I was born into a Greek Orthodox family, grew up in an RC Convent. At age 26 I was Born again when my nieghbour shared the Gospel and gave me a Bible, 47 years later I am still Protesgant. I would never go back, I love Church History and our rich Christian heritage but the Scriptures are rich in perfect doctrine. Thank you for sharing.
Thank YOU for sharing, Angela. We are encouraged to hear stories like yours. Keep fighting the good fight of faith, and may our Lord bless you abundantly!
Yes, it would suggest the churches have neglected their responsibilities. Which the Orthodox read the Bible on Sunday liturgies. Which a high liturgical church is a worship service which is good. Yet even evangelicals do not teach how to do what the Bible says to do and not do. It all depends on the devotion of the faithful too. Which the more you know about human nature, cause and effect, you'll see where we all are dependent on the grace of God. As well as what evangelicals neglect. But, sincerity means a lot. There's some with an unfounded rigidity that sees things one way rather than in the middle.
@@Noone-rt6pw Belated and highly insufficiently short answer Every Orthodox Christian church I have been to reads and reveres canonized Scripture every Sunday
1. It's impossible to go by scripture and not tradition, when scripture itself is the product of tradition. The Protestant Bible has 66 books, 39 Old Testament, 27 New Testament. Why? Where did they get those specific books in the scriptures? Why is Esther (a completely secular book) in their Bible, but the Didache (an excellent spiritual treatise that was almost included) is left out? If you listen to Protestant apologists, one of the main reasons they give is that the early Church recognized the authority of these books. They say that, because the lack the guts or integrity to just say tradition. When the Bible itself was assembled based on the authority of tradition, it is incongruous to say you go by the Bible, but not tradition. 2. No one, as a fact, goes by scripture. The most they can do is go by their own interpretation of scripture, which is not the same thing at all. Some parts of scripture are clear and easy to understand. There is no way to misinterpret the parts where Jesus says to care for the needy. However, there are other parts that are not clear at all. Even Peter says that some of Paul's writings are hard to understand, and ignorant men twist them (2 Peter 3:15-16). 3. Orthodox do not view the church fathers as in anyway infallible. They were incredibly holy people who had a deep understanding of Christ and scripture, and many showed their love for Christ by the scars on their bodies. However, they did sometimes disagree, and could be in error. What we consider to be infallible are the Ecumenical Councils, where the Holy Spirit guided the entire Church in all truth. Unlike either sola scriptura or papal infallibility, this is taught clearly in scripture (Acts 15). While the Jerusalem Council is not considered one of the seven Ecumenical Councils, it is the prototype for the later councils, and the basis for our belief that this is how God leads His people in truth. 4. Those who claim not to rely on tradition do, in fact have many traditions of their own outside of scripture. I admit, it was hard to watch the video, and see a man wearing a Roman collar telling me how he goes by scripture and not tradition. The biggest man-made tradition Protestants have is sola scriptura itself. Nowhere in the scripture does it teach that any believer can simply sit with the scriptures and come to a full understanding of the truth of Christ. The clear model in scripture is that God gave ministers and teachers to guide believers in the study of the scriptures. The Eunuch that Phillip met on the road, for example, needed Phillip to show him how the prophets spoke of Christ. Sola scriptura IS a man-made, non-biblical tradition. See also other Protestant theologies, such as Dispensationalism. 5. Protestants completely ignore numerous traditions which are clearly contained in scripture, even though they claim to go by scripture. It is incontestable that the early church in the Bible met on Sundays to celebrate the Lord’s Supper and the Risen Christ. Yet, many Protestant churches rarely, if ever, celebrate communion. The celebration of Pentecost was an important event in the early church (Acts 20:16), but Protestants do not celebrate it.
6. His characterization of Orthodox churches as nationalist denominations is simply wrong. The national identities of the churches are organizational, not doctrinal. The Russian Church is under the auspices of the Russian Patriarch, the Greek Church is under the auspices of the Greek Patriarch, etc. These are organizational distinctions, though, and have nothing to do with doctrine. The Russian and the Greek churches believe the same and practice essentially the same. That is completely different than the immense number of doctrinal differences that exist between the 30,000+ Protestant denominations. All Orthodox agree that baptism is for the cleansing of sins, for example, but Protestants can’t agree on something as basic as that. In fact, Luther and Zwingli almost came to blows over the Eucharist within just a few years of the Reformation. The disunity he mentions in Orthodoxy, does unfortunately exist. However, again, it is organizational disagreement, not doctrinal.
1. I never said I wasn't going by tradition. We love tradition at Saint Athanasius. But Traditions vary and conflict with each other, and sometimes with Scripture. So, if a tradition comes into conflict with Scripture, we privilege Scripture over tradition, or rather let Scripture form our Tradition. To frame this as Scripture or Tradition is to address something we don't believe, teach, or practice. 2. Yes, Scripture can be difficult to interpret at times. So what? We don't say otherwise. We don't claim to know what everything in Scripture means. 3. I never said Orthodox viewed the fathers as infallible. 4. Those who claim not to rely on tradition, do. Yes, that's right. We agree. That's why we don't claim not to rely on Tradition. This is an irrelevant point. 5. Another point completely irrelevant to our church. We celebrate the Eucharist every Sunday. We celebrate Pentecost. 6. I would agree with the last point, largely. The distinction between organizational vs. doctrinal unity is useful, and true, and I agree mostly, I don't think it makes me simply wrong. You admit of the disunity in the EO churches. That was my larger point. Not to say it was as doctrinally varied as Protestants.
@@jackshannon777 Therein lies the major problem with this comparison. If you are speaking specifically of your church and your personal views, then I would definitely have to adjust my response. If it is about Protestantism in general, then I will stand by my response. It would be presumptuous of me to respond directly to you or your church, because I don't know you well enough. I would like to expand on the Orthodox view of scripture and tradition, though, because there are common misunderstandings.
We do view scripture as part of tradition, the written tradition. Since the cannon of books is itself tradition, it is hard to deny that. However, that doesn’t mean we hold it in any lower regard than Protestants do (speaking in general, not you specifically). Tradition doesn’t conflict with scripture, because tradition is the means by which we interpret scripture. There is never a case where tradition tells us to do one thing, and scripture tells us another. There are traditions not clearly contained in scripture, but they don’t conflict with it. Most have a clear basis in scripture.
Our actual tradition is what is contained in the creeds and canons of the Ecumenical Councils. We don’t base our tradition off what any one church father, or group of fathers, teach. In the video it was stated that if a priest taught you one thing, and you read another in scripture, you would go by scripture. The difference between your approach and my approach is this. If a priest taught me something that was clearly against scripture, I would report him to the bishop. We have no teachings that contradict the clear parts of scripture. If it was an area of scripture that wasn’t clear, though, I would be hesitant to go with my own opinion, versus the collected wisdom of Christians throughout time who were far closer to the Lord and far holier than I am.
Orthodoxy is not a top-down religion. We are checks and balances. We are episcopal (bishops), conciliar (church counsels), and congregational (laity). They laity are considered just as responsible for guarding the faith as bishops. The priesthood of all believers is a strong teaching in Orthodoxy. Much like with Protestants and their ministers, my priest has a different role than I do, but it is not superior to the role I have. A person who lives a holy life, and is clearly dedicated to Christ, is given as much reverence and respect as any bishop.
This is probably my last post, but I will carefully read any response you have.
I would only add: it would be more ecumenical to use Catholic and orthodox instead of papist and EO. EO might be OK. I understand why you would have a theological objection to that. So I would offer as an alternative the “Latin Church” if you’d like to make it a little easier for curious Catholics to “hear” you.
Apropos of nothing, I would love to watch a video from you about the Filioque. In Gavin Orlandt’s recent debate with an EO priest, he presented what ostensibly appeared to be a strong case that the story of the Filioque controversy was something like “a pretext that transformed into text over time, but not a serious theological division in truth and substance.” Given your work to date, do you think that view is accurate? Or would you push back? I am ignorant and mighty curious at this level of detail. :). Also thank you! I really enjoyed watching your and Gavin’s stuff, despite my disagreement. Hurray for irenic debate!
Lol not that Wikipedia is reliable or anything but I remember reading that it came from a difference between Greek and Latin translations saying The Holy Spirit came “from Jesus” versus “through Jesus” Presumably the Latin text is in error since it was probably copied and translated from a Greek one? I just started reading some of the apostolic fathers and it’s clear to me that their understanding of The Trinity exists, but is a little different from the modern Protestant one. Not sure how much is just terminology or lost in translation though
Are you Lutheran? Anglican? I don't see any information about St. Athanasius Church or even what your name is..... And there are at least dozens of St. Athanasius churches around....
@Conquering Death reformed catholic is a more general term Jack is using for reformed guys who hold to theology closer to the magesterial reformers than its modern expressions. Jack Shannon is not a part of the “reformed catholic” sect who broke off ties with Rome. They are very liberal and not anywhere close to what Jack holds to. Hope that helped.
I think Lewis's objections to Rome were more extensive than that. I recall reading in his biography "Jack," that when his brother, Warnie, was in a Roman Catholic hospital, pondering converting, Jack wrote him a stern letter, citing all kinds of reasons on why he should not...
