Thanks everyone for watching and to those who commented. Just to address a few concerns: 1) Lots of comments are saying, "this is an emotional appeal," even though I anticipated that response and explicitly addressed it at 7:07. The concern is not emotionalism, but obedience to Jesus. Granted, we disagree on what it means to obey Jesus in discerning the church, but that should be the point of discussion, not emotion. See my discussion there and throughout. 2) Some are saying, "why are you only quoting one bishop to represent all of Orthodoxy, rather than encouraging people to talk to their priest?" Again, I addressed this at 3:41. Theophan is a saint and a contemporary father of the church so his views can't be dismissed as his own private view. They have more authority than an individual priest. Further, the whole goal of this video was to do a deep dive on one figure; I have given more of a serial survey in my prior video mentioned here at 2:15, where I walk through an array of saints and councils. 3) Others are appealing to another quote attributed to Theophan the Recluse. I am uncertain about the authenticity of this quote; we often find it cited on the internet but it seems to come to us indirectly (most commonly cited from Seraphim Rose) and I cannot locate the original source. The quote is also ambiguous: it cautions against worrying about the salvation of the non-Orthodox, perhaps hinting at its possibility (though still reflecting the same exclusivity about the “truth” and “heresy”). Hence my effort here at a careful exegesis of this longer letter Theophan, where his view of the non-Orthodox is given a fuller array of categories (heretics, false prophets, preaching another Christ, etc.), which I hope provides a fuller and more rounded portrait of his view. At any rate, however you interpret this particular quote, the basic concern of institutional exclusivity is not changed. For a fuller portrait of the entire late medieval and early modern Orthodox view, see my video "Does Eastern Orthodoxy Have the "Fullness of the Faith?" 4) Others are saying, “if you think the EO can be saved, why do you even care if Protestants become EO?” The answer to that is the truth matters. Just because salvation may be possible in a given context does not mean that its errors do not have serious consequences. I will keep trying to read comments as I have time; thank you all for engaging the video.
@@TruthUnites "the truth matters". So you attacked EO because the truth matters for them, but you excuse your attack because the truth matters to you.... Isn't it a little bit counterintuitive?
Hi Gavin, Just wanted to say I appreciate your channel. You and Redeemed Zoomer were my first introduction to Orthodoxy which I am now actively converting to. I came from a Baptist background and watched pretty much all of your videos pertaining to Orthodoxy (and a handful of other UA-camrs cautioning against Orthodoxy).I really wanted to hear as much opposition to what I was doing before I made the choice. I especially enjoyed your conversation with Fr Demetrios Bathrellos. Even though I am converting, I do still enjoy listening to your videos. God bless you!
@@TruthUnites Hi Gavin, I’m confused about your 3rd paragraph. Since the additional quote being cited is “ambiguous” (in your opinion), you pretty much dismiss it? Seems convenient considering it demonstrates a stance contrary to the case that you built during the video.
Gavin, it seems you have applied a Roman Catholic view of saints and church fathers, which is that they cannot err on matters of doctrine. This is not the view of the EO church. Saint and Church Fathers err. Sainthood does not grant perfect knowledge. EO ecclesiology would be a good topic of study for you.
I was recently on Mount Athos and encountered a grace-filled elder, it was life-changing. Where are such people in Protestant churches? Where is your St Paisios? The results of Orthodox is the strongest claim. It still produces holy people
You have made my choice even easier to join orthodoxy by this video. Thank you. I do not think that all other christians are damned and lost because ultimately it is not anyone else’s judgment but gods to say who will be saved. The Orthodox Church just gives the way I think is best for that path to salvation. I will always respect other christians muslims and people because they are made in the image of god. They may be on the wrong path but again it is not for me to decide because now I know which path is the correct one.
“You ask, will the heterodox be saved… Why do you worry about them? They have a Saviour Who desires the salvation of every human being. He will take care of them. You and I should not be burdened with such a concern. Study yourself and your own sins… I will tell you one thing, however: should you, being Orthodox and possessing the Truth in its fullness, betray Orthodoxy, and enter a different faith, you will lose your soul forever.” ~ St. Theophan the Recluse
So I should never consider converting to a Orthodox as a Protestant if I'm not absolutely certain I will forever stay an Orthodox. In light of this quote, God might save me as a Protestant but will definitely damn me if I leave Orthodoxy. Good to know.
Hello Gavin! This message is from an Orthodox priest who really likes your UA-cam channel. I have found your studies, and your knowledge of the Church Fathers, to be really surprising and helpful! I even refer to them at my own parish (depending on the issue, as you'd expect!). Thank you for portraying such a peaceful posture even with those you disagree with. But I wouldn't make a comment if that's all I had to say on a video like this! In my opinion, you have a tendency, on this issue of the salvation of the non-Orthodox, to take quotes out of context and make absolute but incorrect conclusions. I'll give a few examples. The first example is from this video. From this letter of Saint Theophan, you make an absolute conclusion about the salvation of non-Orthodox. However, this letter was written in a very particular context which you said yourself in the video: that an Evangelical preacher was seemingly preaching among Russian Orthodox people, the implication being this took place in Orthodox Russia. As a pastor myself, I would immediately suspect that such a preacher would be doing this in order to win converts from the Orthodox Faith to his flock. In other words, this letter does not come as the result of two friends from two denominations, both faithful Christians in their own spheres, sitting down with each other and sharing their thoughts about each other's salvation; it is a defense of the flock, protecting the sheep from wandering astray from a potential poacher. I would expect nothing less from you if an Orthodox preacher were among your Baptist parishioners trying to convert people; I might even expect to hear you say, "Icons are an accretion, and may border on idolatry." You might find it extreme to call Orthodox idolaters, but it is not unreasonable for you to suggest it if you are encouraging your Baptist parishioner to remain Baptist. In addition, St. Theophan's advice is given to the Orthodox Christian who may be considering leaving the Church about the consequences he would face for leaving. On the issue of the status of the non-Orthodox themselves outside of the particulars mentioned in St. Theophan's letter, other commenters here have produced another quote from St. Theophan, who is open to the possibility for their salvation. I don't think we need to set St. Theophan against himself as if he were of two minds on the issue. The next example concerns your view of the Seventh Ecumenical Council and its anathemas of those who do not venerate icons. From what I can recall you saying in other videos, you believe these anathemas condemn a substantial number of well-meaning Christians, yourself included, who are outside the Orthodox Church. However, I believe you are taking the Seventh Council out of context. Anathemas are used internally, not externally. In other words, the Council anathematizes those within the Church who say such things, not those outside. As St. Paul says himself, "For what have I to do with judging those also who are outside? Do you not judge those who are inside?" (1 Cor 5:12). The last example I want to use is from your discussion of the "ark of salvation theory." As I've seen in your videos, you believe that the Orthodox Church has changed its stance on the salvation of non-Orthodox to being exclusive, reaching the height of this thinking in the medieval era and only abating in the past century. You take this as evidence that Orthodoxy's claim to never change its doctrinal stances is demonstrably false. However, this is also out of the very specific contexts in which Church Fathers wrote on these issues. Let me explain. In the period of the Early Church (up to even the Great Schism of 1054), the phrase "Catholic Church" had very obvious meaning -- it was the Church you found throughout the world, whether in India or Britain. The Early Church had no origin other than the apostles. All other churches (usually called schisms and heresies) were typically localized, and all had founders of their groups. These schisms/heresies were typically defined by open rejection of the Church, and attempting to proselytize members of the Church into joining their faction. At such a time, no wonder the Church spoke so clearly about salvation being within the Church, in a time of conflict with these non-Orthodox groups, and to keep the faithful from wandering away. Then, consider the Medieval period. Following the Great Schism, within only 150 years, the Roman Catholics were in open war against the Orthodox -- not with the pen, but the sword. They sacked Constantinople, installed a Latin Kingdom, and launched Crusades against the Kievan Rus in order to 'resubmit' them to the Bishop of Rome. The Roman Catholics were actually successful in conquering and converting many Orthodox into what is today called the Eastern Rite. I see it as no wonder, then, that the Orthodox would speak so vehemently against them, especially as concerns salvation. You have a very good video on the problems with pre-Reformation Roman Catholicism that I think helps prove this point. However, today, there are numerous differences with these two previous periods: 1) The vast majority of Christians are not in armed conflicts with one another, but live in relative peace. 2) Unlike in the period of Early Christianity, it is not factually clear who that "Catholic Church" is anymore. Even if you read piles of books, like-minded and well-meaning Christians come to very different conclusions. It is not the "slam-dunk" like it would have been in the 3rd century. 3) The schisms and heresies of the past were often defined, in especially their early years, by rejecting the Orthodox Church from which they divided. However, today's atmosphere is completely different. Most Christians of the world have been historically separated from the Orthodox Church for a thousand years, some even more. Most of them don't even know about Orthodoxy; and if they do, they probably have no idea, or motivation, to research it. This is why I agree with Metropolitan Philaret (Voznesensky), who said: "It is self evident, however, that sincere Christians who are Roman Catholics, or Lutherans, or members, of other non-Orthodox confessions, cannot be termed renegades or heretics-i.e. those who knowingly pervert the truth… They have been born and raised and are living according to the creed which they have inherited, just as do the majority of you who are Orthodox; in their lives there has not been a moment of personal and conscious renunciation of Orthodoxy. The Lord, ‘Who will have all men to be saved’ (1 Tim. 2:4) and ‘Who enlightens every man born into the world’ (Jn. 1.43), undoubtedly is leading them also towards salvation in His own way." When you consider, then, how much of the context surrounding this conversation has changed, I find it no wonder that modern Orthodox saints and authors are more open to the salvation of non-Orthodox. Much like St. Paul's own epistles, we must understand them not just based on their bare content, but to whom they are written and for what purpose. I believe it is incorrect to make absolute statements, therefore, using our Tradition as if it can be divorced from historical context. But I do want to add, and really mean: You do excellent work. I am sorry for all the toxic Orthodox responses you get online. I hope the 'tone' of my text appeared as peaceful as you are always in your videos. God bless you and thank you!
thank you for your charitable and thoughtful response! I am always so glad when we can argue well -- and I know that online reactions don't represent any tradition at its best.
I have a question for you: What is the EO church’s stance on eschatology? I’m not sure of all the details; however, I know you guy’s teach Jesus is coming back. But how do you justify the EO stance on being the one true church and being infallible in its teaching, when it is clear Jesus already returned in 70ad?
@@ProphetGreg94Are you a full preterist? We believe the destruction of the Temple in 70 AD was typologically related to the End, but not the Second Coming of Christ.
@@sgtshdfg I appreciate your answer. Where do you get the idea that it merely typological? 70ad was the reality, not a shadow. What scriptural justification is there to assert that it was merely typological? Jesus posited that his coming would be before the "passing of that generation" (Matthew 24: 30, 34). And we know that the destruction of the man of "lawlessness" occurs at the "brightness of the Lord's coming" (2 Thessalonians 2:3-4, 8). But that happens before the fall of the temple, since this takes place while the man of lawlessness "takes" his "seat in the temple" [Herodian temple destroyed in 70ad]. But then that means that the second coming's timing is constrained to that first century, since it doesn't take place AFTER the destruction of the temple, but before it. In addition, along those same lines, the second coming that Paul mentions in 2nd Thessalonians is not a different coming from the one mentioned in 1 Thessalonians 4, which is undeniably a recapitulation of Matthew 24, and it is in fact the resurrection. It is that same resurrection of Daniel 12, that Daniel informs us takes place immediately after the time of great "distress" (v.1), which is the great tribulation Jesus mentioned (Matthew 24:21). But that was in the first century too (revelation 1:9).
@@sgtshdfg So how can the EO church continue to assert a yet future coming, when it is clearly in contradiction with scripture? And with such assertions it is done so baselessly. Since the only second coming that can be referenced is the "coming" Jesus already fulfilled in the first century.
Gavin is politely so contemptuous of the Eastern Orthodox and Catholic Church that he believes they forgot or ignored God's instructions on the Eucharist and replaced them with their own instructions. And Gavin is also politely contemptuous that Eastern Orthodox and Catholic Church dogma is they have always followed God's instructions given to the Apostles on the Eucharist, hence they have the Eucharist. And that Baptist ministers have rejected God's instructions given to the Apostles on the Eucharist, hence they don't have the Eucharist. At Orthodox and Catholic Sacrifice of the Mass the substances of bread and wine become the substances of the literal corporeal living flesh and blood of Jesus Christ with His Soul and Divinity (Eucharist). At Baptist service the bread and wine remain bread and wine (no change in substance) = not the Eucharist! The Jews in John 6 clearly comprehended that Jesus Christ said He would give His flesh to eat and His blood to drink. However, Gavin comprehends that Jesus Christ did not mean it literally. Instead of ingesting Jesus Christ's flesh and blood with His Spirit in John 6, Gavin thinks the Son of God really meant metaphorically ingest His Spirit only and not literally ingest His flesh and blood with His Spirit. Gavin's spirit only theory directly accuses the Son of God of deceiving the Jews present into believing He was going to give literal His flesh and blood to eat and drink when He had no intension of doing so. Oh, and Jesus Christ has stated the spirit does not have flesh (Luke 24:39). God bless you
God bless you Dr. Ortlund, you videos always useful to me to strenghten my love for Scripture, God's words. I hope you will always filled with Holy Spirit ❤️❤️❤️
Another great accomplishment Gavin! Thank you for such a clear presentation....again done with love and firm fidelity to God's Word. May the Lord multiply this video's reach to His glory and people's blessing.
This confirms how much we need Orthodoxy. Christ will judge those outsiders of the church. Many foolish virgin will run to the storehouse of the sacrements soon enough. Pray for the two witnesses that will confirm the truth with their mircles
@@sheldonthorpe4797 I'm not even saying to be condescending. I would probably sooner be martyred than betray the Orthodox Faith and go back to something like Evangelical or Baptist. It's so empty, and you can't help but painfully know this after experiencing Orthodoxy.
@KoiDotJpeg if God's Word and promises untarnished and unadulterated by ceremonial accretions are empty, then ok. Enjoy your liturgies. May you be blessed.
@FaithinChristCrucified divine "ceremonial accretion," because we do things the the way the Church always has. I don't think you guys realize how far back it all goes. Chrismation as a Sacrament is written about by the 3rd century.
I'm so glad you that find beautiful and allows you to connect with God! I pray that your church helps you to hold fast to Christ. I do just hope you remember that the problems go both ways. While Evangelical churches can be shallow and naive, Orthodox churches can sometimes be totally devoid of the Holy Spirit, despite having the liturgy and the beauty, etc. This is especially true in parts of Eastern Europe and Russia, where it's often a "cultural orthodoxy," rather than genuine faith. There are many, many people who leave Orthodoxy because they finally find Jesus and their hearts are transformed because of someone outside the EO church sharing the gospel with them. You'll find some of them in this comment section, and I suspect that story is significantly more common than the other way around, at least outside the the united states, where we have our own kind of cultural Christianity. Ultimately, we should all be thrilled when a person gives their life to Jesus, even if that's not in the exact same way we did.
Forgive me Gavin. Are you trying to be ironic? Bishop Theophan wrote a private letter cautioning his parishioner to be careful before jettisoning his parish life in favor of an exotic new tradition that Bishop Theophan had serious reservations about. It seems to me that the only difference between this and what you are doing is that he NEVER intended this letter to be published, whereas you are publishing your message to the faceless masses. What do you make of your pastoral responsibility to be sensitive to the listener's individual circumstances? Bishop Theophan isn't making wholesale counsel as you are here. If you'd like to promote "Truth in the service of Unity" (isn't that what "Truth Unites" means?), why not pick this quote from a different Russian bishop around the time of Theophan?: Met. Philaret of Moscow: I do not presume to call false any church which believes that Jesus is the Christ. The Christian Church can only be either purely true, confessing the true and saving Divine teaching without the false admixtures and pernicious opinions of men, or not purely true, mixing with the true and saving teaching of faith in Christ the false and pernicious opinions of men. ...You expect now that I should give judgment concerning the other half of contemporary Christianity, but I do no more than simply look out upon them; in part I see how the Head and Lord of the Church heals the many deep wounds caused by the old serpent in all the parts and limbs of this body, applying now gentle, now strong, remedies, even fire and iron, in order to soften hardness, to draw out poison, to cleanse the wounds, to separate out malignant growth, to restore spirit and life in the half-dead and numbed structures. In such wise I attest my faith that in the end the power of God will evidently triumph over human weakness good over evil, unity over division, life over death. Or others from other periods (even though you are arguing that a more pastorally ecumenical tone is unique to the 21st century)?: St. Mark of Ephesus: We need investigation and conversation in matters of theological disputation so that compelling and conspicuous arguments may be considered. Profound benefit is gained from such conversation, if the objective is not altercation but truth, and if the motive is not solely to triumph over others. Inspired by grace and bound by love, our goal is to discover the truth, and we should never lose sight of this, even when the pursuit is prolonged. Let us listen amicably so that our loving exchange might contribute to consensus. St. Gregory of Nazianzen: For we are not seeking victory, but to gain brethren, by whose separation from us we are torn. This we concede to you in whom we do find something of vital truth, who are sound as to the son. We admire your life, but we do not altogether approve of your doctrine. …I will even utter the Apostle’s wish. So much do I cling to you, and so much do I revere your array, and the color of your continence, and those sacred assemblies, and the august virginity, and purification, and the psalmody that lasts all night and your love of the poor, and of the brethren, and of strangers, that I could consent to anathema from Christ, and even to suffer something as one condemned, if only you might stand beside us, and we might glorify the Trinity together. Met. Evlogy: On the heights of their spiritual lives have not the Saints passed beyond the walls that separate us, walls which, according to the grand saying of Metropolitan Platon of Kiev, do not mount us as far as heaven? Fr. Sergius Bulgakov: Unity is something already given and something we must attain to. Fr. Georges Florovsky: The highest and most promising ‘ecumenical virtue’ is patience.
It’s puzzling why being outside the Church strikes such a dissonant chord, given that historically, the Church has consistently regarded those beyond its bounds in just this way. Only if one were to invent an “invisibility cloak” to obscure the Church’s boundaries could the notion of being “outside” seem so foreign or out of place.
This "invisibility cloak" term intrigues me: do you not think that God alone knows who are His? If so, it is possible that someone can be fully involved in the externals of Church membership in an EO context and not be...Christian? So there is an invisibility element to those are truly His. Do you not think this is the case?
@TheB1nary Your question makes no sense within the context of Orthodox belief. To be "Christian" is by definition to be part of the Church. But being a "Christian" does not guarantee that you will end up in heaven. You are using the word "Church" to indicate a category that we don't think exists.
Jesus vs the Church is a false dichotomy. The Church is Christ’s Body. He speaks through the Church and saves through the Church. The Church is the visible prolongation of the Incarnation. Salvation is from Christ through His Church, including the Church’s Mysteries. This isn’t that hard to understand.
The one true church vs. visible church institutions... we can discern the problem with this approach. The issue is on the boundary of the one true church. The true catholicity.
I disagree. Salvation is by God's gift of grace, through faith in Jesus Christ. Jesus never once said that we should depend on the church or upon Sacraments/Mysteries. Believing in the church and its Sacraments is no better than believing in circumcision; you're precisely in the same boat as the church of Galatia was in.
I agree with you in principle. But I think what rubs me the wrong way is that he claims Protestants are “preaching another Christ” when the evangelical is preaching salvation through Christ, and then doesn’t mention Christ once in his summary of how to be saved.
@@rexlion4510 Salvation is by God’s gift of grace, through faith in Jesus Christ, which comes through the preaching and sacramental ministry of the Church which Christ founded when He called His disciples and commissioned them to bring the gospel to the nations. Have you read the New Testament? It’s all there. And it’s all there in the earliest decades after the Apostles. This is Christianity 101.
And catholicism led to reformation. Praise God for reformation!! So many people loving God and getting saved. Atheism is a result of a culture abandoning God. Strong Christian protestant churches having nothing to do with atheism
Hi Dr. Ortlund, Your argument boils down to the following (1) EO requires one to believe no individual outside of the visible boundaries of the canonical EO church can be saved; (2) People outside of the visible boundaries of the canonical EO church can be saved; Therefore, we should reject (3) one should join the EO church. This fails for several reasons. First, (1) is demonstrably false. EO are not required to hold that each individual outside of the visible boundaries of the church is damned. You point to statements condemning certain heterodox *groups* -which does not translate (as you assume) into a judgment as to every *individual* member of these groups at any point in time and for any reason. This is a fallacious inference. Plus, even if your interpretation of these statements were correct (and I think they generally are not), your argument still fails because it ignores the distinction between theologoumenon and dogma. An EO is not required to affirm a theologoumenon, even if it is the overwhelming majority view; and the status of individuals outside of the church is not a subject of a binding dogma, even if you could argue that it is the subject of a prevailing theologoumenon. Thus, (1) fails because you are mistaking statements condemning groups as necessarily entailing condemnation of every individual who is ever a member of that group at any point in time for any reason; and also because you are mistaking evidence of a prevailing theologoumenon as evidence of dogma. Second, even (1) were true (and it is not), your argument still fails because we have more epistemic warrant for (3) than for (2). So, we should sooner reject (2) than reject (3). One man's modus ponens is another man's modus tollens. Third, even if (1) and (2) were correct, this would still not be a reason for rejecting (3). You would need to show that other churches are available to join that do not require one to believe even more false beliefs. One could still reasonably accept (3), while accepting 1&2 on the ground that joining other churches would require one to believe more and worse errors than (1). Finally, I think it is interesting that the way you argue about EO is very similar to the evidentialist framework that Plantinga faults atheists for assuming. The question for someone considering EO is a paradigm level one. The irony is that the common ground from which you purport to critique EO is actually not ground to which your paradigm gives you justified access.
Your last sentence in your last paragraph is interesting. Are you saying Protestantism doesn’t have a theological foundation to state universal principles that it define what every Protestant believes?
