struggled mightily between the Lutheran Church and Orthodoxy for some 8 years, so I hear ya on the struggle. There were many times over that span that I resolved never to think about Orthodoxy again and just be a good Lutheran. Ascetism is definitely more important in Orthodoxy than it is in Lutheranism. In Lutheranism it is technically Ok ("Fasting and bodily preparation are certainly fine outward training."), but almost impossible to find support on from one's pastor or the community. Asceticism is viewed suspiciously as an attempt at self-justification and works righteousness, so suspiciously that it is never really attempted in a salutary way (from a Lutheran POV). Most Lutherans I know who attempt anything that looks like asceticism do so because they're following Fad diets and exercise programs. I even know one former LCMS fellow who is now Orthodox because he was learning about the benefits of intermittent fasting for his health and when he wanted to know more about a Christian or Lutheran view of fasting, he got nothing from his pastor nor could find anything online, but Orthodoxy had a lot to say about the spiritual benefits of fasting as he searched. Fasting and asceticism occurs for most Orthodox folks under the guidance of their spiritual father/priest, and it's there where ascetical pursuits are held in balance, or as a Lutheran would think about it, where Law and Gospel is applied in the spiritual life.
@@crossvilleengineering1238 Likewise with you. It is difficult nowadays to have a disagreement with somebody where the exchange remains charitable yet honest. I. Fr. Seraphim Rose of blessed memory begins his work "Nihilism: The Root of the Revolution of the Modern Age" by affirming that different modernistic intellectual heritages are going to carry different degrees or stages of nihilism. A parallel can be drawn between this and the degrees of individualism carried by various Protestant spiritual traditions. After all, they are united in the act of usurping the obedience to and love of the tradition, episcopacy, councils, liturgy, Fathers, and in general the authority of the Church. I realize that is painting with a broad brush, but it is true at the end of the day. Anabaptists, darkened by the revolutionary spirit, abandoned all of this with great malice. Lutherans, on the other hand, conditionally kept some things based on one's own interpretation of the Scriptures through the Confessions, which itself has had quite a bit of variance even from the earliest days of Lutheran Saxony and Sweden. There are gradients to spiritual individualism, and Lutheranism is well on that spectrum. II. Could you define "empirical church" for me? It is true that the Apologia says that the Church can be found wheresoever "the Gospel is taught purely and the sacraments are administered rightly," (CA VII.i) yet the composition of that Church is a sort of invisible "assembly of saints and true believers," (VIII.i) which lacks a sort of perpetual visible identity, or institutionality. St. Paul, on the other hand, writes of the Church in somatic terms: She is the body of Christ. And as Christ is Incarnate, so too must She be, having a perpetual visible identity and being circumscribable. She is not an abstract, Platonic union of right-believing souls, lest we confess the same of our Lord. III. The Orthodox Church would wholly agree with this, of course. There is nothing with which man may cooperate without the grace of God, communicated through the God-breathed and divine Scriptures. As my patron, St. Isidore of Seville, writes: "Reading the Sacred Scriptures confers a double gift: it teaches the intellect of the mind and it leads the person drawn away by the vanities of the world to the love of God. For, often stirred up by the words we read, we are drawn away from the desire of a worldly life and, rising up in the love of wisdom, the more the empty hope of this mortality becomes without value to us, the more fully eternal hope has shone forth." (Sententiae III.viii.4)
I have watched many videos related to EO vs RC or EO vs Lutheran or EO vs other denominations. The EO commentators are always the same; very militant, very judgemental, and often quite hostile to those who have a different perspective. If someone in the comments indicates they left EO for another denomination, other EO commentators quickly attack and question or tell them to reconsider their decision. Also, I find it strange that every convert to EO feels the need to let you know they converted from something else and why that something else was so inferior. It is as if they brainwash you when you join the EO church. I find it all very strange, almost cult-ish. From 40 years of personal experience, I can also tell you that the beliefs and practices of the common layperson in the EO church would be very troubling to most Christians. I have EO relatives that pin Bible passages, rolled up in a small leather pouch, on the back of their baby's outfit to ward off the evil eye from jealous passersby. There is an EO priest that travels around the USA with a cross that supposedly came from Christ's cross, and it can heal all kinds of cancers, sicknesses, etc. if he waves it over that part of the body. There is the "church of miracles" on the island of Tinos (in Greece) where people believe they can be healed if they touch an icon in that church. There is a priest/monk at a monastery in Arizona that EO people believe has achieved Theosis, and people come from all over the world to have him give them future guidance or heal them of any kind of sickness or health issue. I can go on and on, but I think you get the picture. All of you theologians need to pay attention to the impact and reality of EO teachings on its laymen, not just theological arguments and understandings.
How so? If a Lutheran felt drawn to the Orthodox Church, the question is specifically "why stay Lutheran" and not "why convert to Lutheranism". This talk was given to a Lutheran audience, not to people thinking of converting to Lutheranism.
I remember watching these talks before I left the LCMS for Orthodoxy. I learned and benefited much from Pastor Weedon’s blogs and interviews over the years and his teaching made me a more confident Lutheran while I was there. Having grown up in a traditional TLH congregation (no frills TLH) he moved me through his popular teaching to a deeper Lutheranism: the Book of Concord, liturgy and church fathers, etc. He sharpened an aspect of the journey for me. Here and other places he will mention unfair comparisons between Lutheranism and Orthodoxy among those who leave confessional Lutheranism for Orthodoxy, comparing the worst of Lutheranism with the best of Orthodoxy, and so forth. I remain grateful for this observation as it made me more careful in the process. Why was I attracted to Orthodoxy when confessional Lutheranism is so robust and solid? Was I unintentionally making unfair comparisons? At least for myself I took this admonition from Pastor Weedon seriously and while it made my journey longer and more difficult in some ways, it enabled me to leave Lutheranism for Orthodoxy with a good conscience, for I was no longer a Lutheran by conviction and could no longer hold to the Book of Concord as an expression of my faith. I also owe a debt of gratitude to those LCMS pastors and laity who wrote up such strong and lengthy refutations against the possibility communing baptized infants in Lutheranism. If it was not for the extensive written arguments available on blogs, in research papers and comment sections I would have never been moved to examine this topic so closely and realized so much was wrong. For if the Augsburg Confession was correct, that the Church is the congregation of the saints where the Gospel is rightly taught and the sacraments rightly administered then ironically the confessional Lutheran church I was born and raised in was formally committed to a misapplication of law and Gospel on baptized infants and toddlers in all her reasons for denying these new Christians the life-giving true Body and true Blood of her Lord.