I want to be honest and acknowledge that I have not watched this particular video yet, but I was scanning through the comment section and one of your responses caught my attention. I know my comment is lengthy, but I hope you'll take it in consideration and realize it's not meant as an attack, but I do have serious questions. In that comment you said to an Orthodox believer something to the effect, "I don't want to be overrun by muslims...I don't need your silly church," something like that. You implied that it was the fault of Orthodoxy for the rise of Islam. I am not orthodox myself, but in fairness, how is that different when compared to the expansion of militant atheism and secular humanism along with rampant degeneracy in protestant western Europe and America? Many of the countries where protestantism was birthed have become virtually atheist and even pagan. I don't see that the Protestant church has done that well at abating these ideologies? Also, you critique Catholics, Orthodox, and Anglicans while yourself remaining unaffiliated, yet wearing vestments and using "catholic-esque" terminology. In a sense, you are appealing to your own private interpretation of scripture and, due to the fact that you are wearing vestments, you are obviously drawing from tradition. Doesn't this in a sense make you the "pope" of your own little flock? Couldn't one observe and say you are leading your church in a certain way based on a mixture of your interpretation of scripture along with tradition and perhaps the input of elders or deacons to make the decisions you're making in your church and thus have, in a sense, created your own localized "magisterium?"
Thanks for the comment. It seems your questions are sincere, so I will respond sincerely. "You implied that it was the fault of Orthodoxy for the rise of Islam. I am not orthodox myself, but in fairness, how is that different when compared to the expansion of militant atheism and secular humanism along with rampant degeneracy in protestant western Europe and America?" It's not. I would agree it's similar. If you want to understand my take on this further, check out Contra Mundum Swagger where I have denounced the Protestant churches in the West for causing our civilizational decay. You can find the book trailer here: ua-cam.com/video/YLHzVyosbNg/v-deo.html. I often call the Protestant West to repentance in my sermons and confession exhortations as well. The difference is that Protestantism formed the modern world, has ruled the world for the past 500 years, has given the highest achievements and cultures of history, but Eastern Orthodoxy has been dominated by Muslims for over a thousand years. It has only been the last century or so, and especially the last couple decades, where the Protestant West has been losing to her enemies. Eastern Orthodoxy has been losing to her enemies for 1400 years. Protestantism forms superior cultures on almost every level. This is not to say she is perfect. She needs reforming. "Also, you critique Catholics, Orthodox, and Anglicans while yourself remaining unaffiliated, yet wearing vestments and using "catholic-esque" terminology." So? Is truth not objective? Am I prohibited from speaking truth since I am not part of churches that are in error? Is truth determined by denominational size? "In a sense, you are appealing to your own private interpretation of scripture" Where? When? Have I ever actually done this? What does this even mean? Private interpretation? Please show me exactly what I have said that qualifies as my own private interpretation. I would argue every single one of our doctrines have precedent within historic orthodox Christianity. None of it is unique to us. We are just carrying on normal Christianity. None of it springs from the imaginations of our thoughts. All of it comes from Scripture and the tradition of the Church. I may give my take on various difficult passages in Scripture, but did not the early fathers of the Church do the same thing? I am not persuaded that this phrase "your own private interpretation of Scripture" actually has any meaning. It seems like a throw-away statement, a meaningless description, like calling Republicans racists, or Christians homophobic, something along those lines. Just a meaningless slur that has no content. "and, due to the fact that you are wearing vestments, you are obviously drawing from tradition." That's right. I'm just a traditional Christian. And there are tons of pastors of congregational reformed churches who wear vestments. This is not unique to us. Rome, EO, and Anglicans don't have a monopoly on wearing symbolically significant clothing. Check out Peter Leithart over at the Theopolis Institute. "Doesn't this in a sense make you the "pope" of your own little flock?" No, because I have an elder over me who I submit to, and God's word spoken by Christ, His Apostles, and Prophets are the highest authority in our assembly, which is just normal Protestantism. You could say that every Baptist church, every congregational church, every non-denominational church's lead pastor is their own "pope" if you want to go down that road, but it's not true. At least on paper, the Scriptures have the highest authority. You're just rehashing old Roman Catholic critiques of Protestantism. So, in other words, you're just saying I'm a Protestant, which is true, which is another way of saying I'm a reformed catholic, which is also true, which is just another way of saying I'm a normal Christian, which is also true. "Couldn't one observe and say you are leading your church in a certain way based on a mixture of your interpretation of scripture along with tradition and perhaps the input of elders or deacons to make the decisions you're making in your church and thus have, in a sense, created your own localized "magisterium?"" Sure, one could say this about us, and about every single church that has ever existed in the history of churches. One could describe every single denomination, every single non-denominational church, even every single Roman Catholic parish, in the same cynical manner. Nobody can escape this description. Nobody can transcend these categories. One could describe the bishop of Rome in this exact same way. What you've just described is just what happens in local expressions of Christianity, and when more people affiliate, it just happens on a larger level.
Are you not on here to spread the good word, I would love to hear that,not what is wrong with everything else, I would like to see a video with your gifts from God, your prayers to help us on our way
Roman Catholic here. I thought you were absolutely fair and charitable and represented our views accurately. The only comment I would have would be at the eight minute and 20 second mark. It is not the case that because it does require a person’s agency to believe that the Catholic Church has the authority that it has, therefore the “everyone as a pope” problem persists across traditions. A protestant must undergo that process for every possible theological and moral question that they face over the course of their entire lives. In the case of Catholics, having resolved the one difficult question of authority, they can now comfortably and confidently know That if they simply do what the church tells them, they will be walking in God’s path. Where they disageee, they can know it is because they are wrong and must conform their consciousness.
It seems to me that the question of authority is not resolved, it is only shifted. The proliferation of Roman Catholic blogs with differing opinions on what the magisterium actually teaches is one proof that there still exists individual interpretations as to the meaning of the teachings of Rome. Some in Latin Church go great lengths to assure us that Pope Francis is not deviating from the magisterium in the Amoris Laetitia for example. Others simply lamenting the fact of a bad pope. It then becomes a debate over what the magisterium teaches. I would rather those debates be over Scripture. The authority isn't resolved. It's just shifted. And I'm okay with Protestants having to undergo evaluation of every theological and moral question. I would say it's dangerous not to do so. We are equipped to do so with reason, experience, by the help of the Holy Spirit, by the help of the local body of believers, the guidance of local elders, and the deposit of faith throughout Mother Church's history. I don't think moral questions are usually that difficult. They are plainly spelled out for us in Scripture. The deeds of the flesh are manifest as Paul says. As for theological questions. While we should strive to be as precise and faithful in understanding of all theological questions, it is not necessary for every believer to have a doctoral level understanding of the ins and outs of predestination, for example. One person may have a Thomistic understanding. Another may be more like Molina. Some issues are okay to have disagreement over. Even in the Roman church there are differing views on such things. Paul says in Romans 14 not to argue over doubtful things like eating only vegetables or what days we should observe as holy. Paul is giving freedom there on issues of lesser importance. Absolute conformity on all issues is not necessary. As Augustine said, “In essentials, unity; in non-essentials, liberty; in all things, charity.”
@@jackshannon777 I take your point. And I acknowledge that there is diversity of opinion within the Catholic Church on many topics. But I would offer two rejoinders: (1) it unsurprising that there would be diversity of opinion within any body of humans, because of course. That’s rather different than saying that there ISNT a divine office with the authority to resolve the differences. To use an example: it was an entirely reasonable, scripturally-sound position that circumcision be required and (maybe less so but still) whether to convert the Gentiles. You know this was a reasonable disagreement because the apostles themselves had to talk through it. But they arrived at an answer. Now, If you believe they had Authority, they settled it definitively and infallibly. In which case, an opposing viewpoint may exist but it can rightly be called “wrong,” not merely a different opinion. (2). You know them by their fruits. I wonder if you’d push back on this, but you chose a Catholic-esque liturgy for a reason. Overwhelming, your fellow evangelicals would not. As you know. You know what most evangelical services look like. I won’t press that point. But all things orthodoxy, have the Protestants done better at preserving the Deposit? Who has been a stronger vanguard of orthodox Christian views on divorce (I understand you disagree with that one, so let me list many more), marriage, sanctity of life, medical ethics, religious liberty? It’s too facile for snipe at marginal questions. For sure there will be internal debate over Filioque or Co-Redemptrix. Marginal stuff. But since there is neither a divine table of contents nor a divine exegesis… where are there any infallible answers on anything for the Protestant? Two interpretations of the same text--or, truly, infinite-without one being privileged. Now I’ll play the reductio card: IF you privilege one interpretation over another, from where did that privilege come? To what authority can you refer the question? You are right that we do have reason. But we also have the Fall. An individual’s self-guided reason is-at the very very least-MORE likely to lead them off the path than onto it. No?