Thank you Gavin! As a long-standing Protestant that has deeply engaged with your videos, this one has made me more encouraged to join Eastern Orthodoxy! I've outlined some reasons below... I'm 26, I grew up in an evangelical Baptist church in France, son of two Baptist missionaries, and ended up working for 4 years for the Church of England helping to run training for priests on church growth. I engaged wholeheartedly with Baptists, Conservative Evangelicals, Charismatics, 'Middle of the Road' Anglicans, Anglo-Catholics, as well as Liberal and Conservative versions of each. I came to find that Protestant "denominations" matter, as they shape the lens through which we view Jesus' teachings, even the way we read the Bible! Thus, there is no way of simply being a "Biblical" church. Not only that, Jesus' direct legacy was not a text. He didn't write anything. His legacy was Himself, and the Holy Spirit at work through His followers - the Church. What did these people do? They became bishops, priests, they consecrated church buildings, they fashioned liturgies, they kept the Holy Sacraments... This pattern of being is the true "lens" through which we should engage with God. This is the true faith of the apostles, this is the mark of a True Church! Back to my experience, I observed how normal an impulse it is for human beings to want to wholly engage with their church ie. their 'denomination'. "Everyone is responsible for their own discipleship" is a common mantra that summed this feeling up well for me. The underbelly of Protestant thinking has a deep (and I believe holy) desire for ALL of Jesus, the BEST, the MOST of the fruit of the Spirit. It is the current force driving charismatic movements up and down the US and the world. I'd call this Christian radicalism as I believe it is the same force behind Trad-Caths and Hyper Charismatics. However... 1) I found it impossible to wholeheartedly embrace a single denomination (Why have a separate denomination if you cannot commit to it fully? If you don't believe it to contain the 'fullness of the faith' in some way?) 2) I found that the yearning for radicalism in Protestantism sadly mostly leads to false doctrine, and for some reason simply does not resist the test of time. The rise and decline of Methodism and of the Jesus movement in the 60s are notable examples, as well as the liberalisation of current mainline Protestant denominations. If you can change fundamental aspects of Christianity such as the lived expression (or acting out) of the Church (priests/monks never ordained other priests before Martin Luther for example?), it becomes very difficult to justify not changing other fundamentals of the faith such as sexuality. - Yes but that's not Biblical you might argue - Yet there is a growing amount of learned biblical scholars that are wholeheartedly in support of women leadership or same sex marriage! In contrast to this - How is it that older churches have managed to survive and thrive for so long? If they are wrong, why are they so correct on many issues? This question and others ultimately led me to Eastern Orthodoxy. --- On the topic of salvation outside the Church, Gavin, the same criticism you pose to the EO, the same can be asked of Protestants concerning people from other faiths who either have never heard of Jesus or have been raised in a context which makes becoming Christian a lot harder. Does Jesus want the salvation of the whole human race? Yes He does! Has He offered this opportunity of salvation in the same way to everyone on Earth? Clearly not! Thanks be to God that He is a far more loving judge and Father than we ever could hope of being or can imagine. However, which is the "narrow path", the way of salvation that has been offered to us through Christ? It is to become a disciple of His. We become a disciple of Jesus by following in the footsteps of other disciples (not by following texts as these texts are not readily available or properly understood!). Those disciples developed and compiled doctrine through councils. The Eastern Orthodox church, despite the faults of its members, is the only one that stands in full step with those councils, and thus, can justifiably claim to hold onto the historic view of being a "One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church" (not Many Unholy UnCatholic and UnApostolic churches) - this has historically denoted a visible organisation of human beings, not a mere abstract concept! Heretics, even those with only slight disagreements were deemed separate to the Church and thus separate to Christ's body. What does that mean for their salvation? The same as it does for life long (and 'good-fruit-bearing') Muslims - God knows best! --- The topic of icons and especially praying to (dead) saints were a particular hurdle, and one I am currently still working through. However, is it idolatry? Factually, spiritually, my observation is that it simply isn't. The saints are only deemed as saints BECAUSE of Jesus. NEVER IN COMPETITION of Him. My counter question is: Why is it that most (if not all) historic churches venerate the saints? Is that a cause for "the great apostacy" of historic churches that some Protestant denominations explicitly or implicitly believe in? Is that really a plausible reading of the history of Christ's Church, that the majority of Christians in history somehow "had it wrong" or "missed the point"? Are we really that "enlightened" today? I'll stop there and just finish with this note: This is a comment written in passion, with probably many mistakes in form and substance, but I hope it to be edifying for Protestants who are curious as to the reasons one might embark on such a perilous (but SO REWARDING) journey!
@@simon-y2b If you guys have the “truth”, then how did you guys not get your eschatology correct? You guys think Jesus is coming back. Jesus posited that his coming would be before the "passing of that generation" (Matthew 24: 30, 34). And we know that the destruction of the man of "lawlessness" occurs at the "brightness of the Lord's coming" (2 Thessalonians 2:3-4, 8 ). But that happens before the fall of the temple, since this takes place while the man of lawlessness "takes" his "seat in the temple" (v.4) [Herodian temple destroyed in 70ad]. But then that means that the second coming's timing is constrained to that first century, since it doesn't take place AFTER the destruction of the temple, but BEFORE it, because there has to be a temple standing for the lawless one "take his seat" in! In addition, and along those same lines, the second coming that Paul mentions in 2nd Thessalonians is not a different coming from the one mentioned in 1 Thessalonians 4, which is undeniably a recapitulation of Matthew 24; and this happens to also be the time of the resurrection. It is that same resurrection of Daniel 12 (which Jesus alludes to in Matthew 24:15), that Daniel informs us takes place immediately after the time of great "distress" (v.1), which is the great tribulation Jesus mentioned (Matthew 24:21). But that was in the first century (revelation 1:9). This being the case, why does the church continue to shout from the roof tops that we are on the cusp of a yet-future coming of Jesus, when his parousia had already taken place in 70ad!?
Another great video, Dr. Ortlund! The Lord is using you mightily in this entire debate and discussion. I pray many will find the assurance of salvation through your ministry.
I really appreciate this Video, It is important to be able to defend the hope that lies within us. I have had the opportunity to run into books that teach people about the dangers of the cult leaders' tactics and where we are made to feel discouraged from talking to others about our concerns (what ever they might be) and they also discourage thinking for ourselves, they encourage isolation from any sort of criticism...etc. I am glad that we do have the Scriptures available to us all (mostly). I have saved this video on a playlist because and want to replay it when ever I hear the same message of (don't think for yourself and we are the only ones that know...... as if Faith in Christ (the cross and resurrection and the gift of Grace [ grace= it's true meaning, as explained in the new Testament] ) , the Holy Spirit and the Scriptures are of no significance and only through (them?)....etc.... I really did find it helpful. Thank you
Pastor Gavin, you are doing a great work. I wish these videos had existed before I converted to Orthodoxy over a decade ago. What a breath of fresh air. I was deceived by the beauty and the seeming depth of tradition, the very things you identify as appealing to Protestants inquiring into Orthodoxy.
Yeah, their last discussion was just getting to the important distinctions (that I think Gavin mostly misses or glosses over in his critiques) at the end. I wish he'd dialogue about these concerns more instead of just copy/pasting quotes and professing that his interpretation of them are representative of what the church teaches
“The mercies of God are not bound by the visible boundaries of the Church. God alone knows the heart, and He judges not as man judges. God’s ways are beyond our understanding, and His grace can act upon all who seek Him sincerely.” “We do not have the right to judge the fate of those outside the Church. Rather, we trust in the boundless mercy of God, who desires that all men come to the knowledge of the truth and be saved. He will judge each according to his heart.” “The Church is the vessel of salvation, and yet, we cannot say that grace is absent from those who sincerely seek God, even if they do not yet know the fullness of the truth. God prepares each soul in His own way.” - SAINT THEOPHAN THE RECLUSE we take someone’s theology, not three pages of it. Also, yeah, what he said is accurate, anglicans we’re going into well established Russian EO neighborhoods and calling people to the name of Christ, that’s fine, but also a slightly off interpretation. Of course people are going to reject that.
This is what's so troubling about videos like this, although I'm trying to make the charitable assumption and assume that this is unintentional misrepresentation, rather than deliberate. As you show, St. Theophan wrote many things that would cut directly against the interpretation of this letter that Gavin is giving here. If you say that his views are authoritative because he's a bishop and a saint, and so he can't just be dismissed, you have to take **all** of his writings together. The way Gavin is interpreting him goes against St. Theophan's own words. It's exactly what people do with the Scriptures, by pulling isolated verses and opposing them to other verses, without trying to see how they work together. You can pick things in isolation and build whatever narrative you want to build, but if your read of what an author is saying contradicts the totality of their writings and thoughts, your narrative is a false one. The same thing was true with his most recent video on icons. When he referred to his view of the scholarly consensus, Eusebius, Fr. Price, etc. I had a couple that was inquiring into Orthodoxy who were shaken by what they heard. Rather than argue with them, I just had them read Eusebius's writings, read what Fr. Price actually said about Eusebius, etc. and compare that to what the video said, without offering my own commentary. They came away very angry at Dr. Ortlund, saying that they felt like he had lied to them. I don't agree with that and told them so. I don't believe it's a deliberate deception. But I do hope that people will read the sources in question for themselves, rather than trusting what someone else says about them.
@@AmericanwrCymraeg if dr Gavin makes unintentional mistakes out of his ignorance, his words can't be trusted just because he is sincere. If he twists facts knowingly and intentionally his words can't be trusted because of the ill intentions. In both cases his words can't be trusted.
@@AmericanwrCymraeg At this point it really seems deliberate. Gavin repeatedly dismisses quotes that contradict his narrative and doubles down on using a different measure for Orthodoxy (and Catholicism) than for his own tradition. He might think he's genuine, but everything he's saying just betrays motivated reasoning.
@@Mere-Theism It’s because when you really look into “Protestant Theology”, it’s all smoke and mirrors. There is no sin, no need to obey anything, no need to even DO anything, “just accept Jesus into your heart” and then proceed to tell everyone else who lives their faith according to a tradition that “they’re wrong.”
Another great video! I appreciate all the thought you put into these. As a protestant myself, there are elements of this argument I don't quite buy. A half-formed thought for now: If my church were in that situation --only church in town, and a Catholic evangelist came and was preaching in the community --I'd expect my church leaders to have some initial strong and uncharitable reactions to it. I don't think they would go "anyone not against us is for us." They'd use much the same language as Theophan does. They'd say "he's preaching Christ but appending heresy to it and you should stay away."
Thank you for all the hard work, Dr. Ortlund. This was quite timely. EO seems to be drawing a lot of young people at the moment and I think there isn't enough Protestant engagement with it. Keep up the amazing work!
Well besides orthodoxy not being well known yet in the west, its growing, EO is more predominant in europe, yet EO is drawing ppl to it because of the traditional aspect but evem more so than that is the fullness of the truth which speaks to the soul/heart. Few protestants are informed/equipped to engage EO, while EO is prepared for protestants, RC, etc This teases the depth & caution that EO contains.
There's been a significant amount of Protestant engagement...and it's been the definition of cringe. Most of them look exactly like this video: A few spicy quotes are produced, the Protestant commentator adds 5 personal assumptions (just like they do with Scripture) and act automatically like that's the truth while everyone else in the room laughs at them. Rinse and repeat.
Um…hospitals took root in Eastern or united/pre-schism Christianity as well as all the other things you claim as being exclusively the domain of “western Christianity”. Also, it is not the burden of EO to accept later developments, it is the burden of the later developments/denominations to explain why they are not EO. You would do well to stop creating videos against EO which largely strawman and misrepresent the actual history and teaching of EO. There are plenty of charitable EO priests and historians who would be willing to actually discuss with you your hangups and/or points of disagreement. But instead you just dig deeper holes of falsehood and misrepresentation with your vids in this regard; despite your calm tone. It’s not a good look (for a historian/theologian) and unfair to the audiences of these videos.
I never understood the draw people have. Especially if my time in prayer has to be split. I want to spend all my prayer time with Christ Jesus and diving deeper into the word.
Im Protestant but seems like we are telling EO what they believe and they say no we don’t believe that, and we just say no you have to believe that because of this guy said this. We should let them speak for themselves. This letter was in context of an EO leaving the church of course his letter is going to be firm and direct. This same guy also has been quoted elsewhere that it is possible for others to be saved. It’s a mystery. Theophan the Recluse. “You ask, will the heterodox be saved... Why do you worry about them? They have a Saviour Who desires the salvation of every human being. He will take care of them. You and I should not be burdened with such a concern. Study yourself and your own sins”. I don’t think EO converts have to say now all westerners are all 100% lost, it’s just not the case. This doesn’t seem fair to them.
His question “why do you worry about them?” Is telling. Christians care for the unbeliever and WANT others to believe and evangelize. To have this flippant attitude towards the unbeliever betrays his claim of being in Christ.
Goodness, this was excellent. The sober, austere, ceremonial nature of the Eastern Orthodox tradition must slake the thirst of many Protestants, whose Protestant leaders are in disagreement with church "fathers," leaders, and saints pre-Reformation and even post-Reformation, whose liturgy changes with the mood of the time, whose history seems relatively shallow, whose clergy seem to pursue the activities of the secular world. One of the many things I love about this channel is that it allows Protestants to tap into history and claim the history of the faith in-between the New Testament and Martin Luther as ours, too.
You can claim it all you want but it’s dishonest. For every church father you can claim as “your own” I show you how thoroughly Catholic they really are.
Fact is they were apart of the catholic church friend & you cant claim them but you can cite them all you want in vain. But while there are faithful protestants due to their faith, does not make their church true. It is because of Gods mercy that they can see paradise...
@@inrmds Jesus posited that his coming would be before the "passing of that generation" (Matthew 24: 30, 34). And we know that the destruction of the man of "lawlessness" occurs at the "brightness of the Lord's coming" (2 Thessalonians 2:3-4, 8 ). But that happens before the fall of the temple, since this takes place while the man of lawlessness "takes" his "seat in the temple" (v.4) [Herodian temple destroyed in 70ad]. But then that means that the second coming's timing is constrained to that first century, since it doesn't take place AFTER the destruction of the temple, but BEFORE it, because there has to be a temple standing for the lawless one "take his seat" in! In addition, and along those same lines, the second coming that Paul mentions in 2nd Thessalonians is not a different coming from the one mentioned in 1 Thessalonians 4, which is undeniably a recapitulation of Matthew 24; and this happens to also be the time of the resurrection. It is that same resurrection of Daniel 12 (which Jesus alludes to in Matthew 24:15), that Daniel informs us takes place immediately after the time of great "distress" (v.1), which is the great tribulation Jesus mentioned (Matthew 24:21). But that was in the first century (revelation 1:9). This being the case, why does the church continue to shout from the roof tops that we are on the cusp of a yet-future coming of Jesus, when his parousia had already taken place in 70ad!?
Love your content and I can't wait to watch your video. I have a close godly friend who is EO and very enthusiastic about it being the "Church". Makes it a little difficult to speak to him about our differences but I appreciate EO.
Raising my children in the Eastern Orthodox Church has been such a blessing. I converted 12 years ago and feel awash in beauty and the Lord’s Grace. When y’all are tired of “striving about words to no profit” go visit your local Parish and see the good work being done for your salvation. Be a part of something that endures!
@@orthochap9124it doesn't. Everything we need to know is in the bible, and your fake traditions contradict the bible, therefore they couldn't have come from the apostles. Orthodoxy is pagan apostasy and idolatry.
@@kingjames5527 read the Didache before you say such things. There are definitive aspects within our tradition that are clearly apostolic. Furthermore we continue worship according to the pattern set out to Moses, but Protestants do not. They choose their own way to worship God like Nadab and Abihu. Furthermore if there was a single thing that Jesus said for the Church to do outside of Scripture then oral tradition exists in the Church and is valuable. Clearly the New Testament doesn’t present itself as a manual, but the apostles set out a clear pattern of worship that is shared by all Orthodox churches to this very day.
It's difficult for Protestants to properly understand many Orthodox writings, because the Protestants are often very black and white thinkers and obsessed with the margins and edge cases. What is the context of Theophan's letter? It is to someone who is already Orthodox who is being offered a Protestant Gospel. Of course from the Orthodox perspective, a Protestant version of salvation such as "Just believe in Jesus and you will be saved, you don't need priests/communion" is an incomplete and false Gospel. It's a completely natural thing for Orthodox to say "Here is how you are saved: you are baptized, you take communion, go to confession and follow your priest's directions." This shouldn't be interpreted as a judgment on someone in a situation where they have no chance to receive these things. According to Gavin's own interpretation of Theophan's thinking, someone who is a catechumen but who was martyred before having a chance to receive communion, cannot be saved. But this is absurd, and Orthodox tradition has always taught that such people's deaths counted as a "baptism of blood" which united them to the Church. Clearly Theophan believes in exceptions to his own description of how to be saved, but he isn't interested in describing them because this is a letter aimed at pastoral care.
Right? I think it stems from the reformation. People think their interpretation is always correct. Then people like Gavin extend that to church history and writings. This whole video is very clearly “Gavin’s opinion” but he presents it as the ultimate authority. Hopefully the viewers see that. I think they do
@@daniels4669 If you guys have the “truth”, then how did you guys not get your eschatology correct? You guys think Jesus is coming back. Jesus posited that his coming would be before the "passing of that generation" (Matthew 24: 30, 34). And we know that the destruction of the man of "lawlessness" occurs at the "brightness of the Lord's coming" (2 Thessalonians 2:3-4, 8 ). But that happens before the fall of the temple, since this takes place while the man of lawlessness "takes" his "seat in the temple" (v.4) [Herodian temple destroyed in 70ad]. But then that means that the second coming's timing is constrained to that first century, since it doesn't take place AFTER the destruction of the temple, but BEFORE it, because there has to be a temple standing for the lawless one "take his seat" in! In addition, and along those same lines, the second coming that Paul mentions in 2nd Thessalonians is not a different coming from the one mentioned in 1 Thessalonians 4, which is undeniably a recapitulation of Matthew 24; and this happens to also be the time of the resurrection. It is that same resurrection of Daniel 12 (which Jesus alludes to in Matthew 24:15), that Daniel informs us takes place immediately after the time of great "distress" (v.1), which is the great tribulation Jesus mentioned (Matthew 24:21). But that was in the first century (revelation 1:9). This being the case, why does the church continue to shout from the roof tops that we are on the cusp of a yet-future coming of Jesus, when his parousia had already taken place in 70ad!?
Your last words are what resonated with me - "the utter lack of love". I was born and raised in an EO church but have been pulling away over the last couple years when I began do a deep dive into studying scripture. One huge factor for my pulling away is the realization that there was a HUGE lack of love taught and demonstrated within the church. It was all rules, exclusivity, fasting requirements and extremely long and frequent church services where you must stand almost the entire time. We were taught that there no salvation outside of the church. We were also taught it was a big sin to even pray with anyone outside of the church. Our church doors were never open to unbaptized outsiders - they are able to enter but must stay in the entryway of the church and are forbidden to come into the actual church. If you try to pray (cross yourself and bow) you will actually be told to stop by a church elder. It always seemed that the only neighbors we were truly supposed to love were the ones within our church. Just seems to be so un-Christ like!!!!!!
Eastern Heterodox church has departed from the true orthodoxy since the time they abandoned the teaching of St. Cyril Lucaris. The official teaching has led many to so many heterodox teachings, many of which are even contradictory one to another. Return home, my Friend, to the faith once delivered unto the saints.
@@PresbapterianCyril Lucaris is not considered a saint by the whole Church. Gurther, he simply got things wrong. We know from history that his views were new. (If they even were his views. It's not certain that the document you know of was actually authored by him.)
@Presbapterian He is only considered a Saint by the Greek Orthodox Church. He was never canonized in the other Churches. We're still one with them, but that's not how the Church works.
Great video as always. After being discouraged from RC with the issues surrounding the Papacy, I am turning to evaluating EO and will use this topic as a main point of contention.
@@kage239 that's actually not the EO position at all. Ultimately no one could be led to Orthodoxy if they didn't have God's grace. The fundamental misunderstanding of no salvation outside the church and what that means is disastrous.
I grew up with Russian Otrhodox tradition and customs and I can tell hands down that some Americans are very naive, because they are looking for a historic church, BUT the modern Eastern Orthodox Church IS NOT AS historic as Early church. I do appreciate rich tradition and all that is good there, however you have to guys consider following things: lots of superstitions, sectic thinking, political nationalistic imperialism perspectives, mix with worldly ideas (as long as you are baptized, probably infant with no consent of yours and come to church occasionally and confess your sins - that’s nice, but your life remains almost as of atheist or agnostic), wierd traditions (along with good you get the bad ones), not to mention this hierarchy of legalism and religious system. Now some few years later after my conversion experience and transformation I came to re-consider some views and I stopped demonizing Eastern Orthodox church and saw the good part. Since nobody got it all right and we all need each other. But the Gospel was preached to me and more clearly revealed through evangelical Protestant friends and then I met Jesus and really started reading Bible, praying and saw my life changed. I do believe there are genuine Orthodox Christians and I encourage and cheer on everybody as long as they pursue Christ and His word and what He accomplished, not the religious system. And I tell you for me mostly it was superstitions and some wierd ideas and not being taught of the word of God. For some people it might have been very harsh legalism and bondage - I came dry out of the water and God showed mercy on me in many ways. I totally understand you if you are burnout on Pentecostal, charismatic or evangelical religious form, legalism or some cult, but it doesn’t mean you have to get yourself into another religious system. Dr. Outland has a good point, guys!!! We should be followers of Jesus and grow in the knowledge of God and we all are His church, One body, orthodox, eastern, Armenian, catholic, reformed, Protestant, non-denominational.
