It's a common misunderstanding. Orthodox priests don't look like Dumbledore, Dumbledore looks like an orthodox priest. =D It aggravates Dumbledore every time it gets brought up.
I was literally about to write a list of grievances and corrections starting with item #1 being 'Dumbledore looks like an Orthododox priest'. You've beat me to it. Thank you
Exactly 💯. They're the OGs, and the reason our faith is defended. Without St Athanasius the Coptic Orthodox Legend, our faith would be in vain; Areus said the Christ was not the son of God, and the Son was not equal to the Father. Unbelievable, what a legend. You protestants gotta know this man
I've found that since converting from protestantism to Orthodoxy my focus has been shifting away from my own personal, individual faith and back towards Christ. Which is where I think the focus needs to be. There's so much less concern about trying to mechanistically talk about how sin works and how salvation works and whether we can know everything there is to know. It took becoming Orthodox for me at least to realize that Jesus called people to follow him, he told sinners to repent of their sins and to take up their cross. To get baptized and then pray, give to the poor, and fast. And no we aren't saved by doing a certain amount of these works (the pharisees were doing this stuff too and it didn't help them), but we're saved because by following Christ we become more like him. And in the end, whether we get to spend eternity with our Lord or not depends on whether Christ recognizes us on judgement day or whether he says "depart from me for I never knew you".
Agreed. Western denominations see faith as if its something we need to know everything about, rather than accepting that some things really are just simply mysteries and its not a necessity to have to have completely knowledge of it
@@tobiasbourne9073we have an incredibly deep and rich theological tradition as well. But in the end the humble matushka that spent her whole life trying to live like Christ and sacrificing her time and money to serve others is more holy than the most knowledgeable academic. And she’s probably the person we should be listening to and taking advice from…
I don't know why there is this "negative" or suspicious view of theology. Matthew 22:37“’Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your MIND.’
Beautifully put friend. There is a lot of beauty and the magnification and glorification of Christ in my attendance of a Russian Orthodox Church. It was a very interesting and beautiful experience. They were also doing well in their local missions, whilst I was there, a child who was attending the church in secrecy from his parents (as they did not want him to attend church or become Christian) was present and dined with us after the service. Praise Jesus Christ our Lord!
“knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.” Galatians 2:16 KJV
I have schizophrenia, I have voices in my head that I think probably come from demons, they get angry when I go to church, they say things like "you shouldn't be here, you're too much of a sinner, you hate Jesus, imagine spitting on the alter" things like that. When I went to a coptic orthodox church they were peticularly loud and here's the amazing thing. When the priest flicked holy water on my face they went dead silent. I'm going back this Sunday. I've tried it with catholic holy water but it doesn't work as well.
If this is true, that’s fascinating, look into getting an exorcism from one of them. The orthodox churches do them less often, but they still have them. Depending where you live, perhaps you should go to a monastery and discuss this with the monks there, EO ones are probably more familiar with this. they may be able to preform one for you. Genuinely look into this. I have similar feelings right before I go to church. Intense feelings of lethargy, as if something is trying to keep me away from church. But it vanishes the minute I step foot in the church. Glory to God
Interestingly enough, I met up with an Eastern Orthodox priest recently to discuss some of my questions/concerns with Orthodoxy, as I've been considering switching over from Protestantism. One of the concerns I brought up was the idolization of the Church, how many Orthodox and Catholics seem to mention Christ as more of an afterthought, and how I don't want to lose sight of Christ if I were to switch over. He put those fears at ease in me as he talked about how Christ is at the center of it all, no matter how some people may choose to express their devotion to the Church, and he found that Orthodoxy gave him more love for Christ than when he'd been Lutheran. I also asked him about both Orthodox and Catholics claiming to be the one true Church, and this man essentially said that there is no surefire way to know which one is the true church lol. It was a very lovely meeting, though I'm scared I won't find another priest like him
Was the conversation in English if you don't mind? In my area it is hard for me to find an English speaking Orthodox Church, as most mainly speak Russian/Ukranian/Greek... It's hard to find a service where I can actually follow the whole thing word for word...
@Minecraft36245 Yes, it was in English! This church in particular does services entirely in English, save for the occasional Greek word. We're also in the middle of the Midwest, so the congregation is mostly American 😂
If an orthodox priest said there is no way to know which one is the true church then I suggest you look for another priest. That is ecumenism and is widely talked against in orthodoxy so I don't know what kind of orthodox he is. The pope is a very problematic matter, there is no record in history of the pope of Rome being the supreme authority prior to the schism. The filioque was also something added without the counselation of other patriarchs, that makes no sense and it's no compatible to the theology before that. I used to believe there is no way aswell to know that, but I assure you, a little bit of research in the history of church and it's really obvious who the right and true church is. There can only be one truth, and all the denominations have different beliefs, therefore there is only one true church. That doesn't mean everyone else will go to hell, people are judged based on what informations they had access to and what they did with that, so if someone were to be born in a catholic family and never heard of orthodoxy their whole life that doesn't mean they go to hell. Please really consider looking more carefully in the history of the church and if you have more questions pls ask me
@@teoteodora7676 Hello! THis particular priest was Antiochan orthodox, and looking back on this comment I realize I may have misconstrued what he said; I believe he was meaning to tell me that non-Orthodox aren't necessarily going to Hell, as that was the concern I was looking into
I think a main Orthodox argument is that the Spirit proceeding from the Father is a unique relationship that only applies to their persons and not to the son. So to change the Creed by adding the Son in there with the idea that it is more Trinitarian would be on a similar level as changing the Bible to say that the Father and Spirit died on the Cross, thinking that it would be more accurate to the Trinity, and I think the reaction all Christians would have to changing the Bible is similar to how the Orthodox react to altering the Creed without a council, given that the Creed is authoratative like scripture.
@@JohnDorian-j7x It’s the problem of corruption. That corruption then alters theology. It’s essentially like the Jehova’s witnesses changing the gospel of John to make it sound like Jesus is not the incarnate Word, who is God. The problem is that the bishop of Rome did not consul the other bishops, he did not consider the consequences of this alteration. The bishop of Rome went ahead and did what he did without any consideration of his brothers or those saints who wrote the Nicene Creed. It’s like if a sibling went behind your back, took your essay, edited it, and then lied to your face and said he had power to do this because he’s “older than you”. I think as Protestants our conception of the schism is that the church split and went different ways. Whereas, I think the Orthodox view as more like the older brother leaving the house altogether and setting up his own house and decorating it with pagan statutes, false doctrines, worldly powers, and an emphasis on authority. It seems like the Orthodox view the Bishop of Rome as leaving the Church because he abandoned the apostolic faith and thus made his testimony is invalid. As Protestants I’m coming to believe that we reaped fruit from the actions of the bishop of Rome and most of our theology is predicated on this Roman theology. A lot of our criticism of Rome is justifiable and even accurate but to extend that criticism onto Orthodoxy is to misunderstand the differences between the Orthodox and Catholic.
15:05 I seriously thought that these videos were just voice overs and I’m genuinely impressed that you can hold such a deep and thoughtful conversation without getting distracted by Minecraft. Love the videos great work
@@orrorsaness5942Honestly if Iʼd ever need an exorcist I would either ask for a Catholic or an Orthodox. Never would I ask a Protestant to cast out demons
@@deutschermichel5807specially never at a Pentecostle church 💀 They be having you roll on the floor and passing out and stuff, while the Orthodox and Catholics will be praying and giving you holy water while 50 lbs on incense is strewn about the room (100+ lbs of incense if it's an Orthodox priest)
@@ligetisspaghetti5763 Pentecostalism is the fastest-growing form of Christianity so regardless of what you think of our theology, we are doing the Lord's work. I'll admit some of us can get a bit weird though. (oneness theology, people who do flag waving)
I didn't have any denomination until a month ago, but I emailed the priest of my local Orthodox Church and visited it and am now regularly attending and growing stronger in the Orthodox faith, hopefully I will be a catachumen soon
2 Timothy 3:16 16 All Scripture is inspired by God and is useful to teach us what is true and to make us realize what is wrong in our lives. It corrects us when we are wrong and teaches us to do what is right. 17 God uses it to prepare and equip his people to do every good work. It's not about the denomination, it's about the Christian. Study the scripture so you know it well enough to tell if the church you attend follows and teaches it correctly. If you don't have any near you, start a home church. It's how the church started to begin with.
When it comes to sin, I would agree that on paper, it may appear that the Orthodox church has a much more lenient view of sin, but if you were to read the lives of the Orthodox saints and to see what they said about sin and how they viewed both themselves and sin, it would make any Calvinist blush and other Christians look at them with genuine concern likely saying, "Bro are you okay?" Literally the most common prayer that Orthodox Christians pray is the Jesus prayer. "Lord Jesus Christ son of God, have mercy upon me, a sinner." It is repeated over and over again meditatively, not just for Theosis, but also in order to show us that we are literally nothing but sinners begging and pleading for the mercy of Christ because we are nothing, while he is The everything. Meanwhile I have seen countless protestants that while they may even have a belief in Total depravity, which has its own host of problems that I won't get into, they live their life has if they either didn't sin, or as if sin was nothing to them. "I know what I've done is bad or what I'm planning to do is wrong, but I'll just ask Jesus to forgive me for it." Was a very common sentiment among the Baptist and Pentecostal Churches I grew up in.
Anyone who has no sorrow for their own sin and thinks it's okay for them to continue to disobey because "God will forgive me" is not a Christian, let alone a Protestant.
Protestants definitely have strong views on sin. Have you ever heard of Michael Wigglesworth? He was a Puritan preacher, which means big time Calvinist. The man was obsessed with thinking about how sinful he was. His diary is filled almost entirely with laments about how sinful he was and how he’s pretty sure he’s damned to hell because of it, questioning if Christ would really redeem such a sinner as him.
As an Eastern Orthodox, I do, in fact, proudly post Chad memes all day. I grew up in the Church of Christ. Also, I love your channel. You truly truly have brought life to my faith again. Seeing somebody else my age actually take Christianity seriously, and also are willing to take an intellectual approach to it. It's so so refreshing.
What I’ve heard from every Eastern Orthodox Christian I’ve ever talked to is that the heterodox aren’t necessarily dammed, and they can be saved too. It’s up to God.
@@intothekey No they learned it from scripture, the church fathers, and the words of saints. It’s possible for non orthodox Christians to have salvation. It is a dangerous delusion to assume that just because you are apart of the church that you are saved, and it’s just as bold to say everybody outside of the church is automatically damned, It’s also often made into a very prideful notion stemmed from a delusion. Romans 2:12-16 is a good example of scripture that can relate to this. A great quote on this which is from 1800s Russia: “You ask, will the heterodox be saved... Why do you worry about them? They have a Saviour Who desires the salvation of every human being. He will take care of them. You and I should not be burdened with such a concern. Study yourself and your own sins.” - St. Theophan the Recluse I thought it was only Roman Catholics and Jehovah’s Witnesses that believed everyone outside of their church is automatically condemned to hell no matter what.
@@bobbobb4804 That's historically inaccurate. Both EA and Rome take John 14:6 and claim that because they are the one and only body of Christ on earth there's no salvation outside of it. I don't mean this in any passive aggressive way be you need to study on this. It's not the historical Eastern Orthodox possession and it's laughable to say it's what the church fathers taught.
@@bobbobb4804They're lying to you. The EO have always believed in the dogma of no salvatuon oustide the Church. I just saw a video of one of their priests who left Orthodoxy for Protestantism because of this issue. He was taught the same thing but when he studied what Orthodoxy actually teaches in its council and synods and official documents, everyone outside the Church is excluded from salvation.
I'm not officially chrismated yet ( i think, its complicated), but I believe there might be salvation outside of the Church based on the thief on the cross, the elderly couple that awaited the birth of Jesus, the three wise men and other people who recognized the divinity of Christ before Pentecost.
11:18 THIS is literally our strong point! The Orthodox people believe that we were made in the image and form of God! We have free will! We are not bound bound by the sins of others! We can absolve of our own sin through prayer and asking Christ for forgiveness. But in no way do we have any original sin: it was destroyed by the Cross of the Lord! These are literally the good news, the Evangelion!
@@JohnDorian-j7xa)no pope in orthodoxy or b)belief that the pope is infallible regarding religious- &/or ecclesiastical matters c)no belief in filioque unlike what both Catholics & Protestants believe in- & teach d)no belief in the immaculate conception of the blessed Virgin Mary e)no belief in the assumption of the blessed Virgin Mary
I'll be honest, except for the "immaculate conception", none of the rest sound very different from "average" chrsitianity... but maybe hard core catholics would disagree. I had no idea that Orthodox didn't believe in the virgin mary story... what's the theological reason why?@@tarlankasra
@@lukaspersson4051 it's not really that hard to resolve. Jesus could have simply sent the holy spirit through the father. It's not like Jesus could try to send the spirit and be denied by the father. Also the holy spirit is part of the trinity, meaning it shares the same essence per the nicean creed. Therefore it can be considered the spirit of both of the other parts of the Godhead, without the neccesity for procession. My point is it is not such an obvious biblical point
@@briandiehl9257 but he came to baptize with the Holy Spirit and Peter said in acts 2:38”Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.” So you receive the Holy Spirit when you repent and get baptized in the name of Jesus Christ, that means that it has to proceed from him and not just be sent through the father
@@lukaspersson4051 there is a difference between eternal procession and temporal procession. The Spirit ONLY eternally proceeds from the Father, but temporally proceeds from the Son. The filioque seems to suggest that the source of the Spirit is the Son, which is theologically wrong. I would personally not have an issue if the creed read "from the Father through the Son" but regardless, changing the creed outside of an ecumenical council was a massive Western L
When the Nicene Creed says "I believe in one...apostolic Church," that is a direct reference to apostolic succession. The council of Nicea was, let us not forget, an ecumenical council of Catholic/Orthodox bishops. The testimony of the Fathers is universal in teaching that the Church is visible, and that visibility comes from the authority of the bishops and their unbroken succession of ordinations back to the apostles. You are right: both Catholic and Orthodox bishops have unbroken succession back to the apostles. Because for the first 1000 years of Christianity, to be Orthodox was to be Catholic and to be Catholic was to be Orthodox. It is reasonable to ask which side of the schism was right in the end. It is not reasonable to think that the whole Christian church was in error for 1000 years. Consider the words of St. Ignatius of Antioch, who was taught by the apostles: "Wherever the bishop appears, there let the people be; as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church."
I was annoyed that a lot of his reasoning during this video was very circular. Two years ago, I came to the conclusion that either the Orthodox or Catholic Church was correct (maybe even both) while running and listening to John ch 6. After a lot of reading, I believe the Catholic Church seems correct. I have a few reasons yet I'm not going to ramble any further with those theories/opinions.
@phillipcummings3518 To my mind, if we grant the truth of Christianity, only two questions really matter: 1. Did Christ ordain bishops? 2. Did Christ give Supreme authority to one of those bishops? I would defy any protestant to study history and say "no" to that first question. I've said it before and I'll say it again. Catholicism or Orthodoxy might be true. Protestantism is certainly false.
@@thephilosopherfromdixie7466 Laughably perfect example of a false dichotomy. The issue is not as simple as you dream. There are more questions involved. 1. Did Christ ordain bishops? 2. What was the extent of the authority of those bishops? 3. Were/are those bishops infallible (given that they disagree)? 4. Was the authority of those bishops passed on? 5. Was the authority of those bishops passed on in a traceable and unbroken line leading to the present? 6. Can that unbroken chain of authority be identified in any single organisation on earth? 7. Does the Church exist only within that single organisation? 8. Can (and to what extent can) that organisation fall into error? You see, in Protestant thinking, the Church is not defined by the extent of the various jurisdictions of bishops, each claiming apostolic authority yet so often disagreeing. Rather, it exists wherever there are believers in Christ as he is found in the scripture, holding to the essentials of the apostolic faith as it is best defined in the creeds. The kingdom of heaven being found wherever the king of heaven reigns. You see also that this view is not at all unreasonable or against the scriptural apostolic teachings, let alone ‘certainly false’ as you have the audacity to claim.
a church founded by the apostles is not the same thing as inheriting authority from them because you claim to be descended from them there is zero evidence for apostolic succession
As a Lutheran, I resonate with your comments at 20:34...I've always respected the EO church for the many areas where EOs agree with Lutherans vs the rest of the Western church. But whenever I interact with EO people, they act very condescendingly and refuse to recognize anything good about Lutheranism. I don't expect them to agree with Lutheran theology "just because," but whenever I try to find areas of agreement, they just try to find ways to be dismissive and disagree with everything I say because "You're wrong because you're not the church" or "you're just a fringe group and not actually important." Most of the time they completely misunderstood/misrepresented what Lutherans believe instead of trying to understand where we were coming from. And if I try to make an argument, they just dismiss them out of hand. I agree that we need to have strong convictions about our theology, but I pray that in the future there can be more actual engagement with the arguments at hand instead of sheer dismissal, as well as more of an attitude of mutual respect. In order to have productive theological conversations, you always need to understand where the other person is coming from and what they think. If you can't even do that, there's no way to even have a conversation on the subject.
The fruit of orthodoxy is better than the fruit of catholicism, especially in modernity, apostolic succession does involve an authentication means for discerning who has the teaching of the apostles, but requires the living witness of the church to prove it.
In the Anglican Church in North America, we print the Filioque in brackets. We affirm the Filioque doctrinally, but also recognize that the Creed should not have been altered without an ecumenical council.
@@redeemedzoomer6053 the East thought it was kinda lame when the West altered the Creed without their permission. As you can see, we continue to suffer division as a result, a thousand years later. Anglicans have a tendency to desire practical, non-theoretical unity in the Church, so this kind of move is kind of our thing. It is a simple acknowledgement, without compromising on doctrine, of a wound which remains to be healed.
