Orthoodox: "but we must contribute we need works to be saved." "its a mystery to know if were saved" Man they just go heavily against the bible it's so insane.
@@lain7758 well, i understand, ok ,we are not brothers Everything that is from the bible that you guys think is pro filioque, those verses are speaking about the Holy Spirit being poured on us by Jesus, when actually the source is The Father
I am an Orthodox Christian, and it is more about the traditions than the beliefs for me. I have the belief in the Bible which almost always resonates with what which the Orthodox believe, and I really like how old and traditional the Orthodox churches and practices are. Although we may disagree on some things (like Filioque), I would like to make something clear. In Heaven there won't be Catholics, nor Protestants nor Orthodox, there will be people who Believe in Christ. So we can have all of those debates for those secondary beliefs, but we should never forget the primary teaching which is: Christ has redeemed the world, died for our Sins and whosoever believes in Him will be saved. I really enjoy your videos Redeemed Zoomer, and I'm looking forward to you and Kyle going at it again in the near future.
This is lukewarm, ecumenistic drivel. Revelation 3:16 - “So then, because you are lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will vomit you out of My mouth.”
I'm increasingly of the belief that it's more complicated than one side is completely right and the other completely wrong. I think the West absolutely has it right on this, but I'm inclined to agree that the pope didn't have any right to make any unilateral decisions on foundational theology like that.
this isn't about not loving them, it's about whether or not they're right, and correcting people who are wrong (when done gently and with love) is the living thing to do.
@scalkin I recommend you look into these topics from Orthodox sources instead of zoomer strawmaning them for you. You will eventually realise that only EOs are faithful to the theology of the fathers of the first 1000 years. The West likes to focus on Blessed Augustine, but he is just one of many.
The Eastern Orthodox Church believes in the concept of original sin, but its understanding differs from that of Western Christianity, particularly from the Augustinian perspective. While Eastern Orthodoxy acknowledges the inheritance of a sinful condition from Adam and Eve, it doesn't interpret original sin as resulting in guilt passed down through generations as heavily emphasized in Western Christianity. Eastern Orthodox theology often emphasizes the concept of ancestral sin, which acknowledges the consequences of Adam and Eve's disobedience but doesn't attribute personal guilt to subsequent generations in the same way as Western views of original sin. Regarding Pelagianism, the Eastern Orthodox Church rejects it. Pelagianism is the belief that humans can attain salvation through their own efforts without divine grace. This contradicts Orthodox theology, which emphasizes the necessity of God's grace for salvation and the belief in the fallen nature of humanity due to original sin or ancestral sin.
I'll take a stab at this from the (lay, non-expert) ByzCath perspective: Filioque: You won't get a consistent answer on this from the Orthodox side, but the reason WE do not recite the Filioque as part of the Creed during our Liturgies boils down to a grammatical detail. The Creed is authoritative in Greek and Latin co-equally, but the languages aren't identical. The verb "proceed" used in the Latin creed has basically the same meaning it has in English, but the verb used in the Greek creed is a more specific verb that refers to the way a stream springs forth from its source. (There's a different Greek verb that matches the Latin meaning of "procedere" much more closely, but that's not the one used in the Creed.) If we were to add "and the Son" to that, we would imply that one stream has two sources. That's not possible; that would make it two streams, which (however quickly) converge into one larger stream. Obviously this temporary duplication of the Holy Spirit is not what the West is saying with Filioque, but this is what we are denying by not saying it. This is also why Greek-speaking Roman Catholics omit Filioque during their Mass. Regarding Energetic/Hypostatic procession, if you can catch the Orthodox in a non-polemical mood many of them will grant that this is an unresolved question still being debated in Orthodoxy to this day. I think the real heart of this issue is the East's objection to the West declaring questions like this one settled without the East's input and conciliar consent. Reason: I don't agree that the East's more "mystical" bent has anything to do with Filioque. We all receive Christ in Holy Communion, so even if we grant that the extreme anti-Filioquist position breaks Christians' ability to gain knowledge of God through the Holy Spirit, Holy Communion would make that moot because we receive the Logos directly anyway. This whole question feels too close to breaking the Hypostatic Union, so let's leave it firmly in the hypothetical. Our different emphases on reason vs experience are extremely old - going clear back to St Augustine and the Desert Fathers at least - were not a matter to schism over then, and are not now. Each brings something of value that the other can't explore to the same depth, even though the East has intellectuals like St John Chrysostom and St John Damascene and the West has mystics like St Francis and St Theresa of Avlia. This is wy St JP2 spoke of the "two lungs of the Church". We need each other. Original Sin: This is an old polemic that doesn't accurately represent the Eastern view. St Augustine is considered a saint by the overwhelming majority of Easterners (including St Gregory Palamas). He's simply a less important one to us, in the same way that the Desert Fathers are less important to, but still venerated as saints in, the West. The "effects of sin" descriptor shouldn't be taken to imply crypto-Pelagianism; it's the "effects of" the sin of Adam. Also known as Original Sin. Salvation IS an unearned gift of God's grace, AND we must cooperate with that gift in order to be saved. When reflecting on how to "work out your salvation with fear and trembling", reflecting on the latter point more than on the former point (while not denying the former) is not Pelagianism, it's just the more grounded approach. Simplicity: Even the Thomists agree that God's acts are uncreated; I'm surprised to learn Calvinists think Grace is a created thing. The East avoids speaking of God in positive attributes as a rule, preferring to say "what God is not" because our own concepts of power, justice, love, and eternity are flawed and finite and thus cannot actually capture the truth we're trying to convey with those words. That's not the same as denying that truth; it's a matter of being careful in expressing it. Essence and Energies will make a lot more sense if you mentally replace the word "Energies" with the word "Grace". Theosis: Your point about "some part of us becoming uncreated" is exactly why the Energies/Essence distinction exists. We do not become uncreated, omnipotent, divinely simple, or otherwise gain any of the exclusively Divine attributes - this is what we mean by "we don't receive God's Essence." Again, when you hear "Divine Energies" think "Divine Grace". Though I'm still not sure what you mean by 'created grace': how can God's gift of himself be a created thing? It is an act, and thus has a beginning in time, but it is not created. 'There's no way to know if you're united enough to God' - Calvinism teaches the same thing though: you cannot know if you are elect. Also that's not why the Monastic vocation exists. "Martha, you are sore with many cares, but Mary has chosen the better part, and it will not be taken from her." Sacrifice: The East does use the language of legal penalty, we just don't do it as often as the Reformed do. We spend more time meditating on the St Athanasius quote you put in this section as an accomplished fact, and striving to live in light of that fact; that's not the same as a denial that it happened or a claim that it wasn't absolutely necessary to satisfy Divine Justice. Radical Theosis is the goal of Christian life. This is in the West too - St Theresa's 'Transforming Union' - Reformed theology's rejection of this point is the single biggest strike against it.
Definitely have to digest this more, but very interesting. I did once see an Eastern Orthodox refer to Augustine as “quasi-Calvinist”, which I find amusing since it would be the other way around. But, hey, there’s ignorant people everywhere. We don’t have the monopoly on snobbery.
Kyle is one of if not the best Christian youtuber I've watched. He exposes the reality of things in our modern world and strongly supports tradition @@traviswilson36
@@redeemedzoomer6053His debate with you on his channel was pure garbage. It was edited to the point that it was impossible to take your side because there were 10 thousand Sigma Orthobro memes plastered all over the screen. A debate video should be neutral and let the viewer himself decide who he agrees with. And by the way, i'm Catholic, i don't agree with either of you on many things.
I really recommend the video that Ready to Harvest made comparing 60 Differences between Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox. This video is being congratulated by Catholics and Orthodox as an objective and well-researched representation of their views. However, despite giving much more nuances, nothing he said was fundamentally different from what Redeemed Zoomer said here, he only presented it without issuing a personal critical opinion. So it's funny the Orthodox claim that their view was COMPLETELY misrepresented here and the Catholic claim that they are and have always been doctrinally closer to the Orthodox Church than to the Protestants.
I gre up Pentecostal and evangelical and decided to join Orthodoxy. Not because the Holy spirit only comes from God but because God is HOLY and the EO reverences God in a waybthe modern rock concert, female pastors, rainbowflags and"punt the bible" churches dont. I still have my eschatology that differs from the EOC, however i couldn't accept the blanket once saved always saved. (Walk out your salvation with fear and trembling) phil 2:12 Also the OC is a lot more lose on some of thoes definitions than you give them credit for. I won't speak to much on it because im just starting my Catechumen journey. That being said. This is one of the most welcoming churches I've ever been too. The community is great and I feel im at home at last. God bless.
Once saved always saved. You think Jesus did a half-baked job when He died on the cross after enduring humiliation and beatings that would kill even the strongest and stoutest normal human?
Gotta side with the Orthodox on this one... the more we try to rationally arrive at God, his qualities, the dynamics of His nature, the more of a box we create for something ultimately incomprehensible. Kinda resent the fact that Catholicism neglects its own mystics. I sense more pride in intellectually trying to get it all sorted out than humbly resolving to the mystery like the East.
It really dosent because catholic mystics are its intellectuals. Also it’s not the fact we can’t or can understand God, it’s the fact that the east separate God into parts which goes against the Bible and church fathers.
Last I checked, Eckhart, the Beguines, Teresa of Avila, Hildegard von Bingen, are treated more as historical anomalies with honorary titles if not brushed aside entirely as dangerous heretics than given any rightful study in Catholic tradition. Eastern Orthodoxy puts their mystics to the fore.
It's not a matter of Pride to desire to know more of God and His creation. It's a desire to gain a greater understanding of Him so that we may be sure that we are not teaching things that go against His nature. A curiosity for the nature of Our creator is in no way incompatible with humility.
When so much of the world is caught in conversation of war, politics, economics, celebrity...there is something blissfully refreshing about having ancient and timeless conversations around Theology! Doesn't matter what side you're on, it's such a great camaraderie of brothers and sisters in the charitable pursuit of Truth!
@@Benny-sw8xsit's not really what "makes the most sense" when you pick and choose arguments based on what you want to believe. Redeemed zoomer and protestants in general believe in the infallibility of the Bible and that the Holy Spirit guided "the church" in doing so...but then the Holy Spirit stopped doing it, but then the Holy Spirit started guiding them again and so on. That is not "what makes the most sense". If I wanted to believe that we live in perpetual rain I would only go out on rainy days and I would live in perpetual rain, but that doesn't mean that it rains 24/7. The Redeemed zoomer believes that the Apostles had the Authority to dictate the doctrine of the Church and that no one who came after has that Authority (UNLESS OF COURSE IT FALLS IN LINE WITH HIS BELIEFES THEN ITS THE HOLY SPIRIT WORKING THROUGH WHOEVER DOES IT) You can't have such a pick and choose world view and claim its based on logic or whatever. What does he base his claims of the Holy Spirit guiding the Church here and there once every few hundreds years based on and how does he know when the Holy Spirit comes to guide or when the Holy Spirit stops guiding Of course the moments just happen to coincide with every choice that lead to Presbyterianism, even though he doesn't admit it. In that sense the arguments are on par with muslims saying the bible is corrupt(unless verses of the bible could align with their world view, as they like to quote the Bible to support their claims. Just like the Church is infallible as long as it leads to Presbyterianism)
@@stannicolae4623You are strawmaning. The church is not infallible and that is a central doctrine of protestantism. It is merely the question of Jesus resurection that has the most impact on whether christianity is true or not. And in that case the resurection is really credible.
@@Benny-sw8xs Protestantism makes the least sense. Rejecting Holy Tradition in favor of Protestantism is just a cope for not understanding the difference between Orthodoxy and Catholicism.
To bad their historical position is that you are outside of the "Ark" and will go to Hell and they have this same view of the Catholics. If you don't believe in the filioque you will burn forever despite believing in Jesus (they really believe in that). They have a really corrupted gospel.
As Baptist as I may lean, I strongly suggest you provide sources. A lot of these claims misrepresent our EO brothers. Either you didn't do deep enough research/study or you're deliberately misrepresenting EO theology. I'm opting for the former, but please provide sources and don't make broad sweeping statements that are more opinionated than factual. Edit: For example, don't say "EO believes in x," not provide any source, then provide a source to substantiate your Presbytarian view on the matter. It's dishonest and lacks due diligence.
@@pedroguimaraes6094 The purpose of monasticism, the Orthodox view on Augustine, the source of the Great Schism, the Orthodox view on the Filioque, and the Orthodox theology on original sin, for starters.
As a baptist who is in the word I dont really see what all this fuss is about. I had never even heard of these terms like Filloque and all that until I watched redeemed zoomers videos, as a baptist I know my bible pretty well, not as good as many but I have read it cover to cover and I have been going to church for about 45 years. What I cant understand from these huge catholic and orthodox churches is where they get the idea that they need to have their priests dress up in these robes, Jesus didnt do things like that. Catholics and Orthodox have a lot of man made traditions and dont many of them like to be called "father or teacher" didnt Jesus warn us to not go with people like that? Catholics pray to mary which is unbiblical at best and satanic at worst. Orthodox dont believe in original sin, which is again unbiblical. Seems to me catholics are lost these days and have been lost in the past with popes who support sin like sale of indulgences and also the current pope is a joke who believes all people of all religions go to heaven, basically making Jesus out to be a liar as Jesus says he is the only way. I also think the body and bread is meant to be metaphorical just like Peter himself was not an actual rock. Orthodox with funny robes and mystical experiences and no original sin make me think of them as Buddhist types who want a new age or a charismatic Pentecostal type experience. for me I like a good conservative baptist church or missionary alliance or mennonite brethren but the greatest teachers I have had are my mother, Cs lewis, and Jesus and also my many sins have taught me how corrupted I am and how I need a savior. You will have to forgive me I gave up lust about 7 days ago and I gave up an opiate habit that was killing me 13 months ago so I think I have a bit of a manic thing going where I dont feel like such a traitor and hypocrite to my precious Jesus anymore. In the end I think most denominations will help lead people to christ but I feel the newer conservative ones are more evolved, I may be wrong but I like churches that are in the word and sending out missionaries instead of the focus being on sacraments and man made traditions. with all that said may all my brothers and sisters in christ be fully awakened that we are in end times and we need to stick together in love and unity.
As a Catholic, I would say I feel much closer to Eastern Orthodoxy than any other "denomination". They have valid apostolic succession, valid sacraments and a beautiful liturgy. I truly believe the Catholic church and Eastern Orthodox church are the two lungs of the Church.
@@tvojamama4888 Eastern Orthodoxy is just a bunch of babies crying about creeds being changed because “the church doesn’t have the authority to expand upon doctrine” while also brushing off scripture, a book written by the most important prophets and apostles, as less authoritative than the Church. Since y’all obviously can’t reason with basic logic, let me spell it out for you: If the Church has more authority then scripture(which was written by prophets and apostles) simply because they composed it, then the Church also has the authority to expand upon doctrine and creeds that they CREATED, and weren’t even written by people as important as the prophets and apostles.
