*ON THE ORIGIN OF THE NAME CATHOLIC CHURCH"* _The Early Church began calling itself the Catholic Church during the lifetime of the Apostle John._ The early Church - the Church founded by Christ as promised in Matthew 16:18 - was that which was originally known as “the Way” (cf. Acts 24:14). Later, those individuals who followed Christ began to be called “Christians” beginning at Antioch (cf. Acts 11:26). As early as 107 A.D., those same individuals referred to themselves collectively as the “Catholic Church”. In a letter to the Church of Smyrna, Ignatius of Antioch wrote:
_“You must all follow the bishop as Jesus Christ follows the Father, and the presbytery (priest) as you would the Apostles. Let no one do anything of concern to the Church without the bishop. Wherever the bishop appears, let the people be there; just as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church.” (Letter to the Smyrnaeans, A.D. 107, [8,1])_
Notice that Ignatius does not take pains to introduce the term "Catholic Church"; instead he uses it in a manner suggesting that the name was already in use and familiar to his audience. This further suggests that the name, Catholic Church, had to have been coined much earlier in order to have achieved wide circulation by the time of this writing. In other words, the Christian assembly was calling itself the Catholic Church during the lifetime of the last Apostle, John, who died near the end of the first century. Regarding the primacy and authority of Rome, Ignatius also wrote, "You [Rome] have envied no one, but others have you taught. I desire only that what you have enjoined in your instructions may remain in force" (Epistle to the Romans 3:1, AD 110). The Catholic Church began with Peter and the Apostles and continued without interruption or cessation through their disciples (Ignatius, Irenaeus, Polycarp, Clement, Justin Martyr, etc.) down to the present day. As a side note, it appears that the believers in Antioch may have coined both terms still in use today: “Christian” and “Catholic Church” - terms they used to describe the one body of believers in Christ.
@@joshportie Untrue. Just look at Matthew 16:18: And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church... (King James Version). The church Christ (meant to) built was built on Peter, a man, not on some scripture. You think if Jesus meant to base the Church on the scripture, he would've made Peter to create such a text. Simply speaking, putting Bible as the utmost authority is unbiblical.
As a Catholic “revert”, I did the non-denominational thing for many years. Reading about the early Church and Church history changed everything. Not sure how anyone can do the same and not become either Catholic or Orthodox. Praying for reunification. Hopefully it doesn’t take another 1,000 years.
The Bible predicts reunification in Revelation 13. There can't be a remnant when everyone is Catholic, yet only a remnant gets saved. The way is narrow and few find it.
Nobody ever asks why Napoleon is buried in France🇫🇷 or George Washington in the USA 🇺🇸 Similarly there's a reason the remains of the apostles rest in Catholic churches 🇻🇦
@saiyasho16 You do know that there were teachings and sayings that weren't written in the Bible. So, of course, Christ and the apostles were teaching more than what was said in the scriptures."This is the disciple who is bearing witness to these things, and who has written these things; and we know that his testimony is true. But there are also many other things which Jesus did; were every one of them to be written, I suppose that the world itself could not contain the books that would be written." - John 21:24-25
@@saiyasho16 that verse is addressing the Talmudic tradition. The only reason you know the Gospel according to Mathew was written by the Apostle Mathew (a man) is because it's an Orthodox Tradition that has preserved that for you. So you're taking Mathew 15 out of context to tell someone they Trust a Tradition of men while Trusting a Tradition of men. If we're to cut back to the real issue. You don't Trust the Holy Spirit has led and guided the men of His Church into all Truth. You're simply against what Christians have taught and believed for all time because you trust the men that have told you they're wrong. That includes your own interpretation of scripture.
@@saiyasho16 A Church's succession to the Apostles at least grants possibility for adherence to apostolic teaching. Whether you believe it's done successfully or not, the capability is there. Without the lineage, traditions of men are implemented by necessity. To say "The Bible is my source of Apostolic Teaching," one must implicitly assume God thinks only the things that are written are the obligatory, and anything that's not, can be DIY. Ironically, that principle itself is a tradition of men.
@@saiyasho16 Again, you're appealing to a man's tradition to imply where the Gospel came from. Yes you're taking Mathew out of context, the Pharisee was a follower of the Talmudic tradition. A tradition that is separated from the Revelation God gave Israel. You're incorrect, The Orthodox Church is completely consistent with Divine Revelation. Their Liturgy reflects what was only foreshadowed in ancient Israel's temple worship. It's the worship that John sees in Heaven in Revelation. I trust the Holy Spirit has led and guided the Church into all Truth, that the Church is the Pillar and ground of Truth and that Jesus built a Church on a confession of faith that would never fail. The Bible mentions the Church being the Kingdom of God several times. You just don't want that Church to be the Orthodox Church because you're superstitious about your own faith. The Orthodox Church is an icon of the Kingdom of God. It's a window into eternity that you're spiritually blind to. The Orthodox Church doesn't have systematic theology. You have it backwards. In order for you to be Protestant you have to reject basic logic and historical evidence. Orthodoxy, that gave you the canon of scripture doesn't have to do that. So the "bad arguments you hear" is really just your own pride rejecting sound arguments. I wouldn't worry about my own repentance. I'm working on it. But I would take your own advice and repent from the pride that you carry. God turns his face from the Proud. When times get tough that pride will betray you as it betrayed me over the pandemic. God led me to the Church through that. The Orthodox Church is where you'll find the Kingdom of God. Not only does it reflect the scriptures more consistently than anyone, but it's preserved the context to the scriptures and the memory of man's salvation for the last 2000 years. It still makes saints and is hated by Satan. He loves that people like you deface and slander the Church.
All my life I was Protestant and I just realized I was just scratching the surface of all the theology and history to understand God. In Orthodoxy I found the deepest truth, the divine connection with the holy trinity and how to understand God for real. It not so emotional like Protestantism, but Orthodoxy got my brain, my intellect and showed me the way to Christos the redeemer.
Same brother. I was adamantly protestant my entire life but I was your typical american protestant. In the last 3 years of learning and studying there really isnt any way around orthodoxy.
that being said it was a very difficult admission for me. I fought it for the better part of 2 years and only last week expressed to my wife my intentions to stop attending our non dom
I love how you all act like you couldn't do the same in a protestant scenario. You could have found the deepest truth, the divine connection with the Holy Trinity and how to understand God for real while being a protestant. But alas, you were too lazy. Now, you blame the protestants for you lack of zeal and effort. For the record, I think protestants, catholics, and the orthodox are all Christian. I recognize different traditions appeal to different personalities but to blame one over the other for your own lack of zeal and enthusiasm is just lazy and shows a lack of love for your brothers.
Eastern Orthodox beleives salvation is a process so it doesnr make sense for us to say others are damned or saved. You are either in or out of the church but God can save whom He wills.
Actually, that is not the eastern orthodox position. Did you forget of the day of Triumph of Orthodoxy, where all orthodox churches are supposed to curse all christians outside of eastern orthodoxy?
@@jozzen77 that isn't what the Sunday of Orthodoxy is about. At all. Firstly, Sunday of Orthodoxy is not about pronouncing anathemas against everyone who isn't Orthodox. It is specifically about the defeat of iconoclasm. Secondly, anathemas are not curses. Anathema means "what these people are teaching is false, we have told them it's false and they refuse to stop teaching it, so they are not allowed to teach here and you should not listen to them." The Church does not want the anathematized to go to hell! It wants them to stop teaching falsehood and come back to the Church so that they *don't* go to hell. (Not that we claim to know where they are going. But we are concerned about it.)
Ruslan, with all due respect I truly think you need to read the early church more. This idea of separate denominations, ways of operating, etc. did not exist. The church had one cohesive structure. You had arguments, disagreements, etc. on doctrine of course. But the church hierarchy and idea of ONE church was there from the beginning. This "organic" renewal Gavin speaks of is just reading his modern take back into the texts of the early church. Also Gavin is even cherry picking Luther. Luther mocked most of the saints of the church and thought most were beneath him. He had a ton of issues.
Which early church writings give you the idea of one cohesive structure? I've been reading early church (2nd and 3rd century) writers and there are very wide ranging views amongst the authors.
@@Supastaab There's a substantial difference between disagreeing on some doctrine or ideas, and core ideas of the faith. Also, I meant the idea that there is one church. The early writers didn't refer to different denominations. They were all within the church body, with bishops and priests and layman (vs. today where denominations have their own hierarchy, own clergy system, etc). If they saw the split with the church, and saw Catholic and protestantism, they would likely be horrified by the structure and hierarchy.
I agree that there is just one church, but our definitions are different. I, and I think the early church, view all believers that maintain the core doctrines of the faith under the headship of Christ Jesus belong to the one church.
@@Supastaab It seems quite clear that there is a very specific hierarchy within the church even at the end of he 1st century. To think you can just have a rogue congregation of people that claim to be Christians as "in" the church seems... skeptical. They might be in the "invisible" church but if there is only one church, and they reject the hierarchy of it, are they truly in the church?
One of the arguments Catholics hold against Sola Scriptura, which I seldom see answered by Protestant apologists, is the fact that Scriptures did not fall out of the sky right after Christ's crucifixion. It was written down between a decade and a century after. The texts were selected and compiled by authoritative figures of the Church, which largely pre-existed the definitive written form of the New Testament. Believing that Tradition is a fallible source of authority is thus believing that Scripture is fallible. In other words, if you don't belive that Tradition and the Church's teachings bear the same doctrinal weight as Scriptutes, how do you even know that Scriptures is the inspired Word of God to begin with ? Logically, a lesser form of authority does not have the power to legitimize a higher form of authority. I feel like this is a strong argument against Sola Scriptura, but as I am trying to learn more about Protestantism to try not to strawman anyone's belief, does anyone have a rebuttal of this statement ?
I agree with the first part of your argument, there are some traditions which are correct and I don't think Protestants have issue with traditions in general. The issue is which traditions are correct and how can we determine whether or not something is man-made if we cannot compare it to scripture? Look at both EO and Catholocism, they both call each other the "one true church" and "the fullness of the faith", looking at history does not make it clear who would be correct here (yes EO got angry with Catholics for adding in filioque, but does that mean they split off or since EO consider themselves to be unchanged, are they correct and are Catholics the ones who changed?). They both have some similar beliefs and traditions, but they also disagree on a lot. How can we determine which is true or does it not matter which one since they're both apostolic anyways? As a Protestant that's actively trying to learn and would be willing to "convert" (I don't even like calling it that because we're all still Christians), I believe that the Protestant view is simply knowing that the Bible is the inspired word of God, EO and Catholics would agree, and so we trust it. But when it comes to some other traditions and dogmas, some of which are clear that they were not taught by the apostles and came at a later time, it makes us uncomfortable with some traditions.
Also to answer your question regarding how do we know Scripture is true, it's because we see the work of God in our own lives, the lives of others around us, and in our churches. Even the Bible tells us to test something to know it's fruits. We can even look historically and look at how many people were willing to be martyred for their beliefs, how the Bible has been preserved. We can read and see how deep the Bible itself is (the prophecies of Jesus coming even in the Old Testament, the fullfilment of that prophecy in the New Testament), we can pray and become closer to God and be given understanding by the Holy Spirit and to be led by it. Even if our faith isn't in "fullness" of the EO and Catholic traditions, I don't think that means it's not enough.
@@ddandelions EO and Roman Catholics have wide ranging differences. History makes it very plain to see that EO's claim of being unchanged is True. Rome has historical claims to being Apostolic, but their innovations to the creed mean they've deviated from the deposit of faith that was once delivered to the saints. They've forfeited the Grace they had while they were still a member of the Church. The traditions and dogmas you mention were formalized later on but were still in practice before that. So like Icon veneration for example or asking the saints to pray for us. We have historical evidence from the ancient enemies of the Church that icon veneration was common. We also have archeological evidence that shows the Church asked saints to pray for them. The evidence is there you just have to be willing to see it.
I would argue that sola scriptura is often hit with the strawman from non-Protestants. We do believe that scripture is the source of authority given to us by God through the early church. It’s comprised of the Old Testament scriptures that Jesus would have used(yes, it was a circulating canon at least 200 years before Jesus), and the writings of those chosen by Jesus himself. Are there other “authorities” in life? Sure. But if they don’t align with what scripture teaches, then they cannot be authoritative. Paul references Greek philosophy at times. But that doesn’t mean Greek philosophy is authoritative. The pope can say all kinds of things, but if he says something that doesn’t align with what scripture teaches, I’m not going to follow it. If Rome says something that is contrary to what Paul or Peter taught in their epistles, they don’t get a pass for infallibility. Israel was God’s elect and they screwed up a lot. He also allowed consequences to follow. The church has persevered for 2000 years despite any internal conflict, and being in various denominations. It will be here to welcome Him back as well. Protestants, Catholics, and EO all alike.
@@c2s2942 There's only One Body of Christ, and only one Church that reflects that image. Protestantism doesn't reflect Christ's Body but the bodies of each pastor that claims to be an authority of scripture. Yet they each contradict each other. Likewise, Roman Catholics reflect their head, the Pope. EOs head is Christ, so they're the unchanged ancient Body of Christ. They gave you the Bible. It's their canon. Treating the Body of Christ as fragmented and scattered and using the fallacy fallacy to keep yourself from really being critical of Sola Scriptura should be questioned if there's a part of you that desires Truth. Sola Scriptura treats the Bible as God's Sole vehicle for transmitting his Grace to people. This Consequentially makes the interpreter of the scriptures a vehicle of God's Grace if he's going to be consistent. This doesn't come from a place of humility. So if your interpretation of the scripture contradicts the Church's interpretation then I would question your interpretation. The Church has always taught that God's Grace is transmitted in more ways than scripture. The traditions of the Church are both spoken and written. So there's an entire world of wisdom and insights into the life of God that Protestants are missing. To put it bluntly, they interpret scriptures with a heart that's darkened and a worldview that's alien to the Apostles. There's a reason why their congregations are constantly compromising with the world and disappearing, leaving Atheism in its wake. While the EO hasn't chAnged despite the enemies assaults. Apart of that assault today is Ecumenism or Branch theory. Which posits that all the groups claiming to be the Church is the same Church. This destroys the possibility for people to know the Truth, since each group believes in different things. It makes Truth relative or pointless. People need to stop treating each of these groups as if they're the same. This spiritual relativism is directly connected to the moral relativism of our age and it's destroying our civilization and hope for the future.
lol it happened to me, I thought Catholicism was “satanic”, and now I’m being confirmed into the Catholic Church, I’ve considered orthodoxy as well but there is too much infighting within their church and they are actually currently in a schism with themselves, I would recommend looking into eastern Catholicism if you’re interested in the eastern tradition of faith.
Idk what to convert to yet but it’s pretty hard to read church history and stay Protestant. It’s completely contrary to what the earliest Christians believed and practiced
@@danielholder7979 I’d recommend reading Sand and Stone by Josiah Trenham. It’s a good compilation of the Protestant reformation in contrast to the earliest teachings of Christianity. Obviously people debate church history but theologically the differences are major when compared. For myself, I can’t reckon staying Protestant when weighing the evidence. From the Eucharist, trinitarian theology, church tradition and scripture, and christology. Those would be the areas id encourage people to study and compare the early churches teachings on them vs the reformations teachings on them.
Come to an Orthodox church and visit a monastery. Ask any question you wish to the monks and members of the clergy there. I’m not telling you what decision to make but if you’re looking for a place to start looking, might as well start with original Christianity.
@@joelrobertsonmusic I've been reading early church writers and it has strengthened my protestantism. Sure there are some things, like the eucharist, that seem more inline with current Catholic understandings, but, from what I've read, there are a lot more things that align with a more relaxed catholic (lower-case c) view. There is very little veneration of saints and very very little Marian doctrines present in the 2nd and 3rd centuries. In fact, most 2nd century writings seem to be either apologetics, or letters imploring believers to be unified under Christ - asking believers to be graceous about their theological differences.
And were you asked why you want to be baptized and have to fill a form out to be baptized? If the answer is 'yes' then show me in the Bible where God or Jesus said "answer the question- or - fill out this form. You have just conformed to men, not Christ as in comply with rules, standards of men.
In 2 Peter 3:16 the Bible says we can misinterpret our scripture to destruction so how could Protestantism be the truth when it’s a bunch of churches teaching completely different things even on salvation
Just because the ignorant and unstable twist the scripture to their destruction doesn’t mean that protestantism is false. God is willing and able to give understanding. Many people cling to their opinions and traditions without first seeking God’s truth. You still have the same problem in other traditions
@@5starr.leonnnNo it’s not they literally disagree on salvation some prots are free grace some believe faith plus works some believe you need sacraments like baptism and some believe once saved always saved some believe u need to speak in tongues to be saved. Everyone has different opinions and their is no authority besides scripture which leads to these wide views on the most important issue salvation
What's the difference between that and Bishops who decide what scripture means to them? Either way they are humans, claiming to be led by the Holy Spirit. Chaos or not, simplifying it doesn't make it the truth. The Jehovah's Witnesses are very united yet we all can agree they're not following the truth.
@@yblackie if I am the ultimate judge of what the text is meant to say, I am stripping the author and Churches authority and making ME the ultimate authoritative interpreter. Isn't that how JWs got here?
Sure, the collective of Bishops claim to be led by the Holy Spirit, and some single Protestants claim that the Holy Spirit revealed something to them. The difference is that the Catholic Church has a historical link to the Apostles, and is the Pillar of Truth, which Christ Promised the Gates of Hades will not prevail against, etc. I don’t believe God would leave things up to confusion, which is why I think God left an infallible Interprer, who Jesus said to listen tol
@@VoiceOfReason_ I dont have to do anything. Luigi was the one debating you, not me. And he dismantled you. He had you dumbfounded with what seems to be basic questions that you simply couldn't comprehend. All in all, it is not about whether you can retain a certain amount of information at a superficial level. It is mainly about understanding that amount of information as well. And Luigi definitely seemed to have understood church history better than you as he presented the more compelling case. Oh and by the way, trying to 'rebut' your opponent in a video when you had the chance to do it in a debate, is quite frankly embarrassing.
Good video, but when studying for myself Church history, it becomes really difficult to believe Protestantism. Orthodox has a direct line to the apostles and all the splits are directly from misunderstandings and over stepping of the rules. Much respect though, thank you
I see the opposite. The farther back you go in church history, the more protestant it looks. The additional traditions get stripped away and you see the development of things like assumption of Mary, ever virgin, icons, icon veneration, indulgences, etc slowly get added over a period of hundreds of years. Some over a thousand! and their are dogma! However, you go back to 1st century, 2nd century, 3rd century and we don't start seeing any of this till the 4th century! That is LATE. So with respect, there are legit reasons for the protestant belief. Not to mention prots have contributed a TON to progressing the church into the world. If you have a bible at all its because of Prots. If it has chapters, numbers and verses, that is also prots. If it is not in Latin........Again.....Prots. and the group that has translated and published the gospel and the rest of the bible into the most languages in the world are the Prots.
@@bairfreedom As someone who came from Southern Baptist and still has a lot of family attending, I disagree that the further back you look the more protestant it looks. Orthodoxy has maintained the same traditions from the first 4 centuries, Protestantism removes traditional and puts interpretation as authority. I believe its wrong to not trust tradition and only trust scriptures. The Church came before the bible (or at least, the bible we have today with the OT and NT), and the Church is how we got the scriptures. If it was always up to interpretation and faith alone, why have a Church at all? Why would God have all of his followers do it incorrectly for 1000-1500 years? Thank you for your response, hopefully I'm not coming off as abrasive
I’m Catholic. Some of the stuff in that video is questionable. You can’t elevate scripture that high, cause who interprets scripture? If anybody can interpret it however they want, then it leads to exactly where we are at now. With 100,000 Protestant denominations. Logically there has to be a church that has got it all right. Jesus said the gates of hell will not prevail. How has the Catholic Church stood for almost 2000 years ? The authority that the Jews had over scripture and the layman was transferred to the Catholic Church, not man. Just look at Old Testament priest, Jesus is the fulfillment of that. And the early church fathers understood that when they anointed priests and deacons. Second point, when it comes to the veneration of Mary. I recommend the book Jesus and the Jewish roots of Mary. The Jewish king’s (in the Old Testament) queen was not his wife but his mother. And considering Jesus was a Jew…. Another point is the woman clothed with the sun and the moon beneath her feet in revelations 12, its describing Mary and the church. 3rd, the whole point on Catholic meaning universal church. That interpretation the video you had played was ridiculous. He’s basically saying Protestantism is more inclusive, therefore it’s more Catholic. It’s a fruit of modernism and feminism. If you got to a Tridentine mass anywhere in the world, it is the same, and they all say the mass in Latin, with the exception of the homily. An exception is some of the other rites, cause I forgot what apostle established that rite. The church doesn’t conform to the world. There’s more but I won’t make a long list. I’d say just pray for God to show you the true way, be open to if he reveals to you the Catholic faith. Dont completely disregard it, it sounds like the Holy Spirit has been tugging on your heart my brother. Just pray for God to shine on your ignorance. You know more than me ruslan, but I was Protestant as well and then I came to the true church.