I’m an non-denominational Protestant inquirer into Eastern Orthodoxy, thanks for clarifying your position. Can’t wait to see Kyle’s response to this video.
This appearance was created by them and not by Hollywood they imagine old men who are so wise and have supernatural powers, they served as inspiration and not the other way around :) , because that is how those who served God always looked from the beginning, even before the expected coming of Christ.
Here is a critique of your critique from a currently Orthodox catechuman: The main criticism I would levy against the "we are all the one true Church, composed of the believers" claim that protestants often make is that first we must define what the "believers" must *believe*, once we have a concrete definition of that, then we can have a proper discussion, it seems you value trinitarianism as at least part of these beliefs, but what of the operations of the Person of Christ? How does Christ relate to the Holy Spirit? How is salvation accomplished/gifted/cooperated with? These are all important questions about the Trinity, and effect our understanding of God, this they must also be issues of importance. I could extrapolate this to other subjects but i think the point ive made here is clear, we must have a knowledge of all necessary things first, and we must have an infalliable way of determining what these things are. What unites Orthodoxy as the One True Church composed of all believers is that the Church has a standard doctrine, the believers all believe what must be believed and are thus part of the Church As for Mark 9:37-39, I actually have to do some more research regarding this, im happy to see a new argument (at least, based from what ive seen most protestants use), it shows you've put a lot of care into the video amd arent simply going to google and typing "top 10 arguments against Orthodoxy/Catholicism". Thank you As for your criticism of us valuing our Apostolic Succesion, i would say Christ does indeed care about doctrine, and He handed down the keys to the Apostles and I'd say that the Apostles ordained priests and bishops for a reason, the laying on of hands probably wasnt just a cool thing they thought up randomly. Also Christ does value the adherence to tradition, otherwise He wouldn't have allowed St. Paul to tell us to "hold fast to these traditions, both written and spoken". As for the accusation that apostolic succession and biblical doctrine are 2 seperate categories i disagree. Our Doctrine has apostolic succession within it, they are not 2 seperate things to us because they weren't (in our view) 2 seperate things for all of history up until the protestant reformation when people could no longer claim apostolic succession (aside from some Anglicans), it was only then that this Doctrine was dropped. We dont claim that tradition and organizational lineage are all that matters, our Doctrine matters, and our doctrine incorperates tradition and organizational lineage. We can see that the Catholics can lay claim to apostolic succession, but because they have false doctrines, they are not (to us) the True Church. To say that we havent fallen away from the Truth is a bad claim for you to make, because if we have the Truth then it means we are correct and we are the One True Church, which you disagree with. It is better to say that we have fallen away, because from the protestant view, we have. The reason we say that Scripture is part of sacred tradition and not the sole highest pillar of truth is because the Bible itself says the Church is the " pillar and foundation of truth" (1 Tim 3:15), therefore there must be something higher than the Bible, that being the Church, and the Church has tradition as its guide, the Bible is a part of this tradition, it is by the Bible that we can record our earliest traditions and document the life of Christ, the most important Person in history The reason we say that the Bible is a liturgical book is because that is how it was used by the early Church, most collections of Scriptures were read liturgically, much in the same way that we Orthodox read them today Mormons also feed the hungry in the name of Christ, many non trinitarians have claims of the gifts of the Holy Spirit (these mainly come from non trinitarians who identify the Holy Spirit as merely the "power" or "acting force" of God), we would say that prelest and demonic deception is indeed possible outside of the Church, but protestants are stuck with saying that all these heretical groups are kind of valid based on this reasoning You are only following one of the principles Christ gives us to identify the Church, the reason you focus on this so much seems to be that if we only focus on this, then protestantism is vindicated, but if we focus on other aspects that Christ values (doctrine of the Church, the traditions of the Church, the administration of the Sacraments, etc) then we get into quite the pickle with the "we are all the one true Church". The Body of Christ is not divided. There is one true Church, otherwise you reject the Nicene Creed, something you said you hold as important. Christ said "I am *the* way" not "a way", in the same sense, there is only *the* Church, not a Church, another Church, and a bunch of other Churches. "The Church can have flaws". I will refer you back to 1 Tim 3:15. We would say that people in the Church can do bad things, but the Church itself is perfect. Christ is perfect as the Church is. The people who cling for refuge in the Church from sin are not, but this cannot effect the perfection of Christ's Body, otherwise we have a corrupted church, not the True Church. "Orthodoxy has the weakest concept of sin". I guess I was predestined to be Orthodox then, unfortunate that God did this to me :/ We would say that it is cruel that God would send an infant to hell for original sin, something that the infant didn't do. Jesus redeemed our human nature, that is why all needed Him. I was kind of saying that calvanism sucks in my head lol. I think it makes God evil, the Orthodox actually responded to Calvinist doctrine in a local council a while back I think. What is wrong with thinking our Chruch is correct? I don't see this critique being a real one, is it an accusation of idolatry? Idk, it might help if you explain this more. While the Doctrinal stance of the Fillioque is incorrect, I would say that the main issue most Orthodox have with it is the way it was implemented, the Church didn't consent to this, the Pope forced this upon his jurisdiction in Rome, and it lead to the Schism. Those are our main issues, the theology is important as well, but the lay Orthodox person won't often talk of how it "breaks" the Trinity to have 2 first principles instead of 1. I'd say that when Christ elaborates that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, it is strange that He also says that He will send the Holy Spitit, it's almost exactly like how we would describe this doctrine. For you, who says that we Orthodox focus on tradition too much, it is odd that you would hold the words of a pope exercising papal supremacy rather than that of the Bible itself. The problem here is that the Holy Spirit becomes less than both the Father and the Son, there isn't a unique relationship between the Father and Spirit, nor between Christ and the Spirit on the Fillioque model, having both Christ and the Father spirate the Spirit reduces the relationship and distinction between all 3 Persons. However, having the Father Spirate the Spirit and having the Spirit economically proceed through Christ does give this distinction and therefore a 3 fold unique relationship, while keeping true the statement of Christ that the "Father is greater than I", in this sense, the Father is the source of the Godhead, all comes from Him, making Him greater in the sense Christ speaks of without us having to forsake that Christ is God or for us to have to break the Godhead to try and fit 2 first Principles in. We don't think human reasoning can comprehend God in His entirety, why do you? Seriously, I don't understand why many western Christians hold such a high basis on reasoning when this same use of reasoning has lead to so much heresy. We use an apophatic approach to describe God, we know for certain what He is *not*, however, we can only know what He is by what He has revealed, not through our understanding, but His, revealed through His Church. Some Chruch Fathers can be wrong, if they didn't know it was heresy then we know God forgave them for this, men are not infalliable, the Church is. The issue is not that the Nicene Creed can't be edited, it's that the way the Fillioque was introduced was anathematized in the Council of Ephasus, where all alterations of the Creed were barred under an anathema by Canon VII that states no alterations could be added. We see that the Church followed this until the Pope ascribed to himself a position above the Councils. That is the issue here, it's not really even with protestants, because yall didn't add to the Creed, the Pope did, you just inherited the false Creed. The problem with the idea that the Church can change its Doctrine and hasn't always taught the fullness of Truth is that we then must say that Christ didn't give the full Truth to the Apostles and that we know more than them, and the way we know these things isn't from a divine Revelation of some sort, but rather by the product of the fallible human mind. We cannot say this, it puts humanity in the place only God must be. The Pope actually kind of did add it to "flex" on people. He wanted to justify his authority at a time when people were falling to heresies in his jurisdiction. We can actually see that the Pope directly after the one who added the Fillioque went back on that decision because he viewed it as wrongful to do so becuase of how the Church is supposed to operate. The Pope was not some hero of the Bible, deeply studying and adding the Truth to the Church bit by bit, he was rather a man who saw that he was losing his power and his people, so he then tried like so many others before him to combat heresy, but instead fell into another (we can see this with other trinitarian vs non trinitarian heresies, many would respond to these heresies but then unknowingly create another heresy with their response) Continued in a reply since this is too long to keep editing :p
The people wanted to add it because they fell in love with the idea that their bishop was the super special one that controlled all doctrine (the Pope who added the Fillioque actually did a great job cementing this idea in the heads of his subjects). I highly doubt that western pre-medieval peasants were having theologically charged debates about the nature of the Trinity all the time. Your description of events was not what happened at all, it wasn't the Biblical Sola Scriptura Catholics against the tradition loving Orthodox. It was the Catholics who tried to force papal supremacy on the rest of the Church. Please read more on this period of history, it is vastly misunderstood and not widely learned about. The council you speak of is correct, if you deny the veneration of icons then you attack Christ's Church, if you are not with Him, you are against Him. Modern scholarship also says that the authors of the Gospels aren't actually the authors, they also say the Gospels we have are edited, are you going to believe them, or trust Christ and His Church? While you may say we idolize our Church, protestants often idolize modern scholasticism far too much. We would say that the Holy Spirit is indeed the Spirit of Christ, because they are united in One Divine Essence, this doesn't mean that the Spirit must spirate from Christ I'm glad that you don't confuse theosis with mormon nonsense, thank you, really. I wouldn't say that you've misrepresented us, actually I think you've gotten far closer than I was when I first studied the Church, you've done an exemplary job of describing real issues that many people have with Orthodoxy and I appreciate this critique, it is well thought out and well put together...in the theological department. The history sections could use some work, other than that, good job! Really, this is one of the most concise treatments of Orthodoxy I've seen by someone who honestly disagrees, it's not like an everyday catholic apologist who just says we don't have a universal magisterium/calls us a purely ethnicity focused Church and leaves it at that. You obviously have issues and I'm glad you have them, it's often an echo chamber in Orthodoxy because there just aren't a lot of English responses to our beliefs. So thank you again for taking your time in studying our doctrine honestly (a smaller but also notable thank you for noticing the distinction between veneration and worship, the amount of times I've been called an idol/saint worshipper are draining the life out of me)
I'd say that to the verses in Mark, we must keep in mind that the Orthodox Church does not claim that God operates solely within the Church, as can be seen clearly here in Scripture, does this mean these people are saved? No, we see no indication of that here, only that those who are doing miracles can't speak any evil to Christ's name, because they are doing good things that God allows them to do in His name (in the same way we don't require re-baptism in all cases of Baptism outside of the organization of the Church, things can be done in these circumstances, just like how while the Apostles werent around for the exorcisms, becuase these are things Christ Himself does, not even the priest preforming the Sacrament) We do not have a set doctrine on God's operations outside of the Church, it is another one of those mysteries that God simply hasn't spoken of directly, so it is entirely possible for God to allow a miracle outside of the Church, especially since this miracle could lead to people finding the True Church. We must also keep in mind that at this time, there wasn't denominational chaos like right now, there weren't 30,000 churches all claiming to be the True Church, there was only Jesus and the Apostles, so allowing this to be done wouldn't cement people into further heresy or anything like that. The use of this simply doesn't prove what you are attempting to prove, it only means that God can act outside of the Church, not that the Church as an organization isn't necessary, because there are many things only the Church can do, for example, the Sacrament of Communion, something that Christ says is necessary for Salvation (read the whole of John chapter 6 after the pharisees start accusing Jesus, trust me, it changed my mind on the Sacrament).
I’m grateful that I came across orthodoxy for its teachings of theosis. It was the best explanation ever given on how to work with the energies of God to bring heaven to earth contrasted with the occult apotheosis. I’ve come to the conclusion that orthodoxy as in the one holy apostolic Catholic Church is the true church, and that the church will reunite one day. Unfortunately, you have many who views this unification as evil and I’m sure many bad actors have co-opted the movement, but restoration should happen regardless.
@@ColeSouthern you may be right. I’ll have to research it later. Now I get to have the fun of breaking down the differences and compare and contrast thing bringing heaven to earth versus earth to heaven, ultimately heaven and earth are not separated, per se
13:18 Yeah! Lol. But jokes aside, Orthodox Christianity doesn't have a weak doctrine on sin. Our tradition considers every human a sinner, because every day we sin, whether we know it or not. Even the Saints are considered to have sinned in their life. Only Jesus is considered Sinless. This is why we strive to be more like Him, as much as we can
Honestly as someone that was born catholic and never even cared about it until his 20s, your channel is an absolute gem, even in its simplicity. I came to faith only a few months ago and I've been learning so much, I viewed protestants in a bad light since all the lgbt stuff, but I've seen your other videos so now I know what happened. I will keep learning, so keep posting mate. God bless you :)
I became Orthodox chiefly because of their Atonement Theory which is demonstrably and astonishingly woven throughout scripture. I'd be curious to hear more of your thoughts on that. Also, the Creator/Creation distinction basically exists in Orthodoxy too as the Energies/Essence distinction.
So far so good. Disagreements I'm willing to comment about: 1. The Orthodox Church thinks tradition has an infallible authority. "Infallibility" is a nonsensical category in any human endeavor, even a divine-human endeavor. But as you say, for us the bible is not over the Church. It is an epiphenomenon of tradition. 2. "From conception we are dead in sin; we deserve hell." Your god is psychotic. 3. Anathemas don't send people to hell. They are a disciplinary measure to keep the Church healthy. God judges souls, not us.
I genuinely think, Redeemed Zoomer, that you could have a great future as a Christian intellectual. You could write whole books about this stuff, and they would sell.
I think the problem most people have with original sin, inherited at conception, is the idea that those who die before reaching the age of accountability are not judged for their rejection of God. It is clear that God has grace for those who are incapable of recognizing their sin and repenting of it, those being children too young to grasp the concept. Those who reject original sin remove this grace, instead replacing it with a degree of righteous innocence before reaching that same age. In either case, infants are protected until they are capable of willingly rejecting God.
Nope it is Biblical to say that babies go to hell if they die. They haven't accepted Jesus Christ the Messiah's Free Gift of Eternal Life, and Babies are clearly sinners.
The only mischarictarization here was saying that we would complain about it (at least given the comments so far) Thank you for your thoughtful and careful analysis
An issue I found with your explanation was the Filioque part, saying that the Orthodox accept changes so why not accept the Filioque. The difference is that at the Council of Ephesus any deviation from the creed was condemned. It’s not that we didn’t change because you’re correct there were additions to the creed at the council of Constantinople. The difference is that all later additions were explicitly condemned at an ecumenical council.
Also it was the second council of Nicaea that talked about iconoclasm, not Constantinople. The outcome was making the distinction between veneration and worship. I like your videos but there’s just a lot of inaccuracies.
Trent Horn points out that the proclamation of the Council of Ephesus actually said deviation from the creed was condemned, with the only exception being if the change was necessary to refute heresy through making a clarification
I think the verse about knowing them by their fruit only applies to individuals, not organizations. For example Methodists might show fruit, which might show that that person is a true christian, but doesn't mean that their doctrines are correct. Orthodox don't believe that it is impossible to be a christian outside of their church, at least in the modern world
One way to look at it is; If someone is part of a organization with poor doctrine can they still be saved? Of course. I think an even easier way of looking at it is; Would EVERYONE from an organization with accurate doctrine be saved? Of course not, it depends on each person in the organization accepting Christ. Judas demonstrates even someone learning at the feet of Christ and engaging in his ministries can be unsaved, how much more so someone in any contemporary church?
This is an excellent insight. Jesus was distinguishing between individuals who are wolves in sheep's clothing and who are genuine servants of God. He wasn't saying "any organization that does good things is part of my Church." That said, I do personally hold to the Reformers' view that the Roman and Eastern institutions are, generally, genuine members of the body of Christ.
Though I am Antiochian Orthodox and believe heavily within the Church, Zoomer makes a lot of good points that honestly should be discussed more in the Church. Its often an echo chamber in our church, we often isolate ourselves and don't listen to outsiders. I might be wrong according to my church for saying this but I think ecumenism and respect should be embraced and shared with far more Protestants and not just Catholics. While I am guilty myself of looking down on most Protestants and looking to the Latins as semi-equals, this video and channel as a whole as genuinely changed some parts of my outlook. I'm so very glad that this channel exists and that Zoomer is brave enough to keep posting in spite of the system wanting to keep these kind of talks on the down low. God Bless you, Zoomer, and I'm glad to know I have Brothers in Christ like you.
As a Protestant, I disagree on what you said. Because what ecumenism does, it waters down and simplifies what each of the churches actually teach. When the Patriarch of Constantinople received a Lutheran mission in the 17th and subsequently the Synod of Jerusalem was held, they didn't call them "Brothers in Christ" but denounced them as heretics. And us Protestants shouldn't have a problem with that, because so the Catholics and so do the Oriental Orthodox denounce all Chalcedonians as heretics. What I agree on though, is the lack of charity and pride some EO members show. Like say your anathemas in Church on the days you have to, but there's no need to insult, belittle and make fun of the other "branches" of Christianity, especially when it happens online.
I am myself Protestant. I do not confine myself to a denomination whereas I moreso allow my mind to conform to the teachings within the Bible and using commentaries when necessary. I have had a fair amount of discussions with EO members and I have found quite a few problems within the dogmas itself. The biggest one of course would be sola Fide (faith alone). The EO members that I have spoken with have all stated that it is faith and works despite clear verses from Jesus stating otherwise on the topic of justification.
@@arlkai9884 Sola Fide is nowhere in the Bible or Church Fathers. Our doctrine on Justification by Faith is by FAITH, not by FAITH ALONE. Works, especially good works which glorify God, are a part of faith. The idea that you are justified by simple intellectual belief is heretical and is exactly what James is speaking against in his epistle. Both faith and works are two sides of the same coin and not some dialectic where we must keep one and reject the other. You're better off reading our official catechetical books or speaking to an actual priest.