@@kingattila506but that’s the problem with our Christianity… I was an atheist or agnostic in the heart. Nobody cared. Believe the Gospel through Protestant friends. Beware!!! I don’t batch on orthodox. But in my opinion and experience many people are just unbelievers wearing tradition clothes. It can be the same with many catholics and Protestants. That’s why Luther is right. We need to preach the Gospel of Grace every day, because we forget it every day… we need to remember it and awaken to it. Be orthodox if you will, but many orthodox don’t even believe what Early Church fathers actually taught about salvation through Christ and His atonement alone… and the West also in problems. We need a Reformation! Wake up and come back to the truth that is in Jesus!
you cover this so well. Thank you so much. I have to see if you have one for Baptist. One train of thought is they were followers of John and then transferred to Jesus and were always there. Never part of the Orthodox church, never had to protest
Gavin, I appreciate this video. I was not aware of this letter from Fr. Theophan despite being an Eastern Orthodox Catechumen. I found nothing scandalizing, though, after watching the video, so I suppose that means I at least know what I am getting into. I agree, though, I do love the directness with which Fr. Theophan speaks in this letter. I would like to respond with a few notes from myself, as an Eastern-Orthodox Catechumen- both for you and others considering your arguments against Orthodoxy. I apologize for wordiness, but I want to lay out our understanding of what you brought up (as best as I can, and in no capacity an official representative of the Church, since I am not yet Baptized). 6:30 - The entire point of this passage in Mark 9 is that if he is truly for Christ, he will wind up in The Church eventually anyways and be united with them. Also, this was before Pentecost, when The Church was set up 16:35 - Regarding this "Simple, repentance-based Gospel message," I simply do not think there is any proof in Scripture of such a requirement of "The Gospel" to be so "simple." In fact, I think what Fr. Theophan presents around 21:30 is fairly reasonable, and not that complicated; only complicated in comparison to the common Evangelical Gospel preached these days. My Deacon said to me the other day: The Faith is not supposed to be complicated. It's supposed to be lived. If you sincerely seek Christ and life in him within the Church, you will fulfill what Fr. Theophan has listed. 19:15 - The only place "justified by faith alone" appears in Scripture is in James 2. "You see then that a man is justified by works, and NOT by faith only." James directly tells us that we are also justified by works. The common reading of Protestants that this is only about external Justification in the eyes of others doesn't make any sense, and it makes us a slave to the perceptions of others. The Confession of Dositheos, Decree 13, explains this well: "We believe a man to be not simply justified through faith alone, but through faith which works through love, that is to say, through faith and works. But [the idea] that faith can fulfill the function of a hand that lays hold on the righteousness which is in Christ, and can then apply it unto us for salvation, we know to be far from all Orthodoxy. For faith so understood would be possible in all, and so none could miss salvation, which is obviously false. But on the contrary, we rather believe that it is not the correlative of faith, but the faith which is in us, justifies through works, with Christ. But we regard works not as witnesses certifying our calling, but as being fruits in themselves, through which faith becomes efficacious, and as in themselves meriting, through the Divine promises {cf. 2 Corinthians 5:10} that each of the Faithful may receive what is done through his own body, whether it be good or bad." I know, perhaps, this may seem like an overplayed response, using James 2 (I'm sure you see it all the time), but it must be said. James very clearly lays out the role works have in our Salvation: James 2:22 - Do you see that faith was working together with his works, and by works faith was made perfect?" 21:25 - "That sounds pretty exacting" - well, it is. 1 Timothy 3:15 - The Church is the Pillar and Ground of Truth. Rebelling against the Church is rebelling against the Truth, and Christ, as it is the BODY of Christ. I don't think he says anything unreasonable. 23:30 - Correct, no salvation outside of the Church. If someone is saved outside the Church, it is because God mystically unites them to the Body of Christ, The Church, when they die because he finds it fitting. This is an extraordinary circumstance though, not the normative means of salvation. And I find this no more scandalizing than saying "Christianity is the only true religion." As far as this "serious concern of 2,000,000,000 Christians in the West"... I find this simply to be an emotional appeal. 24:45 - "Is the Eastern Orthodox Church the savior instead of Jesus" - The Orthodox Church IS The Body of Christ. So it is not either/or, but one and the same. The Church is the Body of Christ here on Earth. Christ has given us the Orthodox Church and the Sacraments for our Salvation. Idolatry of the Church would be very difficult to achieve, because you'd have to first embrace a misunderstanding that the Church is a separate entity from Christ, and then hold it in higher regard than God himself. The only example of this that may come to mind is the Orthobro phenomena, where Orthobros idolize an IDEA of the Church they have in their head as this based, red-pilled, political thing as opposed to Death to the World, Spiritual transformation. 29:16 - Seeing as this entire video uses Theophan as the de facto view of Salvation in Orthodoxy, I think it would only be fair to also include this quote from him about Salvation of the Heterodox. "You ask, will the heterodox be saved... Why do you worry about them? They have a Saviour Who desires the salvation of every human being. He will take care of them. You and I should not be burdened with such a concern. Study yourself and your own sins... I will tell you one thing, however: should you, being Orthodox and possessing the Truth in its fullness, betray Orthodoxy, and enter a different faith, you will lose your soul forever" Frankly, this painting of the two options you frame is very deceptive and is, again, more of an appeal to emotion. "Either he is wrong and his entire tradition is wrong, or all these other 2,000,000,000 are damned." Yet, as you should see from this quote FROM THEOPHAN, it is not that cut and dry. 30:00 - How do we explain with this supposed second of our only 2 logical conclusions, the miracles, the hospitals, empire of Christianity, etc outside of Orthodoxy? I will do my best to answer (even though this was a false dichotomy you provided to use, since as shown above, Fr Theophan does not leave it so cut and dry. 1) Miracles themselves can never be proof of which faith is the true faith. There are "miracles" that occur in other religions outside of Christianity. Appealing to these other "miracles" does not prove anything, really. Within Orthodoxy, we can take miracles such as the wonderworking Icons as affirmations that strengthen our faith, but not proof of the Church in and of themselves. because as you say, Pentecostals could go "But look here! We have faith healings and speaking in tongues!" and Catholics may say "Look! We have Eucharistic Miracles." I think his Bible verse may address your appeal to miracles: Matthew 7 - v22 Many will say to Me in that day, ‘Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?’ v23 And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!’ 2) As far as Matthew 7:18 - A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a bad tree bear good fruit - will have to get back to this, however, using this to disprove any ecclesiastical exclusivity is a dangerous game, because then you as a heretic, or member of another religion, can point to the good deeds you have done as proof that your religion/sect is a "good tree." So I don't think regardless this disproves our views. 3) Number games are irrelevant when it comes to Doctrine and Dogmas of the Faith. This applies both outside of Christianity, and "within" Christianity, speaking inter-denominationally. 30:45 - Again, a mischaracterization, requiring us to unambiguously label all outside the Church, all actions, teachings, people, as all-together "completely dark, heretical, falsehood." There are bits of truth and goodness even in other RELIGIONS. However, they are still outside the Church, and are still riddled with falsehood. Feeding a homeless man from the kindness of your heart is a good work and Godly act whether you're Orthodox, Protestant, Buddhist, Luciferian, etc. I find your characterization of the conclusions of Orthodoxy to be pretty baseless and misleading, to be honest. 31:00 Once again. Even though you erroneously conclude the universal, unambiguous damnation of all non-Orthodox, a quote from the SAME MAN WHOSE LETTER YOU ARE READING: "You ask, will the heterodox be saved... Why do you worry about them? They have a Savior Who desires the salvation of every human being. He will take care of them. You and I should not be burdened with such a concern. Study yourself and your own sins... I will tell you one thing, however: should you, being Orthodox and possessing the Truth in its fullness, betray Orthodoxy, and enter a different faith, you will lose your soul forever." Bearing in mind Matthew 7:1 - "Judge not, lest ye be judged." There are very few situations where can know an individual to be damned for certain. But we know that as Orthodox Christians, WE must be in the Church to be saved. There is a big emphasis on focusing on our own sins and deep, continued repentance that you seem to be either unaware of or not mentioning in this video. 32:30 - I will only bring up that despite what you say about Calvin, he set up a very strict Theocracy in which he punished people who went against him or his teachings. This buddy-buddy modern Protestant ecumenism is just as much an innovation as you often accuse the views of some modern Orthodox as being. I also think it's silly to act like Protestantism is this united front, when the historical practice has been closed-communion (especially among Lutherans). Since communion is, in part, a statement of theological agreement, being in the same Church. If this view of Protestantism you have were the case, would not all Protestants practice open communion with each other?
34:30 - "Can you really stand before Christ and say you submitted to a system that requires you to reject 85% of those who can say the Apostles Creed" ... Matthew 7:21 - “Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven. Matthew 7:14 - Because narrow is the gate and difficult is the way which leads to life, and there are few who find it. Again, just an appeal to emotion. Yes, it is the hard truth that most Christians are outside the Church. That doesn't make it any less correct. The New Testament is dripping with warnings of false doctrine, apostasy, false prophets, wolves in sheeps' clothing, etc. We MUST remain vigilant. I hope others considering or critical of Orthodoxy found this response to Gavin helpful.
Great writeup, and it's nice to see your view as a catechumen. I've been struggling with my doubts about protestantism and am heavily looking into orthodoxy. Thank you for clearly laying out this rebuttal.
@@sezcerjan4431 I am humbled, glad you liked this response. I recommend you attend an Orthodox Divine Liturgy, first and foremost. Experience the faith first, dive into learning and material after, is how I would do it. I knew I was home when I attended my first service. May God bless your journey, my friend. I pray you join me in coming home to the Church.
@@pogodonuts Glory to God, thank you for the comment. I am humbled my reply was beneficial to you. I highly recommend you visit a Divine Liturgy (with a bit of research beforehand) to experience a taste of the faith firsthand. This is what really did it to me. It was foreign, I was confused, there were some alarm bells ringing from my Protestant background... but I knew I was home. May God bless you in your journey, and I pray you follow me home :)
Excellent video Dr. O. I have a couple of family members who left the non-denominational protestant church we all once attended together, citing legitimate complaints about fundamentalism issues in our former church, and legitimate appreciation for the beauty of the Orthodox liturgy. Thankfully we are still close and I expressed to them a desire to not brand one another as heretics as we agree to disagree. Thanks again. You're my favorite "sellout" 😉
This is such an untapped area. So glad to see you covering it. My parents got married in the Greek Orthodox church (I'm Greek on my Dad's side), and I grew up with a lot of random info about the religion and the church. (Plus, our yearly visits to the Greek Fest they held cuz... Baklava.) But I never saw it seriously examined until recently since many people seem to be converting to it.
Wow interesting ! Im a former protestant who converted to orthodoxy. Hope you begin to rexamine thoroughly! Just as there are bad parishs/churches or cultural/lukewarm christians all over doesnt negate the said group/churchs truth & teachings. Godspeed melissa!
Greek churches (in America at least) are very eeehhh and lukewarm. I’m not saying all Greek Orthodox folks are like this, because there are obviously pious and genuine people and parishes in Greek Orthodoxy, but here in the States, Greek Orthodoxy has a reputation of being basically a “cultural club.” Many Greek Orthodox folks go to church solely to mingle with other Greek people, and anyone visiting the church from outside of that group is considered weird. Very sad, to be honest. But there is a growing contingency of faithful Americans finding Orthodoxy. Melissa, I don’t know that you have encountered this. It would be super interesting if you were to visit an Orthodox Church (OCA, ROCOR, Antiochian, or Serbian) and make a video about your experience. Would love to see it.
@@MelissaDoughertyThe Greek Orthodox is the most mystical of the E. O. Churches. The belief in the importance of Grace which probably under a different name, is understood by the Jewish community as well makes the E.O. important path to spiritual ascension. The RC Church view that Grace as defined as something we may get which we don't deserve is too vague to be helpful; something saint do but no one else will accomplish. This idea is incorrect.
I love the art of the Catholic Church and of Orthodox Church. I will never believe that Jesus needs or wants all that. He wants us to care for the least of these. He wants us to simplify it down. Salvation comes from Christ, Share the Gospel, love one another and work hard and care for one another. Faith will produce Fruit, it will no way around that. If The Holy Spirit live in you, it will not cause anything that does not Glorify God. I know my human Dad wants his kids to love one another, keep generations going. I see God wanting the same.
Going from a Slavic baptist to orthodox, I found the only difference is icons in church, we still had pastor confessions, and the communion was the body and blood not a symbol, we had to do works like behave good to be saved, and we called everyone that’s not baptist a heretic and they do Christianity wrong. We even had a service dedicated to showing the church on how Pentecostals have demons and they showed a lot of examples of people falling and screaming. And other Protestant churches near me are all either liberal, non denominational, or very small so I’d rather be orthodox, it changed my life to actually believe in Christ for once in my life, I even joined the choir.
@@Instynctofficial If you guys have the “truth”, then how did you guys not get your eschatology correct? You guys think Jesus is coming back. Jesus posited that his coming would be before the "passing of that generation" (Matthew 24: 30, 34). And we know that the destruction of the man of "lawlessness" occurs at the "brightness of the Lord's coming" (2 Thessalonians 2:3-4, 8 ). But that happens before the fall of the temple, since this takes place while the man of lawlessness "takes" his "seat in the temple" (v.4) [Herodian temple destroyed in 70ad]. But then that means that the second coming's timing is constrained to that first century, since it doesn't take place AFTER the destruction of the temple, but BEFORE it, because there has to be a temple standing for the lawless one "take his seat" in! In addition, and along those same lines, the second coming that Paul mentions in 2nd Thessalonians is not a different coming from the one mentioned in 1 Thessalonians 4, which is undeniably a recapitulation of Matthew 24; and this happens to also be the time of the resurrection. It is that same resurrection of Daniel 12 (which Jesus alludes to in Matthew 24:15), that Daniel informs us takes place immediately after the time of great "distress" (v.1), which is the great tribulation Jesus mentioned (Matthew 24:21). But that was in the first century (revelation 1:9). This being the case, why does the church continue to shout from the roof tops that we are on the cusp of a yet-future coming of Jesus, when his parousia had already taken place in 70ad!?
Dude I get this same response from many of the protestant pastors here in Mississippi. Had preachers say I was preaching a false gospel, called a snake. Once again you get way too simplistic. As I've shared on your other videos in this vein there were other voices. The softening of this issue is not a change in doctrine, nor is it from protestantism. It is from our own history. You're also selective in your own Tradition. Luther and other reformers called the Catholic Church the antichrist. That's a lack of love. The 39 articles are clear that the patriarchs of the East are from the same error as the Catholics. Theophan the recluse is a great saint, and in this letter he's trying to stop a protestant preacher, who obviously doesn't think Orthodox are saved, from converting people. He's doing the same thing you are doing with this video. Trying to stop people from converting. Nothing in this letter is dogmatic. I'd say he's right from the perspective of people leaving the Orthodox Church.
Gavin, from the bottom of my heart, thank you for what you do. You and Jordan Cooper are the only forces that have held me back from leaving Protestantism by making me a Classical Protestant.
"Classical Protestant" meaning sola scriptura which leads us to doctrinal relativism and fragmentation. You can be an "evangelical" and to believe that Jesus did not die for every single or that Jesus died for every single person, you can believe that salvation can not be lost or to believe that salvation can be lost and that is a total disgrace, these are important doctrines, a christian does not live his christian life the same way if you believe one thing or the opposite. Yes this is classical protestantism from luther´s times. The debate between luther and zwingli made clear that sola scriptura is false, worthless to decide which teaching is authentic and what is heresy. Classical protestantism has division in its DNA.
I attend a Baptist church and am Christian. Sometimes I visit a Greek Orthodox church. It offers a time to get out of what is comfortable and worship God that feels more contemplative for me. Possibly because I don't know what's going on or the language other than God is present and that is all I need to know. They don't judge me for not venerating icons and know I won't partake of communion. I see the appeal but our Baptist church changed my life and God is with us in the protestant church too.
Thank you so much for this video, Dr Ortlund! It is so fascinating to now see you read the writings of the easter-orthodox church fathers, after me having the personal experience, talking with my parents, talking with eastern-orthodox priests in Ukraine and seeing my experience confirmed by the writings of their church fathers. Thank you for shedding light on this topic!
This is a much more studied answer, but this was the same conclusion i reached when i was considering to convert. But Im a simple minded baptist, I already try to keep the bar low
"Jesus answered him, 'Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God.'” Orthodox, Protestant, Catholic - it all means nothing. Unless you have been made new by an encounter with the Spirit of God, you are outside of Christ, and it doesn't matter what church you belong to.
And the "encounter with the Spirit of God" means ______? Please fill the blank. The way you answer the question will show what Christian tradition you lean towards.
@anselman3156 Do you not think that statement means anything? My point is every part of Christianity agrees with your statement that you must have an "encounter with the Spirit of God." But each one has a different understanding of what that means and how to do it.
Thanks for the video! Before I get into the meat of my comment: disclaimer that I am indeed a Protestant, not EO. I do have to say, I’m not sure I understand the point of this type of argument. EO ecclesiology does not take the statements of a single bishop to be dogmatic or “authoritative for the whole tradition”. That’s simply a misunderstanding of their structure. Even if one were to accept the validity of that claim, the fact that the argument is essentially “they used to say A and now they say B” is not a defeater for their claims. You can look back in pretty much any tradition’s history and find something said that they no longer affirm. For example, Lutherans no longer kill Anabaptists. Most independent Church of Christ congregations no longer say that they’re the only true Christians. Most Baptists no longer say that Catholics aren’t saved. To find a bunch of old personal statements that have been opposed by actual authoritative teaching and use them as a warning of “this is what you’re agreeing with” just seems… dishonest? Anachronistic? Genuinely confused? It’s like someone pulling out Luther’s antisemitism and claiming that Lutheranism endorses it. I don’t know, because Gavin seems like a great guy, so I want to give him the benefit of the doubt. But this is just… odd.
@@TruthUniteshi Dr Ortlund! Love your videos, thanks for all the work you put into them and the benefit they’ve been to me personally. 😊 Respectfully, the statements at that timestamp are still a misunderstanding of EO ecclesiology. For the EO (and Catholics I believe) a persons sainthood does not confer authoritative status on any particular thing they say. So, as this is a personal letter and not a doctrinal pronouncement, I do think this can safely be categorized as “personal belief”. Especially in light of Theophan’s other famous quote about the salvation of the heterodox. Additionally, I’m unaware of “contemporary Church Father” being a category within EO thought. Googling the phrase only brought up a single podcast episode using that term for him. Could you clarify that term/claim for me at all? Thanks again!
@@TheBillyDWilliamsI’m orthodox, and I’m also unfamiliar with the term “contemporary church father”. Seems like Dr. Ortlund is using the term to make his argument appear stronger. Thank you for pushing back on him.
@@TheBillyDWilliams hello! Thanks for watching, and glad the videos have been beneficial! I said "contemporary father," not "contemporary Church Father." You will find the former label used in print for authoritative more recent theologians. Its actually used in the very text I held up and cited in this video. In Eastern Orthodox theology, saints are typically taken as having a level of theological authority, but if you disagree, you can disregard Theophan and just go with the entire millennium preceding him, which affirmed the same view. I document this in my video "Does Eastern Orthodoxy Have the "Fullness of the Faith?"
You noted: "It does seem weird to assume that just because someone is within the church they don't need to have the gospel preached to them people in the church all the time routinely need the gospel to be preached to them afresh." I would agree, but my understanding of the EO perspective is that their lifelong, diligent application of and devotion to the mystical rituals, sacraments, icons, etc. IS their sustaining "preaching" of the Gospel afresh, as it can only be found in the Church's sacred acts, and experienced as the beginnings of theosis. They do not particularly think of the Gospel as Protestants do, apart from its one time saving event in baptism, thereafter the Gospel is worked out in the process ultimately leading to theosis.
Preaching the gospel cannot be done by not preaching. Nothing else is preaching the gospel. It can be nice, it can be all sorts of things but it cannot be preaching the gospel if it isn't preaching.
@@katskillz The point in your paragraph 2 goes well with my observation. If it is not necessary to remind people of the gospel that saves, then that Church becomes a "folk religion". Case in point, your great, great, great grandfather found Christ and converted to Him, he raised his children, grand children strictly in Church, they also raises theirs in the Church and all are members by "birth". That is what I mean by folk religion. Yous see, God has no grandchildren thus the necessity of presenting the gospel on every opportunity. There is no other tradition that understand this as Protestants. Every person must be born of God individually through the preaching of the Gospel. Orthodox Church does not evangelise. The story which Gavin is narrating in not to be tossed out of the window, it is a reality.
@@Nolongeraslave I agree, I just wanted to (hopefully) accurately present the EO's own position to the best my understanding. I believe it to be wrong, and the main reason it is wrong is because the EO theology mistakenly takes a specific doctrine of theosis / deification and makes it the central dogma around which ALL other doctrines and practices must flow from or fortify their belief in. This is not how the early Church fathers understood things. Nevertheless, they are blind to the courtroom framing of justification and condemnation in Pauline soteriology. They are blind to the comprehensive pervasiveness of original sin requiring a substitutionary atonement where Adam and his spiritual family stand in a position of demerit needing satisfaction for sin a state of being, by means of a substitute. And they are adamently blind to the distinction between the Content of Gospel and the Consequences of the Gospel. Thus for them ecclesiology basically is soteriology. If one, in their system, is diligently tending to the collective dynamics of the Church's praxis, then one is saved individually, period.
As an Anglican (Anglo Catholic) I am happy to identify with the doctrine of the ancient undivided Church, and lament the mutual enmity between the various factions who have gone way beyond that in developing their distinctive doctrines based more on speculations and evolving traditions that on divine revelation and the Apostolic deposit which is secured in the Bible and the three ancient Creeds and earliest ecumenical councils. I think Anglicanism has a better history of eirenic ecumenical outreach to Christians of differing traditions. That created an atmosphere of desire for reunion of Christendom, which influenced many Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox and Protestants, but which is strongly resisted by the exclusivists..
Hi Gavin, I am an Orthodox Christian, and a convert from Protestantism. I want to add a bit of context here to what St. Theophan is writing by including a quote from another letter, which I think may be relevant: "You ask, will the heterodox be saved. Why do you worry about them? They have a Saviour Who desires the salvation of every human being. He will take care of them. You and I should not be burdened with such a concern. Study yourself and your own sins... I will tell you one thing, however: should you, being Orthodox and possessing the Truth in its fullness, betray Orthodoxy, and enter a different faith, you will lose your soul forever." --- St. Theophan the Recluse I think St. Theophan's problem is more with Orthodox christians leaving the Orthodox Church than anything else.