You somewhat misrepresent Orthodoxy. We the Orthodox hold nothing against St Augustine except on the topic of original vs ancestral sin. Augustine is venerated as Venerable Augustine, as opposed to St Augustine. Many other among the Fathers of the Church are regarded as Venerable and not as Saints. That is only because we consider that some had a greater influence in Orthodox life than others, e.g. those who composed the liturgies are considered Saints. Nonetheless, Venerable Augustine has a feast day in the Orthodox Church calender and is much liked I would say for many of his writings except for those attacking pelagianism. Whether the Pelagian belief is the correct or incorrect one, it is certainly for the Church to decide not for a youtube video. On the issue that the Western Churches were prominent in countries where the scientific revolution took place, it ignores the unfortunate historical fact that from the Renaissance onwards and for about two centuries including the time of the scientific revolution, there was no real independent Orthodox country. Most Orthodox Christians lived under Islamic states or under the Mongols. They often had no schools, let alone universities, and were reluctant to engage in activities that would help their Islamic overlords against the free Christians. During the Renaissance many Eastern Christians fled to the West and that was how ideas of Aristotle and other philosophers became known to the West. The ideas of the 4 states of matter (solids, liquids, gases and energy) was an idea of classical antiquity, the conjecture of an ether for light transmission was considered in antiquity, the question of whether void can be said to exist, atomism, field theory and other physical phenomena such as that sound is due to pressure waves, meteorology, etc, were in public knowledge depending on someone's education and in the society to varying degrees. Calculus was used by Aristotle in an attempt to solve Zeno's paradox. Static electricity was rediscovered after the Renaissance, more than 2000 years after its first description. Charles Darwin mentioned in his Origin of the Species that the several key facts of the theory of evolution, except for natural selection, were known since antiquity and explicitly mentioned Aristotle. These rediscoveries were subsequently attributed to western scientists as if they had discovered them for the first time and as if the rest of the Christian world was ignorant of them. God's essence and energies is the distinction between axiom and theorem. The three persons of the trinity are axioms. But the world exists and it is not a fantasy and much can be measured and it is not axiomatic. What proceeds from these 3 axioms are the energies of God. It is not correct to say that Orthodoxy is mystical. Quite the opposite: to say we can understand the three axioms, the persons of the Trinity, is irrational. To understand the first cause, one would have to understand its cause, by definition. But the first cause of logos is an axiom, it does not have a cause. Theosis means to many Orthodox like myself that the two parts of the Great Commandment have to be seen as a unit, as stated. That equality among humans and, therefore, compassion, humility, forgiveness, etc is what it means to "believe in God". To come closer to God (theosis) is to live a Christian life, which in the East means to live in the model of Christ, showing compassion, humility and forgiveness and an understanding that human equality is due to logos and not due to legislation and human rights charters. To live a life of compassion is what means to believe in God, it is what we usually mean by theosis. But in the West, belief in God evokes somehow a belief in all kinds of irrelevant things, like what it says in the Book of Genesis read literally like a 5-year old child might read who has read nothing else. The book of God is all around us. We only need to look around. The Old Testament is there for context regarding the life of Christ and the rise of Christianity. It was written before Christianity even was thought of. To idolise it and ignore reality and reason and above all compassion and equality of human beings because something different is said in the Old Testament (eye for an eye, superior races) is the opposite of true belief in a Christian God. The Old Testament was not produced in a printing press on Paradise, it was written by men, inspired to write about God rather than about food or fishing. They created a culture and a belief system that culminated into Christianity, however, none of those authors was a Christian. The authors of the New Testament were all Christians and were in the body of the Christian Church. There are no Old Testament saints, whichever type of Christianity you ascribe to.
Yeah nah you're on a hype train bro. No fighting here. I think he's wrong. But I'm not versed enough on christian theology to debate why. But orthodox wins out to me for a few reasons, but the biggest is consistency, politics and aesthetics. They've changed the least, the nation's who follow them are more devout and real in their faith. And it's not a cringefest like evangelical protestantism, or a pedophilia enabling church who's leader parties with trannies in the vatican. Such a disgrace both of them are to me. I'll only accept baptism from an orthodox father, because the truth speaks in their works and actions. I don't see any catholic saints these days, and protestants are more predisposed to cult leaders than saints.
Hey Zoomer, this video reminded me there is a denomination or something along the lines called "Eastern Protestantism" that's basically protestantism with eastern christian features and I've wondered when you'll make a video about it. God bless!
Those groups are so small that I suspect it’s hard to find info on them, aside from cursory level stuff. From the limited amount of info I can find, they are essentially Presbyterians larping as Orthodox.
There are a crap load of Pentecostals all over east Europe too. I grew up in it and even served in it for almost a decade before I came home to The True Church.☦️
3:55 again this is very wrong and ignorant. The oldest university in Europe, the University of Magnavra, operated in Constantinople, in the Orthodox Byzantine Empire, and taught theology.
I know this is quite random, but I really love your videos. I was raised in a very wicked home, my farther was an alcoholic and my mother was emotionally distant. Yet I couldn’t resist God’s grace and kindness and kindness came to him. My life has truly changed since, still can’t go to church but every single time I get home from school, I binge watch your Kingdomcraft series while playing Call of Duty. Thanks, you’ve truly changed my perspective on Theology and Christianity as a whole! I even escaped Nestorianism thanks to you. God bless you! I can’t thank you enough!!!
As a Catholic, no, I know terminally online eastern orthodox are malevolent with catholics, but we are closer to them in many ways despiter our differences than protestants, with expetion of papacy, filioque, type of bread and malevolence of e-orthodox and e-trads
No, as a catholic, we are much closer to Protestants in Doctrine than we are to Eastern Orthodox. Especially in doctrine that actually matters in understanding the state of God and Christ, like the Filioque. The Holy Spirit not proceeding from the Son and the Father itself is borderline heresy to many in the Church. This doesn't mean I dislike or don't respect Orthos (many Orthodox figures I greatly respect), but I think you blankly declaring that Catholics being closer to Orthos than Protestants is born out of apparent similarities, and your bias towards more traditionally organized faith structures. In other words, plain bias. I mean, it's obvious why. Protestantism formed from Catholicism nearly 500 years after the Great Schism. No wonder why Protestantism nearly mirror Catholicism in theology.
@@crusaderman4043the only thing we are close to is the apostolic succession and sacraments. Protestants broke the apostolic succession and rejected e.g. transubstantiation.
@@crusaderman4043 I disagree, orthodoxs and catholics despite our differences, who are not small, have apostolic sucession, don't adhere to the protestant bias, we respect the main ecumenical councils before 1054, we have monastic life, we give more importance to other patristc authors other than St. Augustine and St. Athanasius (like St. Jerome, St. Ignatius of Lyon, St. Polycarp of Smyrna, St. Justin Martin, the first popes after Peter), they know that the autority after Christ and His apostles are the church that confirms the bible and not the other way around, the veneration of the saints and their relics who are testimony to God's action on earth, a more stable church hierarchy and the respect for the bishops, specially the good ones, usually the bad bishops of that time walk with sinners to try bring sin to the church and not their salvation of their souls, etc., you say I have bias, but the only point of difference you noted are the filioque, and while the prots agree with us in that, they only agree on us on fewer things than them and no, protestantism (mostly, specially the calvinist branch of protestantism, the lutheran is pretty much dead because the nations who had them are basically atheists and in the US the lutheran migrants went to other protestant denominations or liberalized the lutheranism, maybe in africa and slovakia will find lutheranism much more alive) does not mirror catholicism in theology, if they did that, the protestantism would be basically high-church anglicanism I can undestand that if you are from a catholic nation bordering russia and does not come from the US or Latin America who have some prots who are obnoxious and quite anti-theological
It is interesting to note that the Catholic Church doesn't really have issues with the theology and traditions of Orthodox Churches as the Eastern Catholic Churches are nearly identical to their Orthodox counterparts. The main problem is that the need to be distinct from the Catholic Church causes the Orthodox Churches to draw much harsher lines of distinction than they should. The need for distinction and distinctiveness has hampered the Orthodox Church as they proselytize to other cultures and languages. Western Christians, both Catholic and Protestant, are much better at spreading Christianity. It's telling that this current renaissance of Orthodox Churches going on now is driven by Western Christians seeking the East rather than the East actively drawing the West in.
I suspect that the reason it seems that way in the West is because Orthodoxy is still a foreigner, particularly in America. We also have a very different idea of what evangelism is. Couple that with the fact that Protestantism doesn’t exists in native Orthodox lands, you find yourself with two groups that have only recently gained experience interacting with one another, which makes the foreigner seem hesitant to reach out. And one last point, we see western culture as trash (for lack of a better word) and therefore refuse (and will continue to refuse) to assimilate. Very interesting take.
Orthodox reject immaculate conception of Mary which is a belief papal infalliablity was used to uphold. So there is a major doctrinal difference there between Catholic and orthodox. Catholics think the church has more authority than the Bible since the church compiled the Bible, orthodox see it as equal, and Protestants think the church has less authority than the Bible. So in reality orthodox is a midpoint between Catholics and Protestants with them slightly leaning towards Catholics and them slightly being skewed with their own ideas of the fillioque for example.
The Catholic Church can’t effectively evangelise people, the only way they’ve evangelised large amounts of people is through the use of power and influence. Even today the vast majority of Catholics are Catholic because it’s basically a cultural and hereditary religion. Similar to orthodoxy (though they’ve barely left their exile) Protestants on the other hand have been much more effective at evangelism, just look at British colonies.
@@voxlknight2155not really, the church in Russia have been puppets ever since they established it their. And the Greeks have their church as prisoners in an Islamic country. (I’m not gonna use the God exiling them argument btw)
The Filioque is NOT biblical. As an Orthodox Christian, we believe that "the holy spirit proceeds from the father THROUGH the son". In FACT, THIS IS THE CATHOLIC OFFICIAL POSITION on the matter. We just disagree with its inclusion in the Creed, not only because it is ambiguous (instead of the more clear: "from the father through the son"), but because the pope added it single-handedly, without consulting the other patriarchs or an ecumenical council, something he did not have the power to do so.
yeah, i dont like how RZ just skimmed over that, he has talked with orthodox people about this before, he knows better, this is just a strawman the bias shows
@@harrisonsamson some Catholics say that they are different words that have same meaning, im guessing what they mean is that they both involve the Son in the procession
At the end of the debate with dyer he said he enjoyed talking to you and liked you as a person and said he’d be down to talk again, it would be cool to see a pt 2
I grew up Dutch Reformed and joined the Orthodox Church in my early 20s, I still have a lot of love for the Reformed Church in many of its aspects, and I don't mean to sound harsh here, but as someone who has lived both the Orthodox and Reformed worldview I can say that you don't get Orthodoxy yet. Every time you comment on Orthodoxy it comes off as: 1. Only having a cursory understanding of Orthodoxy, being dismissive and condescending (I don't blame you for the latter though considering how the Orthodox online treat you). and 2. Very heavily from a Western Lens. The First point is something that you can get over relatively easily by reading more in depth Orthodox theological works. The second point is something that would be much more difficult for you. I don't believe you're claiming to be unbiased when talking about Orthodoxy but I know you're honest enough to try and give an accurate representation, which is not something that can be done when you're limiting yourself to viewing Orthodoxy from an academic lens. When you dissect a creature, it is killed, its blood is drained, and you take it apart. From this you can only learn things about its anatomy and some general understanding of its lifestyle, but you cannot learn anything in depth about its life. Orthodoxy is the same way, you're not getting it because you're viewing it from an outside perspective rather than attempting to understand it as a living Faith and worldview.
His theological arguments don't bother me because even though I do not agree with them they are competent, what I don't like about his views on Orthodoxy is that he always tries to put Orthodoxy in this kind of backwards zen buddhist mysticism full of dogmatics who are scared of knowledge and science
Orthodox here i do enjoy a lot of his content but yeah his understanding of the orthodox church is very one sided, and i don't think he has ever talked with an Orthodox Christian about anything as he had one of the worst takes i have ever seen also i don't think catholic or reformists would be very happy with him either if he misinterpreted misrepresented and dismissed your religion as he does with the orthodox
You have to rebuke his arguments, literally all his arguments are facts for now unless you debunk it. You can only change his views if you debunk his views.
This video is more "Protestantism vs Eastern Orthodoxy" than "Western vs Eastern Christianity". The Catholic Church does have a Byzantine Rite with the same theology as the Orthodox, so one cannot say all Catholics agree with one form of theology and all Orthodox with another. Also, the Bible sure uses a legal vocabulary in its English translations, but that doesn't mean a lot - languages of Orthodox countries do not use those words. This is a purely Protestant argument, based off of sola scriptura, and not Catholic. Original sin very closely tied to the Orthodox belief of ancestral sin. In short, the sin of Adam is as a pregnant woman smoking; the child will bare his mother's consequences, but it's not directly their fault. And yes, the West built universities during the Middle Ages, but interesting you don't mention the fact that, during the same time, the East was financially demolished by constantly defending the entire continent from Islam, not receiving aid, but often hinderance, from the West. So, proving these complex theological differences by using Bible quotes with varying translations is lazy and straight up wrong. The Church produced the Bible to begin with, and picking out Western translations to support Western theology is a no-brainer. It truthfully is a shame Western Christians get all their knowledge of Orthodoxy via Reddit, as Zoomer unfortunately does in his pinned comment. "By their fruit you will know them" - come on dude...
@@KauahdhdhdTo be fair catholicism doesn't necessarily believe in an inherited guilt(reatus culpa), but rather in an inherited punishment(reatus poena).
Disagree about legal terms. In the Ukrainian translation, an Orthodox country and made by the Orthodox Ohiyenko, it does use legal terms and stuff like that
Orthodox convert in the West here! Great video, this will be an awesome resource to explain the difference to curious friends and family who are confused about what I’ve joined and what sets us apart. Loved the analysis, Lord Jesus Christ bless you and have mercy on us all!
You’re very correct on how different we are… Filioque is more biblical?? 😂😂😂 it’s not about the Son not sending the spirit… It’s about the procession of the spirit. I don’t know why this continues to be glossed over by the West.
@@regularlug9536 proccession is the source and sending is just the action. Proccession is from Father, the essence of God which was not seen directly by human experience. Orthodoxy makes more sense, westernes don't understand the metaphors like this, is named Father because it has that role of the root, not because it is a literally regular father which do father things.
As a Protestant, I do naturally believe we are right, but I would like it better if this video portrayed all of us as right in a way, cuz at the end of the day we are all Christians and will receive salvation, so why fight?
