Why I Left Eastern Orthodoxy
Вставка
- Опубліковано 26 чер 2024
- Deacon Drew Harrah explains why he first entered the Eastern Orthodox Church and then why he left it.
Faith of Our Fathers exists to promote the historic Christian faith through theological and spiritual reflection on the Bible and the Great Tradition of the Church.
Deacon Drew Harrah (MA in Classical Theology, Talbot School of Theology, MA in History, California State University, Fullerton) is currently serving a curacy at Christ Anglican Church in Carefree, AZ, a parish of the Anglican Province of Christ the King under the oversight of Bishop Peter Hansen of the Diocese of the Western States.
FOLLOW:
X: x.com/discipulusjesu
00:00 - Introduction
02:23 - Why I Became Eastern Orthodox
09:32 - My Experience as an Eastern Orthodox Christian
14:53 - Western Theological Tradition
24:11 - Ecclesiology
41:55 - Pastoral Advice
Im Orthodox Christian, I will pray for you! My duty as an Orthodox Christian is to love my neighbors even if I have a different point of view. Im a sinner and I have to look my own sins instead to watch others, be judgmental is a grave sin and spiritual pride and with humility is the path to Christ and the paradise. Lord JesusChrist son of God, have mercy on me a sinner! Most Holy Mother of God pray for us!
Well yeah that’s all great but at least you come to church. I have a parishioner in my church that is still can’t get over some heretical humps. He still comes every service at 93. Never misses one. He debates and learns and stays humble. He doesn’t leave the church.
The priest in this video made a prideful choice.
Amen. I feel the same way. Jesus commanded me to love. Also enjoy learning about others church’s too.
Thank you for praying for me.
@@dcndrew_faithofourfathersYou welcome IGod bless you.
Amen☦
I left Orthodoxy for a time. Its a desert out there beyond Orthodoxy! A spiritual desert of anxiety! I found peace admitting I was wrong and going back to Orthodoxy! All other liturgies pale in comparison. Ideologies that fail to reach the heart I found in protestantism. Shallow even ugly services, long intellectual services and/or emotionalism...is all I found in protestantism. Catholicism slightly better but that needs and calls for the fullness of holy Orthodoxy. Such a shame all this division...life is short. God looks at our hearts and deeply! Dont get so knotted up with the rational lies. Exclusivism!? Leave all that to God. He loves you. Orthodoxy is a heart matter...not a theology test. The canons are not universal laws but measures, medicines to be applied to each individual. If you find interior prayer, a good spiritual father and a good monastery...its all you need. The rest is waffle and confusion in my experience. Life is short there is much to do! Your Orthodoxy was the typical legalistic first dose!!😂 It takes a long time for us westerners to imbibe a true orthodox spirit. Too much talking we do!! I too fell into the ultra-legalism. A holy gentle spiritual father is now helping me out there! Orthodoxy is NOT about rules. God bless.
Lovely comment. Thank you for the good word
Thanks for this. I'm glad you've found peace in the Orthodox Church. And of course you are right about much of the shallowness. I think the "spiritual desert of anxiety" you experienced comes from the ultra-legalism that you say you fell into. I had to work through it too. To say that we are saved by the canons or canonicity is to seek to be "made perfect by the flesh" after having "begun in the Spirit" (Gal. 3:3).
@@dcndrew_faithofourfathers The spirit Paul is talking about is the spirit of truth, not relativism. One protestant told me that "truth absolutism" is dangerous... Hahaha!!! Alright, if that is how you guys want "christianity" to be, then so be it. Real Christianity is grounded in truth, ALL of the truth, with NOTHING lost, according to the promises that Jesus Christ gives His Church. Otherwise, what hope do we have? Might as well be an atheist if I admit that my "church" might be teaching incorrect doctrine.
Wow, that was fast! Last I saw of your
Comments on other videos you went Catholic monk, to orthodox, to baptist laity! Either way, I’m happy you found some peace man! God bless you!
Did you watch the full video?
I'm Coptic Orthodox from Egypt and pray for you ☦️🙏
I no longer have a dog in this race, but as a former Reformed Baptist/Christian Reconstructionist - it's hard to not have a deep sympathy for the Orthodox position. In every way, they appear to have the oldest positions/views of any Trinitarian group. Yet through Papal greed and lust for power, the church was divided.
Agreed. And the more you really look into the issues that divide Orthodoxy and Catholicism and Protestantism, the less it becomes possible to truly believe any other church can be correct. And if you remain a Catholic or Protestant, you will have some serious mental gymnastics you will have to contend with, or you will refuse to think about it further because the Truth will be too difficult to behold.
The oldest position among Orthodox would be the Oriental Orthodox. You know what they call Eastern Orthodox? Roman Orthodox.
Papal greed? Wasn't constantinople more powerful than Rome then?
Thank you for sharing! I'm looking forward to future videos in this series.
Western rationalistic views mixed with modernistic greek errors have lead you into the next error
Thank you for the pastoral advice at the end. It was very helpful for me.
There is lots of nice Mormons and Jehovah witnesses out there… Just because someone is nice and loves people around them does not mean that they have the Holy Spirit. And it does not necessarily count as “fruit of the spirit“.
True lol
you are parotting Kyle ?
someone could be stupid and nice. does it make it right?
Converting to Orthodoxy 😃
I recently became Orthodox!
Thanks be to God - the Lord bless you.
@@marcokitesameee I’m a catechumen 😊
Yep bunch of well meaning ideology beyond it!!
Me too !
God bless you...
Great video! Looking forward to part 2 ❤️☦️
DD. Nice outline of your experience.
Listening to your very interesting video, I get a sense that having been brought into the Orthodox Church into what was a parish which is almost exclusively Evangelical converts, and your association with well known Evangelical converts to Orthodoxy such as Fr Trentham, you may have been immersed in a somewhat 'skewed ethos' of Orthodoxy. That is not to in any way be critical of any of those devout people, but Orthodox ethos is learnt and absorbed by being amongst primarily cradle Orthodox communities... which, generally, have little concept of Protestant churches or theology. Nor, concern for it. The attitude is "It's none of my business. I have my own sinful life to be concerned about".
If you want to avoid ecclesiastical and theological confusions, then it's unlikely anyone would find a place in any Christian denomination.
Baptisms in other denominations have always been accepted by most Orthodoxy, and the rigorous debates about (re)baptism have come from prominent Protestant converts. Go to a parish in Greece or some other Orthodox country, and it's unlikely to be an issue.
The conflict of the Orthodox Church being the One true Church, but accepting baptism of other denominations?
As the Orthodox say about many things, 'it's a mystery', but we know that the Holy Spirit works within all people, and not just the holy and the saints, and most certainly not just the Orthodox. That is the Orthodox approach. We simply believe that the Orthodox Church is where we know the Holy Spirit to be, so is the best place to be, in what you will be familiar as refered to as the 'Spiritual Hospital'.
Orthodoxy does not condemn non-Orthodox, nor judge them. Orthodoxy looks on all people as icons of Christ, and wish all to be saved. If you hear Orthodox priests saying otherwise, then you'll most likely discover them to be, firstly, converts, and secondly, American.
Being in America and it's very 'American style' Orthodoxy is something of a disadvantage. Primarily because of the big influence of Evangelical converts in the '90s and beyond.
As a Brit who has been Orthodox for over 30 years (from Roman Catholicism), I'm constantly shocked by what I see and hear from many UA-cam Orthodox apologists... ALL of whom are converts, and most of them having converted within the past 5 to 10 years. The Orthodox ethos is simply missing, which is of enormous sadness.
In the end, the legalism and hoops that people jump through are very much secondary. It is the path of love and theosis towards Christ is what matters. Most Orthodox Christians have little idea of the ecclesiology, and that's possibly a good thing for them.
The Church is in the parish, lived amongst the people. It isn't found in books, lectures and UA-cam channels.
Thank you for your story and testimony. In America there are many converts whose Orthodox identity is attached more to the Internet priests they follow rather than their local parish or actual bishop.
Arch..., thank you. You expressed quiet well, and kindly, concerns that i sensed but hadn't known how best to describe. My husband and i had the blessing to begin our journey to the Orthodox Church with our first visits to Russia, to the Kremlin in Moscow when the churches were museums but the witness of what had been there was evident. .Our home parish was founded by Russians who escaped with their lives and little else..
It was/is full of cradle Orthodox, and there was/is a depth of simple faith that the parishes with mostly converts don't have yet..
That isn't to be unkind or haughty... because i am one of the converts who needs the ethos that the long time, cradle Orthodox just have inside them..
That for cradle Orthodox not knowing much about ecclesiology may be a good thing, seems right. I find many of these discussions to be a bit wearying.
I somewhat agree, but your post doesn't account for the many church fathers and saints who condemn heresy, anathematize heretics and call ecumenism "the heresy of heresies"
Thanks for kindly discussing the matter of the Orthodox ethos. I really appreciate such comments where people kindly bring knowledge/insight. At the same time, I must say there are issues that prevent me from fully accepting Ortho tradition, such as Nicaea 2, where Christians who choose not to venerate icons are anathematized. In that sense I do agree with @mitch0990. Otherwise what you brought up about converts having rigorous views is something I find insightful and useful to the discussion. I think a lot of interdenominational debate happens between US priests/pastors/theologians and what you brought up is good to know at least.