That is such a good point about Theophan's text being for Orthodox Christians, and not for others. Those who do not Orthodoxy cannot be judged for turning from something they don't know. And Orthodoxy doesn't judge them for it.
The quoted text actually sounds a lot worse. St. Theophan refers to Orthodoxy as the "Truth" and what Protestants believe as a "different faith" and a diversion from Orthodox orthodoxy as a betrayal. Pretty stark language. He even says "They have a Savior" which could be interpreted as Protestants have a different theology or that Protestants have a Savior that is not the Orthodox Savior.
@@Cletus_the_Elderwell they do have a different theology and do to differences in Christology I think you could argue to some extent they do have a different savior. Just as most Christians would admit the Christ of the JWs or Mormons is different than that of the rest of Christianity.
@@Cletus_the_Elder So you think St Theophan believes this other being actually exists and will take take care of them, then? This is absurd. And yes, Orthodoxy is the truth and heterodoxy is a deviation from the truth...obviously.
As a lifelong Baptist (non-Calvinist, 😊) I was ignorant of EO teachings for most of my life, until I gained a Russian friend some years ago. So grateful for discovering your content in light of that relationship. It's been a great help! God bless! Oh, I've also found the lack of evangelizing by the EO church to be a bit disturbing. Say what you will about the Catholics and Protestants, they have evangelized like crazy!
Orthodox Christianity is only for heavenly warriors with the faith of a soldier compared to the rest denominations no civilian amateur faith is allowed, the Ethiopian Orthodox church is for the faith equivalent of a Colonel in military experience and Flat Earthers Christians of the Ephraim awakening faith is the equivalent of a General in military experience. This is why in the True church believers are standing like a platoon of soldiers waiting orders from Jesus, meanwhile catholic heretics and the weakly faith denominations they don't respect Jesus they need to seat.
What a wonderful video. This video put into words my biggest problem with Eastern orthodoxy, and this exclusionist mentality is the reason I left. My only problem with this video is that it didn't come out sooner! God bless you dr. Ortlund, May this reach the heart of many so they don't have to go through the pain that I and many others have over ecclesial anxiety.
Hi Tana Grant. I'm so disappointed that Dr. Gavin is promoting such division and promoting false impressions. Please also consider this statement from another Russian bishop from the same time period (that wasn't quote mined from a personal letter of his, as this Theophan quote was). There is tremendous conciliarity within the Orthodox Church: Met. Philaret of Moscow: I do not presume to call false any church which believes that Jesus is the Christ. The Christian Church can only be either purely true, confessing the true and saving Divine teaching without the false admixtures and pernicious opinions of men, or not purely true, mixing with the true and saving teaching of faith in Christ the false and pernicious opinions of men. ...You expect now that I should give judgment concerning the other half of contemporary Christianity, but I do no more than simply look out upon them; in part I see how the Head and Lord of the Church heals the many deep wounds caused by the old serpent in all the parts and limbs of this body, applying now gentle, now strong, remedies, even fire and iron, in order to soften hardness, to draw out poison, to cleanse the wounds, to separate out malignant growth, to restore spirit and life in the half-dead and numbed structures. In such wise I attest my faith that in the end the power of God will evidently triumph over human weakness good over evil, unity over division, life over death.
You simply chose to be of the world. I chose to follow Christ and his clearly established church. It's not my concern what happens to family. I love them and God is just, so I have hope. But at the end of the day it's "Thy will be done." Not "My will be done." God is just and love Anyone that doesn't make it to heaven doesn't deserve to be there
@@erichenkel4393you guys are murdering each other on the Ukraine-Russian battlefield. Your priests are blessing weapons of war to help murder each other more. Get real with your man-made religion that has NOTHING to do with Jesus.
@@MusculusPulveriGrace can be outside of the church and works of the spirit depending on the person or whatever the case may be, but the body of Christ is the Eastern Orthodox Church, it is one body.
@@MusculusPulverithen why does Christ tell his apostles to make bishops teach them properly and make sure this continues saying they carry the grace of God if there isnt a historical institution? if you deny this then you deny the early church, the source of everything protestantism comes from, you unroot yourself when you admit you deny Christ's promise.
Very often the answer of priests and Saints is the same: "Work on your salvation! If you are worried about your non-Orthodox family and friends, pray for them". And I appreciate the rigorist approach, remind me that this is not a game, and I shouldn't be collecting weird theological opinions, the path is narrow and a little mistakes have serious consequences in the long run. I don't understand why you keep pressing this point. In our traditions we have people who think that only people in the Eastern Orthodox Church will be saved, we have (hopeful) universalists, we have people in between and the majority: those who tell you to pray, go to Church, fast and remember that God is infinitely more merciful than you are.
The problem is that the rigorists have an easier time defending their position in line with their canonical teachings and teachings of various Saints. However, the EO priests who are either open to salvation outside the church rarely defend their case from tradition but rather seem to be within the spirit of ecumenism.
@@ElvisI97 They are more vocal and people are more "scandalized" by them, but I don't think there is more evidence for the "no salvation outside the visible Church" position. For example, the Church doesn't even affirm that Judas is in hell. As St. Maximus said: "May God keep me too from condemning anyone and saying that no one but myself is saved" Even priest that are very "rigid", like Fr. Peter Heers, when pressed on this issue he respond the same: "I don't know, that is God's business".
My dad was an Orthodox priest. A few things he mentioned over the years. 1) God can save anyone, but everyone in heaven is Orthodox. Also that does not imply universalism. 2) If non-Orthodox are saved it will be through the work, prayers and presence of Christ's body, the Church, on earth. 3) Salvation is identical to being Orthodox, tautologically. Being saved means you are Orthodox and being Orthodox means you are saved. 4) There are 3 realms, a) What we know is the church; b) What we know is not the Church; c) What we don't know is or is not the Church.
All that to say that non-Orthodox are not saved. #2 is a tease though, but it is a conditional "*If* non-Orthodox are saved. Why shouldn't I understand that just to mean that non-Orthodox can be saved ... if they become Orthodox?
@@HohoCamacho Not at all. It means that you may possibly be saved without ever formally joining the Orthodox church, but that the Church should not try to figure out where, when and how God accomplishes that, and that the Church being the body of Christ will be ONE, UNITED in belief after this world has passed away. God's justice is a purifying fire. Whatever is not pure in any of us is incompatable with it. So we are saved once, but we continue to throw off the dead skin of the old man, and the vestiges of sin in our minds and bodies. They are incompatible with God.
And how is that any different from the "cage stage" Reformed bro or Rad Trad? I've encountered many Reformed bros who brag about how many systematics they've read of their proficiency in Greek hermeneutics, etc... That each tradition has its overzealous converts is a problem we all have. It's not specific to one tradition.
very cool! I will be doing two videos in the next few weeks on the Ethiopian Orthodox church. They will be largely positive about historic events between Protestants and Ethiopian Christians. God bless.
@@TruthUnites Dr do it carefully. because there's Many false teaching in Ethiopia Orthodox Tedowido church like Ark of Moses, saints meditation, praying and worshipping to Mary, false and edited 85 books , fiction like Enoch books. Dr in 2008 G. C or 2000 E.C Ethiopia Orthodox Tedowido church has changed 3540 of bible verses for their doctrine. I and my family Was in that church. Truth is not what you are hearing on UA-cam. Reply me if you see my comment
The Ethiopian Orthodox church denies the intercession of Christ and sometimes even call it heresy , maybe you could touch on that a bit as well.@@TruthUnites
@@AbebaDamesa-wc7ls yes, one video will be on the reform effort of Estifanos in the 15th century; the other will be on the dialogue with Michael the Deacon and Martin Luther in 1534. I hope they will be helpful; let me know what you think if you watch!
Orthodox Christianity is only for heavenly warriors with the faith of a soldier compared to the rest denominations no civilian amateur faith is allowed, the Ethiopian Orthodox church is for the faith equivalent of a Colonel in military experience and Flat Earthers Christians of the Ephraim awakening faith is the equivalent of a General in military experience. This is why in the True church believers are standing like a platoon of soldiers waiting orders from Jesus, meanwhile catholic heretics and the weakly faith denominations they don't respect Jesus they need to seat.
I hope and pray this comment reaches you; I know this vid is old. I apologize for its length in advance l but humbly, I think I offer a unique perspective. First of all, I love you and I love your work. Thank you for being a great defender of the faith and being an ambassador for Christ and inspiring us to come and see the inner work of Christ in the human heart which sincerely submits to him. As a someone who grow up in Egypt in the Coptic Orthodox Tradition, I consider myself an open Christian, meaning I consume content from the three main schisms and partake of the sacraments in all of them, even though I have only been baptized in the Coptic church and in Protestants churches (I know many consider this is wrong and sinful, don’t come for me in the comments; If what I am doing is wrong, then God will judge me. Point blank. I can attest what Gavin is saying, there is sense of elitism, bordering on bigotry towards other Christian schisms, that have always rubbed me the wrong way and felt very arrogant and elitist. The only thing, I disagree with Gavin in is his assessment that you must fully agree with the Saint quoted in the video to convert. Saints are not infallible so I personally wouldn’t take what he said as dogma. Pope Shenouda (a saint, and a great ambassador of Christ) quotes Saint Augustine in his writings all the time, even though Saint Augustine was of the catholic faith. So I think, that is an example that is worth considering and discussing. Another angle I want to offer that I often think of to try to see the Coptic Orthodox point of view and give excuses to this sense of “elitism” is perhaps its existence in the Middle East and among the Muslim wolrd. The Coptic Orthodox Church is very frequently criticized and persecuted and is expected to give an answer to all that goes in in Christendom. So perhaps this tight reign stems from that and that’s why they frequently don’t affirm other schisms. The Egyptian Pope has to act as not only the religious leader of the Church but is seen by the government as a political voice for all Coptic Egyptians (you can glean that the popes hate that but they feel responsible to protect the flock). So as you said and it’s great point that you made, in the West, and thanks to Martin Luther we this unique freedom that Orthodox churches in the Middle East don’t have. Also, keep in mind that Arab wold is not only majority Muslim, but the government themselves are. Secondly, growing up in the Coptic Church, I can not overstate the importance of sacrament of liturgy and taking Communion. This is perhaps seen as THE sacrament and is ‘necessary’ for Coptic Christians to “work out their salvation”. Perhaps, that is why there is a certain distaste towards Protestantism, which as I think is a reasonable. Again, as someone who frequents Protestant churches, this sacrament always felt like it was handled poorly and not given its due emphasis. Thirdly, I think many Orthodox, when they think of Protestantism today they think of the Charismatic churches and that looks VERY foreign to them and all those Charismatic practices can look like they are demonic (I don’t know myself what to feel about that; and would love for you to explain to us and give us guidelines when it comes to Charismatics; I’d rather hear it from you than Copts). In addition to the third point, perhaps they link Protestantism with LGBTQ politics, church service being a “concert”, pastors’ scandalous, and lack of modesty in clothing, and the overall absence of the seven sacraments (or not being conspicuous enough or emphasized enough which I feel like I sort of agree with in terms of modern churches expression of the faith; there is this huge church that only given 15 mins sermon filled with videos and the pastor is only there for the first sermon, then he satellites the video for other locations and replays the video for other proceeding church services; I know you won’t agree with this type of “pastoring” and it’s not real Protestantism, but that’s what modern orthodox think of when they think of Protestantism and the examples they use.)
the thing is, orthodox believe they put together the Bible for everyone else and that we dont even use the right Bible. They have a ton of books not accepted in most canons and they claim to be the only right ones. its ridiculous
@@easytiger35 Why is it ridiculous? Why do trust a single troubled monk like Luther to remove 7 books from the bible? The Septuagint is referenced over 300 times in the NT. Jesus and his disciples most definitely studied the Septuagint as scripture yet Luther and you take your Canon from what the Jews who denied Jesus decided hundreds of years after Christ.
By what measuring stick can you say that tradition had erred? It’s not inconsistent with scripture. If on the other hand you object that it’s not CLEAR in scripture (e.g. icon veneration), then the problem is scripture itself literally says there are vehicles outside of itself for revealing truth (e.g. the spiritual gift of prophecy, look up prophetic tradition in the early church).
@@stratmatt22 I dont know of anyone who believes in "whatever Luther did is right". He was one of the people calling out how far off base the church of the time was....with their liturgies and rituals and the "church fathers" having final interpretation of scripture without discussion or nuance. Orthodox almost always straw man's the arguments against them. Many, many Christian theologians can explain why exactly we all use the same books in canons, except some like orthodox and catholic have some extras in there to support their claim of supremacy. By believing orthodox is THE only church, you have essentially completely missed what "the church" even is, yet always so confidently incorrect.
@@stratmatt22 You wrote: "Why do trust a single troubled monk like Luther to remove 7 books from the bible?" This is a falsehood, and I'm tired of seeing it repeated by ignorant people. The belief that the deuterocanonical books were of lesser divine inspiration is shown by Jerome's writings; it is a very old belief and it persisted right up until the time of the Reformation, when Rome decided to officially repudiate it. Luther merely held this age-old view and he didn't _delete_ those books, he simply didn't get around to translating them into German like he did the rest of the Bible. The KJV continued to include the deutero books until sometime in the 1800s, when the printer ceased including them to save printing costs of a portion which few Protestants were bothering to read anyway. But Anglicans to this day still have some readings from the deutero books in their lectionary. No one has "deleted" them!!!
This is an alluring feature of Orthodoxy for edge-lord theobros. I have a friend who is an orthodox priest, and he told me how concerned he is about the volatile personalities who jump from cagey Calvinism to Orthodoxy, with little desire to pursue true holiness. They love the liturgy, traditions, and debate, but hate their non-Orthodox opponents in word and deed.
It sounds like you guys are coping. (Although I can't say I am surprised.) Instead of addressing the serious and legitimate concerns against the Protestant position (something Gavin rarely does), the best you can do to cope with the growing number of conversions from Protestantism to Orthodoxy is to either dismiss them altogether, reduce them, or minimize the valid reasons why many leave. It is an obvious tactic of deflection due to the current state of Protestantism's inability to adapt and account for its deficiencies. Instead, you try to sweep them under the rug and hope no one notices. By marginalizing (potential and actual) converts and branding them as "orthobros," it is surely not an effective apologetic strategy to persuade them or others to your position.
@@icxcnika7722 so the bad behavior of these Orthobro converts should just be ignored then? Deflection? Seriously? I could say the same about you. You're sweeping legitimate concerns under the rug.
@@morghe321 "so the bad behavior of these Orthobro converts should just be ignored then?" Tell me this, what do you gain from having to adress the behavior of every single overzealous convert? Can you add another hour to your life by worrying about their behavior? Who has the time? If I had to spend every waking moment of my life worrying about "cage stage Calvinist" Reformed bros, arguing about soteriology and some meaningless theological opinion held by Charles Hodge, I would get nothing done in terms of personal daily devotion. // Deflection? Seriously? I could say the same about you. You're sweeping legitimate concerns under the rug// Don't _tu quoque_ fallacy me. The fact that many potential converts have converted for legitimate reasons, be they doctrinal or theological concerns, means that Protestantism isn't delivering the scriptural clarity the reformers promised. Furthermore, yes, you are deflecting. You are casting aspersions on converts by psychologizing their reasons for converting. By minimizing, reducing, and impugning their motives for conversion, all you do is slander them, like a cult that shuns those who leave. This is a typical coping mechanism employed by many cultic institutions that seek to justify and deal with the shortcomings of their own system when said system fails to facilitate uniformity, unity, and harmony.
Watching it now, and you're right on. It's downright disturbing to see how many people are willing to say "yeah and it's BaSeD to say my fathers, mothers, mentors, and friends who all showed the fruits of the Spirit worship a FaKe Jesus and are gonna go to hell #imsoedgy". Like....the sheer callousness there. My word.
100%. It’s shocked me for a long time how many people might love their family heritage and living family and then actively move to EO alone, not realizing they are joining a confession that says that person’s ancestors and immediate family who are Christian are actually empty vessels. They either have no idea or think it’s not a required belief, negating the whole appeal of the “unchanged” church.
@TheologyVisualized The same argument, literally the same argument, was used by pagans multiple times early in Church history, to stop people from converting to Christ, that by doing so, they were saying that all of their ancestors were in Hell. Should they have remained pagan, rather than accept the exclusivity claimed by Christ? Note : it's not an adequate response to say that their ancestors were pagans, while here we're talking about fellow Christians. The logic of the argument and its emotional appeal work equally well in either case. What's important is what the Scriptures teach, what is true, and what is pleasing to God. In either case, this is a caricature of what we actually believe.
@@AmericanwrCymraeg Thank you! I am reminded of the saying I have heard several times: "We know where the Holy Spirit is, we don't know where he is not". I have not heard any Orthodox Priest say that everyone outside of Orthodoxy is damned. That would be like putting God in a box and knowing exactly what he should be doing, which is exactly what Orthodoxy does not do. (Protestant inquirer in Wales)
I'm grateful for your videos Gavin.. I was thinking to become eastern orthodox, I was even considering roman catholicism at one time. But after looking at the history of them all, I think Protestantism is a lot better for me. I think roman catholicism and eastern orthodoxy are like "holier than thou" religion, they thought that the church is more important than the Saviour.
The Church is where you get to know the Saviour. It's not "either/or". You cannot divorce Christ from his body - that's a protestant misunderstanding of the truth. You're either in Christ, or you're not - You're either part of the Church or you're not. You cannot be both outside the Church and in Christ at the same time, that's complete nonsense.
@Lessonius What you said is your opinion, stop saying it like it's a fact. I'm grateful that Apollos, Peter and Paul didn't behave you, otherwise there will be no unity between them
This was wonderful, the faith changes and grows. The faith grew after Noah, it grew through the prophets, it grew again through Jesus, and grew again through the apostolic successors. I am Roman Catholic and we believe through the gift of the holy spirit the faith still moves and the reformation was more examples of growth. Vatican 2 is more growth through the holy spirit and we believe our brothers and sisters in Christ are saved, it may be a softening but it is also faith growth through the holy spirit. Orothodoxy is not acknowledging history of the faith and its changing with the times (to a point)
Gavin, the same question that you encourage Protestants to ask about Eastern Orthodoxy concerning the latter's willingness to damn all the beauty, goodness, wonder, and dedication found in other forms of Christianity is also what you should encourage Christians at large to ask themselves regarding other faiths: Can you make peace with a religious view that relegates faithful Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, Humanists, and others to some eternal punishment merely for not being Christian, irrespective of what they believe and how they live?
We can make peace, of course, and are supposed to live in peace with everyone as much as we can. We cannot agree theologically with groups we have irreconcilable theological differences with. Also we don't condemn anyone to hell, or want anyone to go to hell. It's simply a reality which exists, which we have no control over. It doesn't mean we want people to go there or persecute them for not believing as we do.
We have peace with other religions. Those who do not want to be with Christ in Heaven simply will not be based on their free will. It's like if 1 person drove to a mountain and the other person to a lake then of course that's their respective destination. A Christian may invite others to the mountain but the hike is hard. We can't force them up it if they really want to get a solid tan by the lake instead.
@@CreationGrid You didn't understand how the word "peace" is being used in this context. You shouldn't believe in good conscience that only people who agree with your specific theology will be blessed by God for eternity.
@@KingoftheJuice18 I don't think you're understanding our religion and theology. The Bible does not teach that anyone is good or superior, it teaches that all humans are corrupt and going to hell by default. Hell is eternal separation from God, and we are born apart from God because of our wicked nature. If you want to go into God's house, you have to enter based on the conditions he establishes. Just like if you want to come into my house, or I into yours, there are some conditions, yes? We are told not to abuse or oppress anyone, or use force to bring people into our religion. However, we cannot change our holy text because other people don't like the message. Jesus said he would be a stumbling block for many, and not everyone would be able to accept his message. We also don't have any authority to determine who gets into heaven and who doesn't.
@@Procopius464 But you don't have to believe everything your religion may have taught in the past. In fact, you don't believe or take literally everything your religion says. Based on what you've written, I'm guessing that you don't believe in a literal "lake of fire," even though the NT talks specifically about a lake of fire. We must use the minds and reason that God gave us to determine the genuine meaning of holy texts. It's not an escape clause to say that Jesus told us that his teachings wouldn't make sense. You're making God sound very bad. According to you, a person is born condemned through absolutely no fault of their own. The only way that someone can escape this condition, according to you, is to become a Christian. It doesn't matter how you live or if you believe in the one God in another faith-you're condemned. Fortunately, that's not the truth about God, because such a God would not be worthy of reverent, adoring worship, only of fear.
I find that appreciating Eastern Orthodoxy in person is far more apparent than Eastern Orthodoxy online. It is represented very poorly online, often by quite loud, rude, and obnoxious catechumins and fresh converts... which only serves to diminish the claims that are made. In person, away from the often loud, rude, and obnoxious personalities found online, Eastern Orthodoxy shines. All this coming from someone who is completely comfortable not being Eastern Orthodox, strengths and weaknesses may be more objectively observed and respected.
I totally agree. I've been Orthodox for over 30 years (convert from RC), and the current trend for recent converts 'teaching' on their UA-cam channels, with little humility, is somewhat shocking. It bears no resemblance to parish worship and parish life and Orthodox ethos.
I'm EO, and the majority of people online who I've interacted with that are representing EO, and even telling other people to convert to EO, aren't even EO themselves! It's crazy.
I've found TLM communities and the Latin mass quite similar. Much better in person, horrible online. Though I do think online EO might do better than online "trads".
Here in England, I simply don’t know anybody in the Orthodox Church. I form my view of Orthodoxy from what I see online and in the news. In theory, the Russian and Ukrainian Orthodox Churches need to get back together and send a joint mission to England to persuade the English to admit that John Fisher and Thomas More were fake saints.
There was once a form of popular EO apologetics that downplayed the Church's exclusivist claims, but it seems to have abated a lot in recent years. I think, nowadays, people are much more aware of this already (and I talk to new inquirers into Orthodoxy frequently IRL). And in my case (converting over a decade ago from evangelicalism), I found this very book in our parish bookstore and read it before converting.
