Відео

It’s because the notion that holiness is a real, tactile thing manifest in places, things, and especially people completely undermines Sola Fide and forensic justification. If holiness is real and observable then you can’t assert you’re Saved by legal fiat disconnected from how you actually live and behave.

I grew up in the exact same sort of paradigm which is heavily influenced by baptist theology which has expanded into the non-denominational megachurch movement. Many good people who love Christ and want to share Him with others but their understanding of the Church I believe to be a bit off =)

That’s ad hominem. It’s not right to simply presume that someone who has a different view from you has ‘bad faith’. That is unproductive and clearly not Christ-like. Why not invite him to a dialogue? Debates tends to be less helpful than sit-downs, in my opinion. It would be helpful for everyone involved to avoid attacking each other, but instead to talk. As Christians it’s important to have more dialogues and less fights. Last but not least, Dr. Wadsworth used the Scripture as his point of reference. Notice the author of this video did not use a single verse to support his claim. That’s a big difference, even if you don’t believe in Sola Scriptura.

@@willieneon1 I don't believe that Dr. Wadsworth has 'bad faith.' I said that baptist theology in which I grew up doesn't have room for seeing the holy and sacred in a sacramental way which goes beyond persons but into matter and material itself. Secondly, the reference of 'holy ground' is a Biblical reference which Christ does not disregard in the New Covenant but rather expands in His ministry and through the sacramental actions of the Church (Eucharist, Holy Oil, Altars, etc). Secondly, other channels have had dialogues with Dr. Wadsworth and I am currently reading through his dissertation. I would interview Dr. Gavin Ortlund and Dr. Jordan Cooper in a heartbeat, but I am not sure how productive my conversation would be with Dr. Wadsworth.

​​@@willieneon1He quoted Exodus 3:5 at 0:42 And I would say that Jesus' words in Matthew 23:19-22 are relevant here: "How blind you are! For which is greater, the gift or the altar that makes the gift sacred? So whoever swears by the altar, swears by it and by everything on it; and whoever swears by the sanctuary, swears by it and by the one who dwells in it; and whoever swears by heaven, swears by the throne of God and by the one who is seated upon it."

​@@willieneon1He referenced scripture multiple times

Exactly 👍

You need to read Acts 17

@@biblefirst5691Justify that The Book of Acts is Holy Scripture witthout using The Church as an infallible authority.

@@haydeen6535 Yup. Exactly. And with many (mostly bad) translations of those books (Ta Biblia - The Books - is a library of many books, and not "a book"). Who approved those translations? Christian people did. And those books were copied by hand one at a time over centuries. Who corrected the inevitable errors? Christians people did. I've concluded that most fellow "modern Americans" are industrial gear heads. Our TV-English language, words, phrases, idioms and slogans all revolve around "stuff" and "things" and "brands" and "model numbers." Most Americans imagine "perfect replicas" and "uniformities" that don't exist in real life (outside mathematical objects).

The word Trinity is not in the Bible, just like the word Bible is not in the Bible. However, what the Trinity describes the Father, the Son and Holy Spirit are in the Bible of course. Be careful to not give Creedence to Muslim, Jew and Unitarian claim about the Trinity supposedly not being Biblical.

I would not go this far. The Holy Trinity is definitely explicitly supported by Holy Scripture, both in The Old Testament and in The New Testament. However I do agree that Protestants often just take our Creeds, without giving any respect to the authoritative body which produced that Creed.

How do you know you're reaching the correct conclusion from History that the church Christ and the Apostles established is you're Church ?

@ because it’s the only place on this earth where I have seen the True, the Beautiful and the Good. The Goodness speaks to Her Beauty. The Beauty speaks to Her Truth. The Truth speaks to Her Goodness. Until you physically set foot in a Liturgy this will never make ‘sense’ to a rational man. And that’s my point. This isn’t about presenting logical arguments. Thats Pharisee territory *if we stay there*. This is about the transcendent truth of Christ in His Church that God established at Pentacost and planted throughout the world in the blood of the martyrs. That is historical fact if you care about facts to the exclusion of all else. You can’t ’talk’ about Orthodoxy to see its realness. That is to be lived. People are too content to just…argue and talk and conjecture about God. No one wants to risk setting foot in His Church. Because they might stay 😎

What about the early church? Were the first century disciples deprived of the "fullness of Orthodoxy" because they could only read about God in the Old Testament Scriptures and meeting together in homes? Were their spiritual lives so impoverished because God hadn't blessed them with Orthodoxy yet? They probably weren't even saved because, after all, how can you possibly know Christ without Orthodoxy, right? Stop dividing the church over inconsequential things like the traditions of man. We are unified in and by Christ, nothing else.

