Orthodox Christians PRESS Ruslan on Sola Scriptura Protestant Belief
Вставка
- Опубліковано 22 сер 2024
- Orthodox Christians PRESS Ruslan on Sola Scriptura Protestant Belief @JonathanPageau @dirtpoorrobins 🎁: Get a Free 7-Day Trial on Patreon! / kingsdream
🙏: Check Out the Bless God Shop: blessgod.shop
🆓: Free PDF of the Bless God Prayer Journal: blessgodpdf.shop
📰: Bless God Newsletter: www.mastermyha...
🔓: FREE Freedom Habits (Course w/My Therapist): www.mastermyha...
📲: SMS Text from Ruslan (Don't Send Links Please) 714-710-1017
This video contains links to products and platforms that we've created because we truly believe they can help you in your journey. By choosing to purchase through these links, you're not only investing in something beneficial for yourself, but you're also partnering with us in our mission to create content that blesses and inspires others. Your support directly helps us continue to provide valuable content. Thank you!
Fair Use Disclaimer:
This video may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available for purposes of criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, or research. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law.
Bio: Ruslan KD is a Christian UA-camr of Armenian descent who was a refugee from Baku, Azerbaijan, before moving to the United States as a child. He started his UA-cam channel in the mid-2010s, which has since grown into a popular platform for discussing faith, lifestyle, and music. Known for his insightful commentary on Christian living, culture, and personal development, Ruslan has built a community of followers who value his thoughtful approach to contemporary issues. In addition to his UA-cam presence, Ruslan is a speaker, author, and advocate for godly ambition, often addressing topics related to leadership, mental health, and the integration of faith in everyday life.
Our mission is to encourage, empower, and inspire people to live a life that Blesses God, in accordance with His word. As the Psalmist proclaims, "Bless God in the great congregation, the Lord, O you who are of Israel's fountain" (Psalm 68:26 ESV), and "Every day will I bless Thee; and I will praise Thy name forever and ever" (Psalm 145:2 KJV). Just as Simeon, after encountering Jesus, "took him up in his arms and blessed God" (Luke 2:28 ESV), we seek to lead others in a life of stewardship, relevant engagement, and practical living that honors and blesses the Lord.
🤝: Check Out The Bless God Prayer Journal Here: blessgodprayer.shop
Ruslan, I will kindly disagree. Even Peter replied to the Lord in, ( John 6:68 the Simon Peter answered him, Lord, to whom shall we go? Thou hast the words of eternal life. )
So I ask you, should we seek the truth of God outside of scripture? Away from the word? Even Jesus said in, ( Matthew 24:35, Mark 13:31 and Luke 21:33 Heaven and earth shall pass away but my words shall not pass away. )
Therefore nothing outside of the scripture can stand more firm then the word of God itself in faith and truth. So what outside of the scripture is going to lead me as the scripture itself. If Jesus is the way the truth and the life, then the world doesn’t need anything outside of it but His very own words which are only in the scripture . Sola scriptura
New Covenant Whole Gospel:
Who is now the King of Israel in John 1:49? Is the King of Israel now the Head of the Church, and are we His Body? Why did God allow the Romans to destroy the Old Covenant temple and the Old Covenant city, about 40 years after His Son fulfilled the New Covenant promised in Jeremiah 31:31-34 in blood at Calvary?
What the modern Church needs is a New Covenant Revival (Heb. 9:10) in which members of various denominations are willing to re-examine everything they believe and see if it agrees with the Bible, instead of the traditions of men. We need to be like the Bereans. It will be a battle between our flesh and the Holy Spirit. It will not be easy. If you get mad and upset when someone challenges your man-made Bible doctrines, that is your flesh resisting the truth found in God's Word. Nobody can completely understand the Bible unless they understand the relationship between the Old Covenant given to Moses at Mount Sinai and the New Covenant fulfilled in blood at Calvary. What brings all local churches together into one Body under the blood of Christ? The answer is found below.
Let us now share the Old Testament Gospel found below with the whole world. On the road to Emmaus He said the Old Testament is about Him.
He is the very Word of God in John 1:1, 14. Awaken Church to this truth.
Jer 31:31 Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:
Jer 31:32 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by husband unto them, saith the LORD:
Jer 31:33 But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.
Jer 31:34 And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.
Is the most important genealogy in the Bible found in Matthew 1:1 (Gal. 3:16)? Is God's Son the ultimate fulfillment of Israel (John 1:49)? Why has the modern Church done a pitiful job of sharing the Gospel with modern Orthodox Jews? Why would someone tell them they are God's chosen people and then fail to share the Gospel with them? Who is the seed of the woman promised in Genesis 3:15? What did Paul say about Genesis 12:3 in Galatians 3:8, 3:16? Who is the "son" in Psalm 2? Who is the "suffering servant" of Isaiah 53? Who would fulfill the New Covenant promised in Jeremiah 31:31-34? Who would fulfill the timeline of Daniel chapter 9 before the second temple was destroyed? Why have we not heard this simple Old Testament Gospel preached on Christian television in the United States on a regular basis?
Once a person comes to understand the New Covenant promised to Israel and Judah in Jeremiah 31:31-34, which is found fulfilled by Christ during the first century in Hebrews 8:6-13, and Hebrews 10:16-18, and specifically applied to the Church in 2 Corinthians 3:6-8, and Hebrews 12:22-24, man-made Bible doctrines fall apart.
Let us now learn to preach the whole Gospel until He comes back. The King of Israel is risen from the dead! (John 1:49, Acts 2:36)
We are not come to Mount Sinai in Hebrews 12:18. We are come instead to the New Covenant church of Mount Zion and the blood in Hebrews 12:22-24.
1Jn 3:22 And whatsoever we ask, we receive of him, because we keep his commandments, and do those things that are pleasing in his sight.
1Jn 3:23 And this is his commandment, That we should believe on the name of his Son Jesus Christ, and love one another, as he gave us commandment.
1Jn 3:24 And he that keepeth his commandments dwelleth in him, and he in him. And hereby we know that he abideth in us, by the Spirit which he hath given us.
The following verses prove the Holy Spirit is the master teacher for those now in the New Covenant.
Jer 31:34 And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.
Mar 1:8 I indeed have baptized you with water: but he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost.
Joh 14:26 But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.
Act 11:16 Then remembered I the word of the Lord, how that he said, John indeed baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost.
1Co 12:13 For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit.
1Jn 2:27 But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him.
Watch the UA-cam videos “The New Covenant” by David Wilkerson, or Bob George, and David H.J. Gay.
@@gabrielgalindo3212 first how you know which books are correct from scripture ?
I love that Orthodoxy is getting more exposure here in America. Glory to God ☦️🙏🖤
If Christ is preached and the Gospel is clearly taught then glory to God
In every time, God has sent a group of people to bear witness to the truth of the Holy Orthodox Faith, refuting all heresies.
@@benjaminwatt2436 Heresies and innovations exist in Protestantism and Roman Catholicism. Not condemning, I pray for them daily. Ancient heresies like Nestorianism, Arianism and Gnosticism are present. You should begin reading the canons of the Council of Nicea for starters. God bless you ☦️
@@benjaminwatt2436 However, according to who?
@patriceagulu8315 This is logical fallacy. Considering Christians have always been persecuted. *cough* Emperor Nero *cough*. I have nothing to thank the Roman Catholic Church, jesuits and heretics. God bless you though.
Seeker:
Go to a Divine Liturgy this Sunday at an Orthodox church.
Go talk to the priest after.
I plan to! There’s a Byzantine Catholic Church about 1hr away from me and I know it’s not Orthodox but I’ll see if I can find an Orthodox Church near me. God bless!
Best advice in the comments section.
@@carmeister_you’re doing right going to a Byzantine Catholic Church. The Orthodox Church have beautiful things about them but unfortunately they are not in full communion with the bishop or Rome. The Orthodox Church can trace its founding back to Schism so it cannot be the true church. The true Church is the one traced back to Christ with no scisms.
I was born and raised in the Orthodox Church. It replaces the Word of God and Christ with man made doctrines and traditions. Infant baptism, worship of Mary, and never encouraged to read the Bible. My sister in law is still orthodox and never reads scripture. Christ is our intermediary. We are to be in relationship with Him and not Mary, or praying to other "Saints". As Isaiah wrote "All have gone astray."
Our Lord, when He was incarnate, warned against man made traditions.
@@yvonnehedeker3441 sad to see you have been ensnared by Protestant propaganda. I pray you will search for truth and find it in the Catholic Church. Keep this in mind, when Christ ascended he left a church and that church gave us the Scriptures.
I was born Orthodox and left the church 10 years ago for Evangelicalism. A few month ago I returned to the apostolic Orthodox church. Glory to God. I feel home.
☦️☦️☦️☦️😭🤗🤗
If two protestants of the same denomination disagree on scripture interpretation, how do they decide who is right? and how do they decide what to teach?
Give an example of what they might differ on. What do you mean how do they know what to teach? They have the Bible
@@derrickcarson Thanks for commenting! Peace be with you.
So let's say which Bible to use, or how to interpret any passage in the Bible. Literally any, lets say they disagree on the interpretation.
You pick any passage and I'll play the alternative advocate. How will we decide who has the correct interpretation?
@@SaintlySaavy I'd need you to give the passage that you think is so crucial that would cause an issue. And you do understand that there are different Catholic bible translations, as well? As well as different Catholic denominations!
@@derrickcarson I was hoping you could pick one, but I can too, if you don't like this one we can pick another. Of course, we don't want to set up straw man, set up context, etc. Etc.
But let's play Bumper sticker faith.
If any one refuses to obey what we say in this letter, note that man, and have nothing to do with him, that he may be ashamed” (2 Thess. 3:14
Paul is telling people what here?
Also, not familiar with different Catholic denominations…did not other denominations separate from the Catholic Church to create their own? The Catholic church is still the Roman Catholic Church. Eastern Orthodox (as we call them in the west) also consider themselves Catholic, but their teaching Authority is in their patriarchs.
Ruslan gets mad about them straw manning sola scriptura and then says that Catholicism didn't get infallibility until 1850. C'mon man, be better. Even if you don't agree, be accurate. You could've easily said the teaching on infallibility, which Catholics claim to have believed for 2,000 years, was officially / infallibly taught at such and such a date. You know that even though the Trinity wasn't dogmatized until the Council of Nicaea, it doesn't mean the Trinity didn't exist prior. Sometimes an issue becomes so controversial the church has to formally dogmatize it.