I like to look at the history of Christ's church. One thing that always sticks out is the traditions that happen to develop over time. I am one who thinks that we can use Holy Scripture as a measuring rod to gauge doctrinal developments and practices within the church. Thanks, brother Gavin, for your labors in the kingdom.
I'm so thankful for Dr. Ortlund and his icon accretion videos and the responses that it spawned. They propelled me to become an Orthodox catachumen! I anticipate this video and the ensuing responses that will show the correct EO understanding will convert many more. Glory to God!
protestants try not to use "ill pray for you" as a statement to bash people with challenge impossible; whenever you cant defend your beliefs just tell the other party youll pray for them, Phariseemaxxing
Gavin doesn’t seem to understand that true Orthodoxy is always the middle ground between two extremes. They must be consistent with the traditional theology on one hand, and on the other hand they know that God is free to manage his house however he pleases. Theophan didn’t find it necessary to explain the counterbalance to his position. There is simply more to this conversation. The fact that the Protestant movement has had success doesn’t mean the apostolic deposit is false or insufficient. Our theology is specific but God’s ways are higher and we can still be confounded and amazed by his will. Second bit of confusion I have with him is that he tries to speak on behalf of Protestants about the necessity for works. It’s as if he thinks he can protect his own universal deposit of faith. However, there simply isn’t enough unity in Protestant church to say what Protestants actually believe. This is happened because, as he models, there isn’t an imperative for obedience to the shepherds of the church in Protestantism. He personally seems to have a strong sense of obedience. However he is a far cry from Luther because he has found his own interpretation of scripture. The fact that he is a Baptist testifies that he is at least another 2 degrees of schism down the road from his forefather and marches along the road “continual reform.” Meanwhile, other forms of mainline Protestantism can hardly outline some sort deposit. Many would rather refute the real presence of God in communion, have gay and women pastors serving their communion, and swirl around in every form of doctrinal chaos. The people can disagree with their shepherds then run off to create a new church according to their desires and it’s called reform. This is exactly what Theophan was protecting his sheep from when he stated his “very exacting” position. We have freedom unto good works because of our obedience. Nonetheless I always appreciate Gavin’s effort to sincerely state his concerns. I am hoping to be baptized this Pascha. It’s good that we have intelligent people asking valid questions. Christ said if you love me then you will obey my commands and my words. Thus, I am thankful that my obedience will only be encouraged and edified in the Orthodox church.
Thanks everyone for watching and to those who commented. Just to address a few concerns:
1) Lots of comments are saying, "this is an emotional appeal," even though I anticipated that response and explicitly addressed it at 7:07. The concern is not emotionalism, but obedience to Jesus. Granted, we disagree on what it means to obey Jesus in discerning the church, but that should be the point of discussion, not emotion. See my discussion there and throughout.
2) Some are saying, "why are you only quoting one bishop to represent all of Orthodoxy, rather than encouraging people to talk to their priest?" Again, I addressed this at 3:41. Theophan is a saint and a contemporary father of the church so his views can't be dismissed as his own private view. They have more authority than an individual priest. Further, the whole goal of this video was to do a deep dive on one figure; I have given more of a serial survey in my prior video mentioned here at 2:15, where I walk through an array of saints and councils.
3) Others are appealing to another quote attributed to Theophan the Recluse. I am uncertain about the authenticity of this quote; we often find it cited on the internet but it seems to come to us indirectly (most commonly cited from Seraphim Rose) and I cannot locate the original source. The quote is also ambiguous: it cautions against worrying about the salvation of the non-Orthodox, perhaps hinting at its possibility (though still reflecting the same exclusivity about the “truth” and “heresy”). Hence my effort here at a careful exegesis of this longer letter Theophan, where his view of the non-Orthodox is given a fuller array of categories (heretics, false prophets, preaching another Christ, etc.), which I hope provides a fuller and more rounded portrait of his view. At any rate, however you interpret this particular quote, the basic concern of institutional exclusivity is not changed. For a fuller portrait of the entire late medieval and early modern Orthodox view, see my video "Does Eastern Orthodoxy Have the "Fullness of the Faith?"
4) Others are saying, “if you think the EO can be saved, why do you even care if Protestants become EO?” The answer to that is the truth matters. Just because salvation may be possible in a given context does not mean that its errors do not have serious consequences.
I will keep trying to read comments as I have time; thank you all for engaging the video.
@@TruthUnites "the truth matters". So you attacked EO because the truth matters for them, but you excuse your attack because the truth matters to you.... Isn't it a little bit counterintuitive?
Hi Gavin, Just wanted to say I appreciate your channel. You and Redeemed Zoomer were my first introduction to Orthodoxy which I am now actively converting to. I came from a Baptist background and watched pretty much all of your videos pertaining to Orthodoxy (and a handful of other UA-camrs cautioning against Orthodoxy).I really wanted to hear as much opposition to what I was doing before I made the choice. I especially enjoyed your conversation with Fr Demetrios Bathrellos. Even though I am converting, I do still enjoy listening to your videos. God bless you!
@@TruthUnites Hi Gavin, I’m confused about your 3rd paragraph. Since the additional quote being cited is “ambiguous” (in your opinion), you pretty much dismiss it? Seems convenient considering it demonstrates a stance contrary to the case that you built during the video.
@@jamesbishop3091 bingo.
Gavin, it seems you have applied a Roman Catholic view of saints and church fathers, which is that they cannot err on matters of doctrine. This is not the view of the EO church. Saint and Church Fathers err. Sainthood does not grant perfect knowledge.
EO ecclesiology would be a good topic of study for you.
I was recently on Mount Athos and encountered a grace-filled elder, it was life-changing. Where are such people in Protestant churches? Where is your St Paisios?
The results of Orthodox is the strongest claim. It still produces holy people
You have made my choice even easier to join orthodoxy by this video. Thank you. I do not think that all other christians are damned and lost because ultimately it is not anyone else’s judgment but gods to say who will be saved. The Orthodox Church just gives the way I think is best for that path to salvation. I will always respect other christians muslims and people because they are made in the image of god. They may be on the wrong path but again it is not for me to decide because now I know which path is the correct one.
“You ask, will the heterodox be saved… Why do you worry about them? They have a Saviour Who desires the salvation of every human being. He will take care of them. You and I should not be burdened with such a concern. Study yourself and your own sins… I will tell you one thing, however: should you, being Orthodox and possessing the Truth in its fullness, betray Orthodoxy, and enter a different faith, you will lose your soul forever.”
~ St. Theophan the Recluse
This shines a light on the attempt made in this video.
I thought this was Fr. Seraphim Rose
Edit: Fun fact, it's not. Even more fitting that it is from the man whose letter Gavin is reading
Barring the differences between Catholicism and Orthodoxy, as a Catholic, St Theophan sounds pretty based
So I should never consider converting to a Orthodox as a Protestant if I'm not absolutely certain I will forever stay an Orthodox. In light of this quote, God might save me as a Protestant but will definitely damn me if I leave Orthodoxy. Good to know.
@@ryanhwang4143God is not mocked. Having heard the voice of truth but continuing in disobedience will make one’s own punishment more severe.
Hello Gavin! This message is from an Orthodox priest who really likes your UA-cam channel. I have found your studies, and your knowledge of the Church Fathers, to be really surprising and helpful! I even refer to them at my own parish (depending on the issue, as you'd expect!). Thank you for portraying such a peaceful posture even with those you disagree with.
But I wouldn't make a comment if that's all I had to say on a video like this! In my opinion, you have a tendency, on this issue of the salvation of the non-Orthodox, to take quotes out of context and make absolute but incorrect conclusions. I'll give a few examples.
The first example is from this video. From this letter of Saint Theophan, you make an absolute conclusion about the salvation of non-Orthodox. However, this letter was written in a very particular context which you said yourself in the video: that an Evangelical preacher was seemingly preaching among Russian Orthodox people, the implication being this took place in Orthodox Russia. As a pastor myself, I would immediately suspect that such a preacher would be doing this in order to win converts from the Orthodox Faith to his flock. In other words, this letter does not come as the result of two friends from two denominations, both faithful Christians in their own spheres, sitting down with each other and sharing their thoughts about each other's salvation; it is a defense of the flock, protecting the sheep from wandering astray from a potential poacher. I would expect nothing less from you if an Orthodox preacher were among your Baptist parishioners trying to convert people; I might even expect to hear you say, "Icons are an accretion, and may border on idolatry." You might find it extreme to call Orthodox idolaters, but it is not unreasonable for you to suggest it if you are encouraging your Baptist parishioner to remain Baptist. In addition, St. Theophan's advice is given to the Orthodox Christian who may be considering leaving the Church about the consequences he would face for leaving. On the issue of the status of the non-Orthodox themselves outside of the particulars mentioned in St. Theophan's letter, other commenters here have produced another quote from St. Theophan, who is open to the possibility for their salvation. I don't think we need to set St. Theophan against himself as if he were of two minds on the issue.
The next example concerns your view of the Seventh Ecumenical Council and its anathemas of those who do not venerate icons. From what I can recall you saying in other videos, you believe these anathemas condemn a substantial number of well-meaning Christians, yourself included, who are outside the Orthodox Church. However, I believe you are taking the Seventh Council out of context. Anathemas are used internally, not externally. In other words, the Council anathematizes those within the Church who say such things, not those outside. As St. Paul says himself, "For what have I to do with judging those also who are outside? Do you not judge those who are inside?" (1 Cor 5:12).
The last example I want to use is from your discussion of the "ark of salvation theory." As I've seen in your videos, you believe that the Orthodox Church has changed its stance on the salvation of non-Orthodox to being exclusive, reaching the height of this thinking in the medieval era and only abating in the past century. You take this as evidence that Orthodoxy's claim to never change its doctrinal stances is demonstrably false. However, this is also out of the very specific contexts in which Church Fathers wrote on these issues. Let me explain.
In the period of the Early Church (up to even the Great Schism of 1054), the phrase "Catholic Church" had very obvious meaning -- it was the Church you found throughout the world, whether in India or Britain. The Early Church had no origin other than the apostles. All other churches (usually called schisms and heresies) were typically localized, and all had founders of their groups. These schisms/heresies were typically defined by open rejection of the Church, and attempting to proselytize members of the Church into joining their faction. At such a time, no wonder the Church spoke so clearly about salvation being within the Church, in a time of conflict with these non-Orthodox groups, and to keep the faithful from wandering away.
Then, consider the Medieval period. Following the Great Schism, within only 150 years, the Roman Catholics were in open war against the Orthodox -- not with the pen, but the sword. They sacked Constantinople, installed a Latin Kingdom, and launched Crusades against the Kievan Rus in order to 'resubmit' them to the Bishop of Rome. The Roman Catholics were actually successful in conquering and converting many Orthodox into what is today called the Eastern Rite. I see it as no wonder, then, that the Orthodox would speak so vehemently against them, especially as concerns salvation. You have a very good video on the problems with pre-Reformation Roman Catholicism that I think helps prove this point.
However, today, there are numerous differences with these two previous periods: 1) The vast majority of Christians are not in armed conflicts with one another, but live in relative peace. 2) Unlike in the period of Early Christianity, it is not factually clear who that "Catholic Church" is anymore. Even if you read piles of books, like-minded and well-meaning Christians come to very different conclusions. It is not the "slam-dunk" like it would have been in the 3rd century. 3) The schisms and heresies of the past were often defined, in especially their early years, by rejecting the Orthodox Church from which they divided. However, today's atmosphere is completely different. Most Christians of the world have been historically separated from the Orthodox Church for a thousand years, some even more. Most of them don't even know about Orthodoxy; and if they do, they probably have no idea, or motivation, to research it. This is why I agree with Metropolitan Philaret (Voznesensky), who said: "It is self evident, however, that sincere Christians who are Roman Catholics, or Lutherans, or members, of other non-Orthodox confessions, cannot be termed renegades or heretics-i.e. those who knowingly pervert the truth… They have been born and raised and are living according to the creed which they have inherited, just as do the majority of you who are Orthodox; in their lives there has not been a moment of personal and conscious renunciation of Orthodoxy. The Lord, ‘Who will have all men to be saved’ (1 Tim. 2:4) and ‘Who enlightens every man born into the world’ (Jn. 1.43), undoubtedly is leading them also towards salvation in His own way."
When you consider, then, how much of the context surrounding this conversation has changed, I find it no wonder that modern Orthodox saints and authors are more open to the salvation of non-Orthodox. Much like St. Paul's own epistles, we must understand them not just based on their bare content, but to whom they are written and for what purpose. I believe it is incorrect to make absolute statements, therefore, using our Tradition as if it can be divorced from historical context.
But I do want to add, and really mean: You do excellent work. I am sorry for all the toxic Orthodox responses you get online. I hope the 'tone' of my text appeared as peaceful as you are always in your videos. God bless you and thank you!
thank you for your charitable and thoughtful response! I am always so glad when we can argue well -- and I know that online reactions don't represent any tradition at its best.
I have a question for you:
What is the EO church’s stance on eschatology?
I’m not sure of all the details; however, I know you guy’s teach Jesus is coming back. But how do you justify the EO stance on being the one true church and being infallible in its teaching, when it is clear Jesus already returned in 70ad?
@@ProphetGreg94Are you a full preterist? We believe the destruction of the Temple in 70 AD was typologically related to the End, but not the Second Coming of Christ.
@@sgtshdfg I appreciate your answer. Where do you get the idea that it merely typological? 70ad was the reality, not a shadow. What scriptural justification is there to assert that it was merely typological? Jesus posited that his coming would be before the "passing of that generation" (Matthew 24: 30, 34). And we know that the destruction of the man of "lawlessness" occurs at the "brightness of the Lord's coming" (2 Thessalonians 2:3-4, 8). But that happens before the fall of the temple, since this takes place while the man of lawlessness "takes" his "seat in the temple" [Herodian temple destroyed in 70ad]. But then that means that the second coming's timing is constrained to that first century, since it doesn't take place AFTER the destruction of the temple, but before it. In addition, along those same lines, the second coming that Paul mentions in 2nd Thessalonians is not a different coming from the one mentioned in 1 Thessalonians 4, which is undeniably a recapitulation of Matthew 24, and it is in fact the resurrection. It is that same resurrection of Daniel 12, that Daniel informs us takes place immediately after the time of great "distress" (v.1), which is the great tribulation Jesus mentioned (Matthew 24:21). But that was in the first century too (revelation 1:9).
@@sgtshdfg So how can the EO church continue to assert a yet future coming, when it is clearly in contradiction with scripture? And with such assertions it is done so baselessly. Since the only second coming that can be referenced is the "coming" Jesus already fulfilled in the first century.
Gavin is politely so contemptuous of the Eastern Orthodox and Catholic Church that he believes they forgot or ignored God's instructions on the Eucharist and replaced them with their own instructions. And Gavin is also politely contemptuous that Eastern Orthodox and Catholic Church dogma is they have always followed God's instructions given to the Apostles on the Eucharist, hence they have the Eucharist. And that Baptist ministers have rejected God's instructions given to the Apostles on the Eucharist, hence they don't have the Eucharist. At Orthodox and Catholic Sacrifice of the Mass the substances of bread and wine become the substances of the literal corporeal living flesh and blood of Jesus Christ with His Soul and Divinity (Eucharist). At Baptist service the bread and wine remain bread and wine (no change in substance) = not the Eucharist!
The Jews in John 6 clearly comprehended that Jesus Christ said He would give His flesh to eat and His blood to drink. However, Gavin comprehends that Jesus Christ did not mean it literally. Instead of ingesting Jesus Christ's flesh and blood with His Spirit in John 6, Gavin thinks the Son of God really meant metaphorically ingest His Spirit only and not literally ingest His flesh and blood with His Spirit. Gavin's spirit only theory directly accuses the Son of God of deceiving the Jews present into believing He was going to give literal His flesh and blood to eat and drink when He had no intension of doing so. Oh, and Jesus Christ has stated the spirit does not have flesh (Luke 24:39).
God bless you
orthodox inquirer here, soon becomming a catechumen. Plenty of answers when you look for them to these objections. Orthodoxy is truth! Godbless
God bless you Dr. Ortlund, you videos always useful to me to strenghten my love for Scripture, God's words. I hope you will always filled with Holy Spirit ❤️❤️❤️
Another great accomplishment Gavin! Thank you for such a clear presentation....again done with love and firm fidelity to God's Word. May the Lord multiply this video's reach to His glory and people's blessing.
This confirms how much we need Orthodoxy.
Christ will judge those outsiders of the church.
Many foolish virgin will run to the storehouse of the sacrements soon enough.
Pray for the two witnesses that will confirm the truth with their mircles
Converted to orthodoxy after 30 years as an evangelical four years ago. Never looked back.
@@sheldonthorpe4797 I'm not even saying to be condescending. I would probably sooner be martyred than betray the Orthodox Faith and go back to something like Evangelical or Baptist. It's so empty, and you can't help but painfully know this after experiencing Orthodoxy.
@@sheldonthorpe4797 many years! Glory to Jesus Christ ☦️
@KoiDotJpeg if God's Word and promises untarnished and unadulterated by ceremonial accretions are empty, then ok. Enjoy your liturgies. May you be blessed.
@FaithinChristCrucified divine "ceremonial accretion," because we do things the the way the Church always has. I don't think you guys realize how far back it all goes.
Chrismation as a Sacrament is written about by the 3rd century.
I'm so glad you that find beautiful and allows you to connect with God! I pray that your church helps you to hold fast to Christ.
I do just hope you remember that the problems go both ways. While Evangelical churches can be shallow and naive, Orthodox churches can sometimes be totally devoid of the Holy Spirit, despite having the liturgy and the beauty, etc. This is especially true in parts of Eastern Europe and Russia, where it's often a "cultural orthodoxy," rather than genuine faith. There are many, many people who leave Orthodoxy because they finally find Jesus and their hearts are transformed because of someone outside the EO church sharing the gospel with them. You'll find some of them in this comment section, and I suspect that story is significantly more common than the other way around, at least outside the the united states, where we have our own kind of cultural Christianity.
Ultimately, we should all be thrilled when a person gives their life to Jesus, even if that's not in the exact same way we did.
Dude just converted me to EO
Gavin, thank you so much for the work you do. Bless you 🙏🏻
Forgive me Gavin. Are you trying to be ironic? Bishop Theophan wrote a private letter cautioning his parishioner to be careful before jettisoning his parish life in favor of an exotic new tradition that Bishop Theophan had serious reservations about. It seems to me that the only difference between this and what you are doing is that he NEVER intended this letter to be published, whereas you are publishing your message to the faceless masses. What do you make of your pastoral responsibility to be sensitive to the listener's individual circumstances? Bishop Theophan isn't making wholesale counsel as you are here. If you'd like to promote "Truth in the service of Unity" (isn't that what "Truth Unites" means?), why not pick this quote from a different Russian bishop around the time of Theophan?:
Met. Philaret of Moscow: I do not presume to call false any church which believes that Jesus is the Christ. The Christian Church can only be either purely true, confessing the true and saving Divine teaching without the false admixtures and pernicious opinions of men, or not purely true, mixing with the true and saving teaching of faith in Christ the false and pernicious opinions of men. ...You expect now that I should give judgment concerning the other half of contemporary Christianity, but I do no more than simply look out upon them; in part I see how the Head and Lord of the Church heals the many deep wounds caused by the old serpent in all the parts and limbs of this body, applying now gentle, now strong, remedies, even fire and iron, in order to soften hardness, to draw out poison, to cleanse the wounds, to separate out malignant growth, to restore spirit and life in the half-dead and numbed structures. In such wise I attest my faith that in the end the power of God will evidently triumph over human weakness good over evil, unity over division, life over death.
Or others from other periods (even though you are arguing that a more pastorally ecumenical tone is unique to the 21st century)?:
St. Mark of Ephesus: We need investigation and conversation in matters of theological disputation so that compelling and conspicuous arguments may be considered. Profound benefit is gained from such conversation, if the objective is not altercation but truth, and if the motive is not solely to triumph over others. Inspired by grace and bound by love, our goal is to discover the truth, and we should never lose sight of this, even when the pursuit is prolonged. Let us listen amicably so that our loving exchange might contribute to consensus.
St. Gregory of Nazianzen: For we are not seeking victory, but to gain brethren, by whose separation from us we are torn. This we concede to you in whom we do find something of vital truth, who are sound as to the son. We admire your life, but we do not altogether approve of your doctrine. …I will even utter the Apostle’s wish. So much do I cling to you, and so much do I revere your array, and the color of your continence, and those sacred assemblies, and the august virginity, and purification, and the psalmody that lasts all night and your love of the poor, and of the brethren, and of strangers, that I could consent to anathema from Christ, and even to suffer something as one condemned, if only you might stand beside us, and we might glorify the Trinity together.
Met. Evlogy: On the heights of their spiritual lives have not the Saints passed beyond the walls that separate us, walls which, according to the grand saying of Metropolitan Platon of Kiev, do not mount us as far as heaven?
Fr. Sergius Bulgakov: Unity is something already given and something we must attain to.
Fr. Georges Florovsky: The highest and most promising ‘ecumenical virtue’ is patience.
I have loved ones who are in this tradition. Your presentation is very helpful in understanding their concerns and their views. Thank you so much!
Baptist from the east Tennessee area. Thank you for your ministry, Gavin!
It’s puzzling why being outside the Church strikes such a dissonant chord, given that historically, the Church has consistently regarded those beyond its bounds in just this way. Only if one were to invent an “invisibility cloak” to obscure the Church’s boundaries could the notion of being “outside” seem so foreign or out of place.
This "invisibility cloak" term intrigues me: do you not think that God alone knows who are His? If so, it is possible that someone can be fully involved in the externals of Church membership in an EO context and not be...Christian? So there is an invisibility element to those are truly His. Do you not think this is the case?
You have omitted the potential of fractures WITHIN the church.
@@TheB1naryThey aren’t ready for this convo.