@@awake3083 Sola Fide is most certainly within the Bible. You’re not going to find the exact words but you’ll see it within John 3:14-16 and Ephesians 2:8-9. If the doctrine on justification is that it is by faith then that’s faith alone. Say I’m on my death bed (and that I didn’t believe) and I then have a genuine confession of faith in Yahweh and the work that was done through the Son. Would I be saved with that genuine belief and profession? The answer is yes. That’s faith alone. We are saved by faith alone but faith is never alone. It always comes with works. There’s no certain number of works that makes me accrue more of God’s grace. And this is where James 2 comes in, as James 2 is moreso talking about the profession of faith without having works (James 2:14). Meaning not a true faith. If someone says they have faith yet they have never done a good work. Are they saved? We could probably conclude that they are not saved and just are professing without truly believing. Can a faith that is merely just a profession without any possession save? Of course not. James speaks on kinds of faith. He’s not talking about whether or not we are saved by faith alone or faith plus works. The whole chapter is about whether dead faith saves or living faith saves. The justification that James talks about is moreso a vindication. This is shown through context of when it’s speaking about Abraham. Sorry this is quite lengthy however I hope the message meets you well.
@@arlkai9884 To put it in specific terms, if prior to claiming to be saved i get high every day, have sex with a different girl every night, get drunk on the weekend from partying, and then i claim to be saved one day, but i continue to have literally the exact same life style, well then can it even be faith? Maybe I fall back into it in moments of weakness, but ultimately there should be a CHANGE somewhere. There should be evidence of salvation, even if its slow and takes time to remove all the rubbish from your life. This is more or less how ive understood it.
@@awake3083We can agree faith, without works, is dead. No one is saved by faith while in unrepentant sin and selfishness. Where we differ is the effect of works in our justification. As just stated, faith without works is dead, yet works do not lead to life. Works are merely the product of our living faith. A living faith will naturally produce good works. A dead faith does not produce works and is in a condemned condition; not because of lack of works, but because the lack of works reflect an inner unrepentance and unfaithfulness. This is how we Protestants understand James. James is not saying works contribute to salvation but rather they flow out of a saved state. You can tell fake Christians by their lack of producing fruit.
"God allows sin because defeating sin Glorifies God" So God allows a man to murder children so he may garner praise when he strikes down a killer? IDK fam, Calvin's god sounds petty and arrogant when you stop to think about it.
Not a Calvinist but lemme take a crack at it as I guess I have somewhat similar leanings; All exists for the glory of God, The problem most have with evil and suffering is not realizing or accepting how temporary it is. People are given their entire lives to choose to enter the kingdom, some exceptionally wicked people are even given especially long lives to repent. All of the horror they inflict on the people of the world is akin to kindergarteners bullying one another out of the sandbox, in the scope and scale of eternity. When His judgement falls on them, they will forever exist in a separated state that I expect is akin to Lazarus and the rich man, demonstrating what apartness from God looks like. And it will only have been the result of their own decisions. Not only do you live in Paradise but you can clearly see the alternative. There are even further implications; * God is so mighty he allowed Rebels, even spirits to turn against him. His power was never in question, they were always only ALLOWED to exist. * His mercy is so great that he gave people their entire lives and Satan was allowed to roam until the very end of days and only destroyed when he directly attacks God. * His wisdom is so unfathomable that all of this was planned from the beginning.
God allows bad things to happen ti test if we will still have faith and love god and if we do we will get rewarded. Job lost everything but he still had faith and loved god and he got double what he had back. There’s still free will but bad things happen to test our faith
Your argument becomes valid if the entire book of Job didn't exist in the Bible. There's nothing petty or arrogant about it. This is a very atheistic way of looking at things. Not fully understanding that God's sovereignty and control over all things nullifies all the evil that happens to His children and reducing it to being a cosmic bet. God will allow bad things to happen to good people (Read Ecclesiastes) but it's always for a purpose, and despite all this He will punish the evil doers. No one gets away with anything in the end.
@@choicemeatrandy6572 Job's suffering was not a test for Job because God knew he would not forsake him regardless of how bad things got. And the tragedies Job suffered were blatantly spiritual in origin so it's not even close to the example I gave. According to Calvin's logic, God is responsible and allows baby killers to practice their practice just to Garner praise that is guaranteed. John Calvin's God sounds evil.
@@TwilightBinder Wait did you just say that Job's sufferings were spiritual? What does that even mean? His children died and he got sick, what's spiritual about that? _"God is responsible"_ No He isnt. Unless you want to agree with Job's wife which is how you sound like every time you misrepresent this doctrine.
@@DCUEmp_prinzythere are different Mormon traditions not just the church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. “Mormon” is just anyone who believes in the Book of Mormon
To the point of orthodox valuing mystery, even though im a Baptist, I really value that because the problem I have with alot of theology is that we are ordering something with a western and greek mindset that is very eastern and Jewish and beyond comprehension. We need to be more humble and recognize the mystery of Christ and how God cannot be truly systematized.
Also, I'd like to make a statement about the icons. If we look back to the period of Eikonomachia, the church took a very reasonable position. It showed the fallacy of the iconoclasts, who where inspired by Arian, on the concept of picturing God. But it also condemned the faithful who thought that the icon as of wood and paint is somehow "holy". I really don't get why the icons are seen as "pagan" in other Christian traditions. May Christ illuminate as all 🙏
And I' d like to thank you zoomer about your work. In orthodox majority countries, there never is a discussion of protestant traditions. They are sometimes seen as the same thing which frankly is not the case. You really help me understand the differences between Protestant heterodoxies. Keep it up 😉
it is often vice versa, since early childhood we're only taught certain stereotypes and prejudices of other denominations, yet we never get a consistent explanation of each others' beliefs, so the only option is to educate ourselves in the end
@@asto5767 I didn't know that hindus respect the MOTHER OF GOD, Saints of Christ and believe in and WORSHIP JESUS CHRIST :D Thanks for the notification and new knowledge.
@@Slikarxxx yeah they do in a pagan way. no where in the scriptures is it implied to refer to Mary as the mother of God. It's just another case of Catholics delving too far into Mary worship because they think that'll decrease their time in purgatory. Your version of Christianity is a minigame.
Ohhh. Now I see. The entities not being visible when they're a bit away from you is server-side. Thank God. I've been driving myself insane trying to figure out if it's one of my FPS-improving mods doing sneaky entity culling without my say-so.
@@YourBoyJohnny94 Icon veneration has been a thing for a very long time, the purpose of the 7th Council was to combat against the iconoclasts. It defined and defended the usage of icons as they were an ancient practice.
Church is older than a scripture. There was a structure, hierarchy before the Bible was written. Tradition is one of the most important part of Christianity it reflects on the unity of believers and nation as a whole. I am Serbian orthodox, we are very religious nation and the only thing that saved us from the Ottoman/Austrian occupation and force converting and communism is tradition of Christian practices!
The problem is that church fathers are still human and will disagree with other church fathers, so who would one follow? The one who aligns to scripture. The scripture are oral traditions, letters and books we best know are inspired and compiled. 2 Timothy 3:16 16 All Scripture is inspired by God[b] and is profitable for teaching, for rebuking, for correcting, for training in righteousness, 17 so that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.
As an Orthodox catechumen I am glad you omitted your "Protestant work ethic" critique from the last video. You're also not wrong about how the one true church idea had me torn between Orthodoxy and Catholicism. God be with you on your Reconquista!
I would like to hear your thoughts about when the end comes and jesus turns those away even though they claimed to cast out demons in Jesus's name. The "i never knew you" bit.
@@pedroguimaraes6094if you have true faith in Christ then you cannot be plucked from Gods hand. The verse is referring to those that thought they were doing services for God, but were not.
The Trinity can be represented as a triangle with or without the filioque. Just because the Spirit does not proceed from the Son does not mean the Son is disconnected from the Spirit. I like to think of the representation of the Trinity without the filioque as a standard triangle, with the Father on top. Whereas the Trinity with the filioque would be an inverted triangle, with the Spirit on the bottom.
As an evangelical Egyptian where the majority are Orthodox I agree with the video I've been told countless of times that I was not a true Christian. but I am glad there's what I can call some reformed orthodox now, they understand that yes we value traditions but other denominations are also valid as us I heard a sermon before about why don't we just make a one true church? and it said god is like a friend in a group each one of us understand a part of his personality because we can't fully comprehend him, so how do we know more about god? we talk to the other people in the group who interacted with him to understand the part of his personality that they know, and that's how we build a more comprehensive understanding of God. I hope it makes sense English is not my first language. I still pray for Egypt that god will do wonders here with its people
Reformed orthodoxy in Egypt? That’s awesome. I’ll pray for that movement too. Egypt was once a Cradle of the early church - and God can make that so again.
Regarding Mark 9:38-41, St Theophan addressed this. “They were permitted to work miracles because the lord wished to spread abroad his preaching even by means of those who were unworthy.” “He who is not against us, is for us” speaks of men working miracles that may lead others to Christ. How is this possible? Well Matthew 7:22 -23 says “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.”
My dude literally I have been blown when I first saw that verse when randomly reading the New Testament. Also I believe that the one church organisations idea forms primarily form the Roman churches (east orthodox, catholic) as they have Roman cultural ideas of unity within them as they both developed in Roman cultural centres.
He doesn't want to know the history or how the Church was created or anything, but he wants to have his own personal thoughts about God.And maybe start another Church since they're all obviously bullshit :D
@@TW-fs3fj tell me, since I see that you have studied the Bible and know it better than anyone, people don't shit or pee and they don't have dicks and cunts, it is obviously a shame and it is not a shame to say that you know God better than the apostles and saints and all people ever in history, like this very confused young man in video.
Ultimately, I am with you on the idea of the invisible church, and I believe that all the different denominations and sects of Christianity for the most part as you mentioned, not the Jehovah’s Witness or Mormons or other Judaizers. I believe this is all part of God’s providence.
17:00 I have talked with some orthodox people who say that the filioque is right theologically but still the Nicene creed shouldn't have been altered in order to add it. Maybe I talked with some weird orthodox-s, but it could also be related to how the Orthodox Church is very decentralized, idk
You said, "God allowed sin to be glorified" but since Calvinism teaches that God literally determines everything so you should have said, "God determined sin to happen so that He is glorified in defeating it" which makes no logical sense...God is most glorified in defeating what He Himself determined? Calvinism is unbiblical nonsense.
I disagree with the theological points made here but I very much agree with the problem of practice in the form of the perceived infallibility of the Orthodox Church. There's a fine line to ride between virtuous obedience and slavery. I think internal scrutiny should be observed by the church fathers, as well as openness to new members of clergy (albeit adhering to strict guidelines) so as to keep the institution accountable and governed. The church is a living thing, and within it, growths have to be controlled and sometimes cut in order to prevent a cancer from taking root.
Genuine question from an actual orthodox Christian, what do you define as “idolizing our church” you provide no elaboration or examples on this point, and while I think you have a point, I’d like to understand exactly what you are referring to. Also your point immediately after on our doctrine of sin being a reason for “idolizing the church” is utterly befuddling to me, as I see no correlation. Other than that I think you have done an ok job representing the orthodox faith, even if we disagree on a lot of your conclusions.
I am also Orthodox but I think he has a point here. Our church tradition is wonderful, but the reason why is because it leads us to Christ. When you have people start talking about church tradition separately from theological truth it becomes a problem.
I watched a luteran pastor talking with an orthodox priest, who explained the issue with the pope declaring the filioque, and why it is so much worse than the declarations made at the councils. He explained that the orthodox church holds the belief that while yes, clarifications and theology can change over time, they are only legitimate when done through group consensus, which is fueled by the holy spirit, and you can't trust the word of any single man or group to change things because it is not through the word of god/spirit of christ
Great video man I really appreciate the hard work and effort put into making it but I would like to address a few things from an orthodox perspective ~4:00 when you talk about you not believing in the true church as an organisation this is begging the question because it's assuming your presuppositions in that the church is only spiritual. When you say the church is all of the believers that's true but its missing the point that words can have more than 1 meaning (word concept fallacy) and that in a similar fashion to how God can be referring to either / and / or / both concerning Father, Son, Holy Spirit, Nature of God, etc it is similarly applied to the church because we don't get ourselves into the false dichotomy of the church being EITHER purely spiritual OR the "bodies" / church goers themselves. By saying you're "baptised" into Christ is also question begging due to the fact you're assuming you're actually being baptized even though your church has no apostolic succession. Even though you believe in the Nicene creed you fail to realise that if you reason about it in a chronologically true fashion, that church the creed was referring to was our church the Orthodox church. You say that it doesn't need to be an organisation but fail to realise all it actually means is that we're "organised". How so? In terms of the structure of the church outlined in the Book of Acts when the Apostles outlined how they would organise Christ's church. The reason Jesus Christ tells his followers it's okay for the ones not explicitly apart of the church to be "okay" is because we should have mercy for the heterodox that assuming they keep following Jesus they are FURTHER led to him. This is why it's okay, because the implication is that truth leads to TRUTH and Jesus is the capital truth. 🥰 ~6:50 this really isnt an argument, as the point still remains that we have an actual lineage to the founding church that was founded by God through Christ and you don't. unfortunately your presuppositions of what the church is, are flawed as I mentioned above. When The Lord told us we will know them by their fruit this was a reference to false prophets so this is a non-sequitar. You using John afterwards is a false dichotomy because it's excluding the fact that we believe it's BOTH who has the true doctrine AND who is a part of the True Orthodox Church😁 ~7:00 the reason this is a bad argument is because it's a false dichotomy between truth and tradition. If you correctly understood The Lord's criticism of the Pharisees, it wasn't due to the fact they were somehow bad because somehow tradition was bad. Rather it was the fact that they themselves as people were corrupted by Worldly things and were a bad example. The reason why that's bad is because Priests are essentially the image of Christ on this earth, and are the closest physical manifestation of his example and goodness. The fact that they weren't exemplifying the goodness of God whilst being leaders was a contradiction due to the fact it harms the nous of a person and leads them away from The Lord and his church (because it casts doubt in their heart and leads people to fallaciously argue why would God allow such a thing? Even though the existence of evil presupposes in God's goodness or it would be incoherent)😃 8:29 once again this is a false dichotomy. Before I dive further in, I should just add the fact that because certain orthodox people believe in certain things and give of sentiment, it doesn't logically follow that the sentiment you received from them is the dogmatic truth. Now, concerning the question at hand, we don't fall into the trap of false dialectics, and we appropriately believe in both scripture and tradition. If you want to argue but isn't tradition just the word of man? My brother in Christ the Book we both love the holy bible is the Word of God written *by the word of man* or in other words it's a form of man's interpretation of the events that took place of the Messiah. When you understand this, you will realise there's no need to fear the word of man because our Lord and Saviour is ultimately the author of it and he preserves it 😊 with all respect bro like what I was saying before, the poeple who believe this aren't correct and the church doesn't affirm "tradition is infallible" that would be a straw man. How we see it is more like this: The church is a living house. it is quite literally God's house and we are also called to be builders and help build the house that God has called us to build (his church, which I should add also means people because it's both a house and the people of the house). With this belief, the "tradition" becomes quite literally the embodiment of the members of God's house help their Heavenly Father create and do things in his home which is the prototype of the Kingdom to come which is the next life at the Final Judgement! 😮 8:50 the reason they say that is because it's true! The initial purpose of the Gospel was actually for liturgical purposes. Imagine like your parents telling you stories of their youth. The Living Church tells "stories" of their Lord and Saviour. Those stories are the "truth" experienced by the 4 authors of the Gospels. The reason why I quote and unquote truth is not due to fact that it's not true, rather due to the fact it was the real experience of real people in real history. 8:57 that is how you discern a false prophet like muhummad 9:00 my brother whilst it is correct that we can see the True Good works of The Holy Spirit throughout history and creation which acts as a personal testament of God's goodness, this is due in my opinion more so due to the Mercy and Love of God on all his children. Just like a Father has so much love for a disobedient son, and still loves him and gives him good things, so too does our Heavenly Father! 😊 9:40 with all due respect when it comes to The Church, Jesus Christ only established 1 true one, and Satan has brought forth the rest due to his wickedness in pulling the strings of our heart and tempting us to stray away from the one true Church, the Holy Orthodox Church. I'm not saying your church is inherently evil, rather I'm saying that he has used the principle of inversion to subvert true Christianity and to trick you into not following your heart to the truth my brother! He takes what is good such as a strong and genuine belief in our Lord and tries to turn it on its head. Don't fall for his tricks. If I could advise you, please come to an Orthodox Church for a few weeks and trust me when I say when you finally see the truth for what it is, you won't want to return to a watered down Christianity! (If God wills it!) 10:00 very true brother, this is the case with not you! You're a truth seeker I can tell that much, but it's true of your chuch😢 The orthodox church is very open about "mistakes" but it must be understood in the correct context of mistakes made NOT by the Church, but rather by it's adherents instead 😅 Also what you said concerning the doctrine of sin presupposes that you have "correct" doctrine in the first place which is question begging. I'm not doubting that it has some true notions and beliefs, and that you guys aren't right in being critical of yourselves, so please forgive me if any of this comes across as arrogant I'm a simple man just as yourself bro! 👍 My brother please forgive me! I'm getting tired and I feel it's appropriate for me to continue another day! May our Holy Lord and our Triune God be with you now and forevermore! God bless you and thank you to the soul who took their time to read the writings of a simple fool for Christ☦️☦️☦️
The New Testament presents one church in many places. That is the Biblical picture. They shared letters. Visible unity. The book of Acts shows it explicitly in Acts 15. The example of those outsiders casting out demons is more how the true church should treat sincere outsiders. You were totally correct about the Pharisees who had the authority but you just neglected the fact that Our Lord promised to take away their authority. At one point he told his disciples to *do whatever they tell you to do* but do not do what they do. Whatever is a big scope.
@@zeenkosis I am Catholic and I don't see it detracting from our strong claims to a visible church. That is my point. Just because we hold to a higher standard of doctrine and unity doesn't mean we act as if God doesn't work amongst those not visibly with us. Nor does it preclude us from stating that we truly are the church started by his apostles.