@@mitch0990why is that a problem? To anathematize is not to be about rudeness, but about preserving the Faith in its purity and trying to wake up those in error, especially stubborn, rebellious error, from their ways.
What else could or should the Church do?
Thank you for sharing your story brother. In times like this, we should do our best to simply listen. God Bless you and keep you!
Thank you for sharing your thought-provoking story.
Most of my family members are members of the Coptic Orthodox Church. They are very proud and passionate about their belief that it is the "only true church." However, I have not observed the fruits of the Spirit in their lives. Instead, I have observed strong identity, incredible pride, and disdain for other Christian traditions. In the clergy, I have observed impressive clerical garments, long beards, and long clerical titles.
In my opinion, the moment one believes that they have a monopoly on Christ and his truth, they are truly lost. We can't control the Holy Spirit and His work in any human traditions. We can't domesticate Christ within corruptible human institutions. That is what the Pharisees tried and failed to do. The faithfuls of this tradition are willing to deny the validity of more than 1.5 billion Christians (Catholic and Protestant) for the sake of their traditions. This is what happens when the merciful Christ is replaced by human traditions, identity, nationalism.
The Pastoral advice at the end of this is AMAZING, thank you. I’m a Roman Catholic struggling with historic Protestantism so thank you.
Voices brought you into the historical church and the same voice brought you right back out. Next year a voice will take you somewhere else. Orthodoxy would have taught you to not listen to voices. What if I told you I just had a voice that said your voice was the wrong voice whose voice is better mine or yours? The problem in the West is everybody wants to be a pope.
This is such a stupid take. Your own personal interpretation is what makes you pick Orthodoxy over Catholicism. You will never escape personal interpretation as the final arbiter of which church is true.
You would submit to rome even if it was antichrist. That's not Christ like, nor apostolic
Amen! well said.
@@GabrielWithoutWings Not really, in the beginning, there was only one Church, and over the centuries, many heresies sprang up. Around 1000 AD, the Pope wanted to take power into his own hands and came up with some new dogmas that had never been heard of before, like papal infallibility and such. It's pretty clear which faith remained pure and which did not.
I understand the hesitancy concerning my experience reading Met. Khrapovitsky. But consider this: if you were to hear your mother's voice without seeing her, how would you know it was your mother? You would just know. What if somebody said to you, "that wasn't your mother speaking." How would you answer them? It would be difficult to do so beyond saying "I know her voice, and that was her voice." My point is that there's an irreducible personal quality to these kinds of experiences that are difficult to describe to others. Furthermore, do you think a demon would lead me to repentance? And lastly, I didn't hear any voices coming out of Orthodoxy. My reasons for leaving were presented in this video.
Incredibly helpful. Can’t wait for the next issue.
Thank you
Fascinating and high quality content.
Thank God that you have come to Anglicanism and make this courageous video. The respect you have for both your former traditions is admirable and your teaching was sensitive and wise. May our Lord Jesus Christ bless your ministry richly.
Thank you for sharing your story!
Thanks for sharing this message. Very similar sentiments here!
Thank you for this post. It was comforting to me because I have struggled with many of the same things. You gave very encouraging advice brother, thank you.
He’s completely wrong.
@@MaximusWolfeso profound of a response
@@tylersalovesfrogs411
Perhaps not but profound but certainly accurate.
Fantastic video brother. I was brought up low church Lutheran, now I'm Catholic. But I went to Athos last year and attend Anglican services every now and then. There is great truth in all of Christendom, some disagreement among brothers is fine and will continue even when we are united.
Keep making content! I'll share this with a friend.
Thanks for this. Wow, would you mind sharing a little bit about your trip to Athos?
Thank you for uploading this, it touches on a lot of points I've thought about as an inquirer of Eastern Orthodoxy. My heart first opened to EO & RCC when I began to doubt the "faith-alone" gospel as taught by the Protestant churches I'd passed through. Ephesians 5: the metaphor of the Church as the Bride of Christ. Such a useful model, I thought of it constantly: a man understands intuitively what is expected from his bride, and he would never accept her fidelity in intellectual assent alone. This had a huge impact on me, and was prior to any theological impact on my position. Once I accepted the full gospel, sanctification made sense and it opened up entire new categories of consideration, including saints, holiness, miracle working, spiritual warfare in earnest, relics, etc... I referred to EO as "clinical Christianity" as I familiarized myself with the Orthodox UA-cam monks/priests and their teachings. I found it directly applicable, even as an uninitiate. Hesychasmic recitation of the Jesus Prayer radically impacted my life in several ways. I could not deny its power.
I read a biography about those American Evangelicals who joined the Antiochian Orthodox Church en masse, and was able to follow the logic of the narrator, which dropped a lot of my disqualifying theological objections to Orthodoxy. But really, those arguments would not have convinced me at all, if I hadn't already been convinced by the bride-metaphor and the countless hours I spent pondering its consequences. Prompted by you, I've read Canon 110 regarding the remission of original sin. I then sought out the Orthodox responses to your interpretation, and it satisfied me, for the same reason I'm sure.
Intellectual humility goes a long way towards avoiding cognitive dissonance. I don't expect to figure it all out. A lot is left to mystery, and even contradictions within the Church exist, until they are eventually resolved. Like you excellently explained, God leads people different ways, but I see a vast and plentiful orchard along this garden path, planted by the original Church, cultivated by the ascetics, watered by the blood of the martyrs, and I cannot imagine leaving it in search of greener pastures.
“Criticism is a low level form of hatred”? I’m left a little speechless by this statement.
Can someone mask their hatred and evil intentions by passing it off as “criticism?” Certainly. Like most things, they can be twisted and used for evil.
But to say that all or even most criticism generally is “low level hatred” is inaccurate at best and manipulative at worst.
And by making this critique, I can assure you that I do not hate you.
He said "can be," not, "is."
@@KevinDay At first he said that criticism can be hatred, then he amends this and clarifies that it “is” low level hatred.
I watched that section again a couple times, and I didn't catch an "is" low level hatred but "can be." But to be clear: yes, you're right, criticism is not necessarily a manifestation of low level hatred. Thanks for watching.
@@KevinDay - but the gist is that it 'is'.
@@dcndrew_faithofourfathers - Believing the Truth and saying untruth is untruth is neither hatred nor even criticism. By your argument it's wrong to even INSIST that 2+2 = 4 as that is 'critical' of those who say it equals 37.5218.
The filioque is heresy, not a nice word but it is. (I'm ex-Anglican and leaving that communion is the best thing anyone can do). YES - the West is wrong on this dogma, we can't all be right! That's just being 'nice'.
Pray you come home to Orthodoxy.
Thank you for sharing your journey. Just became Anglican myself in December of last year.
God bless you
Poor choice.
the Aglican church is in error. Join a Holy Apostolic Orthodox Church.
As a Catholic I wish you the best I can see a genuine searching for God. Ofcourse I hope you join communion with Rome, keep praying, keep listening, there is room for all in the Church genuinely seeking and following our risen Lord. Myself coming from an Atheist background I saw all the attempts to talk and understand came out of Rome and the lengths Rome went to talk with the east and reconcile them basically convinced me, apart from all the theological and historical evidence. But never would I speak ill of the Orthodox, I agree with you Deacon these apostolic traditions both produce good christians. I just hope we can resolve the schism, and Rome is more than willing to talk with all.
Roman Catholicism isn't even Christianity. Neither is eastern orthodoxy. Sorry.
@@br.m😂🤦♂️
@@Quantus76 It's not really funny but yeah I kind of laugh about it too...
I mean, this day and age there is no excuse to fall for those backslidden cults. Anybody can open a Bible and see how anti-Christian those syndicates are. All about gaining land and wealth. What a shame but yes you are right, I guess it is funny that they still have so many people fooled...
I guess it could be worse... At least they aren't Mormons... Now THAT is funny
@@br.meager to no what is
@@metagalaxy-go-the-distance It's all in the Bible
If one leaves Orthodoxy, where does one go?
If one has read as much as Drew professes to have read, such a man would never look towards or go towards or go into the so-called Roman Catholic Church.
Hare Krishna?
sect
Hello, really interesting testimony. How do you view the common work of christians toward restoring a lost institutional unity in organizatiions like the WCC, NCCA or other ?
I’ve listened to this several times, God bless you sir!