@TheB1nary Your question makes no sense within the context of Orthodox belief. To be "Christian" is by definition to be part of the Church. But being a "Christian" does not guarantee that you will end up in heaven. You are using the word "Church" to indicate a category that we don't think exists.
The only dissonance is Theophan's, throwing out a "heretic" here and a "they are far from the truth" there.
Amazing Video. Thanks Gavin.
Jesus vs the Church is a false dichotomy. The Church is Christ’s Body. He speaks through the Church and saves through the Church. The Church is the visible prolongation of the Incarnation. Salvation is from Christ through His Church, including the Church’s Mysteries. This isn’t that hard to understand.
The one true church vs. visible church institutions... we can discern the problem with this approach. The issue is on the boundary of the one true church. The true catholicity.
I'm glad you're happy. The Lord bless you.
I disagree. Salvation is by God's gift of grace, through faith in Jesus Christ. Jesus never once said that we should depend on the church or upon Sacraments/Mysteries. Believing in the church and its Sacraments is no better than believing in circumcision; you're precisely in the same boat as the church of Galatia was in.
I agree with you in principle. But I think what rubs me the wrong way is that he claims Protestants are “preaching another Christ” when the evangelical is preaching salvation through Christ, and then doesn’t mention Christ once in his summary of how to be saved.
@@rexlion4510 Salvation is by God’s gift of grace, through faith in Jesus Christ, which comes through the preaching and sacramental ministry of the Church which Christ founded when He called His disciples and commissioned them to bring the gospel to the nations. Have you read the New Testament? It’s all there. And it’s all there in the earliest decades after the Apostles. This is Christianity 101.
Tom Holland has also explicitly made the claim that the reformation led to modern day atheism in the west.
And catholicism led to reformation. Praise God for reformation!! So many people loving God and getting saved. Atheism is a result of a culture abandoning God. Strong Christian protestant churches having nothing to do with atheism
@@protestanttoorthodox3625 and?
Hi Dr. Ortlund, Your argument boils down to the following
(1) EO requires one to believe no individual outside of the visible boundaries of the canonical EO church can be saved;
(2) People outside of the visible boundaries of the canonical EO church can be saved;
Therefore, we should reject
(3) one should join the EO church.
This fails for several reasons.
First, (1) is demonstrably false. EO are not required to hold that each individual outside of the visible boundaries of the church is damned. You point to statements condemning certain heterodox *groups* -which does not translate (as you assume) into a judgment as to every *individual* member of these groups at any point in time and for any reason. This is a fallacious inference.
Plus, even if your interpretation of these statements were correct (and I think they generally are not), your argument still fails because it ignores the distinction between theologoumenon and dogma. An EO is not required to affirm a theologoumenon, even if it is the overwhelming majority view; and the status of individuals outside of the church is not a subject of a binding dogma, even if you could argue that it is the subject of a prevailing theologoumenon.
Thus, (1) fails because you are mistaking statements condemning groups as necessarily entailing condemnation of every individual who is ever a member of that group at any point in time for any reason; and also because you are mistaking evidence of a prevailing theologoumenon as evidence of dogma.
Second, even (1) were true (and it is not), your argument still fails because we have more epistemic warrant for (3) than for (2). So, we should sooner reject (2) than reject (3). One man's modus ponens is another man's modus tollens.
Third, even if (1) and (2) were correct, this would still not be a reason for rejecting (3). You would need to show that other churches are available to join that do not require one to believe even more false beliefs. One could still reasonably accept (3), while accepting 1&2 on the ground that joining other churches would require one to believe more and worse errors than (1).
Finally, I think it is interesting that the way you argue about EO is very similar to the evidentialist framework that Plantinga faults atheists for assuming. The question for someone considering EO is a paradigm level one. The irony is that the common ground from which you purport to critique EO is actually not ground to which your paradigm gives you justified access.
Your last sentence in your last paragraph is interesting. Are you saying Protestantism doesn’t have a theological foundation to state universal principles that it define what every Protestant believes?
Brilliant.
EO is there apostate, and idolatrous cult. There is no salvation in that idolatrous pagan cult
@@tylerglenn7811 exactly
Loving the set up! Thank you Gavin for being a breath of fresh air when you disagree with someone.
Thank you Gavin! As a long-standing Protestant that has deeply engaged with your videos, this one has made me more encouraged to join Eastern Orthodoxy!
I've outlined some reasons below...
I'm 26, I grew up in an evangelical Baptist church in France, son of two Baptist missionaries, and ended up working for 4 years for the Church of England helping to run training for priests on church growth. I engaged wholeheartedly with Baptists, Conservative Evangelicals, Charismatics, 'Middle of the Road' Anglicans, Anglo-Catholics, as well as Liberal and Conservative versions of each.
I came to find that Protestant "denominations" matter, as they shape the lens through which we view Jesus' teachings, even the way we read the Bible! Thus, there is no way of simply being a "Biblical" church. Not only that, Jesus' direct legacy was not a text. He didn't write anything. His legacy was Himself, and the Holy Spirit at work through His followers - the Church. What did these people do? They became bishops, priests, they consecrated church buildings, they fashioned liturgies, they kept the Holy Sacraments... This pattern of being is the true "lens" through which we should engage with God. This is the true faith of the apostles, this is the mark of a True Church!
Back to my experience, I observed how normal an impulse it is for human beings to want to wholly engage with their church ie. their 'denomination'. "Everyone is responsible for their own discipleship" is a common mantra that summed this feeling up well for me. The underbelly of Protestant thinking has a deep (and I believe holy) desire for ALL of Jesus, the BEST, the MOST of the fruit of the Spirit. It is the current force driving charismatic movements up and down the US and the world. I'd call this Christian radicalism as I believe it is the same force behind Trad-Caths and Hyper Charismatics.
However...
1) I found it impossible to wholeheartedly embrace a single denomination (Why have a separate denomination if you cannot commit to it fully? If you don't believe it to contain the 'fullness of the faith' in some way?)
2) I found that the yearning for radicalism in Protestantism sadly mostly leads to false doctrine, and for some reason simply does not resist the test of time. The rise and decline of Methodism and of the Jesus movement in the 60s are notable examples, as well as the liberalisation of current mainline Protestant denominations. If you can change fundamental aspects of Christianity such as the lived expression (or acting out) of the Church (priests/monks never ordained other priests before Martin Luther for example?), it becomes very difficult to justify not changing other fundamentals of the faith such as sexuality. - Yes but that's not Biblical you might argue - Yet there is a growing amount of learned biblical scholars that are wholeheartedly in support of women leadership or same sex marriage!
In contrast to this - How is it that older churches have managed to survive and thrive for so long? If they are wrong, why are they so correct on many issues? This question and others ultimately led me to Eastern Orthodoxy.
---
On the topic of salvation outside the Church, Gavin, the same criticism you pose to the EO, the same can be asked of Protestants concerning people from other faiths who either have never heard of Jesus or have been raised in a context which makes becoming Christian a lot harder.
Does Jesus want the salvation of the whole human race? Yes He does! Has He offered this opportunity of salvation in the same way to everyone on Earth? Clearly not! Thanks be to God that He is a far more loving judge and Father than we ever could hope of being or can imagine.
However, which is the "narrow path", the way of salvation that has been offered to us through Christ? It is to become a disciple of His. We become a disciple of Jesus by following in the footsteps of other disciples (not by following texts as these texts are not readily available or properly understood!). Those disciples developed and compiled doctrine through councils. The Eastern Orthodox church, despite the faults of its members, is the only one that stands in full step with those councils, and thus, can justifiably claim to hold onto the historic view of being a "One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church" (not Many Unholy UnCatholic and UnApostolic churches) - this has historically denoted a visible organisation of human beings, not a mere abstract concept! Heretics, even those with only slight disagreements were deemed separate to the Church and thus separate to Christ's body. What does that mean for their salvation? The same as it does for life long (and 'good-fruit-bearing') Muslims - God knows best!
---
The topic of icons and especially praying to (dead) saints were a particular hurdle, and one I am currently still working through. However, is it idolatry? Factually, spiritually, my observation is that it simply isn't. The saints are only deemed as saints BECAUSE of Jesus. NEVER IN COMPETITION of Him.
My counter question is: Why is it that most (if not all) historic churches venerate the saints? Is that a cause for "the great apostacy" of historic churches that some Protestant denominations explicitly or implicitly believe in? Is that really a plausible reading of the history of Christ's Church, that the majority of Christians in history somehow "had it wrong" or "missed the point"? Are we really that "enlightened" today?
I'll stop there and just finish with this note:
This is a comment written in passion, with probably many mistakes in form and substance, but I hope it to be edifying for Protestants who are curious as to the reasons one might embark on such a perilous (but SO REWARDING) journey!
Solid
Welcome to the Church, brother
@@simon-y2b “Let them be one as I and my father are one.” Beautifully expressed and thanks for sharing!
Glory to God ☦
@@simon-y2b If you guys have the “truth”, then how did you guys not get your eschatology correct? You guys think Jesus is coming back.
Jesus posited that his coming would be before the "passing of that generation" (Matthew 24: 30, 34). And we know that the destruction of the man of "lawlessness" occurs at the "brightness of the Lord's coming" (2 Thessalonians 2:3-4, 8 ). But that happens before the fall of the temple, since this takes place while the man of lawlessness "takes" his "seat in the temple" (v.4) [Herodian temple destroyed in 70ad].
But then that means that the second coming's timing is constrained to that first century, since it doesn't take place AFTER the destruction of the temple, but BEFORE it, because there has to be a temple standing for the lawless one "take his seat" in!
In addition, and along those same lines, the second coming that Paul mentions in 2nd Thessalonians is not a different coming from the one mentioned in 1 Thessalonians 4, which is undeniably a recapitulation of Matthew 24; and this happens to also be the time of the resurrection. It is that same resurrection of Daniel 12 (which Jesus alludes to in Matthew 24:15), that Daniel informs us takes place immediately after the time of great "distress" (v.1), which is the great tribulation Jesus mentioned (Matthew 24:21). But that was in the first century (revelation 1:9).
This being the case, why does the church continue to shout from the roof tops that we are on the cusp of a yet-future coming of Jesus, when his parousia had already taken place in 70ad!?
Another great video, Dr. Ortlund! The Lord is using you mightily in this entire debate and discussion. I pray many will find the assurance of salvation through your ministry.
I really appreciate this Video, It is important to be able to defend the hope that lies within us. I have had the opportunity to run into books that teach people about the dangers of the cult leaders' tactics and where we are made to feel discouraged from talking to others about our concerns (what ever they might be) and they also discourage thinking for ourselves, they encourage isolation from any sort of criticism...etc. I am glad that we do have the Scriptures available to us all (mostly). I have saved this video on a playlist because and want to replay it when ever I hear the same message of (don't think for yourself and we are the only ones that know...... as if Faith in Christ (the cross and resurrection and the gift of Grace [ grace= it's true meaning, as explained in the new Testament] ) , the Holy Spirit and the Scriptures are of no significance and only through (them?)....etc.... I really did find it helpful. Thank you
Thanks for your works, Dr Gavin. God bless you immensely. It's refreshing. You've been a blessing to the body of Christ 🙏❤️✝️
Pastor Gavin, you are doing a great work. I wish these videos had existed before I converted to Orthodoxy over a decade ago. What a breath of fresh air. I was deceived by the beauty and the seeming depth of tradition, the very things you identify as appealing to Protestants inquiring into Orthodoxy.
I would greatly appreciate if this was a topic of discussion between Dr. Ortlund and Fr. Stephen De Young
Agreed
I think he's already have a conversation with him, just not in depth
Yeah, their last discussion was just getting to the important distinctions (that I think Gavin mostly misses or glosses over in his critiques) at the end. I wish he'd dialogue about these concerns more instead of just copy/pasting quotes and professing that his interpretation of them are representative of what the church teaches
“The mercies of God are not bound by the visible boundaries of the Church. God alone knows the heart, and He judges not as man judges. God’s ways are beyond our understanding, and His grace can act upon all who seek Him sincerely.”
“We do not have the right to judge the fate of those outside the Church. Rather, we trust in the boundless mercy of God, who desires that all men come to the knowledge of the truth and be saved. He will judge each according to his heart.”
“The Church is the vessel of salvation, and yet, we cannot say that grace is absent from those who sincerely seek God, even if they do not yet know the fullness of the truth. God prepares each soul in His own way.”
- SAINT THEOPHAN THE RECLUSE
we take someone’s theology, not three pages of it. Also, yeah, what he said is accurate, anglicans we’re going into well established Russian EO neighborhoods and calling people to the name of Christ, that’s fine, but also a slightly off interpretation. Of course people are going to reject that.
This is what's so troubling about videos like this, although I'm trying to make the charitable assumption and assume that this is unintentional misrepresentation, rather than deliberate.
As you show, St. Theophan wrote many things that would cut directly against the interpretation of this letter that Gavin is giving here. If you say that his views are authoritative because he's a bishop and a saint, and so he can't just be dismissed, you have to take **all** of his writings together. The way Gavin is interpreting him goes against St. Theophan's own words. It's exactly what people do with the Scriptures, by pulling isolated verses and opposing them to other verses, without trying to see how they work together. You can pick things in isolation and build whatever narrative you want to build, but if your read of what an author is saying contradicts the totality of their writings and thoughts, your narrative is a false one.
The same thing was true with his most recent video on icons. When he referred to his view of the scholarly consensus, Eusebius, Fr. Price, etc. I had a couple that was inquiring into Orthodoxy who were shaken by what they heard. Rather than argue with them, I just had them read Eusebius's writings, read what Fr. Price actually said about Eusebius, etc. and compare that to what the video said, without offering my own commentary. They came away very angry at Dr. Ortlund, saying that they felt like he had lied to them. I don't agree with that and told them so. I don't believe it's a deliberate deception. But I do hope that people will read the sources in question for themselves, rather than trusting what someone else says about them.
@@AmericanwrCymraeg if dr Gavin makes unintentional mistakes out of his ignorance, his words can't be trusted just because he is sincere. If he twists facts knowingly and intentionally his words can't be trusted because of the ill intentions.
In both cases his words can't be trusted.
"we take someone's theology, not the pages of it"
So well said 👍❤️
@@AmericanwrCymraeg At this point it really seems deliberate. Gavin repeatedly dismisses quotes that contradict his narrative and doubles down on using a different measure for Orthodoxy (and Catholicism) than for his own tradition. He might think he's genuine, but everything he's saying just betrays motivated reasoning.
@@Mere-Theism It’s because when you really look into “Protestant Theology”, it’s all smoke and mirrors. There is no sin, no need to obey anything, no need to even DO anything, “just accept Jesus into your heart” and then proceed to tell everyone else who lives their faith according to a tradition that “they’re wrong.”
Another great video! I appreciate all the thought you put into these.
As a protestant myself, there are elements of this argument I don't quite buy.
A half-formed thought for now:
If my church were in that situation --only church in town, and a Catholic evangelist came and was preaching in the community --I'd expect my church leaders to have some initial strong and uncharitable reactions to it. I don't think they would go "anyone not against us is for us." They'd use much the same language as Theophan does. They'd say "he's preaching Christ but appending heresy to it and you should stay away."
Thank you for all the hard work, Dr. Ortlund. This was quite timely. EO seems to be drawing a lot of young people at the moment and I think there isn't enough Protestant engagement with it. Keep up the amazing work!
Well besides orthodoxy not being well known yet in the west, its growing,
EO is more predominant in europe, yet EO is drawing ppl to it because of the traditional aspect but evem more so than that is the fullness of the truth which speaks to the soul/heart. Few protestants are informed/equipped to engage EO, while EO is prepared for protestants, RC, etc
This teases the depth & caution that EO contains.
There’s been a lot of Protestant engagement against Holy Orthodoxy. The Protestant position is simply untenable. It’s that simple.
Not one known Protestant apologist online has done a good job against any Orthodox apologist.
There's been a significant amount of Protestant engagement...and it's been the definition of cringe. Most of them look exactly like this video: A few spicy quotes are produced, the Protestant commentator adds 5 personal assumptions (just like they do with Scripture) and act automatically like that's the truth while everyone else in the room laughs at them. Rinse and repeat.
Because protestantism is a walking corpse of a religion, and young people are tired of being forcibly separated from Christ by their organizations.
Um…hospitals took root in Eastern or united/pre-schism Christianity as well as all the other things you claim as being exclusively the domain of “western Christianity”.
Also, it is not the burden of EO to accept later developments, it is the burden of the later developments/denominations to explain why they are not EO.
You would do well to stop creating videos against EO which largely strawman and misrepresent the actual history and teaching of EO.
There are plenty of charitable EO priests and historians who would be willing to actually discuss with you your hangups and/or points of disagreement. But instead you just dig deeper holes of falsehood and misrepresentation with your vids in this regard; despite your calm tone. It’s not a good look (for a historian/theologian) and unfair to the audiences of these videos.
I never understood the draw people have. Especially if my time in prayer has to be split. I want to spend all my prayer time with Christ Jesus and diving deeper into the word.
Orthodoxy does that as well, praying ceaselessly...
Have you heard of the Jesus Prayer?
Im Protestant but seems like we are telling EO what they believe and they say no we don’t believe that, and we just say no you have to believe that because of this guy said this. We should let them speak for themselves. This letter was in context of an EO leaving the church of course his letter is going to be firm and direct. This same guy also has been quoted elsewhere that it is possible for others to be saved. It’s a mystery.
Theophan the Recluse. “You ask, will the heterodox be saved... Why do you worry about them? They have a Saviour Who desires the salvation of every human being. He will take care of them. You and I should not be burdened with such a concern. Study yourself and your own sins”. I don’t think EO converts have to say now all westerners are all 100% lost, it’s just not the case. This doesn’t seem fair to them.
I agree
Exactly right!
Nicely put
Exemplary humility & intellectual honesty. Thank you X
His question “why do you worry about them?” Is telling. Christians care for the unbeliever and WANT others to believe and evangelize. To have this flippant attitude towards the unbeliever betrays his claim of being in Christ.
I grew up in the Eastern Orthodox Church and our priest in the '70s liked quoting CS Lewis. Fascinating commentary.
Thank you I appreciate this!
Goodness, this was excellent. The sober, austere, ceremonial nature of the Eastern Orthodox tradition must slake the thirst of many Protestants, whose Protestant leaders are in disagreement with church "fathers," leaders, and saints pre-Reformation and even post-Reformation, whose liturgy changes with the mood of the time, whose history seems relatively shallow, whose clergy seem to pursue the activities of the secular world. One of the many things I love about this channel is that it allows Protestants to tap into history and claim the history of the faith in-between the New Testament and Martin Luther as ours, too.
You can claim it all you want but it’s dishonest. For every church father you can claim as “your own” I show you how thoroughly Catholic they really are.
Fact is they were apart of the catholic church friend & you cant claim them but you can cite them all you want in vain. But while there are faithful protestants due to their faith, does not make their church true. It is because of Gods mercy that they can see paradise...
@@CurtosiusMaximus828 that was to the op's comment, im in agreement, reread brother.
@@triplea6174 my apologies brother. 💪🏻
@@CurtosiusMaximus828 Wow.. high on the Popium I see...
Thanks for your content bro!
It is frankly quite surprising to see how many defenses of Orthodoxy in the comments do not address the point of this video, nor even attempt to.
@@renrichardson6517 Your perception is different than mine. What parts do you think are being missed?
Mine did (above). Still no answers.
@@EpistemicAnthonyi agree. I think there are multiple answers that would, if not completely satisfactory, they could be a decent answer.
Are we reading different comment sections?
Great video! I'm glad I didn't submit in the end to the siren's call of the Orthodox LARP factor. Became Methodist instead.
Most of these comments arent even adressing actual theology and the beliefs of the church. Its just saying how the converts can be rude lol
How is EO correct when they think Jesus is coming back when he already returned in 70ad?
@@ProphetGreg94 yeah your the odd one out on this one.
@@inrmds
Jesus posited that his coming would be before the "passing of that generation" (Matthew 24: 30, 34). And we know that the destruction of the man of "lawlessness" occurs at the "brightness of the Lord's coming" (2 Thessalonians 2:3-4, 8 ). But that happens before the fall of the temple, since this takes place while the man of lawlessness "takes" his "seat in the temple" (v.4) [Herodian temple destroyed in 70ad].
But then that means that the second coming's timing is constrained to that first century, since it doesn't take place AFTER the destruction of the temple, but BEFORE it, because there has to be a temple standing for the lawless one "take his seat" in!
In addition, and along those same lines, the second coming that Paul mentions in 2nd Thessalonians is not a different coming from the one mentioned in 1 Thessalonians 4, which is undeniably a recapitulation of Matthew 24; and this happens to also be the time of the resurrection. It is that same resurrection of Daniel 12 (which Jesus alludes to in Matthew 24:15), that Daniel informs us takes place immediately after the time of great "distress" (v.1), which is the great tribulation Jesus mentioned (Matthew 24:21). But that was in the first century (revelation 1:9).
This being the case, why does the church continue to shout from the roof tops that we are on the cusp of a yet-future coming of Jesus, when his parousia had already taken place in 70ad!?
Re: Orthodox "converts can be rude." Well, the fruit is known by the tree.
@@HohoCamacho And protestants have MAGA crazed people and lesbian pastors... You can't base your judgement off of the worst of us, nor can we of you
Love your content and I can't wait to watch your video. I have a close godly friend who is EO and very enthusiastic about it being the "Church". Makes it a little difficult to speak to him about our differences but I appreciate EO.
Raising my children in the Eastern Orthodox Church has been such a blessing. I converted 12 years ago and feel awash in beauty and the Lord’s Grace.
When y’all are tired of “striving about words to no profit” go visit your local Parish and see the good work being done for your salvation. Be a part of something that endures!
The Wordnof God endures! And so does the gospel. That is more important than man traditions, images, looooong liturgies etc
@@roses993the Liturgy includes the gospel
@@roses993what if part of the gospel message includes that which the apostles handed down liturgically to the Churches they founded?
@@orthochap9124it doesn't. Everything we need to know is in the bible, and your fake traditions contradict the bible, therefore they couldn't have come from the apostles.
Orthodoxy is pagan apostasy and idolatry.