As is very common for Romanists, I believe you are confusing radical Protestants (Baptists, non-denominational evangelical, non-confessional) with magisterial Protestants (Lutheran, Anglican, Presbyterian, Reformed). Magisterial Protestants are generally those who still baptise infants--and hold to historic confessions...which are in essence interpretive grids agreed on, about the Bible. So with MP's, it simply is not the case that they use their personal "agency to believe" [and interpret what the bible says ] "for every possible theological and moral question that they face over the course of their entire lives." Yes, personal interpretation is not forbidden, but MP denominations do have official, historic, positions (or a range of positions) on most theological and moral questions. The fact that all these groups--in their conservative (historic) manifestations, understand abortion as a serious moral evil is an example...or that all, historically, endorse justification by faith alone, by grace alone, through Christ alone...is evidence they do not assume every man with his bible, alone, figuring out his beliefs. The very meaning of Sola Scriptura, originally....was not that there is only one authority for the individual Christian, but that there is only one infallible authority...for the Church. The original Reformers assumed that Church Tradition and the teachings of the Fathers, and the great doctors of the Church, would be read and generally obeyed....only that among all these authorities of the Church--the bible alone--as the inspired testimony of the Apostles themselves--is without error. It is the norm of all other norms....but that assumes other norms.
@@ralphdavis1343 as is common among Protestants,you use the incalculable diversity within Protestantism as a shield against any criticism of it. Come home.
So, who got to pick and choose the doctrines that are reformed Catholic. What authority does this person or body have being so far removed from the apostles. You just sound like aanother protestant movement.
The thing is is tradition is what built our Bible and tradition started at Pentecost and the Bible was written by a follower of Christ who knew the apostles or know AN apostle of an apostle such as like and john which are why only four were chosen because they were traceable back to the tradition that has always been there. I'm a Protestant but converting to Eastern Orthodox. read the early church fathers, that alone is valid proof. Clement of rome was late 1st century! understand that Jews have had and always will have a liturgy. understand that Jews have had and always will have prayers for the Dead. learn from Orthodox priest and you will get a much deeper much more profound meaning of scripture because Paul said I give you my spiritual son to give both ORAL AND written tradition!!!!! It's all there people. Are we to say when Paul went to the Church of Corinth for 2 or 3 1/2 years (cant remember if it was 2 or 3) and was their spiritual father and priest that the only thing he left them was two books one a five chapter book and one of three chapter book?!? that's ludacris!!!! he would have taught them how to pray. the meaning behind his calling and...why...there's so much he would have taught them and I would rather be guided by someone who is held to holier standards than normal people who is from a guy from a guy from a guy who knew the apostles themselves! rather than creation of man over politics and political significance of the Bible because the Bible reflects tradition!!!! and to say the apostles didn't do this is to not have faith in Jesus and what he gave us through them, frankly. they were utterly transformed by the Holy Spirit at Pentecost Peter is the perfect example of a changed man in Christ image he became Christ-like as did all the apostles. Notice Jesus breathed on them and they went notice when the angel Gabriel met Mary he fell to his feet saying, "hail Mary full of grace for the Lord is with you!" unlike any other time when an Old testament prophet witnessed Gabriel and it went the other way around and the profit fell sick every time just from the encounter! Like I said it's all there people.
Also, we saw the other comment you posted, but I can't find it. So, I'll respond here by saying thank you very much. I'm honored to be mentioned alongside Gavin, who does great work, and it truly is encouraging to know our work is benefiting and edifying the saints. So, thank you again for the kind and encouraging words.
@@jackshannon777 you’re welcome! My reticence with posting here is I don’t like your handle. Just being honest it could stem from a possible misunderstanding of Jude and second Peter about reviling the devil. I just wanted to be honest. I still think you’re great though.
If you reject the Orthodox Church you also reject the bible, as it is testament to life of the Church, and not it's foundation. To try to derive the Church from the bible is a rejection of the Church guided by the Holy Spirit capable of creating the bible, many other holy writings, and many many saints, through out the ages in it's constant battle with evil. To equate your subjective reasoning and intellectual scraping of the bible to the same level of authority of the faith of the saints isn't only wrong, but also makes no effort to obtain the same level of Holy Authority. You can't compare your wonderings of what the bible means with being directly taught by the saints filled with the Holy Spirit, as the early Church has done and never stopped doing. Since such is a myth to you the Church is dead to you.
Who interprets the scriptures? How did Christians believe and worship the day of Pentecost and thereafter until the Bible was finally put together? The ancient church's authority is what? You never said. Why is reason important?
Well the Jehovah witnesses came up with Jesus not being God using the scripture, why don’t you follow them. Vatican 2 made some unfortunate reforms to conform to world trends. Have you follow the new trend in the Mother Church, youth are returning to the liturgy and traditions pre Vatican 2, thanks God. God did left one church and pray for the unity of the church. The question is: are you part of the only church whose are held by Peter and his successors? If not, why not? Protestantism from the Catholics, I mean true catholics not Vatican 2 Catholics is an heresy because it teaches doctrines contrary to those passed to us by the apostles for 2000 years
The Bible tells what to and not to do. It doesn't teach how to do, how to avoid not doing. Human nature is subjective to cause and effect. Most everyone has faults, but a person is just like a computer, with maybe DNA programming the mind, but bad input can bring bad output. Where it's really nice to be with others who are sincere in faith, positive and upbeat. But too many judge others without understanding them, which some are proud maggots, but others are just how they knew to be. Which ignoring these things does make religion look ignorant. Where Jesus, or God hisself would heal those that desire to be right with God. Not just ailments, but sins. The apostles were given this ability. Which like sexuality, promiscuous behaviors can be traced back to the home as a major contributor. But churches often ignore this as they do not know. Ever heard of "The Preacher's Daughter"? Often a result of a preacher, who is a father, who neglects natural affection for his family, as the daughter, only desiring her to wear this fascade of happiness and joy, but neglecting close connection, preferring to advance ones self in the ministry, tending to others, where preachers can and often do have unrealistic ideas for preachers. Many in society have a totally erroneous idea of what a preacher should be. Then if a disconnect occurs as a preacher refuses to consider the daughter is human, it complicates things more. Where it's almost like absent father syndrome. He's present, but there's a disconnect. Tending more to others while his family takes a backseat or expected to nurture their role in church, where deficiencies are created. It does not only apply to preachers daughter as it applies to anywhere the father is say distant to his family. Being put on a pedestal as well as others never realizing that besides them, there's always others that are wanting, even expecting things from a preacher. Which he's only a human being. I haven't met any yet that have the abilities of the apostles. Yet, this father behavior applies to other households, where the father may have his agenda for faith, as well as regular life demands, or where the father is distant. It can get complicated. I only mention this as an example. Where preachers preach about sexual promiscuity, where they are peeing in the wind. The correct preaching would teach father's to connect with their family, the father teaching true doctrine and principles of, as well as being involved. As daughters need affirmation of feminity. Its a mind thing. Which if the father doesn't do this, the daughter will seek this out, in exchange for sex, which women have a different mind in regards to sex. If one does not understand what I am saying, well the preachers are not teaching them how to do what we should do to nurture the faith. Per the Bible, bring your son, maybe children up in the nurture and admiration of the Lord. This is taught much more so by example than anything else. Societal demands can be too demanding where a father really is spread too far. But, if we want society to do right, conditions gave to be set to nurture faith and living faith. Where dad's need to be available for the kids. Again, the issues in society often conflict, where even mothers are becoming distant to the children, where she's out working too. Which is not favorable to providing the atmosphere and environment children need! Any questions, I'd be glad to try to expound and answer.
I can see you're intellectually well versed in the Bible. Either you are religious but not spiritual or you're spiritual but not religious. Which is which???👍
If the Orthodox Church is in error, then there is no truth. Such teaching inadvertently rejects the reality of the resurrection from the dead beginning with our Lord Jesus Christ, the first born among the dead.