Thank you
Thanks, Deacon Drew! I am an Orthodox convert, chrismated 17 years ago from Baptist and, before that, agnostic/hippie. I appreciate you digging into the many contradicting lines that make up the cognitive dissonance of Orthodoxy. But that was actually a big credibility piece that convinced me of its organic, revelatory nature. If I were walking through the forest, and I came upon two bird houses: in one tree were some bright colored plastic panels stuck together with a Walmart tag hanging off of it, and in another tree, a chaotic bramble of sticks built up into a nest, I intuitively know which one was man-made and which one was bird-made. I will admit that the analogy is complexified by the fact that birds will happily live in either. But my outdoorsy hippie upbringing pointed me to the bird-made nest as the best place to lay my eggs. I didn't join the church because I was looking for "The Truth." I was attracted to its Goodness, Truth, and Beauty. The mystical theology and the Jesus prayer are what made it come alive for me. I am happy you found a place where the cognitive load isn't getting in the way.
Thanks for sharing. There is much that is good, and true, and beautiful in Orthodoxy.
Yes, I agree with you. The Orthodox Church is the best spiritual nest that I could find. I try to be humble and remember we are all in the hands of God.
@@mirandapasquini673 amen.
Deacon Drew,
This video has been very helpful, thank you! Regarding the issue of ecclesiology (which seems to me to be perhaps the most pertinent issue in the whole Protestant/Catholic/Orthodox discussion), I think I agree with your assessment. Might those Orthodox on the more ecumenical side argue that Christians baptized outside of the institution of the Orthodox Church are nevertheless saved through the Orthodox Church despite not being visibly or intentionally aligned with it? How would you respond to that rejoinder?
I'm looking forward to your future videos on your personal journey!
Thanks for this, Mark Todd. I don't think it's consistent with the traditional Orthodox theological method. The Orthodox Church is resistant to innovation, and that is an innovative ecclesiological understanding. It is more traditional, in my opinion, to just admit that the One Church can be rent by schism. I'll argue for that in my next video.
@@dcndrew_faithofourfathers That makes sense. I know that many Roman apologists have argued for that view recently, but I'm not as aware of the current trends of Orthodox apologetics.
I appreciate your work!
Deacon Drew,
I'm curious to know if you thought at the time you were among antinomian Lutherans that antinomianism was a heresy of Martin Luther, and no longer think that, or if you still think that Martin Luther was an antinomian?
Luther was not an antinomian. The Lutheran Confessions are not antinomian. The Epitome to the Formula of Concord says that justifying faith does not exist in "a wicked intention to sin and to act against the conscience." That's why I said my "Confessional Lutheran" church was not actually Confessionally Lutheran.
Epic beard, by the way.
@@dcndrew_faithofourfathers I noted that comment, but I thought you referred to antinomianism as "Luther's heresy." Perhaps I misunderstood you. There is a good book titled Only the Law Is Eternal, which are Luther's antinomian disputations.
I'm a Confessional Lutheran pastor and, sad to say, antinomianism is a scourge upon us. But, there has been some good work done in pushing back against this; very recently, in fact, in the form of a conference devoted to addressing this exact issue.
And, thank you. Lol. My beard has a better reputation than me, I think. Thank you for this video, too. I made one addressing Confessional Lutherans in particular, but yours was much more comprehensive and organized.
Christ's peace.
@@dcndrew_faithofourfathers Dcn. Andrew, Rik Morse here. I have to admit I was a little bit confused by your video as well when you said that the Lutheran confessions were antinomian. Rev. Marcus Williams' comment and question shed light on the subject at hand though. Unfortunately there are many Lutheran's who are antinomian in their practice (which can be directly sourced to ignorance of their own faith and confession). Good, confessional Lutheran pastors like Rev. Marcus Williams do not let their flocks slip into such heretical territory. All in all, I think the video was thoughtful and well executed. Keep up the good work!
Thank you, Rik!
After all you are criticizing Orthodoxy here and you didn't care that you might hurt Orthodox people's feelings. Leaving the church is your clearest way of saying that Orthodoxy is not the true faith. So that's just double standards. You want to have your cake and eat it too. To you it's only wrong if Orthodox state what is and isn't true faith, but you can do it and it's no problem.
See where relativism leads you? In nonsense and chaos. That is the stuff of the devil playing with your mind, luring you with the bait of caring for others at the expense of the truth of the church. Relativism and ecumenism are nothing but instances of displays of the devil coming disguised as an angel of light. Let's not listen to him, let's just follow Christ, who does not say every faith is valid. No. Christ says “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." As you can see, Christ don't shy away from being exclusivistic and direct, yet loving".
So, I disagree with your conclusion, but I agree with one of your premises: many non-academic Orthodox scholars do not acknowledge the nuance between Western Christianity and Eastern Christianity. In reality, many of those differences are more matters of emphasis and explanation than actual substance, or where there are substantial differences, they do not have much practical effect. The fact that this led you out of the Church shows the danger of the apologetics and surface-level evangelism that one finds in many convert-heavy parishes. Coming from a Catholic background, my priest was very hesitant to receive me until he was satisfied that I actually wanted to join the Orthodox Church and was not just reacting to my former church's policies. Even then, if I hadn't met a lovely Greek woman who agreed to marry me, I don't know if I would have had the endurance to stay (if God continues to grant me that endurance).
Did you watch the entire video?
@@davidskorik1 yes
what is your thoughts on St. Maximus letter to Marinus where he explicitly states latins do not mean eternal procession. In regards to the Filioque.
No hate, just curious since it wasn’t mentioned.
Considering that St. Maximus mentions the "unanimous documentary evidence of the Latin fathers" concerning the procession of the Spirit, I think he must have thought the filioque was orthodox, because the unanimous teaching of the Latin fathers was the filioque. Given that, when he says that the Latins have "not made the Son the cause of the Spirit," and that "the Father is the only cause of the Son and the Spirit," he means it in the sense of the original or initial cause. As St. John's Gospel says, "For as the Father has life in Himself, so He has granted the Son to have life in Himself" (5:26). The Father has life in himself which no one has given him, and the Son has life in himself which the Father has given him. The Spirit proceeds from the life of the Father, a life shared by the Son. As St. Augustine says, "so the Spirit who proceeds from the Father and the Son is traced back, on both counts, to him of whom the Son is born" (On the Trinity, 4.29).
@@dcndrew_faithofourfathers thank you for your reply!
@@dcndrew_faithofourfathers it is Roman Catholic dogma that the Son is coequal cause of the Spirit. So no, St Maximus did not affirm the "filioque"
Excellent video. Very thoughtful and challenging in a charitable way.
Just curious. What made you choose the Anglican Church over say another Protestant denomination or Catholicism - Roman or Eastern/Byzantine?
He'll discuss Catholicism in the second video.
Good question, particularly nowadays with the unbiblical blessing of same sex unions having been approved.
@@clivejames5058the speaker is a continuing Anglican. No continuing Anglican would support what’s going on in the Episcopal/ Anglican Church.
@@clivejames5058were not part of the Anglican Church
Anglican Church is just orthdoxy for protestants
37:03 Correct, they were in prelest. If you compare those people whom you mentioned to saints such as St Seraphim of Sarov, St Sergius of Radonezh, or all the plethora of desert saints, there is a gulf between them. In the west, their experience is psychological, hardly spiritual. In the East, they’re granted Theoria. Able to perceive reality for what it is because their nous is cleansed.
Lord have mercy on you, as an Orthodox Christian, the thought of ever leaving the Truth of Jesus Christ and His Holy Church is impossible. Lord bless you as you seek, it is so sad that you cannot settle and rest in His truth and love.
He is in the Church. He is sealed by the Holy Spirit. Outward conformity to rituals does not make you in the church. Stalin was raised and baptized an Orthodox Christian. He even went to Seminary. Obviously he never had the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit is the one who determines who is in the Church. The Holy Spirit would not speak like you do. This man is of God. Period. To be born again is the work of the Holy Spirit. Period. And you will find Born again believers in all different Trinitarian Based Churches. Get off of your high horse.
@@diegojaramillo5063 Not on a high horse, perhaps you should read more carefully.
@@diegojaramillo5063Stalin was raised and baptized an Orthodox Christian. Yet he PERSECUTED the Christians of Russia.
@@nitrianskehosamospravnehok4397That’s the point he’s making. According to the sacramentology of aorthodoxy Stalin was sealed by the Spirit: and yet he massacred Christians and persecuted the church.
Did you watch the entire video?
Jesus loves you no matter what.
God bless you
As a person unable to return to Orthodox Church because of the exclusive ecclesiology you described (among other things), I find such videos very helpful, and I thank you for sharing your testimony and knowledge!
Could you at some point cover Nicea II (anathemization of iconoclasts and non-iconodules - those who value icons but don't kiss, venerate, bow to them). This topic has been covered extensively by Gavin Ortlund, but I'm curious to hear if you have any thoughts on it. There's one video where Gavin talks with Fr. Stephen de Young, and I think the Orthodox defence for the synod's validity is that the fathers at the synod wrote/proclaimed what the Holy Spirit told them. I find it hard to believe that the Holy Spirit would ask priests and bishops to damn Christians who do not want to venerate, kiss or bow to icons.
There's also the issue of placing the Virgin Mary at the same level with Christ soteriologically in Orthodox prayers, which I think is also worth discussing.