@@ro6ti - To your first question, there’s no need to rationalize anything related to this prayer. To the second question, no. I’m not sure why you’re asking such a question, but I’m assuming it’s because your knowledge about Orthodoxy is based primarily on social media and this is some sort of “gotcha” attempt based on something you heard and not on concrete interaction with Orthodox people or clergy.
@@Mklg7012 That prayer uses strong language toward Mary, as you know, I'm sure. This would give most orthodox Lutherans strong reason to pause. If it didn't for you, then there's no need for you to explain why. I was just curious "where you started from" and that answered that question easily. Thanks. Also, thanks for assuming my experience, but I spent many years interacting with Orthodox folks before there ever was "social media" and I spent at least a decade attending DL 50 miles away as frequently as possible - even stopping some days while there to pray outside when nobody was around. I was sincere (though wasn't able to go the distance and convert) and I'm definitely not a newbie. I respect an even love those I knew back then. Some have passed on. Anyway, it's nice to hear that your priest and others don't have hesitations with saying "Christ died for our sins." That isn't the case for all EO folks and some even fight it and have "violent" reactions to it. I've had discussions on forums with some who have serious problems with such language because they have serious atonement theory phobias. There are videos of EO priests expressing the same notions. It's rather shocking to me, honestly. No discussion needed here... been there done that. Ha! I was just curious what your experience was on your path and you answered well enough. Thanks.
@@ro6ti - my experience is being born and raised in a traditional TLH congregation, and getting exposed to confessional Lutheranism in high school and college by the new Lutheran media that was so effective at taking out the Kieschnick administration. I once was quite zealous for a deeper and more robust Lutheranism than what I had growing up. I come from a deeply Lutheran family, lots of parochial school teachers and pastors. I was, once upon a time, as Lutheran and committed to the cause as Pastor Weedon or any one else in the room when he recorded that talk. Obviously that changed after more education at LCMS institutions of higher education and deeper reflection and experience. I came to realize that the confessional Lutheran claims I had learned did not pass the test, and I read everything and listened to the best confessional theology and professors the Synod has to offer. And my rejection of confessional Lutheranism is tied specifically to the doctrinal claims of the Book of Concord. It was right to leave, in Orthodoxy I have experienced law and gospel rightly divided and applied rather than hearing about what it’s theoretically supposed to be. Contrary to Weedon, my conscience finally became well when I got out of Lutheran doctrine and practice. Orthodoxy is the Church, confessional Lutheranism is not the genuine continuation of the orthodox and catholic faith. Invoking the saints, whether it’s the Theotokos or another saint was the most difficult issue for me to overcome, so I understand spiritually and in every other sense there is why you and other Lutherans have the walls up and the canons firing night and day over it. But there’s nothing to rationalize about the prayer service you object to. It can’t be shoehorned into a Lutheran theological construct bc the soteriological constructs between the two traditions are so different. If your Lutheran assumptions are in place, it makes no sense and is false doctrine. But once you realize the assumptions you’ve been given to approach theology are flawed as a Lutheran, you can understand what’s going on Orthodoxy on her own merits rather than a biased filtered.
@@Mklg7012 Your final paragraph describes it well. You say it's a matter of being "shoehorned" but, to me it's a matter of reason and the Bible. If this last statement of mine was coming from someone who had only a cursory look and a quick rejection based on "talking points" as you like to call it, then I'd actually sit on your side, as a matter of fairness. I don't like quick judgment. But, with sincerity (if you only knew) I've looked into it and even "bent" my mind away from the "western" assumptions to the Orthodox way. Yes, it's more than just intellectual. It's ontological etc... I understand. I won't tell my whole story, but I will say that the Word of God in the Bible healed my mind. I don't want to make this a novel. I'll just say, the simplicity of the Gospel, that Jesus Christ died on the Cross for our sins and that we enter eternal life now through faith in Him, and we grow in Him and He in us, by His Spirit, until we are taken to be with Him on the Last Day... the simplicity of this Gospel, I could not find clearly and consistently expressed in EO. There's always language that obscures it to me. For example, Paul never once mentioned Mary's name, but EO conversation and prayer is "shot through" with Mary. If my faith is the same as Paul's, it needs to sound like Paul and be defended like Paul if a cultist tries to challenge the Gospel. Anyway, today I can share and explain the Cross with clarity to others and I love to hear it faithfully each Sunday. So, that's where I remain. I do appreciate and respect where you are. Thanks for the conversation.
The more I looked into Eastern Orthodoxy, the less I was drawn to it and the more I realized it was in error, from Synodikon to Mandatory iconodulia. Mandatory iconodulia is in no way Pauline nor is there really any good evidence for it in the apostolic era. PSA is clear in the Fathers, but the answers differ depending on whom you ask in Orthodoxy. Toll houses aren't Scriptural, but some Eastern Orthodox swear by them while others call them heresy. Sola Scriptura rightly understood is clear in the early fathers, and no, it's not found only by cherrypicking them. You can clearly find most of Reformational theology in the Fathers' own writing in context and it gets old hearing EOs and RCs appropriate the Fathers as their own but when you show them where they disagree with the Fathers, they write it off as "well, they can err, but Tradition™️..." It gets so old. I believe people generally go there for mysticism, the threat that if you're not in their group you're necessarily damned according to their own canons, and the appeal of an alleged apostolic succession.