As a former Roman Catholic, one of the reasons to explain why I converted to Orthodoxy was because it was a way closer faith than one out the 9,999 Protestant denominations. ☦
@@bill-yq7lo congratulations, thank God for giving us translators who also read Greek to translate Gods word into English so more can read His word with out having to learn a whole other foreign language to be able to read the Gospel for them selves. I guess my main issue with your gospel is that it’s not The Gospel.
@@Dewfasathat’s called an a priori assumption or begging the question. You don’t understand the Gospel in Orthodoxy and so you’re only recourse being that’s it’s filtered to you with a romaphobic bias is to presume it’s false simply because it doesn’t align with your Protestant traditions’ own interpretation of the gospel. Congratulations you proved nothing’
@@icxcnika7722 I mean you sound smart with your words. But we all have presuppositions, and that’s ok. so happens I think yours is wrong, you think mine is wrong. What matters is what the Bible really says. If you read the Bible you can know the true Gospel. I don’t follow protestant history or a Church and its dogmatical views. I follow Gods word. I happen to see that implemented through out history sure. I see many who trust a church hijacked by Roman traditions, pagan traditions, man made. I don’t have to prove anything other than what you can read for your self in Gods word. We all must do that. Not just a man in cloth telling you what he reads.
@@Dewfasa lol bro, such a clown take. You appeal to your own interpretation of the Bible to condemn orthodoxy and then in the same comment attack priests…that’s circular logic and a self defeating epistemology.
We need you on Tiktok and Instagram because you do a good job in this area. There are so many Orthodox and Catholic polemicists on these platforms who are misleading people.
The Orthodox Church does not disagree with scripture, rather they understand it differently than the west does as the East has a more complex view of ontology, where as the west adopted a more platonic view of ontological philosophy which is why things like the filioque developed later in the west when the papal throne rose to primacy and not earlier when the juristrictions where more equal between the east and west. this video is borderline slanderous since you have completely removed Orthodoxy's linguistical and philosophal understanding on doctrines and just placed that they either "dislike" or "disagree" with YOUR view of church history and scripture.
“The Bible is very clear, Whenever Jesus forgives someone, it’s before he asks them To cooperate with God not after”. The literal two verses you put on the screen show Jesus reacting to the believers. “When he saw his faith…” and “because she loved much…”. lol. I wouldn’t say YOUR position is very clear. Key word is YOUR position.
I love how RZ studiously avoids the one verse that clearly shows that the procession of the Holy Spirit, which has to do with the eternal relations between the divine Persons, is from the Father alone--while He is sent on His mission to convict the world of sin, righteousness, and judgement--which is about the relation between God and mankind--by the Father and the Son. "But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me." (John 15:26)
RZ has already talken about it. It does not say is from the fathers alone, It just says it is from the father. We agree with that. But other biblical verses also say it is from the son too.
@@pedroguimaraes6094The Son also sends the Spirit, but this is different than a eternal procession. The Spirit is sent first by the Father, through the Son.
@@pedroguimaraes6094 Did you even read my post? Do you have a problem with reading comprehension? Read it again! I handled your objection before you even objected!
@@crusaderman4043 Did you even read my post? Do you have a problem with reading comprehension? Read it again! I handled your objection before you even objected!
Hello brother! i would like to apologize for any comment you have recived by Eastern Orthodox belivers that were critical and mocking you in some way. I am Eastern Orthodox and the video you have made has some great arguments, but in the end of the day, we belive that Jesus is God and we are brothers and sisters beliving in the same faith, just beliving in different denominations. ✝︎♥︎☦︎ May God bless you!
THANK YOU!! A True orthodox. One who doesnt condemn, but understands and knows we are all saved by the promise Jesus made that is to simply have faith that he payed for our faults and transgressions and to come into repentance of sin.
@@hippios fr I'm not even EO but on every comment criticizing rz this same guy basically says they're going to hell, but on every comment that agrees with rz he says "you're not like those mean orthodox"
This video is great as a Catholic. We don’t view different opinions as being against Christ but our brothers in Christ. Would we like everyone to be Catholic? Sure, the word means universal, but we Catholics value traditions more than many other Christians. It all depends on your viewpoint. I would never say a Protestant or Orthodox Christian is denied the kingdom of Heaven. That is not in my power as a created being. I just want people to know Christ our savior and our judge. God bless all my brothers in Christ. Thank you for this video 🙏
"we catholics value traditions more than many other christians" the roman catholic church has destroyed and spit on its own traditions and own history more in the past 150 years than any other modern roman catholicism values its own traditions the least of any church. your pope prays with non christians, blesses gay couples (ie. gay unions), spits on missionary work says its evil, rewrites history and dogma to fit with the modernist liberal order yet you claim he values tradition? you claim he is infallible? and yes you do claim this, because if you reject the pope and papal infallibility you are a schism of roman catholicism
2:06 no, it's not just that. It was because they added without conferring with a council which was done by the orthodox. Also none of the scripture cited actually shows the "proceeds" part. For example Jesus breathing can't mean procedure because it would mean creation and that's not what procedure mean in the creed. Another point is that previously you yourself said that the old creed is not wrong because the spirit does proceed from the father, but then how come you say now it's unbiblical? The entire bit about western reason is well Eurocentric and plainly wrong. These things happened concurrently with scholasticism not simply because of it. That's an idealistic way of looking at history which has been obsolete for quite some time. The decline of islam and the east wasn't because of religion,, it arguably had more to do with the Mongols or the fact that Byzantium was you know sacked by the very much enlightened west for very enlightened reasons. In a nutshell this part reeks of historical ignorance. A lot of the rest is biblical quotes trying to show how biblical the west is while to showing any counter argument m I mean why bother make a video comparing stuff if you're not comparing anything. This is more of an explanation than of western position than anything else
@@cassidyanderson3722 "“When the Advocate comes, whom I will send to you from the Father-the Spirit of truth who goes out from the Father-he will testify about me." It very clearly states that it proceeds from both the Father and the Son. Why else would Jesus state that He will send the Advocate from the Father? Why not say the Father will send the Advocate? Procession from the Latin root procedere means to "move forth," which is clearly done so by both the Father and the Son.
@@crusaderman4043 You are confusing the issue. Even the Orthodox agree that Christ can send the HS and that the HS proceeds through Christ. That’s not what Constantinople was addressing - read the canons. BTW, we read the NT in Greek, not an English translation of a Latin translation.
The Bible barely even references the Trinity . The most explicit verse … the johannine comma is infamously known to be a scribal addition a couple of hundred years later ( even fundamentalist Christian scholars don’t try to deny it .. look at the footnotes in your Bible ) The Trinity is a mystery and the only sin is to think you know something about it And you guys are reading way too much much into these verses .
Augustine also defended the idea of Father alone, I think I read someplace that he "experimented" and wrote down a lot of guesses as what the Trinity could be (that's why he defends the filioque in some writings and goes against it on thers)
LCMS Lutheran - and I am struggling right now between aligning between the three. I love my congregation, but seeing how the lack of Church unity had led to some pretty non-Christian beliefs becoming mainline is hard.
First time I've left a dislike on one of Redeemed Zoomer's videos. I'm friends with a group of Orthodox monks and count the abbot as a mentor, and his slander of monks as "people who sit on mountains because they are afraid they haven't done enough" is abominable. Anyone who wants to learn what Orthodoxy is actually about instead of this caricature RZ presents should read "The Orthodox Church" and "The Orthodox Way" by Kallistos Ware, late of Great Britain.
zoomer is ass hurt because jay dyer schooled him. i like zoomer, i think hes a good guy and a good christian but hes pride is getting to him.@@oskarchyc-mulik4054
@@stephenlee3406 THIS. Imagine being a spirit awakening in outer darkness and never even knowing anything else. If God does that, I don't want to know, because my human mind cannot comprehend an All-Good being doing that. If he does, I don't want to know.
When they weren't being persecuted.. Dealt (or attempted to deal) with heresies (Origenism, Apollinarism, Nestorianism, Arianism, Gnosticism, Marcionism etc.) Formation of Doctrine and Tradition (Confession, Eucharist being the flesh of Christ, and Baptism - mentioned in the Didache, Trinity. Read the epistles of early Church Fathers like Ignatius of Antioch and St. Augustine of Hippo) Evangelism (e.g. converting of 3000 people by St. Peter circa 30AD) Read Church History by Eusebius of Caesarea
Well it's not like the church didn't start reading from the Biblical texts until after it was formally canonized and compiled into one book if that's what you're getting at.
The OT canon was long established before Jesus. The Christian churches read and passed around Paul's epistles and the Gospels starting in the 1st century. You can see this in the Apostolic Fathers referencing canonical Scripture.
thank you, you just gave me more arguments against western theology, now after ive seen these points and immediately found ways to prove them wrong. post more videos like this so i can learn to fight western theology even better!
@@zerowork7631the East doesn't "deny logic" also God said to not "lean on your own understanding" because God is above his own logic. I'm not trying to say you shouldn't use your brain or believe that logic doesn't exist as God did create order and logic. I'm just trying to say that's why the East leans more into mysticism. In short God defies logic and logic isn't a useful tool in determining which religion is "more correct" as God exists outside of his own logic and because of that no logic you can apply will ever lead directly to God or will be able to explain what God is or isn't hence why the Eastern Orthodox don't like the wests "oversimplified" view of God either.
"We cannot know him naturally except by reaching him from his effects [energies], it follows that the terms by which we denote his perfection must be diverse, as also are the perfections which we find in things. If, however, we were able to understand his very essence as it is, and to give him a proper name, we should express him by one name only. And this is promised to those who will see him in his essence." -St. Thomas Aquinas, SCG1.C31.5
@@planteruines5619 those who see him in his essence are those who have passed and achieved the beatific vision, Thomas Aquinas and Scotus both believed in an essence energies distinction, but not a “real” essence energy distinction such as the eastern Hetrodox believe
This was perhaps the WORST representation of Orthodox theology I’ve ever seen. I’ve seen Muslims with more accurate understanding of Christianity than this
@@richardbug3094 As an Orthodox christian, this is so far from what is taught. Whether people live it out well is different. As is true with any faith or form of Christianity
The comments are very interesting to read Im Orthodox Russian man And i think of west and east church as the 2 lungs It would be a great day when the churches will come together again in union and love so the body can breath fully with both of its lungs once again Amen
Most of the teachings we have are similar with the eastern orthodox (I'm oriental orthodox) except things like the essence energy distinction. We don't believe that the holyspirit proceeds from the son. I'm not sure about the explicit teaching of the divine simplicity.
@@ionictheist349that why God use the catholic church to evangelise the world and not the eastern church, Dwong got countless quotes from the early church fathers believeing in the filioque on his channel
In one of the early Ecumenical Councils it was decreed that the Nicene Creed may never be changed. Even if we Orthodox wished in an act of goodwill to agree to the filiogue, it cannot be done. There is theological justification why the filioque is not in the Creed: see ua-cam.com/video/dTcoYAvARoo/v-deo.html
Buddy, a month ago you literally commented under a video about Monarchy of the Father the following statement - "thank you for perfectly and fairly representing the Reformed position". And now you're criticizing it? Decide young boy or stop confusing people if you can't take a firm stand on these theological differences.
6:03 no, I don't think it's exactly like that. Sure, Orthodox Christians don't believe in original sin, we believe that after Christ rose from the dead, he saved us then and there from that. But we still believe that all people sin in their lives and that everyone is a sinner. So idk where you're getting that from but you need to check your sources because that's a strawman argument
You chose intellectual way of understanding the unknowable things and now the result is decay of the faith and the most atheist society. Well done, West.
man the arguments against theosis, original/ancestral sin and Christ's sacrifice are just so bad and misrepresentative of what Orthodoxy believes. this is your pride at work and I suggest you pray and do better. also "orthodoxy not intellectual and too esoteric for spending life in prayer" is such a non-argument. intellectualism wont save your "church" from the demons of modernism. humbleness and introspection will. of course, im not saying logic and rationale arent good for Christianity. it's what brought me into the flock after all. God bless.
The Orthodox' official position on the Pope is that he is first among equals, and yet the Bishop of Constantinople excommunicated the Pope. To this day, they hold that the Bishop of Rome is first among equals due to being the successor to Peter, and yet they reject his authority entirely. The Catholics have initiated talks to heal the Schism every single time. For more info, look into Second Council of Lyons and Council of Florence.
@@bradyhayes7911 Hello. Actually Pope Leo IX never excommunicated the Patriarch of Constantinople. French Cardinal Humbert of Silva Candida was the person to excommunicate the Patriarch of Constantinople. Pope Leo IX died during the negotiation process and Cardinal Humbert somehow deduced he had the authority to excommunicate the Patriarch of Constantinople. On July 16, 1054 Cardinal Humbert walked into the Hagia Sophia and excommunicated the Patriarch and his clergy. The Patriarch of Constantinople retaliated by excommunicating Cardinal Humbert and the 2 other Latin legates involved in the negotiation process. This of course escalated quickly and the end result was the seperation of Rome from the other 5 Holy Sees (the other Sees being Constantinople, Jerusalem, Antioch, and Alexandria).
Ok, I like this video. I'm an Orthodox Christian learning about our faith. Although I do believe that the Orthodox Church isn't perfect, I still do believe that it is the true Church for me. But I really like these types of videos, it makes you question, are you really following Christ like you're supposed to? Not just the Orthodox Christian, but it makes the Protestant and Catholic question themselves too. I think this is a good video made in good faith, even though I think that mr zoomer is wrong about some things here, guess you could say I was predestined to disagree hahahah! Been a fan for a pretty long time, keep up the good work!
@@cassidyanderson3722 oh no don't worry about that, I already know that. My main point was that the video was made in good faith, even though it misrepresented Holy Orthodoxy, it was done in good faith, not meant to slander Orthodoxy.
@@grizzly8296 I don’t know if I believe that it was made in good faith. I’ve heard RZ talk about Orthodoxy before, including conversations he’s had with Orthodox apologists. He’s not completely uneducated when it comes to Orthodoxy. Considering his first reply to the video, I suspect the video was intentionally misrepresentative of Orthodoxy and intellectually dishonest. He seems to have hoped to start a little fight in the comments section and I’m glad he failed in that regard. This is a very disappointing video from RZ. He’s better than this.
Oof... Someone needs to play less minecraft and at least read Siecienski's "The Filioque: History of a Doctrinal Controversy"... How can you participate in the debate in good faith without even understanding it and reading the relavent material?
I think all the Churches have had their fill of intellectualism for quite some time. We need to put the brakes on intellectualism and get back to basics. I'm glad to know any Christian, regardless of the Church they worship at. I love you guys. God Bless us all.