@@jackdaw6359 The Protestant wording "invisible Church" is misleading because to most people it makes it sound like we believe the Church is just a scattered and separate entity not meant to be united in communication or authourity like the early Church was. This concept is not Scriptural, and niether is it held by most of the Reformed tradition to my knowledge. The Reformed idea of the Church is that it is to be truly united, not by an earthly institution of divinely-ordained human authourity but rather by what Paul called its "foundation:" the Apostles and the Prophets, that is, the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments. I realize that Romanizers will say the Bible isn't a solid foundation because people disagree about what it really means. However, I'm of the view that most (though not all) supposed Scriptural "ambiguities" stem from the fact that it's in many people's best interest to misunderstand the text, not from an inherent lack of clarity in the text itself. The fact that many are unwilling to submit to the clear teachings of Scripture and eagerly lead it through a tortured and twisted lens should speak more to capacity of mankind for deceit and hypocrisy than the supposed insufficiency of God's law.
I like him in some respects, and I've learned a good deal from him, but pardon my French, he's kind of an arrogant prick sometimes. He very much exemplifies the video's comments on Orthobros' thoughts on other traditions, and ai feel like he doesn't always present other people's ideas in good faith. Someone like Jonathan Pageau is a far more personable and charitable conversationalist on the Orthodox side of things in my experience. (Not everything needs to he a debate. You'll find a lot greater understanding and growth from just having a discussion.) He's definitely worth learning from, but what I understand of his general attitude toward anyone who dares to disagree with him greatly lowers him in my estimation. Great presenter of ideas, but not very good for dialog imo.
Question regarding double procession/spiration. Couldn't there be a difference between procession of the Holy Spirit from the divine hypostasis of the pre-incarnate Word and the procession of the composite hypostasis after the incarnation? Like, wouldn't the procession of the Holy Spirit somehow conceptually change when there is a composite hypostasis with the human nature versus when there is a divine hypostasis with only the divine nature in it?
The procession of the Holy Spirit from A font within the Godhead is an eternal axiom, unbound by time. The Godhead, being perfect, is immutable. Nothing that already was a fact about the Godhead can change, I don't reckon. If you believe in double procession, then the Holy Spirit has, is, and will proceed from the Father and the Logos, or the divine nature of Christ. Since the human nature is non-eternal, it was not a factor in the timeless manifestation of the Trinity as They exist. Since the inherent qualities of the Godhead are immutable, the addition of the human nature to the divine nature in the hypostatic union of Christ cannot change the qualities of the divine nature, which already exists within the Godhead. Thus, since the human nature was not present at the effection of the procession, nor could change the qualities of that from which the Holy Spirit proceeds, i.e. the Logos, as the natures of Christ are "unmixed and unconfused", I do not think it can be argued that the procession changed at the incarnation, which happened within the bounds of time.
@@apalsnerg But the Holy Spirit doesn't proceed from the divine nature, it proceeds from the divine hypostasis. Because if the Spirit proceeded from the divine nature which all three hypostases possess, the Spirit would eternally generate itself. Even if one believes in single procession, the procession is not from the divine nature but from the divine hypostasis of the Father. When you refer to Father or Son you're referring to the divine hypostases not to the divine nature hypostatized in them. Thus when speaking of procession from the Word/Son, the Spirit would eternally proceed from the divine hypostasis of the Word/Son not from the abstract divine nature, because there is no abstract nature, divine or human, that isn't actually in a hypostasis. Assuming this understanding of the Trinity and the procession therein, I wonder if the incarnation couldn't affect or conceptually somehow change the procession from the Word/Son, since now the procession is not from an incomposite hypostasis but from a composite hypostasis with the divine and the human nature unconfused in it. And although the hypostasis is still divine and not human or a hybrid after the incarnation, since it is the very same hypostasis of the Word, the hypostasis is nonetheless composite regarding the natures. And although the divine nature hasn't changed, there is still some sort of a change in the divine hypostasis since there isn't merely one nature in it anymore but two natures. So it's still the very same hypostasis from which the Spirit could proceed, but nonetheless regarding the natures there is an addition of the human nature. So what I'm asking is, if this addition couldn't somehow conceptually affect the procession, since the hypostasis from which the Spirit proceeds isn't only a divine hypostasis but also a composite hypostasis. And couldn't somehow the incarnation and its possible implications "disprove" the doctrine of double procession, since the Fathers hypostasis is still incomposite while the Sons is now composite.
26:26 um isn't that Idolatry? What makes jissing the image or statue of the Virgin Mary different then kissing the statue of the mother goddess from Buddhism?
That’s original sin and it’s unbiblical. We are prone to sin as a result of the fall, but our nature as human beings or imagers of God is still true and pure.
@@justchilling704 yes we are still the images of God and sin came into the world through Adam, as stated by Paul. The notion original sin to me is more like we are sinned before being born.
@@babai08_ Actually you’re right. It’s literally inherited guilt. My mistake lol. But yeah pretty sure the story of the blind man in John completely refuted original sin at the least in principle. Not to mentioned others scriptures.
It's amazing to be acknowledged by Redeemed Zoomer. I felt incredibly excited when I saw our Ethiopian flag, and I was astonished that you not only know our language but also interesting things about it, and you found the church it impressive! Wow, this is the best thing ever.
Matthew 7:21-23 21 “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. 22 Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name and in your name drive out demons and in your name perform many miracles?’ 23 Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!’ 8:51
This is something people stress about a lot but the letters of John explain what your life looks like if you are saved. I think Matthew 7:21 largely applies to people like Judas and early 'church' fathers who rejected the apostles and even persecuted them and others who didn't subject themselves to his church. I need to do more work on memorization, I recall an epistle specifically relates this problem. Like the Rich Young Ruler, many will SAY they served Christ but truly in their hearts only served themselves.
Except the basis for dismissing such people was not whether or not they attended the sake building or institution as you. The difference between the sheep and the Goats is that the sheep lived a life extending love to their fellow man. "Where were you when I was thirsty, sick, hungry, or in prieon?"
We Orthodox believe (or maybe I should say we know or actually everbody knows) that NOT everything is in the scriptures. Jesus' life was much longer than the new testament. The scripture is holy but there was a thing called The Oral Tradition in the early church. That's why we value tradition the most.
I find these videos hilarious because people around me think I’m watching a Minecraft let’s play when I’m really listening to why some guy is not Orthodox
Bro. This was a treat on father's day that I didn't know I needed...my late father would try explain to me why I need to embrace Calvinism while we were playing boardgames...got to experience some of those vibes again. Great and concise info in here..much appreciated. Don't hate on the skinny jeans! We might just wear Crocs in heaven 😂
Calvinism is heretical. Predestination does not mean no free will. Calvinism states that some are damned from the start, which is the antithesis of a loving God.
@@Iliadic You have free will....Free will to sin. You can't simply decide to live sinlessly. So this dunk on calvinism is pretty weird cause it asserts that humans have the ability to do something they manifestly cannot do.
@@choicemeatrandy6572 But you have the free will to try. To say that some are "elect" to be saved is the antithesis to stating God's love, which, and I quote "Does not insist on it's own way."
@@Iliadic Free will to try? What? What's the point of saying you have free will when you can't use that free will to NOT sin? The Bible says the soul that sins will die and that anyone who sins is a slave to sin. This idea of "free will" that lots of anti-Calvinists have is manifestly not found in the Bible. _elect_ Unless you believe that no one will go to hell and are a universalist, then you have to contend with the fact that God did create people knowing full well that they would end up damned for eternity.
A lot of issues here Redeemed Zoomer. I'll touch on two, for brevity's sake: the Procession of the Spirit & Theosis 1) The Orthodox doctrine of the procession of the Spirit is divided into 3 categories: hypostatic procession, eternal manifestation, and economic procesion. Hypostatic procession refers to the ad intra reality of the Father being the sole cause of the spiration of the hypostasis of the spirit. Eternal Manifestation refers to the ad intra reality of the Spirit resting in the Son, making him the Son's Spirit. Economic procession refers to the ad extra reality of the procession of the Spirit into creation, from the father and through the Son. This has nothing to do with the false dichotomy of "scripture vs tradition", instead it's about understanding the particular sense in which scripture mentions the Son sending his Spirit. 2) The Orthodox doctrine of Theosis is NOT that we participate in the divine essence, Theosis is the co-operation with God and the indwelling of the Spirit through divine actuality. Orthodox teach the distinction between essence & actuality (essence-energy distinction). Only the Trinity partake of the divine essence, but we as creatures are able to, by grace, participate in God through his divine activities which are always done by the divine persons. There's a lot more inaccuracies that I could cover from this video, but I'll leave it here because this comment is already way too long. Best
What do you exactly mean by "eternal manifestation", is it the same as perichoresis? Also, Photios categorically denied any procession of the Spirit through the Son, so how does the EO church believe in it, when Photios was the first and principle opposer of double spiration?
@@dvinb Yes, it's related to perichoiris and how all of the divine attributes are common among all the divine persons. Photios wrote concerning hypostatic procession, which as stated before, the son has no role in the spiration of the Spirit's hypostasis.
Every church has its flaws. The Eastern Orthodox Church does, what you have mentioned. The Catholic Church was contradicting itself because Pope Leo III said that whoever changes the Creed should be put on the same level as Judas. The Protestant Churches are also not 100% accurate with their teachings. An example would be the hiring lesbian bishops (church of England) and them removing crosses to install Muslim prayer spaces. As you clarified, the people will be known by their fruits, and not because they are Greek Orthodox or Roman Catholic.
Another huge problem with the Eastern Orthodox Church is that they don’t believe in Substitutionary Atonement. They don’t believe that Christ took the punishment for our sins when He died on the cross. Obviously that’s closely related to denial of original sin, but I think Substitutionary Atonement is an even more important doctrine. I’d recommend the video “A Protestant learns about Eastern Orthodoxy” by Matt Whitman to see an Orthodox priest articulate their view of Atonement.
Totally different direction from your point of comment. But I would like you to please tell me, if you know, how I can learn more about the early church history. Thank you very much love from India
+Captain Needa Reformed tradition actually believes that Christ was literally damned on the cross by God the Father's infinite wrath, so ofc we don't believe that Demonic teaching which either leads us to divising the Trinity or affirming Nestorian Theology. Problem with Protestantiam is that it starts by asking "How am I saved?" And the reaches Chriatology and Triadology, i.e. doesn't start by asking "Who is God?". We, the Orthodox, start our order of Theology with Triadology and Christology and after that, that dictates our Anthropology and Soteriology. You just have it upside down.
@@MaximusOrthodox Substitutionary atonement doesn't equal penal substitution theory. In substitutionary atonement the Son isn't punished by the Father, it just states that "Christ died for our sins". So, no, from my understanding, substitutionary atonement does not split the Trinity.
The miracles in the Orthodox church are amazing. We have hermits living in the mountains or deserts that are so gifted by the Holy Spirit they see you and tell your name and the life. I will never give up my Orthodoxy.
Oriental Orthodoxy doesn't support Miaphysitism. I listened to an Oriental Orthodox priest(?) on Matt Whitman's channel explain that the whole controversy was a gigantic misunderstanding based on what it was they were saying about Christ's true nature. And that they're now cool with EOs lol
@@bobbobb4804 The priest I saw the video on says that Jesus being fully God and fully man is the one nature that they affirm. The main catholic church insisting on two natures were therefore misunderstanding them.
@@choicemeatrandy6572 "The priest I saw the video on says that Jesus being fully God and fully man is the one nature that they affirm" that's literally what Miaphysitism is. You're thinking about Monophysitism, which is condemned by the Oriental Orthodox church.
It's a common misunderstanding. Orthodox priests don't look like Dumbledore, Dumbledore looks like an orthodox priest. =D It aggravates Dumbledore every time it gets brought up.
Lol
I was literally about to write a list of grievances and corrections starting with item #1 being 'Dumbledore looks like an Orthododox priest'. You've beat me to it. Thank you
Don’t roast my orthodox pastors like that they got the *HOLY* drip and the chad looking beards with cool buildings
they need the chains to finish it a rolex too
Facts, I’m Roman Catholic and I gotta say Orthodox priests are too drippy 😮💨😮💨
Exactly 💯. They're the OGs, and the reason our faith is defended. Without St Athanasius the Coptic Orthodox Legend, our faith would be in vain; Areus said the Christ was not the son of God, and the Son was not equal to the Father. Unbelievable, what a legend. You protestants gotta know this man
As a questioning protestant, i must say that those orthodox friars and monks really got the fresh drip on God
@@jeremyphilippe5122 Facts
"Martin Luther was shot by Skeleton"💀
Lol timestamp?
When?
@@Orthosaur7532 13:05
@@dr.leadbetter1315 😭😭
Made my night…. 😭😭😭😭. I’m sure Martin would have enjoyed laughed at this too
As a Romanian Orthodox i can confirm that Orthodox priests have that Holy drip
First time I've met another romanian orthodox online!!! God bless you brother
Toți românii să lase comm
@@Cosmin_TheMusicGuy ok
Mă bucur să văd și alti Români ortodocși pe aici.
@@Cosmin_TheMusicGuy ok fratele meu in Hristos
I've found that since converting from protestantism to Orthodoxy my focus has been shifting away from my own personal, individual faith and back towards Christ. Which is where I think the focus needs to be. There's so much less concern about trying to mechanistically talk about how sin works and how salvation works and whether we can know everything there is to know. It took becoming Orthodox for me at least to realize that Jesus called people to follow him, he told sinners to repent of their sins and to take up their cross. To get baptized and then pray, give to the poor, and fast. And no we aren't saved by doing a certain amount of these works (the pharisees were doing this stuff too and it didn't help them), but we're saved because by following Christ we become more like him. And in the end, whether we get to spend eternity with our Lord or not depends on whether Christ recognizes us on judgement day or whether he says "depart from me for I never knew you".
☦️
Agreed. Western denominations see faith as if its something we need to know everything about, rather than accepting that some things really are just simply mysteries and its not a necessity to have to have completely knowledge of it
@@tobiasbourne9073we have an incredibly deep and rich theological tradition as well. But in the end the humble matushka that spent her whole life trying to live like Christ and sacrificing her time and money to serve others is more holy than the most knowledgeable academic. And she’s probably the person we should be listening to and taking advice from…
I don't know why there is this "negative" or suspicious view of theology.
Matthew 22:37“’Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your MIND.’
Beautifully put friend. There is a lot of beauty and the magnification and glorification of Christ in my attendance of a Russian Orthodox Church. It was a very interesting and beautiful experience. They were also doing well in their local missions, whilst I was there, a child who was attending the church in secrecy from his parents (as they did not want him to attend church or become Christian) was present and dined with us after the service. Praise Jesus Christ our Lord!
Don't forget to put out lots of updates on Project Reconquista. That to me is the most exciting development for Christendom.
There are lots of exciting updates!
Noice
@@redeemedzoomer6053 If you have any updates on outside the US as well, could you please share them too?
@@avroarchitect1793 how would he know? He lives in the US.
@@redeemedzoomer6053By the way, did you start Reconquista or are you just a member.
As a Greek Orthodox, I'm glad you made this video. God bless☦️
Όπα ρε κι εγώ το ιδιο
Γεια σας αδερφια!
Amen
“knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.”
Galatians 2:16 KJV
@@traesaint9328 " Thus also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead." James 2:17
I'm Russian Orthodox. Not against Calvinists. We're all brothers in Christ.
Amen, brother!
@@redeemedzoomer6053 Also, I'm a bit of a theology nerd myself and your videos have really helped me better understand the various views on God.
Don't say to me that you are ecumenist
@@NinaJ7 only God can judge
@@jb885 Then why do you continue doing so?
I have schizophrenia, I have voices in my head that I think probably come from demons, they get angry when I go to church, they say things like "you shouldn't be here, you're too much of a sinner, you hate Jesus, imagine spitting on the alter" things like that. When I went to a coptic orthodox church they were peticularly loud and here's the amazing thing. When the priest flicked holy water on my face they went dead silent. I'm going back this Sunday. I've tried it with catholic holy water but it doesn't work as well.
you should also get like, medical help with that too though
Amazing story thank you for sharing brother.
@@K7897I Medical help = God.
If this is true, that’s fascinating, look into getting an exorcism from one of them. The orthodox churches do them less often, but they still have them. Depending where you live, perhaps you should go to a monastery and discuss this with the monks there, EO ones are probably more familiar with this. they may be able to preform one for you. Genuinely look into this. I have similar feelings right before I go to church. Intense feelings of lethargy, as if something is trying to keep me away from church. But it vanishes the minute I step foot in the church. Glory to God
@@K7897I I'm on meds
Interestingly enough, I met up with an Eastern Orthodox priest recently to discuss some of my questions/concerns with Orthodoxy, as I've been considering switching over from Protestantism. One of the concerns I brought up was the idolization of the Church, how many Orthodox and Catholics seem to mention Christ as more of an afterthought, and how I don't want to lose sight of Christ if I were to switch over. He put those fears at ease in me as he talked about how Christ is at the center of it all, no matter how some people may choose to express their devotion to the Church, and he found that Orthodoxy gave him more love for Christ than when he'd been Lutheran. I also asked him about both Orthodox and Catholics claiming to be the one true Church, and this man essentially said that there is no surefire way to know which one is the true church lol. It was a very lovely meeting, though I'm scared I won't find another priest like him
Was the conversation in English if you don't mind? In my area it is hard for me to find an English speaking Orthodox Church, as most mainly speak Russian/Ukranian/Greek... It's hard to find a service where I can actually follow the whole thing word for word...
