Is it arrogant to believe in One Church? - Father Josiah Trenham, an Orthodox priest, answers.
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 3 дек 2020
- Some feel it's arrogant to believe in only One True Church. For this reason, in a recent interview I had with Father Josiah Trenham, an Eastern Orthodox priest, I asked him this very question.
Subscribe to my RUclips channel: / @accordingtojohn
Support this channel: Patreon: / accordingtojohn
Twitter: / accordingjohn
Facebook: / theaccordingtojohnpodcast
In the original interview: • #6 Fr. Josiah Trenham ... I asked Father Josiah Trenham to speak on why a protestant should become an Orthodox Christian. I also asked Fr. Josiah what advice he would give Francis Chan, who recently started to question some of his previous protestant beliefs due to the realization that the Church has existed for a long time before the Reformation. Francis Chan asked in an interview the question: "what is your advice for me, in taking this next step?" This question I let Father Josiah Trenham answer.
The chanting is from this channel: ruclips.net/channel/UCSCg...
I have permission to use it.
#fatherjosiahtrenham
The teaching of the oneness of the Church is the prime reason I became Orthodox.
You don't even have to go to the creed for this one. it's so obviously taught in the new testament that I never understood how people can so easily overlook it.
@@Orthoindian Most likely you did not grow up in a pluralistic society, and if you did, perhaps not a pluralistic environment. That is why you don't understand.
@@mathiasendresen2110 I am from India and I get what it is to live in pluralistic society even on a personal level. Your environment shouldn't dictate your truth and relativise it.
@@Orthoindian
Hinduism is the benchmark for established ancient pluralism. All archeological, linguistic and genetic evidence indicates why:
Two VERY different peoples had to figure out how to become one to survive. In a pagan context, that was an entirely sensible thing to do so Europeans and Africans could become one.
But it’s an asinine solution for Christians. 90% of the early Protestant motives, once Calvin and Luther were excommunicated, became politically and power motivated. Ignorance and pride did the rest. There was no need for ANYTHING beyond the initial 10% which HAD been justified, but should have remained an argument within the Western church that NEEDED to stay United against the Ottoman threat. Rome was in schism but was nowhere near as far gone as it has become. Lepanto proved that God hadn’t abandoned her entirely, just as God hadn’t fully abandoned the Ten Tribes after their schism from Jerusalem. But the Protestants were quickly becoming a different matter.
Same here.
I'm in the process of becoming Orthodox from being a Baptist. My various Baptist and evangelical friends often say to me, of Orthodoxy "Hmmmm, well, as long as it's Christ centred and Bible centred" My experience so far is that the Divine Liturgy is more Christ and Bible centred than anything I've ever previously experienced, after my 57 years of church going in the protestant world. (I don't say that to my friends though, I'm not interested in arguing)
@Robin Heikka Since my last comment, my wife and I have been welcomed and blessed as new catechumens.
@@TheMOV13 Glory To God in The Highest🙏🏼☦
Amen. Ex pastor myself have been orthodox for years. It’s the greatest gem 💎 ever.
Very true
They don't even believe in original sin ..they are involved in demonic mysticism. And really they are the ones dividing from the rest of the Body of Christ. We don't create a bunch of divisive conditiond for viewing and receiving people as part of thr Body and fellowshipping with them.
Coming into Orthodoxy, I do continually struggle with this, since, I had a very true and very real coming to Christ (transformative) experience that happened right before I confessed with my mouth Christ as Lord sent by God to die for our sins. I know He knew what I was going to say before I said it out loud and that He allowed me to experience His energy. It was a miracle! For 3 days I did not have anything but a sense of purity and peace beyond any comprehensive understanding. I could feelHim in my innermost being. The Spirit also convicted me to get baptized. But, I didn't know the Orthodox Church even existed yet. Why do the Orthodox not talk about the energy of God being experienced before baptism??? Is saving faith not also a mystery? What about St. Mary of Egypt's experience? She had not been baptized or even received communion before she experienced God. I need more understanding.
Very good questions. I'd like to know the answers too.
My own thoughts would be that the "normative" would be to receive the holy spirit after baptism, doesn't mean to say that the Holy Spirit doesn't work outside of the Orthodox Church. A good example is the thief on the cross, Jesus said that today he would be in paradise with him, but that isn't the "normative" way of salvation, do you see what I mean? The thief on the cross couldn't get baptised or receive Holy Communion but the Lord met him where he was at, as in to say he allowed him to enter paradise because the thief couldn't of possibly done any of those things, the Lord has great mercy! I had a similar experience as you too, sometimes God works in ways we can't understand and that's okay! God met you where you was at in that period of time in your life, Glory to God🙌
Similar experience… A priest I know always says, “We don’t say where the Holy Spirit is NOT, we only say where He IS” It could begin to get murky-and possibly heretical- if there began to be discussions/judgments made about other people’s experiences outside the Church…Fr Peter Gillquist said these experiences we had before becoming Orthodox is just part of our journey to “get there”…Glad you are now Orthodox…
I just started reading The Unintended Reformation by Brad Gregory that proposes that secularism grew out of this momentous event
People don't like the truth
That we Orthodox have maintained the standard delivered by the saints is the truth bomb the Protestants can't handle.