They seem to have a hard time figuring out when the pope became the pope. Was it in 1850? 1054? Or Matthew 16:18?
@@artisdead2 “Pope” just means Father, he is actually the Bishop of Rome though.
The Bishop of Rome has been the First Among Equals since St. Peter held that office. (Mid 1st Century at least)
However, Peter was always always leader so Matthew 16:18 is when he is given the authority by Christ, it’s just the office wasn’t really defined until a bit later.
@@dmal-ty5qw agreed. I’ve just noticed that different non-Catholics will give different answers of when that began.
@@artisdead2 ohh my bad, I thought the “they” you mentioned was talking about Catholics
The council of Nicea did not dogmatize the doctrine of the Trinity
When you see a picture of yourself in the thumbnail. You click on that video 😂
Nah bro you ain't fr
@@JadeWells2908I think Neil is part of dirt poor robins band
Hey bro! Where’d you get your cross necklace? It’s beautiful. Is there a specific cross shape that is? Or company that made it?
@@devaughncunningham9336 my wife got it for me off Etsy. It’s an Orthodox cross. One side is the sailors cross and the other is the Anastasis. It’s loaded with symbolism. I don’t know if I can find the maker again. So far, no luck.
Where can I watch the whole interview? I’m on Patreon for Russian and can’t find it? Has it not released yet?
A lot of strawmen being thrown up about Catholics in this.
Even Jonathan gave the side eye to that
The world will always hate the Catholic Church because it is not of the world. The world rejected Jesus, so it is no surprise it also rejects His Church.
@@thomasporrovecchio2600Ding Ding Ding Bingo
@@thomasporrovecchio2600 the issue is the scandals of Catholic Church blind others to the good. We as humans are more drawn to negative while ignoring positive.
Right! What was the point of this video?
Sola scriptura teaches that the Scriptures are the sole infallible rule of faith for the Church. The doctrine does not say that there are not other, fallible, rules of faith, or even traditions, that we can refer to and even embrace. It does say, however, that the only infallible rule of faith is Scripture. This means that all other rules, whether we call them traditions, confessions of faith, creeds, or anything else, are by nature inferior to and subject to correction by, the Scriptures. The Bible is an ultimate authority, allowing no equal, nor superior, in tradition or church. It is so because it is theopneustos, God-breathed, and hence embodies the very speaking of God, and must, of necessity therefore be of the highest authority.” -Dr James White
This opinion is a fundamental misunderstanding of The Incarnation. Yes scripture is divinely inspired, but it was written by men. The Canon was decided by a council of men. The Church is the body of Christ, and Holy Scripture is a product of The Church.
The NT Canon wasn't formalized until the late 300's and the church was the custodian of determining what was in and what was out. Imagine you're in the church of Ephesus and you have 3 of Paul's letters, the Torah and Psalms. How does that church and future generations of that church practice Sola Scriptura when they don't have the full Bible? Remember, all they can follow is what's in Paul's letter to them and any other potential letters they may have.
To add to that, the Bible wasn't mass produced until the printing press and even after that it wasn't in the hands of every layman. This is not to downplay the Scriptures, but to show that Sola Scriptura is ahistorical, impractical and unbiblical.
@@andys3035 Hm, fair point
The Bible also says: *in case I am delayed, so that you will know how each one must conduct himself in God’s household, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth.* (1 Timothy 3:15)
Historically, neither the Catholics nor Orthodox put together the Bible.
The Catholics used what was already accepted by the early Church and just slapped their label on it... @@andys3035
So the Bible is THE only infallible authority according to protestants but yet rely on fallible men to interpret it? That doesn't make sense. You end up with what you see today, different denominations believing different things while they all read from the same Bible. This is what I saw coming out of Mormonism 6 years ago and it was disheartening. I am grateful to God that the Spirit lead me to the Orthodox Church after questioning everything after leaving the LDS church. Even my belief in God.
Your entire system is dependent on fallible men interpreting scripture. The appeal to the Church’s authority stems from an interpretation of scripture. Furthermore, if the Church teaches something contrary to scripture why should we believe the man over the God breathed scripture. Following organizations is how cults are formed. I’m sympathetic to the orthodox and their Theological teachings on some issues, but this is an issue that I can’t agree with. Also, even orthodox churches do not agree perfectly on theological points in the east and the west. They may call themselves unified, but it’s practically the same kind of separation most Protestant groups have.
@@metty6413 The Church doesn't arbitrarily come up with new teachings it preserves them and elaborates them and we don't believe that our tradition contradicts scripture and that therefore tradition > scripture they both go hand in hand.
@@metty6413 The Church is the pillar of truth as taught by Paul to Timothy in Timothy 3:15. That Church is the Orthodox Church. It is pre-denominational. In other words, it is the Church that was around before the other churches broke from her.
The Church will never teach anything that goes against scripture because it is guided by the Spirit and it teaches what was taught by Christ and the Apostles.
You're correct about the other Apostolic Churches. They disagree with us on some theological issues. However, it is them teaching newer, different doctrines causing them to break away. We all however have many things in common and those differences can and will be overcome in the future where as we could never reconcile any of the main protestant beliefs such as any of the solas or symbolic views of the Eucharist and baptism.
@@zaccheusanton9470 The Orthodox Churches have the ability to decide what is meant by scripture for every person in the Church. That kind of power corrupts people and has if you look at the Spanish Inquisition. I understand it’s not arbitrary, but it is absolute which is a power that should only belong to God in my opinion which is what scripture is for. There’s much more I can say, but I am going to leave it there because we simply disagree.
@@metty6413 Who do you think decided what books were to be canonized as holy scripture?
I’ve been a Protestant for decades, have gone to bible college and have been involved in ministry to one degree or another throughout this time …..in just about every context where i heard “sola scriptura” touted, whether by laypeople, pastors, professors, personalities or authors, sooner or later it became evident that among those wielding the phrase there were distinct differences in scriptural interpretations, sometimes on fundamental issues (soteriology, pneumatology and eschatology especially)…..or…..people who liked to invoke “sola scriptura” all day long often knew next to nothing of scripture, and of those who did know most didn’t actually follow it anyway………….we’ve been so divided that the western church has been a circular firing squad, whilst the enemy has happily had his way with shaping culture to a catastrophically large degree……I’m finding my way into Orthodoxy and hope one day to become a catechumen …..Lord have mercy
Even with various interpretations look at what all of Christiandom agrees on.
1. Christ born of a virgin
2. Christ crucified
3. Divinity of Christ
4. Christ resurrected as the propituation of our sins
5. Man's need of a saviour
6. The nature of God
7. The Trinity
etc.... These teaching persist in the Protestant faith and Sola Scriptura has not made any of us less Christian.
Lord have mercy on us all 🙏☦️🖤
Once the Sola fell for me it wasn’t long before I knew I’d convert to Orthodoxy. I fought it for about a year or more before I accepted I must convert. It is the True Church Christ established.
@@totalityofscripture1001 If it is the true church do you beleive all others outside of the Orthodox church are out of grace and will be damned?
@@benjaminwatt2436 no the Orthodox do not limit where God’s Grace extends but we do say we are the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.
Ruslan saying that Protestants and Orthodox have more in common than Catholics and Orthodox is a super cringy moment.
Other cringy moments include him misunderstanding how infallibility and doctrinal definition work in Catholicism, and that moment when he didn’t realize that Orthodox ALSO believe you can ask the dead to pray for you.
This is exactly why I slowly started to stop watching his context. It’s lowkey too ignorant for me.
First, what he said is that Protestants and Orthodox have more in common than Protestants and Catholics. And i'm pretty sure that he knows that Orthodox pray to Mary and The Saints as well.
There’s nothing more cringey than the Romans and their infallibility claims.
Indeed
Remind me again why ONE MAN having control over an entire religion is a good thing? It is easier for Satan to corrupt one man than to corrupt a group of men. Also, explain how Catholics are correct in the doctrinal differences with Orthodoxy? Most of those differences are rooted into bringing the pagan into the Roman Catholic church as opposed to being founded in scripture.
7:03 “Catholics added papal infallibility in 1850”. The hubris to say something like that.
If you’re going to say that the year a dogma is defined is the year that it originated, you’re going to have to say the Trinity originated in the 4th century and doesn’t come from an earlier belief.
The trinity is based on a foundation of the Bible; while there is no office of the pope see 1 Peter 5:1, Therefore, I urge elders among you, as your fellow elder and a witness of the sufferings of Christ… Peter is an fellow elder not a pope.
@@f4r6u5180 the point I was making is that papal infallibility is attested to in the early Church. It wasn’t “invented” in the 1850s.
For instance in AD 251, St. Cyprian of Carthage says:
“If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he [should] desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?”
Also, elder is from the Greek word, presbyteroi, which means priest. The pope is a priest as well as a bishop.
@@daniellennox8804 no Orthodox Christian thinks that the Great Schism was when all the other Patriarchs abandoned the unity of the Church. It was Rome that left.
While you could interpret St. Cyprian to be speaking out of a belief that Rome can do no wrong and has unilateral authority over every church and bishop in the world, that isn't what he is actually saying, and you would have no problem finding Orthodox to agree with that quote while not agreeing that the Pope ever had a right to assert unilateral authority or that any hierarch can speak infallibly.
@@huntz0r when did I bring up the Great Schism? I know the Orthodox view it that way, but obviously us Catholics view it differently.
The Fathers in the East constantly appeal to Rome having primacy. If you have five patriarchs and one is the head, the bishop of Rome, then it makes sense to stay unified with him.
I know the Orthodox have different a way of interpreting the quotes from the fathers emphasising the importance of Rome. However, I find it too overwhelming to deny that infallibility is implicit in so many of their writings - both east and west.
