I'm an Orthodox priest. I thought this conversation was excellent. You dialogued with a very well spoken priest. I love the peaceful nature of these discussions.
This "Orthodox" theologian is clearly an ecumenist, because he considers Gavin a Christian. That is not the Orthodox view. Orthodoxy considers him heterodox/a heretic. Ecumenism is sweeping Greece, and its disgraceful.
Man, this was truly amazing. As a protestant I love father Spyridon Bailey's teachings on UA-cam and have always respected the Orthodox tradition. The Orthodox priest in this video was excellent. Gavin, you're a light in the darkness brother. May the Lord be with you always. You have helped me grow in the faith tremendously and I respect you immensely. Well done.
You are one of my favorite Protestant apologists. Your humility and desire to engage historical context is admirable even if I disagree with your conclusions. As a recent Catholic convert, I empathize with your convictions. Please keep the peaceful dialogue going. Your kind tone and fair treatment elevate the atmosphere. I've referred Protestant friends to your channel as a model of how to charitably engage Catholic arguments. You have my respect.
@lovegod8582 I know you mean well, but it's crystal clear to me that Protestants are "material heretics" (vs "formal herrtics") by definition. I draw close to Jesus every day, and especially close during the Divine Liturgy. I suggest we pray for our non-Christian friends that they discover the grace of Jesus... the unfathomable depths of His love and mercy. We have too many enemies at the door to be distracted with family in-fighting.
@@seeqr9 ,,Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you." (John 6.53). Peace 🙏☦️
I think it would be great for you guys to do a video on this if you haven’t already. Aren’t you concerned about the ecumenist tone of the whole thing? The stuff I’ve heard on your channel has been good, but I feel like simply saying this was an amazing dialogue might not help people recognize some of the problematic statements made on the Orthodox side of this discussion.
@@GuitarJesse7 Hey, brother. I appreciate your comment. I do find some things mentioned on the Orthodox side here a bit problematic. We actually had our own video with Dr.Gavin, which should come out sometime next year, and we addressed our concerns. The part we appreciated about the discussion here was that it wasn't hostile, but I am glad you mentioned something because we don't promote ecumenism.
Speaking as a Protestant minister, this was a joy to listen to. My wife & I spent the bulk of our honeymoon in Athens. We loved our time there, we hope you did as well. While there, we read Acts 17 together on Mars Hill & prayed for Christ’s blessings upon the city.
It is refreshing to see an Eastern Orthodox priest who conveys a truly gracious attitude toward Protestants.This is the type of dialogue that needs to take place
Thank you so much for doing this. My husband and I have many friends and family members who converted to Eastern Orthodoxy while we remained Protestant. It was very tense in the beginning, but we've since made great strides in mutual respect of each other's faith and practices. The spirit and tone of this conversation was exactly what I was hoping for when I started watching.
At 1:11:04, Gavin talks about the value of how protestants emphasize personal faith. I see it differently. I don't believe there is a lack of personal faith emphasized in EO, but that EO is more communal and less individualistic. Which was exactly the case in the New Testament and early church. Modern individualism is more of a liability than an asset, and is certainly a contributor to all the division in Protestantism.
The EO definitely tirelessly seeks to cultivate personal faith. But it does so knowing that our faith and even repentance is shared. We affect one another. So, it’s not merely personal. Communal faith goes a long way. But on the end, I stand before Christ and account for myself. But I do not stand alone! And I do not trust myself. “It is by grace…through faithfulness…”
Personal as in individual. But I agree that the emphasis of individual salvation vs corporate salvation is a concept that many a protestant teacher seems to have made mistakes over. Corporate soteriology is often overlooked.
Well I have been to many Protestant denominations and they are all mostly the same in doctrines they just differ in the way the worship mostly. So in other words they believe the same doctrines. What they call first doctrines. Where you see major differences is in movements that changed the first doctrines like Not believing in the Triune nature of God and believing in Jesus only and no one is saved that isn't Baptized in Jesus name only like the Apostolic Church ECT but those are not the majority. You go into most churches in America and they sing hymns and then do a sermon from the Bible. It's not all super different. The thing is in America we are all so different that we can't all just be one thing. For example my Grandparents are Methodist we believe all the same things but I am not really down with the Methodist style of worship.
When you give an account to God for your life, it will be done personally and individually primarily. As a Protestant i and my brothers clearly recognise the importance of community and communal worship and faith living nonetheless
The best part of debate was in the very end, where both speakers shacked their hands very friendly and said to each other: 'Thank you very much! I'm very honored to be with you!...me too!"
Love watching discussions between Protestants and Orthodox. But I would love to see a discussion between Gavin and Fr Josiah Trenham! Feel like that would be a fascinating conversation.
I was vacationing in Athens a couple days ago and was a seven minute drive from this church without knowing it. Extraordinary the way the kingdom is like yeast, unseen but moving everywhere!
What a cool dialogue and interaction. God has been giving such a heart for my non-Protestant brothers and sisters lately. Jesus prayed that we be one as He and the Father are One….the magnitude of that prayer, and the intrinsic responsibility for me and for us in the Body, is often forgotten or overlooked for sake of argument and furtherance of division. I ran into three Catholic monks in the airport a few weeks ago. We spoke. Had a loving conversation of Christ and how He changed our lives. They sang a blessing over me afterwards. The Body of Christ is beautiful in its diversity. I hold to the 5 solas, but I must learn to love deeper than I do today.
Loved this! Thank you Holy Spirit for allowing Gavin and Father Demetrios Bathrellos to have such beautiful discussion and most importantly push the unity of the Church. May this message and posture of heart land on good soil. In Jesus name, Amen
this was wonderful to watch, Gavin Ortrlund was a wonderful ambassador of my baptistic background and a dialog I've wanted to see for a long time. I would love to see more equivalents of this, in this sort of dialog format (in person specifically).
what must I do to be saved? The jailor asked Paul this very question and he replied, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you and your whole household shall be saved.
The emphasis on re-baptism by certain bishops and priests in the Orthodox Church also can be from a sense of being unsure of what kind of baptism was performed for a person (because they cannot remember), as well as a desire to share all the blessings of the full sacrament, which includes an exorcism ceremony before baptism, as well as the sealing and tonsuring afterwards. Some bishops feel a strong desire not to deprive their converts of these blessings.
The quote from Hilary of Poitiers at 44:55 was very helpful to me, as a Protestant, understanding why others assign more authority to the Church over against written documents. Thank you for this.
I am a protestant considering EO. A few thoughts on Gavin's opening statement: Gavin's first point area of disagreement is that EO claims to be the "one true church" and that the ethos of a few centuries ago was such that any outside EO are "outside the ark" and thus lost. I don't find this to be a convincing argument. Individual statements from certain EO leaders are not official pronouncements. As far as I know, EO has never said such things by official council or decree. As such, this isn't a difference between Protestantism and EO officially, but just difference between Protestantism and the statements of a few EO leaders a few centuries ago (which made more sense considering the ethos of the time, though still wrong). His second area of disagreement is that scripture is the only infallible rule: I tend to agree with this, but while the scriptures are infallible, they are often very mysterious and difficult to understand and apply to each time and circumstance. Sola scriptura has led to all kinds of interpretations and divisions. SS only works for unity if two things are true: 1. That scripture is so clear on all important matters so as to avoid any potential for confusion or error on such matters, and 2. All human minds are capable of accurately discerning the truths of scripture. Clearly neither of these are true, so SS fails. (Edit: Demetrios Bathrellos gives a good response to this at 44:25) His third area of disagreement is the doctrine of justification. I'm not reformed by a long stretch. I reject all 5 tenets of Calvinism as well as penal substitutionary atonement. (Edit: I like the statement at 46:20 - "We believe righteousness is not forensically imputed, but ontologically imparted; we become righteous, we are not just deemed righteous.) His fourth area is practices of worship and devotion, particularly veneration/intercession of saints. Still thinking through this one, but think EO has a great response here. They are not worshipping the saints, but believe they are still a part of the church ("the church triumphant" vs the church still on earth, "the church militant") who we have familial ties to and can ask to pray for us the same as we would any members of the church militant. Appreciate Gavin, but thus far not saying anything to persuade me away from EO. Ok, continuing to watch now.
thanks for the comment! You might be interested in seeing my fuller videos on the issue of ecclesial exclusivity. This is NOT just a matter of "individual statements from certain EO leaders." I reference numerous councils, e.g.
@@TruthUnitesand You’ve had Fr. Stephen explain to you why your reading and subsequent argument was baseless within Orthodox tradition yet you keep peddling it like snake oil salesman.
Reading this comment my friend, hard to believe you have ever been a Christian. As the end of times approach, it matters less what you accept and deny as truth to be held as a genuine Christian. And although we should and must promote peaceful dialogue, we should also be clear as to the teaching that saves or condemns a soul in eternity. It is not a church or a certain saint that saves or condemns, but whether we accept or deny the words of God given for our salvation.
@TruthUnites Is it possible that you misunderstand what is stated in such councils? Deification in this life outside the Church is impossible - to make saints belongs to the Church alone; but the eternal resting place after the Second Coming, this is something the Church does not establish for those who remain outside in ignorance - you will not find a single council that states that those outside the Church, who remain outside out of ignorance, will be condemned to everlasting fire. Similar to the Holy Scriptures, even the Holy Canons and Ecumenical Councils can be misunderstood.
@@SirMemesAlot71Was this during their conversation on the transfigured life hosted by Fr Johnathan and Luther? I guess I missed them discussing the exclusivity claims of the EOs.
“A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another. By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another.” John 13:34-35 KJV
I appreciate your ministry so much Dr. Ortlund. I am in my final year of an MDiv program and have been experiencing some discouragement with the ahistorical posture in my own Protestant context. I have been experiencing a season of something akin to deconstruction. Certainly not into liberal theology, but very much disillusionment with certain forms of Protestantism, namely non-denominationalism. These discussions keep me grounded despite my attraction to Eastern Orthodoxy and, to a lesser degree, Roman Catholicism. God bless!
I think that for many people, there is a an attraction to certainty (being part of a group that asserts to have all the answers). EO and RC have this deep historical significance that attracts many people to their antiquity. It’s not always theology that attracts people, but the psychological sense of certainty. However, I think the EO and RC certainty is a facade. I can’t be a member of those groups because I think there are positions where they are genuinely wrong (or don’t have the evidence to back up). In those systems I can’t disagree, I have to accept their web of beliefs. If one strand breaks, the whole web falls apart. And when you study theological development of church history (even the church fathers) you realize the certainty falls apart for they had debates and disagreements L
@@aperson4057Sure there were alwsys disagreements and debates. But if Christianity never had any unifying agreeing Orthodoxy then it was always an incoherent chaotic nonsense religion. Well done handing over Christianity into the hands of the Muslims and Atheists who have always taken that view.
@@aperson4057 "I think that for many people, there is a an attraction to certainty (being part of a group that asserts to have all the answers)." This may reflect the attitude of some converts, but for me the driving force was not that RC/EO "have all the answers," but rather that Protestantism _lacks_ essential features that are essential to the Christian faith - most importantly apostolic succession, valid Eucharist and liturgy, church authority, etc. I still struggle at times with accepting "all the beliefs," but Protestantism seems to be lacking so much of Christianity that I cannot even fathom becoming one. To rephrase your comment, I can't be a member of those groups because I think they are lacking essential features of the Christian faith and church which are genuinely part of the apostolic deposit. In those systems I can believe what I want, but they lack essential things, and the whole thing falls apart. When you study theological development and church history (even the church fathers), you realize how central apostolic Eucharistic worship and high ecclesiology are essential parts of the faith.
I pray also for those who will believe in me through their message, 21 that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me. 22 I have given them the glory that you gave me, that they may be one as we are one- 23 I in them and you in me-so that they may be brought to complete unity. Then the world will know that you sent me and have loved me. John 17:20-23
A question for you Gavin: "How do you see unification of the Church playing out?" In other words, who would have to change their beliefs in order to achieve reunification, and which beliefs in particular would have to be changed before you could consider the Church to once again be "unified?" Or is it your perspective that there doesn't need to be any change, because we are already unified by "mere Christianity" and all that is needed is an acknowledgement of each other's status?
I ask, because it seems (from what he has said here and elsewhere) he does not believe the issues that divide the Protestant, Catholic, and Orthodox wings of Christendom are of a level that is definitional of Christianity or salvific. So we need to ask, what is the level of disunity he sees? Is it the same sort of disunity that exists between denominations within Protestantism? Or is it something greater? It often seems like he is attempting to stake out some sort of middle ground between saying that the choice between Protestant and Catholic or Orthodox is essentially the same as the choice between say, Lutheran and Baptist - and saying that the disagreement is on the salvific level.