“But as for ourselves, we were agreed that there is something more trustworthy than any of these artificial conclusions, namely, that which the teachings of Holy Scripture point to: and so I deem that it is necessary to inquire, in addition to what has been said, whether this inspired teaching harmonizes with it all.” St. Gregory Nyssa On the Soul and the Resurrection “We do not think that it is right to make their prevailing custom the law and rule of sound doctrine. For if custom is to avail for of soundness, we too, surely, may advance our we not bound to follow theirs. Let the inspired Scripture, then, be our umpire, and the vote of truth will surely be given to those whose dogmas are found to agree with the Divine words.” St. Gregory Nyssa On the Holy Trinity "The Holy Ghost Himself spoke the Scriptures; He has also spoken concerning Himself as much as He pleased, or as much as we could receive. Let us therefore speak those things which He has said; for whatsoever He has not said, we dare not say." St. Cyril of Jerusalem Catechetical Lecture 16 "[W]e are not entitled to such licence, I mean that of affirming what we please; we make the Holy Scriptures the rule and the measure of every tenet; we necessarily fix our eyes upon that, and approve that alone which may be made to harmonize with the intention of those writings." St. Gregory of Nyssa, affirming Macrina's thoughts On the Soul and the Resurrection But as for ourselves, we were agreed that there is something more trustworthy than any of these artificial conclusions, namely, that which the teachings of Holy Scripture point to: and so I deem that it is necessary to inquire, in addition to what has been said, whether this inspired teaching harmonizes with it all.” St. Gregory Nyssa On the Soul and the Resurrection “We do not think that it is right to make their prevailing custom the law and rule of sound doctrine. For if custom is to avail for of soundness, we too, surely, may advance our we not bound to follow theirs. Let the inspired Scripture, then, be our umpire, and the vote of truth will surely be given to those whose dogmas are found to agree with the Divine words.” St. Gregory Nyssa On the Holy Trinity "For if we told you to be persuade by arguments, you might well be perplexed: but if we bid you believe the Scriptures, and these are simple and true, the decision is easy for you. If any agree with the Scriptures, he is the Christian." St. John Chrysostom Homilies on Acts Homily 33 "But since holy Scripture is of all things most sufficient for us, therefore recommending to those who desire to know more of these matters, to read the Divine word, I now hasten to set before you that which most claims attention, and for the sake of which principally I have written these things." St. Athanasius Ad Episcopus Aegypti et Libyae Chapter 1 “But this all inspired Scripture also teaches more plainly and with more authority, so that we in our turn write boldly to you as we do, and you, if you refer to them, will be able to verify what we say. For an argument when confirmed by higher authority is irresistibly proved… ...For the people of the Jews of old had abundant teaching, in that they had the knowledge of God not only from the works of Creation, but also from the divine Scriptures.” St. Athanasius Against the Heathen “[W]herefore we offer the doxology to the Father with the Son. But we do not rest only on the fact that such is the tradition of the Fathers; for they too followed the sense of Scripture, and started from the evidence which, a few sentences back, I deduced from Scripture and laid before you.” Basil the Great De Spiritu Sancto “There is, brethren, one God, the knowledge of whom we gain from the Holy Scriptures, and from no other source. For just as a man, if he wishes to be skilled in the wisdom of this world, will find himself unable to get at it in any other way than by mastering the dogmas of philosophers, so all of us who wish to practise piety will be unable to learn its practice from any other quarter than the oracles of God. Whatever things, then, the Holy Scriptures declare, at these let us took; and whatsoever things they teach, these let us learn; and as the Father wills our belief to be, let us believe; and as He wills the Son to be glorified, let us glorify Him; and as He wills the Holy Spirit to be bestowed, let us receive Him. Not according to our own will, nor according to our own mind, nor yet as using violently those things which are given by God, but even as He has chosen to teach them by the Holy Scriptures, so let us discern them.” Hippolytus Against the Heresy of Noetus “What then, shall be our way of arguing? We shall answer nothing new, nothing of our own invention, though they challenge us to it; we shall fall back upon the testimony in Holy Scripture about the Spirit, whence we learn that the Holy Spirit is Divine, and is to be called so. Now, if they allow this, and will not contradict the words of inspiration, then they, with all their eagerness to fight with us, must tell us why they are for contending with us, instead of with Scripture. We say nothing different from that which Scripture says.” Gregory Nyssa On the Holy Spirit "For concerning the divine and holy mysteries of the Faith, not even a casual statement must be delivered without the Holy Scriptures; nor must we be drawn aside by mere plausibility and artifices of speech. Even to me, who tell you these things, give not absolute credence, unless thou receive the proof of the things which I announce from the Divine Scriptures. For this salvation which we believe depends not on ingenious reasoning , but on demonstration of the Holy Scriptures." St. Cyril of Jerusalem Catechetical Lecture 4 “That the man of God may be perfect. For this is the exhortation of the Scripture given, that the man of God may be rendered perfect by it; without this therefore he cannot be perfect. You have the Scriptures, he says, in place of me. If you would learn anything, you may learn it from them. And if he thus wrote to Timothy, who was filled with the Spirit, how much more to us!” St. John Chrysostom Homily 9 on II Timothy (3:17) “RULE TWENTY-SIX That every word and deed should be ratified by the testimony of the Holy Scripture to confirm the good and cause shame to the wicked… RULE TWENTY-EIGHT That we should not be readily and thoughtlessly carried away by those who make pretense of the truth, but we should recognize each from the sign given us by the Scriptures” St. Basil the Great The Morals "What is the mark of a faithful soul? To be in these dispositions of full acceptance on the authority of the