I always hope one day the Churches reunify. This video is very interesting theologically and comments provide interesting points and lots of counter arguments too. As a Catholic it does not matter who is closer to us, but we feel deeply close to the Orthodox, despite all the good points in this video which are worth considering and discussing. We love Orthodox brothers even if they dont always love us back as much. I ask for the forgiveness of our sins, we are not perfect and we have erred countless times while thinking we carried the weight of the Church, we are very faulty. Bless you RZ, because your content keeps the flame of theological exploration alive in the body of Christendom and has taught me a lot about Reformed ideas. We need more people like you. Jesus is King.
Im a lutheran and i talk to a lot of Orthos. The divide isnt as sharp as you think. Participation with God is completely biblical, but it follows forensic Justification. They lack a doctrine of justification, but papists lack a correct one, and reform tend to deny participation and thus sanctification. They also believe we are born with a sin nature affirming original sin. Person / Nature distinction. You have a sin nature because of the fall and that is enough to condemn you. Also their view of theosis is closer, to some extent youre talking about reformed vs east not west vs east. By denying the communicatio idiomatum you have no explanation for how the atonement justified us. And with communicatio idiomatum you can see that we get deified via theosis not apotheosis. Or as i would call it, Christification which is completed at the day of Jesus Christ, the second coming. We will be in a Greater than prelapsarian state. Otherwise we would just fall all over again. Frankly i find myself in more agreement with the east than the reformed as a lutheran.
I am also Lutheran, with some close Coptic Orthodox friends. I think we are very close to them theologically, even though superficially we resemble the RC Church more. The Orthodox believe it's sin to add to or take away from the Bible (unlike the RC), and unlike some of the newer Protestants we don't agree with once saved always saved. I think we are similar. The biggest difference I see is they have this idea of appealing to saints who have passed, and we do not.
Palamas taught that we will never see the Divine Essence but Aquinas taught that we will. These are not at all contradictory. Aquinas used a different definition of ‘see’ and affirmed that will will never completely comprehend or know the Divine Essence
Wow. Talk about having a very uneducated understanding of Orthodoxy. BTW, Blessed St Augustine is a SAINT in the Orthodox Church. Saying we “don’t like him” is a blatant lie or, at best, statement of extreme ignorance.
@@JM-qv7fe As a Catholic who prays for the same thing, I'm wondering how you think we can be united? The Catholic Church wants to have ecumenism with the Orthodox but from me just studying the inner workings of Orthodoxy it seems like many orthodox clergy and lay will condemn anyone who tries to be "ecumenical".
@@TheMacDonald22I 'm orthodox, and I believe this is nonsense, we should be the same church, we re all christians, different traditions just make it more interesting, its just the top clerics in the hierarchy that are corrupt, and that goes for both orthodox and catholics
@@ΘωμάςΣέλμπυς You can say that again about the corruption in the hierarchies for both of our churches. And you're right about the different traditions being good for the church. I just pray that we can come together under one roof as our lord prayed, after all our every day Christian lives are practically identical. God bless, brother! ✝️❤️☦️
As per the pinned comment, id like to remind you all that the majority of comments here from Orthodox are quite civil, and RedeemedZommer's virtue signal has seemed to fail (especially in light of the fact that at the end of his video, he broadcasts the fruit of his denomination, which is theological and moral degradation, quite well) I hope he reflects on this, and deletes the comment. Edit: it seems he did, good on ya RZ :)
God in the core essence is uncreate/unmanifest. This is what creates the distinction between his essence and energies to me, how he is manifest through his son, through his holy spirit, and through the father. Even though the western view seems rationally simpler - I feel sure that the eastern understanding is closer to the true structure of the universe. God’s essence is like a seed, containing all principles for life but unmanifest, the way he interacts with the world is through his primary energies which are in the trinity. Essentially manifestations of God so pertinent to our world we call them the godhead.
You said it beautifully that God is uncreated and, therefore, in His core is unmanifest or unknowable. RZ said that the Orthodox contradict each other but I find that the Orthodox broadly agree in conversation, despite coming from different countries and backgrounds, except sometimes in the case of recent converts from Protestantism. Those may come across as argumentative.
3:10 there’s a problem - “Λόγος” or Logos means “Word”, not wisdom. Hence John 1:1 : in the beginning was the WORD, and the WORD was God and the WORD was with God… etc. Faith doesn’t come through Christs Wisdom, but rather the Word, the Gospel, Jesus Christ. I know, it’s ticky tacky, but translation is important
I'm Easter Orthodox but most of you guys reading are probably Catholic but, we are all brothers or sisters in Christ and I love and respect you all, Amen ♥️
Wow very interesting… although this video is a criticism of Eastern Orthodoxy and I am still learning about it, seeing these points and explanations, I am more drawn to it now than before. Then again, I am drawn to mysticism ❤
really think about the "except babies, right?" part. it wouldn't make sense for a perfectly moral and good God to not save babies, how could they be saved if they can barely think for themselves, just really think about it man.
"Both make sense." That's right, you can make arguments both for and against the Filioque. I personally believe that the anti-Filioque side is much stronger, but this really points to a big difference between Western and Eastern theology. We don't believe theology just because it "makes sense." We believe theology because it has been revealed to us by God. The doctrine of Trinity itself doesn't really "make sense," but God has revealed himself to exist as Trinity, so we believe it. Similarly, it has been revealed that the Spirit proceeds from the Father, so we believe that too.
"But whenever the Comforter should come, Whom I shall send to you from the Father(energetic procession), the Spirit of truth Who proceedeth from the Father(hypostatic procession)" (John 16:26) Filioque is not biblical and was condemned as heresy at the 8th Ecumenical council in 879 by both East and West(Rome). At the 3rd and 4th Ecumenical Councils, it was affirmed that anyone who changes the Creed without an Ecumenical Council is anathema, which Rome proceeded to do, leading to them leaving the One Holy Orthodox Catholic Church.
Filioque was not affirmed at any Council whatsoever and it was condemned at the 8th Ecumenical Council, at which Rome was present and affirmed Filioque as heresy, then went against this and left the Church. Watch this to see the full critique by Dyer: ua-cam.com/video/trRq346kH-A/v-deo.htmlsi=Mn8WdZvOvYi77bLQ @LordiValimartti
@LordiValimartti Filioque is a heresy, and is merely one of many heresies the latin-frankish papal protestants have embraced due to their departure from the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. I'm going to trust Saint Gregory Palamas and the countless other Church Fathers over "Dwong". They all affirm that the filioque is a heresy and that the latin heretics left the Church. I hope you do find the truth of Orthodoxy and put on Christ in Baptism, which if you're sincere and zealously seeking the truth I think you will eventually. Jay, Kyle, David Erhan & Orthodox Ethos have plenty of material clearly proving the error of the latins and at the same time showcasing the Glory of God in His Church with the Saints He glorifies continually in every age, a continuous Pentecost.
@LordiValimartti I'm going to trust the decisions of all the Ecumenical Councils, the Scriptures, Church Fathers and Saints who affirm that filioque is a heresy over "Dwong" and his heretical viewpoint. Saint Gregory Palamas trumps any other latin-frankish papal protestants who are stubbornly clinging onto a dead branch that was cut off long ago. Orthodoxy is true, come home. Jay, Kyle and Orthodox Ethos have plenty of content proving the truth of Orthodoxy using abundant Patristic teachings on the subject.
I am going to trust the consensus of the Fathers, the Ecumenical Councils, the words of our Lord and the many many glorified Saints who have very clearly stated that papal protestantism, with it's heretical dogmas and practices, is not of God. Why would I trust "Dwong" over Saint Gregory Palamas? Filioque was condemned in Council, by Rome as well, for 200 years, prior to them falling into heresy and leaving the Church.. that should be the end of the discussion really. ua-cam.com/video/q9MsCoDJCJg/v-deo.htmlsi=hqdZYDS1objwIJkP There are so many resources much more informed than me, so keep learning. Head over to Jay Dyer or Orthodox Ethos and keep learning more. I hope your sincere thirst for the truth leads you into the One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic and Orthodox (Right-believing) Church eventually. @LordiValimartti
I’m sorry but you’ve never experienced orthodox monasticism. Being raised eastern catholic we were told that the prayers of the monks and nuns are keeping the world together, I had no idea what that meant till I became orthodox and went on a pilgrimage to Georgia 🇬🇪 and stayed at a convent and woke up at 3 am for vigil to hear the nuns pray for every infirmity in the world . Glory to God
I believe you have a fundamental misunderstanding of Orthodoxy. Anyone who is interested in Orthodoxy should not rely on anything stated in this video. @redeemedzoomer6053 you are better than this.
I’m sure this video will have nothing but positive comments and no people arguing at all
lol
As if we were mosleems. We are actually civilised. We can discuss our denominational differences respectfully and I am pretty sure we will.
Not the orthobros unfortunately. @@9_9876
@@9_9876 You haven't had a lot of experience with Orthobros I guess
Orthoodox: "but we must contribute we need works to be saved."
"its a mystery to know if were saved"
Man they just go heavily against the bible it's so insane.
Oh boy here we go schisming again.
It's the new craze
"i know the pieces fit"
Don’t be a tool….
My favourite part was when Redeemed Zoomer said "It's schism time" and schismed all over the religion
Nah....Presbyterians been out in left field on their own for a while now.
As a Catholic I would say I have more in common with EO than protestants
Dositheus II of Jerusalem agrees with you.
Wish you all the best
Nah, don't be fooled, they're just the early Protestants. If you look closely enough, they have the same rhetoric and a similar past.
@@lain7758everything that this brother in Christ said about us is completly bs.
(i highly respect him)
@@worldexposed7 if it's not Christ from whom the Holy Spirit proceeds, then I'm afraid we're not brothers.
@@lain7758 well, i understand, ok ,we are not brothers
Everything that is from the bible that you guys think is pro filioque, those verses are speaking about the Holy Spirit being poured on us by Jesus, when actually the source is The Father
I am an Orthodox Christian, and it is more about the traditions than the beliefs for me. I have the belief in the Bible which almost always resonates with what which the Orthodox believe, and I really like how old and traditional the Orthodox churches and practices are.
Although we may disagree on some things (like Filioque), I would like to make something clear.
In Heaven there won't be Catholics, nor Protestants nor Orthodox, there will be people who Believe in Christ.
So we can have all of those debates for those secondary beliefs, but we should never forget the primary teaching which is: Christ has redeemed the world, died for our Sins and whosoever believes in Him will be saved.
I really enjoy your videos Redeemed Zoomer, and I'm looking forward to you and Kyle going at it again in the near future.
God bless you from a Protestant.
Couldn't have put it better myself
This is lukewarm, ecumenistic drivel. Revelation 3:16 - “So then, because you are lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will vomit you out of My mouth.”
Based
Amen brother, at the end of the day our God is the same God and that is all that matters
This is the moment when Calvinists can't get along with EO in their Minecraft mindset.
What's that?
Nor Catholics. Catholics see Calvinism as completely heretical, too.
Haha, I just stumbled upon this comment, and for a moment I was like "When did I write this?" 😁
@@panperl1212 Hello Brother Fox
Hmm, have you read the Council of Trent by any chance?
Redeemed zoomer makes video on orthodoxy.
Kyle has entered the chat
Gross. Keep him away.
@@traviswilson36no he's a chad🗿
@@geouriaUneducated simp.
@@geouriaLmaaaooooo no he isn’t.
@@traviswilson36He is.
There’s a difference between the whole creed being “updated” at an ecumenical council and the pope adding something on his own
What defines an ecumenical council?
@@thepickle5214 Hundreds of bishops from the whole church coming to a consensus on theological issues with the guidance of the Holy Spirit
I'm increasingly of the belief that it's more complicated than one side is completely right and the other completely wrong. I think the West absolutely has it right on this, but I'm inclined to agree that the pope didn't have any right to make any unilateral decisions on foundational theology like that.
@@thepickle5214 a church-wide infallible council received by the church that keeps apostolic doctrine
@@Tyler_W still, redeemed zoomer compared the pope adding it to the creed with Constantinople I
Im Protestant, and despite the differences, i love my Orthodox brothers 👍.
this isn't about not loving them, it's about whether or not they're right, and correcting people who are wrong (when done gently and with love) is the living thing to do.
@scalkin I recommend you look into these topics from Orthodox sources instead of zoomer strawmaning them for you. You will eventually realise that only EOs are faithful to the theology of the fathers of the first 1000 years. The West likes to focus on Blessed Augustine, but he is just one of many.
@@scalkin why should I, an Orthodox Christian, believe you when you say that we are wrong?
@@bad_covfefeYou do the same, it’s not the matter of just telling of who is wrong, but who is really wrong.
@@davidganta462 so why should I believe you when you say we are wrong?
The Eastern Orthodox Church believes in the concept of original sin, but its understanding differs from that of Western Christianity, particularly from the Augustinian perspective. While Eastern Orthodoxy acknowledges the inheritance of a sinful condition from Adam and Eve, it doesn't interpret original sin as resulting in guilt passed down through generations as heavily emphasized in Western Christianity.
Eastern Orthodox theology often emphasizes the concept of ancestral sin, which acknowledges the consequences of Adam and Eve's disobedience but doesn't attribute personal guilt to subsequent generations in the same way as Western views of original sin.
Regarding Pelagianism, the Eastern Orthodox Church rejects it. Pelagianism is the belief that humans can attain salvation through their own efforts without divine grace. This contradicts Orthodox theology, which emphasizes the necessity of God's grace for salvation and the belief in the fallen nature of humanity due to original sin or ancestral sin.
Thanks for your explanation!
Came here to say exactly this, but you’ve said it in better words than i could’ve, so thank you.
I'll take a stab at this from the (lay, non-expert) ByzCath perspective:
Filioque: You won't get a consistent answer on this from the Orthodox side, but the reason WE do not recite the Filioque as part of the Creed during our Liturgies boils down to a grammatical detail. The Creed is authoritative in Greek and Latin co-equally, but the languages aren't identical. The verb "proceed" used in the Latin creed has basically the same meaning it has in English, but the verb used in the Greek creed is a more specific verb that refers to the way a stream springs forth from its source. (There's a different Greek verb that matches the Latin meaning of "procedere" much more closely, but that's not the one used in the Creed.) If we were to add "and the Son" to that, we would imply that one stream has two sources. That's not possible; that would make it two streams, which (however quickly) converge into one larger stream. Obviously this temporary duplication of the Holy Spirit is not what the West is saying with Filioque, but this is what we are denying by not saying it. This is also why Greek-speaking Roman Catholics omit Filioque during their Mass.
Regarding Energetic/Hypostatic procession, if you can catch the Orthodox in a non-polemical mood many of them will grant that this is an unresolved question still being debated in Orthodoxy to this day. I think the real heart of this issue is the East's objection to the West declaring questions like this one settled without the East's input and conciliar consent.
Reason: I don't agree that the East's more "mystical" bent has anything to do with Filioque. We all receive Christ in Holy Communion, so even if we grant that the extreme anti-Filioquist position breaks Christians' ability to gain knowledge of God through the Holy Spirit, Holy Communion would make that moot because we receive the Logos directly anyway. This whole question feels too close to breaking the Hypostatic Union, so let's leave it firmly in the hypothetical.