Not at all! It is true that Orthodox and Catholic can be saved, but we protestants believe that they are saved Despite their theology on justification...the Doctrine of imputed righteousness and substitutionary atonement seems to us rather important to ignore. If orthodox and catholics do not change there, it increases the risk greatly for millions of them to lose their souls to perdition. In that regard, the differences are very substantial. Orthodox and Catholics Can be Christians, but there is a great risk of delusion, considering their denial of imputed righteousness and substitutionary atonement. Of course, many protestants as well can lose their souls because they also do not understand and believe these doctrines but it will be Despite the Protestant tradition, not because of it. An Orthodox and Catholic can be saved because they may believe unconsciously these important doctrines. But it does not mean that it is not vital to work for the Catholic and the Orthodox to alter their theology in such a manner to accept these doctrines, which are the heart of the Gospel itself
One of the most important nuggets in this conservation is, "We don't believe righteousness is forensically imputed, but ontologically imparted. We become righteous, not deemed righteous" Mr. Gavin and my Protestant brothers in Christ, dwell on this so that you can truly understand. This will solve everything.
@@User-og1te "In justification, God declares sinners to be righteous, not by making them righteous, but by a legal fiction, imputing to them the perfect righteousness of Christ." - Michael Horton, *The Christian Faith: A Systematic Theology for Pilgrims on the Way* "The legal fiction that Christ’s righteousness belongs to us in justification is based upon the unity between Christ and the believer. This unity is the basis for the believer’s union with Christ in justification." - Thomas Schreiner, *Faith Alone: The Doctrine of Justification* "Justification is a legal fiction in the sense that it is a judicial declaration based on the imputation of Christ’s righteousness to believers." - John Frame, *Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Christian Belief* “Justification by faith does not mean that we are actually righteous but that we are declared righteous; it is a legal fiction in which God imputes to us the righteousness of Christ." - Millard Erickson, *Christian Theology* “The term 'legal fiction' captures the idea that God declares believers righteous based on the imputation of Christ's righteousness, though they remain sinful in themselves." - Robert Reymond, *A New Systematic Theology of the Christian Faith* Is this a start?
I’m a lifelong Protestant in the process of converting to Eastern Orthodoxy, I love seeing this. In this current secular culture, we must work together where we can, while still holding on to the critical areas of disagreement.
From your voice, it sounds like your sick, God bless you for doing this despite the extra hardship. God bless your family as well 🙏 (Edit, listened a little longer and i just heard you confirm that hehe...)
Most EOs I've wanted to interact with don't respond as politely or courteously as this gentleman. Breaks my heart, we need more productive dialogues like this! EDIT: Calm down people.
Just FYI, Internet isn't really a great way to inquire. Early on it kept me from actually attending and truly inquiring. Like those online from any denomination you will get some that misunderstand teachings, some that are overzealous and condescending etc. best thing to do is just attend and speak with the priest. Great books like the Orthodox faith series by Fr. Hopko is great to start with, and a series that goes more in depth by Metropolitan Hilarion Alfeyev.
I apologize on behalf of fellow Orthodox who’ve caused you to have this experience. While there are good online & podcast sources, those who most vocally push themselves forward as experts & apologists, without discounting their intent or faith, speak for themselves. In any area of online life, we must practice discernment in who is speaking & from what context. Many - not all - online presenters give clergy no end of grief. Bust this is true, I’m sure, of any group. Blessings in your efforts to draw nearer to Christ.
Try actually going to an orthodox parish for a few weeks and then inquire with either the priest or one of the regulars. You'll find someone wonderfully blessed people.
I've also found it incredibly difficult to dialogue w/ EO people as well. They are very condescending and exclusive, and they almost invariably look down on us, so see no need to talk w/ us civilly. I only see this w/ EO. Catholics are rarely like this. Though CAtholics usually stringently disagree w/ us on many points, they still tend to see us as breithren and are civil and usually loving. Of course if you go to an EO church, they will be warm, because you're now a potential convert.
This was a great dialog. I sincerely hope that the position expressed by the Priest here becomes more widespread. If we are EVER to see a fulfillment of John 17:23, we have a long way to go.
I don't know how God put this on your heart to talk more with Orthodox Christians, but it is a blessing for me as I am around nothing but them. Now the problem is, the orthodox you interview are not like the ones I met. No, mine have a more sect-like behavior while calling me a member of a sect. Very hard to talk about anything due to their closed-minded approach where it feels like at times you are just talking to walls as they simply do not listen to anything you're saying as what they see is just "a sect member". I can't even get the point across about what exactly protestants believe and that they should at least stop looking at us like that...
I truly believe this is a function of the internet and the polarizing nature of social media. On the flip side, as an Orthodox Christian I have had some extremely unpleasant interactions with Protestants online. But every Protestant I’ve met face to face in real life has been for the most part pretty charitable.
I’m sorry about that. That initial zeal will hopefully go away in these catachumens who are probably just young and immature and just need more time to grow up lol. But my question to a protestant regarding dialogue is this: Are you just trying to have a conversation, or are you trying to proselytize us under the guise of dialogue?
@@harrygarris6921 My interactions are face-to-face, your internet theory does not hold. You must not be from the East. There was no internet like this when I too was an Orthodox and called the Protestant sect members. In fact, at least in my country, the very word that means "post repentance" is used as an insult. You think about that one, how the devil managed to make that word ugly and shameful when what it means is one of the very things needed to enter heaven.
I see a difference between people who were raised Eastern Orthodox vs people in the west who joined in express opposition to their protestant upbringing.
Fascinating observation. On the other hand sometimes I find converts have a harder time holding to more extreme views of ecclesial exclusivism especially when many of these converts have experienced the work of the Holy Spirt outside the EO
@@ItsThatGuy1989 Can you explain why you feel that way? Are you referring only to GO's more inclusive posture? I am confirmed in my Protestant theology, but I would like to learn more about Orthodoxy.
It's important to remember that the type of person who's online a lot is not the same as the majority of who you'll find at your local parish. In my parish, 99% of the people have no online presence in any capacity and are very lovely. Orthodoxy is not an internet thing. Come and see and experience it in person for yourself.
It’s interesting that Dr. Gavin refers to the imputed righteousness of Christ as an “alien” righteousness. There is an opportunity here to explain in the best way I can that in the EO Church, we do not view that which is alien as salvific, but rather He who we are united with, familiar with and in love with.
To understand what alien justification is, you first have to stop thinking of yourself as righteous enough to be entitled to having any relation to or familiarity with God whatsoever. In other words, you have to know that you are a sinner to feel your need for an alien righteousness to be reconciled with your creator. Simply put, you can not love God without Christ's righteousness.
Alien refers to Christ's righteousness. It's used to clarify the difference between our own merit and that which is gained from christ. I think this is simply terminology difference since we do believe in union with christ
@@stamatissavvanis5862 let’s unpack two of your deep presumptions. Why would God be alien to me when He created me, loves me and continually draws me because he desires my salvation? And if God desires my salvation and all men, whose will is the one that is creating the problem? The one that caused the original sin. Therefore Salvation is Synergistic, you are presupposing the concept of Monergism, which is connected to your idea of total depravity, because you Protestants don’t start with Christology in which you would see both the Nature of man and of God united in the person of Christ, but you skip strait to Soteriology with these foundation-less errors.
@paulr5246 He would be alien because you are not God. Alien in this context doesn't mean he doesn't love you or draw you towards him, it's to specify that God and his attributes do not come from you. If it's not alien, then it comes from you. Saying God is alien isn't a modernism vs synergism but simply the creator creation distinction.
When I first came back to the faith. God took me first to JW and SDA. This meant I had to really study pray and meditate on the word. To find out. He didn’t want me to stay there. He just wanted me to sharpen my belief faith and wisdom ☝️❤️☦️
Great video. As always, Gavin is civil and Fr. Demetrios’ knowledge of Protestant theology and contrasting it to Orthodoxy was refreshing. I commend Dr. Ortlund for doing what James White won’t: understand our theology, dialogue with us, and being a nice person. The only hang up I have is Dr. Ortlund constantly bringing up how exclusive the Orthodox Church is as if it’s an argument. The only response that it deserves is, “And?” We all draw theological lines in the sand. We reject Mormons and JW’s, is it only bad because we exclude his tradition? Lest we forget what the Reformers called the pope and what modern bodies say of Rome (or Arminians, in the case of the Reformed). Are we also not to call out the theology of Islam? If he’s consistent in his ecumenism, why is it a problem to become Orthodox or Catholic? Why even argue against our position if we’re part of Christ’s body? Where’s that consistent line in the sand? It just seems we’re getting Dr. Ortlund’s view of what Protestantism should be, not what it has been or currently is. Even appealing to the Trinity as that dividing line is becoming more and more tendentious as Unitarianism is on the rise in Protestant circles as they appeal to, you guessed it, sola scriptura and the doctrine of the right of private judgement and the expense of church history and conciliar tradition (a wonderful point Fr. De Young made in his discussion). Plus, just to question his ecumenical consistency, Ortlund has called us genuine Christians yet iconodulia to him is a theological accretion and idolatry. Which is it? We can’t be idolaters and true Christians. We won’t get our feelings hurt if you call us apostates, Gavin. We just don’t want the waffling. We can handle the Turkish and communist yokes, we can handle one Protestant apologist’s take. This is one among many other issues in his grappling with Orthodoxy but most of them aren’t relevant to this video. I’ll let Perry Robinson handle that when his video comes out. Lastly, I get that some Protestants may have fallen afoul of “Orthobros.” To that, I’ll apologize on their behalf, they don’t represent us. At the same time, this is the internet. People do this. They argue and act in ways contrary to how they actually would thanks to anonymity and the lack of consequences from it. Whether they’re Reformed, Lutheran, Orthodox, Catholic, Muslim, or atheist. When you rattle cages or make what people perceive as a bad argument, they’ll call you out in varying degrees of charity. I’ve had Reformed people tell me I’m lying about ever being Reformed and that I never understood it. Can anybody really expect much from a YT comments argument? If you want to get in our heads, read our books, talk to our priests and bishops, or especially our monks. It’s why I’m reading Calvin, Turretin, Luther, Hodge, Grudem, and more. That’s why I’m glad, as a point in his favor, Gavin isn’t just interviewing internet Orthodox randoms, that’d be incredibly painful on every side of the spectrum. But us disagreeing with Ortlund and arguing is not us being uncharitable and picking on the nice guy. We think he’s wrong and should be corrected.
Gavin needed to walk into Orthodox Churches while in Greece and realize their age, existing long long before protestantism (1000 years ago for the Church of Panagia Kapnikarea, ). All the priests in them, long before the printing press, celebrated the Divine Liturgy. The question for Gavin is just HOW could the Orthodox Church have so grievously errored in its belief regarding the Divine Liturgy? Then on the way home, stop in Rome. Visit among other ancient churches Santa Maria Maggiore, nearly 1600 years old. As in the Orthodox Church, Catholic priests have celebrated the Mass in them since their construction.. The question remains for Gavin is HOW could the Church have errored to grievously in its understanding of the nature of the Eucharist AND HOW the bread and wine are transformed into the Resurrected Christ (through the consecration by an ordained priest)? Gavin teaches both the Orthodox and Catholic's universally errored and didn't know it. So too, how does the Holy Spirit work, consistently or not? Truth unites: the fruit of Sola Scriptura, a 16th c man-made division, is only doctrinal chaos, confusion, and division. One can see this quite evidently comparing protestant beliefs on the nature of the Lord's Supper - not united and only found in the last 500 years - and the Orthodox/Catholic faith.
"I commend Dr. Ortlund for doing what James White won’t: understand our theology, dialogue with us, and being a nice person." Bingo. I've been critical of some of Dr. Ortlund's positions as of late, but this is spot on. People like James White are emblematic of everything wrong in that tradition, and Dr. Ortlund, at the very least, works in the opposite direction from the perspective of what he displays. This is to be commended. "Plus, just to question his ecumenical consistency, Ortlund has called us genuine Christians yet iconodulia to him is a theological accretion and idolatry. Which is it?" Amen, again. This relates to one of the areas I've criticized Dr. Ortlund's efforts. He has displayed some confusing inconstancies, as demonstrated in the "last question" at the end of this video.
Having icons doesn’t make you an apostate church even if it’s an accretion. Drawing a line in the sand is fine when talking about what is true, but having perfect truth is not the standard when judging Christians. That’s Gavin’s whole point. How is it inconsistent? That was done since the reformation. I’ll put it this way. The church is the body of Christ. Ephesians 4:11-16 the church is given apostles, prophets, evangelists, shepherds, and teachers to equip and build up the body, to eventually grow into the unity of the faith and fullness of Christ. Has God or hasn’t God given such men to build up his body in Protestant churches. What is your answer?