words [of the Scripture], not venturing to reject anything- nor making additions. For, if 'all that is not of faith is sin, as the Apostle says, [ Rom. 14:23 ] and 'faith cometh by hearing and hearing by the word of God [ Rom. 10:17 ], everything outside Holy Scripture, not being of faith, is sin." St. Basil the Great The Morals “Their complaint is that their custom does not accept this, and that Scripture does not agree. What is my reply? I do not consider it fair that the custom which obtains among them should be regarded as a law and rule of orthodoxy. If custom is to be taken in proof of what is right, then it is certainly competent for me to put forward on my side the custom which obtains here. If they reject this, we are clearly not bound to follow them. Therefore let God-inspired Scripture decide between us; and on whichever side be found doctrines in harmony with the word of God, in favour of that side will be cast the vote of truth.” St. Basil the Great Letter 189 “And moreover the fact that he says these statements are confirmed, in that they abide by the knowledge possessed from above, is a strong additional support to the orthodox view touching the designation of Son, seeing that the inspired teaching of the Scriptures, which comes to us from above, confirms our argument on these matters. If these things are so, and this is a standard of truth that admits of no deception, that these two concur- the natural order, as he says, and the testimony of the knowledge given from above confirming the natural interpretation- it is clear, that to assert anything contrary to these, is nothing else than manifestly to fight against the truth itself.” Gregory of Nyssa Against Eunomius Book 3 “But while I bring out by these proofs the truths of Scripture, and set forth briefly and compendiously things which are stated in various ways, do thou also attend to them with patience, and not deem them prolix; taking this into account, that proofs [of the things which are] contained in the Scriptures cannot be shown except from the Scriptures themselves.” St. Iranaeus Against Heresies
I have a bunch more I can share, but these already show the idea of Sola Scriptura. Besides, the fact that the Bereans didn't ask Peter what they should think and simply checked the scriptures in order to validate Paul is huge. Also, Jesus didn't rely on Tradition™️, which the Pharisees certainly held, in order to validate his view on the Scriptures. Also, you mentioned the ecumenical councils, but if they cannot err, then why was the Council of Heiria, which had more bishops in attendance than Nicea, overturned after many years?
@Paul-el4zd Did you even bother to read any? What other interpretation for those quotes is there? You seem like you're just sticking your head in the sand. I'm actually curious what you think they were actually saying here. I don't understand how saying "oh, you're just quoting the church Father's" is a reasonable defense in your mind.
@@P-el4zd You didn't answer my question. What are they actually saying in these quotes then? There are a lot of them, so whatever it is is a common theme, not just one or two lines. There has to be some other thing you think they are saying here.
@@P-el4zd I'm almost finished with Nicaea II (AD 787) as a stand alone text. It's a dumpster fire of misquoted Fathers & Scripture AND the cultural/political context (which I've been researching on the side) makes it even worse. Why participate in a tradition that worships Jesus & invokes Saints the same way the pagans did their deities (affectionate image veneration); a practice the early church uniquely & universally rejected? If God has instructed us *not* to worship Him in theses ways (as witnessed in Scripture (apocrypha included) and passed on in the testimony of the Ante-Nicene Fathers), why does the EO Church then *require* (!!!) the Christian to do so? None of the Fathers perfectly represent any present tradition, 21st century EO especially.
WHAT IS IT WITH LUTHERANS that they can't seem to sit still? They always have to get up and walk around while some guy in front is talking. Even do it during church services and sermons. It's like they always have to go to the bathroom or something? Do they have to go outside and check and see if they locked the car? Do they need to answer the telephone call they just now got on their cell phone? What is it?
Catholic position to salvation is very humble remember the bible say he who humbles will be....... We don't command God but we lay low allowing him to pick us for we trust him
1:17 Having left the Missouri Synod for the Orthodox Church, I find that I have a greater comfort now than I ever did before, for I know that I have been joined to the physical body of Christ of which St. Paul speaks, and that through the liturgical and sacramental life, the obedience to and counsel of a spiritual father, the asceticism and simplicity, and the celestial intercessions provided by her I may participate in the life of Christ. "Everyone falls alone," St. Cyprian writes, "but we are being saved in the community." No longer do the throes of spiritual autonomy hedge me about, that radical liberation of the soul which borders on nihilism, the fruit of that institutionalized adiaphoristic tyranny which ever isolates and atomizes each person under its communion. Spiritual individualism is the poisoned fruit of modernity, not a blessing of our Lord through His Church, yet it is the beating heart of the Lutheran tradition.
@@crossvilleengineering1238 Greetings, my friend. Christ is born! It is true what you say about asceticism being the heart of Orthodoxy, or perhaps a chamber of the heart along with prayer---and that is a breath of fresh air, might I say. Too many retort to the same unstudied buzzwords of "idolatry" and "Pelagianism" when describing the locus of Orthodox spirituality. Yet even your concept of asceticism here is deeply colored by Protestant individualism. Asceticism is always communal. The only exception is the rare case of a hermit blessed to live in such a way by the Church, tried by many years of living in a community and proven with ever-burning love to be heirs of the angelic life, as were St. John the Baptist and St. Elijah the Prophet from the Holy Scriptures. Yet this lot falls to exceedingly few, and even in living a life apart from the world, it is paradoxically one entirely for the world and for its salvation, girded by ceaseless prayer for the good and welfare of all mankind, and sharing hospitality and spiritual counsel with pilgrims, as did St. Paisios of Mt. Athos and St. Herman of Alaska of a more recent time.