@@kingjames5527 read the Didache before you say such things. There are definitive aspects within our tradition that are clearly apostolic. Furthermore we continue worship according to the pattern set out to Moses, but Protestants do not. They choose their own way to worship God like Nadab and Abihu.
Furthermore if there was a single thing that Jesus said for the Church to do outside of Scripture then oral tradition exists in the Church and is valuable. Clearly the New Testament doesn’t present itself as a manual, but the apostles set out a clear pattern of worship that is shared by all Orthodox churches to this very day.
It's difficult for Protestants to properly understand many Orthodox writings, because the Protestants are often very black and white thinkers and obsessed with the margins and edge cases. What is the context of Theophan's letter? It is to someone who is already Orthodox who is being offered a Protestant Gospel. Of course from the Orthodox perspective, a Protestant version of salvation such as "Just believe in Jesus and you will be saved, you don't need priests/communion" is an incomplete and false Gospel.
It's a completely natural thing for Orthodox to say "Here is how you are saved: you are baptized, you take communion, go to confession and follow your priest's directions." This shouldn't be interpreted as a judgment on someone in a situation where they have no chance to receive these things. According to Gavin's own interpretation of Theophan's thinking, someone who is a catechumen but who was martyred before having a chance to receive communion, cannot be saved. But this is absurd, and Orthodox tradition has always taught that such people's deaths counted as a "baptism of blood" which united them to the Church.
Clearly Theophan believes in exceptions to his own description of how to be saved, but he isn't interested in describing them because this is a letter aimed at pastoral care.
Right? I think it stems from the reformation. People think their interpretation is always correct. Then people like Gavin extend that to church history and writings.
This whole video is very clearly “Gavin’s opinion” but he presents it as the ultimate authority. Hopefully the viewers see that. I think they do
@@daniels4669 If you guys have the “truth”, then how did you guys not get your eschatology correct? You guys think Jesus is coming back.
Jesus posited that his coming would be before the "passing of that generation" (Matthew 24: 30, 34). And we know that the destruction of the man of "lawlessness" occurs at the "brightness of the Lord's coming" (2 Thessalonians 2:3-4, 8 ). But that happens before the fall of the temple, since this takes place while the man of lawlessness "takes" his "seat in the temple" (v.4) [Herodian temple destroyed in 70ad].
But then that means that the second coming's timing is constrained to that first century, since it doesn't take place AFTER the destruction of the temple, but BEFORE it, because there has to be a temple standing for the lawless one "take his seat" in!
In addition, and along those same lines, the second coming that Paul mentions in 2nd Thessalonians is not a different coming from the one mentioned in 1 Thessalonians 4, which is undeniably a recapitulation of Matthew 24; and this happens to also be the time of the resurrection. It is that same resurrection of Daniel 12 (which Jesus alludes to in Matthew 24:15), that Daniel informs us takes place immediately after the time of great "distress" (v.1), which is the great tribulation Jesus mentioned (Matthew 24:21). But that was in the first century (revelation 1:9).
This being the case, why does the church continue to shout from the roof tops that we are on the cusp of a yet-future coming of Jesus, when his parousia had already taken place in 70ad!?
Your last words are what resonated with me - "the utter lack of love". I was born and raised in an EO church but have been pulling away over the last couple years when I began do a deep dive into studying scripture. One huge factor for my pulling away is the realization that there was a HUGE lack of love taught and demonstrated within the church. It was all rules, exclusivity, fasting requirements and extremely long and frequent church services where you must stand almost the entire time.
We were taught that there no salvation outside of the church. We were also taught it was a big sin to even pray with anyone outside of the church. Our church doors were never open to unbaptized outsiders - they are able to enter but must stay in the entryway of the church and are forbidden to come into the actual church. If you try to pray (cross yourself and bow) you will actually be told to stop by a church elder. It always seemed that the only neighbors we were truly supposed to love were the ones within our church. Just seems to be so un-Christ like!!!!!!
Thank you for this!
Former Protestant here now a Eastern Orthodox Christian convert! Never looking back. I’m home ☦️
Eastern Heterodox church has departed from the true orthodoxy since the time they abandoned the teaching of St. Cyril Lucaris.
The official teaching has led many to so many heterodox teachings, many of which are even contradictory one to another.
Return home, my Friend, to the faith once delivered unto the saints.
@@PresbapterianCyril Lucaris is not considered a saint by the whole Church. Gurther, he simply got things wrong. We know from history that his views were new. (If they even were his views. It's not certain that the document you know of was actually authored by him.)
@EpistemicAnthony
Hold on, which church are you a member of? I'm not sure why you would say Cyril Lucaris is not considered a saint.
@Presbapterian He is only considered a Saint by the Greek Orthodox Church. He was never canonized in the other Churches. We're still one with them, but that's not how the Church works.
Great video as always. After being discouraged from RC with the issues surrounding the Papacy, I am turning to evaluating EO and will use this topic as a main point of contention.
Check out Lutheranism. Reformed Romanism.
Study many books, but live in scripture. You'll see the EO doesn't square with scripture fully. I've had to lay it aside.
@@FaithinChristCrucified But Protestantism does? Lmao. Protestantism is a false man-made trash heap.
If you want truth and valid sacraments, you will become RC or EO. There is no other option.
@@willw1753 Those two are mutually exclusive.
Thank you. This is axtually the reason I haven't cinverted. I hope we get some good response videos!
Which reason? The ecclesiology?
I recommend you: Archpriest Georges Florovsky: The Limits of the Church
@@inrmds I have seen too many faith and miracles outside EO to believe those people are outside of God's church and grace.
@@kage239 that's actually not the EO position at all. Ultimately no one could be led to Orthodoxy if they didn't have God's grace. The fundamental misunderstanding of no salvation outside the church and what that means is disastrous.
@inrmds well, the difficult thing is EO will say both things. Makes it even more confusing. What does it mean to you?
I grew up with Russian Otrhodox tradition and customs and I can tell hands down that some Americans are very naive, because they are looking for a historic church, BUT the modern Eastern Orthodox Church IS NOT AS historic as Early church. I do appreciate rich tradition and all that is good there, however you have to guys consider following things: lots of superstitions, sectic thinking, political nationalistic imperialism perspectives, mix with worldly ideas (as long as you are baptized, probably infant with no consent of yours and come to church occasionally and confess your sins - that’s nice, but your life remains almost as of atheist or agnostic), wierd traditions (along with good you get the bad ones), not to mention this hierarchy of legalism and religious system.
Now some few years later after my conversion experience and transformation I came to re-consider some views and I stopped demonizing Eastern Orthodox church and saw the good part. Since nobody got it all right and we all need each other.
But the Gospel was preached to me and more clearly revealed through evangelical Protestant friends and then I met Jesus and really started reading Bible, praying and saw my life changed.
I do believe there are genuine Orthodox Christians and I encourage and cheer on everybody as long as they pursue Christ and His word and what He accomplished, not the religious system.
And I tell you for me mostly it was superstitions and some wierd ideas and not being taught of the word of God. For some people it might have been very harsh legalism and bondage - I came dry out of the water and God showed mercy on me in many ways.
I totally understand you if you are burnout on Pentecostal, charismatic or evangelical religious form, legalism or some cult, but it doesn’t mean you have to get yourself into another religious system. Dr. Outland has a good point, guys!!! We should be followers of Jesus and grow in the knowledge of God and we all are His church, One body, orthodox, eastern, Armenian, catholic, reformed, Protestant, non-denominational.
I love this! Well said!
@@ilmarmeldre2568 Amen!!!This is excellent.
Same argument as the atheist “I grew up Christian”
@@kingattila506but that’s the problem with our Christianity… I was an atheist or agnostic in the heart. Nobody cared. Believe the Gospel through Protestant friends. Beware!!!
I don’t batch on orthodox. But in my opinion and experience many people are just unbelievers wearing tradition clothes. It can be the same with many catholics and Protestants. That’s why Luther is right. We need to preach the Gospel of Grace every day, because we forget it every day… we need to remember it and awaken to it.
Be orthodox if you will, but many orthodox don’t even believe what Early Church fathers actually taught about salvation through Christ and His atonement alone… and the West also in problems. We need a Reformation! Wake up and come back to the truth that is in Jesus!
Hallelujah!! Well said...with love, truth, and kindness.
you cover this so well. Thank you so much. I have to see if you have one for Baptist. One train of thought is they were followers of John and then transferred to Jesus and were always there. Never part of the Orthodox church, never had to protest
Gavin, I appreciate this video. I was not aware of this letter from Fr. Theophan despite being an Eastern Orthodox Catechumen. I found nothing scandalizing, though, after watching the video, so I suppose that means I at least know what I am getting into. I agree, though, I do love the directness with which Fr. Theophan speaks in this letter.
I would like to respond with a few notes from myself, as an Eastern-Orthodox Catechumen- both for you and others considering your arguments against Orthodoxy. I apologize for wordiness, but I want to lay out our understanding of what you brought up (as best as I can, and in no capacity an official representative of the Church, since I am not yet Baptized).
6:30 - The entire point of this passage in Mark 9 is that if he is truly for Christ, he will wind up in The Church eventually anyways and be united with them. Also, this was before Pentecost, when The Church was set up
16:35 - Regarding this "Simple, repentance-based Gospel message," I simply do not think there is any proof in Scripture of such a requirement of "The Gospel" to be so "simple." In fact, I think what Fr. Theophan presents around 21:30 is fairly reasonable, and not that complicated; only complicated in comparison to the common Evangelical Gospel preached these days. My Deacon said to me the other day: The Faith is not supposed to be complicated. It's supposed to be lived. If you sincerely seek Christ and life in him within the Church, you will fulfill what Fr. Theophan has listed.
19:15 - The only place "justified by faith alone" appears in Scripture is in James 2. "You see then that a man is justified by works, and NOT by faith only." James directly tells us that we are also justified by works. The common reading of Protestants that this is only about external Justification in the eyes of others doesn't make any sense, and it makes us a slave to the perceptions of others. The Confession of Dositheos, Decree 13, explains this well:
"We believe a man to be not simply justified through faith alone, but through faith which works through love, that is to say, through faith and works. But [the idea] that faith can fulfill the function of a hand that lays hold on the righteousness which is in Christ, and can then apply it unto us for salvation, we know to be far from all Orthodoxy. For faith so understood would be possible in all, and so none could miss salvation, which is obviously false. But on the contrary, we rather believe that it is not the correlative of faith, but the faith which is in us, justifies through works, with Christ. But we regard works not as witnesses certifying our calling, but as being fruits in themselves, through which faith becomes efficacious, and as in themselves meriting, through the Divine promises {cf. 2 Corinthians 5:10} that each of the Faithful may receive what is done through his own body, whether it be good or bad."
I know, perhaps, this may seem like an overplayed response, using James 2 (I'm sure you see it all the time), but it must be said. James very clearly lays out the role works have in our Salvation:
James 2:22 - Do you see that faith was working together with his works, and by works faith was made perfect?"
21:25 - "That sounds pretty exacting" - well, it is. 1 Timothy 3:15 - The Church is the Pillar and Ground of Truth. Rebelling against the Church is rebelling against the Truth, and Christ, as it is the BODY of Christ. I don't think he says anything unreasonable.
23:30 - Correct, no salvation outside of the Church. If someone is saved outside the Church, it is because God mystically unites them to the Body of Christ, The Church, when they die because he finds it fitting. This is an extraordinary circumstance though, not the normative means of salvation. And I find this no more scandalizing than saying "Christianity is the only true religion." As far as this "serious concern of 2,000,000,000 Christians in the West"... I find this simply to be an emotional appeal.
24:45 - "Is the Eastern Orthodox Church the savior instead of Jesus" - The Orthodox Church IS The Body of Christ. So it is not either/or, but one and the same. The Church is the Body of Christ here on Earth. Christ has given us the Orthodox Church and the Sacraments for our Salvation. Idolatry of the Church would be very difficult to achieve, because you'd have to first embrace a misunderstanding that the Church is a separate entity from Christ, and then hold it in higher regard than God himself. The only example of this that may come to mind is the Orthobro phenomena, where Orthobros idolize an IDEA of the Church they have in their head as this based, red-pilled, political thing as opposed to Death to the World, Spiritual transformation.
29:16 - Seeing as this entire video uses Theophan as the de facto view of Salvation in Orthodoxy, I think it would only be fair to also include this quote from him about Salvation of the Heterodox.
"You ask, will the heterodox be saved... Why do you worry about them? They have a Saviour Who desires the salvation of every human being. He will take care of them. You and I should not be burdened with such a concern. Study yourself and your own sins... I will tell you one thing, however: should you, being Orthodox and possessing the Truth in its fullness, betray Orthodoxy, and enter a different faith, you will lose your soul forever"
Frankly, this painting of the two options you frame is very deceptive and is, again, more of an appeal to emotion. "Either he is wrong and his entire tradition is wrong, or all these other 2,000,000,000 are damned." Yet, as you should see from this quote FROM THEOPHAN, it is not that cut and dry.
30:00 - How do we explain with this supposed second of our only 2 logical conclusions, the miracles, the hospitals, empire of Christianity, etc outside of Orthodoxy? I will do my best to answer (even though this was a false dichotomy you provided to use, since as shown above, Fr Theophan does not leave it so cut and dry.
1) Miracles themselves can never be proof of which faith is the true faith. There are "miracles" that occur in other religions outside of Christianity. Appealing to these other "miracles" does not prove anything, really. Within Orthodoxy, we can take miracles such as the wonderworking Icons as affirmations that strengthen our faith, but not proof of the Church in and of themselves. because as you say, Pentecostals could go "But look here! We have faith healings and speaking in tongues!" and Catholics may say "Look! We have Eucharistic Miracles." I think his Bible verse may address your appeal to miracles:
Matthew 7 - v22 Many will say to Me in that day, ‘Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?’ v23 And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!’
2) As far as Matthew 7:18 - A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a bad tree bear good fruit - will have to get back to this, however, using this to disprove any ecclesiastical exclusivity is a dangerous game, because then you as a heretic, or member of another religion, can point to the good deeds you have done as proof that your religion/sect is a "good tree." So I don't think regardless this disproves our views.
3) Number games are irrelevant when it comes to Doctrine and Dogmas of the Faith. This applies both outside of Christianity, and "within" Christianity, speaking inter-denominationally.
30:45 - Again, a mischaracterization, requiring us to unambiguously label all outside the Church, all actions, teachings, people, as all-together "completely dark, heretical, falsehood." There are bits of truth and goodness even in other RELIGIONS. However, they are still outside the Church, and are still riddled with falsehood. Feeding a homeless man from the kindness of your heart is a good work and Godly act whether you're Orthodox, Protestant, Buddhist, Luciferian, etc. I find your characterization of the conclusions of Orthodoxy to be pretty baseless and misleading, to be honest.
31:00 Once again. Even though you erroneously conclude the universal, unambiguous damnation of all non-Orthodox, a quote from the SAME MAN WHOSE LETTER YOU ARE READING: "You ask, will the heterodox be saved... Why do you worry about them? They have a Savior Who desires the salvation of every human being. He will take care of them. You and I should not be burdened with such a concern. Study yourself and your own sins... I will tell you one thing, however: should you, being Orthodox and possessing the Truth in its fullness, betray Orthodoxy, and enter a different faith, you will lose your soul forever."
Bearing in mind Matthew 7:1 - "Judge not, lest ye be judged." There are very few situations where can know an individual to be damned for certain. But we know that as Orthodox Christians, WE must be in the Church to be saved. There is a big emphasis on focusing on our own sins and deep, continued repentance that you seem to be either unaware of or not mentioning in this video.
32:30 - I will only bring up that despite what you say about Calvin, he set up a very strict Theocracy in which he punished people who went against him or his teachings. This buddy-buddy modern Protestant ecumenism is just as much an innovation as you often accuse the views of some modern Orthodox as being. I also think it's silly to act like Protestantism is this united front, when the historical practice has been closed-communion (especially among Lutherans). Since communion is, in part, a statement of theological agreement, being in the same Church. If this view of Protestantism you have were the case, would not all Protestants practice open communion with each other?
34:30 - "Can you really stand before Christ and say you submitted to a system that requires you to reject 85% of those who can say the Apostles Creed"
...
Matthew 7:21 - “Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven.
Matthew 7:14 - Because narrow is the gate and difficult is the way which leads to life, and there are few who find it.
Again, just an appeal to emotion. Yes, it is the hard truth that most Christians are outside the Church. That doesn't make it any less correct. The New Testament is dripping with warnings of false doctrine, apostasy, false prophets, wolves in sheeps' clothing, etc. We MUST remain vigilant.
I hope others considering or critical of Orthodoxy found this response to Gavin helpful.
Great writeup, and it's nice to see your view as a catechumen. I've been struggling with my doubts about protestantism and am heavily looking into orthodoxy. Thank you for clearly laying out this rebuttal.
Wow, thoroughly well thought through and gracious rebuttal! Thank you for addressing these points (from a reformed prot inquiring into orthodoxy) 👍👍👍
@@sezcerjan4431 I am humbled, glad you liked this response. I recommend you attend an Orthodox Divine Liturgy, first and foremost.
Experience the faith first, dive into learning and material after, is how I would do it. I knew I was home when I attended my first service.
May God bless your journey, my friend. I pray you join me in coming home to the Church.
@@pogodonuts Glory to God, thank you for the comment. I am humbled my reply was beneficial to you. I highly recommend you visit a Divine Liturgy (with a bit of research beforehand) to experience a taste of the faith firsthand. This is what really did it to me. It was foreign, I was confused, there were some alarm bells ringing from my Protestant background... but I knew I was home.
May God bless you in your journey, and I pray you follow me home :)
Excellent video Dr. O.
I have a couple of family members who left the non-denominational protestant church we all once attended together, citing legitimate complaints about fundamentalism issues in our former church, and legitimate appreciation for the beauty of the Orthodox liturgy. Thankfully we are still close and I expressed to them a desire to not brand one another as heretics as we agree to disagree.
Thanks again. You're my favorite "sellout" 😉
Heretics cause division. Unless someone is in a teaching position, heretic is the wrong word. The right word is apostate.
“I expressed to them a desire to not brand one another as heretic”. But still canonically damned. Seems like a promotion of being disingenuous .
This is such an untapped area. So glad to see you covering it.
My parents got married in the Greek Orthodox church (I'm Greek on my Dad's side), and I grew up with a lot of random info about the religion and the church. (Plus, our yearly visits to the Greek Fest they held cuz... Baklava.) But I never saw it seriously examined until recently since many people seem to be converting to it.
Hello!!!
Wow interesting ! Im a former protestant who converted to orthodoxy. Hope you begin to rexamine thoroughly! Just as there are bad parishs/churches or cultural/lukewarm christians all over doesnt negate the said group/churchs truth & teachings. Godspeed melissa!
Are we protestants, the jw's of eastern orthodoxy. Just some offshoot cult of the EO ?
Greek churches (in America at least) are very eeehhh and lukewarm. I’m not saying all Greek Orthodox folks are like this, because there are obviously pious and genuine people and parishes in Greek Orthodoxy, but here in the States, Greek Orthodoxy has a reputation of being basically a “cultural club.” Many Greek Orthodox folks go to church solely to mingle with other Greek people, and anyone visiting the church from outside of that group is considered weird. Very sad, to be honest.
But there is a growing contingency of faithful Americans finding Orthodoxy. Melissa, I don’t know that you have encountered this. It would be super interesting if you were to visit an Orthodox Church (OCA, ROCOR, Antiochian, or Serbian) and make a video about your experience. Would love to see it.
@@MelissaDoughertyThe Greek Orthodox is the most mystical of the E. O. Churches. The belief in the importance of Grace which probably under a different name, is understood by the Jewish community as well makes the E.O. important path to spiritual ascension. The RC Church view that Grace as defined as something we may get which we don't deserve is too vague to be helpful; something saint do but no one else will accomplish. This idea is incorrect.
I love the art of the Catholic Church and of Orthodox Church. I will never believe that Jesus needs or wants all that. He wants us to care for the least of these. He wants us to simplify it down. Salvation comes from Christ, Share the Gospel, love one another and work hard and care for one another. Faith will produce Fruit, it will no way around that. If The Holy Spirit live in you, it will not cause anything that does not Glorify God. I know my human Dad wants his kids to love one another, keep generations going. I see God wanting the same.
Thanks!
Going from a Slavic baptist to orthodox, I found the only difference is icons in church, we still had pastor confessions, and the communion was the body and blood not a symbol, we had to do works like behave good to be saved, and we called everyone that’s not baptist a heretic and they do Christianity wrong. We even had a service dedicated to showing the church on how Pentecostals have demons and they showed a lot of examples of people falling and screaming. And other Protestant churches near me are all either liberal, non denominational, or very small so I’d rather be orthodox, it changed my life to actually believe in Christ for once in my life, I even joined the choir.
@@Instynctofficial If you guys have the “truth”, then how did you guys not get your eschatology correct? You guys think Jesus is coming back.
Jesus posited that his coming would be before the "passing of that generation" (Matthew 24: 30, 34). And we know that the destruction of the man of "lawlessness" occurs at the "brightness of the Lord's coming" (2 Thessalonians 2:3-4, 8 ). But that happens before the fall of the temple, since this takes place while the man of lawlessness "takes" his "seat in the temple" (v.4) [Herodian temple destroyed in 70ad].
But then that means that the second coming's timing is constrained to that first century, since it doesn't take place AFTER the destruction of the temple, but BEFORE it, because there has to be a temple standing for the lawless one "take his seat" in!
In addition, and along those same lines, the second coming that Paul mentions in 2nd Thessalonians is not a different coming from the one mentioned in 1 Thessalonians 4, which is undeniably a recapitulation of Matthew 24; and this happens to also be the time of the resurrection. It is that same resurrection of Daniel 12 (which Jesus alludes to in Matthew 24:15), that Daniel informs us takes place immediately after the time of great "distress" (v.1), which is the great tribulation Jesus mentioned (Matthew 24:21). But that was in the first century (revelation 1:9).