With all due respect to your person, of the one speaking in this video, I must still say that your whole discourse was actually like a joke with a flavor of derision, despite the moments of "seriousness" ... I checked out the website of the "church" hosting this video and to which I suppose you belong to or which, at least, supports your "arguments", in order to learn a bit about its origins and history, and about its creed which most likely is also yours. That creed aims to be pretty much like a mish-mash of cherry-picked teachings and practices of faith from various Christian theological traditions, some more historical than others, though still with an authentic Protestant approach to faith. Even though you affirm in the video that truth is not subjective, you're still trying to arrogantly relativize it, by spreading among people mistrust and confusion about the reality of the visible One, Holy, Catholic (but not Roman) and Apostolic Church, which is the Eastern Orthodox Church, as the authentic continuation of the undivided Church of the first millennium, ability to know, affirm and preserve the objective truth of faith, as God revealed it through the historical work of His Holy Spirit in the Body of Christ. You're also trying to deceitfully minimize the divisive effects of the Protestant Reformation with its principle of the individual being left with the "Bible Alone" in his hands and essentially by his invoking of the Holy Spirit allegedly unavoidably becoming the knower of its true meaning. Just because the Protestant believer might also affirm a certain authority of various historical creeds, in which he shows that the truth he reached to is partially reflected, but still sets himself above the authority of the undivided Church of the first millennium, the pillar of truth, doesn't give to his subjective endeavor any more credibility. I don't have time to extensively address each of your "arguments" against the Orthodox Church, like those against its alleged lack of unity because of being organized in national sister Churches, but the fact is that all of them confess in different languages the same faith of the first Seven Ecumenical Councils (the Roman-Catholics also recognize) and of the next two Pan-Orthodox (some Orthodox consider them also Ecumenical) Councils in Constantinople (879/880 AD against the "Filioque" and 1341 AD essentially against Thomism and affirming the essence-energy distinction, respectively the uncreated energies of God). Nevertheless, the first Seven Ecumenical Councils represent the highest form of manifestation of the common mind of the Holy Fathers and their dogmas of faith are not negotiable. An Orthodox believer might have to personally or subjectively reach to their knowledge, understanding, and acceptance but, again, they're neither negotiable nor changeable. He's not allowed to cherry-pick from among them those who he alone or some others like him subjectively find true. The fact is that, despite the various schisms and heresies, which were deemed as such, for the first Christian millennium the Church was both theologically and sacramentally united. However, one must not only affirm that Church's teachings of faith, being, thus, in a theological Apostolic Succession with it, but also be in communion with it, by receiving the Sacraments/Mysteries from clergy ordained in Apostolic Succession by the laying of hands. If there are any dogmas affirmed by the first Seven Ecumenical Councils which you reject as being objective Christian teaching, then your gracious Protestant-like cherry-picking from various Christian traditions don't make a dime. Just because you invoke the Holy Fathers' memory and might agree to some of their personal opinions, that doesn't make them also "yours", since you disagree with their common mind. For your own knowledge, just because the Russian Orthodox Church chose to cease communion with the Ecumenical Patriarchate, doesn't make any of the two, until yesterday sister churches in "perfect" understanding of each other, less Orthodox. So what if the sisters sometimes quarrel for administrative reasons? Indeed, theoretically their believers shouldn't accept to commune in any local church belonging to the other autocephalous Church but, even if some of them practically do so, they're still partaking to the same faith and Sacraments. In fact, there are autocephalous sister Orthodox Churches which are in communion with both the ROC and the EP. The Holy Spirit will work in time in order to heal this "schism", even though the current situation might determine the Protestants to "rejoice" ...
Hello Eastern Orthodox, I’m glad you take the time and thought to respond. This is a subject I have thought about myself as well. I have visited both Catholic and Orthodox churches, and read some of their apologetics, but have never sought to become a member. I don’t presume to speak for Rev. Shannon or his church, but I come from a similar view which you categorize as a “Protestant mish-mash,” and like Rev. Shannon consider myself a part of the Universal Church, whether Orthodox or Catholics appreciate that or not. My faith comes from Christ and the apostles, and I have roots in tradition, while not accepting all of it. You don’t address many of the particular points in the presentation above, but you do assert that your church is the rightful heir of the apostles and has 2,000 years of tradition, with a rightful interpretation behind it. You further assert the Orthodox Church is unified enough that other differences are pretty minor. However, the problem with the claim to having an inerrant tradition is when the tradition actually breaks from what God reveals in the Holy Scriptures, or when it enthrones as dogmas what are in fact spiritual speculation. When any church does that, including one as old as yours, it is a divisive act, and divides that Church into many. This the Orthodox Church does many times over. While I don’t mean to list them all here, I want to make this point: you cannot inerrantly teach something against what God has already inerrantly taught in the Bible. That is called a false teaching. And if faithful believers either disobey or leave over a false doctrine, it is the false teacher who causes a division, not the flock who react.
In terms of tradition, it is also true that early Christian leaders shared fellowship with other churches which had different views from their own, as the testimony of the early Church is varied. Interestingly, you will find many strong teachings against worshipping before images in the early Church, although Orthodox claim to revere those fathers, and adhere to tradition. Honestly, it is fair to say that they adhere to some traditions, and they change others. Some modern Orthodox branches have also defied their claim to being traditional by accepting the use of contraception, which tradition taught against for 2,000 years. This is true of many, but not all Orthodox today. While I agree with the Catholic prohibition on that practice, the point is that one cannot claim to represent the fathers and tradition while breaking what was taught as doctrine for many centuries. Moreover, the teaching among the Orthodox regarding the divine nature is obviously FAR beyond anything the Bible teaches, and comes purely from certain monastics, and not from Holy Scripture. If it reminds me of anything, it’s not Christian theology, but rather Jewish mysticism, which I used to study years ago. What is orthodox about that? I don’t write off your claim that the Orthodox Church is unified on the major elements, but remember, that is very much what Bible Christians will say also, at least about other Bible Christians - that they have unity on the most important things. The Bible Christian can also draw from tradition, as you do, while not accepting all of it. Therefore, please consider that it is not only the people you view as errant sects or schismatics who need to repent. Consider that a church as old as your own, which I’d never deny as having apostolic roots, needs to repent of its own false teachings, as well as the arrogance of demanding all believers follow non-biblical spiritual teachings. Realize there is some amount of variety in our fellowship as the people of God, and this can be true while still preserving biblical truth and many good traditions. Thank you
Eastern Orthodox, I will continue my series which will deal with some of the things you mention here. But at the end of the day I have very little respect for your weak sectarian church. Your arguments have very little persuasive power for the one seeking truth, especially when it comes to the area of divorce and remarriage. The nations which have been ruled by Eastern Orthodoxy have all fell to our enemies, which plainly shows the weakness and error in your theology and your comment demonstrates that arrogant ignorance. No thanks. I'll pass. I don't want my country dominated by Muslims. I'll continue to post my series here for educational purposes. I pray you repent of your silly church and her harmful teachings. ua-cam.com/video/nqBkXHrI434/v-deo.html
@@SaintAthanasiusChurch Another proof of real arrogance which comes from your part, aside from the approach you had in the video, is the content of your reply to my comment. The truly arrogant one here yells "arrogant" at the other (me) and the real cult yells "cult" at THE Church. You, "alpha male", hiding under the protection of your secular country/state, if that one isn't dominated by the Muslims, it's because the Eastern Orthodox in Eastern Europe have always been a shield in front of the Muslim invasion, while you in the "knowledgeable" and "free" West (Europe and, later, the United States) were preoccupied, yes, with infallible Popes in Rome, Avignon or in yourselves, arrogantly believing that you may know truth, divorced from the work of the Holy Spirit in the Body of Christ, respectively from the Tradition of the undivided Church of the first millennium. There are Orthodox Saints who died fighting against the aggressive Muslims and confessing Christ right before they were murdered by those Muslims, who were trying to impose the Sharia law on everyone else. However, working for social peace with your neighbor, until he doesn't aggressively attack you, is nothing wrong from the Christian point of view. I agree that many of the ecumenist declarations and actions, respectively the ecumenist approach to the Christian faith, of some Orthodox leaders, as well as the globalist approach to secular society of the European Union, are not right, but that's another issue. "At the end of the day", in order to cite you, it's not about the persuasive power of the arguments which I, as an Orthodox believer alone, would be able to bring, but it's about the arguments which the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church of Christ, which is the Eastern Orthodox one, brought by the writings and testimonies of a living faith of its many Saints. There are also many Orthodox converts from Protestantism or Catholicism out there who have already demolished in their videos and blog posts many of your alleged "arguments" against the Church. It's all about the viewers/readers to decide for themselves. I didn't aim to gain anything for myself by posting my comment or by replying to you and I won't be doing it again. So you can freely continue with your "crusade" series ...
@@holinessofthebride1935, Eastern Orthodox do NOT worship the materials from which the images (icons) are made but venerate the persons represented in them, the Saints, and adore Jesus Christ. The images or icons are only honored, thus, not adored, for representing living Saints or the incarnated Son of God. "Dead" or alive, all of the true believers are of Christ. For the true history of honoring the icons and venerating the persons represented in them and the theological justification and importance of doing so, there are many written materials out there. Those which you called "'strong teachings" are, actually, either not against the use of images in veneration and worship (they are two different theological attitudes) but only apparently so, or they have been exposed for being heresies by the Ecumenical Councils, through which the Church only affirmed and explicated its teachings and practices of faith against the false ones.
Sola Scriptura...the authority of Scripture has been sidelined by Protestant denominations and the Roman and Eastern churches. We must return to the pure, clear and integrated Word of God
You are speaking in English. In England if you use a word like "papist" then you just sound like a hate-filled vulgar yob. Are you really going to apply that word to Catholics like myself?
I was born into a Greek Orthodox family, grew up in an RC Convent. At age 26 I was Born again when my nieghbour shared the Gospel and gave me a Bible, 47 years later I am still Protesgant. I would never go back, I love Church History and our rich Christian heritage but the Scriptures are rich in perfect doctrine. Thank you for sharing.
Thank YOU for sharing, Angela. We are encouraged to hear stories like yours. Keep fighting the good fight of faith, and may our Lord bless you abundantly!
@@SaintAthanasiusChurch Thank you. May God bless you as you contend for the Faith once for all delivered to the Saints.
Yes, it would suggest the churches have neglected their responsibilities. Which the Orthodox read the Bible on Sunday liturgies. Which a high liturgical church is a worship service which is good.
Yet even evangelicals do not teach how to do what the Bible says to do and not do. It all depends on the devotion of the faithful too. Which the more you know about human nature, cause and effect, you'll see where we all are dependent on the grace of God. As well as what evangelicals neglect. But, sincerity means a lot.