Thanks for watching and for your comment. I’m glad you found it helpful. I will likely do a video on Nicaea II in the future
I was also baptized at St. B’s. Did you find a conservative Anglican Church in this area? I remember many years ago listening to Fr Hopko saying that if Orthodox don’t believe substitutionary atonement is correct they are sorely mistaken, because it is directly in the Bible. He was great. God bless him.
Glad to hear it, Joshua. I eventually got connected at St. Matthew's Anglican Church in Newport Beach.
Hello, Dcn. Drew! Thank you for your wonderful video. What do you mean when you say we are “guilty analogously” at 20:56 or that we are “guilty by analogy” at 21:09?
Hello Adam, I'm getting this from St. Augustine who draws a distinction between personal and original sin. The guilt incurred from personal sin is guilt properly speaking, the guilt incurred from original sin is only guilt by analogy, because guilt properly speaking implies a personal act. But because we are all born in Adam, because Adam is our natural head and we are members of his body, his personal act affects all of us. We are all born guilty in Adam in this analogous sense.
@@dcndrew_faithofourfathers Im curious as to how this view of our guilt in Adam (analogously) affects your view of the Ever Virgin Mary.
Thanks so much I found your story fascinating very informative and helpful to understand the orthodox church more
@@dmkmk-0917 sorry I’m not following you, was that comment directed to me?
What an informative theological exploration you share. I applaud your boldness to search for congruence in a spirit of charity and humility. Just stepping from one Christian tradition into another is mind boggling. I guess my mind is not as inquisitive and rigorously trained as yours. Thank you for the precious tip on discernment. "Never make a decision in a time of desolation."
This was a good video. In future videos, I would be interested in hearing if and how your views on Apostolic succession, iconology, and the authority of councils have changed as you moved from EO to RC to Anglicanism.
Hello. It is sad to hear that. I am Orthodox. I just needed to share a few thoughts. I would be held accoutable if I do not. I apologize if my comments might sound disturbing. There is a certain issue that is not much talked about. There is a difference between the people who have left consciously the Church with a schism and the good people who are born and live in a schismatic group after the schism has already occurred - they are not held accountable for that and they are neither punished, nor glorified like the unbaptized infants. Ambrosiaster (4th century), although not being a saint, says something similar in his interpretation of Romans 2.15-16 ,,For this reason, a person who knowingly thought that the Catholic Church was good and true but persevered in heresy or schism, will be found guilty. But with a person who always thought this way (e.g., a person raised as a Montanist, Novatianist, or Donatist), suppossing that what he followed was right, his thoughts in turn will excuse him. For it will be said ,,When I thought about it, I always supposed that what I followed was right. This was my faith.“ Although this person must be corrected, his is a less serious case, because he will not be accused by his conscience on the day of judgment. In this manner will the secrets of humankind be judged on the day of God’s judgement by Jesus Christ our Lord.“ But still there is not a salvation outside the Orthodox Church. But if one becomes a member of the Eastern Orthodox Church and then leaves it, he or she comes to be in a dire state which is the state of the unforgivable sin (Matthew 12.32) because they have left the True Church. While if the opposite happens - if one converts from Catholicism to Orthodoxy or from Protestantism to Orthodoxy, or from Protstantism to Catholicism, the mentioned issue is not existing.
You are right about the destructive influence of protopresbyter John Romanides. But still there are Orthodox who reject anti-legalism as an innovation. I would just add why the Filioque is untrue. As the Holy Spirit descended after Jesus prayed by his human will to the Father, so that the Spirit may descend (Luke 3.21-22), then since the Son prayed the Father to send the Spirit here (Luke 3.21-22) and the Holy Spirit did not come to proceed through the human nature of the Son but descended from heaven, that means that if the Filioque is true, here (Luke 3.21-22) the Spirit was sent by the Father to proceed temporally through the Hypostasis of the Son. But if by divinity the Spirit already proceeds eternally through the Hypostasis of the Son, He could not begin to proceed temporally through the Person of the Son. Therefore, here (Luke 3.21-22) the Father directly sent the Spirit from Himself, hence by origin the Spirit eternally proceeds from the Father alone and directly. Otherwise, if both the Filioque and its rejection are true, there would be two eternal processions of the Spirit - from the Father and from the Father through the Son but that would lead to two Spirits which is impossible.
Lord have mercy.
God bless you on your journey. I'm wondering what you think about the UA-camr named The Jewish Catholic who recently made a vide on why not Orthodox but Catholic instead. His reasoning seems really convincing although it's rarely spoken about. Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam.
Thank you very much for this video Deacon Drew! That is why I love Protestantism, with strong inclination towards Anglicanism.
This is a very thoughtful discussion. I am a former Protestant who now embraces Orthodox theology, however my online outreach falls outside the ecclesial-approved Orthodoxy, thus I am considered Prelest.
I teach bible prophecy following a vision of Christ I received in the Spring of 2010.
The exclusivity doctrine of the Orthodox is not especially unique within Christendom, as many Protestant groups (and Roman Catholicism itself) have a history of this.
I was baptized in the Lutheran Church at 11 even though it was a Church my mother and I visited only twice! She had asked if I wanted to be baptized and I said Yes, so we returned in a final visit soley for that purpose.
I was re-baptized in the Pentecostal Church many years later as I felt directed by God to do so, thus I have twice been baptized.
I know that my early conversion to the faith was real despite the fact I knew nothing about the Orthodox Church at that time. I never embraced the doctrines of the Reformers, however I attended their services while avoiding much of the theology.
Jesus said the Spirit goes where it chooses, not where we choose or in the manner we think best. He also said that the wheat and tares grow together, meaning those who gather together may be inside or outside the true Church.
What’s so strange is that for a lot of Orthodox, what you’re describing is exactly why they stay not why they leave. The Holy Spirit binds, the devil divides. Regardless of contradictions within the body of Christ. I am a cradle Orthodox, i have never felt the way you do on these internal disputes. I feel grateful that they disagree but remain committed.
Thank you for this. Very thoughtful. Might I humbly add to your sample of passages that you look at (starting at 38:00) the following (emphasis mine):
Mark 9:38-41
John said to him, “Teacher, we saw someone casting out demons in your name, and we tried to stop him, BECAUSE HE WAS NOT FOLLOWING US.” But Jesus said, “Do not stop him, for no one who does a mighty work in my name will be able soon afterward to speak evil of me. For the one who is NOT AGAINST us IS FOR US. For truly, I say to you, whoever gives you a cup of water to drink because you belong to Christ will by no means lose his reward.”
Yes, the apostles were saying "Jesus this guy doesn't have apostolic succession" And Jesus still said that He is still part of the church.
I understand that that is an appealing exegesis of the respective text. But as none of the fathers explained it in that way I would be very careful of doing so. Most of the fathers are not ambiguous in their views on schisma e.g. Ignatius of Antioch and Ireneas of Lyon. Are you sure you know better than them?
@@user-fe1zf2fj2l Iraneaus said that Jesus was 50 years old. So yes.
@@genericname7020 dear brother, i think you know that singular statements of individual fathers never have the same authority as the corpus of teachings they hold in common. This is the so called ‘consensus patrum’. Therefore, your argument is not sound.
I think it takes exceptional audacity to brush aside what the successors of the apostles unanimously say and replace it with something that suits better your own understanding of the Bible. A book that they compiled preserved and delivered to you. Why not humbly receive the faith that was once delivered to the saints instead of trusting people who came literal 1500 years after the apostles.
@@user-fe1zf2fj2l I respect the Church Fathers, but I see them as wise scholars. These men were fallible, which is what I have shown. Also, the idea of common agreement therefore this interpretation is true is a logical fallacy.
Rev. Drew, what do you make of the Book of Concord’s resistance to dogmatic episcopalianism and the failure of Lutheran Churches to retain Orders?
Article 14 of Melancthon's Apology of the Augsburg Confession says that it is their "greatest wish" to maintain episcopal order, provided that the bishops stop attacking them. It's evident that the Lutheran churches are now in situation where they could rectify this if they really wanted (say, through the Swedes or Latvians), so it doesn't seem to be a "great wish" any longer. That is unfortunate, as it would help in ecumenical dialogue. At the same time, I get it on a practical level: they're likely not wanting to cast doubt on previous ordinations. I will likely do a video in the future on apostolic succession, the three-fold apostolic ministry, and the question of "validity."
orthodoxy is 11 apostles without Peter, anglicanism is 11 apostles with a king usurping to be Peter, Catholicism is 12 apostles with Peter in charge
Best dish-washing session ever, hands down.
Haha in all sincerity, fantastic testimony, I am mad that I have to wait for part 2.
Only one critique: Bring back the full beard.
Everything else is perfection.
The beard will likely make a come back in the future, Randall, but in the meantime, I'm enjoying the ability to actually feel the breeze on my cheeks.