@@daniellennox8804 The Fathers in the East and West always held the view that the Patriarch of Rome had the primacy, that is true, although you are forgetting that there were two more Popes who held the same authority that the Pope of Rome held. However, no one ever, not even in the West after the schism and after the Popes of Rome rejected the title of the Patriarch of Rome and all the West, held the view of the infallibility of the Pope. Not only that, but St. Peter himself was not infallible (read Galatians). Infallibility of the Pope was literally invented in the 19th century, with nothing in the history, not even in the history of the RC after the schism, even remotely suggests this idea. And yes, I know that Infallibility does not mean some absolute Infallibility, I do know what RC mean by Infallibility and I am addressing that. And further more, you are misunderstanding the meaning of the word primacy. Having primacy does not imply having supremacy. The authority of the Church was always in the councils. If you go against councils, you go against the Church. And if you assert a teaching that was not affirmed by the Council, that teaching is questionable at best. That is why Pope Honorius I could be anathematized, because although speaking "ex cathedra" he did error in the error regarding dogma. He held primacy, but was not infallible and was not an absolute authority (had no supremacy). We hold the same view of the primacy of the Pope of Rome, which is the only view you can historically find in the church. We reject the later invented dogmas of supremacy and even worse 19th century invention of infallibility. Orthodox still hold fast to the chair of St. Peter, it is the RC that had abandoned it and usurped it.
He’s skeptical of a doctrine 250yrs old but not of a doctrine 500yrs old. Both are innovations outside of historical Christianity
the classic protestant circular reasoning, you cant be logically consistent and be protestant. You rely on the church being infallible to the bible.
Bingo
Lollll it’s hard to believe he’s even serious
Protestant and reformed churches have no apostolic continuity...only catholic and orthodox churches.
@@anthonyoer4778 Latin Papists only had continuity early on. For arguments sake let’s say until 1054ad they had continuity because it’s clear a deviation did happen by the Papists. It’s also clear they do not represent today what the Roman See believed for a millennia.
I don’t understand, if he is skeptical about Christians that hold newer beliefs and theology then why are you Protestant?
Brilliant question
Lol, good point
my understanding is that the Protestant Reformation was not about new beliefs/theology. It was about taking the church back to basics , i.e. the Gospel message as taught by Jesus to His Disciples/Apostles and then written down (the New Testament).
@@rhianonthomas4421 that is what many people try to claim now but it was more about authority, theology and a few other things. There was also some bad characters in the church at the time that really caused some issues. Catholic Church, Eastern Orthodox, even the Coptic churches and some others are much older and have similar theology. The Protestants were the biggest break in traditional theology and kinda went their own way.
@@rhianonthomas4421 if that's the case, it failed considerably, and succeeded at doing the opposite.
I react to the catholic bit of the conversation (catholic myself, to be clear). First, the pope cannot change dogma, contrary to what has been said. Second, there is much more overlap between orthodoxy and catholicism than between protestantism and any of the other two. That is obvious. Catholics and orthodoxes (?) share the sacraments, saints, liturgy, etc. Third, the celibacy of priests is not an absolute rule in catholicism, it is disciplinary in the roman rite only. And there even are ordained married men in the roman rite, but that is not the ordinary rule, and there are ordained married man in other rites of the catholic church - particularly the oriental rites. Fourth, when I hear say that Ruslan (?) feels closer to the orthodox about Mary than to catholics when considering Trent Horn's answer on that point, I laugh... orthodoxy has a great devotion to Mary (and other saints, as already pointed out). I understand that a protestant should feel closer to orthodox because of the pope, but in the end, that's about it. Orthodox and Catholics agree on about all the essentials. I don't know how the conversation went after that sequence, but I find it rather disingenuous, to be honest, and straw manning the catholic diversity. The issues between catholics and orthodox are limited to a few points. And the question of the pope is actually rather more subtle as the primacy of Rome is a question of how is it exerted, as far as I understand the orthodox position. And that is a point that could evolve in the future - Benedict XVI made clear that particular point on various occasions, before and after being elected pope.
I've been thinking that the pope's office seems the same as that of high priest. Yet paul the apostle writes that Christ Jesus is the new high priest. Meaning that a priest is no longer a necessary bridge between God and man as it was in the old testament. That we now have direct access to God via the God-man Jesus Christ.
Man I'm so glad you are writing this. It's brutal how bad they misrepresent Catholic ecclesiology. I recommend for people to educate themselves on the doctrine of papal infallibility and the role it plays in objective truth, not just for scripture but also for theological and moral issues. Protestants can't even agree on big ticket doctrines like Baptismal Regeneration due to their fallible interpretation of infallible material. It's just not logically plausible.
@edwardhernandez8289 you should think of the Pope as "asher al-habayit". This title was reserved for the Royal Steward, the most senior official serving under a king of Judea and Israel. Read Isaiah 22:20-22 alongside Matthew 16:18-19 to understand this tradition of the papacy.
@vanessa.jasmine
High steward seems to be a political position while High priest is a spiritual one.
Also a priest is basically a steward of God, like the levitical priesthood were stewards of the temple.
@vanessa.jasmine I read what you suggested and I do see the parallels of stewardship. But I also saw what the keys of heaven are, they are the gospel.
Peter started with the confession of faith. That Jesus is the Christ the son of the living God. Then Jesus proceeds to tell his disciples the rest of the gospel, namely that he would die and ressurect on the third day.
And this is almost comical if it wasn't so serious. Peter proceeds to throw the keys of heaven to the ground minutes after he is just given them by telling Jesus " Far be it from you Lord this shall not happen to you".
Essentially blockading the gospel without knowing it. Which explains the Lords powerful rebuke.
This leads me to believe that the Rock Jesus mentioned earlier is the confession of faith made by Peter given to him by the Father, not Peter himself.
Essentially, the truth of the identity of Jesus would be the foundation of the church and Peter along with the rest of the apostles would be its stewards.
I dont know what im missing here. Whats the rub? If the Bible is the enerrant word of God, how can it not be considered the ultimate athority? Tradition is a fine thing, so long as it doesn't codify destructive behavior or reinforce bad theology. Isnt that obvious? What traditions of men, do some Christians hold equal to scriptural athority?
Sola Scriptura
With humility, my friend, Scripture is absolutely an inerrant authority, but by definition it can only be infallible if there is an infallible authority interpreting it. For example, at the Colloquy of Marburg in 1529 when Luther and Zwingli could not agree on the most fundamental doctrine of the Holy Eucharist, both interpreting Scripture on their own, and coming away with opposite conclusions.
If this isn't proof enough of the fallacy of sola scriptura, then judge it by its fruit, which is an inability to ever produce one consistent theology and understanding of the Gospel, which is why you have so many protestant denominations. God bless our Orthodox brothers, but even they are unable to produce one consistent teaching among their Churches as none has authority over the others. See Galatians 1:9 for why it is so important to have one Gospel, and this is impossible with sola scriptura. Only the Catholic Church has the divine teaching authority of the Magisterium, and as a result one consistent Gospel unchanged since the earliest disciples of Jesus (seriously, check out the earliest Church fathers if you want to see who they sound like).
Remember that it was the Church, through its Tradition and Teaching Authority that determined the Scriptural Canon. You can call this a tradition of men, but the Church didn't come from men, it was founded by Jesus. Unfortunately, protestants left it, and the proof of their error is their confusion over what Scripture actually means (even among themselves).
Peace be with you.
@@thomasporrovecchio2600
"but by definition it can only be infallible if there is an infallible authority interpreting it. "
If fallible lay people need an infallible interpreter to understand the infallible word of God, then why wouldn't they also then need an infallible interpreter for that infallible intepreter, and an infallibe interpreter for *that* infallible interpreter...
many wont understand your point because they dont want to. There is an infinite regress of infallibility If God is not sufficient alone to keep his word and watch over it as He said in scripture in Jeremiah@@calomie
@@calomie It seems you are intentionally misunderstanding something quite basic.
If you disagree with your pastor on his interpretation of Scripture, who is right? You both can read, but is one of your interpretations correct and other accursed? How can some protestants believe it is right to baptize infants while others do not? How can some believe a true presence in the Eucharist and others do not. Do they just agree to disagree? They are all using Scripture and their own traditions.
This is the problem, there is no authority, so how do you know what Scripture actually says? The answer is 2,000 years old, just as there was the seat of Moses in the old covenant, who gave the law and had a teaching authority, the Church has the magisterium in the new covenant, which has the teaching authority.
Peace be with you.
Other than the papal question, there's hands down more in common between orthodox and catholic than orthodox and protestantism. Don't know why he would say otherwise
Filioque?
@@unionofsa most mainline Protestants accept the Filioque.
@@unionofsadespite it being part of the schism, it’s a pretty small difference. The schism had many many factors
Filioque and Papal supremacy are the main points of argument between RC and Orthodox (but not the only). However, there are now whole protestant congregations that convert to Orthodoxy because protestants also reject papal supremacy. Rejecting the Filioque and returning to the original Creed doesn't seem to be such a big issue for them.
On surface yes, but when I look deeper, its actually very hard for me to distinguish between RC and Protestantism.
I think here is a key point that sells me on Sola Scriptura. If we were met with a tradition that seems to go against what the Bible says, which one ought we hold to? And if we are being real with ourselves, we cannot say that we would choose the tradition over the Bible.
You won't find one single verse in the bible that says the inspired word of God is only in scripture or written. You'll see that the inspired word of God is written and oral. Jesus promised that the Church guided by the Holy Spirit would be the foundation of truth. To preserve all sound teaching.
Saying that the early church lost the truth and was preaching a heretical gospel is blasphemy.
@@Chromebreaks hey I’m with ya man, that just wasn’t the point I was making. My contention here relates to more of traditions that can creep in and men can call them infallible.
Im a prot but the issue is that "goes against scripture" is often subjective. It goes against your personal interpretation of scripture
@@Iffmeister totally, there’s definitely areas like that and it’s gotta be case by case and we for sure need eyes and hearts to realize we can be wrong about some things
The Church is capable of handling bad teachings that arise. Look into the ecumenical councils, they happen when there's a theological controversy that needs to be settled. You do not need to split off and form another church with sola scriptura, because as soon as two people disagree about scripture in that church you'll end up splitting again
I like the content of this channel in general but Ruslan’s constant mischaracterizations of and bias against the Catholic Church are getting tiresome. Actually do your research if you’re going to keep talking about us.
he makes demonstrably false claims with such confidence and almost arrogance. Like bruh you can easily look it up, you dont know what youre saying.
I grew a mixed in Orthodox and Protestant churches. My family would attend both. Was highly influenced and i favored the Protestant church. Now after learning more about the early church and the church fathers, I'm beginning to lean more towards orthodoxy. Still love my Protestant brothers and sisters, but I can't help but feel like the earliest connections to Christ, and the way they worshiped has more weight than all the new denominations and doctrines being brought up left and right. God help me to see the truth and if I'm wrong, have mercy on me.