@Minecraft36245 Yes, it was in English! This church in particular does services entirely in English, save for the occasional Greek word. We're also in the middle of the Midwest, so the congregation is mostly American 😂
If an orthodox priest said there is no way to know which one is the true church then I suggest you look for another priest. That is ecumenism and is widely talked against in orthodoxy so I don't know what kind of orthodox he is. The pope is a very problematic matter, there is no record in history of the pope of Rome being the supreme authority prior to the schism. The filioque was also something added without the counselation of other patriarchs, that makes no sense and it's no compatible to the theology before that. I used to believe there is no way aswell to know that, but I assure you, a little bit of research in the history of church and it's really obvious who the right and true church is. There can only be one truth, and all the denominations have different beliefs, therefore there is only one true church. That doesn't mean everyone else will go to hell, people are judged based on what informations they had access to and what they did with that, so if someone were to be born in a catholic family and never heard of orthodoxy their whole life that doesn't mean they go to hell. Please really consider looking more carefully in the history of the church and if you have more questions pls ask me
@@teoteodora7676 Hello! THis particular priest was Antiochan orthodox, and looking back on this comment I realize I may have misconstrued what he said; I believe he was meaning to tell me that non-Orthodox aren't necessarily going to Hell, as that was the concern I was looking into
The pope sits on Peter the apostles chair . Peter is the rock .
I think a main Orthodox argument is that the Spirit proceeding from the Father is a unique relationship that only applies to their persons and not to the son. So to change the Creed by adding the Son in there with the idea that it is more Trinitarian would be on a similar level as changing the Bible to say that the Father and Spirit died on the Cross, thinking that it would be more accurate to the Trinity, and I think the reaction all Christians would have to changing the Bible is similar to how the Orthodox react to altering the Creed without a council, given that the Creed is authoratative like scripture.
Lol! When you wrote unique I read it as "oo-NEE-quay", thinking it was an alternative to the Filioque! XDXDXDXD!!
I really don't see what you're trying to say. Is it just that change is essentially heretical?
@@JohnDorian-j7xYes and also it was not changed appropriately.
@@JohnDorian-j7xYes , it is heretical.
@@JohnDorian-j7x
It’s the problem of corruption.
That corruption then alters theology.
It’s essentially like the Jehova’s witnesses changing the gospel of John to make it sound like Jesus is not the incarnate Word, who is God.
The problem is that the bishop of Rome did not consul the other bishops, he did not consider the consequences of this alteration. The bishop of Rome went ahead and did what he did without any consideration of his brothers or those saints who wrote the Nicene Creed. It’s like if a sibling went behind your back, took your essay, edited it, and then lied to your face and said he had power to do this because he’s “older than you”.
I think as Protestants our conception of the schism is that the church split and went different ways. Whereas, I think the Orthodox view as more like the older brother leaving the house altogether and setting up his own house and decorating it with pagan statutes, false doctrines, worldly powers, and an emphasis on authority. It seems like the Orthodox view the Bishop of Rome as leaving the Church because he abandoned the apostolic faith and thus made his testimony is invalid.
As Protestants I’m coming to believe that we reaped fruit from the actions of the bishop of Rome and most of our theology is predicated on this Roman theology. A lot of our criticism of Rome is justifiable and even accurate but to extend that criticism onto Orthodoxy is to misunderstand the differences between the Orthodox and Catholic.
15:05 I seriously thought that these videos were just voice overs and I’m genuinely impressed that you can hold such a deep and thoughtful conversation without getting distracted by Minecraft. Love the videos great work
Bro I thought the same thing lol
Bro. Not Eastern Orthodox, but looking like wizards is one of the *pros* of the EO.
Amen mate!
Looking like magic men while still going against it is based
@@orrorsaness5942Honestly if Iʼd ever need an exorcist I would either ask for a Catholic or an Orthodox. Never would I ask a Protestant to cast out demons
@deutschermichel5807 This is hilarious, don't know if I agree, but this made me actually lol
@@deutschermichel5807specially never at a Pentecostle church 💀
They be having you roll on the floor and passing out and stuff, while the Orthodox and Catholics will be praying and giving you holy water while 50 lbs on incense is strewn about the room (100+ lbs of incense if it's an Orthodox priest)
@@deutschermichel5807I’m not too, sure according to the chat at 15:59 the Catholics are practicing necromancy
"We see fruits of the spirit in all form of Christianity... Even pentecostals"
Lol, thank you for not throwing us under the bus
dont be pentacostal
@@ligetisspaghetti5763 Pentecostalism is the fastest-growing form of Christianity so regardless of what you think of our theology, we are doing the Lord's work. I'll admit some of us can get a bit weird though. (oneness theology, people who do flag waving)
@@stevenmcdowell3426 And islam is the fastest growing religion in the world, so clearly they must be doing the Lord's work too, by your logic.
Islam doesn’t follow the fundamentals of the faith.
@@EIfric not a bad argument but Islam isn't Christianity, pentacostalism is. Not to mention pentecostalism is very conservative.
I'm currently non denominational but I am inquiring about Orthodoxy. Lets all hope God guides us down the correct path.
I didn't have any denomination until a month ago, but I emailed the priest of my local Orthodox Church and visited it and am now regularly attending and growing stronger in the Orthodox faith, hopefully I will be a catachumen soon
Same, it's very overwhelming.
2 Timothy 3:16
16 All Scripture is inspired by God and is useful to teach us what is true and to make us realize what is wrong in our lives. It corrects us when we are wrong and teaches us to do what is right. 17 God uses it to prepare and equip his people to do every good work.
It's not about the denomination, it's about the Christian. Study the scripture so you know it well enough to tell if the church you attend follows and teaches it correctly.
If you don't have any near you, start a home church. It's how the church started to begin with.
@@kriegjaegerwithout the church how do you know if you have the correct scripture?
Definitely Read Rock and sand by father Josiah Trenam. May Christ Guide you on your journey☦
When it comes to sin, I would agree that on paper, it may appear that the Orthodox church has a much more lenient view of sin, but if you were to read the lives of the Orthodox saints and to see what they said about sin and how they viewed both themselves and sin, it would make any Calvinist blush and other Christians look at them with genuine concern likely saying, "Bro are you okay?" Literally the most common prayer that Orthodox Christians pray is the Jesus prayer. "Lord Jesus Christ son of God, have mercy upon me, a sinner." It is repeated over and over again meditatively, not just for Theosis, but also in order to show us that we are literally nothing but sinners begging and pleading for the mercy of Christ because we are nothing, while he is The everything. Meanwhile I have seen countless protestants that while they may even have a belief in Total depravity, which has its own host of problems that I won't get into, they live their life has if they either didn't sin, or as if sin was nothing to them. "I know what I've done is bad or what I'm planning to do is wrong, but I'll just ask Jesus to forgive me for it." Was a very common sentiment among the Baptist and Pentecostal Churches I grew up in.
Anyone who has no sorrow for their own sin and thinks it's okay for them to continue to disobey because "God will forgive me" is not a Christian, let alone a Protestant.
Protestants definitely have strong views on sin. Have you ever heard of Michael Wigglesworth? He was a Puritan preacher, which means big time Calvinist. The man was obsessed with thinking about how sinful he was. His diary is filled almost entirely with laments about how sinful he was and how he’s pretty sure he’s damned to hell because of it, questioning if Christ would really redeem such a sinner as him.
As an Eastern Orthodox, I do, in fact, proudly post Chad memes all day. I grew up in the Church of Christ.
Also, I love your channel. You truly truly have brought life to my faith again. Seeing somebody else my age actually take Christianity seriously, and also are willing to take an intellectual approach to it. It's so so refreshing.
I’m currently a member of the Church of Christ but I’m on the path to convert to Orthodox any advice?
@@theSamgardner Just make sure that you're doing everything for the right reasons. And make sure that your family is ok with it 👍
remove “proudly” please, pride is the sin of satan.
@@ReplyToMeIfUrRetarded It's sarcasm, my friend. Why would I actually be proud about posting a particular kind of meme?
What made you switch, if it's okay to ask? Current Church of Christ member (noninstitutional)
What I’ve heard from every Eastern Orthodox Christian I’ve ever talked to is that the heterodox aren’t necessarily dammed, and they can be saved too. It’s up to God.
That's a newer development in their church though, even the Orthodox church isn't unscathed by theological liberalism
@@intothekey No they learned it from scripture, the church fathers, and the words of saints. It’s possible for non orthodox Christians to have salvation. It is a dangerous delusion to assume that just because you are apart of the church that you are saved, and it’s just as bold to say everybody outside of the church is automatically damned, It’s also often made into a very prideful notion stemmed from a delusion.
Romans 2:12-16 is a good example of scripture that can relate to this.
A great quote on this which is from 1800s Russia:
“You ask, will the heterodox be saved... Why do you worry about them? They have a Saviour Who desires the salvation of every human being. He will take care of them. You and I should not be burdened with such a concern. Study yourself and your own sins.”
- St. Theophan the Recluse
I thought it was only Roman Catholics and Jehovah’s Witnesses that believed everyone outside of their church is automatically condemned to hell no matter what.
@@bobbobb4804 That's historically inaccurate. Both EA and Rome take John 14:6 and claim that because they are the one and only body of Christ on earth there's no salvation outside of it.
I don't mean this in any passive aggressive way be you need to study on this. It's not the historical Eastern Orthodox possession and it's laughable to say it's what the church fathers taught.
@@bobbobb4804They're lying to you. The EO have always believed in the dogma of no salvatuon oustide the Church. I just saw a video of one of their priests who left Orthodoxy for Protestantism because of this issue. He was taught the same thing but when he studied what Orthodoxy actually teaches in its council and synods and official documents, everyone outside the Church is excluded from salvation.
I'm not officially chrismated yet ( i think, its complicated), but I believe there might be salvation outside of the Church based on the thief on the cross, the elderly couple that awaited the birth of Jesus, the three wise men and other people who recognized the divinity of Christ before Pentecost.
11:18 THIS is literally our strong point! The Orthodox people believe that we were made in the image and form of God! We have free will! We are not bound bound by the sins of others! We can absolve of our own sin through prayer and asking Christ for forgiveness. But in no way do we have any original sin: it was destroyed by the Cross of the Lord! These are literally the good news, the Evangelion!
As an orthodox Greek, I was waiting for this for a long time.
Mhm
what's the 5 main differences between an Orthodox and a Catholic?
@@JohnDorian-j7xa)no pope in orthodoxy or b)belief that the pope is infallible regarding religious- &/or ecclesiastical matters c)no belief in filioque unlike what both Catholics & Protestants believe in- & teach d)no belief in the immaculate conception of the blessed Virgin Mary e)no belief in the assumption of the blessed Virgin Mary
I'll be honest, except for the "immaculate conception", none of the rest sound very different from "average" chrsitianity... but maybe hard core catholics would disagree. I had no idea that Orthodox didn't believe in the virgin mary story... what's the theological reason why?@@tarlankasra
The orthodox don't just reject the filoque because it is not in the creed, there are many other reasons, including some serious biblical arguments
How did Jesus send the Holy Spirit and why is the Holy Spirit called the spirit of Christ if it doesn’t proceed from both the son and the father?
@@lukaspersson4051 it's not really that hard to resolve. Jesus could have simply sent the holy spirit through the father. It's not like Jesus could try to send the spirit and be denied by the father.
Also the holy spirit is part of the trinity, meaning it shares the same essence per the nicean creed. Therefore it can be considered the spirit of both of the other parts of the Godhead, without the neccesity for procession.
My point is it is not such an obvious biblical point
@@briandiehl9257 but he came to baptize with the Holy Spirit and Peter said in acts 2:38”Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.” So you receive the Holy Spirit when you repent and get baptized in the name of Jesus Christ, that means that it has to proceed from him and not just be sent through the father
@@lukaspersson4051 I completely fail to see how that implies it must proceed from the son
@@lukaspersson4051 there is a difference between eternal procession and temporal procession. The Spirit ONLY eternally proceeds from the Father, but temporally proceeds from the Son. The filioque seems to suggest that the source of the Spirit is the Son, which is theologically wrong. I would personally not have an issue if the creed read "from the Father through the Son" but regardless, changing the creed outside of an ecumenical council was a massive Western L
When the Nicene Creed says "I believe in one...apostolic Church," that is a direct reference to apostolic succession.
The council of Nicea was, let us not forget, an ecumenical council of Catholic/Orthodox bishops.
The testimony of the Fathers is universal in teaching that the Church is visible, and that visibility comes from the authority of the bishops and their unbroken succession of ordinations back to the apostles.
You are right: both Catholic and Orthodox bishops have unbroken succession back to the apostles.
Because for the first 1000 years of Christianity, to be Orthodox was to be Catholic and to be Catholic was to be Orthodox.
It is reasonable to ask which side of the schism was right in the end.
It is not reasonable to think that the whole Christian church was in error for 1000 years.
Consider the words of St. Ignatius of Antioch, who was taught by the apostles: "Wherever the bishop appears, there let the people be; as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church."
I was annoyed that a lot of his reasoning during this video was very circular. Two years ago, I came to the conclusion that either the Orthodox or Catholic Church was correct (maybe even both) while running and listening to John ch 6. After a lot of reading, I believe the Catholic Church seems correct. I have a few reasons yet I'm not going to ramble any further with those theories/opinions.
@@phillipcummings3518 Congratulations on finding the true church brother. May God bless you
@phillipcummings3518 To my mind, if we grant the truth of Christianity, only two questions really matter:
1. Did Christ ordain bishops?
2. Did Christ give Supreme authority to one of those bishops?
I would defy any protestant to study history and say "no" to that first question.
I've said it before and I'll say it again.
Catholicism or Orthodoxy might be true.
Protestantism is certainly false.
@@thephilosopherfromdixie7466 Laughably perfect example of a false dichotomy.
The issue is not as simple as you dream. There are more questions involved.
1. Did Christ ordain bishops?
2. What was the extent of the authority of those bishops?
3. Were/are those bishops infallible (given that they disagree)?
4. Was the authority of those bishops passed on?
5. Was the authority of those bishops passed on in a traceable and unbroken line leading to the present?
6. Can that unbroken chain of authority be identified in any single
organisation on earth?
7. Does the Church exist only within that single organisation?
8. Can (and to what extent can) that organisation fall into error?
You see, in Protestant thinking, the Church is not defined by the extent of the various jurisdictions of bishops, each claiming apostolic authority yet so often disagreeing.
Rather, it exists wherever there are believers in Christ as he is found in the scripture, holding to the essentials of the apostolic faith as it is best defined in the creeds. The kingdom of heaven being found wherever the king of heaven reigns.
You see also that this view is not at all unreasonable or against the scriptural apostolic teachings, let alone ‘certainly false’ as you have the audacity to claim.
a church founded by the apostles is not the same thing as inheriting authority from them because you claim to be descended from them
there is zero evidence for apostolic succession
As a Lutheran, I resonate with your comments at 20:34...I've always respected the EO church for the many areas where EOs agree with Lutherans vs the rest of the Western church. But whenever I interact with EO people, they act very condescendingly and refuse to recognize anything good about Lutheranism. I don't expect them to agree with Lutheran theology "just because," but whenever I try to find areas of agreement, they just try to find ways to be dismissive and disagree with everything I say because "You're wrong because you're not the church" or "you're just a fringe group and not actually important." Most of the time they completely misunderstood/misrepresented what Lutherans believe instead of trying to understand where we were coming from. And if I try to make an argument, they just dismiss them out of hand.
I agree that we need to have strong convictions about our theology, but I pray that in the future there can be more actual engagement with the arguments at hand instead of sheer dismissal, as well as more of an attitude of mutual respect. In order to have productive theological conversations, you always need to understand where the other person is coming from and what they think. If you can't even do that, there's no way to even have a conversation on the subject.
The fruit of orthodoxy is better than the fruit of catholicism, especially in modernity, apostolic succession does involve an authentication means for discerning who has the teaching of the apostles, but requires the living witness of the church to prove it.
UA-cam is messing with the comment section again... It says you have a reply, but I can't see it.
Speak englis please
@@louannebvb it's all in English, what words are troubling you?
In the Anglican Church in North America, we print the Filioque in brackets. We affirm the Filioque doctrinally, but also recognize that the Creed should not have been altered without an ecumenical council.
Agh really? I honestly think that's kinda lame
@@redeemedzoomer6053 the East thought it was kinda lame when the West altered the Creed without their permission. As you can see, we continue to suffer division as a result, a thousand years later. Anglicans have a tendency to desire practical, non-theoretical unity in the Church, so this kind of move is kind of our thing. It is a simple acknowledgement, without compromising on doctrine, of a wound which remains to be healed.
@@redeemedzoomer6053 lol your comments are always really funny
I’m an non-denominational Protestant inquirer into Eastern Orthodoxy, thanks for clarifying your position. Can’t wait to see Kyle’s response to this video.
That Dumbledore line is accurate. The first time I met the local Orthodox priest I thought he was a wizard😂
This appearance was created by them and not by Hollywood they imagine old men who are so wise and have supernatural powers, they served as inspiration and not the other way around :) , because that is how those who served God always looked from the beginning, even before the expected coming of Christ.
God bless you brother in Christ: your work is really good for the kingdom of God: from a Latin Catholic in Sweden.
Orthogang 💪☦
+
W
W
W
W
Here is a critique of your critique from a currently Orthodox catechuman:
The main criticism I would levy against the "we are all the one true Church, composed of the believers" claim that protestants often make is that first we must define what the "believers" must *believe*, once we have a concrete definition of that, then we can have a proper discussion, it seems you value trinitarianism as at least part of these beliefs, but what of the operations of the Person of Christ? How does Christ relate to the Holy Spirit? How is salvation accomplished/gifted/cooperated with? These are all important questions about the Trinity, and effect our understanding of God, this they must also be issues of importance. I could extrapolate this to other subjects but i think the point ive made here is clear, we must have a knowledge of all necessary things first, and we must have an infalliable way of determining what these things are.