Then someone has to interpret it, or, better, a lot of people over a lot of years. That would then form a tradition. I'm not even Catholic, but I frequently consult Catholic sources because I respect the time they've put into thinking.
it’s hard for me to believe that God let the church be astray for thousands of years until Martin Luther came and saved it. That just sounds like an earlier Joseph Smith to me.
@@RANDO4743 isn’t that just what protestants came up with once they were outside of communion with the actual Church. Who do you go to if you have a disagreement, if the Bible tells you to go to the Church in Matthew 18 15:20?
Throw, did you even watch the video, it literally states that Martin Luther and John Calvin both set that there are true churches within the roaming Catholic Church, and that the Roman Catholic church did not have any authority to basically deny the Eastern churches they're right or called them. Lost maybe watch the video before you start criticize it bro
@@jlovenotzri When I heard Candice Owens say the church went astray after the disciples and comes back during the reformation with Luther (A strawman told to her by her Catholic husband), it surprised me. But I cant be too upset with them for this because I had some strawmen about Catholics and Orthos as well
Regardless of the fact that the video points out that neither Luther nor Calvin were of the opinion that the catholic church had even fully fallen astray (and I personally don't believe that either), it wouldn't be thousands of years - only 730 at best (that is the time between Second Nicea 787 where the first of these issues became official church doctrine - icon veneration - and the beginning of the reformation 1517). And most of the teachings protestants have a probelm with did not become offical doctrine in the catholic church until after the great schism in 1054 which is why the eastern orthodox don't even have many of them. Then add in proto-protestant movements like the lollards (1300s) and hussites (1400s) and the gap is suddenly much smaller. (Also don't compare Luther with Joseph Smith - that is just uncalled for...)
I think it's half that, but he clearly also has doubts. Look at the disdain he has on his face at the mention of Mary. You can't fake that. Then again, people like Keith Nester kept up the facade for 10 years because his whole livelihood depended on the church he worked at as a pastor, but he knew the truth. There's no real money in Catholicism or Orthodoxy, so you might be right.
EXACTLY he doesnt want to change its so clear... he gets perfect answers and just acts like he could are less and moves on to next super chat like he never heard anything
@christsavesreadromans1096 Depends on what you classify as an apostolic father. If you're talking about any church father prior to 300 AD, catholic was just Greek for "the whole church". It later became "the whole Roman Catholic Church". Protestants include all Christians as part of the church, just like Ignatius did.
*As a PROTESTANT CHRISTIAN, these questions struggles me:* 1) If apostolic church (which can claim as the ancient church ) is turned away from God's teaching & guidance (as protestants say), Jesus was wrong or less powerful in preserving his church? (Because he promised to keep and preserve the church. His BRIDE) 2) Does the Holy spirit that Jesus promised has failed to guide the church from adopting "heresies" (doctrines that all apostolic churches hold together) If church (Bride of Christ) went astray from the truth (as protestants accuse apostolic churches), and her groom Jesus waited for more than thousand years for Martin Luther & Calvin to be born to guide her back to him?! That view is bad because it makes Jesus a bad groom. In conclusion, I assume Apostolic church is right and guided by the holy spirit.
If Protestantism is correct about the apostolic churches, then protestants are the church which Jesus has preserved. Also, going astray for a moment but coming back to follow God's will is what all believers do. Being wrong about some things along the way does not mean that we are no longer his bride. I don't think that Protestantism generally claims that the apostolic churches are 100% corrupt and opposed to God's will. Rather, it asserts that there are excesses within their structures which are leading them away, yet they can still be God's people. Does that make sense?
1. I think most Protestants would argue that the church is all believers and not a specific church, believers meaning people that believe in the essential doctrine (one triune God, that Jesus was born and died on the cross for our sins and rose again, that Jesus will return again, Bible is the inspired word of God etc). I also don't think a lot of protestants believe that apostolic churches have turned away from God's teaching because this would mean we believe they cannot be saved and I don't think most Protestants believe that. It's simply that they seem to have added other beliefs into their doctrine that does not seem to be in line with the teaching of the apostles and were not included in the Bible. I've definitely heard protestants spew ideas that Catholics aren't saved, but I think that's genuinely from ignorance. In my brief research of Catholicism, it's very clear that they do believe in the essential doctrines. 2. I agree that the apostolic churches (EO and Catholic) do have the essential doctrine held in both churches, but they both disagree with each other on other things and will call each other heretics over those differences. If there is only one true church, which one between EO and Catholic is the true church? If they've both been preserved this long despite their schism, is it possible they're both true despite their differences? I feel the latter question could be argued with the protestant belief, but if the first is true that there is only one literal true church, then may God have mercy on us all as we try to decipher history to figure out which one is true because in my research, it's really not clear and each side has good arguments.
Paul mentions in his letters correcting behaviors in the early church and even correcting early church leaders like Apollos. To me this shows error is certainly possible even in the ancient church even when first hand witnesses were alive. Was this a failure? Or was it a success that corrective measures took place after the fact?
For me its simpler than that- For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. John 3:16 and If you declare with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. Romans 10:9 If you do this you are saved and part of the Church which is the body of Christ. All the other doctrines is just man's overcomplication. And those verses have to ring true ever since the Church began because the majority of people didn't have the scriptures. They didn't have the fuller revelation that we have the privilege of enjoying. It has to be simple, it just has to be because mankind will always make a mess out of it and also because we contend with evil spiritual forces. Just look at the world. The gospel is so simple yet the majority reject it even amongst Christianity.
EO here. It is NOT true that we believe "pretty much everyone outside The Church is damned." A more accurate statement would probably be this: Some of us (The Orthodox) will be saved BECAUSE of our church, while others of us will be saved in SPITE of our church. Lord have mercy on us all!
Exactly, a true church is humble accepting fallibility among its clergy. My priest has made this clear and has even said for us to challenge him if he is found to be in error. That he is there to help spiritually guide, not to be the pulpit in which we all focus. That focus is to be on The Holy Trinity, not the clergy. God will save those whom he chooses that profess Him as their Father with a sincere heart full of repentance. He will show them His grace and mercy whether "the church" has accepted them or not. This is because "the church" is of man, fully fallible, no matter how hard it strives for perfection, no matter how pure of heart it tries to be. Only God is infallible, perfect, full of compassion, grace, and mercy. Thus why it is so important for its focus to be on The Holy Trinity and not the clergy. This is why a priest will state the ultimate power and will is that of God and that it is His church in which we must remember before any decision.
Protestant here. I understand that most EO that genuinely follow and practice all of its teachings and doctrine don’t believe that everyone outside of EO is going to hell (otherwise most of the Western hemisphere or the Americas would have been screwed). However and unfortunately I have witnessed and experienced many online EO who evangelize as such or sometimes imply this to be the case. My somewhat understanding is that because according to EO that like you said some will be saved because of the church and some in spite of the church and that those outside of EO , including Protestantism and especially Restorationist Christianity, put themselves more at risk to heresy. Please correct me if my statement is off. God bless 🙏🏾
I grew up Protestant and they certainly believe that other Christian churches are damned. Eastern Orthodox admits that someone can be saved in any church, but that the full tradition of Christ and salvation is found in the Orthodox Church.
Why anyone should convert to the One True Faith? 1.Because Jesus Christ Founded The Church. Matthew 16:18 2. Because Other Christian denominations and doctrine are Man Made. 3. Because Christ inspired the Church to write and compile the New Testament. 4. Because Non-Catholic Christians are Missing 7 books from their Old Testament. 5. The Eucharist / Communion. Was Ignatius of Antioch a Southern Baptist? The simple truth is no.
the fact that there is more than the so-called "one true" churches is the reason why protestants wont be able to leave their church and choose from the orthodox churches and catholic church which all claim the same thing
The true church was free of mary doctrines rosaries dolls statues figurines praying to saints, etc. Go back to the true church teachings. No need for man made traditions that Jesus nor apostles ever taught 😊
@@roses993 you've resorted to the you worship mary argument. This is weak and not persuasive. Why not try something like the Pope is a non-Christian and a heretic. That would be a much stronger argument. Or why not address some of the points above?
Protestantism got it right. I mean think about it, there are over 30,000 protestant denominations. Protestants saved the church of Jesus Christ from the Holy Spirit from dropping the ball. You can tell that Jesus failed to build his church for the 1st 1500 years in history, but thank God for the Protestants to get everything in order. In Protestantism you worship God how you want, don't like the worship band? Just try the other churches down the road... heck you want to start a church go for it! Protestantism is like Burger King, have it your way. Forget the tradition that was passed down from the Apostles and their disciples, forget what Scripture says when Paul says to stand fast to the traditions passed down to you whether in oral or written. Protestants hold Sola Scriptura, except the bible verse that mentions hold to the traditions passed down. There's tons of flavors in protestantism just like genders nowadays. In Protestantism you just pick one, and I'd you don't like it try another one. PS. (I apologize for my sarcasm... I had to get my two cents out). God bless.😅😂
I know what you mean. When Jesus promised hell would never prevail against His church, His prophecy failed, because centuries worth of Christians were left without salvation until the anabptists and reformers came on scene to fix things up 🛠️🗜️🪛🪚
Nobody ever asks why Napoleon is buried in France🇫🇷 or George Washington in the USA 🇺🇸 Similarly there's a reason the remains of the apostles rest in Catholic and Orthodox churches 🇻🇦
@@Robert-rw5lm it's the practice that has been passed down to us thru tradition. Exodus 13:19 "And Moses took the bones of Joseph with him: for he had straitly sworn the children of Israel, saying, God will surely visit you; and ye shall carry up my bones away hence with you." Read scripture AND early church
Protestantism feels like lazy Christianity to me. Like, Protestants shape the word of Christ to fit themselves instead of being molded by it. I could be wrong but that’s how it comes off to me.
As in all churches there are lazy christans in the protestant churches too. That is true. But you also can find them in the catholik and orthodox churches. I really don't care about anymore to which church a person belongs to. The more important things are: Can this person love other human beeings, animals and nature? Do they really do their best to love God and to follow Jesus Christ? And that are very important questions for me. As the orthodox church teaches God can save every person he wants to save. He is free to do it and I am sure he will.
I'd say the Orthodox feel the same too. The only real difference Protestants and Orthodox have is that the Orthodox do have enough authority over themselves to keep them in line in regions
This video shows how Protestantism moved away from the historical beliefs of Christianity. The one key thing Ruslan mentioned is that he doesn't see beliefs like papal infallibility in the early Church. Just because you don't see the name there doesn't mean the early Christians didn't believe in it. This is why Trent Horn said Protestantism argues like atheists. It is okay for you to allow doctrinal development like the Holy Trinity. That wasn't defined in the first 300 years. Yet, you believe the belief was there. You don't allow doctrinal development with Catholic or Orthodox beliefs.
The trinity isn’t doctrinal development in the same way the papal infallibility is. The doctrine of the trinity can be argued purely from scripture alone, whilst papal infallibility isn’t as clear and relies far more heavily on oral tradition. The whole we argue like atheism stick is old.
@@1517the_year Where in scripture does it define the Trinity as the 3 persons of God sharing one divine nature instead of each person having their own divine nature? Just because something is not clear doesn't mean it is not in scripture. If God only works through scripture, how can the Church be the pillar and foundation of truth (1 Tim 3:15) if God doesn't guide the Church to infallibly determine what is canonical?
@@vtaylor21 2 Corinthians 3:17 Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom. John 14:8-10 Philip said to him, “Lord, show us the Father, and it is enough for us.” Jesus said to him, “Have I been with you so long, and you still do not know me, Philip? Whoever has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, ‘Show us the Father? Do you not believe that I am in the Father and the Father is in me? Your turn, give me the scriptural references for papal infallibility? We believe as Protestants that the early church councils were authoritative but that scripture alone is infallibly authoritative. We believe the church holds authority but that everything must come under the power of scripture. Therefore we don’t believe that God only works through scripture. 2 Timothy 3:16-17 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the servant of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.
It may not have been defined as the Holy Trinity until later, but it is clear that the concept of God the Father, Jesus the Son, and the Holy Spirit being in unity is taught in the Bible. Assigning a name to an existing concept is not the same as the creation of new traditions/beliefs. For example, the Assumption of Mary or Immaculate Conception, neither of which are in the Bible and I'm not sure about Immaculate Conception, but the origins of the Assumption are not found until 2nd or 3rd century it seems and the Orthodox don't agree to either of these beliefs despite being an apostolic tradition. It'd be one thing if these were theories or even widely held beliefs, but for the Catholic church to make them dogma does feel quite hard to grasp. The Bible does have a scripture about keeping traditions both oral and written, however, in context, this was written at a time where oral tradition was the most popular way of spreading the Gospel and the Bible wasn't even compiled yet, but of course in modern times, we have the Bible free online/on mobile apps/etc. and all Christians believe it to be the inspired word of God. My question is this: If a specific tradition was so important, would they not have included it the way baptism, prayer, fasting, eucharist/communion is included? Is it fair to say that it's possible that some traditions are more important and a necessary part of salvation (those written in the Bible) than others (those not in the Bible or developed after)? I'm not even saying that God can't use the Holy Spirit to give people more knowledge or revelation, but if that's the case, how do we know for certain which church is the true church when they each have beliefs which cannot be compared to scripture but are considered dogma? Even when looking at the writings of the church fathers, you'll see some for/against certain beliefs so even looking back at history, it's not super clear which is true.
I was born in a Roman Catholic culture, being baptized as an infant. I became a Protestant in my teenage years and have studied all branches of Protestantism. But later in my life I have become Orthodox. And that’s because I have read not just the Church Fathers and the Councils, but also the Scriptures in Greek.
@@vch309 When you read the Scriptures in Greek, you understand why the Filioque isn’t biblical. Then, biblical texts where Jesus Christ teaches that the Father is greater than Him make sense. These passages declare the monarchy of the Father. (Monarchy of the Father in this sense means that God the Father is the one cause or source, mono-arche).
You kind of have to ask yourself why the Catholic Church is called the Catholic Church if catholic means universal? It's maybe because the Catholic Church is the, wait for it, the one true universal church
I am born and raised Protestant. I have always felt like I do not belong and can’t fit in to a church. I am honestly very interested in Orthodox, hoping to come closer to God and learn more about Christianity.
Protestant is a generalisation. It has always been divided between different movements such as Lutheranism, Calvinism, Arminianism and Anglicanism as the first of many as well as proto-Protestant movements such as the Waldensians. So to say that a person is a Protestant does not say much. Protestantism is like the lite Christianity, High Anglicanism the least lite, then Catholicism and Eastern Orthodox are more full to the fullest of Christianity depending if both are the true church or one is the true church and the other is not. Oriental and Church of the East are Schismatic to both Catholic and Eastern Orthodox (the possible successors of the original and true Church pre the Great Schism of 1054). A poor attempt to validate a position that is biblically and historically incorrect. Also the Protestants during the reformation are different to current Protestants even if the original Protestant denominations. For instance Luther understood the importance of the Theotokos. And Luther removed several books from the bible thinking he knows better than the Church fathers so the Pritestant canon is flawed. The video is only a 5 minute case for Protestantism that is being used to justify the opinion of a person on such an import at issue which seems odd. The all Churches are the true and Catholic (universal) Church is a view that is against the bible and icons are biblical. Protestants make conspiracy videos on the Book of Revelation and the Eastern Orthodox and Catholics are living the Book of Revelation. This is coming from an ex-Protestant is the process of becoming Eastern Orthodox and who has never felt closer to God since leaving Protestantism.
People still thinking this issue is about “labels” and not metaphysics/theology just continue to display that they don’t fully understand the Orthodox Church. This is not about aesthetics, it’s not about picking a signifier that suits your tastes and then assuming that we are all still talking about the same signified. The best analogy I can think of is an autostereogram. Protestants are focused on the colors while orthodox have been trying to draw attention to the hidden image. This is 2D vs 3D and the unfortunate reality is that you can’t convince someone to see much less appreciate an image that they have to exert effort to see. Nor will they be able to accurately talk about it until they perceive it.
Great analogy. But I’d also say it goes both ways. Both parties trying to convince each other the points of what they see while they are also irritated at each other for now fully agreeing with what they both see. Both see something tho and each thing probably needs to be addressed.
There's this great book called "From Object to Icon" I recommend it because it expresses what you're talking about. We live in a culture that can't see how matter participates in the will of God. This is the ancient problem of idolatry. When people with this mindset see an Orthodox Christian venerate an image of God, they see a person giving paint and wood uncreated attributes. Whereas the Orthodox Christian, who oftentimes is in recovery of the mindset he's being accused of, is simply offering a gesture to God while he awaits the day he can kiss the feet of his savior. God will then pass His grace along to that person through the matter the Christian is interacting with. That means when Orthodox are accused of idolatry, the accuser is really exposing their idolatry to you. It becomes a temptation for me to judge people when this happens. I have to remember where I was not too long ago as a Protestant and show mercy. God have mercy on me!
@@c2s2942 Simply calling something a straw man doesn't make something a straw man. What the OP said is perfectly reasonable. Protestantism is a mile wide but an inch deep where Orthodox is more focused and has an ontological view of Salvation and a holistic worldview that Protestants can only pretend to compete with. The Truth is in the details and being superstitious about that simply because you're ignorant about how the Church operates shouldn't keep you from seeing those details. The Orthodox Church isn't here to condemn. It's here to reveal Christ to people. It's done that since Pentecost and has stood for the Truth throughout it's history. That isn't going to change simply because you refuse to understand where she comes from.
I have been born again, when Jesus entered my heart in 1997. There was no clergy, no ritual, no veneration, no icons, no Bible, no Mary, no theological framework. Jesus Christ alone saves, not the church, not the priests, not the doctrine. The Gospel is Jesus Christ, and nothing can be added.
@@jesussotelo4775 Actually the Eastern Orthodox is the original church. The Catholic Church began making the most accretions, and caused the Protestant Reformation to happen.
So which version of Jesus do you follow lol 😆 ? This is not an argument experiential circumstances does nothing to claim it is the truth for all you know you can be influenced by demons. I have guys on my Facebook right now thay think it's thier duty to call out every pastor or that every person is infested with demons , Christians blowing jewish horns and jumping up and down like they are electrocuted lol this is what happens eventually without any set rules of theological frame work. Is it true that God can change lives outside the church? Yeah I would say so but it's our job as Christians to graduate from babies milk to meat 🍖 or we become malnutrited as believers
@@sinfulyetsaved I'm saying man-made accretions are not necessary for salvation, and in some cases people get lost in the accretions and forget the Gospel. The Gospel is dead simple, Paul explains it all in Galatians. 6 Chapters, lays it all out. It's fine to be inspired by the Gospel to create a beautiful ornate church or music, but it gets a bit much when I see people lighting candles, kissing icons, venerating the finger of a dead saint, etc. Not necessary, and imo distracting.