Love to see your kindness toward all Christians. I encourage you to listen to Gavin Ortland. He defends traditional Protestantism and is very knowledgable on the topic
Forsake not the assembling of yourselves together 🙏🏽
Dear Ruslan, your ignorance regarding the Catholic Church is huge.
Keep praying for his understanding!
@@kierafrost7333 Absolutely. He's a good guy. I hope he continues interacting with both Catholics and Orthodox.
are the full videos posted? the convo was cut too short
No reasonable protestant he said😂😂
Ruslan is so quick to defend his own position that he doesn't take time to understand arguments against it. It was the same was with appostolic succession dialog with Trent Horn
Its so frustrating. I don't want to feel like it's all a big scam, but thats what it seems like... Idk. I think Ruslan will come around eventually. He just needs to truly desire the wisdom to discern this particular matter. And if he doesn't thats cool too. It would just be really cool to see someone I know come to realize how special and sacred it is.
@@joshmurphy6227 The whole point of Ruslan's channel is to bless God. Now you want him to lose focus on that and come running after your dogma instead? What a waste.
Sorry Russlan but protestant theology came from Roman Catholic theology… You and Rome are much similar than you and Orthodox
Sorry protestanttoorthodox but Orthodox and Catholic theology came from Jewish theology.... So what! 🤦🏾
@@derrickcarsonProtestantism is a schism of a schism. Like a branch that broke off of the trunk, and now has new twigs growing off of it. Orthodoxy, we contend and can prove, is the continuation of the Church post-Pentecost. And the Church as you know, is Christ’s project, He said He would build it and He did. It existed alongside all the other major Jewish groups before AD 70. What you’re calling ‘Judaism’ is a continuation of the Pharisaical tradition and their Talmud, which we might also call, Rabbinism. We didn’t split off from them, this is just false. And in a lot of ways, Rabbinical Judaism and their Talmud was a reaction to Christianity, not a precursor.
He said your not going to find Jesus outside of the church.. Jesus said, For where two or three are gathered in my name, I am there among them" (Matthew 18:20). Jesus reached me outside of a church. Don’t get me wrong I love going to church.
We’ll said, I was thinking the same thing. I commune with the lord Jesus Christ even when I’m driving. I do enjoy the traditions, but Jesus taught us that we ARE THE TEMPLE. Because not everyone has the privilege of attending mass every Sunday….
So, what you are generally saying is that your experience is true because you feel this way?
Happy for you that your experience finding Christ outside of the Church feels legit, but outside of you, it's pure subjectivism.
By the way, the passage from Matthew addressed to the faithful and is about prayer, not about finding Jesus and the relationships with Him.
The year that papal infallibility was declared at a dogmatically expressed way was 1870. But it was rooted in tradition going back to the early church fathers. Definitely not out of the blue.
Poor Ruslan doesn't understand doctrinal development.
@@lo5182Because that’s made up.
@@bradleyperry1735 So according to you the doctrine of the Trinity was made up. Do you believe in the Holy Trinity?
@@lo5182 the doctrine of the Trinity can be deduced from the Scriptures. The Scriptures in the new and old testament, explicitly teach that there is one God. The Scriptures also teach the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Spirit is God, who are different persons, co-equal and co-eternal.
Do you know what isn’t especially taught in the Scriptures: the Bodily Assumption of Mary, the Immaculate Conception, the Perpetual Virginity of Mary, Purgatory, Indulgences, the Treasury of Merit, the Priesthood, the infallibility of the pope, the papacy. These “developments” are not Apostolic but later innovations.
@@robertdelisle7309- All of those things are deduced from scripture, genius. 😂
How in the world did any Christians know what to do after Jesus died before scripture came out?
How in the world did the church know what books to make scripture?
The only logical answer (and biblical answer) is the holy spirit guides people.
The Bible does not speak of sola scriptural, but it does frequently recognize customs, traditions, and the Holy spirit.
Customs, traditions and the Holy Spirit are all a part of Protestantism.
I’m having trouble understanding the concept of Bible AS authority. Doesn’t an authority imply the ability to exercise control or judgement? I wouldn’t say the constitution is an authority, I would say the civil leaders are authorities.
Ruslan I just want to say thank you for correcting that guys huge misconception on sola scripture. I was screening at the screen like NOOOO
God bless us all and may we come together and may the Holy Spirit bind the truth with the Church and we all love Christ together and praise His Glory Song with all the Angels and Saints! ❤️🙏🏽
Former Orthodox. God bless our Orthodox brothers and sisters. I love these discussions and we should continue them. Remember all those that haven't heard of the name of Jesus.
Why are you former Orthodox?
Former Protestant now Orthodox and I love our Protestant brothers and sisters as well.
Well I guess I can't identify as former Orthodox since my parents left when I was a teen and they joined a protestant church. I love the church I attend. Both my parents come from a Syrian Orthodox tradition in India called the Malankara church.
@@bmgmusa07 oh okay so you weren't really orthodox thanks for the clarification
@@bmgmusa07 maybe look in to it and might realize your parents shouldn't have left. RESEARCH!!!!!!
God’s work is revealed in nature, but who He is revealed in scripture.
Scripture is also His creation of course.
We have to reailze that if something is finally defined, that does not mean it did not exist. Before any church councils, the things we have defined for us were always true. Trinity was always true.
Strongly appreciate this conversation. Thank you for being open to have conversation and understanding. Where I am in my walk and study this is very encouraging
Speaking of scripture... Are any of you here striving to embody "love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control"? Should we, as professed followers of Jesus, ensure that our discourse with one another reflects these fruits of the Spirit? If not, we can all learn something from each other, regardless of our denomination.
Why doesn't this discussion look more like this:
"I don't doubt your love for the Lord; I just think there are some compelling reasons why we should submit to an earthly authority, and that this authority has been passed down since Peter. The main reason I bring this up is because I don't want you to miss out on the fullness of God's blessings and His chosen community of believers."
Similarly, someone with the opposite view could argue:
"I appreciate your concern for me. I strive to please my heavenly Father, just as you do. However, I see some valid points of contention regarding a lineage of authority and how I can pray and practice my faith. For instance, I find it perplexing that the temple veil was torn in two when Jesus was crucified, eliminating the barrier between a believer and the Father, which implies that we no longer need a priest or anyone else (Mary, saints, etc.) to communicate with God for us. Is that no longer the case? Am I misunderstanding something?
What if God tasks me with a mission, but as a new convert to Orthodoxy or Catholicism, my priest or bishop forbids it? Maybe after years of catechisms, teachings, and volunteering to clean the pews, they might allow me to... If I die before completing the mission, will my bishop or priest defend me to Jesus? I was under the impression that I would be the one to account for my life to the Lord."
I must admit, I agree more with the second perspective. I am not a new Christian, but I am considering Orthodoxy and Catholicism because I see authority and doctrine in scripture that was established (initially by Jesus, of course) but then distributed among the disciples and passed on. I like my Protestant church, but I want to please my Father above all else. If that means becoming Orthodox or Catholic, I will obey. However, sorting this out isn't easy - I transitioned from atheism to Christianity, and now realizing the importance of denomination complicates things even further. I would hope that anyone I discuss this with would show kindness and gentleness, extending grace to me along the journey.
I am praying for you! Ask God what He wants you to do, and please be absolutely positive you are not deceived. Jesus did not start any denominations nor did He tell us to.
People claiming to have authority over other people because "their authority descended from the apostles" is dubious in my opinion.
Definitely some straw manning of Catholicism going on here
Dude said Purgatory & Limbo, but completely ignores that the Orthodox Church held to both, & there is biblical support, which he should know, esp using the Dueterocanon, nm tradition. Also, Elders are to be the husband of one wife...yup not more than one, & some just as Saint Paul are not called to marry
Now that's very interesting, can you point to which of the Deuterocannonical books is referring to Limbo and Purgatory as separate from God's Kingdom?
@Hoi4o most notable is 2 Macabees 12:39-45 for a Purgatorial text in the Dueterocanon but Limbo is not even required or found in the Catechism, you will find quotes from early church fathers/ saints of the EO & Catholic Church on limbo
Flawed thinking Ruslan "you guys saw where it was going and bounced, we were 500 years too late". Are you having a shot a Catholicism? Really? You haven't looked into Catholicism with depth but take your chance on a lunatic in Luther. That's the real issue
Ironically, he interviewed Trent Horn a year ago.
There is no Christianity outside of Orthodoxy. There is one Christ and one bride of Christ.
GOOD CATCH Ruslan... We have many Solas... Christ alone, scripture alone, faith alone etc. these things mean things in context... And also yes, i agree a lot with my orthodox brothers and sisters, i find it very hard to agree much about with Romanists.
Of course, you find more in common with Orthodox because you’re both schismatics.
@@CJP.-pq3krhow to tell me you are Catholic without saying you are.
Orthodox would say the Catholic Church is schismatic and that the Protestants may be wrong but less than the Catholics because they moved away from Catholic ideas to a point.
Romanists….?
@@sinchill5424 i use Romanists because catholic means universal and the orthodox and protestants are universal... the RCC however is different to all other Christian sects. Roman culture was adopted, that's very clear
Protestants: The Word of The Lord God > The word of the church
Catholics and Orthodox: The word of the church > The Word of the Lord God
They wouldn’t say the word of the church trumps Gods word. They would say the word of the church interprets the word of God
Same question for all Protestants: if all the different types Protestants believe the same, why don’t they unit? Orthodoxy had the balance: Bible and Holy Tradition (the lived and shared experience of the Faith throughout history).
2:46 this very question is THE ultimate difference between Protestants and Orthodox/Catholics. The latter believe that they possess the "infallible" interpretations of God's extra-biblical revelations in nature. To which one can ask, "by what standard do you know that you have the correct interpretation?" Is it by the standard of what Scripture says about the church's authority? Huh, it's almost as if the authority of Scripture supersedes these "extra-biblical" revelations.
If only there were a word for when Scripture comes before anything else ;)
it's because of what TRADITION says about church authority and we simply find biblical support to use in the face of adversity coming from uninformed bible believers.
The Church has the correct interpretation of Scripture because the Church _created_ Scripture.