A statement that is quite overlooked.
That’s not arrogant. It’s the truth!
Why would Our Lord say what He did in John 17:21 and then found multiple churches with disparate teachings? That’s nonsensical.
Yes sir fr thank you God bless you
Satan is the father of slander, lies, confusion and division, stay on the straight path, the path of the Apostles, the Orthodox path ☦️
Thank you
Thank you!
If the church was invisible why does the new testament give instructions for bishops and deacons and such, isn't that a VISIBLE church structure and authority?
May 2023. As an update, there are about two and a half Chalcedonian Orthodox Churches that I can make out. Two of them are led by Patriarch Bartholomew of Constantinople and Patriarch Kirill of Moscow respectively, and both of these are present in Africa. The half-church is led by Metropolitan Onufriy and is the Russian Orthodox Church in the Ukraine which advocates union with Moscow but opposes violent means to achieve this. It's a bit like me saying England and Scotland should have a common Bishops' Conference, but opposing any military efforts to enforce this. I believe Father Trenham, who is Antiochian Orthodox, is a supporter of this latter church. A current issue is that fate of a monastery in Kiev where the Ukrainian Government would evidently like to evict Metropolitan Onufriy's supporters, but is in two minds about what to actually do. I think all Christians should oppose violence, which is what eviction amounts to, even if we disagree sharply with the residents in question.
I love Father Josiah Trenham but the 30,000 number is simple not true. This number comes from the ARDA study and is being used incorrectly as the 30,000 is a combination of all church denominations throughout the entirety of Christianity. The same study states there are 781 denominations of Eastern Orthodoxy and 242 Roman Catholic denominations. A few more numbers below too.
Independents: 22,000 denominations
Protestants: 9,000 denominations
Marginals: 1,600 denominations
Orthodox: 781 denominations
Catholics: 242 denominations
Anglicans: 168 denominations
Great point father Trenhem. There is one body of Christ that makes up all His believing one's. Unity is essential to the Christian teaching. Prayer to the saints is the main thing that hangs me up from the Orthodox way however, I have come to love Orthodox teaching and many respects to it. Prayers to the saints is something I cannot see in the early church fathers or in scripture however I am will to admit that I believe the saints do pray for the affairs on earth but ascribing prayer to them is something that I only see Christ and our heavenly Father is due and even the holy Spirit.
Amen. indeed unity is essential to the Christian teaching. I am also Calvinist, I don't pray to the Saints either but I respect them, learning and reading their story is fascinating, we don't study them in the Protestant Church unfortunately.
@@Shindler39 definitely understand. I came from a Calvinist background for about a decade of my life and it was the same way. I agree with you the Orthodox have an incredible history and heritage of faith they have kept and hold strong today. I have great respect for them and its broadened my understanding concerning Christ' body (the true Church) of all believers scattered out that we can glean and learn from and love as Christ loves the one's He gave His body for. God be praised for all His scattered Saints and preserve them to the end by His grace amen. I appreciate you Apostle glad to see others like me out there. The beauty of God is seen in His promises to the Church, how the Father loves and the Son redeems and the holy Spirit reveals the truth of God and our Savior. Truly beautiful! Praise be to God!
I believe in one church
Yes, in one holy and apostolic church..☦💝☦
Here, sign for this delivery please.
What delivery?
Oh, it's here, you just don't see it.
See what?
The Church.
I'm signing for an invisible item that you delivered to me? Oh, makes sense, where do I sign?
Mr Josiah, can you share your testimony regarding how and when you became a Christian?
Take your time
It's farther Josiah, but he explains it in detail on his channel Patristic Nectar Productions. He started to study to become a Presbyterian pastor, a brother in law introduced him to Orthodoxy, and it made him question protestantism as a whole.
How would you answer a high-church protestant argument that the Church is still One, but humans have gone separate ways each taking parts of the truth, and that the Church as a whole still contains the fullness of truth? Especially like some Lutherans and Anglicans who still hold on to the concept of bishops and priests, ordinations etc?