@@collin501 Dr. Ortlund has, in several instances, implied (or even explicitly stated) that iconography is akin to idolatry, so it is difficult for me to see how that isn't a pretty serious claim, given what St. Paul says about idolatry. So, if he's stating that a major aspect of a Church's practice is idolatrous, to then turn around and say it's not that big of a deal and we're all still Christians seems inconsistent to me.
@@Gregorydrobnyit seems that your complaint with Gavin is that he is almost as inconsistent as Orthodox people saying he is a Christian then speaking anathema towards him every year in the synodicon of Orthodoxy. Orthodoxy is a faith full of mystery is it not? Let's not be too harsh demanding clear differentiation from Gavin when the Orthodox offer little to no clear answers on many basic questions. Rather then demand he to better, try building clarity in your own camp with Godly Charity.
By what authority does an EO priest or bishop disregard the authority of the universally received Jerusalem Council of 1672 and the subsequent Council in Constantinople that also later confirmed Jerusalem 1672?
Bravo, great discussion. As an Orthodox turned more into a bible believing Christian, I wish the Orthodox Church would have more bible preaching or have a stronger evangelizing arm. As we can see not many people read their bibles, get born again that's why not many know Jesus. But very good discussions, should be done more. Both can learn from each other. Great Orthodox priest also.
Could you note some specific miss information from Schooping? Everything I have checked out myself from him has been accurate so far. I'd love to know the truth about Orthodox doctrine and practice and am open to hearing your viewpoint. I have listened to several responses to schoopings work but have found them triumphalistic and not actually solving the issues he brings up.
@@BrianLassek The best way of finding out about Orthodox practice and doctrine is to attend services, if this is possible where you live, the doctrine and practice is best seen, heard, touched and smelled! Reading and videos all have their place but actual attendance at Divine Liturgy is the best. As a respectful visitor you don't have to do anything other than watch and take it all in and most parishes would be very welcoming.
@@TheMOV13 I have attended service's and listened to intricate explanations of their meaning. I would really appreciate if those who propagate criticism of a person (Schooping) would actually state what the error is and not just say "they/he/you just don't understand unless you are taught by liturgy". If Schoopings information is wrong then it is only his words that are needed to point out the issue even if more is needed to correct it.
@@BrianLassek I'm afraid I haven't had any contact with this Schooping person, so I'm not qualified to say. But if you have all the information on both sides, then it sounds like you have all you need to make an informed assessment? When I was approaching Orthodoxy, I learned enough to be able to make an informed decision about what I was getting into and the commitment required. I realised that I could have spent the whole of the rest of my life, trying to figure out if every single detail was absolutely correct according to some standard or other, but realised that being in possession of enough knowledge it was basically decision time and so I took the plunge. Of course, you have to be well informed before "taking the plunge" but there is also such a thing as over-thinking and over-analysing.
@@TheMOV13 thank you for your kind response and willingness to help. I asked about schooping because I agree with his assessment about and major spiritual dangers within the eastern orthodox tradition. At this point I would need major repentance across the majority of bishops before I would consider joining or encouraging others to join the eastern traditions. I recognize many devout people and that there are some wonderful healthy Orthodox communities. I pray that you are filled with wisdom and the spirit of God and empowered to be a blessing to your community and the world. Thanks again.
Notice how Fr Demetrios Bathrellos a cradle Orthodox, born, and raised in his faith dialogue differently than his Western counterpart who converted into the faith with polemical spirit against their Protestantism upbringing. This difference is important to notice. I am a subdeacon in Byzantine Catholic Church who grew up in a Dutch Calvinist tradition. When I first converted I didn't disparaging my past Protestantism because I bring what is good and holy into Catholicism. This is an issue of maturity. You don't need to defend your faith by attacking others. You can defend your faith better by representing your faith in its best form. Be irenic, be kind, be a holy Christian. In Byzantine Catholic Seminary Fr Christiaan Kappes told us seminarians to avoid online polemic. Win souls not winning arguments. If you committed that your Church is the one Christ established then behave as one show it by being holy and godly in how you talk. Notice charitable dialogue between Gavin Ortlund and Fr Demetrios Bathrellos. God bless.
Orthodox Christians who converted from some form of other Christianity had to likely deal with the arguments put forward by their prior confession. Many also had to deal with, and some still do, strong disagreements between family members and friends who routinely believe the person is leaving the faith, Christ, or the Gospel by becoming Orthodox. So, because of these circumstances converts sometimes will have a strong polemical mindset due to what they've had to endure to find the Church. They should not in the least be disparaged because of this. Church history of the first millennium is chock full of strong, even vehement, debates and treatises directed at, yes, individuals who were considered as teaching heresy. Many of the converts have read these various Church Father writings have taken on their spirit. This is not contrary to the Gospel or Holy Orthodoxy, it is part and parcel of it. We, in modern times, live in a very polite world of not wanting to hurt feelings. The Lord cared not for the feelings He routinely offended. He spoke the truth, and it offended people, causing them to leave Him, and eventually causing them to want to murder Him. Christians ought not to be concerned with being timid, polite, and not hurting feelings. Christians should emulate their Lord and the many Saints throughout the Church's history who cared not for these modern sensibilities.
@@justanotherlikeyou A dear friend of mine just converted to EO and he's been calling all other forms of Christianity heresy. Now I simply cannot agree with that, I used to be a correctional officer, having seen people enter prison and convert with a kind of interdenominational church by state rule, I have seen good fruit produced, some of the most inspiring fruit too. I have held malice in my heart towards him for his words but I never even considered this point of view. His dad is a baptist preacher, he met his wife through the baptist church, and is reluctant to attend liturgies with him, it has to be hard and there's no telling what hurtful words he has endured in trying to be sincere with his faith. I have to admit, you have gotten me to see sin I was holding in my heart for a brother that I need to get rid of. Thank you. God bless!
Did I misread? Did you just call yourself “good and holy”? Anyway, remember that ALL Christian traditions have a VERY polemical side. NO one gets to wrap themselves in the cloak of moderate agreeableness. And many of us converts to EO are used to EO being condemned as idolaters, Pharisees, etc. Now evangelicals are calling “foul” as reputable tables are turned. I’m in favor of maturity, but not via the word-smithing that often comes from modern VII Catholics. This priest came pretty close…
Byzantine Catholicism is just Orthodox LARP. Of course you loved this dialogue. Your Pope is the ultimate Ecumenist. He prays in mosques with Muslims and in synagogues with Jews.
@@sethcarter4910 are you familiar with cage phase term? In Catholicism, rad trad. In EOy ortho bros. It's basically conversion phase. Just because we see saints doing certain things or saying certain words that don't mean for us to repeat. Plenty examples I will give a few. Just because we saw Elijah mocking Ba'al then rounding their priests and beheaded 300 of them that doesn't mean the Church today supposed to mock other religions and beheaded their religious leaders. Because God didn't instruct his saint to do such extreme actions. The outcome after was telling he ran afraid hiding in a cave. Another is Elisha cursed 42 boys mauled to death by she-bears. Nowhere God told him to cursed those boys. Any holy saints and holy apostles were not infallible, many are sinners who repented and still struggling with their moral imperfections until they died. David instructed Solomon to murder his cousin Joab because he was loyal to David and would undermine his future reign. God didn't instruct David to shed more blood unnecessarily. Joab was murdered while seeking asylum in the Temple, this is a blatant violation of Levitical law which protect a man seeking protection. I can go on and on endlessly if needed from holy tradition. Fr Demetrios Barthellos mentioned it in passing how the Church is not infallible when commiting mistakes such as heretical councils later rejected and torture or murder committed in the name of God. The only protection the Church has which is infallible is her endurance in the faith until the Parousia. I wrote a paper in Byzantine Catholic Seminary specific on slavery in the early Church and secrecy on sex scandals in the early Church. Probably one day I will write that into a book of my bishop permit me. My point is that just because we see rude statements and brute attitudes that don't mean we today ought to emulate it. Let's learn from Paul who lament his harsh actions on Mark and be reconciled near Paul's last days. Holy saints and apostles are not perfect they have their own insecurities and vulnerabilities. Our task is to discern and emulate whatever good from them and avoid whatever they did but not according to what God asks them to do that they did without God's approval. Remember when Moses was angry with the Israelites and struck the rock twice? In direct violation to God's clear instruction to Moses for a strike. Just because it was recorded that doesn't mean we must follow it to the letters. Remember what Paul told us learn according to the Spirit that gives life and not according to the letters that killed. The Holy Spirit have baptized you in the name of most holy Trinity. Let our mind, our deed, and our intent reflect what's worthy of our theosis. The Logos incarnate told us do to others as you want others done to you. Love your enemies. Bless those who persecuted you. Love not insult. Kindness bring sinners to repented not polemical arguments. If you need to debate then there will be time for it. When you're spending 100% of time to prioritize debate something is wrong spiritually. Debate when needed but irenic most of the time. So that by your actions those who see you not stumbled but see Holy Spirit who proceeds from the Father and shining forth through the Son, living in you and glorifying God because of your holy and godly conduct. God bless.
As Orthodox, I appreciate you pressing him on the historic position. You were right to do that. I was actually just reading florovsky and he himself said we “must and should stick to the position of cyprian of Carthage” but then went on to explain away how there are “valid sacraments” outside the Church. I do not understand how that can be so, apart from capitulation for the sake of feelings. And the vat 2 Roman Catholic influence on Orthodoxy in Russia. To tell me a baptist who themselves do NOT believe Holy Communion is the very uncreated body and blood of Jesus Christ, ARE in fact receiving that regardless…. is in my opinion patronizing. They are not taking it with the same faith. It’s like when I’ve heard Catholics try and tell me “You’re actually Roman Catholic by proxy, you are just too dumb to understand why”. The way it makes the most sense, is that the Holy Spirit MUST work outside the bounds of the Canonical Church to bring people. But will ultimately lead that person TO the Orthodox Church, and nothing else. And we can never make a judgment on the final state of someone’s soul, not even our own. I’m 1000 miles away from “BEING Orthodox”.
I appreciate that you recognize that no one can know the final state of a person's soul. I'm wondering, though, what you make of the tens of millions coming to Christ across the third world who never ultimately enter Orthodoxy. Would you say those millions are not heeding His guidance?
@@HiHoSilvey I would say the same answer. I cannot, and no one but Christ makes the final judgment on anyone’s soul. My personal opinion is that everyone will be judged according to what they did with what they knew. How their faith worked. Salvation is also not all about how we score on the test at the end of life. It’s probably a lot less about that. To whom much is given, much is expected, and vice versa.
@@LadderOfDescentThat we are judged according the light we’ve received is really not a personal opinion. I’ve heard it taught by priests of every stripe.
@@traceyedson9652 I’ve heard it as well, I think it must be differentiated as personal opinion when you say God is the judge alone. I come from a background that made very quick final judgment statements towards others, so I really take that serious across the board.
Dr. Ortlund, Thank you for continuing healthy Orthodox-Protestant discussions through videos such as this. I have a quick question for you. I had noticed that you affirmed a "common creedal heritage in at least the first four ecumenical councils" (14:40). I understand that you do not affirm Nicaea II. Do you also not affirm Constantinople II and III?
In response to brother Bathrellos comment about how other Christians remain faithful without the orthodox ascetic life. I think it comes down to the ratio of having relationship with Christ and His church VS having relationship with Christ through His Church. The external vs internal directions of God moving in our hearts. This is why evangelicals are better at evangelism and preaching and Orthodox engage longer services. One side is more skilled at receiving from God personally and sharing corporately, the other more disciplined at receiving from God corporately for personal reception.
I am an Orthodox convert, who spent twenty-five years in Protestantism, first of the Anabaptist sort, and then of the Calvinist variety. I very much love the beauty of Orthodox worship, the prayer services, and the many beautiful prayers of the saint we have that we can pray back to God. I understand and agree with the communion of the saints and how icons give us a window into that communion. I understand the Sacraments and feel they are essential to receiving God's grace. What I don't understand is the Orthodox teaching of solteriology. St. Paul teaches us in Ephesians that salvation is a complete gift, apart from anything we can do or offer to God. But when you say that we have to do works in order to be saved, it is no longer a gift. It is no longer a free gift, but is merely a potentiality, which is dependent entirely upon my response to it. Being the sinner that I am ( and keeping the Confessional quite warm) I find this terrifying, not only for me, but for all the people who have never heard of Christ and all the people who have seen a false presentation of Christ and who reject him because of lousy Christian witness. It seems to me in thinking of this that the Orthodox faith has conflated salvation with theosis. That is to say, salvation is free by God's grace, but theosis is not. That is where we have to work to cooperate with the Holy Spirit that the grace of God might change us into the likeness of Christ. Even the Orthodox prayer book seems to indicate this in the prayer which says that if god responds to our works rather than our faith, then it becomes a duty rather than a gift. So I am a bit confused, but I will keep praying and seeking the Lord, asking for His guidance until I get some illumination on this.