@@dcndrew_faithofourfathers And the cool pillow at night! I remember that feeling haha
I agree with the full beard part... 🙂
Come back in the Church. 🙏☺️
Dear sir, thank you so much for these in depth reflections. I would greatly appreciate hearing more about your journey. As a former Episcopalian who swam the Tiber to Rome, I suffered a lot of emotional and intellectual pain trying to discern the choice between Easter Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism. In ended up going to Rome for many of the reasons you mention here, particularly the lack of charity towards Catholicism and the West so prevalent in EO churches in the USA. I was struck as well by the state of conflict and disarray between the EO churches. When they are excommunicating each other, how can we even say there is a EO church? I also found that they seem to be selectively amnesiatic when it comes to church history and ecclesiology. At any rate, I am very interested to hear about your journey into Catholicism, your experience there and why you chose the Anglican Church. Thank you again and God Bless you!
Thanks for this, Daniel. I understand the emotional and intellectual pain!
This faith journey isn’t over. You are still on it and I pray you will make it back home to Christ’s Church.
@UnlimitedMercy
Christ’s church is found right here:
👉♥️👈
You must stop the nonsense of dismissing absolutely every communion that is not eastern orthodoxy. EO causes so much schism with this pervasive attitude and it will be called out by our Lord on the day of great judgement.
@@christianuniversalist um, no. He gave us a visible Church when he gave the keys to Peter.
@stooch66
You literalized Matthew 16:18. That’s not how it’s intended to be read.
@@christianuniversalist you have decided to read it differently from how it was read for all of history. I didn’t literalize. I read it the way St Ignatius of Antioch and St Irenaeus would have read it. You are the one who has applied a novel reading to it.
HOLY BAPTISM IS A HOLY MYSTERY. IT CAN NOT BE UNDERSTOOD RATIONALITICALLY
I am looking forward to hearing why you left the Catholic Church.
Absolutely brilliant video, thank you brother!
How the heck in the age of the internet does a recently converted Christian maintain their sanity and discernment of what it even means to be in Christ or be saved, with millions of voices, opinions, churches, and denominations.
Im currently reading the NT and praying as the only places I know where God gives His information. But at the same time I don't really know what it means to be in Christ.
I have faith in Him and want to do His will but at the same time you can ask 10 different Christians who are reading the same verse come up with completely different interpretations.
How does one who wants to follow Christ find the correct path towards Him in an oceans of millions of different versions of the same Word of God?
Praise God for your recent conversion, Connor! Becoming a Christian is the best decision you will ever make in life. And I really feel for you, man. The internet age makes these things really tough. I feel that myself. But the heart of the faith really is quite simple: "repentance towards God and faith towards our Lord Jesus Christ" (Acts 20:21). Regarding where you are to go to church and get baptized, ask the Lord to guide you and he will. Do not be afraid that you will make a wrong choice. I've lived long enough with the Lord to know and experience God's goodness. He really is better than we could possibly imagine.
Have you read C.S. Lewis' Mere Christianity? That would probably be worth picking up and reading alongside your Bible reading. May God bless and keep you in your discernment.
@dcndrew_faithofourfathers
I've read Abolition of Man.
What brought me back to Christ was not by my will but by His. I was an atheist for a good decade(was a devout Protestant in my teenage years), until one day there was a house fire. I stayed with a friend who taught my autistic mind the concept of 'meta"(pertaining to or noting an abstract, high-level analysis or commentary, especially one that consciously references something of its own type.)
After that event I began to understand what people were referring to regarding 'spiritual' matters. I was still agnostic for a time up until 2020, when the whole planet was going to hell because of the myopic pride of mankind.
At that moment I prayed for the first time ever since my teenage years. I understood at that point WHY Jesus Christ had to come down from Heaven to save our wretched species.
Since then I've grown closer to Jesus Christ, praying every day compulsively to save me from myself. I have been blessed with a God fearing woman whom I want to spend the rest of my life with and be married to her in God's eyes. This made giving up sins like pr0n much easier since I now know what direction is better.
The next step we are both on is finding a church and trying to accept and understand God's Word, I've started reading the NT and am currently on Collasians
Sorry if this has been a long read
I found that fascinating and I find it also very interesting. How the historic churches view simple churches, home churches, Pentecostalism et cetera.
Thank you for the fifth rule. I have been recently finding the Orthodox church popping up on my feed more often, and have found several things attractive about specific theological positions and teachings that I have come upon. But at the same time, I am definitely in one of the darker holes of faith, so I deeply appreciate your pastoral advice to simply wait and study and pray, especially when my pastor's advice recently has been to "stop exposing yourself to strange theologies and stick to the basics of our church's teachings". My church's basic teachings are to encourage an optimistic faith while falling back on neo-Calvinism when dealing with harder issues, a rather interesting juggling act of being hopeful in our faith and redemption but falling back onto extremely depressing and negative theology when needing to examine issues very closely, and it is not working well. Of course, neither the mad monk of Wittenburg or the megalomaniacal lawyer of Geneva are easy to tolerate for very long either, so Orthodoxy has a certain attractiveness.
The Church teaches Orthodoxy, dont listen to random prot wolves.
Great video, helpful to someone like me who is currently attending an Anglican Church but looking into these issues. Subscribed!
You do not have a problem with the Pro LGBTQ of the Anglican? I did
@@lindamorgan2678 I do, and considering that a staggering number of Anglicans are in conservative, Orthodox communions which reject homosexuality, I’m not alone.
Please, whatever tradition you’re apart of, don’t try to point to bad apples as an argument against Anglicanism. I can point to yours right now and find a group of people that disagree with you, and that’s not a fair argument against you being in that tradition.
The only reason the Anglican "church" exists is because Henry VIII wanted unlimited divorces. The biggest joke of a church out there.
@@GeeeEmmm That’s extremely dishonest and one only need to open a basic history book to know that. Even most non-Protestant apologists have moved past this “argument” because it’s untrue and doesn’t work.
“Your church is a joke because there were immoral things surrounding its beginning.” Is it beyond God to use an evil circumstance for good? Is the 7th ecumenical council a joke too? Because the political surroundings of that event are pretty immoral too.
Thank you Deacon, i have been struggling with many of these issues between Roman Catholicism and Orthodoxy which has moved me to investigate anglican catholicism. It was either providence or the algarithum that caused this video to pop up in my recommended videos; probably a bit of both, but I am grateful either way.
May God grant you wisdom and peace in your discernment.
@@dcndrew_faithofourfathers Thank you so much. For my own knowledge Anglicans do not call their deacons "Father Deacon" correct? I had to fight that tenancy when I commented previously.
@@briarscholarit is actually accepted in the Anglican tradition as well
Thank you for your timely video. I am considering joining Eastern Orthodoxy after having worked 4 years for the Church of England in London.
I am by no means an expert, but I found your comment on 'what are the difficulties you can live with' a very helpful way to approach this question.
All churches have political disunity, however, I believe the Anglican church and other Protestant churches have a higher degree of doctrinal disunity, which I found I could no longer bear.
I found that I could no longer live with the uncertainty around Anglican spirituality. Are we Protestant? Catholic? Evangelical? Conservative? Liberal? Pro-women ordination? Pro-same-sex marriage? Pro-lay leadership of churches? All of these questions and more divide the Anglican church on every level, and fosters tribalism and distrust, which stops us from moving forwards and living out the gospel. I only recently overheard two clergy questioning how our bishop could carry out ordination services while being a staunch supporter of same-sex marriage.
I agree the exclusivism of the EOC is a tough question (I don't know whether I want to be rebaptised or not). However, I look forward to step into a Church which delights in the tradition it was given and has a much higher level of doctrinal unity and historical agreement around what 'The Way' actually looks like...
I will pray for you. Please also pray for me. :)
Thanks for this, Simon. I totally get it. May God bless you in your journey into Orthodoxy.
@@dcndrew_faithofourfathers Thank you so much for your kind reply! It is a real blessing and encouragement. Also bless you as you go through these answers. Comment sections can be a tough read...
Please explain the difference between being hard-quotes "guilty" of Adam's sin "analogously" and the Orthdodox doctrine that we merely inherit the results of the fall (still in Adam, makes no conceptual or real difference), and by that token, need baptism and repentance to not die spiritually once we begin to act in the world. The Orthodox stance is against inherited guilt *in the sense that* we are born blameless for Adam's actions, which means that infants are not in some way *deserving* of eternal punishment. We inherited Adam's nature - *not* his person - *as you yourself stated*. It sounds like you simply became inundated with, specifically, anti-ecumenist reactionaries in the church who didn't fully articulate the nature of heresy - that it not only has to do with lies, but most often, partial or incomplete truths or emphases.
And on that note, the doctrine of penal substitutionary atonement isn't heretical *because it is outright incorrect*. It is heretical because it gives *inappropriate emphasis* to a legally conciliatory view of Christ's crucifixion; an emphasis that, if continually pressed upon, leads to a disruption of the trinity. That view is not by any means absent from scripture or the early church. However, it simply isn't the whole and complete image . Nor, in my opinion, is that emphasis a good ground for understanding one's sin. Unfortunately, it appears that you attended too much to modern clergy who perhaps have not paid the appropriate lip service to Western doctrines' albeit-limited credence. But in any case, the fullness of the church and its truth remains with Orthodoxy, whether or not waves of particular clergy fall into reactionary fads (e.g., the present doctrine of the nous).