@@voxlknight2155 False, the Holy Spirit claims ultimate credit for gifting us the Scripture.
@@caseycardenas1668 By what ultimate standard are you claiming that tradition is the lens through which to interpret scripture? How do you know that to be the 'correct' way to do it?
@@henryb.7723 the ultimate standard is that of God, who deemed it so through his church.
Really, the burden of proof lay on you who subscribe to the bible as the ultimate authority. Where in Scripture does it say it is so? If the bible is the ultimate authority it should be able to defend itself on this front, if anything 2nd Thessalonians discredits the idea that all things important to the faith are found in Scripture, therefore it can be deduced that tradition both written and oral outside of Scripture is of great importance as well.
The fact that even the more sound version of Sola Scriptura, found among the original reformers, is completely unbiblical and nonsensical, makes the evolutionary view of SOLO Scriptura that much more nonsensical.
From your perspective, who deems what the Orthodox view of Scripture is? Is it your view, or Pastor Bob from down the road who holds a correct one?
I agree that the Holy Spirit gave us scripture, through his CHURCH.
No man can serve two masters.
Watchtower Magazine, Book of Mormon, the Papacy. Every time something else is needed, and God's words are "insufficient", the Scripture gets usurped by that other thing.
"The Pope and these direct authorities that can change dogma". Completely false. Dogma cannot be changed.
I think it's interesting that Jesus seems to use the methods of sola scripture when arguing with the Pharisees. He compares talmudic things they were enforcing to scripture and then tells them how they are adding to what God said he requires for salvation. That is the basic principle of what sola scriptura is attempting to convey. Any part of our tradition or creeds that we add to what is necessary for salvation, or even belonging to the church, begins to place us under the same rebukes Jesus gives to the Pharisees. It's not that we can't have traditions and creeds, only the Bible, but rather that we need to be careful not to place those things, as Jesus says, as burdens for the people of God. Also, if sola scriptura cannot be used at all, why don't the roman and orthodox churches follow talmudic interpretations of the OT? They don't, precisely because they believe that that tradition misuses or misapplies scripture, which is how sola scriptura works in practice.
Ruslan : “ I’m skeptical of CHRISTIANS who hold newer doctrines “
Also Ruslan : “ I’m Protestant “
I love you Rus but you throw ALOT of shade towards us Catholics.
See James 5.16 and 1 Timothy 2.1 that you should confess your sins and pray for one another...pray for all people ...intercede for ... and give thanks for them.
my understanding is that the Protestant Reformation was not about new beliefs/theology. It was about taking the church back to basics , i.e. the Gospel message as taught by Jesus to His Disciples/Apostles and then written down (the New Testament). When I look at why and how the New Testament came to be, it was about preserving what Christ taught, handed down to the Apostles and preached by them with the help of the Holy Spirit. Even when the disciples were still alive, Christians were going off-piste - doctrines being followed that were not the gospel message!! They were duly rebuked! (Galations 1:8). The New Testament is a record of the doctrines/traditions that were sound and being followed as per the apostolic teachings. It was considered ESSENTIAL to put such a collection of writings together because of the crazy stuff that was being put out there even back then and it was agreed by the guys/council who compiled the New Testament that it would be the absolute authority going forward on what was accepted as sound doctrine/tradition. See, not a Protestant idea!! As I said, back to basics! That tells me that if traditions exist that are not in/contrary to the New Testament, they too are off-piste. This is why Sola Scripture is so important. Anyone can start a tradition or doctrine. How do we judge it? Scripture. That is why we have it!
I’m praying for you to get clarity and reject your Protestant fallacies
Why don’t you have a full length interview
Same...
Sola scriptura is nonsense circular reasoning and a tradition of men
How foolish it is to trust the traditions of men over the words of God
Traditions of God (The Church) > Traditions of Men (Baptists in the 1800s)@@aisaacp
It is unclear when the Church began using hush settlements to silence victims. The practice, however, was so widespread by the 1980s that the Vatican assigned church lawyers to adjust their insurance policies in order to minimize additional liabilities.
Orthodox will say "How do you know you're interpreting the scriptures correctly?"
How do you know your Bishop is interpetting the scriptures correctly? How do you know your Bishop is truly a man of God? Many will prophecy, heal the sick, and cast out demons in Jesus' name, and won't enter the Kingdom of God.
6:55
SMH. The Catholic Church teaches that they can't change dogma. So many strawmen in Catholicism. This guy showed he had a distorted view of Catholicism which prevented him from learning what Catholicism truly is.
Well yes, the RC teaches that they can't change dogma. So every time they change dogma they say that it was always like that, and they had just formalized it. Although they always fail to show how it was always like that, especially when they change it in such a way that contradicts previously established dogmas.
@@goranvuksa1220
Formalizing a dogma defines what it is, not change. Give one example of a dogma you claim Catholicism changed and contradicts previously established dogmas.
@@vtaylor21 Infallibility of the Pope (when speaking "ex cathedra" yes). A dogma that has no grounding in the history of the Church, not even in the history of the RC after the schism. If Popes of Rome were infallible when speaking "ex cathedra" on the questions of dogma, then the Church could have never anathematized Pope Honorius I on his position on specific dogma of monoenergism, since he endorsed this dogma thus was in error when speaking ex cathedra and was not prevented by the Holy Spirit to proclaimed heretical teaching.
@@goranvuksa1220
The only thing Pope Honorius was at fault for was to exercise his authority. He did not teach ex-cathedra and never held the belief of Monothelitism. A pope can exercise his authority without speaking infallibly if it is not a universal teaching based on faith and morals.
The letter that led to anathematization is the letter to Sergius. One of the criteria for a Pope to speak infallibly is to speak to the entire Church on a defined, defining teaching. How come the Church found out about the letter 40 years after Honorius's death when they anathematized him when you claim Honorius spoke infallibly?
Where in Honorius’s letter did he define monohelitism as dogmatic to the whole Church and claimed to believe it?
@@vtaylor21 Pope Honorius I was not anathematized for holding a belief or teaching Monothelitism, but Monoenergism. Entirely different heresy, although they emerged simultaneously. Pope Honorius letter was intended for the entire Church, to resolve that conflict, not for just one person or group of people, and stated that the dogma of Monoenergism is true and should be held by the whole Church. Also, speaking "ex cathedra" does not say that Pope is speaking to the whole Church, but that he is stating dogma to be held by the whole Church, and in that letter he had stated a dogma that needs to be held by the whole Church. However this heresy was rejected before it become an issue for the Church, so it was only later that was discovered that Pope Honorius was holding it. Now, at that time the concept of speaking "ex cathedra" didn't exist, so we can't know if it was intended as such, and since its made up in the 19th century and is so vaguely defined, no one actually knows when any Pope had spoke "ex cathedra". So now, whenever you disagree with the position of some Pope you can say that he didn't spoke "ex cathedra" and that his supreme authority in that regard is irrelevant, but when you agree with him then you can defend it by stating he was infallible due to speaking "ex cathedra". So, where Popes who held the view of two energies of Christ, human and Devine spoke "ex cathedra" or did Popes who rejected the dogma of Devine energies (that were clearly held in the Church)? Did Popes who rejected addition of filioque and the Pope who declared adding anything to the Nicene creed leads to anathema (along with entirety of infallible ecumenical council) spoke "ex cathedra", or Popes who introduced it and used it? Did Immaculate conception dogma originated from "ex cathedra" (as always stated it did), since this heretical teaching originates from the apocryphal texts and is in direct conflict with both the original and later Augustinian teachings of the original sin and redemption? Where Popes speaking "ex cathedra" when holding the dogma of indulgences, or when they rejected it? And so on and on...
You said you are skeptical when looking at new doctrines, by that logic you'll have to leave: sola fide, sola scriptura, calvinism, charismatic "tongues", not having the eucharist, not having clergy.
Feel free to prove me wrong, you won't find these doctrines before Martin Luther. Brand new, 500 years ago. And if you're evangelical or non denominational, then your definition of christianity didnt exist 200 years ago.
Who has more authority when explaining doctrines, Martin Luther? Mike Winger? or the deciple of Paul, Polycarp, or the deciple Peter Ignatius?
The idea that there are no more words of God beyond our Bible is crazy. If we discovered a new epistle or an apostolic gospel- would we just cast that aside?
Also intense sola scriptura causes wildly different interpretations of the same verses.
The pope and the magisterium can't change dogma or doctrine. They uphold it.
“Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which you have been taught, whether by WORD (orally), or our EPISTLE (letters.)” - 2 Thess. 2:15
The Bible states that you are not to rely on scripture alone. It is THE source of truth that the traditions are developed from. Yet, the traditions are just as crucial. Don’t believe even that? May be you should look into the Didiche. Are you going to say Christians who only had the Didiche to follow weren’t “real Christians?” Come on, use your head.
The Bible is certainly NOT the source of truth that traditions are developed from. It's the other way around. It all came from Christ's oral teaching and was only later recorded as texts. You are quoting an epistle from Paul, who wrote it centuries before the Bible existed, so obviously the teaching and traditions that he taught and is referring to were not coming from the Bible.
@@Hoi4o I misunderstood what you were saying at first, but yes. Paul’s epistles BECAME the Letters became The Gospels, the Traditions were created by The Lord.
I don't know what this guy is talking about. I've never met a protestant that doesn't say "the Bible, and that's it." It's the number one argument against papal authority. Plus it's just weird to say when the church put it together to begin with.
I guess every Protestant I’ve ever met is a “fringe fundamentalist” lol
@@bobbobberson5627 I'd disagree it's fundamentalism. It's core for protestants to only recognize the Bible as authority within each individual church body. Any claim for a universal Christian authority other than the Bible is rejected.
Our main gripe is the idea of putting fallible men over the Words of an infallible God. Even the outsider would think it is logically inconsistent.
@@sweatt4237 I suggest taking that up with the infallible being that granted the authority. I'm sure He's all ears about how consistent it is.
@@cyberfist65681 Peter 5:1, Therefore, I urge elders among you, as your fellow elder and a witness of the sufferings of Christ,
Even Peter knew there is no pope.
This was the most fun back-and-forth between Orthodox and Protestant I’ve seen on YT. Thanks Rus!
There are indeed a majority of prots that actually believe in Sola Scriptura. It is not a strawman. I am surrounded by these people.