By theosis, do you mean sanctification? Or is that something different in Orthodoxy? I’m assuming you know the term sanctification as a protestant would understand it since you came from Protestantism. I don’t know if the Orthodox even use that word or have a slightly different meaning for it.
@@cowboyd5673 If by sanctification you mean becoming holy and like Christ, then yes, theosis is the same thing. We put aside our sins and take on the likeness of Christ by killing the flesh and its passions through the various ascetic means given to us by the Church.,
Just an addition to my earlier comment. Gavin seems to have two major points that he usually gets around to when he's speaking with Orthodox people. Those are: 1) His issues with the way we use Icons. This one has been beaten to death. Ortlands position that icons are fine as long as you don't venerate isn't the historical position of the 1st period of iconoclasts that Nicea 2 was responding to. The iconoclasts of Hieria would not only disagree with Gavin having images of living things, full stop. Not just no pictures of Jesus, no pictures of your dog. This would put Hieria in opposition to the images in the Catacombs or Dura-Europos. The oldest church spaces that we have. Heck, even drawing the Jesus fish was considered idolatry by Hieria and we have that kind of stuff dating to the late 1st or early 2nd centry. If Gavin is comfortable owning an image of Jesus, and looks at it lovingly or finds peace in it, he's a lot closer to our position that I think he realizes. The Iconoclasm he defends tends to be the more moderate, post Nicea 2 variety but he will use that to oppose Nicea 2 as if that is what Nicea 2 is responding to which it is not. The anathemas are against a council that banned you owning pictures of your dog among other things, not against a yet-to-happen more moderate version of iconoclasm that rolled out decades later. It would seem to me that Ortland is closer to Nicea 2 in his beliefs than Hieria. Anyway I don't want to get bogged down on that one, I know it's the hill Ortland feels he can die on. 2) The "Exclusivity" claims of the Orthodox Church....and related to this belief that the Orthodox position on this has fundamentally changed. *** Among the more ecumenical types of Orthodox you hear a lot of people who hold a similar position that mainstream Catholics do, that is the more "Inclusive" position. What ends up happening is Gavin wants Tries to push orthodox into one of two camps: Ecumenists and Rigorists You have the "Yes, you are also a fellow Christian" answer. He follows it up with asking about sacraments. Ideally, he wants a "Yes you are a Christian and yes you have sacraments" answer because it's an easy follow-up: His follow-up is Well that's great, I also believe that, however, that belief is inconsistent with the historical Orthodox position, actually thinking other denominations are also Christians is a uniquely protestant doctrine that was (invented, developed, or restored? Some combo of these?) during the reformation. He will then like clockwork ask for Orthodox ( or Catholic) Documents, Theologians, Councils, whatever between something like 700 and 1400 that defend this modern position that is taken by some Orthodox people. He will claim they don't exist to his knowledge. Basically, I agree with you because you have taken a uniquely protestant position. On the flip side if you say "Well, no, you not a Christian" or "Well you are heterodox" even "Well, you are part of a community of people but not really the church" He will basically appeal to that being "mean" or "ridiculous." After all there are nice people who love Jesus and try to live good lives who are Protestant, or Catholic, or whatever. So if you say they aren't "fully Christian" then well, uncharitable or mean or unchristian. This position is largely fueled by the normal protestant belief that the church is invisible/ all believers or what have you. I'm not assuming bad intentions, but this seems to be how Gavin is approaching the issue. You are either inconsistent with old teachings or your position is uncharitable. Either way you should accept the protestant doctrine of... ecumenism...or mere christianityism or maybe Branch Theory? Some or all of these, but basically you have to give up "Exclusivism" and while acknowledging "real differences" basically relegate those to 2nd tier like many modern protestants have. The problem is I don't think the Orthodox position can be shoehorned into one of these two sides that Gavnin wants to lead it...first off because I think his history is wrong, or at least oversimplified to the point where it might as well be, and because I think the best way to express the Orthodox position on this is that truth of the matter is both and neither. What I mean by this is no, you don't have the sort of ecumenical feel-good but go-nowhere dialogue 500 years ago. Yes the church has always taught that outside the church there is no salvation. The Church has always acknowledged a certain level of Christianity within schismatic sects. This is evident with how they are received back into the church. Schism is a serious and damnable sin and so being part of a schismatic group or leading one is a VERY serious thing. Protestants are a late historical development and so how they fit into all this has to be understood that way. They have only existed for the 2nd half of the great schism. The last 1/4th of Christian history. Denominations didn't really exist until Protestantism. Yes, the first 1000 years of the church is full of schisms. Sometimes they are small: this or that patriarchate vs this or that Patriarchate over jurisdiction or church policies of some kind. Sometimes they were more serious and over theology. But over all, east and west were defined by small o orthodoxy and what the authentic tradition was understood to be. The idea that you would go into a town and have a buffet of options of churches to attend with different theologies would have been wild to them. Cities always had a single bishop, or at least ought to. Sometimes that bishop or synod of bishops might wander off into heterodoxy, but the rest of the church eventually would check them, clean house and they would resume Orthodoxy. In RARE cases you might have 2 bishops in a city at the same time due to a schism. These were usually resolved at the death of one or both. It was considered very irregular and very undesirable. Even with the great schism from the Orthodox perspective, it started as really a regional schism. Theology of course was the cause but it was the Patriarchate of Rome breaking from the other Patriarchs. It certainly wasn't a clean break, it took hundreds of years. Lay People, Priests and Bishops crossed lines on both sides. I am unaware of it being the mainstream thing for anyone to be even re-christened or re-ordained going either direction during this initial period of the schisim..in fact I don't think it has been the case for most of it. Yes, it is in the middle ages when you have people like Palimas or Aquinas writing polemical arguments against each other's side. Both are EMPHATIC that it is necessary for salvation for people to believe in correct theology. This theology had real-world implications. But you have to look at the way the churchs ACTUALLY function to understand the way they viewed eachother. They both saw each other as schismatic heretics whos churches had broken with the legitimate Orthodox Catholic Church. But both sides accept each other's sacraments for the most part. This sort of thing continues though the 16th and even 17 centuries. Over time the Catholics and Orthodox grow further apart as (from the Orthodox perspective) Rome falls into more and more errors and as the Orthodox become more aware of the depths of the errors. There is a ton of dialogue between Catholics and Orthodox during the Middle Ages. The positions are still solidifying and the precise relationship is in some level of flux with multiple attempts at reunion. Clearly reading how they spoke about each other sounds more like quiring brothers than strangers. It would be very dishonest to say that they didn't view each other as Christian. In fact the polemical works are often in CONTRAST to the behavior on the ground. So no, this didn't just "pop up" at the reformation. What did change with the reformation is the creation of denominations. (England is unique and develops them later) Now you have people picking their flavor of Christianity vs picking (if you even have an option) which side of the hierarchy of a church that is divided by schism, but which on some level is two regional halves. (although one is Orthodox and the other is heterodox) And it would make sense that while the two churches (Orthodox and Catholic) are closer together at the begining of the schism you might accept all the sacraments when someone converts from Rome. As Rome falls into more errors (from the orthodox perspective) or the errors become more apparent it might make sense to chrismate or eventually just baptize everyone just to be safe. Roman Catholicism has changed a lot in the last 1000 years, a lot in the last 500 years and again quite a bit more after V1 and again after V2. Still, Russians have historically received Catholic Clergy through Vesting. If this makes sense now or not is debatable. If it was prudent in the past is also debatable with our current hindsight of knowing how bad Rome has gotten. Regardless it was how things were done and that tells you a lot about attitudes. I made another comment on how Protestants are essentially to Orthodox Christians what Samaritans are to the 2nd temple Jews. The Samaritans though they were"Jewish" in a sense had separated themselves from the Jewish "Church" structure, appointed their own priests, worshiped in the wrong way (on the mountain)...but they also had a version of the Pentateuch and considered themselves Jewish. Sometimes when the Jews were talking about them they considered them a Jewish sect, sometimes a separate ethnicity. (Josephus talks about them in both of these ways)
Nicaea II was a travesty and proves beyond doubt that Councils are not infallible which pretty much explodes the Ecclesial claims. It overturns the clear consensus of the early church with forgeries and eye gouging monarchs. I as a Protestant can breezily accept that the EO are true Christians with some theological errors while you say 40% of global trinitarian, Bible reading and Christ loving Christians are going to Hell. You dont need a wall of text to realise that is nonsense.
I loved how Father Demetrios said we should not just pray to be counted worthy, but to be made worthy. I wonder if some of my fellow Protestants would behave so arrogantly and even cruelly on the public stage if they took this to heart.
“Is Christ divided?…” 1 cor. 1:13 I pray for the unification of Christ’s Church. Let us preach the gospel of Christ, and set aside any thing that distracts or causes Christ’s children to stumble.
Hope you don't say this out of an anti-greek sentiment, because most Portuguese are very anti-greek and for the life of me, I can't understand why... We Greeks have nothing against the Portuguese btw...
I'm an Orthodox priest. I thought this conversation was excellent. You dialogued with a very well spoken priest. I love the peaceful nature of these discussions.
Amen!
I love this its a joy
This "Orthodox" theologian is clearly an ecumenist, because he considers Gavin a Christian. That is not the Orthodox view. Orthodoxy considers him heterodox/a heretic. Ecumenism is sweeping Greece, and its disgraceful.
Σας Ευλογεί πάτερ🙏
Notice how there are no hate comments coming at you brother? XD it is a blessing to have serene teaching because this is how we find the truth
Blessed are the peace makers for they will inherit the earth - may you be blessed brother!
I'm sure, you mean: brotherS.
@@mwidunn Good point!!!
True peace is possible only in the fullness of the truth. ,,One Lord, one faith, one baptism,'' (Ephesians 4.5). I am referring to Orthodox baptism.
Man, this was truly amazing. As a protestant I love father Spyridon Bailey's teachings on UA-cam and have always respected the Orthodox tradition. The Orthodox priest in this video was excellent. Gavin, you're a light in the darkness brother. May the Lord be with you always. You have helped me grow in the faith tremendously and I respect you immensely. Well done.
Maybe you should checkout a liturgy
Hello. There is ,,One Lord, one faith, one baptism,'' (Ephesians 4.5). I am referring to Orthodox baptism.
Paul was simply referring to Baptism as there was no Eastern Orthodoxy then@@Yasen.Dobrev
You are one of my favorite Protestant apologists. Your humility and desire to engage historical context is admirable even if I disagree with your conclusions. As a recent Catholic convert, I empathize with your convictions. Please keep the peaceful dialogue going. Your kind tone and fair treatment elevate the atmosphere. I've referred Protestant friends to your channel as a model of how to charitably engage Catholic arguments. You have my respect.
The RCC has some blatant heresies. Turn to Christ 🙏
@lovegod8582 I know you mean well, but it's crystal clear to me that Protestants are "material heretics" (vs "formal herrtics") by definition. I draw close to Jesus every day, and especially close during the Divine Liturgy. I suggest we pray for our non-Christian friends that they discover the grace of Jesus... the unfathomable depths of His love and mercy. We have too many enemies at the door to be distracted with family in-fighting.
@@lovegod8582 Turn to Orthodoxy.
@@Yasen.DobrevDo the hokie pokie… 😂
Jk… luv you ALL!
@@seeqr9 ,,Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you." (John 6.53).
Peace 🙏☦️
Amazing dialogue. Dr Gavin, thanks for continuing to model these healthy discussions! ☦️
I think it would be great for you guys to do a video on this if you haven’t already. Aren’t you concerned about the ecumenist tone of the whole thing? The stuff I’ve heard on your channel has been good, but I feel like simply saying this was an amazing dialogue might not help people recognize some of the problematic statements made on the Orthodox side of this discussion.
@@GuitarJesse7 Hey, brother. I appreciate your comment. I do find some things mentioned on the Orthodox side here a bit problematic. We actually had our own video with Dr.Gavin, which should come out sometime next year, and we addressed our concerns. The part we appreciated about the discussion here was that it wasn't hostile, but I am glad you mentioned something because we don't promote ecumenism.
Speaking as a Protestant minister, this was a joy to listen to. My wife & I spent the bulk of our honeymoon in Athens. We loved our time there, we hope you did as well. While there, we read Acts 17 together on Mars Hill & prayed for Christ’s blessings upon the city.
I actually was on Mars Hill with a friend and we did the same thing!
@@TruthUnitesHeretic OC🤑🤑🤑🤑🤑🤑
😅@@mariadedinszky5707
@@mariadedinszky5707trigerred catholic??lol
It is refreshing to see an Eastern Orthodox priest who conveys a truly gracious attitude toward Protestants.This is the type of dialogue that needs to take place
I hope this is representative.