@@ragnarlothbrok2808 No its not. Historically, no. Jesus said his Church would be “the light of the world.” He then noted that “a city set on a hill cannot be hid” (Matt. 5:14). This means his Church is a visible organization. It must have characteristics that clearly identify it and that distinguish it from other churches. Jesus promised, “I will build my Church and the gates of hell will not prevail against it” (Matt. 16:18). This means that his Church will never be destroyed and will never fall away from him. His Church will survive until his return. Among the Christian churches, only the Catholic Church has existed since the time of Jesus. Every other Christian church is an offshoot of the Catholic Church. The Eastern Orthodox churches broke away from unity with the pope in 1054. The Protestant churches were established during the Reformation, which began in 1517. (Most of today’s Protestant churches are actually offshoots of the original Protestant offshoots.) Only the Catholic Church existed in the tenth century, in the fifth century, and in the first century, faithfully teaching the doctrines given by Christ to the apostles, omitting nothing. The line of popes can be traced back, in unbroken succession, to Peter himself. This is unequaled by any institution in history. Even the oldest government is new compared to the papacy, and the churches that send out door-to-door missionaries are young compared to the Catholic Church. Many of these churches began as recently as the nineteenth or twentieth centuries. Some even began during your own lifetime. None of them can claim to be the Church Jesus established. The Catholic Church has existed for nearly 2,000 years, despite constant opposition from the world. This is testimony to the Church’s divine origin. It must be more than a merely human organization, especially considering that its human members- even some of its leaders-have been unwise, corrupt, or prone to heresy. Any merely human organization with such members would have collapsed early on. The Catholic Church is today the most vigorous church in the world (and the largest, with a billion members: one sixth of the human race), and that is testimony not to the cleverness of the Church’s leaders, but to the protection of the Holy Spiri
I'm what some may call, a 'born-again' Catholic. Born and raised Catholic - but I went wayward, downward, and got SO lost exploring other faith/church practices for many years including protestant. But miraculously when I was in the most complete dark despair in life, I found my faith again during a trip to Lourdes Grotto, France in 2008. Since then I have never looked back. I did my Confirmation in 2011 returning to the Catholic faith, and feel like a prodigal who finally returned home to the mother church. I have a strong devotion now to Mother Mary who interceded and comforted me to help guide my return. There is no more need for 'human-mind' arguments of holy scripture/teachings, or the 'who's right who's wrong debating' authority/division. There is now only love and salvation found again following the Catholic practice. It's just so beautiful when you finally come to realise and get to experience it. In faith, hope and LOVE I really wish it for all, even if it's in the last day/min of your life.. come home.
So many people talking and defending their denominations it's like claiming your set. I always feel like we over complicate the Bible and form sects based on our ideology 😒😒
But there was a united Church and anything else outside of it is a denomination that breaches the unity of the true Church. There is debate if the Catholics or Eastern Orthodox are the true successors to the original Church but Protestants can never claim to be.
Your right that’s exactly what Martin Luther did he created his own sect of Christianity and now we have chaos with all the different Christian doctrines. Martin Luther regretted making his own church at his death bed and repented
That’s one of the major issues with Protestantism, is it creates factions, it creates heresy, because there’s no normative authority. The Protestant church can’t be Catholic (Universal) since it doesn’t have anything that ties one Protestant church to another. Evangelicals believe baptism and communion are purely symbolic, whereas the Lutherans believe communion contains Christ’s presence spiritually. No Protestant churches actually agree with one another on important matters of faith. Whether that be communion, how it’s to be received, how often it should be received, whether we should or shouldn’t baptise babies, and a myriad of other issues. This means, that while Protestantism is a lot of things, universal is not one them. God bless you and your family. Lord have mercy on us all.
As a person who is looking into Eastern Orthodox. As much as I do see points in this video, I can’t ignore the contradictions: -Catholic (universal teaching) Protestant-> they claim but can you define Fundamental teaching, then what is classed as fundamental teaching-> there are many Protestant secs that believe in different teachings. -History -> good basis to show what the early Church teaches therefore you can see what are the Fundamental Teachings. But the Protestants disagree with many early teachings. Veneration of Icons Is NOT Worship, there is a clear distinction between Veneration + Worship as Worship is for God Only. The Orthodox priests will tell you this clear difference, it is also seen when you go to the Divine Liturgy. Orthodox kiss + bow to icons to show respect for that person, Not to Worship icons. "I do not worship matter, I worship the God of matter, who became matter for my sake and deigned to inhabit matter, who worked out my salvation through matter. I will not cease from honoring that matter which works for my salvation. I venerate it, though not as God." (St. John of Damascus) -Protestants view the Bible as the sole infallible source. However Martin Luther believed he was the sole authority to remove books from the Bible-> is the Bible really infallible then? Or at that point does it become infallible? Therefore you have to recognise that Luther has the sole authority -> he is like a Pope which he criticised Roman Catholics for believing Papal infallibility. Eastern Orthodox don’t believe in sole infallibility of one man. That is why they look at Ecumenical Councils and stick to what the early Church taught. Therefore what is the Protestant criticism of Tradition? Perhaps you define Tradition differently? Orthodox view of Tradition isn’t one set thing. It is multiple which includes Church Fathers and the Bible, as the Bible was made at the early Church. Orthodox view of Tradition: Not enough to simply govern intellectual assent to system of doctrine; Tradition is far more than just abstract propositions-> it is a Life, personal encounter with Christ in the Holy Spirit. “When the Spirit of Truth has come, He will guide you to all Truth.” (John XVI). This is why the Church alone can interpret scripture with Authority, not one man. This is why Orthodox Don’t separate between Scripture + Tradition as the Bible came from the Church. I do respect all who believe, but Jesus Christ says: "I Will Build My Church!": "And the Gates of Hell Shall Not Prevail Against It!” It is clear that this is a Visible Church. I hope Protestants do consider this and really think. If you stick with Protestantism, then as always, God is merciful to all. But it is clear there isn’t Salvation outside the Church, but anyone who is outside the Church doesn’t mean they are damned. I pray for you all, God Bless you all 🙏💟☦️
I am on the opposite side of the same coin. 18 years I've been a born again protestant but I find myself being drawn to the oriental orthodoxy. The thing that is driving me out is that the protestant church I've been a member of and any I've visited are serving man. If you can show me anywhere in the bible where Christians were preached to after accept Christ, I will be at any church you want me to be every day and twice on Sunday. Sunday service is what has done it for me. 45 minutes I am receiving a message? I see me receiving more then God. You give worship, so whoever is giving is worshiping and the one receiving is worshiped. I'm all for teaching and the person who receives the teaching but 6 days out of the week, on the seventh day you are to give. I'm not saying oriental orthodox has it right, but I see less wrong there then anywhere else.
The issue with Protestantism is that it is not grounded in any way towards the Apostles; all of whom which Christ said will build his Church. If your faith and religious practices towards Christ are not associated with what the Apostles taught then you are not embracing Christ’s teachings to its fullest extent. In Orthodoxy, we say the phrase “One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic church” during every Liturgy in the creed. One: One church with no denominations. Holy: Being Christlike in our livelihoods. Catholic: A universal doctrine of faith(not to be confused with Roman Catholics). Apostolic: Every church leader, monk, and members of the clergy were ordained by an existing Bishop(including all Bishops) going all the way back to the Apostles, who were themselves ordained by Christ.
@@vch309 “The truth is to be found nowhere else but in the Catholic Church, the sole depository of apostolic doctrine. Heresies are of recent formation, and cannot trace their origin up to the apostles.” Protestants can’t do that. -St Ireneous in “Against Heresies” written in 170-180’s
Actually, we say Catholic means “fullness” not universal. It’s the entire fullness of the faith including scripture, traditions, the Church, teachings, and sacraments. If you’re sola scriptura, you’re not experiencing the fullness of the Church. If you are low church and don’t corporately pray and celebrate the Divine Liturgy, you’re not experiencing the fullness of the Church. If you don’t adhere to verbal teachings but only written teachings, you’re experiencing the fullness of the Church. If you only recognize two sacraments (baptism and communion) but not others like confession, marriage, and ordination of clergy, you’re not experiencing the catholic (full) Church. ☦️
True protestant christian teaches the pure gospel of Jesus. And apostles. Doctrines free of dolls statues figurines mary veneration and praying to saints indulgences penance etc. Stick to Word of God. No need for additional garbage to the pure gospels 😊❤
@@Cattleman16479 Paul made evangelism a thing longggg before Luther or Calvin. And attributing something positive to them doesn’t mean Calvin’s theology is logically consistent with the Christian message.
Once you encounter the Church Fathers it's all over; I remember the day I first heard Ignatius of Antioch talking about the Eucharist, just decades after Revelation had been written. After that I read more and more post and pre-Nicene fathers and realized these guys sounded nothing like my niche of a niche of a denomination; these guys were something else entirely - Catholic. In fact, it took me more than a millennium to find anyone who thought that the Eucharist was just a symbol, that baptism wasn't necessary for salvation, that the Bishop of Rome was chief among all leaders, etc... I was faced with a choice; either I was wrong and all of my assumptions about the "golden of age" of Christianity were wrong and the protestant reformation didn't save and propel an underground church... or the church immediately fell into apostasy as soon as John died and the gates of Hell truly did overcome.
Your first statement applies more to the Catholic then it does to other groups. The Church Fathers were all over the place on many issues. Take Matt 16:18. There is a 3 way split that takes place among the fathers who chimed in on the issue. Some said Peter is the rock, some Jesus, and some the confession. Rome knows this and yet at the council of Vatican I it lied and stated that it was universally understood that the rock was peter. Pick a doctrine that Rome teaches and you can usually find at least one church father who taught otherwise. If it took you had to look into the Middle Ages before you found voices that countered Rome's current teaching then you were not looking in the right places. It is well known even amongst Catholics that no less than Augustine's testimony had to be overcome in order to sustain transubstantiation. For anyone who wants to see what the evolution of a doctrine looks like, I point them to the Marian Dogmas. I don't know how anyone can look at the info related to Pope Honorious and still believe in papal supremacy and infallibility. I am not sure where you got that the idea that only those in communion with Rome have looked at the ECF but your truculence looks like naivete.
I've seen Orthodox teachings an sermons on youtube and all I can say is that they're biblically sound and grounded. But man a lot of people from this christian branch can really be a bit overbearing.
It’s more of a sense of pride and love for God. Sorry for being a bit intense, but we’re just doing what we love and are trying to get as many people to join us in salvation.
I find that it’s usually the young ones in the Orthodox Church who have the brashness and pride, they generally are the converts from a western mindset. Those who were born and raised in the east show far more humility which the others will gain in time God willing.
@@AJ_Sparten1337 I can honestly understand that, remember a time when I tried talking to a close individual in a similar manner. Though I feel I came off a bit strong, so ever since then I just take a softer approach with people. Unless the person is being hostile to the message then I switch to a more stern way of going about it.
Orthodox Christianity from the New Testament on has seen the revelation of God to be contained in the person of Jesus Christ. Christ is the truth. Therefore, the only way to know God is to know Christ. While the West speaks of coming to know certain things about God from natural revelation in creation, certain things through the scriptures, certain things through oral tradition and so on, the East has instead emphasized coming to know God experientially by coming as a human person to know and be united with the person of Christ. Rather than saying that the Orthodox Church rejects the position of sola scriptura, it is more correct to say that the Orthodox Church does not hold to the definition of God’s revelation of separate, competing authorities in the Church that make sola scriptura possible. The scriptures are not a manual on how to live a moral life or how to organize the Church as an institution. The scriptures are the means by which we come to know the risen Christ. Always through the workings of the Holy Spirit.
Not a manual on how to live life and or how to organize the church? It literally has that in the Bible. I don’t see how a daily reading of the Bible from front to back would ever lead anyone to think that those things are not mentioned and taught. It is indeed.
@@robertgomez7409 I think you misunderstand me. When I say that the Bible is not an instruction manual, I am in no way claiming that you cannot learn anything from the Bible. What I mean is that this approach to reading Scripture is wrong and could be the very reason you may not be getting anything out of it. The instruction manual style of reading is that you will go to the text with a particular problem and expect that the text will give you the answer. Think of trying to assemble anything from IKEA. You are sitting there with a bunch of parts with no idea of how to construct your purchase. Opening up the instructions will guide you along the very process you must go through to get the desired result. Instruction manuals give us a path that must be followed with 100% accuracy if we have any hope of attaining the intended result. The Bible does not, and cannot, function in this way. Rather the Bible functions like many great pieces of literature, teaching us virtues and a morality that is intended for us, in order to be the kind of people we were created to be. It teaches concepts, not processes. Approaching the Bible like an instruction manual would lead many people to make the wrong choices, simply because it is in the Bible.
@@BrandonDiaz-uc8iu read the Old Testament when God spoke it was to be listened too, to the T. Moses was not allowed into the Promised land. Find the reason. Aarons sons died when offering a sacrifice. Find the reason. Josiah tore his clothes when he found the scriptures. Find the reason. And the list goes on and on.
@@robertgomez7409 Again you continue to misunderstand my overall point in my original comment. The Bible does not directly answer every problem we encounter especially in our modern age. It does not mean that we cannot find an answer in Christ. Yes, scripture is important, but what is also important is to come to know Christ through our efforts to imitate Him even though we of course fall short. By Taking up our own crosses and following Him and by partaking in the Divine nature we can begin to develop a closer relationship to Him. With the Lord's help, we must change and grow to be “partakers of the divine nature” (2 Peter 1:4). By praying to and worshipping God as well as loving our neighbors and living our lives in service to one another, we can then come to truly know Christ.
I agree with you this is where I'm at myself. I really enjoy listening to orthodox teachers and feel they speak well on topics. But it's the praying to saints and the praying for the dead to make it to heaven that stops me from wanting make the switch.
@JBIII90 I am Oriental Orthodox so am a miaphysite. However for us the belief is the same. So for us to pray means to ask. It's archaic English see 1 Kings 2 17 KJV. We ask the saints to pray alongside us. We hold to the communion of saints which means when Paul calls for intercession in Eph 6 18 they are included. We believe the saints partake in the divine nature 2 Peter 1 4 so remain alongside us. Praying for the dead comes from 2 Macabees when he prayed for the pagan soldiers who had been played. I heard recently heard the story of Eck and Luther. Apparently at the debate Eck asked Luther about praying for the dead because it went against sola fide. Luther said he rejected praying for the dead. Eck then pulled up 2 Macabees. Luther then proclaimed he rejected Macabees as scripture. It's quite an interesting story. I'm glad your looking into Orthodoxy. I highly recommend looking up us Oriental Orthodox such as the Coptic Orthodox. We have a different history to Rome and the eastern Orthodox.
This is the answer given by every Christian who wants to give an excuse to not go to church lol. "It's a relationship, not a religion." Your personal relationship with Christ is dependent on how you relate to others
I'm Catholic and i have no desire for protestantism because not only is it unbiblical but also because Christ established His Church through the Apostles empowered by the Holy Spirit
@@ItsThatGuy1989 i go to church every Sunday. I serve in student ministry every Sunday. Let every man be swift to hear and slow to speak James 1:19 You assumption that i don’t go to Church because I am a Protestant shows a close mindedness and a lack of grace. Definitely not godly behavior. But go off….
I love God so much that I want to learn everything about him including old traditions that the orthodox church still holds today. In my walk from day one being reborn I the Holy Spirit guided me thru all kinds of doctrine.. starting from televangelist and prosperity, Pentecostal, Calvinism Baptist … learned from all of them and now I discovered orthodox and it’s amazing. More knowledge more wisdom more of God. Just when I thought I knew it all. I’m theologically aware and you add that to orthodox and believe me, you can see how awesome it is
My problem with Protestantism is The Bible itself. You don’t get to remove books from the Bible just because it doesn’t fit your doctrine. Martin Luther committed sacrilege by doing that. As for Mary all Christians should venerate her, the first thing Gabriel said to her was Hail Mary full of grace and that she was favored among all women. Are we better than Gabriel?? You’re argument against icons was bad honestly, I guarantee you have photos of close family and you’ve kissed the picture, does that mean you’re worshipping them? Course not. As for Catholics and Orthodox condemning people outside the Church to Hell you can easily argue that was out of bitterness cause of the schism like you said the church has softened its heart on salvation outside the church. The Orthodox also don’t support Papal infallibility so truthfully brother you made no real compelling argument against Orthodoxy at least. At the end of the day Martin Luther removed books and altered scripture he didn’t agree with despite it being Gods word and that should be unacceptable to anyone who calls themself Christian. That being said I love the channel Ruslan keep serving the Lord Jesus🙏🏻
The apostolic churches even thought having its differences from each other still hold fundamental beliefs established by the early church fathers which is why we use the word Catholic which means universal There are thousands of different Protestant churches with completely different teachings and theology because of the fact that they are not universal or apostolic I cant say for sure that the Protestant churches are damned although I just feel like if the church’s built from the very people who put the bible together was still around, why wouldn’t you just go to those churches?
I think there's a couple issues. 1.Orthodoxy never stated at council that the non-Orthodox were damned. We also do not claim that the Church is an institution. 2. Even if you have you a protestant ecclesiology, you still have to divide a place where Christians and non-Christians are found. What is your Criteria for determining this 3. How are we defining defining salvation? 4. You're still appealing to a certain view of history which is arbitrary. Why the first 300 years of Church history? Why do you just pick Nicea 1, what is your canon of determination? 5. Gavin is speaking about a very broad Catholicity that most protestants would not hold to. If you asked the vast majority of Protestants if Catholics are Christians in my opinion they would say no.
Like i always say, if you want to be Catholic be Catholic if you want to be protestant be protestant. Jesus died and rose from the grave for both of us. We both accept jesus as our lord and savior. We are both Christians.
Absolutely love Ruslan and a big fan of your music too! This video by Dr.Gavin has been refuted. Orthodox Christianity provides the most consistent theology and history that we find within the first millennium. Appreciate your channel. Let's keep the conversation going!
In the Orthodox Church we don't think other people outside the Church are "saved", because that is not for us to judge. Also Christ saved us yesterday, today, tomorrow, etc. That concept of being "saved" is so western...
I used to be protestant until very recently, and I have a question for protestants, who interprets scripture? And who's interpretation is deemed 'correct'?
@@bradleyperry1735 One who humbles himself and submits to Jesus with all of his heart. Repents of his sins to Him. Accepts Jesus as his Lord and Saviour. Rejects all other false gods.
@@bradleyperry1735 The Apostles were given the Holy Spirit. They passed it onto Bishops with Apostolic succession. A lot of us are currently lost and I pray we all are reunited.
God didn't tell his apostles to make a new denomination every time they disagreed. This is why I can't take 1000's of protestant religions seriously. 🤷🏽♂️
@@robiszabo903 “If you openly declare that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For it is by believing in your heart that you are made right with God, and it is by openly declaring your faith that you are saved.” -Romans 10:9-10
@@tashajoykin5192What does Paul mean by belief here? Does he mean purely intellectual assessment that Christ is Lord? No! If he did then this create a contradiction between James and Paul. James tells us even the Demons believe, and tremble (James 2:19). The demons believe Jesus is Lord far more than we ever can until our death. Yet they will all be condemned to hell. Evidently here, when Paul speaks of believe, he’s talking about faith, and faith moves, faith produces works, this is how we create cohesion between James and Paul. But what you’ve done is a perfect example of what Saint Peter said people do with Paul’s writings (because they lack normative authority) 2 Peter 3:15-16 “and consider that the long-suffering of our Lord is salvation - - as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given to him, has written to you, as also in all his apostles, speaking in them of these things, in which are somethings hard to understand, which untaught and unstable people twist to their own destruction, as they do also with the rest of the Scriptures.” God bless you, peace be with you, may the Lord have mercy on us all ☦️
Why can’t we just call it Christianity like it was originally called when the church was first started in Acts- ”The disciples were called Christians first at Antioch.“ Acts 11:26 NIV No extra unbiblical traditions, no denominations, no divisions… just believers in Christ obeying the Scripture God revealed to them. Just the God Breathed Word penned by men who were carried along by the Holy Spirit. His Word… plain and simple. Was never meant to be Protestant Christians, orthodox Christians, Catholic Christians, etc etc. Just Christians.
"I'm too good, too smart, and too sophisticated for the apostolic traditions of the people who literally invented the religion I claim to follow" Non-denominational and modern Protestantism is just recreational Christianity as a hobby
Ya you are not getting it. Seems like you cannot comprehend his reasons. It's way easier to slam someone for being prideful than to actually understand their arguments. You're being lazy.
Jesus promised atleast one of the church wouldn’t promise heresy with that verse how could that be the Protestant church when they are so split Also Protestantism doesn’t have apostolic succession so it’s basically man made
@@kurt1391or it’s the fact that Jesus laid his hands and called on people who can be priest and it’s been passed down Jesus didn’t let anybody be a priest only his apostles
That doesn't mean its not important. Adding or subtracting them from the Bible doesn't change the salvation of Jesus that he is the only way the truth and the life.