On could say that there are many Orthodox churches that are not in communion with one another. Which Orthodox Church would be the "true" Church? The Coptics are in communion with Rome are they part if the true Church? Is Rome?
There is only one body of Christ. There are no denominations/divisions. Paul makes that clear to the Corinthians and Ephesians. Take no name other than the Name of Christ.
yes i think so
The dear Father @ about 1:28 in says, " They all think they reflect an authentic interpretation of the Bible that is true . . ." What we have to also sadly emphasise and factor in, is that so many of these 40,000 plus protestant denominations especially in America are corrupt money making concerns, so, so, many pastors become as their own little Popes, an office instituted by Our Blessed Lord, Matt 16 17-19, who they denounce of course as they pursue wealth so many of them multi-multi-multi-multi-millionaires, living lavish jet-set life styles, flaunting expensive clothes, cars and mansions all of it fundamentally anti-Gospel. Ravi Zacharias a prime example, so convincingly "Biblical" and admired and advocated by so many other pastors yet so, so corrupt. Arrogant to believe in one church? NO, there is and should only be "1" Church, John 17:21 but Arrogant humankind all so sadly selfishly messes matters up as it always does. AVE MARIA!
Very well explained and persuasive .
Some of the comments below however is less to be desired.
Faith is something either you truly believe in and live by and non negotiable
Some comments below are too critical as if there is a contest on who is better- What ever happened to tolerance towards your fellow human being.?
I guess this is the behaviour which demonstrates how we all as Christians ended up in our current state.
Like the saying goes ; too many chefs in the kitchen makes a bad meal.
Let’s focus of the TRUE CHEF - GOD ALMIGHTY ,not the sous chefs
Historically, religions destroyed cultures and people, for how they viewed GOD and plenty of blood shed unnecessarily occurred .
Schism between Eastern and Western Church is the best example, nations became oppressed, and the enslaved and almost culturally extinct , because one placed itself superior over the other and vice versa .
In 2020 soon to be 2021 , we are still playing the same dangerous game
Again, what ever happened to tolerance- live and let live
Peace , love and tolerance in these yet again troubling times
Love yes! But even you do not tolerate everything. You don’t tolerate intolerance of others or the divisions and fallenness from two historical Churches. I think you are looking only at the bad from the divisions which I agree is wrong. But you must understand the why. Why is there divisions? James answers that and when you look deeper as to how the East and Western churches divided it will help you understand why that division is still here. Sad but we live in this fallen world and only Christ will unite all people who are truly His.
The more I listen to non orthodox mindset the more I wonder if Protestantism has been over taken by secularism intentionally by a force that wishes to disarm any form of authenticity of the Christian faith. My suggestion is to go back read the early church fathers, read the didiche, understand the christology of Christ, and truly understand the incarnation of Christ. If you begin to learn these things you will then begin to understand the importance of ecclesiology.
“The ideology behind ecumenism…is an already well-defined heresy: the Church of Christ does not exist, no one has the Truth, the Church is only now being built. But it takes little reflection to see that the self-liquidation of Orthodoxy, of the Church of Christ, is simultaneously the self-liquidation of Christianity itself; that if no one is the Church of Christ, then the combination of all sects will not be the Church either, not in the sense in which Christ founded it. And if all “Christian” bodies are relative to each other, then all of them together are relative to other “religious” bodies, and “Christian” ecumenism can only end in a syncretic world religion.”-Fr. Seraphim Rose, Orthodoxy and the Religion of the Future
“HOW NARROW IS THE GATE, and strait is the way that leadeth to life: and few there are that find it! Beware of false prophets, who come to you in the clothing of sheep, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. By their fruits ye shall know them.... Not everyone that saith to Me, Lord, Lord shall enter into the Kingdom of heaven: but he that doeth the will of My Father Who is in heaven, he shall enter into the Kingdom of Heaven. Many will say to Me in that day: Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Thy name, and cast out devils in Thy name, and done many miracles in Thy name? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from Me, ye that work iniquity. Every one therefore that heareth these My words, and doeth them, shall be likened to a wise man that built his house upon a rock.”-Matthew 7:14-16, 21-24
“From an Orthodox point of view, the Branch Theory has many faults. Orthodox Christians wonder how groups with such radical differences could be branches of the same body. Palmer’s Branch Theory reduces unity in the One Holy Catholic Church to agreement on a few vague points of doctrine and practice at the expense of clear doctrine. Ignatius IV, The Patriarch of Antioch, rightly observes the Branch Theory:
‘...cannot be accepted by the Orthodox because it makes of the One Church a mere idea of Platonic Form that is realized everywhere, without being restricted to a place. This means that the idea of the Church, which was determined by the Creator, has not been realized in time, that its founder, Jesus Christ, failed, and that the gates of hell have prevailed against it and uprooted it from the earth.’”-Historian and Archpriest John Morris, The Historic Church
“In the year 1817, King Frederick William III of Prussia was still upset. He was a member of the Reformed Church, and his late wife Louise had been a Lutheran. It was not their different church memberships itself that upset him. What bugged him was that he and his queen could not receive communion in each other’s churches. Even though she had been dead for seven years (and he would not remarry for another three), the question was still on his mind, and of course the divided religious loyalties of his subjects also concerned him.