Our different emphases on reason vs experience are extremely old - going clear back to St Augustine and the Desert Fathers at least - were not a matter to schism over then, and are not now. Each brings something of value that the other can't explore to the same depth, even though the East has intellectuals like St John Chrysostom and St John Damascene and the West has mystics like St Francis and St Theresa of Avlia. This is wy St JP2 spoke of the "two lungs of the Church". We need each other.
Original Sin: This is an old polemic that doesn't accurately represent the Eastern view. St Augustine is considered a saint by the overwhelming majority of Easterners (including St Gregory Palamas). He's simply a less important one to us, in the same way that the Desert Fathers are less important to, but still venerated as saints in, the West. The "effects of sin" descriptor shouldn't be taken to imply crypto-Pelagianism; it's the "effects of" the sin of Adam. Also known as Original Sin. Salvation IS an unearned gift of God's grace, AND we must cooperate with that gift in order to be saved. When reflecting on how to "work out your salvation with fear and trembling", reflecting on the latter point more than on the former point (while not denying the former) is not Pelagianism, it's just the more grounded approach.
Simplicity: Even the Thomists agree that God's acts are uncreated; I'm surprised to learn Calvinists think Grace is a created thing. The East avoids speaking of God in positive attributes as a rule, preferring to say "what God is not" because our own concepts of power, justice, love, and eternity are flawed and finite and thus cannot actually capture the truth we're trying to convey with those words. That's not the same as denying that truth; it's a matter of being careful in expressing it. Essence and Energies will make a lot more sense if you mentally replace the word "Energies" with the word "Grace".
Theosis: Your point about "some part of us becoming uncreated" is exactly why the Energies/Essence distinction exists. We do not become uncreated, omnipotent, divinely simple, or otherwise gain any of the exclusively Divine attributes - this is what we mean by "we don't receive God's Essence." Again, when you hear "Divine Energies" think "Divine Grace". Though I'm still not sure what you mean by 'created grace': how can God's gift of himself be a created thing? It is an act, and thus has a beginning in time, but it is not created.
'There's no way to know if you're united enough to God' - Calvinism teaches the same thing though: you cannot know if you are elect. Also that's not why the Monastic vocation exists. "Martha, you are sore with many cares, but Mary has chosen the better part, and it will not be taken from her."
Sacrifice: The East does use the language of legal penalty, we just don't do it as often as the Reformed do. We spend more time meditating on the St Athanasius quote you put in this section as an accomplished fact, and striving to live in light of that fact; that's not the same as a denial that it happened or a claim that it wasn't absolutely necessary to satisfy Divine Justice.
Radical Theosis is the goal of Christian life. This is in the West too - St Theresa's 'Transforming Union' - Reformed theology's rejection of this point is the single biggest strike against it.
What an excellent comment, thank you.
Definitely have to digest this more, but very interesting.
I did once see an Eastern Orthodox refer to Augustine as “quasi-Calvinist”, which I find amusing since it would be the other way around. But, hey, there’s ignorant people everywhere. We don’t have the monopoly on snobbery.
Wow this is THE comment, man! A fascinating perspective and exposition. Cheers, man!
"Non-expert opinion" before dropping some of the most thought-provoking, rational theological wisdom ever conceived on UA-cam.
@@slaughtercrescent yeah 😅😂🔥. It’s one of the best comments I’ve ever read
Kyle’s going to be all over this 😂
What a joke of a youtuber. How can anyone take him serious?
@@traviswilson36 I disagree with Kyle but he's a good guy
Kyle is one of if not the best Christian youtuber I've watched. He exposes the reality of things in our modern world and strongly supports tradition @@traviswilson36
@@traviswilson36 ad hominem
@@redeemedzoomer6053His debate with you on his channel was pure garbage. It was edited to the point that it was impossible to take your side because there were 10 thousand Sigma Orthobro memes plastered all over the screen. A debate video should be neutral and let the viewer himself decide who he agrees with.
And by the way, i'm Catholic, i don't agree with either of you on many things.
Sorry, but as a Catholic I feel much closer to Orthodox.
They anathematize those who believe in filioque and Immaculate conception.
I mean, both are worshipping a statue, so no wonder
@@gamingthisera6339LOL
You guys feel that way, but the Orthobros don't kkk
I really recommend the video that Ready to Harvest made comparing 60 Differences between Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox. This video is being congratulated by Catholics and Orthodox as an objective and well-researched representation of their views. However, despite giving much more nuances, nothing he said was fundamentally different from what Redeemed Zoomer said here, he only presented it without issuing a personal critical opinion. So it's funny the Orthodox claim that their view was COMPLETELY misrepresented here and the Catholic claim that they are and have always been doctrinally closer to the Orthodox Church than to the Protestants.
I gre up Pentecostal and evangelical and decided to join Orthodoxy. Not because the Holy spirit only comes from God but because God is HOLY and the EO reverences God in a waybthe modern rock concert, female pastors, rainbowflags and"punt the bible" churches dont. I still have my eschatology that differs from the EOC, however i couldn't accept the blanket once saved always saved. (Walk out your salvation with fear and trembling) phil 2:12
Also the OC is a lot more lose on some of thoes definitions than you give them credit for. I won't speak to much on it because im just starting my Catechumen journey. That being said. This is one of the most welcoming churches I've ever been too. The community is great and I feel im at home at last. God bless.
Once saved always saved.
You think Jesus did a half-baked job when He died on the cross after enduring humiliation and beatings that would kill even the strongest and stoutest normal human?
Gotta side with the Orthodox on this one... the more we try to rationally arrive at God, his qualities, the dynamics of His nature, the more of a box we create for something ultimately incomprehensible. Kinda resent the fact that Catholicism neglects its own mystics. I sense more pride in intellectually trying to get it all sorted out than humbly resolving to the mystery like the East.
It really dosent because catholic mystics are its intellectuals.
Also it’s not the fact we can’t or can understand God, it’s the fact that the east separate God into parts which goes against the Bible and church fathers.
Last I checked, Eckhart, the Beguines, Teresa of Avila, Hildegard von Bingen, are treated more as historical anomalies with honorary titles if not brushed aside entirely as dangerous heretics than given any rightful study in Catholic tradition. Eastern Orthodoxy puts their mystics to the fore.
and so do you. you just call em persons. lolol The Trinity= ENEMY OF DIVINE SIMPLICITY! @@micoolkidfilms3270
It's not a matter of Pride to desire to know more of God and His creation. It's a desire to gain a greater understanding of Him so that we may be sure that we are not teaching things that go against His nature. A curiosity for the nature of Our creator is in no way incompatible with humility.
I agree. Honestly it is funny seeing the hard cope after the dyer debate.
When so much of the world is caught in conversation of war, politics, economics, celebrity...there is something blissfully refreshing about having ancient and timeless conversations around Theology! Doesn't matter what side you're on, it's such a great camaraderie of brothers and sisters in the charitable pursuit of Truth!
Underrated comment my friend
There has been a lot of bloodshed within Christianity about those topics. But I agree with you anyways.
When you choose a religion like it’s a sports team.
God chooses us
Have you watched the video? It's rather "Choosing a religion based on what makes most sense".
@@Benny-sw8xsit's not really what "makes the most sense" when you pick and choose arguments based on what you want to believe.
Redeemed zoomer and protestants in general believe in the infallibility of the Bible and that the Holy Spirit guided "the church" in doing so...but then the Holy Spirit stopped doing it, but then the Holy Spirit started guiding them again and so on.
That is not "what makes the most sense". If I wanted to believe that we live in perpetual rain I would only go out on rainy days and I would live in perpetual rain, but that doesn't mean that it rains 24/7.
The Redeemed zoomer believes that the Apostles had the Authority to dictate the doctrine of the Church and that no one who came after has that Authority (UNLESS OF COURSE IT FALLS IN LINE WITH HIS BELIEFES THEN ITS THE HOLY SPIRIT WORKING THROUGH WHOEVER DOES IT)
You can't have such a pick and choose world view and claim its based on logic or whatever.
What does he base his claims of the Holy Spirit guiding the Church here and there once every few hundreds years based on and how does he know when the Holy Spirit comes to guide or when the Holy Spirit stops guiding
Of course the moments just happen to coincide with every choice that lead to Presbyterianism, even though he doesn't admit it.
In that sense the arguments are on par with muslims saying the bible is corrupt(unless verses of the bible could align with their world view, as they like to quote the Bible to support their claims. Just like the Church is infallible as long as it leads to Presbyterianism)
@@stannicolae4623You are strawmaning. The church is not infallible and that is a central doctrine of protestantism. It is merely the question of Jesus resurection that has the most impact on whether christianity is true or not. And in that case the resurection is really credible.
@@Benny-sw8xs Protestantism makes the least sense. Rejecting Holy Tradition in favor of Protestantism is just a cope for not understanding the difference between Orthodoxy and Catholicism.
Despite these differences with our orthodox brethren, we will still find them in heaven with us ✝️❤️☦️
Only if they're predestined, though, right?
@@danbrookman8176is that a problem?
@@danbrookman8176yes Eph 1:1-6 that goes for all
To bad their historical position is that you are outside of the "Ark" and will go to Hell and they have this same view of the Catholics. If you don't believe in the filioque you will burn forever despite believing in Jesus (they really believe in that). They have a really corrupted gospel.
so you agree with the pope blessing same sex marriages?@@drjanitor3747
As Baptist as I may lean, I strongly suggest you provide sources. A lot of these claims misrepresent our EO brothers. Either you didn't do deep enough research/study or you're deliberately misrepresenting EO theology. I'm opting for the former, but please provide sources and don't make broad sweeping statements that are more opinionated than factual.
Edit: For example, don't say "EO believes in x," not provide any source, then provide a source to substantiate your Presbytarian view on the matter. It's dishonest and lacks due diligence.
What he got wrong specifically?
@@pedroguimaraes6094 The purpose of monasticism, the Orthodox view on Augustine, the source of the Great Schism, the Orthodox view on the Filioque, and the Orthodox theology on original sin, for starters.
As a baptist who is in the word I dont really see what all this fuss is about. I had never even heard of these terms like Filloque and all that until I watched redeemed zoomers videos, as a baptist I know my bible pretty well, not as good as many but I have read it cover to cover and I have been going to church for about 45 years.
What I cant understand from these huge catholic and orthodox churches is where they get the idea that they need to have their priests dress up in these robes, Jesus didnt do things like that. Catholics and Orthodox have a lot of man made traditions and dont many of them like to be called "father or teacher" didnt Jesus warn us to not go with people like that?
Catholics pray to mary which is unbiblical at best and satanic at worst. Orthodox dont believe in original sin, which is again unbiblical. Seems to me catholics are lost these days and have been lost in the past with popes who support sin like sale of indulgences and also the current pope is a joke who believes all people of all religions go to heaven, basically making Jesus out to be a liar as Jesus says he is the only way.
I also think the body and bread is meant to be metaphorical just like Peter himself was not an actual rock.
Orthodox with funny robes and mystical experiences and no original sin make me think of them as Buddhist types who want a new age or a charismatic Pentecostal type experience.
for me I like a good conservative baptist church or missionary alliance or mennonite brethren but the greatest teachers I have had are my mother, Cs lewis, and Jesus and also my many sins have taught me how corrupted I am and how I need a savior.
You will have to forgive me I gave up lust about 7 days ago and I gave up an opiate habit that was killing me 13 months ago so I think I have a bit of a manic thing going where I dont feel like such a traitor and hypocrite to my precious Jesus anymore.
In the end I think most denominations will help lead people to christ but I feel the newer conservative ones are more evolved, I may be wrong but I like churches that are in the word and sending out missionaries instead of the focus being on sacraments and man made traditions.
with all that said may all my brothers and sisters in christ be fully awakened that we are in end times and we need to stick together in love and unity.
@@planes3333 May God bless you abundantly. Hold fast to Jesus and patiently endure. I hope to see you on the other side ✝️
@@jty1999 Amen I think we will see each other in paradise. God is so good.
As a Catholic, I would say I feel much closer to Eastern Orthodoxy than any other "denomination". They have valid apostolic succession, valid sacraments and a beautiful liturgy. I truly believe the Catholic church and Eastern Orthodox church are the two lungs of the Church.
If you ignore everything he said in the video and all the dynamic disagreements, and just focus on the shiny bells and whistles... sure.
@@KevinSmile Eastern Orthodox Church is the oldest Church in the world established by Jesus Christ. Every other denomination is heretical
@@tvojamama4888 Eastern Orthodoxy is just a bunch of babies crying about creeds being changed because “the church doesn’t have the authority to expand upon doctrine” while also brushing off scripture, a book written by the most important prophets and apostles, as less authoritative than the Church. Since y’all obviously can’t reason with basic logic, let me spell it out for you: If the Church has more authority then scripture(which was written by prophets and apostles) simply because they composed it, then the Church also has the authority to expand upon doctrine and creeds that they CREATED, and weren’t even written by people as important as the prophets and apostles.
A valid apostolic succession is only a thing if you think Peter founded Catholicism, which he didn’t.
@@tvojamama4888huh?
You somewhat misrepresent Orthodoxy. We the Orthodox hold nothing against St Augustine except on the topic of original vs ancestral sin. Augustine is venerated as Venerable Augustine, as opposed to St Augustine. Many other among the Fathers of the Church are regarded as Venerable and not as Saints. That is only because we consider that some had a greater influence in Orthodox life than others, e.g. those who composed the liturgies are considered Saints. Nonetheless, Venerable Augustine has a feast day in the Orthodox Church calender and is much liked I would say for many of his writings except for those attacking pelagianism. Whether the Pelagian belief is the correct or incorrect one, it is certainly for the Church to decide not for a youtube video. On the issue that the Western Churches were prominent in countries where the scientific revolution took place, it ignores the unfortunate historical fact that from the Renaissance onwards and for about two centuries including the time of the scientific revolution, there was no real independent Orthodox country. Most Orthodox Christians lived under Islamic states or under the Mongols. They often had no schools, let alone universities, and were reluctant to engage in activities that would help their Islamic overlords against the free Christians. During the Renaissance many Eastern Christians fled to the West and that was how ideas of Aristotle and other philosophers became known to the West. The ideas of the 4 states of matter (solids, liquids, gases and energy) was an idea of classical antiquity, the conjecture of an ether for light transmission was considered in antiquity, the question of whether void can be said to exist, atomism, field theory and other physical phenomena such as that sound is due to pressure waves, meteorology, etc, were in public knowledge depending on someone's education and in the society to varying degrees. Calculus was used by Aristotle in an attempt to solve Zeno's paradox. Static electricity was rediscovered after the Renaissance, more than 2000 years after its first description. Charles Darwin mentioned in his Origin of the Species that the several key facts of the theory of evolution, except for natural selection, were known since antiquity and explicitly mentioned Aristotle. These rediscoveries were subsequently attributed to western scientists as if they had discovered them for the first time and as if the rest of the Christian world was ignorant of them.