For me, the bible says "For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith-and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God- 9not by works, so that no one can boast." (Ephesians 2:8) and "Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. On that day many will say to me, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?’ And then will I declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness.’ (Matthew 7:21-23), Lastly, "For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord. (Romans 6:23). These explain how it is not our works or anything we do to earn salvation. It is a GIFT from god. By putting 100% trust and faith in jesus and that he paid our punishment in full we are accepting this gift. If I were to gift you something but I said you have to do something in return, than it would not be a gift. If you rely on praying or going to church to be saved, while these things are good to do, you are relying partly on yourself to be saved, and not god. This is what I have learned and currently believe which I guess would put me in the protestant category. Pls feel free to comment your opinions.
@@joevi2593man, this hits me so hard. I grew up catholic, turned prodigal, came back to Christ as a “non denominational” I guess, now I’m constantly being convinced by everyone that they are correct, man it really is tiring. It’s making it easier for the devil to convince me to just give up. Truth is, I just know that Jesus died for my sins and that I should turn away from sin, I dont really know where to go from here, I dont even have a church currently. Its so tiresome.
@@HlGHENERGY There are millions of Middle Eastern and Chinese Christians who are dying for Jesus and The Gospel. The vast majority of them are just people in underground churches praising the LORD. They are true Christians and they don't belong to any religious institution. Let the Holy Spirit of our God guide you to a church.
As long as you are actually a Christian then you are saved BUT Catholicism and the Orthodoxy bring so much more to loving a relationship with Jesus. For me i was almost a protestant but I could not reject the Eucharist as the true presence of Jesus because I had experienced this so many times. To also experience the power of God in his sacraments is just too much of a gift to reject for the sake of being a protestant.
For you that is true, but not for others. I'm married to a very devout Catholic, and we have very different reactions to the same things. We're not all inspired by the same things. I don't like running, but some people love it.
@kurt1391 you don't like running, but you'd have to admit that if you did go for runs and eventually made it part of your lifestyle, you would most likely be physically healthier. And we could even hate running but our preference of not running doesn't change the fact that running is good for us. In the same way, something like the Eucharist in catholicism even if one prefers not to take part would still benefit from this. To experience Jesus in this way. Look at even one both Catholics and Protestants think is good; baptism. If you're a protestant and someone told you they prefer not to be baptized and they still have a relationship with Jesus without it you'd probably still say baptism would still be beneficial. So when I say catholicism brings more to our relationship with Jesus with things like the Eucharist, and it's too good to reject, I agree with you. It is true for me. But I would say truth here isn't subjective to the person. It's true for everyone. It's just some people prefer not to have this benefit like not wanting to go running.
There's an Orthodox Chridtian Apologist/RUclipsr named "Seraphim Hamilton", that is making me become an Orthodox Christian. I highly recommend checking him out.
I love this channel but I truly don’t think Ruslan has studied the Orthodox position, with any intent on being open to changing his mind. Speaking for myself, coming from a Baptist background and moving into evangelical non denominational evangelical churches later on. I wanted to learn what the early christians believed. But the more you study Church History and the Church Fathers it is clear, there were not multiple denominations with all sorts of different interpretations that they viewed as doctrines and were still considered apart of the Apostolic Church. Protestants actually have switched their historical positions as well to say now Catholics and Orthodox can be saved because that is by no means a historical Protestant position. Calvin and Luther had Anabaptist murdered for going against the “true faith” Luther sentenced people to be drowned even. Protestants because of Sola Scriptura, have actually just become Postmoden in their thinking. They have no epistemic principle to say they have the “correct” interpretation over a Mormon. They would have to appeal to tradition and Christians believing the same thing to ultimately prove a point because you can’t argue everything from the Bible alone. Ruslan says this is a straw man of sola scriptura often but when it gets down to the points where we disagree it goes back to them believing that they solely are interpreting Scripture in their own way.. There is so much evidence overwhelmingly going against what Protestantism teaches in its various sects that I do not understand how someone could not understand the significant flaws in the very foundation of Protestants.
Ruslan. Is there evidence in the bible of a group of Godly people who were so confident in their traditions and held so firm to their law that they refused to follow Jesus? I can think if some......and those people seem oddly similar to current day Catholics
Once I read the source someone cites, and find it directly contradicts their case, I stop listening to them. I've long since stopped listening to Gavin Ortlund. He hasn't read his own sources, and hasn't done the work needed to act as a teacher.
I prefer the old Catholic Church, they just came out and told you were going to hell if you didn't join their church. Modern Catholics often give the impression of being sweet and friendly about it while still being smug and condescending at the same time.
The claims made in the video are demonstrably false. You can easily look up what christians in the 1st 2nd 3rd century believed about salvation, church, sacraments and it looks nothing like protestantism. By Ruslans own admission, the concept of only one True Church has always been taught since the beginning, until protestants showed up. I dont think that helps the historicity of your position. Not only the doctrine of one true church, but many other doctrines have always been taught like the real prescence, infant baptism, apostolic succesion. Guess what never existed, sola scriptura, sola fide. You will not find that teaching before 1500s, not even miss quoting Augustine can support sola scriptura. Ruslan claiming he knows church history comes off as arrogantly ignorant. Not even some quote mines from Augustine can support protestantism.
Protestantism just vacant stale for me and I plateaued, I searched for more and it lead me to Eastern Orthodoxy, what better way than the original, now I feel at home and feel the true presence of God in the divine liturgy
No on is trying to claim you in the way they are trying to "claim" Jordon Peterson. Jordon is having his own internal battle publicly, while you built your platform as a Protestant Christian, the "cool" Christian. If being a Protestant is false, you are leading people astray, especially young people.
Even though it's intellectually engaging, I always feel dirty when engaging in the denominatinal stuff. To me, this feels as in the Flesh as one can be. I feel like Jesus doesn't care what we call our selfes. He knows our hearts. What about the people that have never ever heard about him? Aren't they free of sin? How would Jesus let you down for sincerely following him to the best of your knowledge? Whenever I start trying to select a denomination, I feel pride creeping up my spine and getting ready to unfold. As far as I understand Jesus, these superficial technicalities are like filthy rags to God. If I am wrong, please tell me! 🙏🏽
This proves Protestantism teaches church is about us. What we want, our preferences. Non of this matters, what is truth and what church did Christ establish.
The problem with saying the Bible is the final authority is that it’s not the revealer of truth in and of itself. Or in other words, the Bible doesn’t interpret itself. This is a loaded, arbitrary assumption. Everyone has a particular lens, aka hermeneutic, through which they read the Text. So the question is what proper hermeneutic are we meant to have when reading Scripture? Because I’d suggest that’s the real final authority.
The answer to this is simple: Christ is the Final Authority, because He is the Word of God (what all the Scriptures point to), and not only the Word of God, but the Word of God made flesh and God revealed to us in and through a broken Man hanging from a tree. The One who died and rose for all to see. This is our final authority. Everything else we can debate and hash out, but let us not miss what is most important. It’s Christ who is Truth. He is the Last Word. Behold Him above all else.
I really like orthodox theology and their explanation of things Protestants demonize, but I believe we’re in an age of extreme grace from God, and ultimately too many life paths and experiences happen to be one denomination, and if one is truly Gods church we will all eventually come back to it.
I personally find that the more I study and learn church history the more Interest I lose in Orthodoxy Christianity or Catholic Christianity. The more I study early church history the more I become Protestant.
It's unfortunate you haven't looked at what's most important in life, our faith, with objectivity or reason. Your episode with the Orthodox showed a severe lack of knowledge and understanding of both Orothodox and Catholic views and history. This despite having someone like Trent Horn on who could have answered all those questions for you. You are choosing to stay in the dark on this. I'll pray for you.
Y’all are starting to sound like what y’all are accusing the Protestants being of and condemning people for personal preference. It sounds like he understands the views, he’s just content with where he’s at. God is not one dimensional and calls different people to different places, and people just have to be okay with that.
@@dmarkel92 I know, I found this video today and reading through the comments were just depressing, I guess everything about my faith is all worthless because I don't go to this building and do this specific thing. Not to mention, seeing Christians slandering each other for things like that is just depressing I guess a Bible verse did actually help though. It was 1 Corinthians 12:17. "If the whole body were an eye, how would you hear?". At the end of the day we're all Christians. Different people are apart of different parts, but we're all apart of the whole body. To act like one is over the other or that one is the "true part" just sounds like what that verse hypothesized.
Ruslan, you will indeed become Roman Catholic, for two simple reasons - the Catholic Church is the truth, and you are a seeker of truth. When you truly and sincerely seek the truth, God cannot fail to reveal it to you.
When you say no creed is superior to Scripture, you actually mean no creed is superior to MY understanding of the Scripture. I love my protestant brothers and sisters, but there is no denying it, in the very heart of reformation was immense pride.
@@bjornmikkelsen I completely understand this feeling of fear, however the scripture is clear, " any who confess with their mouth and believe in their hearts that Christ Yehusha (Jesus) is their savior for sins, you shall be saved." John 3:16
John 3:16 states that if we believe in the One who the Most High has sent to save the world, has everlasting life. Which is trusting in Yehusha(Jesus) as the Messiah (Christ) for the world.
I find it funny how people in the comment section think they are superior to the other denominations forgetting the Lord's teaching that "For he who is least among you all is the one who is great."
I don't understand the tensions between denominations to be honest. We all have our own unique personal relationship with Jesus. I don't adhere to the whole you're not truly "reborn" unless you abide by this particular denomination. It seems inherently tribalistic and non Christan-like in relation to religious tolerance and acceptance.
It's easy to understand. You can not hold two contradicting positions at the same time unless you completely dispense with the metaphysical reality that Truth exists. denominations, as in the Protestant/evangelical/ reformed/ Roman Catholic circles all hold to different notions of what's True, who Christ is, What salvation is, who God is etc. While Orthodoxy, has remained the same since Pentecost, It's pre-denominational and shows us the narrow way that leads us to a personal relationship with thee Jesus Christ. Not our own personal construct of who we believe Jesus to be.
@@anothercat1300 I understand that there are nuances and disagreements with who Christ and what salvation is. I'm not speaking about a personal construct either. I'm simply speaking about bending the knees whilst surrendering and asking Jesus for guidance and understanding. No preconceived notion, no personal construct. The simple act of prayer.
I’d consider myself independent Baptist and I’ve never heard that we are the true church. I think whoever believes the gospel is apart of the church the body of Christ. I will say I believe the independent Baptist Church is more aligned with the teachings of the Bible than most protestant churches. We aren’t going around claiming we are the one true church like other Catholic or orthodox churches.
I’ll say this too there’s so many false teachers we mark and avoid so I can see how we might seem a little more dogmatic and isolated but there’s definitely salvation outside the independent or fundamentalist churches salvation doesn’t belong to built church as long as it’s biblical nothing added to or taken away.
Just to fact check you because you made a few mistakes in this video, Icons are not a late integration of the church in the medieval era the Iconoclasm debates and in fighting happened in the 7th century and Iconography is clearly on display in the oldest churches in the world so to claim that imagery is a later invention when it clearly shows up in early 3rd and 4th century churches is nonsense. As a Protestant who by his own admission isn't well read on Church history it would be sensible of you to not make statements like this. The video itself is also failing on many points a more compelling appeal to Catholicity, History and scripture? Catholicity you mean the 40000 denominations that disagree on virtually everything? History, what history? Scripture? Didn't yall remove 7 books that didn't fit your narrative. A removal of historical accretions, OSAS? Calvinism? Sola scriptura? "but not these books i removed" Faith alone but lets ignore any scripture that says otherwise. You cannot make this stuff up. I mean this with all love and respect if people choose to be Protestant so be it God bless you I wish you the best but don't make baseless nonsensical INDEFENSIBLE claims.
Rock and Sand: An Orthodox Appraisal of the Protestant Reformers and Their Teachings Ruslan claims to know history but he doesn't. then tries shows AI gen video to falsely prove it. May GOD have Mercy on us all
I tried to become orthodox, but then I interact with some orthodox people online and they told me they were the only Church and that I wasn’t saved. They still believe it.
As an Orthodox myself I would apologise on their behalf because that isn’t what the Church teaches. We believe the Church is the normative means of salvation. But that doesn’t mean God can’t have mercy on those outside the Church. Ultimately the Orthodox view of salvation is a life lived in repentance. So think of it like this, I am saved (at the moment of coming to faith), I am being saved (through the ups and downs of this life) and I will be saved (united to God) I pray that you don’t let bad Orthobros online ruin the image of Orthodoxy, attend a service, speak to the clergy. Seek and you shall find, knock and it will be open to you, ask and you shall receive. God bless you my friend. Take care of yourself.
Your conversion wont be online by conversations. You need to research for yourself and understand. As an Orthodox I am aware that some people arent the best at guiding and teaching our faith and traditions. Thats why its best to research and intend a Divine Liturgy. These 2 things will help guide you home. I also would suggest investing into the Orthodox study bible which is great for newcomers to dive into the structure of everything. Hope you find your way that isnt as hectic.
This is part of the reason it’s tough for me to make “the leap of faith”. All of the different churches have ideology that say the other churches are damned.
Not converting bc I am not persuaded by their arguments, do not think there is ONE VISIBLE church, and because I’ve witnessed grace outside of their exclusive claims
The Orthodox Church doesn’t claim people can’t experience grace outside the Church. The thief on the cross is a clear example of this, however this is an exception, not a rule. The rule is that grace is found normatively through the Church, but that God being who He is, and loving all people can grant grace to people outside the Church. God bless.
God can do as He pleases. There's just an assurance to interact with his Grace in the Church he established through the Apostles. The Church is the Body of Christ, so to say it's not physical in history is to say Christ isn't physical in history.
Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you have no life in you. The Eucharist is undeniable in the earliest of church writings. And certainly not in the Protestant sense. But love the videos!
Is this serious? Very weak arguments and missing the whole point... over time protestants are moving further and further away to the point of complete distortion and confusion, to the point of theology full of heresies denounced by that One Apostolic Church of the first few centuries. That is the reason why I reverted back to the Armenian Apostolic Church from protestantism...
The incredible thing about ortodoxy is that it doesent consider anyone infallible. Not the bishops, not the councels, not even the saints. They put trust the holy spirit (the spirit of truth) to ulitametly guide the church in preserving the aposolic tradition. This is a big difference from catholicism where they have this idea that they can intelectually understand the scripture better with new logical arguments and new views, while the entire history of the ortodox church is unchanged preservation of tradition and constant refuting of heresy. That’s why you can go to an ortodox church today and be absolutely confident that you grandchildren will be able to go to that same church completely unchanged by time (like god is in heaven so should be his church on earth unchangable, no reformations, no inovations).
Check Out The Bless God Prayer Journal Here: blessgodprayer.shop
Catholicism and orthodox are not other streams of Christianity there's only one stream, the bible. One path, Jesus.
*ON THE ORIGIN OF THE NAME CATHOLIC CHURCH"*
_The Early Church began calling itself the Catholic Church during the lifetime of the Apostle John._
The early Church - the Church founded by Christ as promised in Matthew 16:18 - was that which was originally known as “the Way” (cf. Acts 24:14). Later, those individuals who followed Christ began to be called “Christians” beginning at Antioch (cf. Acts 11:26). As early as 107 A.D., those same individuals referred to themselves collectively as the “Catholic Church”. In a letter to the Church of Smyrna, Ignatius of Antioch wrote:
_“You must all follow the bishop as Jesus Christ follows the Father, and the presbytery (priest) as you would the Apostles. Let no one do anything of concern to the Church without the bishop. Wherever the bishop appears, let the people be there; just as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church.” (Letter to the Smyrnaeans, A.D. 107, [8,1])_
Notice that Ignatius does not take pains to introduce the term "Catholic Church"; instead he uses it in a manner suggesting that the name was already in use and familiar to his audience. This further suggests that the name, Catholic Church, had to have been coined much earlier in order to have achieved wide circulation by the time of this writing. In other words, the Christian assembly was calling itself the Catholic Church during the lifetime of the last Apostle, John, who died near the end of the first century.
Regarding the primacy and authority of Rome, Ignatius also wrote,
"You [Rome] have envied no one, but others have you taught. I desire only that what you have enjoined in your instructions may remain in force" (Epistle to the Romans 3:1, AD 110).
The Catholic Church began with Peter and the Apostles and continued without interruption or cessation through their disciples (Ignatius, Irenaeus, Polycarp, Clement, Justin Martyr, etc.) down to the present day. As a side note, it appears that the believers in Antioch may have coined both terms still in use today: “Christian” and “Catholic Church” - terms they used to describe the one body of believers in Christ.
@@joshportie Untrue. Just look at Matthew 16:18: And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church... (King James Version). The church Christ (meant to) built was built on Peter, a man, not on some scripture. You think if Jesus meant to base the Church on the scripture, he would've made Peter to create such a text. Simply speaking, putting Bible as the utmost authority is unbiblical.
As a Catholic “revert”, I did the non-denominational thing for many years. Reading about the early Church and Church history changed everything. Not sure how anyone can do the same and not become either Catholic or Orthodox. Praying for reunification. Hopefully it doesn’t take another 1,000 years.
No doubt. Protestantism is a in and out burger mentality.
You have any sources for study?
The main source is the Bible, other Source is Luther who basically was the first in a long line of self-identifying protestors
The Bible predicts reunification in Revelation 13. There can't be a remnant when everyone is Catholic, yet only a remnant gets saved. The way is narrow and few find it.
Nobody ever asks why Napoleon is buried in France🇫🇷 or George Washington in the USA 🇺🇸
Similarly there's a reason the remains of the apostles rest in Catholic churches 🇻🇦
I just trust the teachings of the apostles and the early church fathers. ☦️
If you don't believe apostles traditions you dont believe Bible, Church and Christ.
@saiyasho16 You do know that there were teachings and sayings that weren't written in the Bible. So, of course, Christ and the apostles were teaching more than what was said in the scriptures."This is the disciple who is bearing witness to these things, and who has written these things; and we know that his testimony is true. But there are also many other things which Jesus did; were every one of them to be written, I suppose that the world itself could not contain the books that would be written." - John 21:24-25
@@saiyasho16 that verse is addressing the Talmudic tradition.
The only reason you know the Gospel according to Mathew was written by the Apostle Mathew (a man) is because it's an Orthodox Tradition that has preserved that for you.
So you're taking Mathew 15 out of context to tell someone they Trust a Tradition of men while Trusting a Tradition of men.
If we're to cut back to the real issue. You don't Trust the Holy Spirit has led and guided the men of His Church into all Truth. You're simply against what Christians have taught and believed for all time because you trust the men that have told you they're wrong. That includes your own interpretation of scripture.
@@saiyasho16 A Church's succession to the Apostles at least grants possibility for adherence to apostolic teaching. Whether you believe it's done successfully or not, the capability is there.
Without the lineage, traditions of men are implemented by necessity.
To say "The Bible is my source of Apostolic Teaching," one must implicitly assume God thinks only the things that are written are the obligatory, and anything that's not, can be DIY.
Ironically, that principle itself is a tradition of men.
@@saiyasho16 Again, you're appealing to a man's tradition to imply where the Gospel came from.
Yes you're taking Mathew out of context, the Pharisee was a follower of the Talmudic tradition. A tradition that is separated from the Revelation God gave Israel.
You're incorrect, The Orthodox Church is completely consistent with Divine Revelation. Their Liturgy reflects what was only foreshadowed in ancient Israel's temple worship. It's the worship that John sees in Heaven in Revelation.
I trust the Holy Spirit has led and guided the Church into all Truth, that the Church is the Pillar and ground of Truth and that Jesus built a Church on a confession of faith that would never fail.
The Bible mentions the Church being the Kingdom of God several times. You just don't want that Church to be the Orthodox Church because you're superstitious about your own faith.
The Orthodox Church is an icon of the Kingdom of God. It's a window into eternity that you're spiritually blind to.
The Orthodox Church doesn't have systematic theology.
You have it backwards. In order for you to be Protestant you have to reject basic logic and historical evidence. Orthodoxy, that gave you the canon of scripture doesn't have to do that. So the "bad arguments you hear" is really just your own pride rejecting sound arguments.