I find the Orthodox trinity interesting.
Well, that formulation of the Trinity was dogmatised at the Council of Constantinople.
Because it’s the right one
The argument that Scripture is the only infallible authority doesn’t work because then each individual persons interpretation becomes the authority that all other authorities are set against. This also open the possibly of the church falling away for x number of years until we get the best progressive interpretation
This is how simple it is. There is NO Sola Scriptura is Scripture. It’s an idea that is superimposed on Scripture.
Im a Christian.
I go by the Word of God.
If its outside the Word of God. ITS OUTSIDE THE WORD OF GOD.
Why do you think sin has entered the church?
YOU OPPERATE OUTSIDE OF GOD'S WORD.
Jesus is the Word of God, and the church is the body of Christ.
Let’s try again:
If The Church has _any_ authority, where, or from whom does it receive it, AND *how* do you know?
Support your claim _without_ referencing scripture.
You can’t. The authority of the church absolutely DEPENDS upon the reliability, and infallibility of scripture.
To clarify, I believe a better case can be made for Sola Scriptura over church tradition given the above.
(more to follow)
Continued:
I can hear you now, “ B-but without The Church you’d have no Bible. No canonized scripture! Checkmate, Protestant, checkmate!” - Bored Catholic
Allow me to retort…
What did Jesus reference during his ministry? To what did he point to support his claim of being The Christ, and of his relationship to the Father (“You search the _Scriptures_ because you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is *they* that bear witness about me…”)?
[Ref: John 5:39, John 10:35, and more. He cites Genesis in Matthew 19:5 to once again establish the natural family order]
All *prior* to the church first being _mentioned_ in Matthew 16?
Once more, and at the risk of being redundant: You CANNOT make any claim of authority on behalf of The Church WITHOUT the support of scripture. One is the foundation, the other that which is built upon it.
Either the Church came first, or scripture did. I think the answer as to which actually did, is pretty easy to understand and know, when adhering to the law of non-contradiction.
Put another way: Either the church _created_ our biblical canon, or it _confirmed_ it only. I am persuaded it is the later.
(more to come)
_Edited for spelling_
Last bit for now, and continuing on:
Another means to discern between authentic tradition and innovatory tradition is to compare and contrast them with the Scriptures themselves. No authentic apostolic tradition can ever contradict scripture. Scripture alone is the one tradition that all churches agree on, and that all Christians can be confident of containing authentic Apostolic teachings. Therefore where there is dispute over the authenticity of other traditions, we can compare them to Scripture to see which ones hold up. For Protestants we call Scripture the “norming norm”. This is what many Protestants understand by Sola Scriptura. Not that every tradition is to be abandoned as a worthless corruption, and only Scripture should be used. But rather that only Scripture can measure and weigh traditions so as to judge their authenticity and worth.
“Isn’t this that circular reasoning you warned us against engaging in earlier?” - El Bored Catholic
An appeal to circular reasoning is bad IF it becomes self negating, AND violates the law of non-contradiction. We’re looking for internal consistency.
So yes, I _am_ using scripture to “interpret” scripture. You can verify, or reject that interpretation using, you guessed it, scripture. So long as the parameters outlined above have not been violated…So long as the text isn’t being made to disagree with itself…
In fact, it’s EXACTLY the same method used by the early church to canonize scripture to begin with.
Looking back at 2 Thess 2:15 Paul differentiating between “word” and “letter,” has NEVER been the issue. The contents of EITHER, though, has. More to the point is HOW to “rightly divide” what is and isn’t true.
Anything else? Oh yes, the, “there are so many denominations of Protestantism though” argument is tired.
What was it St. Augustin said? “In essentials - unity. In non-essentials - liberty. In all things - charity.”
What a lovely, and _scripturally_ sound _tradition_ that.
_Edited for spelling_
Except the Church never required Scripture to be a Prerequisite to it's Existence according to Scripture itself.
You're creating a circular argument.
The Church comes from Christ, given to the Apostles and the Apostles, and their disciples left us writings to the Church.
If there were no Scriptures, which in many parts of the Pre-Nicene Christian World there were no Scriptures, everything was transmitted orally, there could still be a Church.
@@acekoala457 Every one of your “objections” including the appeal to circular reasoning, and scripture pre-dating the founding of the church, were ALREADY addressed in the four posts above.
Did you _not_ read them?*
Here is the _entirety_ of my second post, and only because I’m not sure it _actually_ posted:
I can hear you now, “ B-but without The Church you’d have no Bible. No canonized scripture! Checkmate, Protestant, checkmate!” - Bored Catholic
Allow me to retort…
What did Jesus reference during his ministry? To what did he point to support his claim of being The Christ, and of his relationship to the Father (“You search the _Scriptures_ because you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is *they* that bear witness about me…”)?
[Ref: John 5:39, John 10:35, and more. He cites Genesis in Matthew 19:5 to once again establish the natural family order]
All *prior* to the church first being _mentioned_ in Matthew 16?
Once more, and at the risk of being redundant: You CANNOT make any claim of authority on behalf of The Church WITHOUT the support of scripture. One is the foundation, the other that which is built upon it.
Either the Church came first, or scripture did. I think the answer as to which actually did, is pretty easy to understand and know, when adhering to the law of non-contradiction.
Put another way: Either the church _created_ our biblical canon, or it _confirmed_ it only. I am persuaded it is the later.
(more to come)
_Edited for spelling_
The VERY NEXT post explains when circular reasoning is fallacious (hint: when the law of non-contradiction is being violated), when it isn’t, and how The Catholic Church is guilty of what you’re accusing Protestants of engaging in.
Seriously, did you _not_ read them?*
@@acekoala457 I have no idea why this, what would chronologically be post number three - isn’t actually posting correctly. So I’m going to attempt to post it again in three separate parts.
Part One of Post Three:
Continuing from where we last left off: Did Christ reference the scriptures prior to mentioning the church in Matthew 16 in order to support his ministry?
Yes.
Is scripture that which was recorded before, and after the founding of the church?
Yes.
The law of non-contradiction says both _must_ be true or neither is.
The doctrine[s] of the Sadducee’s, for example, could be rejected in part BECAUSE they only followed the misapplication of five books of the mosaic law, and the interpretive tradition that followed suit. Which is why Christ would often begin his addresses to them with, “Have you not read?” “Have you not heard?” _Then_ reference prophetic text, or more. He used scripture to suss out that which ran contrary to the then revealed word of God.
“Why does it even matter if I can make the case for the Church’s authority _without_ using scripture to support it?” - Same Bored Catholic
I’ll let Kieth A. Mathison answer this one - “Scripture cannot be appealed to as a higher law because the Church tells us what Scripture is and what it really means. Tradition cannot be appealed to as a higher law because the Church tells us what tradition is and what it really means. The fathers cannot be appealed to as a higher standard because the Church tells us what the fathers really mean. God cannot be appealed to because the Church is said to be the voice of God on earth. And because there is no higher ethical or doctrinal standard to which anyone can appeal, the Church becomes autonomous-a law unto herself.”
Otherwise we’d (you’d) be engaging in circular, self negating, reasoning.
Also, setting scripture at odds with scripture isn’t a winning strategy.
Let’s talk tradition: In chapter 2 of Second Thessalonians Paul is correcting an error. That error concerned the day of Christ (v. 2). Some were teaching in Thessalonica that the day of Christ was “at hand,” just around the corner, so that nothing else needed to occur before his coming. Some had taken this error very seriously: they had become disorderly, busybodies, and idle: they had stopped working because they believed that the day of Christ was at hand (3:6, 10-12). The effect upon the congregation was serious: they were “shaken in mind” and “troubled” (2:2). Paul warns the Thessalonians not to listen to such ideas, which came from three sources: (1) “spirit” (the idea is of an ecstatic utterance supposedly from the Holy Spirit); (2) “word” (the idea is that someone claimed that Paul had spoken about such things and had either misremembered it or had deliberately twisted something that Paul had said in a sermon); and (3) “letter” or epistle (the idea is of a spurious letter claiming to be from Paul, Timothy, or Silas, in which such false ideas were found).
Paul warns the Thessalonians: do not listen to seducing spirits; do not listen to contradictory words; do not pay heed to deceptive letters. We, the apostles, did not say that. Instead, remember our words and our epistles. Hold the traditions!
One final point I want to make about traditions from 2 Thessalonians 2: they are synonymous with “truth” in verses 10, 12, and 13, and contrasted with “lie” in verse 11. When we believe and hold traditions-which are recorded only in sacred Scripture-we believe and hold the truth, and we reject the lie. When we follow non-biblical traditions, we believe the lie and reject the truth.
(more to come)
_Edited for spelling_
Every Protestant pastor (esp non denom) is the pope for his own church. He gets to interpret the scriptures the way he sees fit. In the words of Mel Gibson from The Patriot”, “why trade one king a thousand miles away for one thousand kings ten miles away.” Jesus prayed that we may be one as He and the Father were one. He didn’t say to split over political issues. Reform the church from the inside like St. Francis of Assisi don’t start your own thing in a spirit of divorce. That’s a Revolution not a reformation.
You are very ignorant. Pastors do not act like popes. All the pastors I know are accountable to a council of elders. They can be challenged and fired. Each church I know has a set of core beliefs or creed that the pastor must adhere to
That’s pretty much how it works with the Pope and the Magisterium. The creed that any of those churches may or may not follow come from the Catholic Church. Babtists and non denoms don’t even go by any of the creeds and so then.. there you go
"Reform the church from the inside..." Thats exactly what Martin Luther attempted to do. He never intended to leave the Roman Catholic Church. As an ordained priest and professor of theology, he believed that some erroneous beliefs had crept into the church over the centuries, beliefs that were promulgated by the medieval scholastics, but not supported by scripture. He couldn't convince the pope of this, so he was ex-communicated.
@@janelleg597- this is hilarious. You just said “the pastor is not the pope, the church elders are” 😂 As if that is better
@@CJP.-pq3krElders aren't known as infallible and have never been known as such
There's a difference between sola scriptura and solo scriptura.
I've been seeing a lot of orthodox content lately. I thought I would check it out so googled orthodox churches in my area. Saw the photos and it was just all these icons on the walls, and I was just like, nope.
I don't know, its a bit too much for me.