God's essence and energies is the distinction between axiom and theorem. The three persons of the trinity are axioms. But the world exists and it is not a fantasy and much can be measured and it is not axiomatic. What proceeds from these 3 axioms are the energies of God. It is not correct to say that Orthodoxy is mystical. Quite the opposite: to say we can understand the three axioms, the persons of the Trinity, is irrational. To understand the first cause, one would have to understand its cause, by definition. But the first cause of logos is an axiom, it does not have a cause. Theosis means to many Orthodox like myself that the two parts of the Great Commandment have to be seen as a unit, as stated. That equality among humans and, therefore, compassion, humility, forgiveness, etc is what it means to "believe in God". To come closer to God (theosis) is to live a Christian life, which in the East means to live in the model of Christ, showing compassion, humility and forgiveness and an understanding that human equality is due to logos and not due to legislation and human rights charters. To live a life of compassion is what means to believe in God, it is what we usually mean by theosis. But in the West, belief in God evokes somehow a belief in all kinds of irrelevant things, like what it says in the Book of Genesis read literally like a 5-year old child might read who has read nothing else. The book of God is all around us. We only need to look around. The Old Testament is there for context regarding the life of Christ and the rise of Christianity. It was written before Christianity even was thought of. To idolise it and ignore reality and reason and above all compassion and equality of human beings because something different is said in the Old Testament (eye for an eye, superior races) is the opposite of true belief in a Christian God. The Old Testament was not produced in a printing press on Paradise, it was written by men, inspired to write about God rather than about food or fishing. They created a culture and a belief system that culminated into Christianity, however, none of those authors was a Christian. The authors of the New Testament were all Christians and were in the body of the Christian Church. There are no Old Testament saints, whichever type of Christianity you ascribe to.
Saint Elijah! :D
This comment section bouta be crazy
I see lots of people saying that but I don't see any craziness.
Yeah nah you're on a hype train bro. No fighting here. I think he's wrong. But I'm not versed enough on christian theology to debate why. But orthodox wins out to me for a few reasons, but the biggest is consistency, politics and aesthetics. They've changed the least, the nation's who follow them are more devout and real in their faith. And it's not a cringefest like evangelical protestantism, or a pedophilia enabling church who's leader parties with trannies in the vatican. Such a disgrace both of them are to me. I'll only accept baptism from an orthodox father, because the truth speaks in their works and actions. I don't see any catholic saints these days, and protestants are more predisposed to cult leaders than saints.
Hey Zoomer, this video reminded me there is a denomination or something along the lines called "Eastern Protestantism" that's basically protestantism with eastern christian features and I've wondered when you'll make a video about it. God bless!
Those groups are so small that I suspect it’s hard to find info on them, aside from cursory level stuff. From the limited amount of info I can find, they are essentially Presbyterians larping as Orthodox.
I've seen Eastern Rite Lutherans in Ukraine.
There are a crap load of Pentecostals all over east Europe too. I grew up in it and even served in it for almost a decade before I came home to The True Church.☦️
3:55 again this is very wrong and ignorant. The oldest university in Europe, the University of Magnavra, operated in Constantinople, in the Orthodox Byzantine Empire, and taught theology.
Thank you! 👍🏻
I know this is quite random, but I really love your videos. I was raised in a very wicked home, my farther was an alcoholic and my mother was emotionally distant. Yet I couldn’t resist God’s grace and kindness and kindness came to him. My life has truly changed since, still can’t go to church but every single time I get home from school, I binge watch your Kingdomcraft series while playing Call of Duty. Thanks, you’ve truly changed my perspective on Theology and Christianity as a whole! I even escaped Nestorianism thanks to you. God bless you! I can’t thank you enough!!!
As a Catholic, no, I know terminally online eastern orthodox are malevolent with catholics, but we are closer to them in many ways despiter our differences than protestants, with expetion of papacy, filioque, type of bread and malevolence of e-orthodox and e-trads
No, as a catholic, we are much closer to Protestants in Doctrine than we are to Eastern Orthodox. Especially in doctrine that actually matters in understanding the state of God and Christ, like the Filioque. The Holy Spirit not proceeding from the Son and the Father itself is borderline heresy to many in the Church. This doesn't mean I dislike or don't respect Orthos (many Orthodox figures I greatly respect), but I think you blankly declaring that Catholics being closer to Orthos than Protestants is born out of apparent similarities, and your bias towards more traditionally organized faith structures. In other words, plain bias.
I mean, it's obvious why. Protestantism formed from Catholicism nearly 500 years after the Great Schism. No wonder why Protestantism nearly mirror Catholicism in theology.
@@crusaderman4043the only thing we are close to is the apostolic succession and sacraments. Protestants broke the apostolic succession and rejected e.g. transubstantiation.
Based, you get it @crusaderman4043
@@crusaderman4043 I disagree, orthodoxs and catholics despite our differences, who are not small, have apostolic sucession, don't adhere to the protestant bias, we respect the main ecumenical councils before 1054, we have monastic life, we give more importance to other patristc authors other than St. Augustine and St. Athanasius (like St. Jerome, St. Ignatius of Lyon, St. Polycarp of Smyrna, St. Justin Martin, the first popes after Peter), they know that the autority after Christ and His apostles are the church that confirms the bible and not the other way around, the veneration of the saints and their relics who are testimony to God's action on earth, a more stable church hierarchy and the respect for the bishops, specially the good ones, usually the bad bishops of that time walk with sinners to try bring sin to the church and not their salvation of their souls, etc., you say I have bias, but the only point of difference you noted are the filioque, and while the prots agree with us in that, they only agree on us on fewer things than them
and no, protestantism (mostly, specially the calvinist branch of protestantism, the lutheran is pretty much dead because the nations who had them are basically atheists and in the US the lutheran migrants went to other protestant denominations or liberalized the lutheranism, maybe in africa and slovakia will find lutheranism much more alive) does not mirror catholicism in theology, if they did that, the protestantism would be basically high-church anglicanism
I can undestand that if you are from a catholic nation bordering russia and does not come from the US or Latin America who have some prots who are obnoxious and quite anti-theological
@@crusaderman4043 how about eastern catholics? Aren't they closer to Orthodoxy?
It is interesting to note that the Catholic Church doesn't really have issues with the theology and traditions of Orthodox Churches as the Eastern Catholic Churches are nearly identical to their Orthodox counterparts. The main problem is that the need to be distinct from the Catholic Church causes the Orthodox Churches to draw much harsher lines of distinction than they should. The need for distinction and distinctiveness has hampered the Orthodox Church as they proselytize to other cultures and languages. Western Christians, both Catholic and Protestant, are much better at spreading Christianity. It's telling that this current renaissance of Orthodox Churches going on now is driven by Western Christians seeking the East rather than the East actively drawing the West in.
I suspect that the reason it seems that way in the West is because Orthodoxy is still a foreigner, particularly in America. We also have a very different idea of what evangelism is. Couple that with the fact that Protestantism doesn’t exists in native Orthodox lands, you find yourself with two groups that have only recently gained experience interacting with one another, which makes the foreigner seem hesitant to reach out. And one last point, we see western culture as trash (for lack of a better word) and therefore refuse (and will continue to refuse) to assimilate. Very interesting take.
That's mostly because of the Soviet Union. If the Russian empire never fell, evangelizing efforts would have been far greater.
Orthodox reject immaculate conception of Mary which is a belief papal infalliablity was used to uphold. So there is a major doctrinal difference there between Catholic and orthodox. Catholics think the church has more authority than the Bible since the church compiled the Bible, orthodox see it as equal, and Protestants think the church has less authority than the Bible. So in reality orthodox is a midpoint between Catholics and Protestants with them slightly leaning towards Catholics and them slightly being skewed with their own ideas of the fillioque for example.
The Catholic Church can’t effectively evangelise people, the only way they’ve evangelised large amounts of people is through the use of power and influence.
Even today the vast majority of Catholics are Catholic because it’s basically a cultural and hereditary religion. Similar to orthodoxy (though they’ve barely left their exile)
Protestants on the other hand have been much more effective at evangelism, just look at British colonies.
@@voxlknight2155not really, the church in Russia have been puppets ever since they established it their. And the Greeks have their church as prisoners in an Islamic country.
(I’m not gonna use the God exiling them argument btw)
As an orthodox catechumen, let me say, my brother in Christ I love you.
He's not our brother in Christ. He's outside the church.
@@adamkrejci5469even worse, he's actively fighting against the church. ☦️
he isnt in christ but he is our brother much love to him
The Filioque is NOT biblical.
As an Orthodox Christian, we believe that "the holy spirit proceeds from the father THROUGH the son". In FACT, THIS IS THE CATHOLIC OFFICIAL POSITION on the matter.
We just disagree with its inclusion in the Creed, not only because it is ambiguous (instead of the more clear: "from the father through the son"), but because the pope added it single-handedly, without consulting the other patriarchs or an ecumenical council, something he did not have the power to do so.
yeah, i dont like how RZ just skimmed over that, he has talked with orthodox people about this before, he knows better, this is just a strawman
the bias shows
Dwong have countless church fathers who believe in the filioque on his channel, Orthodox are wrong and teach heresy
Catholics believe The Holy Spirit proceeds from Father THROUGH the Son?
I'm pretty sure we believe that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son. "Filioque" literally means "and the Son".
@@harrisonsamson some Catholics say that they are different words that have same meaning, im guessing what they mean is that they both involve the Son in the procession
At the end of the debate with dyer he said he enjoyed talking to you and liked you as a person and said he’d be down to talk again, it would be cool to see a pt 2
jay dyer would absolutely tear RZ to shreds for making such a slanderous video.
@stephenlee3406 Yall should check out Jay Dyer's response to this video.
I grew up Dutch Reformed and joined the Orthodox Church in my early 20s, I still have a lot of love for the Reformed Church in many of its aspects, and I don't mean to sound harsh here, but as someone who has lived both the Orthodox and Reformed worldview I can say that you don't get Orthodoxy yet. Every time you comment on Orthodoxy it comes off as: 1. Only having a cursory understanding of Orthodoxy, being dismissive and condescending (I don't blame you for the latter though considering how the Orthodox online treat you). and 2. Very heavily from a Western Lens. The First point is something that you can get over relatively easily by reading more in depth Orthodox theological works. The second point is something that would be much more difficult for you.
I don't believe you're claiming to be unbiased when talking about Orthodoxy but I know you're honest enough to try and give an accurate representation, which is not something that can be done when you're limiting yourself to viewing Orthodoxy from an academic lens. When you dissect a creature, it is killed, its blood is drained, and you take it apart. From this you can only learn things about its anatomy and some general understanding of its lifestyle, but you cannot learn anything in depth about its life. Orthodoxy is the same way, you're not getting it because you're viewing it from an outside perspective rather than attempting to understand it as a living Faith and worldview.
His theological arguments don't bother me because even though I do not agree with them they are competent, what I don't like about his views on Orthodoxy is that he always tries to put Orthodoxy in this kind of backwards zen buddhist mysticism full of dogmatics who are scared of knowledge and science
Orthodox here i do enjoy a lot of his content but yeah his understanding of the orthodox church is very one sided, and i don't think he has ever talked with an Orthodox Christian about anything as he had one of the worst takes i have ever seen also i don't think catholic or reformists would be very happy with him either if he misinterpreted misrepresented and dismissed your religion as he does with the orthodox
Cool we can believe you or Ex orthodox priests and others . Take Care.
You have to rebuke his arguments, literally all his arguments are facts for now unless you debunk it. You can only change his views if you debunk his views.
Why worship statues
This video is more "Protestantism vs Eastern Orthodoxy" than "Western vs Eastern Christianity". The Catholic Church does have a Byzantine Rite with the same theology as the Orthodox, so one cannot say all Catholics agree with one form of theology and all Orthodox with another. Also, the Bible sure uses a legal vocabulary in its English translations, but that doesn't mean a lot - languages of Orthodox countries do not use those words. This is a purely Protestant argument, based off of sola scriptura, and not Catholic.
Original sin very closely tied to the Orthodox belief of ancestral sin. In short, the sin of Adam is as a pregnant woman smoking; the child will bare his mother's consequences, but it's not directly their fault. And yes, the West built universities during the Middle Ages, but interesting you don't mention the fact that, during the same time, the East was financially demolished by constantly defending the entire continent from Islam, not receiving aid, but often hinderance, from the West.
So, proving these complex theological differences by using Bible quotes with varying translations is lazy and straight up wrong. The Church produced the Bible to begin with, and picking out Western translations to support Western theology is a no-brainer. It truthfully is a shame Western Christians get all their knowledge of Orthodoxy via Reddit, as Zoomer unfortunately does in his pinned comment. "By their fruit you will know them" - come on dude...
@@KauahdhdhdTo be fair catholicism doesn't necessarily believe in an inherited guilt(reatus culpa), but rather in an inherited punishment(reatus poena).
Disagree about legal terms. In the Ukrainian translation, an Orthodox country and made by the Orthodox Ohiyenko, it does use legal terms and stuff like that
We need an in depth video about oriental orthodoxy (Coptic)
I doubt you want someone to misrepresent your faith as bad as RZ does to us Eastern Orthodox here
He didn't even get EO correct. Why ask him to misinform you about something else?
Orthodox convert in the West here! Great video, this will be an awesome resource to explain the difference to curious friends and family who are confused about what I’ve joined and what sets us apart. Loved the analysis, Lord Jesus Christ bless you and have mercy on us all!
You’re very correct on how different we are…
Filioque is more biblical?? 😂😂😂 it’s not about the Son not sending the spirit… It’s about the procession of the spirit. I don’t know why this continues to be glossed over by the West.
To be fair I used to think it was about sending as well. I am unsure how this misconception is spread around as well.
Laughing at people is always the surest way to win them over
Isn't that what he says though?
What is the difference between the son sending the spirit and procession of the spirit? Unfortunately I havent heard of this difference before
@@regularlug9536 proccession is the source and sending is just the action. Proccession is from Father, the essence of God which was not seen directly by human experience. Orthodoxy makes more sense, westernes don't understand the metaphors like this, is named Father because it has that role of the root, not because it is a literally regular father which do father things.
RZ led me to EO
Same
Seems like western propaganda to me.
Seems like eastern cope
@@dasselbe2521 no one cares about heretic barbarians
😂
@@tasa5463i wouldn't call them barbarians
As a Protestant, I do naturally believe we are right, but I would like it better if this video portrayed all of us as right in a way, cuz at the end of the day we are all Christians and will receive salvation, so why fight?