I wouldn't worry about my own repentance. I'm working on it. But I would take your own advice and repent from the pride that you carry. God turns his face from the Proud. When times get tough that pride will betray you as it betrayed me over the pandemic. God led me to the Church through that.
The Orthodox Church is where you'll find the Kingdom of God. Not only does it reflect the scriptures more consistently than anyone, but it's preserved the context to the scriptures and the memory of man's salvation for the last 2000 years.
It still makes saints and is hated by Satan. He loves that people like you deface and slander the Church.
All my life I was Protestant and I just realized I was just scratching the surface of all the theology and history to understand God. In Orthodoxy I found the deepest truth, the divine connection with the holy trinity and how to understand God for real. It not so emotional like Protestantism, but Orthodoxy got my brain, my intellect and showed me the way to Christos the redeemer.
100 %. You are fortunate to have found the true and genuine Church of Jesus Christ, which is Orthodoxy.
Same brother. I was adamantly protestant my entire life but I was your typical american protestant. In the last 3 years of learning and studying there really isnt any way around orthodoxy.
that being said it was a very difficult admission for me. I fought it for the better part of 2 years and only last week expressed to my wife my intentions to stop attending our non dom
Ditto. I'm hoping to be received this Great and Holy Pascha
I love how you all act like you couldn't do the same in a protestant scenario. You could have found the deepest truth, the divine connection with the Holy Trinity and how to understand God for real while being a protestant. But alas, you were too lazy. Now, you blame the protestants for you lack of zeal and effort. For the record, I think protestants, catholics, and the orthodox are all Christian. I recognize different traditions appeal to different personalities but to blame one over the other for your own lack of zeal and enthusiasm is just lazy and shows a lack of love for your brothers.
Eastern Orthodox beleives salvation is a process so it doesnr make sense for us to say others are damned or saved. You are either in or out of the church but God can save whom He wills.
Exactly, only ancient church have that foresight and history to come to that logical conclusion
If we have no free will, then God is fully-responsible for making us live sinful lives and go to hell.
Actually, that is not the eastern orthodox position. Did you forget of the day of Triumph of Orthodoxy, where all orthodox churches are supposed to curse all christians outside of eastern orthodoxy?
@@jozzen77 that isn't what the Sunday of Orthodoxy is about. At all. Firstly, Sunday of Orthodoxy is not about pronouncing anathemas against everyone who isn't Orthodox. It is specifically about the defeat of iconoclasm. Secondly, anathemas are not curses. Anathema means "what these people are teaching is false, we have told them it's false and they refuse to stop teaching it, so they are not allowed to teach here and you should not listen to them."
The Church does not want the anathematized to go to hell! It wants them to stop teaching falsehood and come back to the Church so that they *don't* go to hell. (Not that we claim to know where they are going. But we are concerned about it.)
@@PCMRvsconsole Catholic don't curse other people. If someone does they acts against the Gospel and the magisterium of the Church.
This will not age well.
Yeah. I just got through 2 series by Lloyd De Jongh and Sam Shamoun on the didache and “hitler was catholic?” It blows this perspective to pieces.
Why didn’t you bring ALL of this up with your Orthodox/Catholic friends?
Because he sees them as Christians and does not feel the need to covert them,
Yeah I would have loved to hear their take on this!
Because they would easily debunk him
Any knowledgable Catholic/Orthodox would absolutely rip all these points to shreds. They're super juvenile.
@@reggiejenkins6458 Read mind exactly
Ruslan, with all due respect I truly think you need to read the early church more. This idea of separate denominations, ways of operating, etc. did not exist. The church had one cohesive structure. You had arguments, disagreements, etc. on doctrine of course. But the church hierarchy and idea of ONE church was there from the beginning. This "organic" renewal Gavin speaks of is just reading his modern take back into the texts of the early church.
Also Gavin is even cherry picking Luther. Luther mocked most of the saints of the church and thought most were beneath him. He had a ton of issues.
Which early church writings give you the idea of one cohesive structure? I've been reading early church (2nd and 3rd century) writers and there are very wide ranging views amongst the authors.
@@Supastaab There's a substantial difference between disagreeing on some doctrine or ideas, and core ideas of the faith. Also, I meant the idea that there is one church. The early writers didn't refer to different denominations. They were all within the church body, with bishops and priests and layman (vs. today where denominations have their own hierarchy, own clergy system, etc). If they saw the split with the church, and saw Catholic and protestantism, they would likely be horrified by the structure and hierarchy.
I agree that there is just one church, but our definitions are different. I, and I think the early church, view all believers that maintain the core doctrines of the faith under the headship of Christ Jesus belong to the one church.
satire
@@Supastaab It seems quite clear that there is a very specific hierarchy within the church even at the end of he 1st century. To think you can just have a rogue congregation of people that claim to be Christians as "in" the church seems... skeptical. They might be in the "invisible" church but if there is only one church, and they reject the hierarchy of it, are they truly in the church?
One of the arguments Catholics hold against Sola Scriptura, which I seldom see answered by Protestant apologists, is the fact that Scriptures did not fall out of the sky right after Christ's crucifixion. It was written down between a decade and a century after. The texts were selected and compiled by authoritative figures of the Church, which largely pre-existed the definitive written form of the New Testament.
Believing that Tradition is a fallible source of authority is thus believing that Scripture is fallible.
In other words, if you don't belive that Tradition and the Church's teachings bear the same doctrinal weight as Scriptutes, how do you even know that Scriptures is the inspired Word of God to begin with ? Logically, a lesser form of authority does not have the power to legitimize a higher form of authority.
I feel like this is a strong argument against Sola Scriptura, but as I am trying to learn more about Protestantism to try not to strawman anyone's belief, does anyone have a rebuttal of this statement ?
I agree with the first part of your argument, there are some traditions which are correct and I don't think Protestants have issue with traditions in general. The issue is which traditions are correct and how can we determine whether or not something is man-made if we cannot compare it to scripture?
Look at both EO and Catholocism, they both call each other the "one true church" and "the fullness of the faith", looking at history does not make it clear who would be correct here (yes EO got angry with Catholics for adding in filioque, but does that mean they split off or since EO consider themselves to be unchanged, are they correct and are Catholics the ones who changed?). They both have some similar beliefs and traditions, but they also disagree on a lot. How can we determine which is true or does it not matter which one since they're both apostolic anyways?
As a Protestant that's actively trying to learn and would be willing to "convert" (I don't even like calling it that because we're all still Christians), I believe that the Protestant view is simply knowing that the Bible is the inspired word of God, EO and Catholics would agree, and so we trust it. But when it comes to some other traditions and dogmas, some of which are clear that they were not taught by the apostles and came at a later time, it makes us uncomfortable with some traditions.
Also to answer your question regarding how do we know Scripture is true, it's because we see the work of God in our own lives, the lives of others around us, and in our churches. Even the Bible tells us to test something to know it's fruits. We can even look historically and look at how many people were willing to be martyred for their beliefs, how the Bible has been preserved. We can read and see how deep the Bible itself is (the prophecies of Jesus coming even in the Old Testament, the fullfilment of that prophecy in the New Testament), we can pray and become closer to God and be given understanding by the Holy Spirit and to be led by it. Even if our faith isn't in "fullness" of the EO and Catholic traditions, I don't think that means it's not enough.
@@ddandelions EO and Roman Catholics have wide ranging differences. History makes it very plain to see that EO's claim of being unchanged is True.
Rome has historical claims to being Apostolic, but their innovations to the creed mean they've deviated from the deposit of faith that was once delivered to the saints. They've forfeited the Grace they had while they were still a member of the Church.
The traditions and dogmas you mention were formalized later on but were still in practice before that.
So like Icon veneration for example or asking the saints to pray for us. We have historical evidence from the ancient enemies of the Church that icon veneration was common. We also have archeological evidence that shows the Church asked saints to pray for them.
The evidence is there you just have to be willing to see it.
I would argue that sola scriptura is often hit with the strawman from non-Protestants. We do believe that scripture is the source of authority given to us by God through the early church. It’s comprised of the Old Testament scriptures that Jesus would have used(yes, it was a circulating canon at least 200 years before Jesus), and the writings of those chosen by Jesus himself.
Are there other “authorities” in life? Sure. But if they don’t align with what scripture teaches, then they cannot be authoritative. Paul references Greek philosophy at times. But that doesn’t mean Greek philosophy is authoritative. The pope can say all kinds of things, but if he says something that doesn’t align with what scripture teaches, I’m not going to follow it.
If Rome says something that is contrary to what Paul or Peter taught in their epistles, they don’t get a pass for infallibility. Israel was God’s elect and they screwed up a lot. He also allowed consequences to follow. The church has persevered for 2000 years despite any internal conflict, and being in various denominations. It will be here to welcome Him back as well. Protestants, Catholics, and EO all alike.
@@c2s2942 There's only One Body of Christ, and only one Church that reflects that image.
Protestantism doesn't reflect Christ's Body but the bodies of each pastor that claims to be an authority of scripture. Yet they each contradict each other.
Likewise, Roman Catholics reflect their head, the Pope.
EOs head is Christ, so they're the unchanged ancient Body of Christ.
They gave you the Bible. It's their canon. Treating the Body of Christ as fragmented and scattered and using the fallacy fallacy to keep yourself from really being critical of Sola Scriptura should be questioned if there's a part of you that desires Truth.
Sola Scriptura treats the Bible as God's Sole vehicle for transmitting his Grace to people.
This Consequentially makes the interpreter of the scriptures a vehicle of God's Grace if he's going to be consistent.
This doesn't come from a place of humility.
So if your interpretation of the scripture contradicts the Church's interpretation then I would question your interpretation.
The Church has always taught that God's Grace is transmitted in more ways than scripture. The traditions of the Church are both spoken and written. So there's an entire world of wisdom and insights into the life of God that Protestants are missing.
To put it bluntly, they interpret scriptures with a heart that's darkened and a worldview that's alien to the Apostles. There's a reason why their congregations are constantly compromising with the world and disappearing, leaving Atheism in its wake.
While the EO hasn't chAnged despite the enemies assaults.
Apart of that assault today is Ecumenism or Branch theory. Which posits that all the groups claiming to be the Church is the same Church. This destroys the possibility for people to know the Truth, since each group believes in different things. It makes Truth relative or pointless.
People need to stop treating each of these groups as if they're the same. This spiritual relativism is directly connected to the moral relativism of our age and it's destroying our civilization and hope for the future.
Famous last words… video favourited. 😉
Whilst I remain an Anglican, I have moved much more towards orthodoxy internally.
lol it happened to me, I thought Catholicism was “satanic”, and now I’m being confirmed into the Catholic Church, I’ve considered orthodoxy as well but there is too much infighting within their church and they are actually currently in a schism with themselves, I would recommend looking into eastern Catholicism if you’re interested in the eastern tradition of faith.
Same
@@joshuatrott193 Embrace Catholicism or Orthodoxy, protestantism is an heresy (as Luther was).
@@nicolasbascunan4013 Anglo Catholic
@@joshuatrott193 Still protestant...
Idk what to convert to yet but it’s pretty hard to read church history and stay Protestant. It’s completely contrary to what the earliest Christians believed and practiced
How so?
@@danielholder7979 I’d recommend reading Sand and Stone by Josiah Trenham. It’s a good compilation of the Protestant reformation in contrast to the earliest teachings of Christianity. Obviously people debate church history but theologically the differences are major when compared. For myself, I can’t reckon staying Protestant when weighing the evidence. From the Eucharist, trinitarian theology, church tradition and scripture, and christology. Those would be the areas id encourage people to study and compare the early churches teachings on them vs the reformations teachings on them.
Come to an Orthodox church and visit a monastery. Ask any question you wish to the monks and members of the clergy there. I’m not telling you what decision to make but if you’re looking for a place to start looking, might as well start with original Christianity.
@@joelrobertsonmusic I've been reading early church writers and it has strengthened my protestantism. Sure there are some things, like the eucharist, that seem more inline with current Catholic understandings, but, from what I've read, there are a lot more things that align with a more relaxed catholic (lower-case c) view. There is very little veneration of saints and very very little Marian doctrines present in the 2nd and 3rd centuries. In fact, most 2nd century writings seem to be either apologetics, or letters imploring believers to be unified under Christ - asking believers to be graceous about their theological differences.
Most know about God, but few know God. Those that do have no anger, fear or judgment.
I found my home in Orthodoxy. I’m getting baptized into the church in May.
Baptised in the name of father son and Holy Spirit not a church
Awesome..👍🏽❤️🩹
God bless you ❤️
@@frannyloco9314cool bro
And were you asked why you want to be baptized and have to fill a form out to be baptized? If the answer is 'yes' then show me in the Bible where God or Jesus said "answer the question- or - fill out this form.
You have just conformed to men, not Christ as in comply with rules, standards of men.
In 2 Peter 3:16 the Bible says we can misinterpret our scripture to destruction so how could Protestantism be the truth when it’s a bunch of churches teaching completely different things even on salvation
They don’t teach completely different things. It’s minute disagreements, the main point stays that Christ is our gift of salvation
Just because the ignorant and unstable twist the scripture to their destruction doesn’t mean that protestantism is false. God is willing and able to give understanding. Many people cling to their opinions and traditions without first seeking God’s truth. You still have the same problem in other traditions
@@5starr.leonnnNo it’s not they literally disagree on salvation some prots are free grace some believe faith plus works some believe you need sacraments like baptism and some believe once saved always saved some believe u need to speak in tongues to be saved.
Everyone has different opinions and their is no authority besides scripture which leads to these wide views on the most important issue salvation
@@ogloc6308how do u know that? Like u are assuming your understanding is the true one
@@5starr.leonnn Embrace Catholicism or Orthodoxy, protestantism is an heresy (as Luther was).
The biggest issue with Protestantism is that each person or church becomes their own Pope. All decide what the scriptures mean to them. It's chaos
What's the difference between that and Bishops who decide what scripture means to them? Either way they are humans, claiming to be led by the Holy Spirit.
Chaos or not, simplifying it doesn't make it the truth. The Jehovah's Witnesses are very united yet we all can agree they're not following the truth.
@@yblackie if we look at the collective(2000 years) interpretation of scripture we find a better understanding.
@@joshuatrott193 Hmm I get you. The collective does give a good understanding and insight. Ultimately I do think the individual decides though
@@yblackie if I am the ultimate judge of what the text is meant to say, I am stripping the author and Churches authority and making ME the ultimate authoritative interpreter. Isn't that how JWs got here?
Sure, the collective of Bishops claim to be led by the Holy Spirit, and some single Protestants claim that the Holy Spirit revealed something to them.
The difference is that the Catholic Church has a historical link to the Apostles, and is the Pillar of Truth, which Christ Promised the Gates of Hades will not prevail against, etc. I don’t believe God would leave things up to confusion, which is why I think God left an infallible Interprer, who Jesus said to listen tol
With all due respect, Ruslan does not know Church history as well as he thinks he does.
same can be said for everyone of us,
Neither do you, judging from your last debate
@@Nikator24 I challenge you to find even one historical inaccuracy that I presented. I’ll wait.
@@VoiceOfReason_ youre biased.
@@VoiceOfReason_ I dont have to do anything. Luigi was the one debating you, not me. And he dismantled you. He had you dumbfounded with what seems to be basic questions that you simply couldn't comprehend. All in all, it is not about whether you can retain a certain amount of information at a superficial level. It is mainly about understanding that amount of information as well. And Luigi definitely seemed to have understood church history better than you as he presented the more compelling case. Oh and by the way, trying to 'rebut' your opponent in a video when you had the chance to do it in a debate, is quite frankly embarrassing.
Good video, but when studying for myself Church history, it becomes really difficult to believe Protestantism. Orthodox has a direct line to the apostles and all the splits are directly from misunderstandings and over stepping of the rules. Much respect though, thank you
Protestant is the return of the authority of the scriptures and the removal of later creeds. Protestantism makes sense if one isn't biased
The claim to apostolic succession is not a strong one, unfortunately.
It's all about Divorce.
I see the opposite. The farther back you go in church history, the more protestant it looks. The additional traditions get stripped away and you see the development of things like assumption of Mary, ever virgin, icons, icon veneration, indulgences, etc slowly get added over a period of hundreds of years. Some over a thousand! and their are dogma! However, you go back to 1st century, 2nd century, 3rd century and we don't start seeing any of this till the 4th century! That is LATE. So with respect, there are legit reasons for the protestant belief. Not to mention prots have contributed a TON to progressing the church into the world. If you have a bible at all its because of Prots. If it has chapters, numbers and verses, that is also prots. If it is not in Latin........Again.....Prots. and the group that has translated and published the gospel and the rest of the bible into the most languages in the world are the Prots.
@@bairfreedom As someone who came from Southern Baptist and still has a lot of family attending, I disagree that the further back you look the more protestant it looks. Orthodoxy has maintained the same traditions from the first 4 centuries, Protestantism removes traditional and puts interpretation as authority. I believe its wrong to not trust tradition and only trust scriptures. The Church came before the bible (or at least, the bible we have today with the OT and NT), and the Church is how we got the scriptures. If it was always up to interpretation and faith alone, why have a Church at all? Why would God have all of his followers do it incorrectly for 1000-1500 years? Thank you for your response, hopefully I'm not coming off as abrasive
I’m Catholic. Some of the stuff in that video is questionable. You can’t elevate scripture that high, cause who interprets scripture? If anybody can interpret it however they want, then it leads to exactly where we are at now. With 100,000 Protestant denominations. Logically there has to be a church that has got it all right. Jesus said the gates of hell will not prevail. How has the Catholic Church stood for almost 2000 years ? The authority that the Jews had over scripture and the layman was transferred to the Catholic Church, not man. Just look at Old Testament priest, Jesus is the fulfillment of that. And the early church fathers understood that when they anointed priests and deacons.
Second point, when it comes to the veneration of Mary. I recommend the book Jesus and the Jewish roots of Mary. The Jewish king’s (in the Old Testament) queen was not his wife but his mother. And considering Jesus was a Jew…. Another point is the woman clothed with the sun and the moon beneath her feet in revelations 12, its describing Mary and the church.
3rd, the whole point on Catholic meaning universal church. That interpretation the video you had played was ridiculous. He’s basically saying Protestantism is more inclusive, therefore it’s more Catholic. It’s a fruit of modernism and feminism. If you got to a Tridentine mass anywhere in the world, it is the same, and they all say the mass in Latin, with the exception of the homily. An exception is some of the other rites, cause I forgot what apostle established that rite. The church doesn’t conform to the world.
There’s more but I won’t make a long list. I’d say just pray for God to show you the true way, be open to if he reveals to you the Catholic faith. Dont completely disregard it, it sounds like the Holy Spirit has been tugging on your heart my brother. Just pray for God to shine on your ignorance. You know more than me ruslan, but I was Protestant as well and then I came to the true church.
Even the Catholic Church doesn't claim to have gotten it all right. It's an ongoing process.
As an orthodox, this is very well said. I also commented a bunch and totally coulda kept going but didn’t wanna right a book
So what happens when a problem occurs and scripture doesn't explicitly give an answer to solving it?
Then someone has to interpret it, or, better, a lot of people over a lot of years. That would then form a tradition. I'm not even Catholic, but I frequently consult Catholic sources because I respect the time they've put into thinking.
@@kurt1391 The Catechism is helpful for all Christians.
Precisely
You reason about it like anyone would...
What happened in chalcedon? Honestly either it was mia physitism or protestantims that was right.
it’s hard for me to believe that God let the church be astray for thousands of years until Martin Luther came and saved it. That just sounds like an earlier Joseph Smith to me.
"The church" are believers not an institution.
@@RANDO4743 isn’t that just what protestants came up with once they were outside of communion with the actual Church.
Who do you go to if you have a disagreement, if the Bible tells you to go to the Church in Matthew 18 15:20?