I don't think what you've articulated as the Orthodox doctrine on original sin is the Orthodox doctrine. It's Romanides' doctrine. The Council of Trullo ratified the Canons of the Council of Carthage (419), and its ecumenical canonical legislation possesses the highest level of authority in Orthodoxy. Here is Canon 110 from the Council of Carthage (419):
"Likewise it seemed good that whosoever denies that infants newly from their mother's wombs should be baptized, or says that baptism is for remission of sins, but that they derive from Adam no original sin, which needs to be removed by the laver of regeneration, from whence the conclusion follows, that in them the form of baptism for the remission of sins, is to be understood as false and not true, let him be anathema.
For no otherwise can be understood what the Apostle says, By one man sin has come into the world, and death through sin, and so death passed upon all men in that all have sinned, than the Catholic Church everywhere diffused has always understood it. For on account of this rule of faith (regulam fidei) even infants, who could have committed as yet no sin themselves, therefore are truly baptized for the remission of sins, in order that what in them is the result of generation may be cleansed by regeneration."
We need baptism not merely for the spiritual death we incur "once we begin to act in the world" (as you stated), but for the remission of the sin of Adam.
Regarding your point about emphases, in Vladimir Lossky’s essay "Redemption and Deification," he says that the image of “juridical relations,” an image he says is “used most often” in the Bible (he references Rom. 3:24), is but one aspect of the multi-faceted nature of Christ’s salvific work and our salvation in him. He's right about that, of course. But if it's the image "used most often" in the Bible (and it is), it seems to me a weakness in the contemporary Orthodox theological landscape to either dismiss it entirely or downplay its significance.
The Bible's emphases should shape our theologizing. But I should say, too, that arguing over what is the proper emphasis laid on one aspect of our redemption or another is difficult.
@@dcndrew_faithofourfathersThe Catholic Church has already responded to this concern with the assertion “outside the Church, there is no Salvation!” according to the Catholic Church, this proposition REMAINS VALID, it is immutable and UNCHANGEABLE! However, two things must be brought into play HERE: bad faith and good faith! He who, recognizing inwardly that he is in error, but refuses the Truth out of pride for example, will have no Salvation (because of bad faith). Indeed, said s. Augustine, 'To be in error, and to be in heresy, are not the same thing' (pretty much what he said). He who, of good will, refuses the Church, thinking he is in the Truth, this one, even if he does not know it, IS PART of the Church. It is certainly not part of THE BODY of the Church (what is visible) (that is to say of the Pope, the Bishops and the faithful), but is part of THE SOUL of the Church. The soul being, to use Aristotle, the form of the Body. It is she who makes the body what it is. And the soul of the Church is nothing other than the LORD JESUS CHRIST! Thus, the one who is in error, without knowing it, and using an exercise of GOOD will, is part (at least) - unconsciously of the soul of the Church. But, a Protestant who, on many occasions, has had the presupposition of 'sola scriptura' refuted, a lie that breaks his face in every way imaginable; because, even if we posit that 'sola scriptura' is a categorical a priori, there would still be a formation of informal paralogism, a begging of principles...; A Protestant who, after having seen this principle collapse who still supports this, and who KNOWS full well that recognizing the Catholic Tradition would amount to giving a certain Authority to this Church, then he is in bad faith: and there, the formula 'outside the Church, no Salvation!' devours him whole - simply because of bad faith.
@@dcndrew_faithofourfathers That is the Orthodox position, and it affirms our understanding of original sin sans original guilt. You arte clearly VERY poorly catechized or just stupid. Either way this vid is really funny.
@@dcndrew_faithofourfathers I'm going to respond to what I think you're saying; please correct me if I misunderstood. Most (the vast vast majority) of Orthodox do not believe that unbaptized kids go to hell, whatever it is that Romanides writes or doesn't write (and others talk and write in a similar way, but they are in the minority and their view is certainly not popular). Whatever it is the Canons of the council of Carthage say. Orthodoxy teaches that "Original Sin" is an effect and not personal guilt. We find it difficult NOT to sin but we can, in theory, choose not to. The Theotokos did so, which is why we sometimes call her Sinless. She is subject to our understanding of Original Sin, but she personally committed no sin. Therefore, a small child who has committed no sin is not guilty of any sin themselves. They should be baptized because in baptism, they receive the Seal of the Holy Spirit, who then dwells in them and helps them to be Holy in their life from that point on. So, yes, all kids should be baptized, but their salvation is not actually at stake at that point in time.
@@justian1772
Everything you typed is Pelagian heresy and violates Decree 16 of the Confession of Dositheus.
Father Josiah on Patristic Nectar has a UA-cam Short called "The True vs The Perfect Church" which in 30 seconds exactly addresses this.
"The authenticity of the true Church is in no way challenged by the fact that She has sinners within Her. We should be thankful that the True Church on Earth is not perfect, because if the True Church on Earth was perfect, where in the world would you and I exist in Her?"
Praying for you to join the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church with Petrine authority, the Roman Catholic Church. Your journey will inevitably lead you here, as many other Anglicans have done so.
“And many lepers were in Israel in the Elisha the prophet, and none of them was cleansed except Naaman the Syrian.”
Yes, (Luke 4:27) And there were many lepers in Israel in the time of the prophet Elisha, and none of them was made clean except Naaman the Syrian.
The next video would be "why i left Anglican church", you almost there, ALL MUST SUBMIT TO ROME
There is ORIGINAL SIN in Holy Orthodoxy. Even the guilt. Even the doctrine of immaculate conception can be found in Holy Orthodoxy
All paths can lead to the Church. So if they were baptized outside and it leads them eventually to Orthodoxy, then isnt it due to the Holy Spirit? And if they never cone to Orthodoxy, then they're in Gods hands. I dont see how this is confusing.
"The church" is the body of Christ made by the saved ones. "The Church" Its NOT the catholic bor orthodox church or any other churches. Local churches are local assemblys, them we can call these as "churches" in plural. People who pretend that their religion institution is the "only" church (singular) are wrong, at best.
@@valdotc8559 You literally just made that up. You can't justify that statement. Christianity and the Church is a historical thing. Not something that you just get a hold of and do. The Church has a function and that's the sacraments. Not Bible study, youth camps and praise music.
The church is the Orthodox Church contained within the body of Christians. There is only one true church, history affirms this. Christs body can’t be shattered by men; and then glued together by some intangible philosophical concept nowhere found in scripture.. Christs body is one, with one church at the center of everything.
@@oddpenguin8911 the Greek word used in the holy scripture which was translated into English as “church” simply means assembly
@@valdotc8559That is incorrect. I Just had an Islamic guy tell me that he "believes in Jesus". I am a very rare person. I was pentecostal. The Holy Spirit really did come upon me while at home. I received an open vision. For a brief time the next day I was able to see a light blue light ( aura)around insects and leaves and grass. I was told to fast and pray and to read The Gospels and the book The Acts of the Apostles. I did as I was told . I prayed for hours a day I gave up everything in life except the desire to know this "God". I almost quit trying. Just then It happened on it's own, no one around laying hands on me. No noise. No emotion. I fell into a trance on my bed. As I opened my mouth saying "oh thank you lord Jesus" . As I spoke the sprit changed my language. This phenomenological event occurred although I was ignorant about the trinity. I only sort of understood that I must repent. God answered as by fire. Yet I was not in the church. On a Continuum one can believe and yet not be in the church. We converted to Orthodoxy . Christ started the church one time for all times. It doesn't matter what I think. The Holy Spirit really hasn't guided her for 1600 years until the reformation could produce our particular brand? Hard to swallow. There is not any kind of protestantism that should exist. Protestantism is an anomaly. One church for over a thousand years. I'm almost sure Mormons and Jehovah's witness are believers just as the Muslim ☪️ assures me he believes in Jesus.
No believes people outside of the faith of Orthodoxy are incapable of having the Holy Spirit. That’s completely untrue. In fact it’s the opposite. I have been around Priests my whole life. I’m a PK, I’ve never heard any one say non orthodox arent Christians.
Maybe you should read through this thread and look into the teachings of the priests further and you will see that the main comment from Orthodox here is that this man has left the faith.
I feel for you, sir. Those entrenched in western scholasticism and/or legalism are always going to run into problems with Orthodoxy. I wish theosis, and not fine tuned theology, could have overcome you. I’m sure Anglicanism, with its lax approach, is more comfortable. I just prayed for you and will continue to do so. God bless.
My Life as a Christian I have been through numerous denominations. I've settled on a more reformed view. What's only important is the salvation of Christ In the final analysis. We have to know him.🙏
yes, but from what comes your salvation? Salvation is not just an idea to believe in. Even the devil "believes" in Jesus," and even obeys Him to some extent as we see in the gospels when the demons plead to be sent into the swine, and Christ gives them permission. As an analogy, the Holy Church is like the boat that saves one drowning at sea. Without the boat it is almost impossible to survive, or be saved. The Church is Christ's way of saving mankind.