There's some with an unfounded rigidity that sees things one way rather than in the middle.
@@Noone-rt6pw Belated and highly insufficiently short answer
Every Orthodox Christian church I have been to reads and reveres canonized Scripture every Sunday
1. It's impossible to go by scripture and not tradition, when scripture itself is the product of tradition. The Protestant Bible has 66 books, 39 Old Testament, 27 New Testament. Why? Where did they get those specific books in the scriptures? Why is Esther (a completely secular book) in their Bible, but the Didache (an excellent spiritual treatise that was almost included) is left out? If you listen to Protestant apologists, one of the main reasons they give is that the early Church recognized the authority of these books. They say that, because the lack the guts or integrity to just say tradition. When the Bible itself was assembled based on the authority of tradition, it is incongruous to say you go by the Bible, but not tradition.
2. No one, as a fact, goes by scripture. The most they can do is go by their own interpretation of scripture, which is not the same thing at all. Some parts of scripture are clear and easy to understand. There is no way to misinterpret the parts where Jesus says to care for the needy. However, there are other parts that are not clear at all. Even Peter says that some of Paul's writings are hard to understand, and ignorant men twist them (2 Peter 3:15-16).
3. Orthodox do not view the church fathers as in anyway infallible. They were incredibly holy people who had a deep understanding of Christ and scripture, and many showed their love for Christ by the scars on their bodies. However, they did sometimes disagree, and could be in error. What we consider to be infallible are the Ecumenical Councils, where the Holy Spirit guided the entire Church in all truth. Unlike either sola scriptura or papal infallibility, this is taught clearly in scripture (Acts 15). While the Jerusalem Council is not considered one of the seven Ecumenical Councils, it is the prototype for the later councils, and the basis for our belief that this is how God leads His people in truth.
4. Those who claim not to rely on tradition do, in fact have many traditions of their own outside of scripture. I admit, it was hard to watch the video, and see a man wearing a Roman collar telling me how he goes by scripture and not tradition. The biggest man-made tradition Protestants have is sola scriptura itself. Nowhere in the scripture does it teach that any believer can simply sit with the scriptures and come to a full understanding of the truth of Christ. The clear model in scripture is that God gave ministers and teachers to guide believers in the study of the scriptures. The Eunuch that Phillip met on the road, for example, needed Phillip to show him how the prophets spoke of Christ. Sola scriptura IS a man-made, non-biblical tradition. See also other Protestant theologies, such as Dispensationalism.
5. Protestants completely ignore numerous traditions which are clearly contained in scripture, even though they claim to go by scripture. It is incontestable that the early church in the Bible met on Sundays to celebrate the Lord’s Supper and the Risen Christ. Yet, many Protestant churches rarely, if ever, celebrate communion. The celebration of Pentecost was an important event in the early church (Acts 20:16), but Protestants do not celebrate it.
6. His characterization of Orthodox churches as nationalist denominations is simply wrong. The national identities of the churches are organizational, not doctrinal. The Russian Church is under the auspices of the Russian Patriarch, the Greek Church is under the auspices of the Greek Patriarch, etc. These are organizational distinctions, though, and have nothing to do with doctrine. The Russian and the Greek churches believe the same and practice essentially the same. That is completely different than the immense number of doctrinal differences that exist between the 30,000+ Protestant denominations. All Orthodox agree that baptism is for the cleansing of sins, for example, but Protestants can’t agree on something as basic as that. In fact, Luther and Zwingli almost came to blows over the Eucharist within just a few years of the Reformation. The disunity he mentions in Orthodoxy, does unfortunately exist. However, again, it is organizational disagreement, not doctrinal.
Agreed. Well put.
1. I never said I wasn't going by tradition. We love tradition at Saint Athanasius. But Traditions vary and conflict with each other, and sometimes with Scripture. So, if a tradition comes into conflict with Scripture, we privilege Scripture over tradition, or rather let Scripture form our Tradition. To frame this as Scripture or Tradition is to address something we don't believe, teach, or practice.
2. Yes, Scripture can be difficult to interpret at times. So what? We don't say otherwise. We don't claim to know what everything in Scripture means.
3. I never said Orthodox viewed the fathers as infallible.
4. Those who claim not to rely on tradition, do. Yes, that's right. We agree. That's why we don't claim not to rely on Tradition. This is an irrelevant point.
5. Another point completely irrelevant to our church. We celebrate the Eucharist every Sunday. We celebrate Pentecost.
6. I would agree with the last point, largely. The distinction between organizational vs. doctrinal unity is useful, and true, and I agree mostly, I don't think it makes me simply wrong. You admit of the disunity in the EO churches. That was my larger point. Not to say it was as doctrinally varied as Protestants.
@@jackshannon777 Therein lies the major problem with this comparison. If you are speaking specifically of your church and your personal views, then I would definitely have to adjust my response. If it is about Protestantism in general, then I will stand by my response.
It would be presumptuous of me to respond directly to you or your church, because I don't know you well enough. I would like to expand on the Orthodox view of scripture and tradition, though, because there are common misunderstandings.
We do view scripture as part of tradition, the written tradition. Since the cannon of books is itself tradition, it is hard to deny that. However, that doesn’t mean we hold it in any lower regard than Protestants do (speaking in general, not you specifically). Tradition doesn’t conflict with scripture, because tradition is the means by which we interpret scripture. There is never a case where tradition tells us to do one thing, and scripture tells us another. There are traditions not clearly contained in scripture, but they don’t conflict with it. Most have a clear basis in scripture.
Our actual tradition is what is contained in the creeds and canons of the Ecumenical Councils. We don’t base our tradition off what any one church father, or group of fathers, teach. In the video it was stated that if a priest taught you one thing, and you read another in scripture, you would go by scripture. The difference between your approach and my approach is this. If a priest taught me something that was clearly against scripture, I would report him to the bishop. We have no teachings that contradict the clear parts of scripture. If it was an area of scripture that wasn’t clear, though, I would be hesitant to go with my own opinion, versus the collected wisdom of Christians throughout time who were far closer to the Lord and far holier than I am.
Orthodoxy is not a top-down religion. We are checks and balances. We are episcopal (bishops), conciliar (church counsels), and congregational (laity). They laity are considered just as responsible for guarding the faith as bishops. The priesthood of all believers is a strong teaching in Orthodoxy. Much like with Protestants and their ministers, my priest has a different role than I do, but it is not superior to the role I have. A person who lives a holy life, and is clearly dedicated to Christ, is given as much reverence and respect as any bishop.
This is probably my last post, but I will carefully read any response you have.
Deus Vult from Dallas Texas.
I would only add: it would be more ecumenical to use Catholic and orthodox instead of papist and EO. EO might be OK. I understand why you would have a theological objection to that. So I would offer as an alternative the “Latin Church” if you’d like to make it a little easier for curious Catholics to “hear” you.
This is great practical advice. I will definitely incorporate the use of Latin Church into my vocabulary. Thanks for the feedback!
@@jackshannon777 “Roman” church totally fine, too! :)
I must admit, I very much object to the Romanist's appropriation of the word, "Catholic."
@@ralphdavis1343 it wasn’t appropriated. We simple never stopped using it.
Apropos of nothing, I would love to watch a video from you about the Filioque. In Gavin Orlandt’s recent debate with an EO priest, he presented what ostensibly appeared to be a strong case that the story of the Filioque controversy was something like “a pretext that transformed into text over time, but not a serious theological division in truth and substance.” Given your work to date, do you think that view is accurate? Or would you push back? I am ignorant and mighty curious at this level of detail. :). Also thank you! I really enjoyed watching your and Gavin’s stuff, despite my disagreement. Hurray for irenic debate!
Lol not that Wikipedia is reliable or anything but I remember reading that it came from a difference between Greek and Latin translations saying The Holy Spirit came “from Jesus” versus “through Jesus”
Presumably the Latin text is in error since it was probably copied and translated from a Greek one?
I just started reading some of the apostolic fathers and it’s clear to me that their understanding of The Trinity exists, but is a little different from the modern Protestant one. Not sure how much is just terminology or lost in translation though
Man, what an amazing video!!
Are you Lutheran? Anglican? I don't see any information about St. Athanasius Church or even what your name is..... And there are at least dozens of St. Athanasius churches around....
@Conquering Death reformed catholic is a more general term Jack is using for reformed guys who hold to theology closer to the magesterial reformers than its modern expressions. Jack Shannon is not a part of the “reformed catholic” sect who broke off ties with Rome. They are very liberal and not anywhere close to what Jack holds to. Hope that helped.
He's a law unto himself...
Where can I find the CS Lewis take on not becoming a Papist because he couldn't predict what would change in Rome?
I think Lewis's objections to Rome were more extensive than that. I recall reading in his biography "Jack," that when his brother, Warnie, was in a Roman Catholic hospital, pondering converting, Jack wrote him a stern letter, citing all kinds of reasons on why he should not...