Throw, did you even watch the video, it literally states that Martin Luther and John Calvin both set that there are true churches within the roaming Catholic Church, and that the Roman Catholic church did not have any authority to basically deny the Eastern churches they're right or called them. Lost maybe watch the video before you start criticize it bro
@@jlovenotzri When I heard Candice Owens say the church went astray after the disciples and comes back during the reformation with Luther (A strawman told to her by her Catholic husband), it surprised me. But I cant be too upset with them for this because I had some strawmen about Catholics and Orthos as well
Regardless of the fact that the video points out that neither Luther nor Calvin were of the opinion that the catholic church had even fully fallen astray (and I personally don't believe that either), it wouldn't be thousands of years - only 730 at best (that is the time between Second Nicea 787 where the first of these issues became official church doctrine - icon veneration - and the beginning of the reformation 1517). And most of the teachings protestants have a probelm with did not become offical doctrine in the catholic church until after the great schism in 1054 which is why the eastern orthodox don't even have many of them. Then add in proto-protestant movements like the lollards (1300s) and hussites (1400s) and the gap is suddenly much smaller.
(Also don't compare Luther with Joseph Smith - that is just uncalled for...)
Stop with this try hard “controversial” content. The real reason you won’t convert is cause you’d have to give up your giant RUclips grift
I think it's half that, but he clearly also has doubts. Look at the disdain he has on his face at the mention of Mary. You can't fake that.
Then again, people like Keith Nester kept up the facade for 10 years because his whole livelihood depended on the church he worked at as a pastor, but he knew the truth.
There's no real money in Catholicism or Orthodoxy, so you might be right.
@@Lizeth-pb2mx First will become last and the last will become first
What RUclips grift would he have to give up?
EXACTLY he doesnt want to change its so clear... he gets perfect answers and just acts like he could are less and moves on to next super chat like he never heard anything
Ruslan says he knows church history . Clearly he does not.
Thats usually how it goes.
he was learning from an AI generated video what the differences between EO and RCC were. his lack of Church history knowledge really showed
Can you elaborate on what he got wrong?
@christsavesreadromans1096 Depends on what you classify as an apostolic father. If you're talking about any church father prior to 300 AD, catholic was just Greek for "the whole church". It later became "the whole Roman Catholic Church". Protestants include all Christians as part of the church, just like Ignatius did.
@@thecriticalnous 💯
If I had a cent for all the times i've heard this phrase i'd be a billionaire.
you would have to hear it 100 billion times
@@justinhawes1593 More or less.
@@johnxland9373 😂😂😂
Nuh uh
That's not an argument
*As a PROTESTANT CHRISTIAN, these questions struggles me:*
1) If apostolic church (which can claim as the ancient church ) is turned away from God's teaching & guidance (as protestants say), Jesus was wrong or less powerful in preserving his church? (Because he promised to keep and preserve the church. His BRIDE)
2) Does the Holy spirit that Jesus promised has failed to guide the church from adopting "heresies" (doctrines that all apostolic churches hold together)
If church (Bride of Christ) went astray from the truth (as protestants accuse apostolic churches), and her groom Jesus waited for more than thousand years for Martin Luther & Calvin to be born to guide her back to him?!
That view is bad because it makes Jesus a bad groom.
In conclusion, I assume Apostolic church is right and guided by the holy spirit.
If Protestantism is correct about the apostolic churches, then protestants are the church which Jesus has preserved. Also, going astray for a moment but coming back to follow God's will is what all believers do. Being wrong about some things along the way does not mean that we are no longer his bride. I don't think that Protestantism generally claims that the apostolic churches are 100% corrupt and opposed to God's will. Rather, it asserts that there are excesses within their structures which are leading them away, yet they can still be God's people. Does that make sense?
U know deep down Protestantism is wrong don’t fall Martin Luther trust Jesus and his church
Be catholic
1. I think most Protestants would argue that the church is all believers and not a specific church, believers meaning people that believe in the essential doctrine (one triune God, that Jesus was born and died on the cross for our sins and rose again, that Jesus will return again, Bible is the inspired word of God etc). I also don't think a lot of protestants believe that apostolic churches have turned away from God's teaching because this would mean we believe they cannot be saved and I don't think most Protestants believe that. It's simply that they seem to have added other beliefs into their doctrine that does not seem to be in line with the teaching of the apostles and were not included in the Bible. I've definitely heard protestants spew ideas that Catholics aren't saved, but I think that's genuinely from ignorance. In my brief research of Catholicism, it's very clear that they do believe in the essential doctrines.
2. I agree that the apostolic churches (EO and Catholic) do have the essential doctrine held in both churches, but they both disagree with each other on other things and will call each other heretics over those differences. If there is only one true church, which one between EO and Catholic is the true church? If they've both been preserved this long despite their schism, is it possible they're both true despite their differences? I feel the latter question could be argued with the protestant belief, but if the first is true that there is only one literal true church, then may God have mercy on us all as we try to decipher history to figure out which one is true because in my research, it's really not clear and each side has good arguments.
Paul mentions in his letters correcting behaviors in the early church and even correcting early church leaders like Apollos. To me this shows error is certainly possible even in the ancient church even when first hand witnesses were alive. Was this a failure? Or was it a success that corrective measures took place after the fact?
For me its simpler than that-
For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. John 3:16 and
If you declare with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. Romans 10:9
If you do this you are saved and part of the Church which is the body of Christ. All the other doctrines is just man's overcomplication.
And those verses have to ring true ever since the Church began because the majority of people didn't have the scriptures. They didn't have the fuller revelation that we have the privilege of enjoying.
It has to be simple, it just has to be because mankind will always make a mess out of it and also because we contend with evil spiritual forces. Just look at the world. The gospel is so simple yet the majority reject it even amongst Christianity.
EO here. It is NOT true that we believe "pretty much everyone outside The Church is damned."
A more accurate statement would probably be this: Some of us (The Orthodox) will be saved BECAUSE of our church, while others of us will be saved in SPITE of our church.
Lord have mercy on us all!
Exactly, a true church is humble accepting fallibility among its clergy. My priest has made this clear and has even said for us to challenge him if he is found to be in error. That he is there to help spiritually guide, not to be the pulpit in which we all focus. That focus is to be on The Holy Trinity, not the clergy.
God will save those whom he chooses that profess Him as their Father with a sincere heart full of repentance. He will show them His grace and mercy whether "the church" has accepted them or not. This is because "the church" is of man, fully fallible, no matter how hard it strives for perfection, no matter how pure of heart it tries to be. Only God is infallible, perfect, full of compassion, grace, and mercy. Thus why it is so important for its focus to be on The Holy Trinity and not the clergy. This is why a priest will state the ultimate power and will is that of God and that it is His church in which we must remember before any decision.
We don't know if they would be saved but it's still a big risk to take.We Orthodox have a much bigger chance
Protestant here.
I understand that most EO that genuinely follow and practice all of its teachings and doctrine don’t believe that everyone outside of EO is going to hell (otherwise most of the Western hemisphere or the Americas would have been screwed). However and unfortunately I have witnessed and experienced many online EO who evangelize as such or sometimes imply this to be the case. My somewhat understanding is that because according to EO that like you said some will be saved because of the church and some in spite of the church and that those outside of EO , including Protestantism and especially Restorationist Christianity, put themselves more at risk to heresy. Please correct me if my statement is off. God bless 🙏🏾
“To be deep in history is to cease to be Protestant” - John Henry Cardinal Newman
To be deeper in history is to cease to be Papal Protestant
I grew up Protestant and they certainly believe that other Christian churches are damned. Eastern Orthodox admits that someone can be saved in any church, but that the full tradition of Christ and salvation is found in the Orthodox Church.
Yup! Only denomination that can humbly say “we aren’t God” on this issue
Why anyone should convert to the One True Faith?
1.Because Jesus Christ Founded The Church. Matthew 16:18
2. Because Other Christian denominations and doctrine are Man Made.
3. Because Christ inspired the Church to write and compile the New Testament.
4. Because Non-Catholic Christians are Missing 7 books from their Old Testament.
5. The Eucharist / Communion.
Was Ignatius of Antioch a Southern Baptist? The simple truth is no.
You're making a good argument for Orthodoxy.
the fact that there is more than the so-called "one true" churches is the reason why protestants wont be able to leave their church and choose from the orthodox churches and catholic church which all claim the same thing
The true church was free of mary doctrines rosaries dolls statues figurines praying to saints, etc. Go back to the true church teachings. No need for man made traditions that Jesus nor apostles ever taught 😊
@@roses993 you've resorted to the you worship mary argument. This is weak and not persuasive. Why not try something like the Pope is a non-Christian and a heretic. That would be a much stronger argument. Or why not address some of the points above?
Protestantism got it right. I mean think about it, there are over 30,000 protestant denominations. Protestants saved the church of Jesus Christ from the Holy Spirit from dropping the ball. You can tell that Jesus failed to build his church for the 1st 1500 years in history, but thank God for the Protestants to get everything in order. In Protestantism you worship God how you want, don't like the worship band? Just try the other churches down the road... heck you want to start a church go for it!
Protestantism is like Burger King, have it your way.
Forget the tradition that was passed down from the Apostles and their disciples, forget what Scripture says when Paul says to stand fast to the traditions passed down to you whether in oral or written. Protestants hold Sola Scriptura, except the bible verse that mentions hold to the traditions passed down.
There's tons of flavors in protestantism just like genders nowadays. In Protestantism you just pick one, and I'd you don't like it try another one.
PS. (I apologize for my sarcasm... I had to get my two cents out).
God bless.😅😂
That was brilliant
@@thetruthinhim8862 I’m gonna copy and paste this everywhere hahaha
I know what you mean. When Jesus promised hell would never prevail against His church, His prophecy failed, because centuries worth of Christians were left without salvation until the anabptists and reformers came on scene to fix things up 🛠️🗜️🪛🪚
@@annalynn9325 I hope for your sake you’re being sarcastic ?
@@krumrum24 yes, sarcasm in the spirit of the OP
Nobody ever asks why Napoleon is buried in France🇫🇷 or George Washington in the USA 🇺🇸
Similarly there's a reason the remains of the apostles rest in Catholic and Orthodox churches 🇻🇦
Great point!
Because their followers don't respect the the apostle's bodies and moved them out of their resting places
@@Robert-rw5lm it's the practice that has been passed down to us thru tradition.
Exodus 13:19
"And Moses took the bones of Joseph with him: for he had straitly sworn the children of Israel, saying, God will surely visit you; and ye shall carry up my bones away hence with you."
Read scripture AND early church
Napoleon was Italian/Greek born in Italy
Protestantism feels like lazy Christianity to me. Like, Protestants shape the word of Christ to fit themselves instead of being molded by it. I could be wrong but that’s how it comes off to me.
Are you gonna make choices based on this assumption or are you going to find out by experienced if it's actually true?
Protestantism continues to splinter. It majes sense tgat the west is discovering the Orthodox chirch.
A protestant just uses scripture as the authority
As in all churches there are lazy christans in the protestant churches too. That is true. But you also can find them in the catholik and orthodox churches. I really don't care about anymore to which church a person belongs to. The more important things are: Can this person love other human beeings, animals and nature? Do they really do their best to love God and to follow Jesus Christ? And that are very important questions for me. As the orthodox church teaches God can save every person he wants to save. He is free to do it and I am sure he will.
I'd say the Orthodox feel the same too. The only real difference Protestants and Orthodox have is that the Orthodox do have enough authority over themselves to keep them in line in regions
This video shows how Protestantism moved away from the historical beliefs of Christianity.
The one key thing Ruslan mentioned is that he doesn't see beliefs like papal infallibility in the early Church. Just because you don't see the name there doesn't mean the early Christians didn't believe in it.
This is why Trent Horn said Protestantism argues like atheists. It is okay for you to allow doctrinal development like the Holy Trinity. That wasn't defined in the first 300 years. Yet, you believe the belief was there. You don't allow doctrinal development with Catholic or Orthodox beliefs.
The trinity isn’t doctrinal development in the same way the papal infallibility is. The doctrine of the trinity can be argued purely from scripture alone, whilst papal infallibility isn’t as clear and relies far more heavily on oral tradition. The whole we argue like atheism stick is old.
Papal infallibility isn't a thing, though.
@@1517the_year
Where in scripture does it define the Trinity as the 3 persons of God sharing one divine nature instead of each person having their own divine nature?
Just because something is not clear doesn't mean it is not in scripture. If God only works through scripture, how can the Church be the pillar and foundation of truth (1 Tim 3:15) if God doesn't guide the Church to infallibly determine what is canonical?
@@vtaylor21 2 Corinthians 3:17
Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom.
John 14:8-10
Philip said to him, “Lord, show us the Father, and it is enough for us.” Jesus said to him, “Have I been with you so long, and you still do not know me, Philip? Whoever has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, ‘Show us the Father? Do you not believe that I am in the Father and the Father is in me?
Your turn, give me the scriptural references for papal infallibility? We believe as Protestants that the early church councils were authoritative but that scripture alone is infallibly authoritative. We believe the church holds authority but that everything must come under the power of scripture. Therefore we don’t believe that God only works through scripture.
2 Timothy 3:16-17
All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the servant of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.
It may not have been defined as the Holy Trinity until later, but it is clear that the concept of God the Father, Jesus the Son, and the Holy Spirit being in unity is taught in the Bible. Assigning a name to an existing concept is not the same as the creation of new traditions/beliefs. For example, the Assumption of Mary or Immaculate Conception, neither of which are in the Bible and I'm not sure about Immaculate Conception, but the origins of the Assumption are not found until 2nd or 3rd century it seems and the Orthodox don't agree to either of these beliefs despite being an apostolic tradition. It'd be one thing if these were theories or even widely held beliefs, but for the Catholic church to make them dogma does feel quite hard to grasp.
The Bible does have a scripture about keeping traditions both oral and written, however, in context, this was written at a time where oral tradition was the most popular way of spreading the Gospel and the Bible wasn't even compiled yet, but of course in modern times, we have the Bible free online/on mobile apps/etc. and all Christians believe it to be the inspired word of God. My question is this: If a specific tradition was so important, would they not have included it the way baptism, prayer, fasting, eucharist/communion is included? Is it fair to say that it's possible that some traditions are more important and a necessary part of salvation (those written in the Bible) than others (those not in the Bible or developed after)? I'm not even saying that God can't use the Holy Spirit to give people more knowledge or revelation, but if that's the case, how do we know for certain which church is the true church when they each have beliefs which cannot be compared to scripture but are considered dogma? Even when looking at the writings of the church fathers, you'll see some for/against certain beliefs so even looking back at history, it's not super clear which is true.
I was born in a Roman Catholic culture, being baptized as an infant. I became a Protestant in my teenage years and have studied all branches of Protestantism. But later in my life I have become Orthodox. And that’s because I have read not just the Church Fathers and the Councils, but also the Scriptures in Greek.
?
@@vch309 When you read the Scriptures in Greek, you understand why the Filioque isn’t biblical. Then, biblical texts where Jesus Christ teaches that the Father is greater than Him make sense. These passages declare the monarchy of the Father. (Monarchy of the Father in this sense means that God the Father is the one cause or source, mono-arche).
@@nelsoncamachotirado6967 and? How does that leads to being Orthodox 😑
@@nelsoncamachotirado6967 John 14:28 the father is greater than I. That's what you spent your whole life on🤭
@@nelsoncamachotirado6967 abit embarrassing innit
You kind of have to ask yourself why the Catholic Church is called the Catholic Church if catholic means universal? It's maybe because the Catholic Church is the, wait for it, the one true universal church
Yes and scientology is called scientology because it is only based on science
I am born and raised Protestant. I have always felt like I do not belong and can’t fit in to a church. I am honestly very interested in Orthodox, hoping to come closer to God and learn more about Christianity.
☦️❤️🙏🏼
Protestant is a generalisation.
It has always been divided between different movements such as Lutheranism, Calvinism, Arminianism and Anglicanism as the first of many as well as proto-Protestant movements such as the Waldensians.
So to say that a person is a Protestant does not say much.
Protestantism is like the lite Christianity, High Anglicanism the least lite, then Catholicism and Eastern Orthodox are more full to the fullest of Christianity depending if both are the true church or one is the true church and the other is not.
Oriental and Church of the East are Schismatic to both Catholic and Eastern Orthodox (the possible successors of the original and true Church pre the Great Schism of 1054).
A poor attempt to validate a position that is biblically and historically incorrect.
Also the Protestants during the reformation are different to current Protestants even if the original Protestant denominations.
For instance Luther understood the importance of the Theotokos.
And Luther removed several books from the bible thinking he knows better than the Church fathers so the Pritestant canon is flawed.
The video is only a 5 minute case for Protestantism that is being used to justify the opinion of a person on such an import at issue which seems odd.
The all Churches are the true and Catholic (universal) Church is a view that is against the bible and icons are biblical.
Protestants make conspiracy videos on the Book of Revelation and the Eastern Orthodox and Catholics are living the Book of Revelation.
This is coming from an
ex-Protestant is the process of becoming Eastern Orthodox and who has never felt closer to God since leaving Protestantism.
You explained it well. I’m a son of a baptist preacher, and tomorrow I’m being chrismated into the Eastern Orthodox Church and I’ll never look back.
Amen ☦️
at the end of the day, you know.
People still thinking this issue is about “labels” and not metaphysics/theology just continue to display that they don’t fully understand the Orthodox Church. This is not about aesthetics, it’s not about picking a signifier that suits your tastes and then assuming that we are all still talking about the same signified.
The best analogy I can think of is an autostereogram. Protestants are focused on the colors while orthodox have been trying to draw attention to the hidden image. This is 2D vs 3D and the unfortunate reality is that you can’t convince someone to see much less appreciate an image that they have to exert effort to see. Nor will they be able to accurately talk about it until they perceive it.
Great analogy. But I’d also say it goes both ways. Both parties trying to convince each other the points of what they see while they are also irritated at each other for now fully agreeing with what they both see. Both see something tho and each thing probably needs to be addressed.
There's this great book called "From Object to Icon"
I recommend it because it expresses what you're talking about.
We live in a culture that can't see how matter participates in the will of God.
This is the ancient problem of idolatry. When people with this mindset see an Orthodox Christian venerate an image of God, they see a person giving paint and wood uncreated attributes.
Whereas the Orthodox Christian, who oftentimes is in recovery of the mindset he's being accused of, is simply offering a gesture to God while he awaits the day he can kiss the feet of his savior. God will then pass His grace along to that person through the matter the Christian is interacting with.
That means when Orthodox are accused of idolatry, the accuser is really exposing their idolatry to you. It becomes a temptation for me to judge people when this happens. I have to remember where I was not too long ago as a Protestant and show mercy. God have mercy on me!
That’s a nice strawman you got there
@@c2s2942 either elaborate or your assertion is useless.
@@c2s2942 Simply calling something a straw man doesn't make something a straw man.
What the OP said is perfectly reasonable. Protestantism is a mile wide but an inch deep where Orthodox is more focused and has an ontological view of Salvation and a holistic worldview that Protestants can only pretend to compete with.
The Truth is in the details and being superstitious about that simply because you're ignorant about how the Church operates shouldn't keep you from seeing those details.
The Orthodox Church isn't here to condemn. It's here to reveal Christ to people. It's done that since Pentecost and has stood for the Truth throughout it's history.
That isn't going to change simply because you refuse to understand where she comes from.
I have been born again, when Jesus entered my heart in 1997. There was no clergy, no ritual, no veneration, no icons, no Bible, no Mary, no theological framework. Jesus Christ alone saves, not the church, not the priests, not the doctrine. The Gospel is Jesus Christ, and nothing can be added.
The Gospels came from the Catholic Church, they didn't magically fall out of the sky at Pentecost.
@@jesussotelo4775 Actually the Eastern Orthodox is the original church. The Catholic Church began making the most accretions, and caused the Protestant Reformation to happen.
So which version of Jesus do you follow lol 😆 ? This is not an argument experiential circumstances does nothing to claim it is the truth for all you know you can be influenced by demons. I have guys on my Facebook right now thay think it's thier duty to call out every pastor or that every person is infested with demons , Christians blowing jewish horns and jumping up and down like they are electrocuted lol this is what happens eventually without any set rules of theological frame work. Is it true that God can change lives outside the church? Yeah I would say so but it's our job as Christians to graduate from babies milk to meat 🍖 or we become malnutrited as believers
@@sinfulyetsaved I'm saying man-made accretions are not necessary for salvation, and in some cases people get lost in the accretions and forget the Gospel. The Gospel is dead simple, Paul explains it all in Galatians. 6 Chapters, lays it all out. It's fine to be inspired by the Gospel to create a beautiful ornate church or music, but it gets a bit much when I see people lighting candles, kissing icons, venerating the finger of a dead saint, etc. Not necessary, and imo distracting.