Yet we cannot allow ourselves to get caught-up over-exploring razor-thin caverns which neither of us can fit into. Every Orthodox Christian lives in a community of some sort, be it a monastery or a parish. We follow the prayer and fasting rules given to us by our priests and spiritual fathers, tailored especially to the needs of the person or the family, families praying and fasting together. Elder Ephraim of Arizona even writes that there are no individual monastic and familial spirits, but that the two are one, that Orthodox families do and ought to pray the hours together, to read the life of the saints at meals, that children ask for blessings from their parents, union with God being the common goal for all. Godparents devote their lives to prayer for and spiritual counsel of their godchildren, they take them up to receive communion together, and in some traditions even provide the Christian name for their godchildren. Little children help littler children up to venerate the icons. Families blend together during Divine Liturgy, to the degree that it appears all are truly one, one body of Christ and one family of God.
Our individuality is preserved in that every person has slightly different gifts and spiritual needs---and this is only natural, the Blessed Trinity creates us all with a distinct who-ness to our personhood, that we might beautify and restore all facets of creation with the love of God, and offer back up to Him that which He has so freely given to us. Yet not all things pertain to our personhood, our individual who-ness, but some things to our human nature, our collective what-ness, and one of those is the need for community. Every person is going to have their own level of sanctity, yet we share one common path to the sanctified life: living through virtue in community. Such is the Orthodox life.
@@crossvilleengineering1238 - I struggled mightily between the Lutheran Church and Orthodoxy for some 8 years, so I hear ya on the struggle. There were many times over that span that I resolved never to think about Orthodoxy again and just be a good Lutheran. Ascetism is definitely more important in Orthodoxy than it is in Lutheranism. In Lutheranism it is technically Ok ("Fasting and bodily preparation are certainly fine outward training."), but almost impossible to find support on from one's pastor or the community. Asceticism is viewed suspiciously as an attempt at self-justification and works righteousness, so suspiciously that it is never really attempted in a salutary way (from a Lutheran POV). Most Lutherans I know who attempt anything that looks like asceticism do so because they're following Fad diets and exercise programs.
I even know one former LCMS fellow who is now Orthodox because he was learning about the benefits of intermittent fasting for his health and when he wanted to know more about a Christian or Lutheran view of fasting, he got nothing from his pastor nor could find anything online, but Orthodoxy had a lot to say about the spiritual benefits of fasting as he searched.
Fasting and asceticism occurs for most Orthodox folks under the guidance of their spiritual father/priest, and it's there where ascetical pursuits are held in balance, or as a Lutheran would think about it, where Law and Gospel is applied in the spiritual life.
@@crossvilleengineering1238 Likewise with you. It is difficult nowadays to have a disagreement with somebody where the exchange remains charitable yet honest.
I. Fr. Seraphim Rose of blessed memory begins his work "Nihilism: The Root of the Revolution of the Modern Age" by affirming that different modernistic intellectual heritages are going to carry different degrees or stages of nihilism. A parallel can be drawn between this and the degrees of individualism carried by various Protestant spiritual traditions. After all, they are united in the act of usurping the obedience to and love of the tradition, episcopacy, councils, liturgy, Fathers, and in general the authority of the Church. I realize that is painting with a broad brush, but it is true at the end of the day. Anabaptists, darkened by the revolutionary spirit, abandoned all of this with great malice. Lutherans, on the other hand, conditionally kept some things based on one's own interpretation of the Scriptures through the Confessions, which itself has had quite a bit of variance even from the earliest days of Lutheran Saxony and Sweden. There are gradients to spiritual individualism, and Lutheranism is well on that spectrum.
II. Could you define "empirical church" for me? It is true that the Apologia says that the Church can be found wheresoever "the Gospel is taught purely and the sacraments are administered rightly," (CA VII.i) yet the composition of that Church is a sort of invisible "assembly of saints and true believers," (VIII.i) which lacks a sort of perpetual visible identity, or institutionality. St. Paul, on the other hand, writes of the Church in somatic terms: She is the body of Christ. And as Christ is Incarnate, so too must She be, having a perpetual visible identity and being circumscribable. She is not an abstract, Platonic union of right-believing souls, lest we confess the same of our Lord.
III. The Orthodox Church would wholly agree with this, of course. There is nothing with which man may cooperate without the grace of God, communicated through the God-breathed and divine Scriptures. As my patron, St. Isidore of Seville, writes: "Reading the Sacred Scriptures confers a double gift: it teaches the intellect of the mind and it leads the person drawn away by the vanities of the world to the love of God. For, often stirred up by the words we read, we are drawn away from the desire of a worldly life and, rising up in the love of wisdom, the more the empty hope of this mortality becomes without value to us, the more fully eternal hope has shone forth." (Sententiae III.viii.4)
I have watched many videos related to EO vs RC or EO vs Lutheran or EO vs other denominations. The EO commentators are always the same; very militant, very judgemental, and often quite hostile to those who have a different perspective. If someone in the comments indicates they left EO for another denomination, other EO commentators quickly attack and question or tell them to reconsider their decision. Also, I find it strange that every convert to EO feels the need to let you know they converted from something else and why that something else was so inferior. It is as if they brainwash you when you join the EO church. I find it all very strange, almost cult-ish.
From 40 years of personal experience, I can also tell you that the beliefs and practices of the common layperson in the EO church would be very troubling to most Christians. I have EO relatives that pin Bible passages, rolled up in a small leather pouch, on the back of their baby's outfit to ward off the evil eye from jealous passersby. There is an EO priest that travels around the USA with a cross that supposedly came from Christ's cross, and it can heal all kinds of cancers, sicknesses, etc. if he waves it over that part of the body. There is the "church of miracles" on the island of Tinos (in Greece) where people believe they can be healed if they touch an icon in that church. There is a priest/monk at a monastery in Arizona that EO people believe has achieved Theosis, and people come from all over the world to have him give them future guidance or heal them of any kind of sickness or health issue. I can go on and on, but I think you get the picture. All of you theologians need to pay attention to the impact and reality of EO teachings on its laymen, not just theological arguments and understandings.