To be honest, most in EO are like this. Sadly, the loudest and most aggressive go online the most
@@looqo7632I agree
@@looqo7632 I'm a protestant but have only ever seen good things from the Orthodox! ❤
Thank you, Gavin! Your conduct in these dialogues is influential, and the spirit of this one was encouraging.
I love how you are demonstrating the working of the Holy Spirit within you. Charitable, showing love and compassion and your joy for Christ to others.
Thank you so much for doing this. My husband and I have many friends and family members who converted to Eastern Orthodoxy while we remained Protestant. It was very tense in the beginning, but we've since made great strides in mutual respect of each other's faith and practices. The spirit and tone of this conversation was exactly what I was hoping for when I started watching.
Check Gavin's new book. Blessings from Finland !
At 1:11:04, Gavin talks about the value of how protestants emphasize personal faith. I see it differently. I don't believe there is a lack of personal faith emphasized in EO, but that EO is more communal and less individualistic. Which was exactly the case in the New Testament and early church. Modern individualism is more of a liability than an asset, and is certainly a contributor to all the division in Protestantism.
The EO definitely tirelessly seeks to cultivate personal faith. But it does so knowing that our faith and even repentance is shared. We affect one another. So, it’s not merely personal. Communal faith goes a long way. But on the end, I stand before Christ and account for myself. But I do not stand alone! And I do not trust myself. “It is by grace…through faithfulness…”
Personal as in individual.
But I agree that the emphasis of individual salvation vs corporate salvation is a concept that many a protestant teacher seems to have made mistakes over. Corporate soteriology is often overlooked.
Well I have been to many Protestant denominations and they are all mostly the same in doctrines they just differ in the way the worship mostly. So in other words they believe the same doctrines. What they call first doctrines. Where you see major differences is in movements that changed the first doctrines like Not believing in the Triune nature of God and believing in Jesus only and no one is saved that isn't Baptized in Jesus name only like the Apostolic Church ECT but those are not the majority. You go into most churches in America and they sing hymns and then do a sermon from the Bible. It's not all super different. The thing is in America we are all so different that we can't all just be one thing. For example my Grandparents are Methodist we believe all the same things but I am not really down with the Methodist style of worship.
When you give an account to God for your life, it will be done personally and individually primarily. As a Protestant i and my brothers clearly recognise the importance of community and communal worship and faith living nonetheless
@@alexbakerloo1979 with respect, you don’t know what you claim is true. No one has been there yet.
Gavin! My Greek wife and I got married at first Greek evangelical on September 20th! Small world
Glad you had the chance to visit Greece. Great video. -EO from Thessaloniki.
I had the blessing to celebrate Pascha in Thessaloniki last year! I’d love to celebrate all the major Feasts in Orthodox countries. ❤️❤️❤️
@@mamafortuinI celebrated a couple of years ago at St. Dimitrios. Incredible Holy Week. Where did you celebrate?
@@rsissel1 I went to St. Gregory Palamas and then later to St. Demetrius as well. 🥰
Both beautiful
The best part of debate was in the very end, where both speakers shacked their hands very friendly and said to each other: 'Thank you very much! I'm very honored to be with you!...me too!"
Edifying discussion between two faithful servants of Christ 🤝
Fantastic conversation between two good men of God.
Love watching discussions between Protestants and Orthodox. But I would love to see a discussion between Gavin and Fr Josiah Trenham! Feel like that would be a fascinating conversation.
I was vacationing in Athens a couple days ago and was a seven minute drive from this church without knowing it. Extraordinary the way the kingdom is like yeast, unseen but moving everywhere!
What a cool dialogue and interaction. God has been giving such a heart for my non-Protestant brothers and sisters lately. Jesus prayed that we be one as He and the Father are One….the magnitude of that prayer, and the intrinsic responsibility for me and for us in the Body, is often forgotten or overlooked for sake of argument and furtherance of division. I ran into three Catholic monks in the airport a few weeks ago. We spoke. Had a loving conversation of Christ and how He changed our lives. They sang a blessing over me afterwards. The Body of Christ is beautiful in its diversity. I hold to the 5 solas, but I must learn to love deeper than I do today.
Your charitable approach, seeking dialogue and understanding of one another without relativism, is refreshing.
Loved this! Thank you Holy Spirit for allowing Gavin and Father Demetrios Bathrellos to have such beautiful discussion and most importantly push the unity of the Church. May this message and posture of heart land on good soil. In Jesus name, Amen
Very refreshing when compared to the vast sea of hateful dialogues
I thought this would be a boring talk... but not at all.
Thanks for whomever organised this debate!
What a wonderful and gracefilled conversation. Thank you! ❤
this was wonderful to watch, Gavin Ortrlund was a wonderful ambassador of my baptistic background and a dialog I've wanted to see for a long time.
I would love to see more equivalents of this, in this sort of dialog format (in person specifically).
Very privileged to have Father Demetrios as my tutor.
Great discussion - we need more of this type of dialogue!
This was just wonderful. Thank you
Fantastic work as always Dr Ortlund! God bless
Gavin, i would love a follow-up video sharing your thoughts and experiences visiting Greece. Thank-you.
what must I do to be saved? The jailor asked Paul this very question and he replied, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you and your whole household shall be saved.
Such a lovely and mutually respectful dialogue is heartwarming.
The emphasis on re-baptism by certain bishops and priests in the Orthodox Church also can be from a sense of being unsure of what kind of baptism was performed for a person (because they cannot remember), as well as a desire to share all the blessings of the full sacrament, which includes an exorcism ceremony before baptism, as well as the sealing and tonsuring afterwards. Some bishops feel a strong desire not to deprive their converts of these blessings.
Certainly if the Christian didn't remember if they were baptized as St. Matthew writes it's good to baptize them that way.
The quote from Hilary of Poitiers at 44:55 was very helpful to me, as a Protestant, understanding why others assign more authority to the Church over against written documents. Thank you for this.
Gavin, this is great. Thank you for your efforts in ecumenism. God bless you both.
Gavin thank you so much for this video! What a blessing this has been for me my friend! Thank you for being faithful servant!
Beautiful interaction. Refreshing to my heart.
Love this so much Gavin! Miss you & your family @fbco but so happy you’re doing stuff like this.~ Rick
I am a protestant considering EO. A few thoughts on Gavin's opening statement:
Gavin's first point area of disagreement is that EO claims to be the "one true church" and that the ethos of a few centuries ago was such that any outside EO are "outside the ark" and thus lost. I don't find this to be a convincing argument. Individual statements from certain EO leaders are not official pronouncements. As far as I know, EO has never said such things by official council or decree. As such, this isn't a difference between Protestantism and EO officially, but just difference between Protestantism and the statements of a few EO leaders a few centuries ago (which made more sense considering the ethos of the time, though still wrong).
His second area of disagreement is that scripture is the only infallible rule: I tend to agree with this, but while the scriptures are infallible, they are often very mysterious and difficult to understand and apply to each time and circumstance. Sola scriptura has led to all kinds of interpretations and divisions. SS only works for unity if two things are true: 1. That scripture is so clear on all important matters so as to avoid any potential for confusion or error on such matters, and 2. All human minds are capable of accurately discerning the truths of scripture. Clearly neither of these are true, so SS fails. (Edit: Demetrios Bathrellos gives a good response to this at 44:25)
His third area of disagreement is the doctrine of justification. I'm not reformed by a long stretch. I reject all 5 tenets of Calvinism as well as penal substitutionary atonement. (Edit: I like the statement at 46:20 - "We believe righteousness is not forensically imputed, but ontologically imparted; we become righteous, we are not just deemed righteous.)
His fourth area is practices of worship and devotion, particularly veneration/intercession of saints. Still thinking through this one, but think EO has a great response here. They are not worshipping the saints, but believe they are still a part of the church ("the church triumphant" vs the church still on earth, "the church militant") who we have familial ties to and can ask to pray for us the same as we would any members of the church militant.
Appreciate Gavin, but thus far not saying anything to persuade me away from EO.
Ok, continuing to watch now.
thanks for the comment! You might be interested in seeing my fuller videos on the issue of ecclesial exclusivity. This is NOT just a matter of "individual statements from certain EO leaders." I reference numerous councils, e.g.
@@TruthUnitesand You’ve had Fr. Stephen explain to you why your reading and subsequent argument was baseless within Orthodox tradition yet you keep peddling it like snake oil salesman.
Reading this comment my friend, hard to believe you have ever been a Christian. As the end of times approach, it matters less what you accept and deny as truth to be held as a genuine Christian. And although we should and must promote peaceful dialogue, we should also be clear as to the teaching that saves or condemns a soul in eternity. It is not a church or a certain saint that saves or condemns, but whether we accept or deny the words of God given for our salvation.
@TruthUnites
Is it possible that you misunderstand what is stated in such councils?
Deification in this life outside the Church is impossible - to make saints belongs to the Church alone; but the eternal resting place after the Second Coming, this is something the Church does not establish for those who remain outside in ignorance - you will not find a single council that states that those outside the Church, who remain outside out of ignorance, will be condemned to everlasting fire.
Similar to the Holy Scriptures, even the Holy Canons and Ecumenical Councils can be misunderstood.
@@SirMemesAlot71Was this during their conversation on the transfigured life hosted by Fr Johnathan and Luther? I guess I missed them discussing the exclusivity claims of the EOs.
This is outstanding. Thank you gentlemen
Thank you for bringing clarity and charity to the conversation.
Glory to God. I really enjoyed the discussion. I love all of my Christian brothers regardless of tradition ❤
Amen!
thank you Sir Gavin. inpraise God for your life and ministry.
This was very edifying and uplifting to watch!
“A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another. By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another.”
John 13:34-35 KJV
This was great, thank you!
I appreciate your ministry so much Dr. Ortlund. I am in my final year of an MDiv program and have been experiencing some discouragement with the ahistorical posture in my own Protestant context. I have been experiencing a season of something akin to deconstruction. Certainly not into liberal theology, but very much disillusionment with certain forms of Protestantism, namely non-denominationalism. These discussions keep me grounded despite my attraction to Eastern Orthodoxy and, to a lesser degree, Roman Catholicism. God bless!
Brother I have gone through the exact same thing while getting my ThM. If you ever need someone to talk to let me know.
I think that for many people, there is a an attraction to certainty (being part of a group that asserts to have all the answers).
EO and RC have this deep historical significance that attracts many people to their antiquity. It’s not always theology that attracts people, but the psychological sense of certainty.
However, I think the EO and RC certainty is a facade. I can’t be a member of those groups because I think there are positions where they are genuinely wrong (or don’t have the evidence to back up). In those systems I can’t disagree, I have to accept their web of beliefs. If one strand breaks, the whole web falls apart.
And when you study theological development of church history (even the church fathers) you realize the certainty falls apart for they had debates and disagreements
L
@@BeefyPreacherWhat happened? Did you become athiest?
@@aperson4057Sure there were alwsys disagreements and debates. But if Christianity never had any unifying agreeing Orthodoxy then it was always an incoherent chaotic nonsense religion. Well done handing over Christianity into the hands of the Muslims and Atheists who have always taken that view.
@@aperson4057 "I think that for many people, there is a an attraction to certainty (being part of a group that asserts to have all the answers)."
This may reflect the attitude of some converts, but for me the driving force was not that RC/EO "have all the answers," but rather that Protestantism _lacks_ essential features that are essential to the Christian faith - most importantly apostolic succession, valid Eucharist and liturgy, church authority, etc. I still struggle at times with accepting "all the beliefs," but Protestantism seems to be lacking so much of Christianity that I cannot even fathom becoming one.
To rephrase your comment, I can't be a member of those groups because I think they are lacking essential features of the Christian faith and church which are genuinely part of the apostolic deposit. In those systems I can believe what I want, but they lack essential things, and the whole thing falls apart.
When you study theological development and church history (even the church fathers), you realize how central apostolic Eucharistic worship and high ecclesiology are essential parts of the faith.
I pray also for those who will believe in me through their message, 21 that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me. 22 I have given them the glory that you gave me, that they may be one as we are one- 23 I in them and you in me-so that they may be brought to complete unity. Then the world will know that you sent me and have loved me. John 17:20-23
Thanks for doing this brother!
I'm happy to see your continued dialogue with the Orthodox Church.
Thank you Gavin for this fascinating dialog!
I thoroughly enjoyed this. Thanks.
Whhhaaaaaaat! Gavin, what a gift!! 🎉
A question for you Gavin: "How do you see unification of the Church playing out?" In other words, who would have to change their beliefs in order to achieve reunification, and which beliefs in particular would have to be changed before you could consider the Church to once again be "unified?"