You clearly do as you responded
As a former Roman Catholic, one of the reasons to explain why I converted to Orthodoxy was because it was a way closer faith than one out the 9,999 Protestant denominations. ☦
From one organization with a false gospel to the next
@@bill-yq7lo congratulations, thank God for giving us translators who also read Greek to translate Gods word into English so more can read His word with out having to learn a whole other foreign language to be able to read the Gospel for them selves. I guess my main issue with your gospel is that it’s not The Gospel.
@@Dewfasathat’s called an a priori assumption or begging the question.
You don’t understand the Gospel in Orthodoxy and so you’re only recourse being that’s it’s filtered to you with a romaphobic bias is to presume it’s false simply because it doesn’t align with your Protestant traditions’ own interpretation of the gospel. Congratulations you proved nothing’
@@icxcnika7722 I mean you sound smart with your words. But we all have presuppositions, and that’s ok. so happens I think yours is wrong, you think mine is wrong. What matters is what the Bible really says. If you read the Bible you can know the true Gospel. I don’t follow protestant history or a Church and its dogmatical views. I follow Gods word. I happen to see that implemented through out history sure. I see many who trust a church hijacked by Roman traditions, pagan traditions, man made.
I don’t have to prove anything other than what you can read for your self in Gods word. We all must do that. Not just a man in cloth telling you what he reads.
@@Dewfasa lol bro, such a clown take.
You appeal to your own interpretation of the Bible to condemn orthodoxy and then in the same comment attack priests…that’s circular logic and a self defeating epistemology.
We need you on Tiktok and Instagram because you do a good job in this area. There are so many Orthodox and Catholic polemicists on these platforms who are misleading people.
The Orthodox Church does not disagree with scripture, rather they understand it differently than the west does as the East has a more complex view of ontology, where as the west adopted a more platonic view of ontological philosophy which is why things like the filioque developed later in the west when the papal throne rose to primacy and not earlier when the juristrictions where more equal between the east and west. this video is borderline slanderous since you have completely removed Orthodoxy's linguistical and philosophal understanding on doctrines and just placed that they either "dislike" or "disagree" with YOUR view of church history and scripture.
“The Bible is very clear, Whenever Jesus forgives someone, it’s before he asks them To cooperate with God not after”. The literal two verses you put on the screen show Jesus reacting to the believers. “When he saw his faith…” and “because she loved much…”. lol. I wouldn’t say YOUR position is very clear. Key word is YOUR position.
TYFYS… you debunked a good deal of Protestantism with one paragraph
Hopefully one or two of them will actually care
True. When He healed people, he often said "Your faith has saved you".
I love how RZ studiously avoids the one verse that clearly shows that the procession of the Holy Spirit, which has to do with the eternal relations between the divine Persons, is from the Father alone--while He is sent on His mission to convict the world of sin, righteousness, and judgement--which is about the relation between God and mankind--by the Father and the Son.
"But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me." (John 15:26)
RZ has already talken about it. It does not say is from the fathers alone, It just says it is from the father. We agree with that. But other biblical verses also say it is from the son too.
So the verse you just cited states it is sent from both the Son and the Father? Crazy.
@@pedroguimaraes6094The Son also sends the Spirit, but this is different than a eternal procession. The Spirit is sent first by the Father, through the Son.
@@pedroguimaraes6094 Did you even read my post? Do you have a problem with reading comprehension? Read it again! I handled your objection before you even objected!
@@crusaderman4043 Did you even read my post? Do you have a problem with reading comprehension? Read it again! I handled your objection before you even objected!
God bless all of you brothers and sisters in Christ ❤
Arrogance is not in Christ@@drjanitor3747
Hello brother!
i would like to apologize for any comment you have recived by Eastern Orthodox belivers that were critical and mocking you in some way. I am Eastern Orthodox and the video you have made has some great arguments, but in the end of the day, we belive that Jesus is God and we are brothers and sisters beliving in the same faith, just beliving in different denominations. ✝︎♥︎☦︎
May God bless you!
Exactly! God bless you brother
THANK YOU!!
A True orthodox. One who doesnt condemn, but understands and knows we are all saved by the promise Jesus made that is to simply have faith that he payed for our faults and transgressions and to come into repentance of sin.
@@xHollow. youre making the same argument an atheist would "i know what a true Christian is, youre not a true Christian"
@@hippios fr
I'm not even EO but on every comment criticizing rz this same guy basically says they're going to hell, but on every comment that agrees with rz he says "you're not like those mean orthodox"
Based 💯🔥🗿🗿🗿✝️✝️✝️✝️✝️
This video is great as a Catholic. We don’t view different opinions as being against Christ but our brothers in Christ. Would we like everyone to be Catholic? Sure, the word means universal, but we Catholics value traditions more than many other Christians. It all depends on your viewpoint. I would never say a Protestant or Orthodox Christian is denied the kingdom of Heaven. That is not in my power as a created being. I just want people to know Christ our savior and our judge. God bless all my brothers in Christ. Thank you for this video 🙏
amen, coming from a protestant here :)
"we catholics value traditions more than many other christians"
the roman catholic church has destroyed and spit on its own traditions and own history more in the past 150 years than any other
modern roman catholicism values its own traditions the least of any church.
your pope prays with non christians, blesses gay couples (ie. gay unions), spits on missionary work says its evil, rewrites history and dogma to fit with the modernist liberal order yet you claim he values tradition? you claim he is infallible?
and yes you do claim this, because if you reject the pope and papal infallibility you are a schism of roman catholicism
catholic gal here, Amen
At least you admit that. Orthodox Christians unironically think non orthos are going to hell because they don't go to the same church as them.
This video has 3K likes, and over 6K dislikes.... something is off
how can you see the dislikes?
@@kyriacostheofanous1445 There is a browser extension that returns the dislike count
@@DruckerYTAthat extension is not accurate
@@redeemedzoomer6053 yeah I realized that, I saw your community tab post.
He was beyond incorrect about EO.
2:06 no, it's not just that. It was because they added without conferring with a council which was done by the orthodox. Also none of the scripture cited actually shows the "proceeds" part. For example Jesus breathing can't mean procedure because it would mean creation and that's not what procedure mean in the creed. Another point is that previously you yourself said that the old creed is not wrong because the spirit does proceed from the father, but then how come you say now it's unbiblical?
The entire bit about western reason is well Eurocentric and plainly wrong. These things happened concurrently with scholasticism not simply because of it. That's an idealistic way of looking at history which has been obsolete for quite some time. The decline of islam and the east wasn't because of religion,, it arguably had more to do with the Mongols or the fact that Byzantium was you know sacked by the very much enlightened west for very enlightened reasons. In a nutshell this part reeks of historical ignorance.
A lot of the rest is biblical quotes trying to show how biblical the west is while to showing any counter argument m I mean why bother make a video comparing stuff if you're not comparing anything. This is more of an explanation than of western position than anything else
That, and John 15:26 literally says that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father. Scripture couldn’t be clearbe clearer.
@@cassidyanderson3722
"“When the Advocate comes, whom I will send to you from the Father-the Spirit of truth who goes out from the Father-he will testify about me."
It very clearly states that it proceeds from both the Father and the Son. Why else would Jesus state that He will send the Advocate from the Father? Why not say the Father will send the Advocate?
Procession from the Latin root procedere means to "move forth," which is clearly done so by both the Father and the Son.
@@crusaderman4043 You are confusing the issue. Even the Orthodox agree that Christ can send the HS and that the HS proceeds through Christ. That’s not what Constantinople was addressing - read the canons. BTW, we read the NT in Greek, not an English translation of a Latin translation.
The Bible barely even references the Trinity . The most explicit verse … the johannine comma is infamously known to be a scribal addition a couple of hundred years later ( even fundamentalist Christian scholars don’t try to deny it .. look at the footnotes in your Bible )
The Trinity is a mystery and the only sin is to think you know something about it
And you guys are reading way too much much into these verses .
@@keenanmiller6231 Genesis 18-19
Kyle just dopped a video responding on this. Yall need to watch it to clear up all the misconceptions from this video
Augustine also defended the idea of Father alone, I think I read someplace that he "experimented" and wrote down a lot of guesses as what the Trinity could be (that's why he defends the filioque in some writings and goes against it on thers)
You know who else was against Augustine? St. Lucifer.
No, I'm not joking.
Kyle, please dont hold back this time...
The annoying kid is clueless. Stop supporting Kyle.
@@traviswilson36ok
@@traviswilson36 Ur sad hes right?
@@АјдеЗвездодајголUr? Ur? Way to eliminate any credibility you once had. Learn to spell.
@@traviswilson36 You need more evidence than an Ad Hominem fallacy.
I am a Protestant that is planning on converting to Orthodoxy☦️♥️
Ditto
LCMS Lutheran - and I am struggling right now between aligning between the three. I love my congregation, but seeing how the lack of Church unity had led to some pretty non-Christian beliefs becoming mainline is hard.
Sorry to hear that
Go to Holy Catholicism
Same ☦️🙏🏾🩷
First time I've left a dislike on one of Redeemed Zoomer's videos. I'm friends with a group of Orthodox monks and count the abbot as a mentor, and his slander of monks as "people who sit on mountains because they are afraid they haven't done enough" is abominable.
Anyone who wants to learn what Orthodoxy is actually about instead of this caricature RZ presents should read "The Orthodox Church" and "The Orthodox Way" by Kallistos Ware, late of Great Britain.
I was quite shocked at this video too.
zoomer is ass hurt because jay dyer schooled him. i like zoomer, i think hes a good guy and a good christian but hes pride is getting to him.@@oskarchyc-mulik4054
Yes, the Eastern Church avoided the Original Sin doctrine because it realized it's kind of a monstrous and inhumane view of humanity.
The idea of original sin damning miscarried babies is basically declaring that god is less merciful than even the most uptight of judges on earth.
@catholictruth102Dante's theology reference?
@catholictruth102 What have babies done to not go to heaven? How does one sin in the womb?
@@stephenlee3406 THIS. Imagine being a spirit awakening in outer darkness and never even knowing anything else. If God does that, I don't want to know, because my human mind cannot comprehend an All-Good being doing that. If he does, I don't want to know.
What did the early church do for 300-400 years before the bible was formalized?
When they weren't being persecuted..
Dealt (or attempted to deal) with heresies (Origenism, Apollinarism, Nestorianism, Arianism, Gnosticism, Marcionism etc.)
Formation of Doctrine and Tradition (Confession, Eucharist being the flesh of Christ, and Baptism - mentioned in the Didache, Trinity. Read the epistles of early Church Fathers like Ignatius of Antioch and St. Augustine of Hippo)
Evangelism (e.g. converting of 3000 people by St. Peter circa 30AD)
Read Church History by Eusebius of Caesarea
Well it's not like the church didn't start reading from the Biblical texts until after it was formally canonized and compiled into one book if that's what you're getting at.
The OT canon was long established before Jesus. The Christian churches read and passed around Paul's epistles and the Gospels starting in the 1st century. You can see this in the Apostolic Fathers referencing canonical Scripture.
thank you, you just gave me more arguments against western theology, now after ive seen these points and immediately found ways to prove them wrong. post more videos like this so i can learn to fight western theology even better!
Universities come from Byzantium not the west
East makes more sense, sorry
read about it , east denies logic and chooses mysticism east doesn't make sense , not evin to its self
@@zerowork7631 Poor spelling and punctuation while ignorantly scandalizing the Church? Lord have mercy.
@@zerowork7631use “,” correctly it is hurting my eyes
@@zerowork7631give me an example
@@zerowork7631the East doesn't "deny logic" also God said to not "lean on your own understanding" because God is above his own logic. I'm not trying to say you shouldn't use your brain or believe that logic doesn't exist as God did create order and logic. I'm just trying to say that's why the East leans more into mysticism. In short God defies logic and logic isn't a useful tool in determining which religion is "more correct" as God exists outside of his own logic and because of that no logic you can apply will ever lead directly to God or will be able to explain what God is or isn't hence why the Eastern Orthodox don't like the wests "oversimplified" view of God either.
"We cannot know him naturally except by reaching him from his effects [energies], it follows that the terms by which we denote his perfection must be diverse, as also are the perfections which we find in things. If, however, we were able to understand his very essence as it is, and to give him a proper name, we should express him by one name only. And this is promised to those who will see him in his essence."
-St. Thomas Aquinas, SCG1.C31.5
effects are not energies ...
"to those who will see him in his essence"...
@@planteruines5619 those who see him in his essence are those who have passed and achieved the beatific vision, Thomas Aquinas and Scotus both believed in an essence energies distinction, but not a “real” essence energy distinction such as the eastern Hetrodox believe
@@CyrilYajujah ok
yeah but its virtual not proper @@CyrilYajuj
Bro, Alex O'Connor did a breakdown response to your video, that's awesome! Blessings
I'd love to hear a conversation about these two. Though, I must admit, Alex is one of the sharpest minds I've ever hear speak.
Mad respect for the amount of work I know it takes to make one of these 10 minute videos.
This was perhaps the WORST representation of Orthodox theology I’ve ever seen. I’ve seen Muslims with more accurate understanding of Christianity than this
no its accurate, its 100% how I have seen orthodox act in real life.
No, it's quite accurate.
@@Nonz.M Let me guess: You're not Orthodox.
go to your lgbtq churches let ur heretic pope add more stuff to the bible 😂@@richardbug3094
@@richardbug3094 As an Orthodox christian, this is so far from what is taught. Whether people live it out well is different. As is true with any faith or form of Christianity
The comments are very interesting to read
Im Orthodox Russian man
And i think of west and east church as the 2 lungs
It would be a great day when the churches will come together again in union and love so the body can breath fully with both of its lungs once again
Amen
Why wasn't the Filioque added in the first place? Why did it take 700 years? How much do the Oriental Orthodox side with the Eastern?
Most of the teachings we have are similar with the eastern orthodox (I'm oriental orthodox) except things like the essence energy distinction. We don't believe that the holyspirit proceeds from the son. I'm not sure about the explicit teaching of the divine simplicity.
@@ionictheist349that why God use the catholic church to evangelise the world and not the eastern church, Dwong got countless quotes from the early church fathers believeing in the filioque on his channel
In one of the early Ecumenical Councils it was decreed that the Nicene Creed may never be changed. Even if we Orthodox wished in an act of goodwill to agree to the filiogue, it cannot be done. There is theological justification why the filioque is not in the Creed: see ua-cam.com/video/dTcoYAvARoo/v-deo.html
The biggest problem I have with Eastern mysticism and anti-scholasticism is that you always need some scholasticism to justify mysticism.
Kyle about to mop the floor 💀
And Jay Dyer as well bro. The Orthodox movement is spreading my guy🔥🔥
@Joel_Greyling05 except it isn't...
@@wesmorgan7729 why do you say that?