The division of Prussians into two Protestant churches had existed for some two hundred years, when in 1617 Prince-Elector John Sigismund declared his conversion from Lutheranism to Calvinism. Most of his subjects remained Lutheran at the time, but the Reformed faith grew in Prussia after its monarch’s conversion, especially with the reception of many Calvinist refugees fleeing religious persecution in other parts of western Europe. Over time, the descendants of those refugees formed a significant minority in Prussia.
One year after he became king, Frederick issued a new liturgical service book which was to be used in common between both the Reformed and Lutheran Christians in Prussia. It was 1799, Louise was still living, and this would set them and their country on the path to a common religious life. Frederick’s final solution to this problem in 1817 was to urge that the Reformed and Lutheran churches in Prussia unite into a single denominational administration in a legal act known as the Prussian Union of Churches. It began with the union of two congregations in Potsdam on October 31, 1817, the three hundredth anniversary of the Reformation. Other congregations soon followed. The king’s order actually did not have absolute legal force in itself, because of how the congregations were governed, but many voluntarily chose to become Union churches.
The new, united denomination, which in 1821 took the name The Evangelical Church in the Royal Prussian Lands, was founded on the notion of doctrinal pluralism-members were not required to adhere to the classic confessions of either Lutheranism or the Reformed churches-with a common liturgical and parish life. In 1829, the king required all Lutheran and Reformed churches in Prussia to give up their respective names and be renamed Evangelical. The denomination, which suffered various dissensions and schisms over the years in fully implementing the union, eventually became the largest independent church in the German Empire.
What laid the groundwork for the Prussian Union was a movement begun in the sixteenth century, initiated shortly after the Magisterial Reformation, known to historians as the Radical Reformation. This movement had a number of influences, such as pietism, which was begun by a Lutheran pastor but was trans-denominational, and millenarianism, a focus on the coming end of the world.
What characterizes the Radical Reform most, however, is that it was not so much focused on church bodies as organizations; rather, it was a movement within and between various groups of theologians who belonged to different communions. The Radical Reformers reacted not only against the perceived corruption and apostasy of the Roman Catholic Church, but also against the Magisterial Reformers, such as Luther and Calvin, who enjoyed state support for their churches.
The Radicals felt that Luther and Calvin had not gone far enough in their reform, so they took the basic doctrinal presuppositions of the Reformation and carried their logic further. In this revolution within the revolution, the Radicals changed how Scripture was to be read, how church membership was understood, the meaning and practice of baptism, and in some cases, even the traditional doctrines about the identity of God.
In some ways, the Radical Reformers merely took the doctrines of the first Reformers to their logical conclusions. Perhaps the most significant current within the Radical Reformation, however, was the growing notion that Christianity was a sort of private contract between the believer and God, which did not depend on membership in any specific church or confession of any specific doctrinal tradition.”-Fr. Stephen Andrew Damick, Orthodoxy and Heterodoxy
“...The Growth of the Ecumenical Movement.
Towards the end of the nineteenth century, many Christians began to believe that they should make an effort to overcome centuries old divisions. Part of this movement can be traced back to such events as the Prussian Union of 1817, which united the Lutheran and Reformed Churches in the north German lands ruled by the Hohenzollern family. Another very important root of the Ecumenical Movement came from the missionary field, where various Protestant groups found it necessary to cooperate. This led to a series of world missionary conferences. A group of Protestant leaders met in Edinburgh in 1910 to lay down plans for international cooperation on missionary work. However, the First World War prevented the realization of this plan. Finally, in 1921 a group of Protestant leaders at Lake Mohonk, New York organized the International Missionary Council.
At about the same time, another parallel movement arose to try to resolve the doctrinal disagreements among Protestants. This gave rise to the Faith and Order Movement which held international conferences at Lausanne in 1927 and Edinburgh in 1937. The next year, a meeting at Utrecht proposed the union of the International Missionary Council and the Faith and Order Movement to form a World Council of Churches. However, once again war intervened postponing the foundation of the World Council of Churches until a meeting at Amsterdam in 1948....Meanwhile, some American Churches organized the Federal Council of Churches of Christ in America in 1898, which merged with several other groups to form the National Council of Churches in the U.S.A. in 1950.”