Or is it your perspective that there doesn't need to be any change, because we are already unified by "mere Christianity" and all that is needed is an acknowledgement of each other's status?
That is a good question - I hope he addresses it.
I ask, because it seems (from what he has said here and elsewhere) he does not believe the issues that divide the Protestant, Catholic, and Orthodox wings of Christendom are of a level that is definitional of Christianity or salvific. So we need to ask, what is the level of disunity he sees?
Is it the same sort of disunity that exists between denominations within Protestantism? Or is it something greater?
It often seems like he is attempting to stake out some sort of middle ground between saying that the choice between Protestant and Catholic or Orthodox is essentially the same as the choice between say, Lutheran and Baptist - and saying that the disagreement is on the salvific level.
Not at all! It is true that Orthodox and Catholic can be saved, but we protestants believe that they are saved Despite their theology on justification...the Doctrine of imputed righteousness and substitutionary atonement seems to us rather important to ignore. If orthodox and catholics do not change there, it increases the risk greatly for millions of them to lose their souls to perdition. In that regard, the differences are very substantial. Orthodox and Catholics Can be Christians, but there is a great risk of delusion, considering their denial of imputed righteousness and substitutionary atonement. Of course, many protestants as well can lose their souls because they also do not understand and believe these doctrines but it will be Despite the Protestant tradition, not because of it. An Orthodox and Catholic can be saved because they may believe unconsciously these important doctrines. But it does not mean that it is not vital to work for the Catholic and the Orthodox to alter their theology in such a manner to accept these doctrines, which are the heart of the Gospel itself
Yay I love that we are all Christians that makes me very happy 😊❤.
One of the most important nuggets in this conservation is,
"We don't believe righteousness is forensically imputed, but ontologically imparted. We become righteous, not deemed righteous"
Mr. Gavin and my Protestant brothers in Christ, dwell on this so that you can truly understand. This will solve everything.
Why not both?
@@JP-rf8rr
How can your righteousness be a “legal fiction” and an ontological reality at the same time?
@littlefishbigmountain Out of a desire to learn, where are you quoting the term legal fiction from?
@@User-og1te He is saying "legal fiction" because it is not forensic imputation. It is impartation.
@@User-og1te
"In justification, God declares sinners to be righteous, not by making them righteous, but by a legal fiction, imputing to them the perfect righteousness of Christ." - Michael Horton, *The Christian Faith: A Systematic Theology for Pilgrims on the Way*
"The legal fiction that Christ’s righteousness belongs to us in justification is based upon the unity between Christ and the believer. This unity is the basis for the believer’s union with Christ in justification." - Thomas Schreiner, *Faith Alone: The Doctrine of Justification*
"Justification is a legal fiction in the sense that it is a judicial declaration based on the imputation of Christ’s righteousness to believers." - John Frame, *Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Christian Belief*
“Justification by faith does not mean that we are actually righteous but that we are declared righteous; it is a legal fiction in which God imputes to us the righteousness of Christ." - Millard Erickson, *Christian Theology*
“The term 'legal fiction' captures the idea that God declares believers righteous based on the imputation of Christ's righteousness, though they remain sinful in themselves." - Robert Reymond, *A New Systematic Theology of the Christian Faith*
Is this a start?
I’m a lifelong Protestant in the process of converting to Eastern Orthodoxy, I love seeing this. In this current secular culture, we must work together where we can, while still holding on to the critical areas of disagreement.
Thanks God, very refreshing
Wonderful opening.
Great dialogue 🤝
Really enjoyed this. Given that Eastern Orthodoxy is so new to me.
The Filioque common ground of from the Father through the Son is a very interesting one. I'd love to see the theology of that fleshed out.
Dr Beau Branson
@@mitch0990 do you have a video link?
It was very refreshing .
Great conversation
From your voice, it sounds like your sick, God bless you for doing this despite the extra hardship. God bless your family as well 🙏
(Edit, listened a little longer and i just heard you confirm that hehe...)
5:37 - a profound truth right there.
When traveling and not having an Orthodox Church to attend, I seek out High Anglican or Lutheran Churches I feel right at home.
Most EOs I've wanted to interact with don't respond as politely or courteously as this gentleman. Breaks my heart, we need more productive dialogues like this!
EDIT: Calm down people.
Just FYI, Internet isn't really a great way to inquire. Early on it kept me from actually attending and truly inquiring. Like those online from any denomination you will get some that misunderstand teachings, some that are overzealous and condescending etc. best thing to do is just attend and speak with the priest. Great books like the Orthodox faith series by Fr. Hopko is great to start with, and a series that goes more in depth by Metropolitan Hilarion Alfeyev.
I apologize on behalf of fellow Orthodox who’ve caused you to have this experience. While there are good online & podcast sources, those who most vocally push themselves forward as experts & apologists, without discounting their intent or faith, speak for themselves. In any area of online life, we must practice discernment in who is speaking & from what context. Many - not all - online presenters give clergy no end of grief. Bust this is true, I’m sure, of any group. Blessings in your efforts to draw nearer to Christ.
Try actually going to an orthodox parish for a few weeks and then inquire with either the priest or one of the regulars. You'll find someone wonderfully blessed people.
I've also found it incredibly difficult to dialogue w/ EO people as well. They are very condescending and exclusive, and they almost invariably look down on us, so see no need to talk w/ us civilly. I only see this w/ EO. Catholics are rarely like this. Though CAtholics usually stringently disagree w/ us on many points, they still tend to see us as breithren and are civil and usually loving.
Of course if you go to an EO church, they will be warm, because you're now a potential convert.
@@saintejeannedarc9460 that's a pretty cynical way of looking at it. How many parishes have you visited?
This was a great dialog.
I sincerely hope that the position expressed by the Priest here becomes more widespread.
If we are EVER to see a fulfillment of John 17:23, we have a long way to go.
I don't know how God put this on your heart to talk more with Orthodox Christians, but it is a blessing for me as I am around nothing but them.
Now the problem is, the orthodox you interview are not like the ones I met. No, mine have a more sect-like behavior while calling me a member of a sect. Very hard to talk about anything due to their closed-minded approach where it feels like at times you are just talking to walls as they simply do not listen to anything you're saying as what they see is just "a sect member". I can't even get the point across about what exactly protestants believe and that they should at least stop looking at us like that...
Those orthodox people you are talking about are american orthodox people i suppose. The orthobros, all former protestants haha
ua-cam.com/video/b3pAZyUZ79s/v-deo.htmlsi=mzGDtvTVSpLZYZoe
I truly believe this is a function of the internet and the polarizing nature of social media. On the flip side, as an Orthodox Christian I have had some extremely unpleasant interactions with Protestants online. But every Protestant I’ve met face to face in real life has been for the most part pretty charitable.
I’m sorry about that. That initial zeal will hopefully go away in these catachumens who are probably just young and immature and just need more time to grow up lol. But my question to a protestant regarding dialogue is this: Are you just trying to have a conversation, or are you trying to proselytize us under the guise of dialogue?
@@harrygarris6921 My interactions are face-to-face, your internet theory does not hold. You must not be from the East. There was no internet like this when I too was an Orthodox and called the Protestant sect members. In fact, at least in my country, the very word that means "post repentance" is used as an insult. You think about that one, how the devil managed to make that word ugly and shameful when what it means is one of the very things needed to enter heaven.
This was awesome! We need to a Go Fund Me to send you to Greece again for a round 2
I see a difference between people who were raised Eastern Orthodox vs people in the west who joined in express opposition to their protestant upbringing.
It’s also a certain percentage of the converts not all. It helps that Greek Orthodoxy is imo the healthiest expression of the faith
Fascinating observation.
On the other hand sometimes I find converts have a harder time holding to more extreme views of ecclesial exclusivism especially when many of these converts have experienced the work of the Holy Spirt outside the EO
@@ItsThatGuy1989 Can you explain why you feel that way? Are you referring only to GO's more inclusive posture? I am confirmed in my Protestant theology, but I would like to learn more about Orthodoxy.
It's important to remember that the type of person who's online a lot is not the same as the majority of who you'll find at your local parish. In my parish, 99% of the people have no online presence in any capacity and are very lovely. Orthodoxy is not an internet thing. Come and see and experience it in person for yourself.
in addition to being more fervent, a well catechized convert will be more knowledgeable than a "cradle" Orthodox or Latin Christian.
there is hope. 🥰🥰🥰 Christ is our living hope, we always remember that.
Praise God!
Good job. Better than your usual videos
It’s interesting that Dr. Gavin refers to the imputed righteousness of Christ as an “alien” righteousness. There is an opportunity here to explain in the best way I can that in the EO Church, we do not view that which is alien as salvific, but rather He who we are united with, familiar with and in love with.
To understand what alien justification is, you first have to stop thinking of yourself as righteous enough to be entitled to having any relation to or familiarity with God whatsoever. In other words, you have to know that you are a sinner to feel your need for an alien righteousness to be reconciled with your creator. Simply put, you can not love God without Christ's righteousness.
Alien refers to Christ's righteousness. It's used to clarify the difference between our own merit and that which is gained from christ. I think this is simply terminology difference since we do believe in union with christ
@@stamatissavvanis5862 let’s unpack two of your deep presumptions. Why would God be alien to me when He created me, loves me and continually draws me because he desires my salvation? And if God desires my salvation and all men, whose will is the one that is creating the problem? The one that caused the original sin.
Therefore Salvation is Synergistic,
you are presupposing the concept of Monergism, which is connected to your idea of total depravity, because you Protestants don’t start with Christology in which you would see both the Nature of man and of God united in the person of Christ, but you skip strait to Soteriology with these foundation-less errors.
That's about as concise as it gets.
@paulr5246
He would be alien because you are not God. Alien in this context doesn't mean he doesn't love you or draw you towards him, it's to specify that God and his attributes do not come from you. If it's not alien, then it comes from you. Saying God is alien isn't a modernism vs synergism but simply the creator creation distinction.
When I first came back to the faith. God took me first to JW and SDA. This meant I had to really study pray and meditate on the word. To find out. He didn’t want me to stay there. He just wanted me to sharpen my belief faith and wisdom ☝️❤️☦️
Great video. As always, Gavin is civil and Fr. Demetrios’ knowledge of Protestant theology and contrasting it to Orthodoxy was refreshing. I commend Dr. Ortlund for doing what James White won’t: understand our theology, dialogue with us, and being a nice person.
The only hang up I have is Dr. Ortlund constantly bringing up how exclusive the Orthodox Church is as if it’s an argument. The only response that it deserves is, “And?” We all draw theological lines in the sand. We reject Mormons and JW’s, is it only bad because we exclude his tradition? Lest we forget what the Reformers called the pope and what modern bodies say of Rome (or Arminians, in the case of the Reformed). Are we also not to call out the theology of Islam? If he’s consistent in his ecumenism, why is it a problem to become Orthodox or Catholic? Why even argue against our position if we’re part of Christ’s body? Where’s that consistent line in the sand? It just seems we’re getting Dr. Ortlund’s view of what Protestantism should be, not what it has been or currently is. Even appealing to the Trinity as that dividing line is becoming more and more tendentious as Unitarianism is on the rise in Protestant circles as they appeal to, you guessed it, sola scriptura and the doctrine of the right of private judgement and the expense of church history and conciliar tradition (a wonderful point Fr. De Young made in his discussion).
Plus, just to question his ecumenical consistency, Ortlund has called us genuine Christians yet iconodulia to him is a theological accretion and idolatry. Which is it? We can’t be idolaters and true Christians. We won’t get our feelings hurt if you call us apostates, Gavin. We just don’t want the waffling. We can handle the Turkish and communist yokes, we can handle one Protestant apologist’s take. This is one among many other issues in his grappling with Orthodoxy but most of them aren’t relevant to this video. I’ll let Perry Robinson handle that when his video comes out.
Lastly, I get that some Protestants may have fallen afoul of “Orthobros.” To that, I’ll apologize on their behalf, they don’t represent us. At the same time, this is the internet. People do this. They argue and act in ways contrary to how they actually would thanks to anonymity and the lack of consequences from it. Whether they’re Reformed, Lutheran, Orthodox, Catholic, Muslim, or atheist. When you rattle cages or make what people perceive as a bad argument, they’ll call you out in varying degrees of charity. I’ve had Reformed people tell me I’m lying about ever being Reformed and that I never understood it. Can anybody really expect much from a YT comments argument? If you want to get in our heads, read our books, talk to our priests and bishops, or especially our monks. It’s why I’m reading Calvin, Turretin, Luther, Hodge, Grudem, and more. That’s why I’m glad, as a point in his favor, Gavin isn’t just interviewing internet Orthodox randoms, that’d be incredibly painful on every side of the spectrum. But us disagreeing with Ortlund and arguing is not us being uncharitable and picking on the nice guy. We think he’s wrong and should be corrected.