You know things are getting bad when it's no longer "Why you should become Lutheran," but "Why you should stay Lutheran"...
Nonsense. It's a normal question to ask oneself when comparing different groups.
How so? If a Lutheran felt drawn to the Orthodox Church, the question is specifically "why stay Lutheran" and not "why convert to Lutheranism".
This talk was given to a Lutheran audience, not to people thinking of converting to Lutheranism.
Can you link the PDF mentioned towards the end?
weedon.blogspot.com/2008/02/patristic-passages-of-interest-for.html
I remember watching these talks before I left the LCMS for Orthodoxy. I learned and benefited much from Pastor Weedon’s blogs and interviews over the years and his teaching made me a more confident Lutheran while I was there. Having grown up in a traditional TLH congregation (no frills TLH) he moved me through his popular teaching to a deeper Lutheranism: the Book of Concord, liturgy and church fathers, etc.
He sharpened an aspect of the journey for me. Here and other places he will mention unfair comparisons between Lutheranism and Orthodoxy among those who leave confessional Lutheranism for Orthodoxy, comparing the worst of Lutheranism with the best of Orthodoxy, and so forth. I remain grateful for this observation as it made me more careful in the process. Why was I attracted to Orthodoxy when confessional Lutheranism is so robust and solid? Was I unintentionally making unfair comparisons? At least for myself I took this admonition from Pastor Weedon seriously and while it made my journey longer and more difficult in some ways, it enabled me to leave Lutheranism for Orthodoxy with a good conscience, for I was no longer a Lutheran by conviction and could no longer hold to the Book of Concord as an expression of my faith.
I also owe a debt of gratitude to those LCMS pastors and laity who wrote up such strong and lengthy refutations against the possibility communing baptized infants in Lutheranism. If it was not for the extensive written arguments available on blogs, in research papers and comment sections I would have never been moved to examine this topic so closely and realized so much was wrong. For if the Augsburg Confession was correct, that the Church is the congregation of the saints where the Gospel is rightly taught and the sacraments rightly administered then ironically the confessional Lutheran church I was born and raised in was formally committed to a misapplication of law and Gospel on baptized infants and toddlers in all her reasons for denying these new Christians the life-giving true Body and true Blood of her Lord.
How do you "rationlize" the Paraklesis now days?
Do you recoil sometimes now when someone says that Jesus died for our sins?
@@ro6ti - To your first question, there’s no need to rationalize anything related to this prayer.
To the second question, no.
I’m not sure why you’re asking such a question, but I’m assuming it’s because your knowledge about Orthodoxy is based primarily on social media and this is some sort of “gotcha” attempt based on something you heard and not on concrete interaction with Orthodox people or clergy.
@@Mklg7012
That prayer uses strong language toward Mary, as you know, I'm sure. This would give most orthodox Lutherans strong reason to pause. If it didn't for you, then there's no need for you to explain why. I was just curious "where you started from" and that answered that question easily. Thanks.
Also, thanks for assuming my experience, but I spent many years interacting with Orthodox folks before there ever was "social media" and I spent at least a decade attending DL 50 miles away as frequently as possible - even stopping some days while there to pray outside when nobody was around. I was sincere (though wasn't able to go the distance and convert) and I'm definitely not a newbie. I respect an even love those I knew back then. Some have passed on.
Anyway, it's nice to hear that your priest and others don't have hesitations with saying "Christ died for our sins." That isn't the case for all EO folks and some even fight it and have "violent" reactions to it. I've had discussions on forums with some who have serious problems with such language because they have serious atonement theory phobias. There are videos of EO priests expressing the same notions. It's rather shocking to me, honestly. No discussion needed here... been there done that. Ha! I was just curious what your experience was on your path and you answered well enough. Thanks.
@@ro6ti - my experience is being born and raised in a traditional TLH congregation, and getting exposed to confessional Lutheranism in high school and college by the new Lutheran media that was so effective at taking out the Kieschnick administration. I once was quite zealous for a deeper and more robust Lutheranism than what I had growing up. I come from a deeply Lutheran family, lots of parochial school teachers and pastors. I was, once upon a time, as Lutheran and committed to the cause as Pastor Weedon or any one else in the room when he recorded that talk.
Obviously that changed after more education at LCMS institutions of higher education and deeper reflection and experience. I came to realize that the confessional Lutheran claims I had learned did not pass the test, and I read everything and listened to the best confessional theology and professors the Synod has to offer. And my rejection of confessional Lutheranism is tied specifically to the doctrinal claims of the Book of Concord. It was right to leave, in Orthodoxy I have experienced law and gospel rightly divided and applied rather than hearing about what it’s theoretically supposed to be. Contrary to Weedon, my conscience finally became well when I got out of Lutheran doctrine and practice. Orthodoxy is the Church, confessional Lutheranism is not the genuine continuation of the orthodox and catholic faith.
Invoking the saints, whether it’s the Theotokos or another saint was the most difficult issue for me to overcome, so I understand spiritually and in every other sense there is why you and other Lutherans have the walls up and the canons firing night and day over it.
But there’s nothing to rationalize about the prayer service you object to. It can’t be shoehorned into a Lutheran theological construct bc the soteriological constructs between the two traditions are so different. If your Lutheran assumptions are in place, it makes no sense and is false doctrine. But once you realize the assumptions you’ve been given to approach theology are flawed as a Lutheran, you can understand what’s going on Orthodoxy on her own merits rather than a biased filtered.
@@Mklg7012
Your final paragraph describes it well. You say it's a matter of being "shoehorned" but, to me it's a matter of reason and the Bible. If this last statement of mine was coming from someone who had only a cursory look and a quick rejection based on "talking points" as you like to call it, then I'd actually sit on your side, as a matter of fairness. I don't like quick judgment.