@@ragnarlothbrok2808 No its not. Historically, no. Jesus said his Church would be “the light of the world.” He then noted that “a city set on a hill cannot be hid” (Matt. 5:14). This means his Church is a visible organization. It must have characteristics that clearly identify it and that distinguish it from other churches. Jesus promised, “I will build my Church and the gates of hell will not prevail against it” (Matt. 16:18). This means that his Church will never be destroyed and will never fall away from him. His Church will survive until his return.
Among the Christian churches, only the Catholic Church has existed since the time of Jesus. Every other Christian church is an offshoot of the Catholic Church. The Eastern Orthodox churches broke away from unity with the pope in 1054. The Protestant churches were established during the Reformation, which began in 1517. (Most of today’s Protestant churches are actually offshoots of the original Protestant offshoots.)
Only the Catholic Church existed in the tenth century, in the fifth century, and in the first century, faithfully teaching the doctrines given by Christ to the apostles, omitting nothing. The line of popes can be traced back, in unbroken succession, to Peter himself. This is unequaled by any institution in history.
Even the oldest government is new compared to the papacy, and the churches that send out door-to-door missionaries are young compared to the Catholic Church. Many of these churches began as recently as the nineteenth or twentieth centuries. Some even began during your own lifetime. None of them can claim to be the Church Jesus established.
The Catholic Church has existed for nearly 2,000 years, despite constant opposition from the world. This is testimony to the Church’s divine origin. It must be more than a merely human organization, especially considering that its human members- even some of its leaders-have been unwise, corrupt, or prone to heresy.
Any merely human organization with such members would have collapsed early on. The Catholic Church is today the most vigorous church in the world (and the largest, with a billion members: one sixth of the human race), and that is testimony not to the cleverness of the Church’s leaders, but to the protection of the Holy Spiri
I'm what some may call, a 'born-again' Catholic. Born and raised Catholic - but I went wayward, downward, and got SO lost exploring other faith/church practices for many years including protestant.
But miraculously when I was in the most complete dark despair in life, I found my faith again during a trip to Lourdes Grotto, France in 2008. Since then I have never looked back. I did my Confirmation in 2011 returning to the Catholic faith, and feel like a prodigal who finally returned home to the mother church. I have a strong devotion now to Mother Mary who interceded and comforted me to help guide my return.
There is no more need for 'human-mind' arguments of holy scripture/teachings, or the 'who's right who's wrong debating' authority/division. There is now only love and salvation found again following the Catholic practice. It's just so beautiful when you finally come to realise and get to experience it. In faith, hope and LOVE I really wish it for all, even if it's in the last day/min of your life.. come home.
So many people talking and defending their denominations it's like claiming your set. I always feel like we over complicate the Bible and form sects based on our ideology 😒😒
But there was a united Church and anything else outside of it is a denomination that breaches the unity of the true Church.
There is debate if the Catholics or Eastern Orthodox are the true successors to the original Church but Protestants can never claim to be.
Your right that’s exactly what Martin Luther did he created his own sect of Christianity and now we have chaos with all the different Christian doctrines. Martin Luther regretted making his own church at his death bed and repented
Heretic unitarians would say believing in the trinity is too complicated and that its okay to just believe in God the father but not Jesus as God.
It's our book bro ☦️
That’s one of the major issues with Protestantism, is it creates factions, it creates heresy, because there’s no normative authority. The Protestant church can’t be Catholic (Universal) since it doesn’t have anything that ties one Protestant church to another. Evangelicals believe baptism and communion are purely symbolic, whereas the Lutherans believe communion contains Christ’s presence spiritually.
No Protestant churches actually agree with one another on important matters of faith. Whether that be communion, how it’s to be received, how often it should be received, whether we should or shouldn’t baptise babies, and a myriad of other issues.
This means, that while Protestantism is a lot of things, universal is not one them. God bless you and your family. Lord have mercy on us all.
As a person who is looking into Eastern Orthodox. As much as I do see points in this video, I can’t ignore the contradictions:
-Catholic (universal teaching) Protestant-> they claim but can you define Fundamental teaching, then what is classed as fundamental teaching-> there are many Protestant secs that believe in different teachings.
-History -> good basis to show what the early Church teaches therefore you can see what are the Fundamental Teachings.
But the Protestants disagree with many early teachings. Veneration of Icons Is NOT Worship, there is a clear distinction between Veneration + Worship as Worship is for God Only. The Orthodox priests will tell you this clear difference, it is also seen when you go to the Divine Liturgy. Orthodox kiss + bow to icons to show respect for that person, Not to Worship icons.
"I do not worship matter, I worship the God of matter, who became matter for my sake and deigned to inhabit matter, who worked out my salvation through matter. I will not cease from honoring that matter which works for my salvation. I venerate it, though not as God." (St. John of Damascus)
-Protestants view the Bible as the sole infallible source. However Martin Luther believed he was the sole authority to remove books from the Bible-> is the Bible really infallible then? Or at that point does it become infallible?
Therefore you have to recognise that Luther has the sole authority -> he is like a Pope which he criticised Roman Catholics for believing Papal infallibility.
Eastern Orthodox don’t believe in sole infallibility of one man. That is why they look at Ecumenical Councils and stick to what the early Church taught. Therefore what is the Protestant criticism of Tradition? Perhaps you define Tradition differently?
Orthodox view of Tradition isn’t one set thing. It is multiple which includes Church Fathers and the Bible, as the Bible was made at the early Church.
Orthodox view of Tradition:
Not enough to simply govern intellectual assent to system of doctrine; Tradition is far more than just abstract propositions-> it is a Life, personal encounter with Christ in the Holy Spirit.
“When the Spirit of Truth has come, He will guide you to all Truth.” (John XVI).
This is why the Church alone can interpret scripture with Authority, not one man.
This is why Orthodox Don’t separate between Scripture + Tradition as the Bible came from the Church.
I do respect all who believe, but Jesus Christ says:
"I Will Build My Church!": "And the Gates of Hell Shall Not Prevail Against It!”
It is clear that this is a Visible Church. I hope Protestants do consider this and really think. If you stick with Protestantism, then as always, God is merciful to all.
But it is clear there isn’t Salvation outside the Church, but anyone who is outside the Church doesn’t mean they are damned.
I pray for you all, God Bless you all
🙏💟☦️
@@Adder-ft6hq loved your comment, totally spot on brother!
☦️🙏🏼❤️
I am on the opposite side of the same coin. 18 years I've been a born again protestant but I find myself being drawn to the oriental orthodoxy. The thing that is driving me out is that the protestant church I've been a member of and any I've visited are serving man. If you can show me anywhere in the bible where Christians were preached to after accept Christ, I will be at any church you want me to be every day and twice on Sunday. Sunday service is what has done it for me. 45 minutes I am receiving a message? I see me receiving more then God. You give worship, so whoever is giving is worshiping and the one receiving is worshiped. I'm all for teaching and the person who receives the teaching but 6 days out of the week, on the seventh day you are to give. I'm not saying oriental orthodox has it right, but I see less wrong there then anywhere else.
The issue with Protestantism is that it is not grounded in any way towards the Apostles; all of whom which Christ said will build his Church. If your faith and religious practices towards Christ are not associated with what the Apostles taught then you are not embracing Christ’s teachings to its fullest extent. In Orthodoxy, we say the phrase “One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic church” during every Liturgy in the creed.
One: One church with no denominations.
Holy: Being Christlike in our livelihoods.
Catholic: A universal doctrine of faith(not to be confused with Roman Catholics).
Apostolic: Every church leader, monk, and members of the clergy were ordained by an existing Bishop(including all Bishops) going all the way back to the Apostles, who were themselves ordained by Christ.
and how does Protestantism go against this
@@vch309 “The truth is to be found nowhere else but in the Catholic Church, the sole depository of apostolic doctrine. Heresies are of recent formation, and cannot trace their origin up to the apostles.”
Protestants can’t do that.
-St Ireneous in “Against Heresies” written in 170-180’s
Actually, we say Catholic means “fullness” not universal. It’s the entire fullness of the faith including scripture, traditions, the Church, teachings, and sacraments. If you’re sola scriptura, you’re not experiencing the fullness of the Church. If you are low church and don’t corporately pray and celebrate the Divine Liturgy, you’re not experiencing the fullness of the Church. If you don’t adhere to verbal teachings but only written teachings, you’re experiencing the fullness of the Church. If you only recognize two sacraments (baptism and communion) but not others like confession, marriage, and ordination of clergy, you’re not experiencing the catholic (full) Church. ☦️
@@EdgarRamGsatire as always
True protestant christian teaches the pure gospel of Jesus. And apostles. Doctrines free of dolls statues figurines mary veneration and praying to saints indulgences penance etc. Stick to Word of God. No need for additional garbage to the pure gospels 😊❤
Would love to see everyone come to the fullness of the faith 🙏🏼
☦️
Interesting that Ruslan likes Gavin’s content so much considering Gavin has a Calvinist view of theology which ruslan has called non biblical.
Yup. It's blatant hypocrisy and shows a pre-built bias instead of seeking the real truth.
You don’t have to agree with someone 100% to like their content.
@@Cattleman16479 Paul made evangelism a thing longggg before Luther or Calvin. And attributing something positive to them doesn’t mean Calvin’s theology is logically consistent with the Christian message.
@@Cattleman16479 I’m specifically outing Calvinism, not the entirety of reformed theology. Luther and calvin didn’t have the same views on everything
Once you encounter the Church Fathers it's all over; I remember the day I first heard Ignatius of Antioch talking about the Eucharist, just decades after Revelation had been written. After that I read more and more post and pre-Nicene fathers and realized these guys sounded nothing like my niche of a niche of a denomination; these guys were something else entirely - Catholic. In fact, it took me more than a millennium to find anyone who thought that the Eucharist was just a symbol, that baptism wasn't necessary for salvation, that the Bishop of Rome was chief among all leaders, etc... I was faced with a choice; either I was wrong and all of my assumptions about the "golden of age" of Christianity were wrong and the protestant reformation didn't save and propel an underground church... or the church immediately fell into apostasy as soon as John died and the gates of Hell truly did overcome.
Your first statement applies more to the Catholic then it does to other groups. The Church Fathers were all over the place on many issues. Take Matt 16:18. There is a 3 way split that takes place among the fathers who chimed in on the issue. Some said Peter is the rock, some Jesus, and some the confession. Rome knows this and yet at the council of Vatican I it lied and stated that it was universally understood that the rock was peter. Pick a doctrine that Rome teaches and you can usually find at least one church father who taught otherwise. If it took you had to look into the Middle Ages before you found voices that countered Rome's current teaching then you were not looking in the right places. It is well known even amongst Catholics that no less than Augustine's testimony had to be overcome in order to sustain transubstantiation. For anyone who wants to see what the evolution of a doctrine looks like, I point them to the Marian Dogmas. I don't know how anyone can look at the info related to Pope Honorious and still believe in papal supremacy and infallibility. I am not sure where you got that the idea that only those in communion with Rome have looked at the ECF but your truculence looks like naivete.
The Catholic Church is heretical
I've seen Orthodox teachings an sermons on youtube and all I can say is that they're biblically sound and grounded. But man a lot of people from this christian branch can really be a bit overbearing.
It’s more of a sense of pride and love for God. Sorry for being a bit intense, but we’re just doing what we love and are trying to get as many people to join us in salvation.
I find that it’s usually the young ones in the Orthodox Church who have the brashness and pride, they generally are the converts from a western mindset. Those who were born and raised in the east show far more humility which the others will gain in time God willing.
@@AJ_Sparten1337 I can honestly understand that, remember a time when I tried talking to a close individual in a similar manner. Though I feel I came off a bit strong, so ever since then I just take a softer approach with people.
Unless the person is being hostile to the message then I switch to a more stern way of going about it.
Stubborn is the word you mean. What do you expect from those claiming to guard the faith, once and for all delivered to the Saints?
Pride is a sin no matter the reason. @@AJ_Sparten1337
Orthodox Christianity from the New Testament on has seen the revelation of God to be contained in the person of Jesus Christ. Christ is the truth. Therefore, the only way to know God is to know Christ. While the West speaks of coming to know certain things about God from natural revelation in creation, certain things through the scriptures, certain things through oral tradition and so on, the East has instead emphasized coming to know God experientially by coming as a human person to know and be united with the person of Christ. Rather than saying that the Orthodox Church rejects the position of sola scriptura, it is more correct to say that the Orthodox Church does not hold to the definition of God’s revelation of separate, competing authorities in the Church that make sola scriptura possible. The scriptures are not a manual on how to live a moral life or how to organize the Church as an institution. The scriptures are the means by which we come to know the risen Christ. Always through the workings of the Holy Spirit.
Not a manual on how to live life and or how to organize the church? It literally has that in the Bible. I don’t see how a daily reading of the Bible from front to back would ever lead anyone to think that those things are not mentioned and taught. It is indeed.
@@robertgomez7409 I think you misunderstand me. When I say that the Bible is not an instruction manual, I am in no way claiming that you cannot learn anything from the Bible. What I mean is that this approach to reading Scripture is wrong and could be the very reason you may not be getting anything out of it. The instruction manual style of reading is that you will go to the text with a particular problem and expect that the text will give you the answer. Think of trying to assemble anything from IKEA. You are sitting there with a bunch of parts with no idea of how to construct your purchase. Opening up the instructions will guide you along the very process you must go through to get the desired result. Instruction manuals give us a path that must be followed with 100% accuracy if we have any hope of attaining the intended result. The Bible does not, and cannot, function in this way. Rather the Bible functions like many great pieces of literature, teaching us virtues and a morality that is intended for us, in order to be the kind of people we were created to be. It teaches concepts, not processes. Approaching the Bible like an instruction manual would lead many people to make the wrong choices, simply because it is in the Bible.
@@BrandonDiaz-uc8iu read the Old Testament when God spoke it was to be listened too, to the T. Moses was not allowed into the Promised land. Find the reason. Aarons sons died when offering a sacrifice. Find the reason. Josiah tore his clothes when he found the scriptures. Find the reason. And the list goes on and on.
It is not another piece of literature. And the scriptures themselves also attest to this.
@@robertgomez7409 Again you continue to misunderstand my overall point in my original comment. The Bible does not directly answer every problem we encounter especially in our modern age. It does not mean that we cannot find an answer in Christ. Yes, scripture is important, but what is also important is to come to know Christ through our efforts to imitate Him even though we of course fall short. By Taking up our own crosses and following Him and by partaking in the Divine nature we can begin to develop a closer relationship to Him. With the Lord's help, we must change and grow to be “partakers of the divine nature” (2 Peter 1:4). By praying to and worshipping God as well as loving our neighbors and living our lives in service to one another, we can then come to truly know Christ.
I will admit as well veneration of saints and images is absolutely something that keeps me from fully turning orthodox. May God guide us all.
I agree with you this is where I'm at myself. I really enjoy listening to orthodox teachers and feel they speak well on topics. But it's the praying to saints and the praying for the dead to make it to heaven that stops me from wanting make the switch.
@JBIII90 I am Oriental Orthodox so am a miaphysite. However for us the belief is the same. So for us to pray means to ask. It's archaic English see 1 Kings 2 17 KJV. We ask the saints to pray alongside us. We hold to the communion of saints which means when Paul calls for intercession in Eph 6 18 they are included. We believe the saints partake in the divine nature 2 Peter 1 4 so remain alongside us. Praying for the dead comes from 2 Macabees when he prayed for the pagan soldiers who had been played. I heard recently heard the story of Eck and Luther. Apparently at the debate Eck asked Luther about praying for the dead because it went against sola fide. Luther said he rejected praying for the dead. Eck then pulled up 2 Macabees. Luther then proclaimed he rejected Macabees as scripture. It's quite an interesting story. I'm glad your looking into Orthodoxy. I highly recommend looking up us Oriental Orthodox such as the Coptic Orthodox. We have a different history to Rome and the eastern Orthodox.
@Sixpenny2480 thanks I will do some research and look into this
I’m Protestant and i have no desire to convert to anything else because it’s about my personal relationship with Christ, not a label.
This is the answer given by every Christian who wants to give an excuse to not go to church lol. "It's a relationship, not a religion." Your personal relationship with Christ is dependent on how you relate to others
I'm Catholic and i have no desire for protestantism because not only is it unbiblical but also because Christ established His Church through the Apostles empowered by the Holy Spirit
@@ItsThatGuy1989 i go to church every Sunday. I serve in student ministry every Sunday.
Let every man be swift to hear and slow to speak James 1:19
You assumption that i don’t go to Church because I am a Protestant shows a close mindedness and a lack of grace. Definitely not godly behavior. But go off….
@@lepanto3607 so to you, I’m an unbeliever?
I love God so much that I want to learn everything about him including old traditions that the orthodox church still holds today. In my walk from day one being reborn I the Holy Spirit guided me thru all kinds of doctrine.. starting from televangelist and prosperity, Pentecostal, Calvinism Baptist … learned from all of them and now I discovered orthodox and it’s amazing. More knowledge more wisdom more of God. Just when I thought I knew it all. I’m theologically aware and you add that to orthodox and believe me, you can see how awesome it is
My problem with Protestantism is The Bible itself. You don’t get to remove books from the Bible just because it doesn’t fit your doctrine. Martin Luther committed sacrilege by doing that. As for Mary all Christians should venerate her, the first thing Gabriel said to her was Hail Mary full of grace and that she was favored among all women. Are we better than Gabriel?? You’re argument against icons was bad honestly, I guarantee you have photos of close family and you’ve kissed the picture, does that mean you’re worshipping them? Course not. As for Catholics and Orthodox condemning people outside the Church to Hell you can easily argue that was out of bitterness cause of the schism like you said the church has softened its heart on salvation outside the church. The Orthodox also don’t support Papal infallibility so truthfully brother you made no real compelling argument against Orthodoxy at least. At the end of the day Martin Luther removed books and altered scripture he didn’t agree with despite it being Gods word and that should be unacceptable to anyone who calls themself Christian. That being said I love the channel Ruslan keep serving the Lord Jesus🙏🏻
The apostolic churches even thought having its differences from each other still hold fundamental beliefs established by the early church fathers which is why we use the word Catholic which means universal
There are thousands of different Protestant churches with completely different teachings and theology because of the fact that they are not universal or apostolic
I cant say for sure that the Protestant churches are damned although I just feel like if the church’s built from the very people who put the bible together was still around, why wouldn’t you just go to those churches?
I think there's a couple issues. 1.Orthodoxy never stated at council that the non-Orthodox were damned. We also do not claim that the Church is an institution. 2. Even if you have you a protestant ecclesiology, you still have to divide a place where Christians and non-Christians are found. What is your Criteria for determining this 3. How are we defining defining salvation? 4. You're still appealing to a certain view of history which is arbitrary. Why the first 300 years of Church history? Why do you just pick Nicea 1, what is your canon of determination? 5. Gavin is speaking about a very broad Catholicity that most protestants would not hold to. If you asked the vast majority of Protestants if Catholics are Christians in my opinion they would say no.
response to point 1: define the word anathema
Like i always say, if you want to be Catholic be Catholic if you want to be protestant be protestant. Jesus died and rose from the grave for both of us. We both accept jesus as our lord and savior. We are both Christians.
Absolutely love Ruslan and a big fan of your music too!
This video by Dr.Gavin has been refuted. Orthodox Christianity provides the most consistent theology and history that we find within the first millennium.
Appreciate your channel. Let's keep the conversation going!
where I can watch that video?
In the Orthodox Church we don't think other people outside the Church are "saved", because that is not for us to judge. Also Christ saved us yesterday, today, tomorrow, etc. That concept of being "saved" is so western...
I used to be protestant until very recently, and I have a question for protestants, who interprets scripture? And who's interpretation is deemed 'correct'?
The Holy Spirit
@@raisinbread8526So who has the Holy Spirit, and how do you know that?
@@bradleyperry1735 One who humbles himself and submits to Jesus with all of his heart. Repents of his sins to Him. Accepts Jesus as his Lord and Saviour. Rejects all other false gods.
@@raisinbread8526 So when people who fit that description come to radically different conclusions, what then?
@@bradleyperry1735 The Apostles were given the Holy Spirit. They passed it onto Bishops with Apostolic succession. A lot of us are currently lost and I pray we all are reunited.