Gavin needed to walk into Orthodox Churches while in Greece and realize their age, existing long long before protestantism (1000 years ago for the Church of Panagia Kapnikarea, ). All the priests in them, long before the printing press, celebrated the Divine Liturgy. The question for Gavin is just HOW could the Orthodox Church have so grievously errored in its belief regarding the Divine Liturgy? Then on the way home, stop in Rome. Visit among other ancient churches Santa Maria Maggiore, nearly 1600 years old. As in the Orthodox Church, Catholic priests have celebrated the Mass in them since their construction.. The question remains for Gavin is HOW could the Church have errored to grievously in its understanding of the nature of the Eucharist AND HOW the bread and wine are transformed into the Resurrected Christ (through the consecration by an ordained priest)? Gavin teaches both the Orthodox and Catholic's universally errored and didn't know it.
So too, how does the Holy Spirit work, consistently or not?
Truth unites: the fruit of Sola Scriptura, a 16th c man-made division, is only doctrinal chaos, confusion, and division. One can see this quite evidently comparing protestant beliefs on the nature of the Lord's Supper - not united and only found in the last 500 years - and the Orthodox/Catholic faith.
"I commend Dr. Ortlund for doing what James White won’t: understand our theology, dialogue with us, and being a nice person."
Bingo. I've been critical of some of Dr. Ortlund's positions as of late, but this is spot on. People like James White are emblematic of everything wrong in that tradition, and Dr. Ortlund, at the very least, works in the opposite direction from the perspective of what he displays. This is to be commended.
"Plus, just to question his ecumenical consistency, Ortlund has called us genuine Christians yet iconodulia to him is a theological accretion and idolatry. Which is it?"
Amen, again. This relates to one of the areas I've criticized Dr. Ortlund's efforts. He has displayed some confusing inconstancies, as demonstrated in the "last question" at the end of this video.
Having icons doesn’t make you an apostate church even if it’s an accretion. Drawing a line in the sand is fine when talking about what is true, but having perfect truth is not the standard when judging Christians. That’s Gavin’s whole point. How is it inconsistent? That was done since the reformation.
I’ll put it this way. The church is the body of Christ. Ephesians 4:11-16 the church is given apostles, prophets, evangelists, shepherds, and teachers to equip and build up the body, to eventually grow into the unity of the faith and fullness of Christ. Has God or hasn’t God given such men to build up his body in Protestant churches. What is your answer?
@@collin501 Dr. Ortlund has, in several instances, implied (or even explicitly stated) that iconography is akin to idolatry, so it is difficult for me to see how that isn't a pretty serious claim, given what St. Paul says about idolatry. So, if he's stating that a major aspect of a Church's practice is idolatrous, to then turn around and say it's not that big of a deal and we're all still Christians seems inconsistent to me.
@@Gregorydrobnyit seems that your complaint with Gavin is that he is almost as inconsistent as Orthodox people saying he is a Christian then speaking anathema towards him every year in the synodicon of Orthodoxy. Orthodoxy is a faith full of mystery is it not? Let's not be too harsh demanding clear differentiation from Gavin when the Orthodox offer little to no clear answers on many basic questions. Rather then demand he to better, try building clarity in your own camp with Godly Charity.
Great work Gavin!
By what authority does an EO priest or bishop disregard the authority of the universally received Jerusalem Council of 1672 and the subsequent Council in Constantinople that also later confirmed Jerusalem 1672?
Good question
Because he's an ecumenist just like you! ☦️
@@dustinneelyEO bro here calling you out on the very thing that brings scandal: condemning, faceless online voices.
@@traceyedson9652 Joshua Schooping is an apostate Orthodox Priest. He left the Church and is now a Protestant pastor. He's an ecumenist!
Bravo, great discussion. As an Orthodox turned more into a bible believing Christian, I wish the Orthodox Church would have more bible preaching or have a stronger evangelizing arm. As we can see not many people read their bibles, get born again that's why not many know Jesus. But very good discussions, should be done more. Both can learn from each other. Great Orthodox priest also.
Much better than that Schooping guy who was spreading such orthodox misinformation. Thank you for your work Gavin for this fair dialogue.
Could you note some specific miss information from Schooping? Everything I have checked out myself from him has been accurate so far. I'd love to know the truth about Orthodox doctrine and practice and am open to hearing your viewpoint. I have listened to several responses to schoopings work but have found them triumphalistic and not actually solving the issues he brings up.
@@BrianLassek The best way of finding out about Orthodox practice and doctrine is to attend services, if this is possible where you live, the doctrine and practice is best seen, heard, touched and smelled! Reading and videos all have their place but actual attendance at Divine Liturgy is the best. As a respectful visitor you don't have to do anything other than watch and take it all in and most parishes would be very welcoming.
@@TheMOV13 I have attended service's and listened to intricate explanations of their meaning. I would really appreciate if those who propagate criticism of a person (Schooping) would actually state what the error is and not just say "they/he/you just don't understand unless you are taught by liturgy".
If Schoopings information is wrong then it is only his words that are needed to point out the issue even if more is needed to correct it.
@@BrianLassek I'm afraid I haven't had any contact with this Schooping person, so I'm not qualified to say. But if you have all the information on both sides, then it sounds like you have all you need to make an informed assessment? When I was approaching Orthodoxy, I learned enough to be able to make an informed decision about what I was getting into and the commitment required. I realised that I could have spent the whole of the rest of my life, trying to figure out if every single detail was absolutely correct according to some standard or other, but realised that being in possession of enough knowledge it was basically decision time and so I took the plunge. Of course, you have to be well informed before "taking the plunge" but there is also such a thing as over-thinking and over-analysing.
@@TheMOV13 thank you for your kind response and willingness to help. I asked about schooping because I agree with his assessment about and major spiritual dangers within the eastern orthodox tradition. At this point I would need major repentance across the majority of bishops before I would consider joining or encouraging others to join the eastern traditions. I recognize many devout people and that there are some wonderful healthy Orthodox communities.
I pray that you are filled with wisdom and the spirit of God and empowered to be a blessing to your community and the world. Thanks again.
Theology of beauty… God-talk of beauty …grateful this came up, and a deep well to be plumbed, especially in and through Christ
Notice how Fr Demetrios Bathrellos a cradle Orthodox, born, and raised in his faith dialogue differently than his Western counterpart who converted into the faith with polemical spirit against their Protestantism upbringing. This difference is important to notice. I am a subdeacon in Byzantine Catholic Church who grew up in a Dutch Calvinist tradition. When I first converted I didn't disparaging my past Protestantism because I bring what is good and holy into Catholicism. This is an issue of maturity. You don't need to defend your faith by attacking others. You can defend your faith better by representing your faith in its best form. Be irenic, be kind, be a holy Christian. In Byzantine Catholic Seminary Fr Christiaan Kappes told us seminarians to avoid online polemic. Win souls not winning arguments. If you committed that your Church is the one Christ established then behave as one show it by being holy and godly in how you talk. Notice charitable dialogue between Gavin Ortlund and Fr Demetrios Bathrellos. God bless.
Orthodox Christians who converted from some form of other Christianity had to likely deal with the arguments put forward by their prior confession. Many also had to deal with, and some still do, strong disagreements between family members and friends who routinely believe the person is leaving the faith, Christ, or the Gospel by becoming Orthodox. So, because of these circumstances converts sometimes will have a strong polemical mindset due to what they've had to endure to find the Church. They should not in the least be disparaged because of this. Church history of the first millennium is chock full of strong, even vehement, debates and treatises directed at, yes, individuals who were considered as teaching heresy. Many of the converts have read these various Church Father writings have taken on their spirit. This is not contrary to the Gospel or Holy Orthodoxy, it is part and parcel of it. We, in modern times, live in a very polite world of not wanting to hurt feelings. The Lord cared not for the feelings He routinely offended. He spoke the truth, and it offended people, causing them to leave Him, and eventually causing them to want to murder Him. Christians ought not to be concerned with being timid, polite, and not hurting feelings. Christians should emulate their Lord and the many Saints throughout the Church's history who cared not for these modern sensibilities.
@@justanotherlikeyou A dear friend of mine just converted to EO and he's been calling all other forms of Christianity heresy. Now I simply cannot agree with that, I used to be a correctional officer, having seen people enter prison and convert with a kind of interdenominational church by state rule, I have seen good fruit produced, some of the most inspiring fruit too. I have held malice in my heart towards him for his words but I never even considered this point of view. His dad is a baptist preacher, he met his wife through the baptist church, and is reluctant to attend liturgies with him, it has to be hard and there's no telling what hurtful words he has endured in trying to be sincere with his faith. I have to admit, you have gotten me to see sin I was holding in my heart for a brother that I need to get rid of. Thank you. God bless!
Did I misread? Did you just call yourself “good and holy”? Anyway, remember that ALL Christian traditions have a VERY polemical side. NO one gets to wrap themselves in the cloak of moderate agreeableness. And many of us converts to EO are used to EO being condemned as idolaters, Pharisees, etc. Now evangelicals are calling “foul” as reputable tables are turned. I’m in favor of maturity, but not via the word-smithing that often comes from modern VII Catholics. This priest came pretty close…
Byzantine Catholicism is just Orthodox LARP. Of course you loved this dialogue. Your Pope is the ultimate Ecumenist. He prays in mosques with Muslims and in synagogues with Jews.
@@sethcarter4910 are you familiar with cage phase term? In Catholicism, rad trad. In EOy ortho bros. It's basically conversion phase. Just because we see saints doing certain things or saying certain words that don't mean for us to repeat. Plenty examples I will give a few. Just because we saw Elijah mocking Ba'al then rounding their priests and beheaded 300 of them that doesn't mean the Church today supposed to mock other religions and beheaded their religious leaders. Because God didn't instruct his saint to do such extreme actions. The outcome after was telling he ran afraid hiding in a cave. Another is Elisha cursed 42 boys mauled to death by she-bears. Nowhere God told him to cursed those boys. Any holy saints and holy apostles were not infallible, many are sinners who repented and still struggling with their moral imperfections until they died. David instructed Solomon to murder his cousin Joab because he was loyal to David and would undermine his future reign. God didn't instruct David to shed more blood unnecessarily. Joab was murdered while seeking asylum in the Temple, this is a blatant violation of Levitical law which protect a man seeking protection. I can go on and on endlessly if needed from holy tradition. Fr Demetrios Barthellos mentioned it in passing how the Church is not infallible when commiting mistakes such as heretical councils later rejected and torture or murder committed in the name of God. The only protection the Church has which is infallible is her endurance in the faith until the Parousia. I wrote a paper in Byzantine Catholic Seminary specific on slavery in the early Church and secrecy on sex scandals in the early Church. Probably one day I will write that into a book of my bishop permit me. My point is that just because we see rude statements and brute attitudes that don't mean we today ought to emulate it. Let's learn from Paul who lament his harsh actions on Mark and be reconciled near Paul's last days. Holy saints and apostles are not perfect they have their own insecurities and vulnerabilities. Our task is to discern and emulate whatever good from them and avoid whatever they did but not according to what God asks them to do that they did without God's approval. Remember when Moses was angry with the Israelites and struck the rock twice? In direct violation to God's clear instruction to Moses for a strike. Just because it was recorded that doesn't mean we must follow it to the letters. Remember what Paul told us learn according to the Spirit that gives life and not according to the letters that killed. The Holy Spirit have baptized you in the name of most holy Trinity. Let our mind, our deed, and our intent reflect what's worthy of our theosis. The Logos incarnate told us do to others as you want others done to you. Love your enemies. Bless those who persecuted you. Love not insult. Kindness bring sinners to repented not polemical arguments. If you need to debate then there will be time for it. When you're spending 100% of time to prioritize debate something is wrong spiritually. Debate when needed but irenic most of the time. So that by your actions those who see you not stumbled but see Holy Spirit who proceeds from the Father and shining forth through the Son, living in you and glorifying God because of your holy and godly conduct. God bless.
You have a great talking voice. No malice is my favorite
As Orthodox, I appreciate you pressing him on the historic position. You were right to do that.
I was actually just reading florovsky and he himself said we “must and should stick to the position of cyprian of Carthage” but then went on to explain away how there are “valid sacraments” outside the Church.
I do not understand how that can be so, apart from capitulation for the sake of feelings. And the vat 2 Roman Catholic influence on Orthodoxy in Russia.
To tell me a baptist who themselves do NOT believe Holy Communion is the very uncreated body and blood of Jesus Christ, ARE in fact receiving that regardless…. is in my opinion patronizing. They are not taking it with the same faith.
It’s like when I’ve heard Catholics try and tell me “You’re actually Roman Catholic by proxy, you are just too dumb to understand why”.