Which One True Church should Africans join?
Why would africans join a diffreent church than anyone else? There are many orthodox churches in africa
@@josephsaab7208 There's now two flavours of Chalcedonian Orthodox Church.
So wich catholic church is true? Copt church, sirian orthodox, eastern orthodox, nestorian church, roman catholic...?
Eastern Orthodox
@@AccordingtoJohn umm, which one? There is one Holy Apostolic Catholic Church. The Catholic Church. The Orthodox Church's are split.
@@XDCjeza What do you mean?
@@XDCjeza Eastern Orthodox is dogmatically united and this perceived split you have in your mind is truly a big fat nothing burger when you consider that Rome has Sedevacantists, Greek Catholics that hold to Orthodoxy in all but name, SSPX who are at bitter odds with everything after VC2, among other things I could list. Point is, Rome is far from One, it just has the window dressing.
@@LightOfAllMankind They are not, hence many orthodox Church's and schisms. Orthodox are Sedevacantists of Eastern rite.
SSPX, are in communion with Rome.
The Catholic Church, is the only Catholic Church ie. Universal. The Church which still has union with all 24rites and traditions of all Apostolic tradition.
God bless you brother 🕊️
The Bible teaches "one church". The Catholic curch is "one church" too. But those two churches seems not to be in compliance. The reformers tried to harmonize those churches. - Not very successful.
Who was the first Pope?
Pope St. Mark in Alexandria
Pope St. Peter in Rome - after he established the Church of Antioch which did not fall away and remains Orthodox to this day.
@@JackTimothy In all my reading of Jesus words, never have I seen where he mentioned the word pope, or gave that office any credence. Not a judgement, just an observation.
@@jschenkyou The most ancient and original instrument for spreading divine revelation is holy tradition. From Adam to Moses there were no sacred books. The Lord Jesus Christ himself delivered his divine doctrine and ordinances to his Disciples by word and example, but not by writing. The same method was followed by the Apostles also at first, when they spread abroad the faith and established the Church of Christ. The necessity of tradition is further evident from this, that books can be available only to a small part of mankind, but tradition to all.
Pope derives from the Greek word for father. Which is used hundreds of time in the New Testament to describe others. Mark 11:10 Blessed is the kingdom of our father David That comes in the name of the Lord! Hosanna in the highest!” John 4:12 “Are You greater than our father Jacob, who gave us the well, and drank from it himself, as well as his sons and his livestock?” Acts 7:2 “And he said, “Brethren and fathers, listen: The God of glory appeared to our father Abraham when he was in Mesopotamia, before he dwelt in Haran”
The true church are born again believers;
“Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: and every one that loveth him that begat loveth him also that is begotten of him.”
1 John 5:1 KJV
Which is what it was founded on;
“And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.”
Matthew 16:16 KJV
It is internal, not external;
“Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.”
John 3:5 KJV
“And when he was demanded of the Pharisees, when the kingdom of God should come, he answered them and said, The kingdom of God cometh not with observation: neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you.”
Luke 17:20-21 KJV
Man tends to think outwardly, oh well.
Cringe.
right
Salvation is in Christ Alone salvation is not subscribing to a particular church...the Bible says believe in the Lord Jesus Christ and you shall be saved.....not be part of the true church and you shall be saved....what happened to the simplicity of the gospel preached by the Apostles
Thank you for you comment. Here are some thoughts: The Bible teaches that the Church is the Body of Christ, hence the dichotomy between “Christ” and “Church” is like talking about the head without the body. Christ said that the sinner should be brought to the Church and if he does not want to listen to the Church he should be considered a pagan. It is really important that we believe in all of Scripture, and not only part of it.
@@AccordingtoJohn
I disagree once a persons believes in Christ he is incorporated in to the body of Christ …the church if you will….we become part of the Priesthood of All believers part of the Holy nation a Holy Priesthood….we don’t need Priests we are priests when we believe…listen to the Apostolic teaching from Peter the Rock
But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for His possession, so that you may proclaim the excellencies of the One having called you out of darkness into His marvelous light
With all due respect Father u should reconsider the Reformed teaching on salvation and the church you left behind teachings the the Orthodox Church should consider also …after all we do need to adhere to original Apostolic teaching of the Apostles as codified and once and for all delivered to us in Scripture
I have a hard time getting past the icons of your church. As God is a jealous God, and He alone is to be worshipped. Also, if Protestants can love Jesus and severe Him and preach Christ how can we be outside the Church?