What unites Orthodoxy as the One True Church composed of all believers is that the Church has a standard doctrine, the believers all believe what must be believed and are thus part of the Church
As for Mark 9:37-39, I actually have to do some more research regarding this, im happy to see a new argument (at least, based from what ive seen most protestants use), it shows you've put a lot of care into the video amd arent simply going to google and typing "top 10 arguments against Orthodoxy/Catholicism". Thank you
As for your criticism of us valuing our Apostolic Succesion, i would say Christ does indeed care about doctrine, and He handed down the keys to the Apostles and I'd say that the Apostles ordained priests and bishops for a reason, the laying on of hands probably wasnt just a cool thing they thought up randomly. Also Christ does value the adherence to tradition, otherwise He wouldn't have allowed St. Paul to tell us to "hold fast to these traditions, both written and spoken". As for the accusation that apostolic succession and biblical doctrine are 2 seperate categories i disagree. Our Doctrine has apostolic succession within it, they are not 2 seperate things to us because they weren't (in our view) 2 seperate things for all of history up until the protestant reformation when people could no longer claim apostolic succession (aside from some Anglicans), it was only then that this Doctrine was dropped.
We dont claim that tradition and organizational lineage are all that matters, our Doctrine matters, and our doctrine incorperates tradition and organizational lineage. We can see that the Catholics can lay claim to apostolic succession, but because they have false doctrines, they are not (to us) the True Church.
To say that we havent fallen away from the Truth is a bad claim for you to make, because if we have the Truth then it means we are correct and we are the One True Church, which you disagree with. It is better to say that we have fallen away, because from the protestant view, we have.
The reason we say that Scripture is part of sacred tradition and not the sole highest pillar of truth is because the Bible itself says the Church is the " pillar and foundation of truth" (1 Tim 3:15), therefore there must be something higher than the Bible, that being the Church, and the Church has tradition as its guide, the Bible is a part of this tradition, it is by the Bible that we can record our earliest traditions and document the life of Christ, the most important Person in history
The reason we say that the Bible is a liturgical book is because that is how it was used by the early Church, most collections of Scriptures were read liturgically, much in the same way that we Orthodox read them today
Mormons also feed the hungry in the name of Christ, many non trinitarians have claims of the gifts of the Holy Spirit (these mainly come from non trinitarians who identify the Holy Spirit as merely the "power" or "acting force" of God), we would say that prelest and demonic deception is indeed possible outside of the Church, but protestants are stuck with saying that all these heretical groups are kind of valid based on this reasoning
You are only following one of the principles Christ gives us to identify the Church, the reason you focus on this so much seems to be that if we only focus on this, then protestantism is vindicated, but if we focus on other aspects that Christ values (doctrine of the Church, the traditions of the Church, the administration of the Sacraments, etc) then we get into quite the pickle with the "we are all the one true Church".
The Body of Christ is not divided. There is one true Church, otherwise you reject the Nicene Creed, something you said you hold as important. Christ said "I am *the* way" not "a way", in the same sense, there is only *the* Church, not a Church, another Church, and a bunch of other Churches.
"The Church can have flaws". I will refer you back to 1 Tim 3:15. We would say that people in the Church can do bad things, but the Church itself is perfect. Christ is perfect as the Church is. The people who cling for refuge in the Church from sin are not, but this cannot effect the perfection of Christ's Body, otherwise we have a corrupted church, not the True Church.
"Orthodoxy has the weakest concept of sin". I guess I was predestined to be Orthodox then, unfortunate that God did this to me :/
We would say that it is cruel that God would send an infant to hell for original sin, something that the infant didn't do. Jesus redeemed our human nature, that is why all needed Him.
I was kind of saying that calvanism sucks in my head lol. I think it makes God evil, the Orthodox actually responded to Calvinist doctrine in a local council a while back I think.
What is wrong with thinking our Chruch is correct? I don't see this critique being a real one, is it an accusation of idolatry? Idk, it might help if you explain this more.
While the Doctrinal stance of the Fillioque is incorrect, I would say that the main issue most Orthodox have with it is the way it was implemented, the Church didn't consent to this, the Pope forced this upon his jurisdiction in Rome, and it lead to the Schism. Those are our main issues, the theology is important as well, but the lay Orthodox person won't often talk of how it "breaks" the Trinity to have 2 first principles instead of 1. I'd say that when Christ elaborates that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, it is strange that He also says that He will send the Holy Spitit, it's almost exactly like how we would describe this doctrine. For you, who says that we Orthodox focus on tradition too much, it is odd that you would hold the words of a pope exercising papal supremacy rather than that of the Bible itself.
The problem here is that the Holy Spirit becomes less than both the Father and the Son, there isn't a unique relationship between the Father and Spirit, nor between Christ and the Spirit on the Fillioque model, having both Christ and the Father spirate the Spirit reduces the relationship and distinction between all 3 Persons. However, having the Father Spirate the Spirit and having the Spirit economically proceed through Christ does give this distinction and therefore a 3 fold unique relationship, while keeping true the statement of Christ that the "Father is greater than I", in this sense, the Father is the source of the Godhead, all comes from Him, making Him greater in the sense Christ speaks of without us having to forsake that Christ is God or for us to have to break the Godhead to try and fit 2 first Principles in.
We don't think human reasoning can comprehend God in His entirety, why do you? Seriously, I don't understand why many western Christians hold such a high basis on reasoning when this same use of reasoning has lead to so much heresy. We use an apophatic approach to describe God, we know for certain what He is *not*, however, we can only know what He is by what He has revealed, not through our understanding, but His, revealed through His Church.
Some Chruch Fathers can be wrong, if they didn't know it was heresy then we know God forgave them for this, men are not infalliable, the Church is.
The issue is not that the Nicene Creed can't be edited, it's that the way the Fillioque was introduced was anathematized in the Council of Ephasus, where all alterations of the Creed were barred under an anathema by Canon VII that states no alterations could be added. We see that the Church followed this until the Pope ascribed to himself a position above the Councils. That is the issue here, it's not really even with protestants, because yall didn't add to the Creed, the Pope did, you just inherited the false Creed.
The problem with the idea that the Church can change its Doctrine and hasn't always taught the fullness of Truth is that we then must say that Christ didn't give the full Truth to the Apostles and that we know more than them, and the way we know these things isn't from a divine Revelation of some sort, but rather by the product of the fallible human mind. We cannot say this, it puts humanity in the place only God must be.
The Pope actually kind of did add it to "flex" on people. He wanted to justify his authority at a time when people were falling to heresies in his jurisdiction. We can actually see that the Pope directly after the one who added the Fillioque went back on that decision because he viewed it as wrongful to do so becuase of how the Church is supposed to operate. The Pope was not some hero of the Bible, deeply studying and adding the Truth to the Church bit by bit, he was rather a man who saw that he was losing his power and his people, so he then tried like so many others before him to combat heresy, but instead fell into another (we can see this with other trinitarian vs non trinitarian heresies, many would respond to these heresies but then unknowingly create another heresy with their response)
Continued in a reply since this is too long to keep editing :p
The people wanted to add it because they fell in love with the idea that their bishop was the super special one that controlled all doctrine (the Pope who added the Fillioque actually did a great job cementing this idea in the heads of his subjects). I highly doubt that western pre-medieval peasants were having theologically charged debates about the nature of the Trinity all the time.
Your description of events was not what happened at all, it wasn't the Biblical Sola Scriptura Catholics against the tradition loving Orthodox. It was the Catholics who tried to force papal supremacy on the rest of the Church. Please read more on this period of history, it is vastly misunderstood and not widely learned about.
The council you speak of is correct, if you deny the veneration of icons then you attack Christ's Church, if you are not with Him, you are against Him.
Modern scholarship also says that the authors of the Gospels aren't actually the authors, they also say the Gospels we have are edited, are you going to believe them, or trust Christ and His Church? While you may say we idolize our Church, protestants often idolize modern scholasticism far too much.
We would say that the Holy Spirit is indeed the Spirit of Christ, because they are united in One Divine Essence, this doesn't mean that the Spirit must spirate from Christ
I'm glad that you don't confuse theosis with mormon nonsense, thank you, really.
I wouldn't say that you've misrepresented us, actually I think you've gotten far closer than I was when I first studied the Church, you've done an exemplary job of describing real issues that many people have with Orthodoxy and I appreciate this critique, it is well thought out and well put together...in the theological department.
The history sections could use some work, other than that, good job!
Really, this is one of the most concise treatments of Orthodoxy I've seen by someone who honestly disagrees, it's not like an everyday catholic apologist who just says we don't have a universal magisterium/calls us a purely ethnicity focused Church and leaves it at that.
You obviously have issues and I'm glad you have them, it's often an echo chamber in Orthodoxy because there just aren't a lot of English responses to our beliefs. So thank you again for taking your time in studying our doctrine honestly (a smaller but also notable thank you for noticing the distinction between veneration and worship, the amount of times I've been called an idol/saint worshipper are draining the life out of me)
I'd say that to the verses in Mark, we must keep in mind that the Orthodox Church does not claim that God operates solely within the Church, as can be seen clearly here in Scripture, does this mean these people are saved? No, we see no indication of that here, only that those who are doing miracles can't speak any evil to Christ's name, because they are doing good things that God allows them to do in His name (in the same way we don't require re-baptism in all cases of Baptism outside of the organization of the Church, things can be done in these circumstances, just like how while the Apostles werent around for the exorcisms, becuase these are things Christ Himself does, not even the priest preforming the Sacrament)
We do not have a set doctrine on God's operations outside of the Church, it is another one of those mysteries that God simply hasn't spoken of directly, so it is entirely possible for God to allow a miracle outside of the Church, especially since this miracle could lead to people finding the True Church.
We must also keep in mind that at this time, there wasn't denominational chaos like right now, there weren't 30,000 churches all claiming to be the True Church, there was only Jesus and the Apostles, so allowing this to be done wouldn't cement people into further heresy or anything like that.
The use of this simply doesn't prove what you are attempting to prove, it only means that God can act outside of the Church, not that the Church as an organization isn't necessary, because there are many things only the Church can do, for example, the Sacrament of Communion, something that Christ says is necessary for Salvation (read the whole of John chapter 6 after the pharisees start accusing Jesus, trust me, it changed my mind on the Sacrament).
I’m grateful that I came across orthodoxy for its teachings of theosis. It was the best explanation ever given on how to work with the energies of God to bring heaven to earth contrasted with the occult apotheosis. I’ve come to the conclusion that orthodoxy as in the one holy apostolic Catholic Church is the true church, and that the church will reunite one day. Unfortunately, you have many who views this unification as evil and I’m sure many bad actors have co-opted the movement, but restoration should happen regardless.
Exactly
I was under the impression that theosis implies the earth being exalted to heaven rather than God bringing heaven to earth, is that not right?
@@ColeSouthern you may be right. I’ll have to research it later. Now I get to have the fun of breaking down the differences and compare and contrast thing bringing heaven to earth versus earth to heaven, ultimately heaven and earth are not separated, per se
Do you follow theosis from the both OT and NT or do you only follow theosis from NT?
You gotta admit though: beautiful church interiors, and one I went to had a cupola dome made out of solid gold.
13:18 Yeah! Lol. But jokes aside, Orthodox Christianity doesn't have a weak doctrine on sin. Our tradition considers every human a sinner, because every day we sin, whether we know it or not. Even the Saints are considered to have sinned in their life. Only Jesus is considered Sinless. This is why we strive to be more like Him, as much as we can
Orthodox Christian from Germany 🙋🏻♂️ Great Video and God bless ☦️
Great video? You mean propaganda
@@GAF2234 how so? Besides it’s ironic that this comes from a communist.
We Protestants should also get in on the meme game. Orthobros memes are kinda everywhere
Troll catholics by saying "Catholic try not to pray to Mary challenge level: impossible"
Need a puritan chad meme. Have you seen the immaculate drip?
@@Arpitan_Carpenter They would take it as a compliment.
@@kriegjaeger SO TRUE MAN.
You can try the meme game but yall won't win the theological game
Honestly as someone that was born catholic and never even cared about it until his 20s, your channel is an absolute gem, even in its simplicity.
I came to faith only a few months ago and I've been learning so much, I viewed protestants in a bad light since all the lgbt stuff, but I've seen your other videos so now I know what happened.
I will keep learning, so keep posting mate. God bless you :)
I became Orthodox chiefly because of their Atonement Theory which is demonstrably and astonishingly woven throughout scripture. I'd be curious to hear more of your thoughts on that. Also, the Creator/Creation distinction basically exists in Orthodoxy too as the Energies/Essence distinction.
2 Thessalonians 2:15
-Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.
As a physics major, I have to say that a sphere is definitely a better shape than a triangle. Easier to integrate.
As a chemistry major, I have to say that hexagons are the bestagons 😂
as a student, I have to say that a parabola is just an infinitely stretched ellipse.
Excited for kyle to criticize this channel again.
So far so good. Disagreements I'm willing to comment about:
1. The Orthodox Church thinks tradition has an infallible authority. "Infallibility" is a nonsensical category in any human endeavor, even a divine-human endeavor. But as you say, for us the bible is not over the Church. It is an epiphenomenon of tradition.
2. "From conception we are dead in sin; we deserve hell." Your god is psychotic.
3. Anathemas don't send people to hell. They are a disciplinary measure to keep the Church healthy. God judges souls, not us.
I genuinely think, Redeemed Zoomer, that you could have a great future as a Christian intellectual. You could write whole books about this stuff, and they would sell.
Id love to see you do a dedicated video debunking Jehovah's witnesses or mormons. Maybe include like a heresy counter.
Hm today someone suggested I do "Debunking every heresy in 10 minutes" so maybe I'll do that
@@redeemedzoomer6053 do it bro
@@redeemedzoomer6053 Please read Isaiah 63:10, it's the irrefutable proof that the Holy Spirit is a person
I grew up a Jehovah’s Witness and I think that would be an excellent video. A lot to unpack, theologically.
@@yourlocalyoutubecommenter Whatever god you follow that is not the God of the Bible doesn't have the power and presence of the God of the Bible.
You are dropping these videos so fast I have to add them to my watch later 😂
I think the problem most people have with original sin, inherited at conception, is the idea that those who die before reaching the age of accountability are not judged for their rejection of God. It is clear that God has grace for those who are incapable of recognizing their sin and repenting of it, those being children too young to grasp the concept. Those who reject original sin remove this grace, instead replacing it with a degree of righteous innocence before reaching that same age.
In either case, infants are protected until they are capable of willingly rejecting God.
exactly
Nope it is Biblical to say that babies go to hell if they die. They haven't accepted Jesus Christ the Messiah's Free Gift of Eternal Life, and Babies are clearly sinners.
cuz they're applying modern morality to an ancient concept.
The only mischarictarization here was saying that we would complain about it (at least given the comments so far)
Thank you for your thoughtful and careful analysis
An issue I found with your explanation was the Filioque part, saying that the Orthodox accept changes so why not accept the Filioque. The difference is that at the Council of Ephesus any deviation from the creed was condemned. It’s not that we didn’t change because you’re correct there were additions to the creed at the council of Constantinople. The difference is that all later additions were explicitly condemned at an ecumenical council.
Also it was the second council of Nicaea that talked about iconoclasm, not Constantinople. The outcome was making the distinction between veneration and worship. I like your videos but there’s just a lot of inaccuracies.
Trent Horn points out that the proclamation of the Council of Ephesus actually said deviation from the creed was condemned, with the only exception being if the change was necessary to refute heresy through making a clarification
I think the verse about knowing them by their fruit only applies to individuals, not organizations. For example Methodists might show fruit, which might show that that person is a true christian, but doesn't mean that their doctrines are correct. Orthodox don't believe that it is impossible to be a christian outside of their church, at least in the modern world
One way to look at it is; If someone is part of a organization with poor doctrine can they still be saved? Of course.
I think an even easier way of looking at it is; Would EVERYONE from an organization with accurate doctrine be saved? Of course not, it depends on each person in the organization accepting Christ. Judas demonstrates even someone learning at the feet of Christ and engaging in his ministries can be unsaved, how much more so someone in any contemporary church?
This is an excellent insight. Jesus was distinguishing between individuals who are wolves in sheep's clothing and who are genuine servants of God. He wasn't saying "any organization that does good things is part of my Church." That said, I do personally hold to the Reformers' view that the Roman and Eastern institutions are, generally, genuine members of the body of Christ.
Though I am Antiochian Orthodox and believe heavily within the Church, Zoomer makes a lot of good points that honestly should be discussed more in the Church. Its often an echo chamber in our church, we often isolate ourselves and don't listen to outsiders. I might be wrong according to my church for saying this but I think ecumenism and respect should be embraced and shared with far more Protestants and not just Catholics. While I am guilty myself of looking down on most Protestants and looking to the Latins as semi-equals, this video and channel as a whole as genuinely changed some parts of my outlook. I'm so very glad that this channel exists and that Zoomer is brave enough to keep posting in spite of the system wanting to keep these kind of talks on the down low. God Bless you, Zoomer, and I'm glad to know I have Brothers in Christ like you.
Amen
As a Protestant, I disagree on what you said. Because what ecumenism does, it waters down and simplifies what each of the churches actually teach. When the Patriarch of Constantinople received a Lutheran mission in the 17th and subsequently the Synod of Jerusalem was held, they didn't call them "Brothers in Christ" but denounced them as heretics. And us Protestants shouldn't have a problem with that, because so the Catholics and so do the Oriental Orthodox denounce all Chalcedonians as heretics. What I agree on though, is the lack of charity and pride some EO members show. Like say your anathemas in Church on the days you have to, but there's no need to insult, belittle and make fun of the other "branches" of Christianity, especially when it happens online.
"orthodoxy bad bc echo chamber" I'd rather be an echo chamber than turn into a mockery of Christ's Church, like some protestants and catholics have.
@@crasnicul3371 Exactly! Amen! Though, maybe it's time for the orthodox churches to expand and make new converts!!!
@@orrorsaness5942 plenty of recent converts to Orthodoxy in the west over the last few years.