I’m not sure if you are aware of this, but the Divine Liturgy is straight out of the book of revelation. It is this Heavenly Divine Liturgy that St. John describes in the fourth and fifth chapters of the Apocalypse. An Orthodox Christian recognizes here the familiar traits of the Sunday Liturgy and the most important attributes of the altar: the Holy of Holies, the seven-branched candelabrum, the censer with smoking incense, the golden chalice, etc. These items were shown to Moses on Mount Sinai and were also used in the temple of the Old Testament.
As for the icons, they are either depicting the life of Christ as described in scripture or they are depicting the angels and Saints which se spoken about in the book of Revelation.
The Divine Liturgy is the place where heaven and earth meet. It is where we, the saints on earth, come to worship God and receive God within us, along with those in heaven.
Orthodox here… I’m wondering why having the room filled with icons is too much?
No judgement, just curious. God bless you!
@@davidmaley2395 former protestant here, it is very common for people growing up in protestantism to be indoctrinated on the "catholics" being demonized and idol worshippers, they call icons idols, thus seeing an icon disturbs them like taboo.
Saint Luke was the first iconographer lol
I guess you’re a vibes kind of guy
I love how ruslan has the oblivion soundtrack as his add read music.
Scripture Alone
Faith Alone
Grace Alone
Christ Alone
Glory of God Alone
There wasn’t a Bible until about 300 years after Jesus founded the Church. In the late 1800s, they took many books out of the Old Testament for two reasons: 1.) to make it cheaper to make Bibles & 2.) the Christians who were reading the entire Bible, including the “apocrypha” were converting to the Catholic Church.
Before this video, I’ve never heard a Solo Scriptura person claim that it doesn’t mean Bible alone, but that’s exactly what it means. When you have to go to nonsensical lengths to make your doctrine “work”, it’s time to get rid of your false, man-made doctrine, & look back to what the early Christians said not what modern people said about them, but what they actually said about worship, doctrine, etc.
"'Elders', that's the greek word where we translate 'priests' from." - Ummm, no it is not. Not by a mile. The greek word for elders is "presbyteros" and it is NEVER translated as "priest." The greek word for priest is "hierus." "Priest" is never a singular or a congregational office in the New Testament. This is a major problem with Orthodoxy, while it critiques Sola Scriptura it throws out clear biblical patterns like the presbyters in favor of fallible human tradition of their church. It is very sad to see such twisting of the Pattern.
But the Orthodox gave you the New Testament that you’re using.
@@tomy2988 God uses crooked sticks to make straight lines
@@tomy2988Funny because Catholics say the same thing.
No modern institutional church "gave" anyone the Bible.
The Holy Spirit guided the early church (which is different from both modern day Catholicism and EO) into receiving it.
@@thespyer2k The early church is Orthodox.
The early Church had sacraments and Bishops, Priests, and deacons and had relics etc... @thespyer2k I don't see any of that in the average non-denominational church.
Yes but what the Catholics and orthodox think what church is different from what the Bible and early church was
Orthobros, this one ain’t it. Sola scriptura. Yes tradition matters. No it’s not Gods divine revelation.
Scripture is a product of Holy Tradition.
Your Church springs from the Bible, and our Bible sprang from The Church.
Your worldview is backwards.
Where can I watch this whole conversation? I’m so confused, lol
Patreon
@@dominicdarmanin9866 I can’t find it on his Patreon. I’m very confused by this?
Sola Scriptora isn't a difficult concept to understand, but a dangerous doctrine to ignore. It's really THIS simple and fundamental: when Axrioture speaks on the subject directly, it has THE authority.
Boom, done.
John 6:66 “from this time many of his disciples turned back and no longer followed him.”
As a solo scriptura Protestant, i then became catholic because these words are the infallible words of Christ regarding his teaching on the Eucharist (you must eat his flesh and drink his blood). This teaching as hard to accept and rejected by his followers. Not ironic this verse reference is 6:66, number of man.
Protestant worship basically takes on the form of a Jewish Synagogue (reading of scripture/sermon), where Catholic and Orthodox worship is more full because it takes on the form of both the synagogue (scripture reading/sermon) and Temple sacrifice (eucharist).
I'm sorrry, but I truly don't understand how anyone can read the Eucharist into John 6.
1.) John spends more words than any of the other gospels on the night before the crucifixion and yet does not cover the establishment of the Last Supper rite.
2.) Bread is mentioned becuase of the events of the previous day, with the bread and the fish, but the "blood" part of Jesus' teaching is never associated with wine by Jesus.
3.) Jesus provides the interpretative key to what he was saying to the disciples: to trust in Him is to be fed by Him (fulfilled in)
So at the end, you are trying to have Jesus incompletely talking about a rite/sacrament that he was going to establish months from that point to an entirely different audience. The whole interpretive model feels forced and in the process millions of Catholics end up missing the beautiful message that is actually in that passage.
@@calomie I appreciate your comment as a fellow brother or sister in Christ through our baptism. I personally don’t know how you don’t read John 6 and come to this conclusion especially if you read the church fathers (Ignatius, Justin martyr, clement of Rome). Early Christians we’re called cannibals, and the worship described looked like a catholic mass or orthodox Divine Liturgy.
My question to you is how do you explain the modern day Eucharistic miracles that only happen in the Catholic Church? For example, there is documented proof of saints who only lived on the Eucharist (no food or water their entire life), the Eucharistic host has been studied by cardiologists when it’s turned into flesh and it’s tormented heart muscle, it’s AB blood (rarest blood type) the universal receiver and plasma donor. Why do satantists who do black masses buy catholic consecrated hosts for thousands of dollars, but not just walk into a Protestant church and grab their wafers? Or walk into a catholic book store and buy a box of wafers?
The first millennial saint Carlos Acutis. He built a website that shows all the miracles over two millennium. He died at 15 years old in 2006 and still hasn’t decomposed (his body is on display). He died in the odor of sanctity. His body smelled of roses. He went to daily mass and adoration every day.
Jesus is truly found in the Eucharist. Body, blood, soul and divinity. The bread of the enemy is only bread. This truth of Jesus in the Eucharist is only found in the Catholic (and Orthodox) Churches. This is a non-negotiable truth.
@@river_of_jordan I'm really more concerned with how to interpret the text of John 6. To be straight with you, the closest you came to addressing that was a reference to how the early church fathers interpreted it. For one, there's at least a few times where you read the Church Fathers and you're left with the feeling that they're really stretching to try and get that out of that passage. They are a great source of inspiration and edification, don't get me wrong, but their say so on a passage isn't necessarily final. What would have been better is for us to discuss where the church father's discussed John 6 or the Last Supper or hte sacrament of the Last Supper so we could assess what they're saying and the merits or demerits of their case.
" Early Christians we’re called cannibals, and the worship described looked like a catholic mass or orthodox Divine Liturgy. "
And Church historians generally explain this as a misunderstanding of Christian practice by the surrounding culture. How outsiders (mis)understood the Christian practice of the Last Supper has nothing to do with how to interpret John 6.
What allegedly happens to Eucharistic hosts after they've been consecrated also has nothing to do with how to interpret John 6.
I could just as easily ask you "How do you explain the golden tablets of Reformed Egyptian that Joseph Smith translated into the Book of Mormon?"
"Why do satantists who do black masses buy catholic consecrated hosts for thousands of dollars, but not just walk into a Protestant church and grab their wafers? Or walk into a catholic book store and buy a box of wafers"
Because it's a *black mass*. They're mocking the Catholic mass. What does that have to do with the truth of transubstantiation or how to interpret John 6?
And again, a 15 year old deceased person smelling like roses...has nothing to do with the proper interpretation of John 6.
Transubstantiation could end up being true, and yet I'd still hold that John 6 is not a proof text for that doctrine. You'd be much better off deriving it from an exegesis of the accounts of hte Last Supper and defending your interpretation there than trying to force it into John 6:35-71.
@@calomie appreciate your commentary on how it's better to derive the Eucharist off the last supper account. You bring up some valid arguments. Thank you for that.
I didn't tie the Eucharist to the last supper but that's a great point. As Catholics, we believe this was the first mass. The mass was instuted even before scripture was cannonized, and you can thank the Catholics for preserving the scriptures.
We believe Jesus restored the priesthood of Melchizedek (bread and wine) and gave this priesthood to his apostles, and all the bishops have apostolic succession to these apostles. The Aaronic priesthood ended, and so did the See of Moses. The Melchizedek Priesthood and See of Peter and his magisterium is what God instituted. We also believe God is purifying his church and separating the wheat and the chaff at the current moment (just like he did 2,000 years ago). We are going through the Passion of the Church, but a new springtime is coming!
I also appreciate that you acknowledge that the transubstantiation could end up being true. Again, there are accounts in the Church of people living only on the Eucharist. Just like the future saint of the Divine Will, Luisa Piccarreta. She lived only on the Eucharist for 60 years. She also relived the 24 hours of the passion with Jesus and wrote about it. Some of the scenes of the passion of the Christ movie were taken from her experience with Jesus.
I would challenge your argument on the Golden Tablets. For one, they were never found and there is zero proof. There is actually a ton of proof on the Holy Eucharist miracles. You just need to look it up. However, people just don't want to accept it or believe it. They are the doubting Thomases of today. I pray god lifts the vale.
Regardless of anything I say, the Kingdom of God is coming! The Skeneniah Glory that led the Jews is coming back to earth. This fire will destroy and renew all things. The one difference is we don't believe in the rapture, but a period of peace to come. The ones left behind are the sons and daughters of God.
We also believe the second coming of Christ is going to come through Mary.
Mary is the dawn that precedes and reveals the Sun of Justice... The difference between the first and the second coming of Jesus will be that the first was secret and hidden, the second will be glorious and dazzling; both will be perfect, because both will come through Mary. This is a great and holy mystery that no one can understand; "let all tongues fall silent." - St. Louis de Monfort.
Entire nations will convert and reconvert back to the Catholic Church. The real revival that is coming is a revival of the Holy Eucharist.
Church tradition says Mary walked on stones in the Church of the Holy Sepulcher, called the Arches of the Virgin, when those stones and that building didn’t exist at the time of the event. The authority of church tradition needs the reformer’s view
Sola scriptura>sola ecclesia
I just learned this but Protestentism is not an institution like Catholocism and Orthodoxy so when someone says well its hard to know what Protestents believe well your not gonna get the answer since its not a group. Rather there are traditions that hold to reformational or Protestent principles but the tradition is the key. You can ask then about Lutheranism, Anglicanosm, Baptists, actual church traditions that flow from the ideas.
its like a buffet, you pick and choose what you want. Like when they say they agree with Nicea, except when it talks about church structure and canon law.