Its not "arrogant" to believe in "One Church", its heretical -- *Jesus established an eternal SPIRITUAL house comprised of "peters/rocks/stones" that are Believers indwelled by the Holy SPIRT* -- see 1Peter 2:5-7 -- *believers are unified in SPIRIT, not by which physical church they attend* -- see 1Corinth 12:12-14. *It is heretical and foolish to believe that the physical Orthodox Church is exempt from the warnings of the Apostles in 2Peter 2:1-3, Acts 20:29-30, 1Timothy 4:1-5, etc*
What is Orthodox Christianity? I'm going to research. I can't be Catholic because I'm from Europe England and the 3 Reformations that took place starting with Martin Luther 95 theses I refuse to pray to Mary, I think is Idol worship to pray to Saints, I pray to the heavenly father in the name of Jesus. I do not believe in the seven sacraments, I don't believe in purgatory, I don't believe you can work off your sin, I believe in the finish work of the Lord Jesus Christ just like the thief on the cross that went straight to heaven. I do believe in Sola scriptura, sola fide sola gratia. I believe Jesus Christ came to us to establish a Kingdom (Kings Domain over a territory) the word church means "ecclesia" I would have to research this. Blessings brother
They pray to Mary and the saints, but prayer just means to ask... So they are asking Mary and the saints to pray/ask God for mercy or whatever your prayer was...
God is the god of the living not the dead, those in heaven are still alive/worshiping god.
"Works" can simply mean avoiding a sinful life and following in Jesus's footsteps. You aren't earning your salvation, you are fortifying it, by living a christ centered life.
The protestants did not reject the one universal, catholic and apostolic church. At least Luther did not. This Orthodox priest must remember that this Creed was being confessed by the Roman Catholics (setting aside the filioque). Is the priest saying that breaking with the RC was breaking with them, when in fact, the Orthodox Church already discern the RC to have deviated from the One Church.No! The Orthodox Church does not have the exclusive ownnership of the Body of Christ. There are many genuine believers outside the Orthodox Church, but they belong to the One Body of Christ. To say, "We do not judge those outside the Church," is a judgment, and a failure to discern the body of Christ. The Orthodox Church has its own real problems. There are innovations such as hesychasm, elaborate liturgical developments, the iconostasis, and rules for fasting which were not part of the early church. The Holy Spirit has been wrongly confined to the liturgy, icons, and sacraments and is not allowed to manifest through the members in the body of Christ. That is not apostolic. There are serious ethnic divisions. Even now we see other patriarchs taking issue with the patriarch of Moscow. and arguments over old calendar and new calendar. The Orthodox Church in the United States is not observing the canonical standards which were observed at the time of the NIcene Symbol. There is only to be one Bishop in each location. Yet, in areas like Dallas/Ft Worth there are multiple jurisdictions with multiple bishops over the so-called One Church - Antiochian, Russsian, OCA, Greek, etc. Then there is the issue of the Coptic Church not being recognized over the monophysite controversy. It is not a reflection of what the One Church confessed in the Creed. It is true that many Protestants hold to errors about such things as baptism and the Eucharist. They do not often have sound Trinitarian or Christological theology. However, to compare the Orthodox response to all non-Orthodox believers as analagous to a Protestant rejecting a Mormon on the grounds of their rejection of the divinity of Christ, is an irrational comparison, revealing the inability to discern those in the body of Christ outside of the Orthodox Church. I believe in the One Church and I have found true brothers in Christ in the Orthodox Church, Catholic Church, Coptic Church, Protestant churches, Jewish Messianic congreagations and non-denominational churches. PS I am a baptized Orthodox Christian
Yes because it discounts the hundreds upon hundreds upon hundreds of miracles, acts of God in the Church around the world. Go tell my Catholic brothers and Sisters and my Lutheran friends, and my reformed family that their faith don't mean squat because they are not apart of the one true church.
I and other Orthodox can tell you that you are not part of the One True Church. That does not mean that God's grace is only in the Orthodox Church, however.
@@George-ur8ow Well said. That doesn't mean that miracles or faith are exclusive to Orthodoxy, but it is the One True Church.