I was baptized as a child in the catholic church in Argentina, then I became a member of different protestant groups. Disillusioned and searching for the truth I found Orthodoxy and was baptized in the Russian Orthodox Church outside of Russia, but a group closer to the so-called veterocalendarists that most Orthodox call schismatic. After that, because of so many things so heavy for the soul, I decided to go to confessional Lutheranism in my country with a church that has communion with LCMS, although where I live there is no Lutheran church and they used that as an excuse to no longer allow me to study to become a pastor from a distance. Currently I have a relationship with the orthodox Anglican church of Bishop Jerry Ogles, but everything is still very difficult in my path to the pastorate.
Thanks for sharing. May God bless and keep you
Regarding the Filioque. Isn't "heretical" reserved to purposeful reject a teaching of the Church? I'm ignorant, but I thought that St. Augustine identified the Divine Essence with the One True God, while the Greek Fathers identified The Father with the One True God, I'm pretty sure both would have considered wrong the other view, but we can't say that it was heresy, because it was just a mistake from one of the sides.
Isn't the clarification of St. Gregory Palamas the explanation of the doctrine on the light of the strong Monarchical Trinity of the Fathers?
One out of 12 fell... so no wonder we have similar cases even today. To leave Lord's Bride, His glorious Eastern Orthodox Church for heresies taught by Latins or Anglicans is plain nonsense. However, unspoken one managed to deceive even Adam who was seeing God face-to-face... why wouldn't he deceive some guys like this one on the video.? Sad.
Amen!
It is always the same story. Confession hoppers. They jump from one Church to the next. Orthodoxy needs time to deepen.
In the beginning God gives grace, than comes a dark dry period where God tests the person and many run away
Why do you think people run away from orthodoxy?
@@justice576 No obe is rumning away from Orthodoxy. It is growing worldwide. Where are you living?
So you’re just basically an Ecumenist now?
Lord, have mercy.
Don't be fooled, there is a counterfeit Ecumenism which "sprouts up quickly," but there is a true and godly Ecumenism that is still putting forth deep roots, which God will reveal in the proper time. Don't confuse the two.
You say that like it is a bad thing. The vast majority of people in the pews in most churches of any kind are ecumenists. The reality on the ground is more important and real than abstract theological principles
What? "reality" isn't defined by cultural changes or numbers of people.
@@nyssian7264 At some point someone draws a line or there is no line. Relativism is not tenable.
Its good to see your face!
We still have the Spiritual Psalter of Ephraim the Syrian you bought us on our journey to Orthodoxy.
I am finishing my third year in the Diaconate program at Holy Cross in a few weeks.
There is a conversation that we had many years ago that I frequently tell to others. About an instructor at a college who when told something like, "I am starting to lose my faith" would respond with the question, "How long have you been having sex?", noticing that 9 out of 10 college students who start to lose their faith do so when their life choices don't align with their faith's moral instructions. I have always liked that as it gets to the more direct human reasons we made decisions. For example, a long time parishioner, 70 plus years old. One day left, and never came back. Why? In his old age he found a girl who wasn't a Christian. A practical and mundane reason to leave. if you were to ask him why, strangely the girl never even gets brought up
I listened to the whole thing and I am sure the reasons you put forth are true reasons for your departure, but I wonder if foundationally it was more human, more mundane. Orthodox male meets Orthodox female. They break up. Orthodox male meets Catholic female. Orthodox male is now Catholic male, and so on.
I am sure you looked into this, but was the Western Rite ever an option?
If you ever want to escape the heat, I would love to grab a drink with you in Prescott.
Thanks for this, Kenny. Good to hear from you. My third son is about to be born, but when things settle I'd also love to grab a drink in Prescott. Send me an email when you have a moment.
Father Josiah Trenham, whom you mentioned has the more rigorous perspective and is a devout convert from protestantism like you were, still considers other Christian groups as Christians. He acknowledges that they clearly do good work, and there is clearly spiritual benefit to their practices. He does this while not compromising on the stance of Orthodoxy being the actual true Church, both administratively and doctrinally. I think the two stances are not mutually exclusive. Furthermore, I find my response to your theological contradictions to not be such at all. We know humans are flawed, even the One True Church is made up of flawed men who make flawed decisions. It is our belief that the Holy Spirit will direct the Church and sort everything as it needs to be in the end. Finding one Saint who disagrees with another Saint does not present some sort of broadstrokes Church doctrinal contradiction in my mind.
It seems like you were trying to perfectly square a circle from the beginning, which is what I think the other comments mentioning the protestant hyper-legalistic worldview are getting at. The Church has done an excellent job at providing answers to (I would say all) problems and confusions, but clearly that work is not and can never be done. This is acknowledged with continued administrative difficulties like exist with the church in Ukraine now, and issues of autocephaly etc like in North Macedonia.
Ultimately these are inconsequential in the practical Orthodox Christian life, and most Orthodox including Father Josiah still acknowledge other Christians are indeed Christians. This does not, however, invalidate the benefits and (again in my opinion) necessity of the Church's traditions according to generally accepted Orthodox positions. Clearly we are wicked sinners, and you have caused yourself all this fuss and found such unrest trying to square this circle instead of humbling yourself and accepting that the Original Church can provide that rest if you let it, and escaped your own autism for a second, as the kids also say. So to leave those Orthodox traditions doesn't really make sense given your challenges, in my mind.
As you concluded, you won't find an intellectually perfect representation in any Christian practice. But I guarantee that representation will make less sense in practices outside of Orthodoxy, given social trends and the reality of what is happening in those practices. Thank you for your video
Is Father Josiah Trenham a devout convert from Protestantism?
Hear what he says in a YT vid:
Did Fr. Josiah Trenham just endorse Our Lady of Fatima? -- ROC "revival" refuted.
And then hear the examination of what Trenham said well-revealed by a knower all about the Fatima apparition and Orthodoxy, a YT vid:
The Ecumenist Fr. Josiah Trenham Accepts Fatima Deception
and if you want the full scoop on the Fatima apparition, read an well-written article and the comments:
The Vatican’s Fatima deception by Louie
@@TedBrucknerThere is no PROBLEM WITH FATIMA.
@@TedBrucknerOrthodox Christians are not ANTI-CATHOLIC PROTESTANTS
@@TedBrucknerThe Most Holy Theotokos appeared in EGYPT ZEITOUN AND IS APPROVED BY ALL CHURCHES.
SHE APPEARED OVER THE COPTIC ORTHODOX CHURCH.
So they are not orthodox but the appearance is authentic. There are MIRACLES AND VISIONS OUTSIDE THE ORTHODOX CHURCH
@@alexpanagiotis4706There's no problem with Fatima, huh? Have you never stopped to consider the numerous contradictions and inaccuracies that litter the Vatican’s “official” statement on the Fatima apparition?
So..... prelest. Lord have mercy.
Hello, I've listened for 45 minutes but I am still unclear whether you belong to another branch of the Orthodox (Greek) Church, whether you are a Russian Orthodox, a Lutheran, a Catholic.
Thanks for sharing your story. In regard to Romanides, i would recommend reading "Against Romanides" by Vladimir Moss. Romanides' teachings do not reflect the views of the Orthodox Church, and just because he is held up as some great theologian by those calling themselves Orthodox doesn't make it so. He taught many heresies that directly contradict the teaching of the fathers.
You're likely aware of this already, but V. Moss was a True Orthodox, i.e. not in the canonical Orthodox Church. If you follow him as a lodestar, he'll lead you out of canonical Orthodoxy. But yes, he was right about Fr. Romanides. And from what I've read in his ecclesiological essays, he basically holds to a "branch theory" of the Church. He denies that, of course, but I think the essential points are there. I don't find his denial persuasive.
Indeed, I am one of those "uncanonical" Orthodox, but I'm not in the same synod as Dr. Moss.
In regard to him supposedly believing in the branch theory, I assume you're referring to his ecclesiological understanding of the validity of various Orthodox synods that are out of communion with each other, yet are still somehow part of the One Church. The qualifier here though, is that these synods (or at least the ones he includes) are confessing the same Orthodox faith, and are only out of communion with each other because of misunderstandings and small squabblings as such, that are unrelated to the faith.
We see examples of this in Church history with the so-called "Meletian schism" as well as the so-called "Johannite schism", where we see saints that were out of canonical communion with each other due to misunderstandings, yet held to the same Orthodox faith. I'm by no means trying to argue this is normative, just that it isn't unheard of, and I believe this is what Dr. Moss is referring to in his writings.
@@dcndrew_faithofourfathers How is True Orthodox not canonical?
If you continue like this at any time you lose faith, my friend!
I've been Orthodox for 2 years now, and I also struggled with this question in coming in. But for me I came to the conclusion that drawing lines is a difficulty regardless. For example, there are people who are not Christian at all, who by the metrics you laid out show the fruits of the spirit. So to me it seems there is a problem in the church of wanting to invent the priority of the 2 greatest commandments, and I'd be concerned that this flows from that. But I certainly could just be blinded by my own sin on the issue as well, it wouldn't be the first time.