As a Lutheran, yes, we know the EO doesn't have mutual feelings lol
I am myself Protestant. I do not confine myself to a denomination whereas I moreso allow my mind to conform to the teachings within the Bible and using commentaries when necessary. I have had a fair amount of discussions with EO members and I have found quite a few problems within the dogmas itself. The biggest one of course would be sola Fide (faith alone). The EO members that I have spoken with have all stated that it is faith and works despite clear verses from Jesus stating otherwise on the topic of justification.
@@arlkai9884 Sola Fide is nowhere in the Bible or Church Fathers.
Our doctrine on Justification by Faith is by FAITH, not by FAITH ALONE. Works, especially good works which glorify God, are a part of faith. The idea that you are justified by simple intellectual belief is heretical and is exactly what James is speaking against in his epistle. Both faith and works are two sides of the same coin and not some dialectic where we must keep one and reject the other. You're better off reading our official catechetical books or speaking to an actual priest.
@@awake3083 Sola Fide is most certainly within the Bible. You’re not going to find the exact words but you’ll see it within John 3:14-16 and Ephesians 2:8-9.
If the doctrine on justification is that it is by faith then that’s faith alone. Say I’m on my death bed (and that I didn’t believe) and I then have a genuine confession of faith in Yahweh and the work that was done through the Son. Would I be saved with that genuine belief and profession? The answer is yes. That’s faith alone. We are saved by faith alone but faith is never alone. It always comes with works. There’s no certain number of works that makes me accrue more of God’s grace. And this is where James 2 comes in, as James 2 is moreso talking about the profession of faith without having works (James 2:14). Meaning not a true faith. If someone says they have faith yet they have never done a good work. Are they saved? We could probably conclude that they are not saved and just are professing without truly believing. Can a faith that is merely just a profession without any possession save? Of course not. James speaks on kinds of faith. He’s not talking about whether or not we are saved by faith alone or faith plus works. The whole chapter is about whether dead faith saves or living faith saves. The justification that James talks about is moreso a vindication. This is shown through context of when it’s speaking about Abraham.
Sorry this is quite lengthy however I hope the message meets you well.
@@arlkai9884 To put it in specific terms, if prior to claiming to be saved i get high every day, have sex with a different girl every night, get drunk on the weekend from partying, and then i claim to be saved one day, but i continue to have literally the exact same life style, well then can it even be faith? Maybe I fall back into it in moments of weakness, but ultimately there should be a CHANGE somewhere. There should be evidence of salvation, even if its slow and takes time to remove all the rubbish from your life. This is more or less how ive understood it.
@@awake3083We can agree faith, without works, is dead. No one is saved by faith while in unrepentant sin and selfishness. Where we differ is the effect of works in our justification. As just stated, faith without works is dead, yet works do not lead to life. Works are merely the product of our living faith.
A living faith will naturally produce good works. A dead faith does not produce works and is in a condemned condition; not because of lack of works, but because the lack of works reflect an inner unrepentance and unfaithfulness.
This is how we Protestants understand James. James is not saying works contribute to salvation but rather they flow out of a saved state. You can tell fake Christians by their lack of producing fruit.
"God allows sin because defeating sin Glorifies God"
So God allows a man to murder children so he may garner praise when he strikes down a killer?
IDK fam, Calvin's god sounds petty and arrogant when you stop to think about it.
Not a Calvinist but lemme take a crack at it as I guess I have somewhat similar leanings;
All exists for the glory of God, The problem most have with evil and suffering is not realizing or accepting how temporary it is.
People are given their entire lives to choose to enter the kingdom, some exceptionally wicked people are even given especially long lives to repent. All of the horror they inflict on the people of the world is akin to kindergarteners bullying one another out of the sandbox, in the scope and scale of eternity.
When His judgement falls on them, they will forever exist in a separated state that I expect is akin to Lazarus and the rich man, demonstrating what apartness from God looks like. And it will only have been the result of their own decisions.
Not only do you live in Paradise but you can clearly see the alternative. There are even further implications;
* God is so mighty he allowed Rebels, even spirits to turn against him. His power was never in question, they were always only ALLOWED to exist.
* His mercy is so great that he gave people their entire lives and Satan was allowed to roam until the very end of days and only destroyed when he directly attacks God.
* His wisdom is so unfathomable that all of this was planned from the beginning.
God allows bad things to happen ti test if we will still have faith and love god and if we do we will get rewarded. Job lost everything but he still had faith and loved god and he got double what he had back.
There’s still free will but bad things happen to test our faith
Your argument becomes valid if the entire book of Job didn't exist in the Bible. There's nothing petty or arrogant about it. This is a very atheistic way of looking at things. Not fully understanding that God's sovereignty and control over all things nullifies all the evil that happens to His children and reducing it to being a cosmic bet. God will allow bad things to happen to good people (Read Ecclesiastes) but it's always for a purpose, and despite all this He will punish the evil doers. No one gets away with anything in the end.
@@choicemeatrandy6572 Job's suffering was not a test for Job because God knew he would not forsake him regardless of how bad things got. And the tragedies Job suffered were blatantly spiritual in origin so it's not even close to the example I gave.
According to Calvin's logic, God is responsible and allows baby killers to practice their practice just to Garner praise that is guaranteed. John Calvin's God sounds evil.
@@TwilightBinder Wait did you just say that Job's sufferings were spiritual? What does that even mean? His children died and he got sick, what's spiritual about that?
_"God is responsible"_
No He isnt. Unless you want to agree with Job's wife which is how you sound like every time you misrepresent this doctrine.
Mormons have a lot of fruit in Utah. I think that’s the issue with only relying on fruit to determine the true church
It's not in the name of the true God tho
@@redeemedzoomer6053to them it is
@@redeemedzoomer6053 there are Trinitarian Mormons tho
@@grigorykurapov6502 if they are trinitarian they won't be Mormon
@@DCUEmp_prinzythere are different Mormon traditions not just the church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. “Mormon” is just anyone who believes in the Book of Mormon
From the Orthodox standpoint, we would definitely see Catholics and Protestants as two sides of the same coin.
Videos like these really allow me to think more deeply from all different perspectives. Thanks for this
To the point of orthodox valuing mystery, even though im a Baptist, I really value that because the problem I have with alot of theology is that we are ordering something with a western and greek mindset that is very eastern and Jewish and beyond comprehension. We need to be more humble and recognize the mystery of Christ and how God cannot be truly systematized.
This video helped me realize I'm hardcore orthodox, because of the explanation of the doctrine on sin. So thank you for that
Also, I'd like to make a statement about the icons. If we look back to the period of Eikonomachia, the church took a very reasonable position. It showed the fallacy of the iconoclasts, who where inspired by Arian, on the concept of picturing God. But it also condemned the faithful who thought that the icon as of wood and paint is somehow "holy". I really don't get why the icons are seen as "pagan" in other Christian traditions. May Christ illuminate as all 🙏
And I' d like to thank you zoomer about your work. In orthodox majority countries, there never is a discussion of protestant traditions. They are sometimes seen as the same thing which frankly is not the case. You really help me understand the differences between Protestant heterodoxies. Keep it up 😉
it is often vice versa, since early childhood we're only taught certain stereotypes and prejudices of other denominations, yet we never get a consistent explanation of each others' beliefs, so the only option is to educate ourselves in the end
they literally march around parading icons and statues of christ/mary/saints. you know what other group of people do that? hindus.
@@asto5767 I didn't know that hindus respect the MOTHER OF GOD, Saints of Christ and believe in and WORSHIP JESUS CHRIST :D Thanks for the notification and new knowledge.
@@Slikarxxx yeah they do in a pagan way. no where in the scriptures is it implied to refer to Mary as the mother of God. It's just another case of Catholics delving too far into Mary worship because they think that'll decrease their time in purgatory. Your version of Christianity is a minigame.
Orthodoxy does not believe that you are gonna burn in eternal fire, we believe that you are just gonna be separated from god
Ohhh. Now I see. The entities not being visible when they're a bit away from you is server-side. Thank God. I've been driving myself insane trying to figure out if it's one of my FPS-improving mods doing sneaky entity culling without my say-so.
Where is the verse about the Apostles and the other people? It would be very useful in arguments.
Icon veneration has always been a part of the early church.. Dura Europos?
And Redeemed Zoomer never said otherwise.
Icon veneration didn’t become a dogma until Nicea II
@@orrorsaness5942 Redeemed literally said it wasn't a thing in the early church unless you didn't watch the full video.
@@YourBoyJohnny94 Icon veneration has been a thing for a very long time, the purpose of the 7th Council was to combat against the iconoclasts. It defined and defended the usage of icons as they were an ancient practice.
@@awake3083 amen 🙏
Church is older than a scripture. There was a structure, hierarchy before the Bible was written. Tradition is one of the most important part of Christianity it reflects on the unity of believers and nation as a whole. I am Serbian orthodox, we are very religious nation and the only thing that saved us from the Ottoman/Austrian occupation and force converting and communism is tradition of Christian practices!
Tako je pravoslavni brate pozdrav iz pravoslavne hrvatske ☦️
The problem is that church fathers are still human and will disagree with other church fathers, so who would one follow?
The one who aligns to scripture.
The scripture are oral traditions, letters and books we best know are inspired and compiled.
2 Timothy 3:16
16 All Scripture is inspired by God[b] and is profitable for teaching, for rebuking, for correcting, for training in righteousness,
17 so that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.
@@kriegjaeger wrong, we appeal to the teachings of the church fathers which the church and ecumenical councils have always supported and accepted.
@@seankearns2903 I see.
@@seankearns2903
So you would reject scripture where a church father disagrees? 🤔
Hadn't considered the slum dunk issue and taking it into modern context, it's a great point! And knowing them by their fruits.
Exactly why I appreciate listening to and reading from other trinitarian traditions and why I still find zero leading to leave my own.
As an Orthodox catechumen I am glad you omitted your "Protestant work ethic" critique from the last video. You're also not wrong about how the one true church idea had me torn between Orthodoxy and Catholicism. God be with you on your Reconquista!
I would like to hear your thoughts about when the end comes and jesus turns those away even though they claimed to cast out demons in Jesus's name. The "i never knew you" bit.
If they are ACTUALLY casting out demons in the name of Christ, it means they have faith in Christ and if they have faith in Christ, they are saved.
@@pedroguimaraes6094if you have true faith in Christ then you cannot be plucked from Gods hand. The verse is referring to those that thought they were doing services for God, but were not.
The Trinity can be represented as a triangle with or without the filioque. Just because the Spirit does not proceed from the Son does not mean the Son is disconnected from the Spirit.
I like to think of the representation of the Trinity without the filioque as a standard triangle, with the Father on top. Whereas the Trinity with the filioque would be an inverted triangle, with the Spirit on the bottom.
I'm a bit more relieved and happy that we can find unity in the church. It was always so
Troubling.
As an evangelical Egyptian where the majority are Orthodox I agree with the video
I've been told countless of times that I was not a true Christian. but I am glad there's what I can call some reformed orthodox now, they understand that yes we value traditions but other denominations are also valid as us
I heard a sermon before about why don't we just make a one true church? and it said god is like a friend in a group each one of us understand a part of his personality because we can't fully comprehend him, so how do we know more about god? we talk to the other people in the group who interacted with him to understand the part of his personality that they know, and that's how we build a more comprehensive understanding of God. I hope it makes sense English is not my first language. I still pray for Egypt that god will do wonders here with its people
Reformed orthodoxy in Egypt? That’s awesome. I’ll pray for that movement too. Egypt was once a Cradle of the early church - and God can make that so again.
@@erc9468 I believe God will make an alter to him in the middle of Egypt ❤️ I already see the work of God in churches here
Regarding Mark 9:38-41, St Theophan addressed this.
“They were permitted to work miracles because the lord wished to spread abroad his preaching even by means of those who were unworthy.”
“He who is not against us, is for us” speaks of men working miracles that may lead others to Christ. How is this possible? Well Matthew 7:22 -23 says “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.”
Further along into the video now, this also refutes “you will know them by their fruits”.
My dude literally I have been blown when I first saw that verse when randomly reading the New Testament. Also I believe that the one church organisations idea forms primarily form the Roman churches (east orthodox, catholic) as they have Roman cultural ideas of unity within them as they both developed in Roman cultural centres.
Have you been to an Orthodox Church yet outside of minecraft? It would do you a lot of good from a historical and theological perspective to do so.
He doesn't want to know the history or how the Church was created or anything, but he wants to have his own personal thoughts about God.And maybe start another Church since they're all obviously bullshit :D
@@Slikarxxx no need to curse
@@TW-fs3fj I'm not cursing someone, I'm saying that he thinks it's everting bullshit except his personal thinking about God
@@Slikarxxx What does Paul say about obscenities?
@@TW-fs3fj tell me, since I see that you have studied the Bible and know it better than anyone, people don't shit or pee and they don't have dicks and cunts, it is obviously a shame and it is not a shame to say that you know God better than the apostles and saints and all people ever in history, like this very confused young man in video.
Ultimately, I am with you on the idea of the invisible church, and I believe that all the different denominations and sects of Christianity for the most part as you mentioned, not the Jehovah’s Witness or Mormons or other Judaizers. I believe this is all part of God’s providence.
I'm of the same mind, dirty ecumenicalist that I guess I am.
17:00 I have talked with some orthodox people who say that the filioque is right theologically but still the Nicene creed shouldn't have been altered in order to add it. Maybe I talked with some weird orthodox-s, but it could also be related to how the Orthodox Church is very decentralized, idk
No that is not the orthodox teaching
Thats is definitely not the teaching of the Church. Heavy condemned by the Pillars of Orthodoxy
You said, "God allowed sin to be glorified" but since Calvinism teaches that God literally determines everything so you should have said, "God determined sin to happen so that He is glorified in defeating it" which makes no logical sense...God is most glorified in defeating what He Himself determined? Calvinism is unbiblical nonsense.
I disagree with the theological points made here but I very much agree with the problem of practice in the form of the perceived infallibility of the Orthodox Church. There's a fine line to ride between virtuous obedience and slavery. I think internal scrutiny should be observed by the church fathers, as well as openness to new members of clergy (albeit adhering to strict guidelines) so as to keep the institution accountable and governed. The church is a living thing, and within it, growths have to be controlled and sometimes cut in order to prevent a cancer from taking root.
Genuine question from an actual orthodox Christian, what do you define as “idolizing our church” you provide no elaboration or examples on this point, and while I think you have a point, I’d like to understand exactly what you are referring to. Also your point immediately after on our doctrine of sin being a reason for “idolizing the church” is utterly befuddling to me, as I see no correlation. Other than that I think you have done an ok job representing the orthodox faith, even if we disagree on a lot of your conclusions.
I am also Orthodox but I think he has a point here. Our church tradition is wonderful, but the reason why is because it leads us to Christ. When you have people start talking about church tradition separately from theological truth it becomes a problem.
@@harrygarris6921 This
_what do you define as “idolizing our church”_
Saying that you're the only one true church lol
@@choicemeatrandy6572 Don't get jealous that your heretical faith started 100 years ago
@@choicemeatrandy6572 awful explanation. Asserting that we are a part of the One True Church is not idolizing, its stating a fact.
Orthodox here, thank you for revising your old video cause it was admittedly quite poor.
I watched a luteran pastor talking with an orthodox priest, who explained the issue with the pope declaring the filioque, and why it is so much worse than the declarations made at the councils. He explained that the orthodox church holds the belief that while yes, clarifications and theology can change over time, they are only legitimate when done through group consensus, which is fueled by the holy spirit, and you can't trust the word of any single man or group to change things because it is not through the word of god/spirit of christ
Great video man I really appreciate the hard work and effort put into making it but I would like to address a few things from an orthodox perspective
~4:00 when you talk about you not believing in the true church as an organisation this is begging the question because it's assuming your presuppositions in that the church is only spiritual. When you say the church is all of the believers that's true but its missing the point that words can have more than 1 meaning (word concept fallacy) and that in a similar fashion to how God can be referring to either / and / or / both concerning Father, Son, Holy Spirit, Nature of God, etc it is similarly applied to the church because we don't get ourselves into the false dichotomy of the church being EITHER purely spiritual OR the "bodies" / church goers themselves.
By saying you're "baptised" into Christ is also question begging due to the fact you're assuming you're actually being baptized even though your church has no apostolic succession. Even though you believe in the Nicene creed you fail to realise that if you reason about it in a chronologically true fashion, that church the creed was referring to was our church the Orthodox church. You say that it doesn't need to be an organisation but fail to realise all it actually means is that we're "organised". How so? In terms of the structure of the church outlined in the Book of Acts when the Apostles outlined how they would organise Christ's church. The reason Jesus Christ tells his followers it's okay for the ones not explicitly apart of the church to be "okay" is because we should have mercy for the heterodox that assuming they keep following Jesus they are FURTHER led to him. This is why it's okay, because the implication is that truth leads to TRUTH and Jesus is the capital truth. 🥰
~6:50 this really isnt an argument, as the point still remains that we have an actual lineage to the founding church that was founded by God through Christ and you don't. unfortunately your presuppositions of what the church is, are flawed as I mentioned above. When The Lord told us we will know them by their fruit this was a reference to false prophets so this is a non-sequitar. You using John afterwards is a false dichotomy because it's excluding the fact that we believe it's BOTH who has the true doctrine AND who is a part of the True Orthodox Church😁
~7:00 the reason this is a bad argument is because it's a false dichotomy between truth and tradition. If you correctly understood The Lord's criticism of the Pharisees, it wasn't due to the fact they were somehow bad because somehow tradition was bad. Rather it was the fact that they themselves as people were corrupted by Worldly things and were a bad example. The reason why that's bad is because Priests are essentially the image of Christ on this earth, and are the closest physical manifestation of his example and goodness. The fact that they weren't exemplifying the goodness of God whilst being leaders was a contradiction due to the fact it harms the nous of a person and leads them away from The Lord and his church (because it casts doubt in their heart and leads people to fallaciously argue why would God allow such a thing? Even though the existence of evil presupposes in God's goodness or it would be incoherent)😃
8:29 once again this is a false dichotomy. Before I dive further in, I should just add the fact that because certain orthodox people believe in certain things and give of sentiment, it doesn't logically follow that the sentiment you received from them is the dogmatic truth. Now, concerning the question at hand, we don't fall into the trap of false dialectics, and we appropriately believe in both scripture and tradition. If you want to argue but isn't tradition just the word of man? My brother in Christ the Book we both love the holy bible is the Word of God written *by the word of man* or in other words it's a form of man's interpretation of the events that took place of the Messiah. When you understand this, you will realise there's no need to fear the word of man because our Lord and Saviour is ultimately the author of it and he preserves it 😊
with all respect bro like what I was saying before, the poeple who believe this aren't correct and the church doesn't affirm "tradition is infallible" that would be a straw man. How we see it is more like this: The church is a living house. it is quite literally God's house and we are also called to be builders and help build the house that God has called us to build (his church, which I should add also means people because it's both a house and the people of the house). With this belief, the "tradition" becomes quite literally the embodiment of the members of God's house help their Heavenly Father create and do things in his home which is the prototype of the Kingdom to come which is the next life at the Final Judgement! 😮
8:50 the reason they say that is because it's true! The initial purpose of the Gospel was actually for liturgical purposes. Imagine like your parents telling you stories of their youth. The Living Church tells "stories" of their Lord and Saviour. Those stories are the "truth" experienced by the 4 authors of the Gospels. The reason why I quote and unquote truth is not due to fact that it's not true, rather due to the fact it was the real experience of real people in real history.