Protestants have moved away from Christ look you have tens of thousands if denominations you don't exist. Why is it so hard to understand that there is only the one true church practicing faith as it had since St Paul laxed the foundations
I am both Greek and originally Coptic Orthodox, we want to end this alleged demonic lie of 'oriental & eastern'
here is living proof that there wasn't any theological difference between them in the first place (even if there were territorial or political differences):
Already the joint statement issued by the first of these consultations (Aarhus 1964) could declare: *“We recognize in each other the one Orthodox faith of the church. Fifteen centuries of alienation have not led us astray from the faith of our fathers.... On the essence of the Christological dogma we found ourselves in full agreement. Through the different terminologies used by each side, we found the SAME truth expressed.”* The second informal consultation (Bristol 1967) extended agreement to include virtually every hitherto-disputed aspect of Christology: “Some of us affirm two natures, wills and energies hypostatically united in the one Lord Jesus Christ. Some of us affirm one united divine-human nature, will and energy in the same Christ. But both sides speak of a union without confusion, without change, without division, without separation. These four adverbs” - which of course lie at the heart of the Chalcedonian definition - “belong to our common tradition. Both affirm the dynamic permanence of the Godhead and the Manhood, with all their natural properties and faculties, in the one Christ.” [2] Building on the work of these and subsequent informal consultations, an official Joint Commission for Theological Dialogue Between the Orthodox Church and the Oriental Orthodox Churches began to meet in the 1980s. In its agreed statements on Christology, the Commission repeatedly and unequivocally affirmed the churches’ full agreement on the substance of the faith, notwithstanding differences in terminology. “In the light of our four unofficial consultations (1964, 1967, 1970, 1971) and our three official meetings which followed (1985, 1989, 1990), we have understood that both families have loyally maintained the authentic Orthodox Christological doctrine, and the unbroken continuity of the apostolic tradition, though they may have used Christological terms in different ways” (Chambesy 1993).
there are no schisms in the church. we cannot dare succumb to such demonic delusions, the demons are using linguistical barriers to divide us OVER ABSOLUTELY NOTHING. (having both been Coptic & Greek, witnessing the oneness). the words "oriental & eastern" need to be eradicated forever, they are of the Evil One.
As you sent me into the world, I have sent them into the world. For them I sanctify myself, that they too may be truly sanctified. that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me. John 17:21
Dear friend, to call it a "demonic lie of 'oriental & eastern'" is I think unnecessary hard. These are issues that have been dealt with by multiple Ecumenical Councils so I don't agree with you and I don't believe these Ecumenical Councils were mistaken on what was the differences. Holding that view seems to be contrary to what every Orthodox believer needs to accept to be Orthodox. However, as you noted, since then there have been discussions held and even agreements, but we need to see if these agreements will be accepted by the people of God in time. Nothing happens magically. There have been many agreements before that in the end are rejected by the Church. Therefore we all need patience. But I do see some hope that in the future we can be united. The Church always tries to look at the substance of matters and not at the words themselves. This means that if we do talk about the same things using different words, this will indeed be good news for our future relationship. But we also need to discuss the possibility that the were real theological differences between the Orthodox and monophysitism before but because the Oriental has moved closer to the Orthodox in the last centuries we think this theological agreement we have come to the last hundred years also reflects the views of the first millennium when in reality, the agreements we have today doesn't necessarily reflect the views held by the Orientals in the 6th century but rather the theological change and drawing closer to the Orthodox in our times. So maybe everyone is right, that is, that during the Ecumenical Councils there were real differences but today, 2000 years later the oriental has reinterpreted some things that makes the union between us more possible. If this is the case, we should not be anachronistic and say that these agreements were always there. I myself do see still some fundamental differences between us that reflects the disagreements before. Either way, we should be really careful in suggesting that the infallible decisions of the Ecumenical Councils are mistaken. That would put us in the camp of the heretics.
@@AccordingtoJohn Sorry, I disagree. The Oriental Orthodox have not changed their Christological position closer to the Byzantines. We were and always will be miaphysite according to the Cyrillian formula. Interestingly, I think it is the opposite. In many ways, through the councils after Chalcedon, they tried to bring more clarity to the issues given in Chalcedon but by that point the churches had already separated. So, many of the Oriental Orthodox do consider Chalcedon problematic, but not the current faith of the Eastern Orthodox which may have changed over time to a more moderate position. I do not think there is a real Christological difference today atleast because of the changes the EO made after Chalcedon. By your usage of "monophysitism," I assume that you still consider us to be monophysites not miaphysites, which is unfortunate. God bless.
Here are a few links to look at for our perspective:
ruclips.net/video/95n_NNUrbz8/видео.html
ruclips.net/video/-GKS8g39qdE/видео.html
ruclips.net/video/GeRDL1rbxNY/видео.html
ruclips.net/video/bJcUWLH4klg/видео.html
If Protestant Christians ARE Christians, then how can they be outside the Church of Christ? If they know and love Jesus and Jesus knows and loves them, how can it be said that they are 'outside the door' of the Church? I just don't think so.
Protestants are not Christians. They are in need of baptism and have never taken The Eucharist. They are outside of Christ.
The Orthodox are just as divided. Need proof? When was their last ecumenical council?