I want to be honest and acknowledge that I have not watched this particular video yet, but I was scanning through the comment section and one of your responses caught my attention. I know my comment is lengthy, but I hope you'll take it in consideration and realize it's not meant as an attack, but I do have serious questions. In that comment you said to an Orthodox believer something to the effect, "I don't want to be overrun by muslims...I don't need your silly church," something like that. You implied that it was the fault of Orthodoxy for the rise of Islam. I am not orthodox myself, but in fairness, how is that different when compared to the expansion of militant atheism and secular humanism along with rampant degeneracy in protestant western Europe and America? Many of the countries where protestantism was birthed have become virtually atheist and even pagan. I don't see that the Protestant church has done that well at abating these ideologies? Also, you critique Catholics, Orthodox, and Anglicans while yourself remaining unaffiliated, yet wearing vestments and using "catholic-esque" terminology. In a sense, you are appealing to your own private interpretation of scripture and, due to the fact that you are wearing vestments, you are obviously drawing from tradition. Doesn't this in a sense make you the "pope" of your own little flock? Couldn't one observe and say you are leading your church in a certain way based on a mixture of your interpretation of scripture along with tradition and perhaps the input of elders or deacons to make the decisions you're making in your church and thus have, in a sense, created your own localized "magisterium?"
Thanks for the comment. It seems your questions are sincere, so I will respond sincerely.
"You implied that it was the fault of Orthodoxy for the rise of Islam. I am not orthodox myself, but in fairness, how is that different when compared to the expansion of militant atheism and secular humanism along with rampant degeneracy in protestant western Europe and America?"
It's not. I would agree it's similar. If you want to understand my take on this further, check out Contra Mundum Swagger where I have denounced the Protestant churches in the West for causing our civilizational decay. You can find the book trailer here: ua-cam.com/video/YLHzVyosbNg/v-deo.html. I often call the Protestant West to repentance in my sermons and confession exhortations as well.
The difference is that Protestantism formed the modern world, has ruled the world for the past 500 years, has given the highest achievements and cultures of history, but Eastern Orthodoxy has been dominated by Muslims for over a thousand years. It has only been the last century or so, and especially the last couple decades, where the Protestant West has been losing to her enemies. Eastern Orthodoxy has been losing to her enemies for 1400 years. Protestantism forms superior cultures on almost every level. This is not to say she is perfect. She needs reforming.
"Also, you critique Catholics, Orthodox, and Anglicans while yourself remaining unaffiliated, yet wearing vestments and using "catholic-esque" terminology."
So? Is truth not objective? Am I prohibited from speaking truth since I am not part of churches that are in error? Is truth determined by denominational size?
"In a sense, you are appealing to your own private interpretation of scripture"
Where? When? Have I ever actually done this? What does this even mean? Private interpretation? Please show me exactly what I have said that qualifies as my own private interpretation. I would argue every single one of our doctrines have precedent within historic orthodox Christianity. None of it is unique to us. We are just carrying on normal Christianity. None of it springs from the imaginations of our thoughts. All of it comes from Scripture and the tradition of the Church. I may give my take on various difficult passages in Scripture, but did not the early fathers of the Church do the same thing? I am not persuaded that this phrase "your own private interpretation of Scripture" actually has any meaning. It seems like a throw-away statement, a meaningless description, like calling Republicans racists, or Christians homophobic, something along those lines. Just a meaningless slur that has no content.
"and, due to the fact that you are wearing vestments, you are obviously drawing from tradition."
That's right. I'm just a traditional Christian. And there are tons of pastors of congregational reformed churches who wear vestments. This is not unique to us. Rome, EO, and Anglicans don't have a monopoly on wearing symbolically significant clothing. Check out Peter Leithart over at the Theopolis Institute.
"Doesn't this in a sense make you the "pope" of your own little flock?"
No, because I have an elder over me who I submit to, and God's word spoken by Christ, His Apostles, and Prophets are the highest authority in our assembly, which is just normal Protestantism. You could say that every Baptist church, every congregational church, every non-denominational church's lead pastor is their own "pope" if you want to go down that road, but it's not true. At least on paper, the Scriptures have the highest authority. You're just rehashing old Roman Catholic critiques of Protestantism. So, in other words, you're just saying I'm a Protestant, which is true, which is another way of saying I'm a reformed catholic, which is also true, which is just another way of saying I'm a normal Christian, which is also true.
"Couldn't one observe and say you are leading your church in a certain way based on a mixture of your interpretation of scripture along with tradition and perhaps the input of elders or deacons to make the decisions you're making in your church and thus have, in a sense, created your own localized "magisterium?""
Sure, one could say this about us, and about every single church that has ever existed in the history of churches. One could describe every single denomination, every single non-denominational church, even every single Roman Catholic parish, in the same cynical manner. Nobody can escape this description. Nobody can transcend these categories. One could describe the bishop of Rome in this exact same way. What you've just described is just what happens in local expressions of Christianity, and when more people affiliate, it just happens on a larger level.
@@jackshannon777 thanks for your responses. I appreciate you taking the time to do so.
Are you not on here to spread the good word, I would love to hear that,not what is wrong with everything else, I would like to see a video with your gifts from God, your prayers to help us on our way
Roman Catholic here. I thought you were absolutely fair and charitable and represented our views accurately. The only comment I would have would be at the eight minute and 20 second mark. It is not the case that because it does require a person’s agency to believe that the Catholic Church has the authority that it has, therefore the “everyone as a pope” problem persists across traditions. A protestant must undergo that process for every possible theological and moral question that they face over the course of their entire lives. In the case of Catholics, having resolved the one difficult question of authority, they can now comfortably and confidently know That if they simply do what the church tells them, they will be walking in God’s path. Where they disageee, they can know it is because they are wrong and must conform their consciousness.
It seems to me that the question of authority is not resolved, it is only shifted. The proliferation of Roman Catholic blogs with differing opinions on what the magisterium actually teaches is one proof that there still exists individual interpretations as to the meaning of the teachings of Rome. Some in Latin Church go great lengths to assure us that Pope Francis is not deviating from the magisterium in the Amoris Laetitia for example. Others simply lamenting the fact of a bad pope. It then becomes a debate over what the magisterium teaches. I would rather those debates be over Scripture. The authority isn't resolved. It's just shifted. And I'm okay with Protestants having to undergo evaluation of every theological and moral question. I would say it's dangerous not to do so. We are equipped to do so with reason, experience, by the help of the Holy Spirit, by the help of the local body of believers, the guidance of local elders, and the deposit of faith throughout Mother Church's history. I don't think moral questions are usually that difficult. They are plainly spelled out for us in Scripture. The deeds of the flesh are manifest as Paul says. As for theological questions. While we should strive to be as precise and faithful in understanding of all theological questions, it is not necessary for every believer to have a doctoral level understanding of the ins and outs of predestination, for example. One person may have a Thomistic understanding. Another may be more like Molina. Some issues are okay to have disagreement over. Even in the Roman church there are differing views on such things. Paul says in Romans 14 not to argue over doubtful things like eating only vegetables or what days we should observe as holy. Paul is giving freedom there on issues of lesser importance. Absolute conformity on all issues is not necessary. As Augustine said, “In essentials, unity; in non-essentials, liberty; in all things, charity.”
@@jackshannon777 I take your point. And I acknowledge that there is diversity of opinion within the Catholic Church on many topics. But I would offer two rejoinders: (1) it unsurprising that there would be diversity of opinion within any body of humans, because of course. That’s rather different than saying that there ISNT a divine office with the authority to resolve the differences. To use an example: it was an entirely reasonable, scripturally-sound position that circumcision be required and (maybe less so but still) whether to convert the Gentiles. You know this was a reasonable disagreement because the apostles themselves had to talk through it. But they arrived at an answer. Now, If you believe they had Authority, they settled it definitively and infallibly. In which case, an opposing viewpoint may exist but it can rightly be called “wrong,” not merely a different opinion. (2). You know them by their fruits. I wonder if you’d push back on this, but you chose a Catholic-esque liturgy for a reason. Overwhelming, your fellow evangelicals would not. As you know. You know what most evangelical services look like. I won’t press that point. But all things orthodoxy, have the Protestants done better at preserving the Deposit? Who has been a stronger vanguard of orthodox Christian views on divorce (I understand you disagree with that one, so let me list many more), marriage, sanctity of life, medical ethics, religious liberty?
It’s too facile for snipe at marginal questions. For sure there will be internal debate over Filioque or Co-Redemptrix. Marginal stuff.
But since there is neither a divine table of contents nor a divine exegesis… where are there any infallible answers on anything for the Protestant? Two interpretations of the same text--or, truly, infinite-without one being privileged.
Now I’ll play the reductio card: IF you privilege one interpretation over another, from where did that privilege come? To what authority can you refer the question?
You are right that we do have reason. But we also have the Fall. An individual’s self-guided reason is-at the very very least-MORE likely to lead them off the path than onto it. No?
Sorry, I artful: “MORE likely … than by reference to the Magisterium.”