The way it makes the most sense, is that the Holy Spirit MUST work outside the bounds of the Canonical Church to bring people. But will ultimately lead that person TO the Orthodox Church, and nothing else. And we can never make a judgment on the final state of someone’s soul, not even our own.
I’m 1000 miles away from “BEING Orthodox”.
Well put
I appreciate that you recognize that no one can know the final state of a person's soul. I'm wondering, though, what you make of the tens of millions coming to Christ across the third world who never ultimately enter Orthodoxy. Would you say those millions are not heeding His guidance?
@@HiHoSilvey I would say the same answer. I cannot, and no one but Christ makes the final judgment on anyone’s soul.
My personal opinion is that everyone will be judged according to what they did with what they knew. How their faith worked. Salvation is also not all about how we score on the test at the end of life. It’s probably a lot less about that.
To whom much is given, much is expected, and vice versa.
@@LadderOfDescentThat we are judged according the light we’ve received is really not a personal opinion. I’ve heard it taught by priests of every stripe.
@@traceyedson9652 I’ve heard it as well, I think it must be differentiated as personal opinion when you say God is the judge alone. I come from a background that made very quick final judgment statements towards others, so I really take that serious across the board.
Was hoping for a discussion on the doctrine of assurance also
do they even think we are Christians?
Yes, but heterodox Christians.
Dr. Ortlund,
Thank you for continuing healthy Orthodox-Protestant discussions through videos such as this. I have a quick question for you. I had noticed that you affirmed a "common creedal heritage in at least the first four ecumenical councils" (14:40). I understand that you do not affirm Nicaea II. Do you also not affirm Constantinople II and III?
Orthodox & Baptist dialogue
In response to brother Bathrellos comment about how other Christians remain faithful without the orthodox ascetic life. I think it comes down to the ratio of having relationship with Christ and His church VS having relationship with Christ through His Church. The external vs internal directions of God moving in our hearts. This is why evangelicals are better at evangelism and preaching and Orthodox engage longer services. One side is more skilled at receiving from God personally and sharing corporately, the other more disciplined at receiving from God corporately for personal reception.
“Legal concepts vs language of ontology” 👀
Time-stamp
38:30, 38:50 - Filioque
I'll be in Athens in September. I'll definitely drop by Fr. Demetrios Church ☦️
I am an Orthodox convert, who spent twenty-five years in Protestantism, first of the Anabaptist sort, and then of the Calvinist variety.
I very much love the beauty of Orthodox worship, the prayer services, and the many beautiful prayers of the saint we have that we can pray back to God. I understand and agree with the communion of the saints and how icons give us a window into that communion. I understand the Sacraments and feel they are essential to receiving God's grace.
What I don't understand is the Orthodox teaching of solteriology. St. Paul teaches us in Ephesians that salvation is a complete gift, apart from anything we can do or offer to God. But when you say that we have to do works in order to be saved, it is no longer a gift. It is no longer a free gift, but is merely a potentiality, which is dependent entirely upon my response to it. Being the sinner that I am ( and keeping the Confessional quite warm) I find this terrifying, not only for me, but for all the people who have never heard of Christ and all the people who have seen a false presentation of Christ and who reject him because of lousy Christian witness.
It seems to me in thinking of this that the Orthodox faith has conflated salvation with theosis. That is to say, salvation is free by God's grace, but theosis is not. That is where we have to work to cooperate with the Holy Spirit that the grace of God might change us into the likeness of Christ.
Even the Orthodox prayer book seems to indicate this in the prayer which says that if god responds to our works rather than our faith, then it becomes a duty rather than a gift.
So I am a bit confused, but I will keep praying and seeking the Lord, asking for His guidance until I get some illumination on this.
By theosis, do you mean sanctification? Or is that something different in Orthodoxy? I’m assuming you know the term sanctification as a protestant would understand it since you came from Protestantism. I don’t know if the Orthodox even use that word or have a slightly different meaning for it.
@@cowboyd5673 If by sanctification you mean becoming holy and like Christ, then yes, theosis is the same thing. We put aside our sins and take on the likeness of Christ by killing the flesh and its passions through the various ascetic means given to us by the Church.,
Just an addition to my earlier comment.
Gavin seems to have two major points that he usually gets around to when he's speaking with Orthodox people. Those are:
1) His issues with the way we use Icons.
This one has been beaten to death. Ortlands position that icons are fine as long as you don't venerate isn't the historical position of the 1st period of iconoclasts that Nicea 2 was responding to. The iconoclasts of Hieria would not only disagree with Gavin having images of living things, full stop. Not just no pictures of Jesus, no pictures of your dog. This would put Hieria in opposition to the images in the Catacombs or Dura-Europos. The oldest church spaces that we have. Heck, even drawing the Jesus fish was considered idolatry by Hieria and we have that kind of stuff dating to the late 1st or early 2nd centry.
If Gavin is comfortable owning an image of Jesus, and looks at it lovingly or finds peace in it, he's a lot closer to our position that I think he realizes. The Iconoclasm he defends tends to be the more moderate, post Nicea 2 variety but he will use that to oppose Nicea 2 as if that is what Nicea 2 is responding to which it is not. The anathemas are against a council that banned you owning pictures of your dog among other things, not against a yet-to-happen more moderate version of iconoclasm that rolled out decades later. It would seem to me that Ortland is closer to Nicea 2 in his beliefs than Hieria.
Anyway I don't want to get bogged down on that one, I know it's the hill Ortland feels he can die on.
2) The "Exclusivity" claims of the Orthodox Church....and related to this belief that the Orthodox position on this has fundamentally changed.
***
Among the more ecumenical types of Orthodox you hear a lot of people who hold a similar position that mainstream Catholics do, that is the more "Inclusive" position.
What ends up happening is Gavin wants Tries to push orthodox into one of two camps: Ecumenists and Rigorists
You have the "Yes, you are also a fellow Christian" answer. He follows it up with asking about sacraments. Ideally, he wants a "Yes you are a Christian and yes you have sacraments" answer because it's an easy follow-up:
His follow-up is Well that's great, I also believe that, however, that belief is inconsistent with the historical Orthodox position, actually thinking other denominations are also Christians is a uniquely protestant doctrine that was (invented, developed, or restored? Some combo of these?) during the reformation.
He will then like clockwork ask for Orthodox ( or Catholic) Documents, Theologians, Councils, whatever between something like 700 and 1400 that defend this modern position that is taken by some Orthodox people. He will claim they don't exist to his knowledge.
Basically, I agree with you because you have taken a uniquely protestant position.
On the flip side if you say "Well, no, you not a Christian" or "Well you are heterodox" even "Well, you are part of a community of people but not really the church" He will basically appeal to that being "mean" or "ridiculous." After all there are nice people who love Jesus and try to live good lives who are Protestant, or Catholic, or whatever. So if you say they aren't "fully Christian" then well, uncharitable or mean or unchristian.
This position is largely fueled by the normal protestant belief that the church is invisible/ all believers or what have you.
I'm not assuming bad intentions, but this seems to be how Gavin is approaching the issue.
You are either inconsistent with old teachings or your position is uncharitable. Either way you should accept the protestant doctrine of... ecumenism...or mere christianityism or maybe Branch Theory? Some or all of these, but basically you have to give up "Exclusivism" and while acknowledging "real differences" basically relegate those to 2nd tier like many modern protestants have.
The problem is I don't think the Orthodox position can be shoehorned into one of these two sides that Gavnin wants to lead it...first off because I think his history is wrong, or at least oversimplified to the point where it might as well be, and because I think the best way to express the Orthodox position on this is that truth of the matter is both and neither.
What I mean by this is no, you don't have the sort of ecumenical feel-good but go-nowhere dialogue 500 years ago. Yes the church has always taught that outside the church there is no salvation. The Church has always acknowledged a certain level of Christianity within schismatic sects. This is evident with how they are received back into the church. Schism is a serious and damnable sin and so being part of a schismatic group or leading one is a VERY serious thing.
Protestants are a late historical development and so how they fit into all this has to be understood that way. They have only existed for the 2nd half of the great schism. The last 1/4th of Christian history.
Denominations didn't really exist until Protestantism. Yes, the first 1000 years of the church is full of schisms. Sometimes they are small: this or that patriarchate vs this or that Patriarchate over jurisdiction or church policies of some kind. Sometimes they were more serious and over theology. But over all, east and west were defined by small o orthodoxy and what the authentic tradition was understood to be.
The idea that you would go into a town and have a buffet of options of churches to attend with different theologies would have been wild to them. Cities always had a single bishop, or at least ought to. Sometimes that bishop or synod of bishops might wander off into heterodoxy, but the rest of the church eventually would check them, clean house and they would resume Orthodoxy.
In RARE cases you might have 2 bishops in a city at the same time due to a schism. These were usually resolved at the death of one or both. It was considered very irregular and very undesirable.
Even with the great schism from the Orthodox perspective, it started as really a regional schism. Theology of course was the cause but it was the Patriarchate of Rome breaking from the other Patriarchs. It certainly wasn't a clean break, it took hundreds of years. Lay People, Priests and Bishops crossed lines on both sides.
I am unaware of it being the mainstream thing for anyone to be even re-christened or re-ordained going either direction during this initial period of the schisim..in fact I don't think it has been the case for most of it.
Yes, it is in the middle ages when you have people like Palimas or Aquinas writing polemical arguments against each other's side. Both are EMPHATIC that it is necessary for salvation for people to believe in correct theology. This theology had real-world implications.
But you have to look at the way the churchs ACTUALLY function to understand the way they viewed eachother. They both saw each other as schismatic heretics whos churches had broken with the legitimate Orthodox Catholic Church. But both sides accept each other's sacraments for the most part.
This sort of thing continues though the 16th and even 17 centuries. Over time the Catholics and Orthodox grow further apart as (from the Orthodox perspective) Rome falls into more and more errors and as the Orthodox become more aware of the depths of the errors.
There is a ton of dialogue between Catholics and Orthodox during the Middle Ages. The positions are still solidifying and the precise relationship is in some level of flux with multiple attempts at reunion. Clearly reading how they spoke about each other sounds more like quiring brothers than strangers.
It would be very dishonest to say that they didn't view each other as Christian. In fact the polemical works are often in CONTRAST to the behavior on the ground.
So no, this didn't just "pop up" at the reformation. What did change with the reformation is the creation of denominations. (England is unique and develops them later) Now you have people picking their flavor of Christianity vs picking (if you even have an option) which side of the hierarchy of a church that is divided by schism, but which on some level is two regional halves. (although one is Orthodox and the other is heterodox)
And it would make sense that while the two churches (Orthodox and Catholic) are closer together at the begining of the schism you might accept all the sacraments when someone converts from Rome.
As Rome falls into more errors (from the orthodox perspective) or the errors become more apparent it might make sense to chrismate or eventually just baptize everyone just to be safe. Roman Catholicism has changed a lot in the last 1000 years, a lot in the last 500 years and again quite a bit more after V1 and again after V2.
Still, Russians have historically received Catholic Clergy through Vesting. If this makes sense now or not is debatable. If it was prudent in the past is also debatable with our current hindsight of knowing how bad Rome has gotten. Regardless it was how things were done and that tells you a lot about attitudes.
I made another comment on how Protestants are essentially to Orthodox Christians what Samaritans are to the 2nd temple Jews. The Samaritans though they were"Jewish" in a sense had separated themselves from the Jewish "Church" structure, appointed their own priests, worshiped in the wrong way (on the mountain)...but they also had a version of the Pentateuch and considered themselves Jewish. Sometimes when the Jews were talking about them they considered them a Jewish sect, sometimes a separate ethnicity. (Josephus talks about them in both of these ways)
Nicaea II was a travesty and proves beyond doubt that Councils are not infallible which pretty much explodes the Ecclesial claims. It overturns the clear consensus of the early church with forgeries and eye gouging monarchs.
I as a Protestant can breezily accept that the EO are true Christians with some theological errors while you say 40% of global trinitarian, Bible reading and Christ loving Christians are going to Hell. You dont need a wall of text to realise that is nonsense.
I loved how Father Demetrios said we should not just pray to be counted worthy, but to be made worthy. I wonder if some of my fellow Protestants would behave so arrogantly and even cruelly on the public stage if they took this to heart.
Good discussion
“Is Christ divided?…” 1 cor. 1:13
I pray for the unification of Christ’s Church. Let us preach the gospel of Christ, and set aside any thing that distracts or causes Christ’s children to stumble.
Now, fly to Portugal! The food and wine are worth the trip!
As an American who has visited Portugal I can definitely confirm!
I love Portugal, but the food and wine in Greece are worth staying ;)
Hope you don't say this out of an anti-greek sentiment, because most Portuguese are very anti-greek and for the life of me, I can't understand why... We Greeks have nothing against the Portuguese btw...