My dear friend, you are writing the same argument on all my videos, it doesn't seem like you really want an answer. Who said that you need an ecumenical council to be One Church (even if you are wrong in suggesting that the conciliar foundation of the Orthodox Church is not at work since the 1st millennium)? The ecumenical councils exist because there were heresies that needed to be dwelt with at the highest level. Presumably then the best would have been for these heresies not to have come about and therefore not being of any need for ecumenical councils. But with your argument, prior to the first ecumenical council (325), the Church must have been divided. Even at the very seconds after Pentecost, the Church must have been divided. Well done, you destroyed the unity of the Church even from the very beginning.
I would see the oriental Orthodox, the Coptic orthodox, and the main body eastern Orthodox Church as maybe the most visible separate sects within Orthodox.
@@trevorwright2 Hi. Why?
@Trevor Wright. Western Christian (prots and cats) all fall on the
word concept fallacy. Some are "Orthodox" in name only. The Orientals and Coptics are not part of the true Church, despite the "Orthodox" in their name. But they are closer to the truth than westerners (who are basically in apostacy) one could argue, I guess.
An Ecumenical Council is called when there is a need for it. There's no attack on the faith that requires a Council. The early ones defined and protected the faith. What would you call a council for today?
If, indeed, the Orthodox is the only 'one true' church and you actually believe that, then shame on you! You have failed spectacularly to establish any kind of presence in my country in the UK and certainly the term 'invisible church' applies to you more than any other! If you truly believe what you claim, then your mission has failed on a global scale - if you truly loved the Lord and His cause, you would have moved heaven and earth to establish His plans by spreading His message & growing His church beyond your own ethno-centric groups - I dont speak Greek or Russian, nor do I belong to either culture making it an extremely 'exclusive' experience. Why dont you throw open your arms & doors to all peoples and welcome them in? You have only two churches in my entire country which are not local to me - if you believe what you say, how can you let that happen? The onus is on you, the Orthodox church, to rectify this - don't berate people for not attending a church that simply doesn't exist in their country or caters exclusively to an immigrant culture.
You mean except the fact that the Orthodox Church made your country Christian? Or do you think there were protestant missionaries in the 6th century that did that? Before you slander Christ (to slander His Body is to slander Him), maybe you should read a little history and see what the Orthodox Church was going through the last 500 years
@@AccordingtoJohn To point out *your* obvious failings is not to slander Christ - that's called 'project & deflect' my dear! For you to judge the rest of Christ's body while remaining aloof from them is something *you* will answer for!
Any honest English Orthodox Church would be saying that the Filioque is a heresy with Theodore of Tarsus as the proto-heretic. It would deny the sainthood of Becket, Fisher and More. It would also deny the sainthood of Jean d'Arc. It would say that Cardinal Newman was invalidly baptised. It would say that my own baptism (St Aloysius Gonzaga, Hebburn, 1955) was invalid, even though there wasn't an Orthodox minister within a hundred miles. Perhaps there's a good reason why Orthodox missionaries might stay away from England.
Father Trenham has a PhD from Durham University, but cannot tell us if the Dryburn Martyrs were Christians.
@@david_porthouse I woukdnt know, I've never lived in England.
All of Christianity was Orthodox until the Roman Church schism in 1054. The fact that the UK isn't orthodox, is because Anglicanism, which was founded because a King wanted a divorce. Another schism that is the direct result of the Roman church splitting from the Orthodox. Come home.
The true church of Christ is alive and well. And it isn’t orthodoxy. And it isn’t a “denomination”
We believe that the One True Church is the Orthodox Church. It is not a “denomination”.
Orthodoxy ain’t a denomination. We are the church.
@Chad H. Point me to this true church then please.
There are lots of Orthodox practices and beliefs that are blatantly unbiblical. How is that justified
Because sola scriptura was a heresy invented only 500 years ago. Were the practicing clergy and Christians wrong before Luther's Reformation?
😂🤣 YESHUA will never enter your"church"!!!
How do you know?
Are you his agent?
The arrogance of the orthodox church is astounding. To think you NEED bishops for salvation is demonic.
Hi! Thank you for the humble comment.
Bishop were established by the apostles
You arrogance to think you are above the church is far far more astounding
This is a faithful saying: If a man desires the position of a bishop, he desires a good work.
I Timothy 3:1
What you call demonic is pure blasphemy because the Holy Spirit guides the church and as such has appointed Bishops to lead the church. May God have mercy on you.
Orthodox christianity is only real religion! Anyone who has doubts about this should look it up and see that it is as I say...let him go and be catechized by an Orthodox priest, and I am sure, that he will want to be baptized an Orthodox Christian!!!