@ you have an entirely ignorant understanding of the early church. There was no compiled Bible until the 4th century. Teachings were oral and they were in a congregation taking Communion. That’s patently clear. Anything written down beyond the OT would have been letters carried or written by the Apostles. Highly doubtful every member of every Church had the written letters of Paul and the 4 Evangelists. The ONLY reason we even have to use to term ‘Orthodoxy’ is to delineate against the papal Protestants and reformation Protestants. No one for the first 1,054 years was using any term other than ‘Christian’ because none was needed. You are either playing dumb to this or you truly don’t understand what you are talking about. The fullness of the Church has always been and always will be the partaking of the Eucharist as its pinnacle expression. To argue against that means you need to take a much more attentive read of….everything man

@@FiremanKevin " it’s the only place on this earth where I have seen the True" means this is just your interpretation correct?

Welll Put.

The reason why I left the RCC was because of the praxis of RCC. I didn't see the fruits of the spirit in those I knew as a child. I didn't feel Christ alive in my diocese. But why I can't accept the various Protestant sects is bc the Bible is about 1600 years old. It was designed to be the complete most important WRITTINGS of the pre church era. You can not simply read it as an individual 2000 years removed from its context and expect to grasp it in totality. That would be like reading field reports of roman officers fighting the goths. One would think the "barbarian horde" was an equal to Rome and not that Rome was a dying/dead empire. So one has to look at how the faith was actually practiced at its genesis. The only place where one can find, to be critical, semblance of that faith is in the EO church and it's teachings. It was a hard pill for me to swallow but the Apostles would not recognize the majority of modern Protestants as Christian. Too much has been lost, left, or changed for that to be the case.

there's no such thing as blank slate christianity sans tradition. if you think you have it you're just creating your own personal tradition

I don’t think looking for epistemic certainty is fruitful. I follow the Church because that’s where I found Christ in His fullness. If you are looking for a historical argument, the Orthodox Church is the only Chalcedonian sect of Christianity that has maintained the consistent view of the Monarchical Trinity. That is sufficient for me.

@@garrett2514 Well thats just your opinion that it is unfruitful. The E.O. claim is the Roman Catholics and Protenant LACK/ DO NOT have "Epistemic Certainty" that their respective Church's have the "normative authority" established by Christ and the Apostles. THAT MEANS you claim YOU DO have it and we need to press into HOW DO YOU KNOW YOU GOT IT. "IT" being "Epistemic Certainty as defined below OTHERWISE reallly this is just your OPINION i.e. "just your Interpretation on the matter" Epistemic certainty refers to a state of knowing or believing something with absolute assurance, where there is no doubt or possibility of error about the truth of a proposition or claim. It pertains to the realm of epistemology, which is the study of knowledge and belief. In simpler terms: Epistemic relates to knowledge or the conditions for knowing something. Certainty implies a complete absence of doubt.

@@garrett2514 Well thats just your opinion that it is unfruitful. The E.O. claim is the Roman Catholics and Protenant LACK/ DO NOT have "Epistemic Certainty" that their respective Church's have the "normative authority" established by Christ and the Apostles. THAT MEANS you claim YOU DO have it and we need to press into HOW DO YOU KNOW YOU GOT IT. "IT" being "Epistemic Certainty as defined below OTHERWISE reallly this is just your OPINION i.e. "just your Interpretation on the matter" Epistemic certainty refers to a state of knowing or believing something with absolute assurance, where there is no doubt or possibility of error about the truth of a proposition or claim. It pertains to the realm of epistemology, which is the study of knowledge and belief. In simpler terms: Epistemic relates to knowledge or the conditions for knowing something. Certainty implies a complete absence of doubt. (Sorry for my tardy reply, I don't know if my comment was deleted or not.... but this was my reply. )