@@Chromebreaks Not really.
@JesusRodriguez-gu1wv Yeah really. "Nuh uh" isn't a good response. Show us how Protestants actually do affirm Nicea and have a church Structure.
@@supergoji7511 Because of scripture not by value of it simply being a council.
@@JesusRodriguez-gu1wv “because of scripture” presupposes you HAVE the full canon and the you interpret correctly. Which you don’t have either as a Protestant.
The Protestant notion that their authority comes from the bible and not authority is ludicrous. Your authority comes from the person who founded your church, based on HIS interpretation of the bible. While the bible may be infallible, human interpretation of the bible is not. This is why you have 30000 Protestant denominations.
Good exchange, couple clarifications:
1. Orthodox didn’t “bounce”, the Roman Pope excommunicated the Patriarch of Constantinople, the various Churches wanted to remain in communion but the Papal Pretensions necessitated submission to the Pope.. the Orthodox Church to this day desires that the Papal Catholics return to the bosom of the Church, if only they would turn from their errors..
2. There were inklings of “Papal authority” early on in Church history, (which often times was pushed back on - see Stephen of Rome and Cyprian of Carthage as an example) but it was definitely not what we see today which is why the Papal Catholics need “Development of Doctrine”
3. The Orthodox version of a “magisterium” is in some fashion the consensus of the Saints, those men and women who were deified by Christ through love and obedience to Him such that they were illumined by the Holy Spirit to experience the Truth, not just read about it.
NO, Christ is the authority... not a Bishop. Not a pastor. They have no authority over anyone's life. NONE. They have authority granted to them in their professional capacity within the Body to teach FROM Scripture, and to hand down judgements for church discipline WITHIN the body... but the only authority over the individual lives of Believers is God and His Word... i.e. THE BIBLE.
This is exactly the problem with society in the west as a whole right now, a lack of authority. Nobody is saying God isn't THE authority, but there are is also a hierarchy of authority. Just as a child while they are at school is under the authority of the teacher, and at home they're under the authority of their parents. You yourself are under the authority of local, state, and federal laws.Why is it so hard to accept that a priest/bishop has some measure of spiritual authority, while still being under the authority of God?
@stizmac88 .... That is a poor analogy. And you sound too much like Andrew Wilson.
The authority of the state is limited BY SCRIPTURE. The state has a role, and it's authority over you and me is LIMITED.
As per the church bodies and traditions. The Church institution, and it's hierarchies, has LIMITED authority, and cannot dictate my dogma or theology. That is left to ME to decide based on what I glean from Scripture. The institution gets it's authority from the Word, and it's authority is LIMITED. THE FINAL authority isn't a council, or an institution, or a priesthood, it's THE BIBLE. PERIOD.
If you would have paid attention to my 1st comment, you would have noticed that I acknowledged the limited authority of church hierarchy. LIMITED, as you yourself admitted, is the key term.
Orthodox denominationalism is just as silly in its traditions and hierarchy as catholicism.
The Bible is THE authority, is infallible, and takes precedent over the instructions or opinions of church traditions and heirarchy, and DEFINITELY over personal revelation.
@@smashleyscott8272 you cant even find 2 denominations that agree on the meaning of scripture. Everyone is their own infallible pope. If you wanna go with the gut feeling of someone who maybe went to seminary or spent some years to study theology instead of the teachings and practices passed down to the deciples of Peter, John, Paul, then that's on you.
@Chromebreaks .... Actually, I can. Why?? Because the meaning of Scriptire isn't about the mode of baptism, the methods of worship, or whether or not the earth is literally 6k years old... not even whether of not Jesus had siblings. The reason denominations exist is because the Body is a disobedient adulterous bride who splinters over nonessentials.
So, most nondenominational evangelical denominations that remained conservative, Reformed, and Baptists agree far more on almost everything than do catholics.
Your argumen is a nonstarter.
@@smashleyscott8272 o yeah? protestant denomination dont even agree on how to be saved.
-Lutherans believe you are saved in baptism, as infants.
-Calvinist believe you cant do anthing to be saved because God Chooses for you
-Pentacostals believe you need to speak in tongues to be saved
-Anglicans believe in sacraments
-Baptists believe in repeating believing in Jesus and doing what he says.
-Many non denominationals believe in easy belivism where you just repeat a prayer and that's all, you can go ahead an live however you want and still be saved.
That's just soteriology, I can expand on ecclesiology, christology, pneumatology, sacramentology. No full agreements in any of those. BUT WAIT guess what.
The apostolic orthodox churches have always agreed on those things for 2000 years. For them its like of course!? how can you get those wrong?
I Listen to Orthos talk in social media and debate channels and they rather take the approach as if they are Gods psychologist and not his creation . Orthos " knowing " what God really wants from his flock as if he has granted them some special anointed knowledge only they possess. They are Just the stoic version of the Black Israelites imo the hubris is amazing and similar . They need God to be this pragmatic and furrowed browed punisher of non orthos and Christianity to be some kind of Logical and philosophical Order of Vickers and monks . Never do you hear an Ortho talk as if they vulnerable in their relationship with Jesus more like a bunch of Greeks trying to out smart and shame the Bible thumpers on the protestant side. The obsession they have with Martin luther is like he an Ex boyfiend who cheated on them its very weird ML really broke their hearts.
Uh no. Christianity is a mystical eastern religion. You have confused Holy Orthodoxy with the western church and its scholasticism. Papal Protestantism inherits this ethos from the west.
You should go talk to an Orthodox priest and not listen to some social media personality. You'll find that your perception is off.
Let us know when you've finished middle school. We'll revisit the subject then.
@@bobbobberson5627the mysticism in eastern Orthodoxy comes from the gnostics and was influenced by eastern religions like Buddhism.
Your idea of orthodoxy is arrogant online personality’s?
I have no idea why Ruslan is talking with these people. What is the point? There are only TWO levels in the hierarchy: GOD and His church. This whole video and most of the comments here are way off base and have nothing to do with the key to salvation, which is the one thing that all true Christians share. Everything else is moot. Just because someone is not Roman Catholic or Orthodox does not mean they are Protestant. This video is kind of interesting and fun, but is also repulsive on so many levels.
Thanks for this episode in its entirety. I have found myself at a crossroads in my faith from being Protestant my whole life and now started down the path of Orthodoxy….
I really think there is something very real in Orthodox, but I have struggled with the saint, Mary thing and sola scriptura since it goes against my theology I had for so long.
My family are Orthodox and I left the Orthodox church over 10 years ago. I'm non-denominational, and as 36 years old, my parents still try to convince me to come back to their churches. Ruslan, how do I tell my parents I'm not interested in a Godly way?
Well nobody should force you to do anything. I identify as orthodox and so ofc I’m gonna suggest doing research about orthodoxy. Nonetheless, I would say no because it’s your journey. Who knows. Maybe you end up converting to orthodoxy in the future. But I will say that you still worship and have a relationship with the triune God. That you accept Jesus as your lord and savior. I hope that makes sense
you should go back
Yikes.
"I'm not interested. Thank you, but no thank you... please, respect my decision."
There ya go.
They’re right and God, in His mercy, is calling you to His commandment to be obedient to them in light of your Salvation.
Only way to the Father is through the son not the mother....Mary and all the saints are still in rest till they rise with the rest of the dead she cant pray for you!
To be apart from the body is to present with the Lord. They aren’t dead
True that they ain’t dead but only through Christ and him alone have they been rose back to life
What about those who went through the son, they'd be with the Father, correct?
Do souls live on after death?
They are still alive…Moses and Elijah was on the mountain of transfiguration….Were they “still resting”?
An independent inquiry on Tuesday said it had concluded there were about 216,000 victims of sexual abuse carried out by the French Catholic Church’s clergy between 1950 and 2020.
Maybe bring a Catholic on instead of wildly speculating about Catholic teachings and getting it wrong.
Trent Horn.
These interviews are when I’d love to see Jay Dyer or Deacon Ananias on this show. Jonathan is great but he is not going to expose the flaws in the Protestant paradigm.
I agree, there needs to be some one like Jay or anyone like him from the orthodox sphere. Even orthodox shahada would be a great advocate for the orthodox position or fr Josiah trenham he would be awesome also
I'm an Independent Fundamental Baptist, and we believe that the only authority in the areas of Doctrine (faith, or that which we believe), and Practice is the Bible. Why do we believe that?
Because we hold that in the areas of faith and practice there is no authority greater than the Scripture. It is the only infallibe authority, as Ruslan said.
Nature has infallible elements in it that are clear revelations of the mind of God. It is not nature that is fallible because it functions according to the laws of God. The heart of man is fallible because it is deceitful and desperately wicked. The laws of mathematics and physics are not fallible.
Secondly, there is the issue of order and Christs warning about raising traditions to the level of Scripture and holding Tradition as a source of doctrine. We must reject traditions added later than that which was limited by the Spirit of God in the Scriptures. The Scriptures hold authority over any tradition or man. No later tradition was given by inspiration of God. Coupled with this is the issue of the order of issuance. We are to defend the faith that was delivered once to the Saints. There was one delivery period. The fullness of everything we need to believe as Christians was delivered during the 1st century AD during the apostolic period, ending with Revelation.
The Holy Spirit gave us fhe Bible, not the church. The Holy Spirit guided the acceptance of the Bible and what should be in it. It would be foolish to tji k that the God who gave us the Scriptures would not guide us in its contents. He can use who he chooses and had made it clear by the time of Athanasius. There is now a tradition about what the Holy Spirit did, but it was the work of the Spirit that came first, the came a tradition.
So then, what holds precedence? The Spirit's work, wisdom, and will. We should thank Him for the Bible because it is a gift from God.
I believe a conversation about this with Johnathan Pageau, Paul Vanderklay and Ruslan on this issue would be great.
Find it interesting that everyone is taking shots at Catholics! The gates of hell will not prevail though! Long time follower Ruslan, much love, but keep the focus on Christ and unity.
Cool! I can belong to the "MAKE IT UP as I GO ALONG" Church.
Oh! I think that covers 90% of the church denominations!