As is very common for Romanists, I believe you are confusing radical Protestants (Baptists, non-denominational evangelical, non-confessional) with magisterial Protestants (Lutheran, Anglican, Presbyterian, Reformed). Magisterial Protestants are generally those who still baptise infants--and hold to historic confessions...which are in essence interpretive grids agreed on, about the Bible. So with MP's, it simply is not the case that they use their personal "agency to believe" [and interpret what the bible says ] "for every possible theological and moral question that they face over the course of their entire lives." Yes, personal interpretation is not forbidden, but MP denominations do have official, historic, positions (or a range of positions) on most theological and moral questions. The fact that all these groups--in their conservative (historic) manifestations, understand abortion as a serious moral evil is an example...or that all, historically, endorse justification by faith alone, by grace alone, through Christ alone...is evidence they do not assume every man with his bible, alone, figuring out his beliefs. The very meaning of Sola Scriptura, originally....was not that there is only one authority for the individual Christian, but that there is only one infallible authority...for the Church. The original Reformers assumed that Church Tradition and the teachings of the Fathers, and the great doctors of the Church, would be read and generally obeyed....only that among all these authorities of the Church--the bible alone--as the inspired testimony of the Apostles themselves--is without error. It is the norm of all other norms....but that assumes other norms.
@@ralphdavis1343 as is common among Protestants,you use the incalculable diversity within Protestantism as a shield against any criticism of it. Come home.
Most in the church have a hard time accepting that kaneh bos(m) is in the holy anointing oil. Even as Scripture spelled it out in Exodus 30
I don’t get the point of this video
comments on? You are brave
Haha. We don't mind the dumpsterfires.
Jesus started Catholic church in 33ad. Source? Handbook of Denominations
So, who got to pick and choose the doctrines that are reformed Catholic. What authority does this person or body have being so far removed from the apostles. You just sound like aanother protestant movement.
The thing is is tradition is what built our Bible and tradition started at Pentecost and the Bible was written by a follower of Christ who knew the apostles or know AN apostle of an apostle such as like and john which are why only four were chosen because they were traceable back to the tradition that has always been there. I'm a Protestant but converting to Eastern Orthodox. read the early church fathers, that alone is valid proof. Clement of rome was late 1st century! understand that Jews have had and always will have a liturgy. understand that Jews have had and always will have prayers for the Dead. learn from Orthodox priest and you will get a much deeper much more profound meaning of scripture because Paul said I give you my spiritual son to give both ORAL AND written tradition!!!!! It's all there people. Are we to say when Paul went to the Church of Corinth for 2 or 3 1/2 years (cant remember if it was 2 or 3) and was their spiritual father and priest that the only thing he left them was two books one a five chapter book and one of three chapter book?!? that's ludacris!!!! he would have taught them how to pray. the meaning behind his calling and...why...there's so much he would have taught them and I would rather be guided by someone who is held to holier standards than normal people who is from a guy from a guy from a guy who knew the apostles themselves! rather than creation of man over politics and political significance of the Bible because the Bible reflects tradition!!!! and to say the apostles didn't do this is to not have faith in Jesus and what he gave us through them, frankly. they were utterly transformed by the Holy Spirit at Pentecost Peter is the perfect example of a changed man in Christ image he became Christ-like as did all the apostles. Notice Jesus breathed on them and they went notice when the angel Gabriel met Mary he fell to his feet saying, "hail Mary full of grace for the Lord is with you!" unlike any other time when an Old testament prophet witnessed Gabriel and it went the other way around and the profit fell sick every time just from the encounter! Like I said it's all there people.
Have you Right Response Ministries’ recent interview with Joshua Schooping?
I have not. Is it good? Schooping is great. I have seen a few of his videos.
Also, we saw the other comment you posted, but I can't find it. So, I'll respond here by saying thank you very much. I'm honored to be mentioned alongside Gavin, who does great work, and it truly is encouraging to know our work is benefiting and edifying the saints. So, thank you again for the kind and encouraging words.
I was mainly just curious to know if you liked him. He is pretty firmly opposed to EO
@@jackshannon777 you’re welcome! My reticence with posting here is I don’t like your handle. Just being honest it could stem from a possible misunderstanding of Jude and second Peter about reviling the devil. I just wanted to be honest. I still think you’re great though.
@@jackshannon777 lol. Maybe I’m a legalistic weirdo about things like that. I can err on the careful side.
If you reject the Orthodox Church you also reject the bible, as it is testament to life of the Church, and not it's foundation. To try to derive the Church from the bible is a rejection of the Church guided by the Holy Spirit capable of creating the bible, many other holy writings, and many many saints, through out the ages in it's constant battle with evil. To equate your subjective reasoning and intellectual scraping of the bible to the same level of authority of the faith of the saints isn't only wrong, but also makes no effort to obtain the same level of Holy Authority. You can't compare your wonderings of what the bible means with being directly taught by the saints filled with the Holy Spirit, as the early Church has done and never stopped doing. Since such is a myth to you the Church is dead to you.
Cool, dude.
You don't know what you are writing.
What is your denominational affiliation?
Unaffiliated currently.
Who interprets the scriptures? How did Christians believe and worship the day of Pentecost and thereafter until the Bible was finally put together? The ancient church's authority is what? You never said. Why is reason important?
Well the Jehovah witnesses came up with Jesus not being God using the scripture, why don’t you follow them. Vatican 2 made some unfortunate reforms to conform to world trends. Have you follow the new trend in the Mother Church, youth are returning to the liturgy and traditions pre Vatican 2, thanks God. God did left one church and pray for the unity of the church. The question is: are you part of the only church whose are held by Peter and his successors? If not, why not? Protestantism from the Catholics, I mean true catholics not Vatican 2 Catholics is an heresy because it teaches doctrines contrary to those passed to us by the apostles for 2000 years
The Bible tells what to and not to do. It doesn't teach how to do, how to avoid not doing. Human nature is subjective to cause and effect. Most everyone has faults, but a person is just like a computer, with maybe DNA programming the mind, but bad input can bring bad output.
Where it's really nice to be with others who are sincere in faith, positive and upbeat. But too many judge others without understanding them, which some are proud maggots, but others are just how they knew to be.
Which ignoring these things does make religion look ignorant. Where Jesus, or God hisself would heal those that desire to be right with God. Not just ailments, but sins. The apostles were given this ability.
Which like sexuality, promiscuous behaviors can be traced back to the home as a major contributor. But churches often ignore this as they do not know. Ever heard of "The Preacher's Daughter"? Often a result of a preacher, who is a father, who neglects natural affection for his family, as the daughter, only desiring her to wear this fascade of happiness and joy, but neglecting close connection, preferring to advance ones self in the ministry, tending to others, where preachers can and often do have unrealistic ideas for preachers. Many in society have a totally erroneous idea of what a preacher should be. Then if a disconnect occurs as a preacher refuses to consider the daughter is human, it complicates things more. Where it's almost like absent father syndrome. He's present, but there's a disconnect. Tending more to others while his family takes a backseat or expected to nurture their role in church, where deficiencies are created. It does not only apply to preachers daughter as it applies to anywhere the father is say distant to his family. Being put on a pedestal as well as others never realizing that besides them, there's always others that are wanting, even expecting things from a preacher. Which he's only a human being. I haven't met any yet that have the abilities of the apostles. Yet, this father behavior applies to other households, where the father may have his agenda for faith, as well as regular life demands, or where the father is distant. It can get complicated. I only mention this as an example. Where preachers preach about sexual promiscuity, where they are peeing in the wind. The correct preaching would teach father's to connect with their family, the father teaching true doctrine and principles of, as well as being involved. As daughters need affirmation of feminity. Its a mind thing. Which if the father doesn't do this, the daughter will seek this out, in exchange for sex, which women have a different mind in regards to sex. If one does not understand what I am saying, well the preachers are not teaching them how to do what we should do to nurture the faith. Per the Bible, bring your son, maybe children up in the nurture and admiration of the Lord. This is taught much more so by example than anything else. Societal demands can be too demanding where a father really is spread too far. But, if we want society to do right, conditions gave to be set to nurture faith and living faith. Where dad's need to be available for the kids. Again, the issues in society often conflict, where even mothers are becoming distant to the children, where she's out working too. Which is not favorable to providing the atmosphere and environment children need!
Any questions, I'd be glad to try to expound and answer.
I can see you're intellectually well versed in the Bible. Either you are religious but not spiritual or you're spiritual but not religious. Which is which???👍
If the Orthodox Church is in error, then there is no truth. Such teaching inadvertently rejects the reality of the resurrection from the dead beginning with our Lord Jesus Christ, the first born among the dead.
No. If the Orthodox Church is in error, it just means they are in error.
@@SaintAthanasiusChurch Orthodox is true Faith, but i agree on Rome
I don;t call you a proddy so stop call me a papist will you?
You can call us proddies.
With all due respect to your person, of the one speaking in this video, I must still say that your whole discourse was actually like a joke with a flavor of derision, despite the moments of "seriousness" ... I checked out the website of the "church" hosting this video and to which I suppose you belong to or which, at least, supports your "arguments", in order to learn a bit about its origins and history, and about its creed which most likely is also yours. That creed aims to be pretty much like a mish-mash of cherry-picked teachings and practices of faith from various Christian theological traditions, some more historical than others, though still with an authentic Protestant approach to faith. Even though you affirm in the video that truth is not subjective, you're still trying to arrogantly relativize it, by spreading among people mistrust and confusion about the reality of the visible One, Holy, Catholic (but not Roman) and Apostolic Church, which is the Eastern Orthodox Church, as the authentic continuation of the undivided Church of the first millennium, ability to know, affirm and preserve the objective truth of faith, as God revealed it through the historical work of His Holy Spirit in the Body of Christ. You're also trying to deceitfully minimize the divisive effects of the Protestant Reformation with its principle of the individual being left with the "Bible Alone" in his hands and essentially by his invoking of the Holy Spirit allegedly unavoidably becoming the knower of its true meaning. Just because the Protestant believer might also affirm a certain authority of various historical creeds, in which he shows that the truth he reached to is partially reflected, but still sets himself above the authority of the undivided Church of the first millennium, the pillar of truth, doesn't give to his subjective endeavor any more credibility.