@@garrett2514 Well thats just your opinion that it is unfruitful. The E.O. claim is the Roman Catholics and Protenant LACK/ DO NOT have "Epistemic Certainty" that their respective Church's have the "normative authority" established by Christ and the Apostles. THAT MEANS you claim YOU DO have it and we need to press into HOW DO YOU KNOW YOU GOT IT. "IT" being "Epistemic Certainty as defined below OTHERWISE reallly this is just your OPINION i.e. "just your Interpretation on the matter" Epistemic certainty refers to a state of knowing or believing something with absolute assurance, where there is no doubt or possibility of error about the truth of a proposition or claim. It pertains to the realm of epistemology, which is the study of knowledge and belief. In simpler terms: Epistemic relates to knowledge or the conditions for knowing something. Certainty implies a complete absence of doubt.

Defiinitely foul play may be afoot. Dont want to cast judgement just yet though.

What gives you / how did you gain "Epistemic Certainty" that the the Eastern Orthodox Church is the one with "normative authority" established by Christ and the Apostles that you needed to "humbly approach" and enter into? Terms defined: "Epistemic certainty" refers to a state of knowing or believing something with absolute assurance, where there is no doubt or possibility of error about the truth of a proposition or claim. It pertains to the realm of epistemology, which is the study of knowledge and belief. In simpler terms: Epistemic relates to knowledge or the conditions for knowing something. Certainty implies a complete absence of doubt. "Normative authority" refers to the power or capacity of a person, institution, or set of principles to establish or dictate standards, rules, or norms that others are expected to follow or regard as binding. It is the type of authority that gives guidance about what ought to be done, believed, or valued, often grounded in moral, legal, or social frameworks.

@Sola Scriptura is false on many fronts, one of them is it is pure question begging. Any normative authority that is based on question begging seems to me to be false.

@@CCiPencil Thank you for that comment ....I agree you abandoned Sola Scriptura and believe to be false ..... Can you answer my question now: "What gives you / how did you gain "Epistemic Certainty" that the the Eastern Orthodox Church is the one with "normative authority" established by Christ and the Apostles that you needed to "humbly approach" and enter into?" What was the Methodology? What's the standard?

At the ultimate end, everything boils down to Holy Spirit, so I would begin by looking at Holy Spirit’s work in the Church. The Protestant/evangelical and Roman position ultimately leads to a lessening/absence of the work of Holy Spirit. Since Sola Scriptura is clearly false and the Papacy, according to Vat 1 terms, is clearly false then other than Orthodox there is not anything less. Orthodox is true because to deny it is to deny the possibility of knowledge and/or it leads to God being a liar. It’s true by the impossibility of the contrary.

@@CCiPencil So over achingly or as you stated "At the ultimate end"; you're: "consciousness/ rational mind interacting with all of Church History, wisdom of others and Scripture", in combination with "Faith you are being lead by the Holy Spirit" made you come to the "Ultimate Conclusion" : "The Eastern Orthodox Church is the one true Church established by Christ and the Apostles for all time". Question (1): Isn't that "just your interpretation"? Question (2): How do know you're interpretation is correct?

The word icon means image. We are made in God's image or icon. If we honor one another, our parents or overseers, are we committing idolatry? St. Paul says, "Greet one another with a holy kiss." (venerating/honoring one another). King Solomon bowed before Queen Bathsheba, his mother (honoring, venerating our parents and authorities over us). God ordered Moses to make images of angels in the tabernacle and ark of the covenant. These were not considered distorted and sinful 'graven images' but sanctioned by Heaven. So the word icon does not automatically mean idolatry. I hope this helps.

@@barrelagedfaith It says it in the Bible straight up. Exodus 20:3 "You shall not make for yourself an image in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below" God did not tell Moses to make images. He told him to create Keruvim. You and I, as well as everyone else on earth have no idea what they look like. Their whole purpose is not looking like anything one could imagine. Do some research for God's sake...

@@yitzchakepstein2142Your very flawed interpretation of the command would prevent you from even taking a photograph of your mother or child. Wake up.

@@JamesT4819 As a person who's read the full scripture in the original language, with the original interprators, I can wholeheartedly tell you that you have no idea what you're talking about.