But, with sincerity (if you only knew) I've looked into it and even "bent" my mind away from the "western" assumptions to the Orthodox way. Yes, it's more than just intellectual. It's ontological etc... I understand.
I won't tell my whole story, but I will say that the Word of God in the Bible healed my mind. I don't want to make this a novel. I'll just say, the simplicity of the Gospel, that Jesus Christ died on the Cross for our sins and that we enter eternal life now through faith in Him, and we grow in Him and He in us, by His Spirit, until we are taken to be with Him on the Last Day... the simplicity of this Gospel, I could not find clearly and consistently expressed in EO. There's always language that obscures it to me.
For example, Paul never once mentioned Mary's name, but EO conversation and prayer is "shot through" with Mary. If my faith is the same as Paul's, it needs to sound like Paul and be defended like Paul if a cultist tries to challenge the Gospel. Anyway, today I can share and explain the Cross with clarity to others and I love to hear it faithfully each Sunday. So, that's where I remain.
I do appreciate and respect where you are. Thanks for the conversation.
The more I looked into Eastern Orthodoxy, the less I was drawn to it and the more I realized it was in error, from Synodikon to Mandatory iconodulia. Mandatory iconodulia is in no way Pauline nor is there really any good evidence for it in the apostolic era. PSA is clear in the Fathers, but the answers differ depending on whom you ask in Orthodoxy. Toll houses aren't Scriptural, but some Eastern Orthodox swear by them while others call them heresy. Sola Scriptura rightly understood is clear in the early fathers, and no, it's not found only by cherrypicking them. You can clearly find most of Reformational theology in the Fathers' own writing in context and it gets old hearing EOs and RCs appropriate the Fathers as their own but when you show them where they disagree with the Fathers, they write it off as "well, they can err, but Tradition™️..." It gets so old. I believe people generally go there for mysticism, the threat that if you're not in their group you're necessarily damned according to their own canons, and the appeal of an alleged apostolic succession.
“But as for ourselves, we were agreed that there is something more trustworthy than any of these artificial conclusions, namely, that which the teachings of Holy Scripture point to: and so I deem that it is necessary to inquire, in addition to what has been said, whether this inspired teaching harmonizes with it all.”
St. Gregory Nyssa
On the Soul and the Resurrection
“We do not think that it is right to make their prevailing custom the law and rule of sound doctrine. For if custom is to avail for of soundness, we too, surely, may advance our we not bound to follow theirs. Let the inspired Scripture, then, be our umpire, and the vote of truth will surely be given to those whose dogmas are found to agree with the Divine words.”
St. Gregory Nyssa
On the Holy Trinity
"The Holy Ghost Himself spoke the Scriptures; He has also spoken concerning Himself as much as He pleased, or as much as we could receive. Let us therefore speak those things which He has said; for whatsoever He has not said, we dare not say."
St. Cyril of Jerusalem
Catechetical Lecture 16
"[W]e are not entitled to such licence, I mean that of affirming what we please; we make the Holy Scriptures the rule and the measure of every tenet; we necessarily fix our eyes upon that, and approve that alone which may be made to harmonize with the intention of those writings."
St. Gregory of Nyssa, affirming Macrina's thoughts
On the Soul and the Resurrection
But as for ourselves, we were agreed that there is something more trustworthy than any of these artificial conclusions, namely, that which the teachings of Holy Scripture point to: and so I deem that it is necessary to inquire, in addition to what has been said, whether this inspired teaching harmonizes with it all.”
St. Gregory Nyssa
On the Soul and the Resurrection
“We do not think that it is right to make their prevailing custom the law and rule of sound doctrine. For if custom is to avail for of soundness, we too, surely, may advance our we not bound to follow theirs. Let the inspired Scripture, then, be our umpire, and the vote of truth will surely be given to those whose dogmas are found to agree with the Divine words.”
St. Gregory Nyssa
On the Holy Trinity
"For if we told you to be persuade by arguments, you might well be perplexed: but if we bid you believe the Scriptures, and these are simple and true, the decision is easy for you. If any agree with the Scriptures, he is the Christian."
St. John Chrysostom
Homilies on Acts
Homily 33
"But since holy Scripture is of all things most sufficient for us, therefore recommending to those who desire to know more of these matters, to read the Divine word, I now hasten to set before you that which most claims attention, and for the sake of which principally I have written these things."
St. Athanasius
Ad Episcopus Aegypti et Libyae
Chapter 1
“But this all inspired Scripture also teaches more plainly and with more authority, so that we in our turn write boldly to you as we do, and you, if you refer to them, will be able to verify what we say. For an argument when confirmed by higher authority is irresistibly proved…
...For the people of the Jews of old had abundant teaching, in that they had the knowledge of God not only from the works of Creation, but also from the divine Scriptures.”
St. Athanasius
Against the Heathen
“[W]herefore we offer the doxology to the Father with the Son. But we do not rest only on the fact that such is the tradition of the Fathers; for they too followed the sense of Scripture, and started from the evidence which, a few sentences back, I deduced from Scripture and laid before you.”
Basil the Great
De Spiritu Sancto
“There is, brethren, one God, the knowledge of whom we gain from the Holy Scriptures, and from no other source. For just as a man, if he wishes to be skilled in the wisdom of this world, will find himself unable to get at it in any other way than by mastering the dogmas of philosophers, so all of us who wish to practise piety will be unable to learn its practice from any other quarter than the oracles of God. Whatever things, then, the Holy Scriptures declare, at these let us took; and whatsoever things they teach, these let us learn; and as the Father wills our belief to be, let us believe; and as He wills the Son to be glorified, let us glorify Him; and as He wills the Holy Spirit to be bestowed, let us receive Him. Not according to our own will, nor according to our own mind, nor yet as using violently those things which are given by God, but even as He has chosen to teach them by the Holy Scriptures, so let us discern them.”