@doomslayer3076 if you look at several surveys, Eastern Orthodox church attendance is declining
@@wesmorgan7729 Growing in the US and Iran
Buddy, a month ago you literally commented under a video about Monarchy of the Father the following statement - "thank you for perfectly and fairly representing the Reformed position". And now you're criticizing it? Decide young boy or stop confusing people if you can't take a firm stand on these theological differences.
6:03 no, I don't think it's exactly like that. Sure, Orthodox Christians don't believe in original sin, we believe that after Christ rose from the dead, he saved us then and there from that. But we still believe that all people sin in their lives and that everyone is a sinner. So idk where you're getting that from but you need to check your sources because that's a strawman argument
You chose intellectual way of understanding the unknowable things and now the result is decay of the faith and the most atheist society.
Well done, West.
That is sola scriptura's fault, the west prospered under Catholicism. Protestantism brought degradation. You were so close bro try again.
I converted to Orthodoxy after the long search of Protestant churches. Life’s been changed🤯 CHRISTO ANESTI !!
man the arguments against theosis, original/ancestral sin and Christ's sacrifice are just so bad and misrepresentative of what Orthodoxy believes. this is your pride at work and I suggest you pray and do better.
also "orthodoxy not intellectual and too esoteric for spending life in prayer" is such a non-argument. intellectualism wont save your "church" from the demons of modernism. humbleness and introspection will.
of course, im not saying logic and rationale arent good for Christianity. it's what brought me into the flock after all.
God bless.
It was the Pope who separated the west from the rest of the Church, not the other way around, and I say this as a Protestant.
I haven’t done all the research myself but if Orthodoxy is true Orthodoxy then that seems to be the case
The Orthodox' official position on the Pope is that he is first among equals, and yet the Bishop of Constantinople excommunicated the Pope. To this day, they hold that the Bishop of Rome is first among equals due to being the successor to Peter, and yet they reject his authority entirely. The Catholics have initiated talks to heal the Schism every single time. For more info, look into Second Council of Lyons and Council of Florence.
Correct. It was purely political. Matthew 16:23
@@bradyhayes7911 learn what equal means.
@@bradyhayes7911 Hello. Actually Pope Leo IX never excommunicated the Patriarch of Constantinople. French Cardinal Humbert of Silva Candida was the person to excommunicate the Patriarch of Constantinople. Pope Leo IX died during the negotiation process and Cardinal Humbert somehow deduced he had the authority to excommunicate the Patriarch of Constantinople. On July 16, 1054 Cardinal Humbert walked into the Hagia Sophia and excommunicated the Patriarch and his clergy. The Patriarch of Constantinople retaliated by excommunicating Cardinal Humbert and the 2 other Latin legates involved in the negotiation process. This of course escalated quickly and the end result was the seperation of Rome from the other 5 Holy Sees (the other Sees being Constantinople, Jerusalem, Antioch, and Alexandria).
I've only had a small amount of interactions with Eastern Orthodox, but this feels like quite the strawman
Ok, I like this video. I'm an Orthodox Christian learning about our faith. Although I do believe that the Orthodox Church isn't perfect, I still do believe that it is the true Church for me. But I really like these types of videos, it makes you question, are you really following Christ like you're supposed to? Not just the Orthodox Christian, but it makes the Protestant and Catholic question themselves too. I think this is a good video made in good faith, even though I think that mr zoomer is wrong about some things here, guess you could say I was predestined to disagree hahahah! Been a fan for a pretty long time, keep up the good work!
This video fundamentally misrepresents Orthodoxy. Please do not rely on anything he said.
@@cassidyanderson3722 oh no don't worry about that, I already know that. My main point was that the video was made in good faith, even though it misrepresented Holy Orthodoxy, it was done in good faith, not meant to slander Orthodoxy.
@@grizzly8296 I don’t know if I believe that it was made in good faith. I’ve heard RZ talk about Orthodoxy before, including conversations he’s had with Orthodox apologists. He’s not completely uneducated when it comes to Orthodoxy. Considering his first reply to the video, I suspect the video was intentionally misrepresentative of Orthodoxy and intellectually dishonest. He seems to have hoped to start a little fight in the comments section and I’m glad he failed in that regard. This is a very disappointing video from RZ. He’s better than this.
@@grizzly8296 by the tone of the video and the comments he made it really doesnt sound like it was made in good faith...
@Osaka_ChanAzumanga Truthfully spoken my friend, this video indeed was full of fallacies.
Alright guys, let's close the church, it has been refuted!! 😮😮
Actually, it is the pope who separated from the council of eastern patriarchs and proclaimed his infalliability.
Not even 10 minutes uploaded and the comments are already crazy 💀💀
Edit: don’t get hyped, it won’t be THAT crazy. ):
True
Oof... Someone needs to play less minecraft and at least read Siecienski's
"The Filioque: History of a Doctrinal Controversy"... How can you participate in the debate in good faith without even understanding it and reading the relavent material?
I think all the Churches have had their fill of intellectualism for quite some time.
We need to put the brakes on intellectualism and get back to basics.
I'm glad to know any Christian, regardless of the Church they worship at.
I love you guys. God Bless us all.
I always hope one day the Churches reunify. This video is very interesting theologically and comments provide interesting points and lots of counter arguments too.
As a Catholic it does not matter who is closer to us, but we feel deeply close to the Orthodox, despite all the good points in this video which are worth considering and discussing. We love Orthodox brothers even if they dont always love us back as much. I ask for the forgiveness of our sins, we are not perfect and we have erred countless times while thinking we carried the weight of the Church, we are very faulty.
Bless you RZ, because your content keeps the flame of theological exploration alive in the body of Christendom and has taught me a lot about Reformed ideas. We need more people like you.
Jesus is King.
Great work as always Zoomy.
Praise the Lord
bro had a conversation with jay dyer and david erhan, and still got the EO theology wrong. i think this is bringing misconceptions to both EO and RC
Im a lutheran and i talk to a lot of Orthos. The divide isnt as sharp as you think.
Participation with God is completely biblical, but it follows forensic Justification. They lack a doctrine of justification, but papists lack a correct one, and reform tend to deny participation and thus sanctification.
They also believe we are born with a sin nature affirming original sin. Person / Nature distinction. You have a sin nature because of the fall and that is enough to condemn you.
Also their view of theosis is closer, to some extent youre talking about reformed vs east not west vs east. By denying the communicatio idiomatum you have no explanation for how the atonement justified us. And with communicatio idiomatum you can see that we get deified via theosis not apotheosis. Or as i would call it, Christification which is completed at the day of Jesus Christ, the second coming. We will be in a Greater than prelapsarian state. Otherwise we would just fall all over again.
Frankly i find myself in more agreement with the east than the reformed as a lutheran.
I am also Lutheran, with some close Coptic Orthodox friends. I think we are very close to them theologically, even though superficially we resemble the RC Church more. The Orthodox believe it's sin to add to or take away from the Bible (unlike the RC), and unlike some of the newer Protestants we don't agree with once saved always saved. I think we are similar. The biggest difference I see is they have this idea of appealing to saints who have passed, and we do not.
Palamas taught that we will never see the Divine Essence but Aquinas taught that we will. These are not at all contradictory. Aquinas used a different definition of ‘see’ and affirmed that will will never completely comprehend or know the Divine Essence
Ummmm.... at about 10:10, you have a VERY important typo -- it says that we receive "immorality" from God, which is decidedly heretical...
Wow. Talk about having a very uneducated understanding of Orthodoxy. BTW, Blessed St Augustine is a SAINT in the Orthodox Church. Saying we “don’t like him” is a blatant lie or, at best, statement of extreme ignorance.
Uh oh heretical typo at 7:31
I noticed that too....
What’s the typo?
@@abford03immorality instead of immortality
Catholics and Orthodoxs friends forever ✝️🤝☦
I am an Orthodox and I don't disagree. I like Catholics. We will be united when the time comes.
@@JM-qv7feindeed
@@JM-qv7fe As a Catholic who prays for the same thing, I'm wondering how you think we can be united? The Catholic Church wants to have ecumenism with the Orthodox but from me just studying the inner workings of Orthodoxy it seems like many orthodox clergy and lay will condemn anyone who tries to be "ecumenical".
@@TheMacDonald22I 'm orthodox, and I believe this is nonsense, we should be the same church, we re all christians, different traditions just make it more interesting, its just the top clerics in the hierarchy that are corrupt, and that goes for both orthodox and catholics
@@ΘωμάςΣέλμπυς You can say that again about the corruption in the hierarchies for both of our churches. And you're right about the different traditions being good for the church. I just pray that we can come together under one roof as our lord prayed, after all our every day Christian lives are practically identical. God bless, brother!
✝️❤️☦️
As per the pinned comment, id like to remind you all that the majority of comments here from Orthodox are quite civil, and RedeemedZommer's virtue signal has seemed to fail (especially in light of the fact that at the end of his video, he broadcasts the fruit of his denomination, which is theological and moral degradation, quite well)
I hope he reflects on this, and deletes the comment.
Edit: it seems he did, good on ya RZ :)
God in the core essence is uncreate/unmanifest. This is what creates the distinction between his essence and energies to me, how he is manifest through his son, through his holy spirit, and through the father. Even though the western view seems rationally simpler - I feel sure that the eastern understanding is closer to the true structure of the universe. God’s essence is like a seed, containing all principles for life but unmanifest, the way he interacts with the world is through his primary energies which are in the trinity. Essentially manifestations of God so pertinent to our world we call them the godhead.
You said it beautifully that God is uncreated and, therefore, in His core is unmanifest or unknowable. RZ said that the Orthodox contradict each other but I find that the Orthodox broadly agree in conversation, despite coming from different countries and backgrounds, except sometimes in the case of recent converts from Protestantism. Those may come across as argumentative.
7:34, you said immortality, the screen says immorality. You should probably add acaption or something.
0:39 Correction, it’s not Leo IV but Saint Leo IX.
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Leo_IX
3:10 there’s a problem - “Λόγος” or Logos means “Word”, not wisdom. Hence John 1:1 : in the beginning was the WORD, and the WORD was God and the WORD was with God… etc. Faith doesn’t come through Christs Wisdom, but rather the Word, the Gospel, Jesus Christ. I know, it’s ticky tacky, but translation is important
one of the many examples of westeners translating scripture based on what they like to read
I'm Easter Orthodox but most of you guys reading are probably Catholic but, we are all brothers or sisters in Christ and I love and respect you all, Amen ♥️
Wow very interesting… although this video is a criticism of Eastern Orthodoxy and I am still learning about it, seeing these points and explanations, I am more drawn to it now than before. Then again, I am drawn to mysticism ❤
really think about the "except babies, right?" part. it wouldn't make sense for a perfectly moral and good God to not save babies, how could they be saved if they can barely think for themselves, just really think about it man.
Interesting. As a Protestant I agree with the Orthodox on Original Sin, i think simplicity, theosis, unsure on the filioque, as both makes sense.
"Both make sense." That's right, you can make arguments both for and against the Filioque. I personally believe that the anti-Filioque side is much stronger, but this really points to a big difference between Western and Eastern theology. We don't believe theology just because it "makes sense." We believe theology because it has been revealed to us by God. The doctrine of Trinity itself doesn't really "make sense," but God has revealed himself to exist as Trinity, so we believe it. Similarly, it has been revealed that the Spirit proceeds from the Father, so we believe that too.
Watch Dwong video on the filioque, the Orthodox church and Oriental Orthodox are wrong
"But whenever the Comforter should come, Whom I shall send to you from the Father(energetic procession), the Spirit of truth Who proceedeth from the Father(hypostatic procession)" (John 16:26)
Filioque is not biblical and was condemned as heresy at the 8th Ecumenical council in 879 by both East and West(Rome).
At the 3rd and 4th Ecumenical Councils, it was affirmed that anyone who changes the Creed without an Ecumenical Council is anathema, which Rome proceeded to do, leading to them leaving the One Holy Orthodox Catholic Church.
Those who seek the truth will find it
Filioque was not affirmed at any Council whatsoever and it was condemned at the 8th Ecumenical Council, at which Rome was present and affirmed Filioque as heresy, then went against this and left the Church.
Watch this to see the full critique by Dyer:
ua-cam.com/video/trRq346kH-A/v-deo.htmlsi=Mn8WdZvOvYi77bLQ
@LordiValimartti
@LordiValimartti Filioque is a heresy, and is merely one of many heresies the latin-frankish papal protestants have embraced due to their departure from the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.
I'm going to trust Saint Gregory Palamas and the countless other Church Fathers over "Dwong". They all affirm that the filioque is a heresy and that the latin heretics left the Church.
I hope you do find the truth of Orthodoxy and put on Christ in Baptism, which if you're sincere and zealously seeking the truth I think you will eventually.
Jay, Kyle, David Erhan & Orthodox Ethos have plenty of material clearly proving the error of the latins and at the same time showcasing the Glory of God in His Church with the Saints He glorifies continually in every age, a continuous Pentecost.
@LordiValimartti I'm going to trust the decisions of all the Ecumenical Councils, the Scriptures, Church Fathers and Saints who affirm that filioque is a heresy over "Dwong" and his heretical viewpoint. Saint Gregory Palamas trumps any other latin-frankish papal protestants who are stubbornly clinging onto a dead branch that was cut off long ago. Orthodoxy is true, come home.
Jay, Kyle and Orthodox Ethos have plenty of content proving the truth of Orthodoxy using abundant Patristic teachings on the subject.
I am going to trust the consensus of the Fathers, the Ecumenical Councils, the words of our Lord and the many many glorified Saints who have very clearly stated that papal protestantism, with it's heretical dogmas and practices, is not of God. Why would I trust "Dwong" over Saint Gregory Palamas?
Filioque was condemned in Council, by Rome as well, for 200 years, prior to them falling into heresy and leaving the Church.. that should be the end of the discussion really.
ua-cam.com/video/q9MsCoDJCJg/v-deo.htmlsi=hqdZYDS1objwIJkP
There are so many resources much more informed than me, so keep learning. Head over to Jay Dyer or Orthodox Ethos and keep learning more.
I hope your sincere thirst for the truth leads you into the One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic and Orthodox (Right-believing) Church eventually.
@LordiValimartti
Nah, as a Catholic, I definitely side with EO more than any other denomination.
Very edifying video 🙏🏻 praise God
I’m sorry but you’ve never experienced orthodox monasticism. Being raised eastern catholic we were told that the prayers of the monks and nuns are keeping the world together, I had no idea what that meant till I became orthodox and went on a pilgrimage to Georgia 🇬🇪 and stayed at a convent and woke up at 3 am for vigil to hear the nuns pray for every infirmity in the world . Glory to God
I believe you have a fundamental misunderstanding of Orthodoxy. Anyone who is interested in Orthodoxy should not rely on anything stated in this video.
@redeemedzoomer6053 you are better than this.