16:21 I watched an interview with a Greek Orthodox bishop who basically classified the crucifixion and passion as nothing more than a really violent prelude to the resurrection which was where the real salvific action took place. (I believe that it's both-and)
There is only one Church ⛪️ and there was never another and there never will be!
One God and one faith and one baptism for all the world to enter in.
He laid hold of the dragon, that serpent of old
and for a thousand years he was bound.
I'm wondering the following. If I went through the trouble to join an Orthodox church but came to believe that theology of penal substitution (or Anselmian satisfaction) was in fact what the fathers taught and scriptural, I couldn't imagine that this would be a big point of contention for me. The theology might not be mentioned explicitly in the liturgy, but also it isn't actively denied in the liturgy, is it? David Bentley Hart doesn't think that Anselm's satisfaction theory is incompatible with Orthodoxy, at least, this is what his wikipedia page says. If PSA (or whatever atonement theory you might have) is important, then this can be a private add-on theological conviction, I could imagine.
The other point: because the Orthodox claim they are the one true church, and you don't agree, why is that a reason to leave? They might be too rigid or slightly wrong about it, but it doesn't falsify their main theological convictions or liturgy. I might have misunderstood your point about this.
I'm interested in Orthodoxy myself, but currently mainly from a doctrinal or philosophical perspective. I was introduced to the monarchy of the Father idea in videos with Beau Branson and then for the first time in my life the doctrine of the trinity started to make sense to me. So I started to read more books about it (Kallistos Ware, etc). I watched a lot of liturgies from a local parish, but I don't feel the pull to go there (yet).
You really aren’t qualified to sus all that out. Become an Orthodox Christian and step into the arena.
Step 1. Read the Confession of Dositheus from the Synod of Jerusalem 1672. You'll find the Orthodox acceptance of Christ's death as a propitiation.
Step 2. Be prepared to be called a Latinizer and to have the same Synod hand waved away as unimportant and easily forgettable. Something something Latin captivity, etc.
@@GabrielWithoutWings The language "Christ died for our sins" and "Christ's death reconciliated God and men" does not imply full blown PSA which emphasises Christ's death as a legal transaction and God's wrath being inflicted upon Christ as a punishment. I don't see that language being used in this confession, although you could explain it to mean such a thing. Similar to scripture itself, it doesn't directly say it, but once you put PSA-glasses on it's hard to read it another way.
From a fellow Anglican deacon God bless you on your journey, and I appreciate the sage pastoral wisdom at the end of the video.
God bless you in your ministry, Deacon
I could be wrong with what I'm saying since I'm not educated enough in Orthodoxy, but this is my understanding of the situation. You cannot take a single breath without God, so Gods grace is present with every single human that is still alive, but to what extent that's the question. Gods grace is present the most in Orthodoxy, so I don't understand why would someone leave Orthodoxy because there might be grace present to some extent somewhere else. Gods grace is also present with Muslims or Buddhists, even though they don't believe In Christ, but God still keeps them alive, so would you think that its ok to do Yoga or become a Muslim since God keeps them alive too, and allows them to do good. Protestants and Catholics operate in half truths, that's how Lucifer operates, and now the Pope is blessing gay couples and protecting child molesters. I apologize if I misunderstood you.
Orthodoxy has several narratives, but has generally recognized that God can act beyond the realm of the church.
As for baptism, at least in my experience in the Antiochian tradition is that the bishop has a lot of power in deciding whether a former baptism is valid. In my case, the bishop ruled all baptisms in the name of the Trinity are valid. Hence I was chrismated.
As for ancestral sin, it seems to make a lot more sense than Calvin's schema of double predestination, which arguably depicts God as a divine sadist.
Theosis and synergy are elements missing from Protestantism, much to its disadvantage. For example, compare what the term "theologian" indicates in Eastern and Western traditions. In the East, a theologian is a contemplative spiritual philosopher; in the West, theologians tend to be systematizers geared more towards logical speculation and constructing religious ideologies.
The prominence of Monasteries and the spiritual inspiration they encourage has been abolished by the the preponderance of Reformation churches leading to a progressive secularization of protest denominations --- including such abominations as "clown liturgies" and the Sparkle Creed. Protestantism in the US seems unable to transcend politics and denominations are dividing largely along political moreso than spiritual lines. It is quite possible that the spirit has fled them altogether.
While Orthodoxy can be inward looking, provincial and ethnocentric, it is slowly adapting to the spiritual market place in the US. I have heard Orthodox leaders speak of "Christian Communities" (avoiding the term "Church" )outside of Orthodoxy, but there still seems to be a lot of suspicion about ecumenism. (Can you really blame them when you look at some of the aberrant practices prevalent today?)
Unfortunately, "conservative" Protestantism seems to be geared primarily towards salesmanship and church growth at the expense of spiritual transformation.
Orthodoxy, on the other hand, seems (perhaps as a fault) to spend less time on evangelism, but manages to draw catechumens at a steady pace anyway.
The Divine Liturgy is quite Biblical and centered on the Trinity. It is an invaluable aid in spiritual transformation. The analogy of the Church with a hospital, treating the illness of sin is a valid one.
IMHO, the Orthodox Church is not perfect, but it is the most coherent Christian tradition
Why are Orthodox monks causing themselves pain and cough red and black blood is this Christian?
@@gladatusbob4497What are you talking about?
with regards to baptism, couldn't one take the traditionalist catholic perspective that baptisms are valid outside of the church, especially for those who don't have the use of reason, and that they are incorporated into the Church, really and truly, but when they reach the age of accountability, and once they learn of the true church (whichever church that might be) and they reject it through various means, including believing and professing heresies, they're thereby cut off from the church?
I believe that by God’s grace, because our Lord doesn’t wish that any should perish, that the Holy Spirit works outside of the Orthodox Church, though that may be an exception, like the thief on the cross who was never baptized, never took communion, never confessed his sins, etc; and as you’ve mentioned, it can be acknowledged that there are absolutely Christians who love Jesus Christ outside of the Orthodox visible institutional body and that cannot be done apart from the work of the Holy Spirit. This is not to deny the apostolic succession with a lineage back to the office of the apostles was a necessary criterion that the early church had to meet to be considered “the church” (that which protestant churches do not meet, along with unity in tradition and theological interpretation) as well as the possibility that the Orthodox church institutional visible body/church does indeed hold to the “fullness of truth” regarding its codified, doctrine, tradition, practices, theology, liturgy, etc.
Well stated. I explored Orthodoxy for some time after becoming disillusioned with the mainline Episcopalian church, but like you, I simply could not in good conscience affirm the exclusivism of their theology, despite a very nice Greek Orthodox priest assuring me that he was not exclusivist and that I did not have to be.
Additionally, despite being the vast minority of Orthodox believers, the internet apologist "orthobros" helped drive me away with their seeming lack of humility and aggressive rhetorical tactics. I recognize this is not unique to Orthodox apologists, but it absolutely did play a role in my discernment process. In my opinion, their practice does not embody the spirit of the Christian, and theology (when being consistent) informs practice.
You still Episcopalian?
@@phillipwoodfin-nb7ud No. I am apart of a traditional Anglican Church in the APCK.
Which scriptures or fathers are not exclusivist
@@esoterico7750Jesus lol
@@esoterico7750Kind of a loaded question since it depends on who counts as a Church Father and what you mean by exclusivist. If you define Church Fathers as all saints up to the schism, and none after, then obviously none of them, that would be anachronistic since no denominations. If you define Church Fathers as pre-schism saints plus post-schism big-O Orthodox saints only, then also probably few if any.
I'm using the term exclusive and its contrary inclusive not in the sense of religions, but of little-o orthodox Christian denominations. Orthodox might say there is no distinction, but Protestants would disagree. If you grant this premise, then if you consider some post-schism Catholic saints as Church Fathers, then any that would allow an Orthodox to partake of communion, or would refuse to anathematize them, would fit this sense of inclusive.
Good video. I liked it.
I'm orthodox and I recognize the hardships you mentioned. The isolationist attitude is the hardest bit to deal with. I have a rather ecumenist ecclesiology in my mind as well. I know that the Holy Spirit is active in the Orthodox Church, I just don't know where it isn't. But I would never go as far as to say: "it is not there". I recognize the action of the Holy Spirit in the lives and actions of men outside the Orthodox Church, such as Pope John Paul II. I am also very drawn to the works of Jakob Boehme, who was a Lutheran in his time. Many other Orthodox are, too, mostly Russian ones.
I agree that people are called by the Holy Spirit to act in places other than the Orthodox Church. I think I agree a lot with the position Lewis defended in Mere Christianity about this: that even some Buddhists are carrying out Christ's will in one way or another.
I also see myself in the description you gave as that of someone who God called into the Orthodox Church: my parish is made of people of different nationalities, of different ascendancies. All of them speak my native language (Portuguese), but I have a great ease with learning languages, and I think my being there is serendipitous to say the least. I hope I'm right.
God bless you, brother.