Hippolytus
Against the Heresy of Noetus
“What then, shall be our way of arguing? We shall answer nothing new, nothing of our own invention, though they challenge us to it; we shall fall back upon the testimony in Holy Scripture about the Spirit, whence we learn that the Holy Spirit is Divine, and is to be called so. Now, if they allow this, and will not contradict the words of inspiration, then they, with all their eagerness to fight with us, must tell us why they are for contending with us, instead of with Scripture. We say nothing different from that which Scripture says.”
Gregory Nyssa
On the Holy Spirit
"For concerning the divine and holy mysteries of the Faith, not even a casual statement must be delivered without the Holy Scriptures; nor must we be drawn aside by mere plausibility and artifices of speech. Even to me, who tell you these things, give not absolute credence, unless thou receive the proof of the things which I announce from the Divine Scriptures. For this salvation which we believe depends not on ingenious reasoning , but on demonstration of the Holy Scriptures."
St. Cyril of Jerusalem
Catechetical Lecture 4
“That the man of God may be perfect. For this is the exhortation of the Scripture given, that the man of God may be rendered perfect by it; without this therefore he cannot be perfect. You have the Scriptures, he says, in place of me. If you would learn anything, you may learn it from them. And if he thus wrote to Timothy, who was filled with the Spirit, how much more to us!”
St. John Chrysostom
Homily 9 on II Timothy (3:17)
“RULE TWENTY-SIX
That every word and deed should be ratified by the testimony of the Holy Scripture to confirm the good and cause shame to the wicked…
RULE TWENTY-EIGHT
That we should not be readily and thoughtlessly carried away by those who make pretense of the truth, but we should recognize each from the sign given us by the Scriptures”
St. Basil the Great
The Morals
"What is the mark of a faithful soul? To be in these dispositions of full acceptance on the authority of the words [of the Scripture], not venturing to reject anything- nor making additions. For, if 'all that is not of faith is sin, as the Apostle says, [ Rom. 14:23 ] and 'faith cometh by hearing and hearing by the word of God [ Rom. 10:17 ], everything outside Holy Scripture, not being of faith, is sin."
St. Basil the Great
The Morals
“Their complaint is that their custom does not accept this, and that Scripture does not agree. What is my reply? I do not consider it fair that the custom which obtains among them should be regarded as a law and rule of orthodoxy. If custom is to be taken in proof of what is right, then it is certainly competent for me to put forward on my side the custom which obtains here. If they reject this, we are clearly not bound to follow them. Therefore let God-inspired Scripture decide between us; and on whichever side be found doctrines in harmony with the word of God, in favour of that side will be cast the vote of truth.”
St. Basil the Great
Letter 189
“And moreover the fact that he says these statements are confirmed, in that they abide by the knowledge possessed from above, is a strong additional support to the orthodox view touching the designation of Son, seeing that the inspired teaching of the Scriptures, which comes to us from above, confirms our argument on these matters. If these things are so, and this is a standard of truth that admits of no deception, that these two concur- the natural order, as he says, and the testimony of the knowledge given from above confirming the natural interpretation- it is clear, that to assert anything contrary to these, is nothing else than manifestly to fight against the truth itself.”
Gregory of Nyssa
Against Eunomius
Book 3
“But while I bring out by these proofs the truths of Scripture, and set forth briefly and compendiously things which are stated in various ways, do thou also attend to them with patience, and not deem them prolix; taking this into account, that proofs [of the things which are] contained in the Scriptures cannot be shown except from the Scriptures themselves.”
St. Iranaeus
Against Heresies
I have a bunch more I can share, but these already show the idea of Sola Scriptura. Besides, the fact that the Bereans didn't ask Peter what they should think and simply checked the scriptures in order to validate Paul is huge. Also, Jesus didn't rely on Tradition™️, which the Pharisees certainly held, in order to validate his view on the Scriptures.
Also, you mentioned the ecumenical councils, but if they cannot err, then why was the Council of Heiria, which had more bishops in attendance than Nicea, overturned after many years?
@Paul-el4zd Did you even bother to read any? What other interpretation for those quotes is there? You seem like you're just sticking your head in the sand. I'm actually curious what you think they were actually saying here. I don't understand how saying "oh, you're just quoting the church Father's" is a reasonable defense in your mind.
@@P-el4zd You didn't answer my question. What are they actually saying in these quotes then? There are a lot of them, so whatever it is is a common theme, not just one or two lines. There has to be some other thing you think they are saying here.
@@P-el4zd I'm almost finished with Nicaea II (AD 787) as a stand alone text. It's a dumpster fire of misquoted Fathers & Scripture AND the cultural/political context (which I've been researching on the side) makes it even worse. Why participate in a tradition that worships Jesus & invokes Saints the same way the pagans did their deities (affectionate image veneration); a practice the early church uniquely & universally rejected? If God has instructed us *not* to worship Him in theses ways (as witnessed in Scripture (apocrypha included) and passed on in the testimony of the Ante-Nicene Fathers), why does the EO Church then *require* (!!!) the Christian to do so? None of the Fathers perfectly represent any present tradition, 21st century EO especially.
Who is Leia? Time stamp 17:48
Wilhelm Loehe pronounced “Layah” in English.
I know that guy in the bottom right 😊
hey, I know that guy in the bottom left...
WHAT IS IT WITH LUTHERANS that they can't seem to sit still? They always have to get up and walk around while some guy in front is talking. Even do it during church services and sermons. It's like they always have to go to the bathroom or something? Do they have to go outside and check and see if they locked the car? Do they need to answer the telephone call they just now got on their cell phone? What is it?
Don't.