8:57 that is how you discern a false prophet like muhummad
9:00 my brother whilst it is correct that we can see the True Good works of The Holy Spirit throughout history and creation which acts as a personal testament of God's goodness, this is due in my opinion more so due to the Mercy and Love of God on all his children. Just like a Father has so much love for a disobedient son, and still loves him and gives him good things, so too does our Heavenly Father! 😊
9:40 with all due respect when it comes to The Church, Jesus Christ only established 1 true one, and Satan has brought forth the rest due to his wickedness in pulling the strings of our heart and tempting us to stray away from the one true Church, the Holy Orthodox Church. I'm not saying your church is inherently evil, rather I'm saying that he has used the principle of inversion to subvert true Christianity and to trick you into not following your heart to the truth my brother! He takes what is good such as a strong and genuine belief in our Lord and tries to turn it on its head. Don't fall for his tricks. If I could advise you, please come to an Orthodox Church for a few weeks and trust me when I say when you finally see the truth for what it is, you won't want to return to a watered down Christianity! (If God wills it!)
10:00 very true brother, this is the case with not you! You're a truth seeker I can tell that much, but it's true of your chuch😢
The orthodox church is very open about "mistakes" but it must be understood in the correct context of mistakes made NOT by the Church, but rather by it's adherents instead 😅
Also what you said concerning the doctrine of sin presupposes that you have "correct" doctrine in the first place which is question begging. I'm not doubting that it has some true notions and beliefs, and that you guys aren't right in being critical of yourselves, so please forgive me if any of this comes across as arrogant I'm a simple man just as yourself bro! 👍
My brother please forgive me! I'm getting tired and I feel it's appropriate for me to continue another day! May our Holy Lord and our Triune God be with you now and forevermore! God bless you and thank you to the soul who took their time to read the writings of a simple fool for Christ☦️☦️☦️
tsmt
@@bigger_mibber6029 forgive me for my ignorance brother but what does that mean?
@@EcclesiaSS should be "thank you so much"
@@su1t0n11 Thank you! God bless! ☦
What we really we need is a “Why I’m not Lutheran” video!
We have it. It's looooooooong
I am 90% sure he already did that one.
It is a bit old but here is the video for you!
(ua-cam.com/video/w601lEat7x0/v-deo.html)
@@PeccatorSpePlenus thanks, I didn’t know that!
he's not a poopsicle.
The New Testament presents one church in many places. That is the Biblical picture. They shared letters. Visible unity. The book of Acts shows it explicitly in Acts 15. The example of those outsiders casting out demons is more how the true church should treat sincere outsiders. You were totally correct about the Pharisees who had the authority but you just neglected the fact that Our Lord promised to take away their authority. At one point he told his disciples to *do whatever they tell you to do* but do not do what they do. Whatever is a big scope.
I love this! I read that scripture too and it has released my judgement of other denominations. God moves where He wants to move 🙏🏽
@@zeenkosis I am Catholic and I don't see it detracting from our strong claims to a visible church. That is my point. Just because we hold to a higher standard of doctrine and unity doesn't mean we act as if God doesn't work amongst those not visibly with us. Nor does it preclude us from stating that we truly are the church started by his apostles.
@@jackdaw6359 The Protestant wording "invisible Church" is misleading because to most people it makes it sound like we believe the Church is just a scattered and separate entity not meant to be united in communication or authourity like the early Church was. This concept is not Scriptural, and niether is it held by most of the Reformed tradition to my knowledge.
The Reformed idea of the Church is that it is to be truly united, not by an earthly institution of divinely-ordained human authourity but rather by what Paul called its "foundation:" the Apostles and the Prophets, that is, the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments. I realize that Romanizers will say the Bible isn't a solid foundation because people disagree about what it really means. However, I'm of the view that most (though not all) supposed Scriptural "ambiguities" stem from the fact that it's in many people's best interest to misunderstand the text, not from an inherent lack of clarity in the text itself. The fact that many are unwilling to submit to the clear teachings of Scripture and eagerly lead it through a tortured and twisted lens should speak more to capacity of mankind for deceit and hypocrisy than the supposed insufficiency of God's law.
Catholics don’t believe in Total Depravity but we do believe that it’s impossible to come to Faith without the grace of God.
Redeemed Zoomer vs Jay Dyer debate when?
I like him in some respects, and I've learned a good deal from him, but pardon my French, he's kind of an arrogant prick sometimes. He very much exemplifies the video's comments on Orthobros' thoughts on other traditions, and ai feel like he doesn't always present other people's ideas in good faith. Someone like Jonathan Pageau is a far more personable and charitable conversationalist on the Orthodox side of things in my experience. (Not everything needs to he a debate. You'll find a lot greater understanding and growth from just having a discussion.) He's definitely worth learning from, but what I understand of his general attitude toward anyone who dares to disagree with him greatly lowers him in my estimation. Great presenter of ideas, but not very good for dialog imo.
Question regarding double procession/spiration. Couldn't there be a difference between procession of the Holy Spirit from the divine hypostasis of the pre-incarnate Word and the procession of the composite hypostasis after the incarnation? Like, wouldn't the procession of the Holy Spirit somehow conceptually change when there is a composite hypostasis with the human nature versus when there is a divine hypostasis with only the divine nature in it?
The procession of the Holy Spirit from A font within the Godhead is an eternal axiom, unbound by time. The Godhead, being perfect, is immutable. Nothing that already was a fact about the Godhead can change, I don't reckon. If you believe in double procession, then the Holy Spirit has, is, and will proceed from the Father and the Logos, or the divine nature of Christ. Since the human nature is non-eternal, it was not a factor in the timeless manifestation of the Trinity as They exist. Since the inherent qualities of the Godhead are immutable, the addition of the human nature to the divine nature in the hypostatic union of Christ cannot change the qualities of the divine nature, which already exists within the Godhead. Thus, since the human nature was not present at the effection of the procession, nor could change the qualities of that from which the Holy Spirit proceeds, i.e. the Logos, as the natures of Christ are "unmixed and unconfused", I do not think it can be argued that the procession changed at the incarnation, which happened within the bounds of time.
@@apalsnerg But the Holy Spirit doesn't proceed from the divine nature, it proceeds from the divine hypostasis. Because if the Spirit proceeded from the divine nature which all three hypostases possess, the Spirit would eternally generate itself. Even if one believes in single procession, the procession is not from the divine nature but from the divine hypostasis of the Father. When you refer to Father or Son you're referring to the divine hypostases not to the divine nature hypostatized in them. Thus when speaking of procession from the Word/Son, the Spirit would eternally proceed from the divine hypostasis of the Word/Son not from the abstract divine nature, because there is no abstract nature, divine or human, that isn't actually in a hypostasis. Assuming this understanding of the Trinity and the procession therein, I wonder if the incarnation couldn't affect or conceptually somehow change the procession from the Word/Son, since now the procession is not from an incomposite hypostasis but from a composite hypostasis with the divine and the human nature unconfused in it. And although the hypostasis is still divine and not human or a hybrid after the incarnation, since it is the very same hypostasis of the Word, the hypostasis is nonetheless composite regarding the natures. And although the divine nature hasn't changed, there is still some sort of a change in the divine hypostasis since there isn't merely one nature in it anymore but two natures. So it's still the very same hypostasis from which the Spirit could proceed, but nonetheless regarding the natures there is an addition of the human nature. So what I'm asking is, if this addition couldn't somehow conceptually affect the procession, since the hypostasis from which the Spirit proceeds isn't only a divine hypostasis but also a composite hypostasis. And couldn't somehow the incarnation and its possible implications "disprove" the doctrine of double procession, since the Fathers hypostasis is still incomposite while the Sons is now composite.
26:26 um isn't that Idolatry? What makes jissing the image or statue of the Virgin Mary different then kissing the statue of the mother goddess from Buddhism?
Loved hearing your thoughts zoomer, thank you for the video . God bless you and your family
Nice video, also I died laughing when I saw “the Catholics are sending zombies after me” in the chat 15:59
As an Orthodox, we believe that the Holy Tradition is of equal value to the Word. They compliment each other - it's not one or the other.
I don’t believe in original sin, but I believe that it is our very nature to sin, so we will sin inevitably.
That’s original sin and it’s unbiblical. We are prone to sin as a result of the fall, but our nature as human beings or imagers of God is still true and pure.
@@justchilling704 yes we are still the images of God and sin came into the world through Adam, as stated by Paul. The notion original sin to me is more like we are sinned before being born.
@@babai08_ Actually you’re right. It’s literally inherited guilt. My mistake lol. But yeah pretty sure the story of the blind man in John completely refuted original sin at the least in principle. Not to mentioned others scriptures.
@@justchilling704 all good brother, peace be with you.
@@babai08_ And you as well God bless.
It's amazing to be acknowledged by Redeemed Zoomer. I felt incredibly excited when I saw our Ethiopian flag, and I was astonished that you not only know our language but also interesting things about it, and you found the church it impressive! Wow, this is the best thing ever.
God bless! P.S. I think the Ethiopian church does have the Ark
@@redeemedzoomer6053 Bruh, I'm blushing. 🤩🤩🤩
Matthew 7:21-23
21 “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. 22 Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name and in your name drive out demons and in your name perform many miracles?’ 23 Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!’
8:51
This is something people stress about a lot but the letters of John explain what your life looks like if you are saved. I think Matthew 7:21 largely applies to people like Judas and early 'church' fathers who rejected the apostles and even persecuted them and others who didn't subject themselves to his church. I need to do more work on memorization, I recall an epistle specifically relates this problem.
Like the Rich Young Ruler, many will SAY they served Christ but truly in their hearts only served themselves.
Except the basis for dismissing such people was not whether or not they attended the sake building or institution as you. The difference between the sheep and the Goats is that the sheep lived a life extending love to their fellow man. "Where were you when I was thirsty, sick, hungry, or in prieon?"
You have helped strengthened my faith in ways I have prayed for for years. The Holy Spirit is truly working through you at times in your videos.
We Orthodox believe (or maybe I should say we know or actually everbody knows) that NOT everything is in the scriptures. Jesus' life was much longer than the new testament. The scripture is holy but there was a thing called The Oral Tradition in the early church. That's why we value tradition the most.
Exactly. thats why the “”if its not in the bible its not a tradition”” is a r*tarded argument.
I find these videos hilarious because people around me think I’m watching a Minecraft let’s play when I’m really listening to why some guy is not Orthodox
Bro. This was a treat on father's day that I didn't know I needed...my late father would try explain to me why I need to embrace Calvinism while we were playing boardgames...got to experience some of those vibes again.
Great and concise info in here..much appreciated.
Don't hate on the skinny jeans! We might just wear Crocs in heaven 😂
Calvinism is heretical. Predestination does not mean no free will. Calvinism states that some are damned from the start, which is the antithesis of a loving God.
@@Iliadicall are damned from the start. You can only be saved by God's grace. I am not a Calvinist but that is a bad way to try disprove Calvinism
@@Iliadic You have free will....Free will to sin. You can't simply decide to live sinlessly. So this dunk on calvinism is pretty weird cause it asserts that humans have the ability to do something they manifestly cannot do.
@@choicemeatrandy6572 But you have the free will to try. To say that some are "elect" to be saved is the antithesis to stating God's love, which, and I quote "Does not insist on it's own way."
@@Iliadic Free will to try? What? What's the point of saying you have free will when you can't use that free will to NOT sin? The Bible says the soul that sins will die and that anyone who sins is a slave to sin. This idea of "free will" that lots of anti-Calvinists have is manifestly not found in the Bible.
_elect_
Unless you believe that no one will go to hell and are a universalist, then you have to contend with the fact that God did create people knowing full well that they would end up damned for eternity.
A lot of issues here Redeemed Zoomer. I'll touch on two, for brevity's sake: the Procession of the Spirit & Theosis
1) The Orthodox doctrine of the procession of the Spirit is divided into 3 categories: hypostatic procession, eternal manifestation, and economic procesion.
Hypostatic procession refers to the ad intra reality of the Father being the sole cause of the spiration of the hypostasis of the spirit.
Eternal Manifestation refers to the ad intra reality of the Spirit resting in the Son, making him the Son's Spirit.
Economic procession refers to the ad extra reality of the procession of the Spirit into creation, from the father and through the Son.
This has nothing to do with the false dichotomy of "scripture vs tradition", instead it's about understanding the particular sense in which scripture mentions the Son sending his Spirit.
2) The Orthodox doctrine of Theosis is NOT that we participate in the divine essence, Theosis is the co-operation with God and the indwelling of the Spirit through divine actuality. Orthodox teach the distinction between essence & actuality (essence-energy distinction). Only the Trinity partake of the divine essence, but we as creatures are able to, by grace, participate in God through his divine activities which are always done by the divine persons.
There's a lot more inaccuracies that I could cover from this video, but I'll leave it here because this comment is already way too long.
Best
Amen ☦
What do you exactly mean by "eternal manifestation", is it the same as perichoresis? Also, Photios categorically denied any procession of the Spirit through the Son, so how does the EO church believe in it, when Photios was the first and principle opposer of double spiration?
@@dvinb Yes, it's related to perichoiris and how all of the divine attributes are common among all the divine persons.
Photios wrote concerning hypostatic procession, which as stated before, the son has no role in the spiration of the Spirit's hypostasis.
@@SudoDama Amen ☦
Every church has its flaws. The Eastern Orthodox Church does, what you have mentioned. The Catholic Church was contradicting itself because Pope Leo III said that whoever changes the Creed should be put on the same level as Judas. The Protestant Churches are also not 100% accurate with their teachings. An example would be the hiring lesbian bishops (church of England) and them removing crosses to install Muslim prayer spaces. As you clarified, the people will be known by their fruits, and not because they are Greek Orthodox or Roman Catholic.
Another huge problem with the Eastern Orthodox Church is that they don’t believe in Substitutionary Atonement. They don’t believe that Christ took the punishment for our sins when He died on the cross. Obviously that’s closely related to denial of original sin, but I think Substitutionary Atonement is an even more important doctrine. I’d recommend the video “A Protestant learns about Eastern Orthodoxy” by Matt Whitman to see an Orthodox priest articulate their view of Atonement.
Totally different direction from your point of comment. But I would like you to please tell me, if you know, how I can learn more about the early church history. Thank you very much love from India
+Captain Needa Reformed tradition actually believes that Christ was literally damned on the cross by God the Father's infinite wrath, so ofc we don't believe that Demonic teaching which either leads us to divising the Trinity or affirming Nestorian Theology.
Problem with Protestantiam is that it starts by asking "How am I saved?" And the reaches Chriatology and Triadology, i.e. doesn't start by asking "Who is God?".
We, the Orthodox, start our order of Theology with Triadology and Christology and after that, that dictates our Anthropology and Soteriology. You just have it upside down.
+Captain Needa And we actually believe in penalty substitution, but in an Orthodox sense: ua-cam.com/video/ra8wgXvCMtw/v-deo.html
Substitutionary Atonement is a heresy that splits the Trinity.
@@MaximusOrthodox Substitutionary atonement doesn't equal penal substitution theory. In substitutionary atonement the Son isn't punished by the Father, it just states that "Christ died for our sins". So, no, from my understanding, substitutionary atonement does not split the Trinity.
The miracles in the Orthodox church are amazing. We have hermits living in the mountains or deserts that are so gifted by the Holy Spirit they see you and tell your name and the life. I will never give up my Orthodoxy.
There's Pentecostals that have these gifts too. God's mercy is for everyone unironically
Oriental Orthodoxy doesn't support Miaphysitism. I listened to an Oriental Orthodox priest(?) on Matt Whitman's channel explain that the whole controversy was a gigantic misunderstanding based on what it was they were saying about Christ's true nature. And that they're now cool with EOs lol
Interesting, but I’ve seen both. Some will defend miaphysitism with every cell in their body, and some say they don’t believe it.
@@bobbobb4804 The priest I saw the video on says that Jesus being fully God and fully man is the one nature that they affirm. The main catholic church insisting on two natures were therefore misunderstanding them.
@@choicemeatrandy6572 "The priest I saw the video on says that Jesus being fully God and fully man is the one nature that they affirm" that's literally what Miaphysitism is. You're thinking about Monophysitism, which is condemned by the Oriental Orthodox church.
@@yunaru3643 ...Yeah I know.
@@choicemeatrandy6572 Oriental Orthodox support miaphysitism. That's their whole idea of Christ