I don't have time to extensively address each of your "arguments" against the Orthodox Church, like those against its alleged lack of unity because of being organized in national sister Churches, but the fact is that all of them confess in different languages the same faith of the first Seven Ecumenical Councils (the Roman-Catholics also recognize) and of the next two Pan-Orthodox (some Orthodox consider them also Ecumenical) Councils in Constantinople (879/880 AD against the "Filioque" and 1341 AD essentially against Thomism and affirming the essence-energy distinction, respectively the uncreated energies of God). Nevertheless, the first Seven Ecumenical Councils represent the highest form of manifestation of the common mind of the Holy Fathers and their dogmas of faith are not negotiable. An Orthodox believer might have to personally or subjectively reach to their knowledge, understanding, and acceptance but, again, they're neither negotiable nor changeable. He's not allowed to cherry-pick from among them those who he alone or some others like him subjectively find true. The fact is that, despite the various schisms and heresies, which were deemed as such, for the first Christian millennium the Church was both theologically and sacramentally united. However, one must not only affirm that Church's teachings of faith, being, thus, in a theological Apostolic Succession with it, but also be in communion with it, by receiving the Sacraments/Mysteries from clergy ordained in Apostolic Succession by the laying of hands. If there are any dogmas affirmed by the first Seven Ecumenical Councils which you reject as being objective Christian teaching, then your gracious Protestant-like cherry-picking from various Christian traditions don't make a dime. Just because you invoke the Holy Fathers' memory and might agree to some of their personal opinions, that doesn't make them also "yours", since you disagree with their common mind.
For your own knowledge, just because the Russian Orthodox Church chose to cease communion with the Ecumenical Patriarchate, doesn't make any of the two, until yesterday sister churches in "perfect" understanding of each other, less Orthodox. So what if the sisters sometimes quarrel for administrative reasons? Indeed, theoretically their believers shouldn't accept to commune in any local church belonging to the other autocephalous Church but, even if some of them practically do so, they're still partaking to the same faith and Sacraments. In fact, there are autocephalous sister Orthodox Churches which are in communion with both the ROC and the EP. The Holy Spirit will work in time in order to heal this "schism", even though the current situation might determine the Protestants to "rejoice" ...
Hello Eastern Orthodox, I’m glad you take the time and thought to respond. This is a subject I have thought about myself as well. I have visited both Catholic and Orthodox churches, and read some of their apologetics, but have never sought to become a member.
I don’t presume to speak for Rev. Shannon or his church, but I come from a similar view which you categorize as a “Protestant mish-mash,” and like Rev. Shannon consider myself a part of the Universal Church, whether Orthodox or Catholics appreciate that or not. My faith comes from Christ and the apostles, and I have roots in tradition, while not accepting all of it.
You don’t address many of the particular points in the presentation above, but you do assert that your church is the rightful heir of the apostles and has 2,000 years of tradition, with a rightful interpretation behind it. You further assert the Orthodox Church is unified enough that other differences are pretty minor.
However, the problem with the claim to having an inerrant tradition is when the tradition actually breaks from what God reveals in the Holy Scriptures, or when it enthrones as dogmas what are in fact spiritual speculation. When any church does that, including one as old as yours, it is a divisive act, and divides that Church into many.
This the Orthodox Church does many times over. While I don’t mean to list them all here, I want to make this point: you cannot inerrantly teach something against what God has already inerrantly taught in the Bible. That is called a false teaching. And if faithful believers either disobey or leave over a false doctrine, it is the false teacher who causes a division, not the flock who react.
In terms of tradition, it is also true that early Christian leaders shared fellowship with other churches which had different views from their own, as the testimony of the early Church is varied. Interestingly, you will find many strong teachings against worshipping before images in the early Church, although Orthodox claim to revere those fathers, and adhere to tradition. Honestly, it is fair to say that they adhere to some traditions, and they change others.
Some modern Orthodox branches have also defied their claim to being traditional by accepting the use of contraception, which tradition taught against for 2,000 years. This is true of many, but not all Orthodox today. While I agree with the Catholic prohibition on that practice, the point is that one cannot claim to represent the fathers and tradition while breaking what was taught as doctrine for many centuries.
Moreover, the teaching among the Orthodox regarding the divine nature is obviously FAR beyond anything the Bible teaches, and comes purely from certain monastics, and not from Holy Scripture. If it reminds me of anything, it’s not Christian theology, but rather Jewish mysticism, which I used to study years ago. What is orthodox about that?
I don’t write off your claim that the Orthodox Church is unified on the major elements, but remember, that is very much what Bible Christians will say also, at least about other Bible Christians - that they have unity on the most important things. The Bible Christian can also draw from tradition, as you do, while not accepting all of it.
Therefore, please consider that it is not only the people you view as errant sects or schismatics who need to repent. Consider that a church as old as your own, which I’d never deny as having apostolic roots, needs to repent of its own false teachings, as well as the arrogance of demanding all believers follow non-biblical spiritual teachings. Realize there is some amount of variety in our fellowship as the people of God, and this can be true while still preserving biblical truth and many good traditions.
Thank you
Eastern Orthodox, I will continue my series which will deal with some of the things you mention here. But at the end of the day I have very little respect for your weak sectarian church. Your arguments have very little persuasive power for the one seeking truth, especially when it comes to the area of divorce and remarriage. The nations which have been ruled by Eastern Orthodoxy have all fell to our enemies, which plainly shows the weakness and error in your theology and your comment demonstrates that arrogant ignorance. No thanks. I'll pass. I don't want my country dominated by Muslims. I'll continue to post my series here for educational purposes. I pray you repent of your silly church and her harmful teachings.
ua-cam.com/video/nqBkXHrI434/v-deo.html
@@SaintAthanasiusChurch Another proof of real arrogance which comes from your part, aside from the approach you had in the video, is the content of your reply to my comment. The truly arrogant one here yells "arrogant" at the other (me) and the real cult yells "cult" at THE Church. You, "alpha male", hiding under the protection of your secular country/state, if that one isn't dominated by the Muslims, it's because the Eastern Orthodox in Eastern Europe have always been a shield in front of the Muslim invasion, while you in the "knowledgeable" and "free" West (Europe and, later, the United States) were preoccupied, yes, with infallible Popes in Rome, Avignon or in yourselves, arrogantly believing that you may know truth, divorced from the work of the Holy Spirit in the Body of Christ, respectively from the Tradition of the undivided Church of the first millennium. There are Orthodox Saints who died fighting against the aggressive Muslims and confessing Christ right before they were murdered by those Muslims, who were trying to impose the Sharia law on everyone else. However, working for social peace with your neighbor, until he doesn't aggressively attack you, is nothing wrong from the Christian point of view. I agree that many of the ecumenist declarations and actions, respectively the ecumenist approach to the Christian faith, of some Orthodox leaders, as well as the globalist approach to secular society of the European Union, are not right, but that's another issue. "At the end of the day", in order to cite you, it's not about the persuasive power of the arguments which I, as an Orthodox believer alone, would be able to bring, but it's about the arguments which the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church of Christ, which is the Eastern Orthodox one, brought by the writings and testimonies of a living faith of its many Saints. There are also many Orthodox converts from Protestantism or Catholicism out there who have already demolished in their videos and blog posts many of your alleged "arguments" against the Church. It's all about the viewers/readers to decide for themselves. I didn't aim to gain anything for myself by posting my comment or by replying to you and I won't be doing it again. So you can freely continue with your "crusade" series ...
@@holinessofthebride1935, Eastern Orthodox do NOT worship the materials from which the images (icons) are made but venerate the persons represented in them, the Saints, and adore Jesus Christ. The images or icons are only honored, thus, not adored, for representing living Saints or the incarnated Son of God. "Dead" or alive, all of the true believers are of Christ. For the true history of honoring the icons and venerating the persons represented in them and the theological justification and importance of doing so, there are many written materials out there. Those which you called "'strong teachings" are, actually, either not against the use of images in veneration and worship (they are two different theological attitudes) but only apparently so, or they have been exposed for being heresies by the Ecumenical Councils, through which the Church only affirmed and explicated its teachings and practices of faith against the false ones.
Sola Scriptura...the authority of Scripture has been sidelined by Protestant denominations and the Roman and Eastern churches. We must return to the pure, clear and integrated Word of God
Lol
Belatedly, how so?
You are speaking in English. In England if you use a word like "papist" then you just sound like a hate-filled vulgar yob. Are you really going to apply that word to Catholics like myself?
Yes.
Yeah you dirty papist
Romanism is a derogatory term
Yes?
All you say is a joke 🤭