God didn't tell his apostles to make a new denomination every time they disagreed. This is why I can't take 1000's of protestant religions seriously. 🤷🏽♂️
Good point
As long as you believe what bible says and that Jesus resurrect from the death and he is the only way, I see you in heaven my brother.
But the sacraments bro...
"Unless you eat my flesh and drink my blood, you have no life in you"
@@robiszabo903 “If you openly declare that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For it is by believing in your heart that you are made right with God, and it is by openly declaring your faith that you are saved.” -Romans 10:9-10
Except the bible has to be interpreted. When people interpret it differently they come to different beliefs.
@@tashajoykin5192What does Paul mean by belief here? Does he mean purely intellectual assessment that Christ is Lord? No! If he did then this create a contradiction between James and Paul. James tells us even the Demons believe, and tremble (James 2:19). The demons believe Jesus is Lord far more than we ever can until our death. Yet they will all be condemned to hell.
Evidently here, when Paul speaks of believe, he’s talking about faith, and faith moves, faith produces works, this is how we create cohesion between James and Paul.
But what you’ve done is a perfect example of what Saint Peter said people do with Paul’s writings (because they lack normative authority) 2 Peter 3:15-16 “and consider that the long-suffering of our Lord is salvation - - as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given to him, has written to you, as also in all his apostles, speaking in them of these things, in which are somethings hard to understand, which untaught and unstable people twist to their own destruction, as they do also with the rest of the Scriptures.”
God bless you, peace be with you, may the Lord have mercy on us all ☦️
@@tashajoykin5192 Protestantism = subjectivism
Why can’t we just call it Christianity like it was originally called when the church was first started in Acts- ”The disciples were called Christians first at Antioch.“ Acts 11:26 NIV
No extra unbiblical traditions, no denominations, no divisions… just believers in Christ obeying the Scripture God revealed to them. Just the God Breathed Word penned by men who were carried along by the Holy Spirit. His Word… plain and simple.
Was never meant to be Protestant Christians, orthodox Christians, Catholic Christians, etc etc.
Just Christians.
💯💯
if you love Jesus, how can you ignore the Eucharist, his body, soul and divinity-!
So what was the scriptures for the first 300 years of the church?
which?
"I'm too good, too smart, and too sophisticated for the apostolic traditions of the people who literally invented the religion I claim to follow"
Non-denominational and modern Protestantism is just recreational Christianity as a hobby
Ya you are not getting it. Seems like you cannot comprehend his reasons. It's way easier to slam someone for being prideful than to actually understand their arguments. You're being lazy.
God knows who belong to him and who doesn’t, it’s that simple.
Jesus promised atleast one of the church wouldn’t promise heresy with that verse how could that be the Protestant church when they are so split
Also Protestantism doesn’t have apostolic succession so it’s basically man made
There is no apostolic succession. All made up for control
I always looked at apostolic succession as a way of keeping out the competition.
@@kurt1391or it’s the fact that Jesus laid his hands and called on people who can be priest and it’s been passed down Jesus didn’t let anybody be a priest only his apostles
@@kurt1391As it should.
Cuz you gotta sell that merch boi… But for real, why’d y’all remove 7 Books from the original Bible?
That doesn't mean its not important. Adding or subtracting them from the Bible doesn't change the salvation of Jesus that he is the only way the truth and the life.
@@mariembuenaventura1278 deuteronomy 4:2
Our Old Testament is the same as the Hebrew Tanakh
Why did you guys add them?
@@johnsherfey3675 They weren’t added , your ignorance is showing , it’s best to not say anything if you don’t know the facts.
For me, the bible says "For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith-and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God- 9not by works, so that no one can boast." (Ephesians 2:8) and "Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. On that day many will say to me, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?’ And then will I declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness.’ (Matthew 7:21-23), Lastly, "For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord. (Romans 6:23). These explain how it is not our works or anything we do to earn salvation. It is a GIFT from god. By putting 100% trust and faith in jesus and that he paid our punishment in full we are accepting this gift. If I were to gift you something but I said you have to do something in return, than it would not be a gift. If you rely on praying or going to church to be saved, while these things are good to do, you are relying partly on yourself to be saved, and not god.
This is what I have learned and currently believe which I guess would put me in the protestant category. Pls feel free to comment your opinions.
Am a Christian that all,i don't need a label
No, you need to roll the dice and become one of the 30,000 denominations and hope you chose the right one.
@@joevi2593man, this hits me so hard. I grew up catholic, turned prodigal, came back to Christ as a “non denominational” I guess, now I’m constantly being convinced by everyone that they are correct, man it really is tiring. It’s making it easier for the devil to convince me to just give up.
Truth is, I just know that Jesus died for my sins and that I should turn away from sin, I dont really know where to go from here, I dont even have a church currently. Its so tiresome.
@@HlGHENERGY There are millions of Middle Eastern and Chinese Christians who are dying for Jesus and The Gospel. The vast majority of them are just people in underground churches praising the LORD. They are true Christians and they don't belong to any religious institution. Let the Holy Spirit of our God guide you to a church.
@@joevi2593 Man that actually helped a lot thinking about it that way, God bless you
As long as you are actually a Christian then you are saved BUT Catholicism and the Orthodoxy bring so much more to loving a relationship with Jesus. For me i was almost a protestant but I could not reject the Eucharist as the true presence of Jesus because I had experienced this so many times. To also experience the power of God in his sacraments is just too much of a gift to reject for the sake of being a protestant.
For you that is true, but not for others. I'm married to a very devout Catholic, and we have very different reactions to the same things. We're not all inspired by the same things. I don't like running, but some people love it.
@kurt1391 you don't like running, but you'd have to admit that if you did go for runs and eventually made it part of your lifestyle, you would most likely be physically healthier. And we could even hate running but our preference of not running doesn't change the fact that running is good for us. In the same way, something like the Eucharist in catholicism even if one prefers not to take part would still benefit from this. To experience Jesus in this way. Look at even one both Catholics and Protestants think is good; baptism. If you're a protestant and someone told you they prefer not to be baptized and they still have a relationship with Jesus without it you'd probably still say baptism would still be beneficial. So when I say catholicism brings more to our relationship with Jesus with things like the Eucharist, and it's too good to reject, I agree with you. It is true for me. But I would say truth here isn't subjective to the person. It's true for everyone. It's just some people prefer not to have this benefit like not wanting to go running.
There's an Orthodox Chridtian Apologist/RUclipsr named "Seraphim Hamilton", that is making me become an Orthodox Christian. I highly recommend checking him out.
I love this channel but I truly don’t think Ruslan has studied the Orthodox position, with any intent on being open to changing his mind. Speaking for myself, coming from a Baptist background and moving into evangelical non denominational evangelical churches later on. I wanted to learn what the early christians believed. But the more you study Church History and the Church Fathers it is clear, there were not multiple denominations with all sorts of different interpretations that they viewed as doctrines and were still considered apart of the Apostolic Church. Protestants actually have switched their historical positions as well to say now Catholics and Orthodox can be saved because that is by no means a historical Protestant position. Calvin and Luther had Anabaptist murdered for going against the “true faith” Luther sentenced people to be drowned even. Protestants because of Sola Scriptura, have actually just become Postmoden in their thinking. They have no epistemic principle to say they have the “correct” interpretation over a Mormon. They would have to appeal to tradition and Christians believing the same thing to ultimately prove a point because you can’t argue everything from the Bible alone. Ruslan says this is a straw man of sola scriptura often but when it gets down to the points where we disagree it goes back to them believing that they solely are interpreting Scripture in their own way.. There is so much evidence overwhelmingly going against what Protestantism teaches in its various sects that I do not understand how someone could not understand the significant flaws in the very foundation of Protestants.
Ruslan. Is there evidence in the bible of a group of Godly people who were so confident in their traditions and held so firm to their law that they refused to follow Jesus? I can think if some......and those people seem oddly similar to current day Catholics
Once I read the source someone cites, and find it directly contradicts their case, I stop listening to them. I've long since stopped listening to Gavin Ortlund. He hasn't read his own sources, and hasn't done the work needed to act as a teacher.
This is simply false. If your scholars agree with Ortlund's interpretation of the data, the problem isn't him.
I prefer the old Catholic Church, they just came out and told you were going to hell if you didn't join their church. Modern Catholics often give the impression of being sweet and friendly about it while still being smug and condescending at the same time.
The claims made in the video are demonstrably false. You can easily look up what christians in the 1st 2nd 3rd century believed about salvation, church, sacraments and it looks nothing like protestantism.
By Ruslans own admission, the concept of only one True Church has always been taught since the beginning, until protestants showed up. I dont think that helps the historicity of your position.
Not only the doctrine of one true church, but many other doctrines have always been taught like the real prescence, infant baptism, apostolic succesion. Guess what never existed, sola scriptura, sola fide. You will not find that teaching before 1500s, not even miss quoting Augustine can support sola scriptura.
Ruslan claiming he knows church history comes off as arrogantly ignorant. Not even some quote mines from Augustine can support protestantism.
You’ve been deceived to
Follow men and Christ. Repent and turn to
Christ alone. You’ve been blinded
To the gospel
@@JB-ku7kv look up when did christians start believing in sola scriptura and sola fide, then we see who follows man made traditions.
Protestantism just vacant stale for me and I plateaued, I searched for more and it lead me to Eastern Orthodoxy, what better way than the original, now I feel at home and feel the true presence of God in the divine liturgy
No on is trying to claim you in the way they are trying to "claim" Jordon Peterson. Jordon is having his own internal battle publicly, while you built your platform as a Protestant Christian, the "cool" Christian. If being a Protestant is false, you are leading people astray, especially young people.
Even though it's intellectually engaging, I always feel dirty when engaging in the denominatinal stuff. To me, this feels as in the Flesh as one can be.
I feel like Jesus doesn't care what we call our selfes. He knows our hearts.
What about the people that have never ever heard about him? Aren't they free of sin?
How would Jesus let you down for sincerely following him to the best of your knowledge?
Whenever I start trying to select a denomination, I feel pride creeping up my spine and getting ready to unfold.
As far as I understand Jesus, these superficial technicalities are like filthy rags to God.
If I am wrong, please tell me! 🙏🏽
This proves Protestantism teaches church is about us. What we want, our preferences. Non of this matters, what is truth and what church did Christ establish.
protestantism = subjectivism
As opposed to all the goofy occultic practices in Catholicism and Orthodoxy that Christ didn't practice.
@@johnd2946 Christ built the Church. Show some respect. The Church that made the Bible canonical.
No denomination is perfect but I got tired of the infighting and have adopted the Orthodox church as my home.
The problem with saying the Bible is the final authority is that it’s not the revealer of truth in and of itself. Or in other words, the Bible doesn’t interpret itself. This is a loaded, arbitrary assumption. Everyone has a particular lens, aka hermeneutic, through which they read the Text. So the question is what proper hermeneutic are we meant to have when reading Scripture? Because I’d suggest that’s the real final authority.
The answer to this is simple: Christ is the Final Authority, because He is the Word of God (what all the Scriptures point to), and not only the Word of God, but the Word of God made flesh and God revealed to us in and through a broken Man hanging from a tree. The One who died and rose for all to see. This is our final authority. Everything else we can debate and hash out, but let us not miss what is most important. It’s Christ who is Truth. He is the Last Word. Behold Him above all else.
I really like orthodox theology and their explanation of things Protestants demonize, but I believe we’re in an age of extreme grace from God, and ultimately too many life paths and experiences happen to be one denomination, and if one is truly Gods church we will all eventually come back to it.
I personally find that the more I study and learn church history the more Interest I lose in Orthodoxy Christianity or Catholic Christianity. The more I study early church history the more I become Protestant.
This makes no sense.
Proud protestant!! Love our faith and dr gavin ortlund!!😊😊
It's unfortunate you haven't looked at what's most important in life, our faith, with objectivity or reason. Your episode with the Orthodox showed a severe lack of knowledge and understanding of both Orothodox and Catholic views and history. This despite having someone like Trent Horn on who could have answered all those questions for you. You are choosing to stay in the dark on this.
I'll pray for you.
🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄
I completely agree I feel like he’s not open to and that’s wrong just like an atheist not being open to Christianity
Y’all are starting to sound like what y’all are accusing the Protestants being of and condemning people for personal preference. It sounds like he understands the views, he’s just content with where he’s at. God is not one dimensional and calls different people to different places, and people just have to be okay with that.
@@dmarkel92 I know, I found this video today and reading through the comments were just depressing, I guess everything about my faith is all worthless because I don't go to this building and do this specific thing. Not to mention, seeing Christians slandering each other for things like that is just depressing
I guess a Bible verse did actually help though. It was 1 Corinthians 12:17. "If the whole body were an eye, how would you hear?".
At the end of the day we're all Christians. Different people are apart of different parts, but we're all apart of the whole body. To act like one is over the other or that one is the "true part" just sounds like what that verse hypothesized.
Ruslan, you will indeed become Roman Catholic, for two simple reasons - the Catholic Church is the truth, and you are a seeker of truth. When you truly and sincerely seek the truth, God cannot fail to reveal it to you.
When you say no creed is superior to Scripture, you actually mean no creed is superior to MY understanding of the Scripture. I love my protestant brothers and sisters, but there is no denying it, in the very heart of reformation was immense pride.
That failure to see how our interpretation plays a part in the claim that the Bible is infallible can never be unseen once you see it.
The creeds are equal not superior.
@@anothercat1300 That's why I became orthodox
SO it had nothing to with corruption in the Catholic church? are you really making that argument?
@@richardjohnson6140 What had nothing to do with the corruption in the Catholic church?
Im so afraid im going to hell, i do not know which christian group is speaking the truth.
@@bjornmikkelsen
I completely understand this feeling of fear, however the scripture is clear, " any who confess with their mouth and believe in their hearts that Christ Yehusha (Jesus) is their savior for sins, you shall be saved."
John 3:16
I just want to serve Yehuah with all of my heart.
John 3:16 states that if we believe in the One who the Most High has sent to save the world, has everlasting life. Which is trusting in Yehusha(Jesus) as the Messiah (Christ) for the world.
@@bjornmikkelsen Jesus is all you need.
I find it funny how people in the comment section think they are superior to the other denominations forgetting the Lord's teaching that "For he who is least among you all is the one who is great."
Big Orthodox! ☦️
I don't understand the tensions between denominations to be honest. We all have our own unique personal relationship with Jesus. I don't adhere to the whole you're not truly "reborn" unless you abide by this particular denomination. It seems inherently tribalistic and non Christan-like in relation to religious tolerance and acceptance.
I wish more people felt this way.
Exactly...that's what I think too
It's easy to understand. You can not hold two contradicting positions at the same time unless you completely dispense with the metaphysical reality that Truth exists.
denominations, as in the Protestant/evangelical/ reformed/ Roman Catholic circles all hold to different notions of what's True, who Christ is, What salvation is, who God is etc.
While Orthodoxy, has remained the same since Pentecost, It's pre-denominational and shows us the narrow way that leads us to a personal relationship with thee Jesus Christ. Not our own personal construct of who we believe Jesus to be.
@@anothercat1300 I understand that there are nuances and disagreements with who Christ and what salvation is. I'm not speaking about a personal construct either. I'm simply speaking about bending the knees whilst surrendering and asking Jesus for guidance and understanding. No preconceived notion, no personal construct. The simple act of prayer.
That isn’t at all found in the Scriptures, much less in the history of the Church. This “unique personal relationship” stuff is modern nonsense.
I’d consider myself independent Baptist and I’ve never heard that we are the true church. I think whoever believes the gospel is apart of the church the body of Christ. I will say I believe the independent Baptist Church is more aligned with the teachings of the Bible than most protestant churches. We aren’t going around claiming we are the one true church like other Catholic or orthodox churches.
At least the churches I’ve been too
I’ll say this too there’s so many false teachers we mark and avoid so I can see how we might seem a little more dogmatic and isolated but there’s definitely salvation outside the independent or fundamentalist churches salvation doesn’t belong to built church as long as it’s biblical nothing added to or taken away.
Just to fact check you because you made a few mistakes in this video, Icons are not a late integration of the church in the medieval era the Iconoclasm debates and in fighting happened in the 7th century and Iconography is clearly on display in the oldest churches in the world so to claim that imagery is a later invention when it clearly shows up in early 3rd and 4th century churches is nonsense. As a Protestant who by his own admission isn't well read on Church history it would be sensible of you to not make statements like this.
The video itself is also failing on many points a more compelling appeal to Catholicity, History and scripture?
Catholicity you mean the 40000 denominations that disagree on virtually everything?
History, what history?
Scripture? Didn't yall remove 7 books that didn't fit your narrative.
A removal of historical accretions, OSAS? Calvinism? Sola scriptura? "but not these books i removed" Faith alone but lets ignore any scripture that says otherwise.
You cannot make this stuff up. I mean this with all love and respect if people choose to be Protestant so be it God bless you I wish you the best but don't make baseless nonsensical INDEFENSIBLE claims.
Rock and Sand: An Orthodox Appraisal of the Protestant Reformers and Their Teachings Ruslan claims to know history but he doesn't. then tries shows AI gen video to falsely prove it. May GOD have Mercy on us all
I tried to become orthodox, but then I interact with some orthodox people online and they told me they were the only Church and that I wasn’t saved. They still believe it.
I always say, how did that work out for you in the Middle East seems like you’re not doing too well.
As an Orthodox myself I would apologise on their behalf because that isn’t what the Church teaches. We believe the Church is the normative means of salvation. But that doesn’t mean God can’t have mercy on those outside the Church. Ultimately the Orthodox view of salvation is a life lived in repentance. So think of it like this, I am saved (at the moment of coming to faith), I am being saved (through the ups and downs of this life) and I will be saved (united to God)
I pray that you don’t let bad Orthobros online ruin the image of Orthodoxy, attend a service, speak to the clergy. Seek and you shall find, knock and it will be open to you, ask and you shall receive. God bless you my friend. Take care of yourself.
Online orthodoxy is not a great representation of what the faith is. You have to go to an actual parish.
Your conversion wont be online by conversations. You need to research for yourself and understand. As an Orthodox I am aware that some people arent the best at guiding and teaching our faith and traditions. Thats why its best to research and intend a Divine Liturgy. These 2 things will help guide you home. I also would suggest investing into the Orthodox study bible which is great for newcomers to dive into the structure of everything. Hope you find your way that isnt as hectic.
This is part of the reason it’s tough for me to make “the leap of faith”. All of the different churches have ideology that say the other churches are damned.
Not converting bc I am not persuaded by their arguments, do not think there is ONE VISIBLE church, and because I’ve witnessed grace outside of their exclusive claims
Same.
The Orthodox Church doesn’t claim people can’t experience grace outside the Church. The thief on the cross is a clear example of this, however this is an exception, not a rule. The rule is that grace is found normatively through the Church, but that God being who He is, and loving all people can grant grace to people outside the Church. God bless.
God can do as He pleases. There's just an assurance to interact with his Grace in the Church he established through the Apostles.
The Church is the Body of Christ, so to say it's not physical in history is to say Christ isn't physical in history.
Brother Orthodoxy the one and only teach by our Lord Jesus Christ that also teach by his disciples continually.may God show you the truth
Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you have no life in you. The Eucharist is undeniable in the earliest of church writings. And certainly not in the Protestant sense. But love the videos!
Is this serious? Very weak arguments and missing the whole point... over time protestants are moving further and further away to the point of complete distortion and confusion, to the point of theology full of heresies denounced by that One Apostolic Church of the first few centuries. That is the reason why I reverted back to the Armenian Apostolic Church from protestantism...
If Ruslan has Jay Dyer on the show he will not be able to remain Protestant
The incredible thing about ortodoxy is that it doesent consider anyone infallible. Not the bishops, not the councels, not even the saints. They put trust the holy spirit (the spirit of truth) to ulitametly guide the church in preserving the aposolic tradition. This is a big difference from catholicism where they have this idea that they can intelectually understand the scripture better with new logical arguments and new views, while the entire history of the ortodox church is unchanged preservation of tradition and constant refuting of heresy. That’s why you can go to an ortodox church today and be absolutely confident that you grandchildren will be able to go to that same church completely unchanged by time (like god is in heaven so should be his church on earth unchangable, no reformations, no inovations).