This being the case, why does the church continue to shout from the roof tops that we are on the cusp of a yet-future coming of Jesus, when his parousia had already taken place in 70ad!?
@Instynctofficial I am fascinated by the concept of Protestantism in other countries like that. Interesting to see how it all gets expressed.
Dude I get this same response from many of the protestant pastors here in Mississippi. Had preachers say I was preaching a false gospel, called a snake. Once again you get way too simplistic. As I've shared on your other videos in this vein there were other voices. The softening of this issue is not a change in doctrine, nor is it from protestantism. It is from our own history. You're also selective in your own Tradition. Luther and other reformers called the Catholic Church the antichrist. That's a lack of love. The 39 articles are clear that the patriarchs of the East are from the same error as the Catholics. Theophan the recluse is a great saint, and in this letter he's trying to stop a protestant preacher, who obviously doesn't think Orthodox are saved, from converting people. He's doing the same thing you are doing with this video. Trying to stop people from converting. Nothing in this letter is dogmatic. I'd say he's right from the perspective of people leaving the Orthodox Church.
There are undoubtedly some of these uncomfortable truths that we just cannot ignore in good conscience and intellectual honesty.
Gavin, from the bottom of my heart, thank you for what you do. You and Jordan Cooper are the only forces that have held me back from leaving Protestantism by making me a Classical Protestant.
"Classical Protestant" meaning sola scriptura which leads us to doctrinal relativism and fragmentation. You can be an "evangelical" and to believe that Jesus did not die for every single or that Jesus died for every single person, you can believe that salvation can not be lost or to believe that salvation can be lost and that is a total disgrace, these are important doctrines, a christian does not live his christian life the same way if you believe one thing or the opposite. Yes this is classical protestantism from luther´s times. The debate between luther and zwingli made clear that sola scriptura is false, worthless to decide which teaching is authentic and what is heresy. Classical protestantism has division in its DNA.
Awesome. I also love our protestant faith. BLESSINGS
I attend a Baptist church and am Christian. Sometimes I visit a Greek Orthodox church. It offers a time to get out of what is comfortable and worship God that feels more contemplative for me. Possibly because I don't know what's going on or the language other than God is present and that is all I need to know. They don't judge me for not venerating icons and know I won't partake of communion. I see the appeal but our Baptist church changed my life and God is with us in the protestant church too.
Thank you so much for this video, Dr Ortlund!
It is so fascinating to now see you read the writings of the easter-orthodox church fathers, after me having the personal experience, talking with my parents, talking with eastern-orthodox priests in Ukraine and seeing my experience confirmed by the writings of their church fathers.
Thank you for shedding light on this topic!
This is a much more studied answer, but this was the same conclusion i reached when i was considering to convert.
But Im a simple minded baptist, I already try to keep the bar low
🤣
"Jesus answered him, 'Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God.'” Orthodox, Protestant, Catholic - it all means nothing. Unless you have been made new by an encounter with the Spirit of God, you are outside of Christ, and it doesn't matter what church you belong to.
Your idea of what that means is a particular interpretation of scripture from a denomination.
@@EpistemicAnthony What is your idea of "your idea of what that means"? What are you reading into the straightforward words of the comment?t
And the "encounter with the Spirit of God" means ______?
Please fill the blank.
The way you answer the question will show what Christian tradition you lean towards.
@anselman3156 Do you not think that statement means anything? My point is every part of Christianity agrees with your statement that you must have an "encounter with the Spirit of God." But each one has a different understanding of what that means and how to do it.
Thank you for the thoughtful and well-articulated video.
Thank you for this video.
Ahhh so excited
Thanks for the video! Before I get into the meat of my comment: disclaimer that I am indeed a Protestant, not EO.
I do have to say, I’m not sure I understand the point of this type of argument. EO ecclesiology does not take the statements of a single bishop to be dogmatic or “authoritative for the whole tradition”. That’s simply a misunderstanding of their structure.
Even if one were to accept the validity of that claim, the fact that the argument is essentially “they used to say A and now they say B” is not a defeater for their claims. You can look back in pretty much any tradition’s history and find something said that they no longer affirm. For example, Lutherans no longer kill Anabaptists. Most independent Church of Christ congregations no longer say that they’re the only true Christians. Most Baptists no longer say that Catholics aren’t saved.
To find a bunch of old personal statements that have been opposed by actual authoritative teaching and use them as a warning of “this is what you’re agreeing with” just seems… dishonest? Anachronistic? Genuinely confused? It’s like someone pulling out Luther’s antisemitism and claiming that Lutheranism endorses it.
I don’t know, because Gavin seems like a great guy, so I want to give him the benefit of the doubt. But this is just… odd.
hello! I suggest watching at 3:41 where I address this. God bless.
@@TruthUniteshi Dr Ortlund! Love your videos, thanks for all the work you put into them and the benefit they’ve been to me personally. 😊
Respectfully, the statements at that timestamp are still a misunderstanding of EO ecclesiology. For the EO (and Catholics I believe) a persons sainthood does not confer authoritative status on any particular thing they say. So, as this is a personal letter and not a doctrinal pronouncement, I do think this can safely be categorized as “personal belief”. Especially in light of Theophan’s other famous quote about the salvation of the heterodox.
Additionally, I’m unaware of “contemporary Church Father” being a category within EO thought. Googling the phrase only brought up a single podcast episode using that term for him. Could you clarify that term/claim for me at all?
Thanks again!
@@TheBillyDWilliamsI’m orthodox, and I’m also unfamiliar with the term “contemporary church father”. Seems like Dr. Ortlund is using the term to make his argument appear stronger. Thank you for pushing back on him.
@ ah, good to know. I won’t pretend to know EO tradition extensively, I’d just never heard that one before.
@@TheBillyDWilliams hello! Thanks for watching, and glad the videos have been beneficial! I said "contemporary father," not "contemporary Church Father." You will find the former label used in print for authoritative more recent theologians. Its actually used in the very text I held up and cited in this video. In Eastern Orthodox theology, saints are typically taken as having a level of theological authority, but if you disagree, you can disregard Theophan and just go with the entire millennium preceding him, which affirmed the same view. I document this in my video "Does Eastern Orthodoxy Have the "Fullness of the Faith?"
You noted: "It does seem weird to assume that just because someone is within the church they don't need to have the gospel preached to them people in the church all the time routinely need the gospel to be preached to them afresh."
I would agree, but my understanding of the EO perspective is that their lifelong, diligent application of and devotion to the mystical rituals, sacraments, icons, etc. IS their sustaining "preaching" of the Gospel afresh, as it can only be found in the Church's sacred acts, and experienced as the beginnings of theosis. They do not particularly think of the Gospel as Protestants do, apart from its one time saving event in baptism, thereafter the Gospel is worked out in the process ultimately leading to theosis.
Correct it seems weird or uncomfortable because the way the churchs theology & mindset flows.
Preaching the gospel cannot be done by not preaching. Nothing else is preaching the gospel. It can be nice, it can be all sorts of things but it cannot be preaching the gospel if it isn't preaching.
@@katskillz The point in your paragraph 2 goes well with my observation. If it is not necessary to remind people of the gospel that saves, then that Church becomes a "folk religion". Case in point, your great, great, great grandfather found Christ and converted to Him, he raised his children, grand children strictly in Church, they also raises theirs in the Church and all are members by "birth". That is what I mean by folk religion. Yous see, God has no grandchildren thus the necessity of presenting the gospel on every opportunity. There is no other tradition that understand this as Protestants. Every person must be born of God individually through the preaching of the Gospel. Orthodox Church does not evangelise. The story which Gavin is narrating in not to be tossed out of the window, it is a reality.
@@Nolongeraslave I agree, I just wanted to (hopefully) accurately present the EO's own position to the best my understanding.
I believe it to be wrong, and the main reason it is wrong is because the EO theology mistakenly takes a specific doctrine of theosis / deification and makes it the central dogma around which ALL other doctrines and practices must flow from or fortify their belief in. This is not how the early Church fathers understood things. Nevertheless, they are blind to the courtroom framing of justification and condemnation in Pauline soteriology. They are blind to the comprehensive pervasiveness of original sin requiring a substitutionary atonement where Adam and his spiritual family stand in a position of demerit needing satisfaction for sin a state of being, by means of a substitute. And they are adamently blind to the distinction between the Content of Gospel and the Consequences of the Gospel. Thus for them ecclesiology basically is soteriology. If one, in their system, is diligently tending to the collective dynamics of the Church's praxis, then one is saved individually, period.
I hope everyone in this chain realizes that preaching happens all the time within the Church. It doesn’t stop after catechism lol.
As an Anglican (Anglo Catholic) I am happy to identify with the doctrine of the ancient undivided Church, and lament the mutual enmity between the various factions who have gone way beyond that in developing their distinctive doctrines based more on speculations and evolving traditions that on divine revelation and the Apostolic deposit which is secured in the Bible and the three ancient Creeds and earliest ecumenical councils. I think Anglicanism has a better history of eirenic ecumenical outreach to Christians of differing traditions. That created an atmosphere of desire for reunion of Christendom, which influenced many Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox and Protestants, but which is strongly resisted by the exclusivists..
catholic larp
Hi Gavin, I am an Orthodox Christian, and a convert from Protestantism. I want to add a bit of context here to what St. Theophan is writing by including a quote from another letter, which I think may be relevant:
"You ask, will the heterodox be saved. Why do you worry about them? They have a Saviour Who desires the salvation of every human being. He will take care of them. You and I should not be burdened with such a concern. Study yourself and your own sins... I will tell you one thing, however: should you, being Orthodox and possessing the Truth in its fullness, betray Orthodoxy, and enter a different faith, you will lose your soul forever." --- St. Theophan the Recluse
I think St. Theophan's problem is more with Orthodox christians leaving the Orthodox Church than anything else.
That is such a good point about Theophan's text being for Orthodox Christians, and not for others. Those who do not Orthodoxy cannot be judged for turning from something they don't know. And Orthodoxy doesn't judge them for it.
The quoted text actually sounds a lot worse. St. Theophan refers to Orthodoxy as the "Truth" and what Protestants believe as a "different faith" and a diversion from Orthodox orthodoxy as a betrayal. Pretty stark language. He even says "They have a Savior" which could be interpreted as Protestants have a different theology or that Protestants have a Savior that is not the Orthodox Savior.
@@Cletus_the_Elderwell they do have a different theology and do to differences in Christology I think you could argue to some extent they do have a different savior. Just as most Christians would admit the Christ of the JWs or Mormons is different than that of the rest of Christianity.
@@Cletus_the_Elder So you think St Theophan believes this other being actually exists and will take take care of them, then? This is absurd.
And yes, Orthodoxy is the truth and heterodoxy is a deviation from the truth...obviously.
@@outsideanarchism5650 they can’t have a different savior, because only one Savior exists.
As a lifelong Baptist (non-Calvinist, 😊) I was ignorant of EO teachings for most of my life, until I gained a Russian friend some years ago. So grateful for discovering your content in light of that relationship. It's been a great help! God bless!
Oh, I've also found the lack of evangelizing by the EO church to be a bit disturbing. Say what you will about the Catholics and Protestants, they have evangelized like crazy!
What's funny is that the Protestants indirectly forced the Roman Catholics to evangelize. LOL
@@raphaelfeneje486 forced? The reason so much of Africa, Asia and South America is Christian is because of the Catholics. 😂
But no one beats the Mormons (per capita)
Orthodox Christianity is only for heavenly warriors with the faith of a soldier compared to the rest denominations no civilian amateur faith is allowed, the Ethiopian Orthodox church is for the faith equivalent of a Colonel in military experience and Flat Earthers Christians of the Ephraim awakening faith is the equivalent of a General in military experience. This is why in the True church believers are standing like a platoon of soldiers waiting orders from Jesus, meanwhile catholic heretics and the weakly faith denominations they don't respect Jesus they need to seat.
@@CastanOpiu It must be cool convincing yourself, especially when you're In falsehood. LOL. Really cool.
What a wonderful video. This video put into words my biggest problem with Eastern orthodoxy, and this exclusionist mentality is the reason I left. My only problem with this video is that it didn't come out sooner! God bless you dr. Ortlund, May this reach the heart of many so they don't have to go through the pain that I and many others have over ecclesial anxiety.
The door is narrow
Hi Tana Grant. I'm so disappointed that Dr. Gavin is promoting such division and promoting false impressions. Please also consider this statement from another Russian bishop from the same time period (that wasn't quote mined from a personal letter of his, as this Theophan quote was). There is tremendous conciliarity within the Orthodox Church:
Met. Philaret of Moscow: I do not presume to call false any church which believes that Jesus is the Christ. The Christian Church can only be either purely true, confessing the true and saving Divine teaching without the false admixtures and pernicious opinions of men, or not purely true, mixing with the true and saving teaching of faith in Christ the false and pernicious opinions of men. ...You expect now that I should give judgment concerning the other half of contemporary Christianity, but I do no more than simply look out upon them; in part I see how the Head and Lord of the Church heals the many deep wounds caused by the old serpent in all the parts and limbs of this body, applying now gentle, now strong, remedies, even fire and iron, in order to soften hardness, to draw out poison, to cleanse the wounds, to separate out malignant growth, to restore spirit and life in the half-dead and numbed structures. In such wise I attest my faith that in the end the power of God will evidently triumph over human weakness good over evil, unity over division, life over death.
You simply chose to be of the world. I chose to follow Christ and his clearly established church. It's not my concern what happens to family. I love them and God is just, so I have hope. But at the end of the day it's "Thy will be done." Not "My will be done."
God is just and love
Anyone that doesn't make it to heaven doesn't deserve to be there
Awesome! May God lead u to a beautiful bible based church that teaches the true gospel😊❤
@roses993 The "true gospel" that was invented by Martin Luther, a man, 1500 years after Jesus walked the earth?
I’ve been told that Non-Orthodox Christian’s are not part of the body of Christ by an Orthodox Christian.
They aren’t, because the body of Christ cannot be split
@@erichenkel4393you guys are murdering each other on the Ukraine-Russian battlefield. Your priests are blessing weapons of war to help murder each other more. Get real with your man-made religion that has NOTHING to do with Jesus.
@@erichenkel4393the body of Christ is not found exclusively in an institution.
@@MusculusPulveriGrace can be outside of the church and works of the spirit depending on the person or whatever the case may be, but the body of Christ is the Eastern Orthodox Church, it is one body.
@@MusculusPulverithen why does Christ tell his apostles to make bishops teach them properly and make sure this continues saying they carry the grace of God if there isnt a historical institution?
if you deny this then you deny the early church, the source of everything protestantism comes from, you unroot yourself when you admit you deny Christ's promise.
Elaborate way of saying: "If Protestantism is true, Orthodoxy is false" yeah we know that
Very often the answer of priests and Saints is the same: "Work on your salvation! If you are worried about your non-Orthodox family and friends, pray for them". And I appreciate the rigorist approach, remind me that this is not a game, and I shouldn't be collecting weird theological opinions, the path is narrow and a little mistakes have serious consequences in the long run.
I don't understand why you keep pressing this point. In our traditions we have people who think that only people in the Eastern Orthodox Church will be saved, we have (hopeful) universalists, we have people in between and the majority: those who tell you to pray, go to Church, fast and remember that God is infinitely more merciful than you are.
The problem is that the rigorists have an easier time defending their position in line with their canonical teachings and teachings of various Saints. However, the EO priests who are either open to salvation outside the church rarely defend their case from tradition but rather seem to be within the spirit of ecumenism.
@@ElvisI97 They are more vocal and people are more "scandalized" by them, but I don't think there is more evidence for the "no salvation outside the visible Church" position. For example, the Church doesn't even affirm that Judas is in hell. As St. Maximus said: "May God keep me too from condemning anyone and saying that no one but myself is saved"
Even priest that are very "rigid", like Fr. Peter Heers, when pressed on this issue he respond the same: "I don't know, that is God's business".
My dad was an Orthodox priest. A few things he mentioned over the years. 1) God can save anyone, but everyone in heaven is Orthodox. Also that does not imply universalism. 2) If non-Orthodox are saved it will be through the work, prayers and presence of Christ's body, the Church, on earth. 3) Salvation is identical to being Orthodox, tautologically. Being saved means you are Orthodox and being Orthodox means you are saved. 4) There are 3 realms, a) What we know is the church; b) What we know is not the Church; c) What we don't know is or is not the Church.
Memory eternal to your father!
All that to say that non-Orthodox are not saved. #2 is a tease though, but it is a conditional "*If* non-Orthodox are saved. Why shouldn't I understand that just to mean that non-Orthodox can be saved ... if they become Orthodox?
@@HohoCamacho Not at all. It means that you may possibly be saved without ever formally joining the Orthodox church, but that the Church should not try to figure out where, when and how God accomplishes that, and that the Church being the body of Christ will be ONE, UNITED in belief after this world has passed away.
God's justice is a purifying fire. Whatever is not pure in any of us is incompatable with it. So we are saved once, but we continue to throw off the dead skin of the old man, and the vestiges of sin in our minds and bodies. They are incompatible with God.
Listening to OrthoBros they definitely come off as "I am better than you".
Well no one attained unity with God with knowledge of theory, but submissions of one’s passions.
Especially converts.
And how is that any different from the "cage stage" Reformed bro or Rad Trad?
I've encountered many Reformed bros who brag about how many systematics they've read of their proficiency in Greek hermeneutics, etc...
That each tradition has its overzealous converts is a problem we all have. It's not specific to one tradition.
@@EricAlHarb Nobody can kil sin (passions) except by the Spirit (Romans). So you put the cart before the horse there.
@@TheB1nary it’s a both-and, God and man work together as in Christ the first born to kill the passions.
Dr God bless you ❤❤❤
I'm from Ethiopia
very cool! I will be doing two videos in the next few weeks on the Ethiopian Orthodox church. They will be largely positive about historic events between Protestants and Ethiopian Christians. God bless.
@@TruthUnites Dr do it carefully. because there's Many false teaching in Ethiopia Orthodox Tedowido church like Ark of Moses, saints meditation, praying and worshipping to Mary, false and edited 85 books , fiction like Enoch books.
Dr in 2008 G. C or 2000 E.C
Ethiopia Orthodox Tedowido church has changed 3540 of bible verses for their doctrine.
I and my family Was in that church.
Truth is not what you are hearing on UA-cam.
Reply me if you see my comment
The Ethiopian Orthodox church denies the intercession of Christ and sometimes even call it heresy , maybe you could touch on that a bit as well.@@TruthUnites
@@AbebaDamesa-wc7ls yes, one video will be on the reform effort of Estifanos in the 15th century; the other will be on the dialogue with Michael the Deacon and Martin Luther in 1534. I hope they will be helpful; let me know what you think if you watch!
Orthodox Christianity is only for heavenly warriors with the faith of a soldier compared to the rest denominations no civilian amateur faith is allowed, the Ethiopian Orthodox church is for the faith equivalent of a Colonel in military experience and Flat Earthers Christians of the Ephraim awakening faith is the equivalent of a General in military experience. This is why in the True church believers are standing like a platoon of soldiers waiting orders from Jesus, meanwhile catholic heretics and the weakly faith denominations they don't respect Jesus they need to seat.
Please do a video on Charismatic churches and their practices and help us know where to draw the line.
I hope and pray this comment reaches you; I know this vid is old. I apologize for its length in advance l but humbly, I think I offer a unique perspective.
First of all, I love you and I love your work. Thank you for being a great defender of the faith and being an ambassador for Christ and inspiring us to come and see the inner work of Christ in the human heart which sincerely submits to him.
As a someone who grow up in Egypt in the Coptic Orthodox Tradition, I consider myself an open Christian, meaning I consume content from the three main schisms and partake of the sacraments in all of them, even though I have only been baptized in the Coptic church and in Protestants churches (I know many consider this is wrong and sinful, don’t come for me in the comments; If what I am doing is wrong, then God will judge me. Point blank.
I can attest what Gavin is saying, there is sense of elitism, bordering on bigotry towards other Christian schisms, that have always rubbed me the wrong way and felt very arrogant and elitist.
The only thing, I disagree with Gavin in is his assessment that you must fully agree with the Saint quoted in the video to convert. Saints are not infallible so I personally wouldn’t take what he said as dogma. Pope Shenouda (a saint, and a great ambassador of Christ) quotes Saint Augustine in his writings all the time, even though Saint Augustine was of the catholic faith. So I think, that is an example that is worth considering and discussing.
Another angle I want to offer that I often think of to try to see the Coptic Orthodox point of view and give excuses to this sense of “elitism” is perhaps its existence in the Middle East and among the Muslim wolrd. The Coptic Orthodox Church is very frequently criticized and persecuted and is expected to give an answer to all that goes in in Christendom. So perhaps this tight reign stems from that and that’s why they frequently don’t affirm other schisms. The Egyptian Pope has to act as not only the religious leader of the Church but is seen by the government as a political voice for all Coptic Egyptians (you can glean that the popes hate that but they feel responsible to protect the flock). So as you said and it’s great point that you made, in the West, and thanks to Martin Luther we this unique freedom that Orthodox churches in the Middle East don’t have. Also, keep in mind that Arab wold is not only majority Muslim, but the government themselves are.
Secondly, growing up in the Coptic Church, I can not overstate the importance of sacrament of liturgy and taking Communion. This is perhaps seen as THE sacrament and is ‘necessary’ for Coptic Christians to “work out their salvation”. Perhaps, that is why there is a certain distaste towards Protestantism, which as I think is a reasonable. Again, as someone who frequents Protestant churches, this sacrament always felt like it was handled poorly and not given its due emphasis. Thirdly, I think many Orthodox, when they think of Protestantism today they think of the Charismatic churches and that looks VERY foreign to them and all those Charismatic practices can look like they are demonic (I don’t know myself what to feel about that; and would love for you to explain to us and give us guidelines when it comes to Charismatics; I’d rather hear it from you than Copts). In addition to the third point, perhaps they link Protestantism with LGBTQ politics, church service being a “concert”, pastors’ scandalous, and lack of modesty in clothing, and the overall absence of the seven sacraments (or not being conspicuous enough or emphasized enough which I feel like I sort of agree with in terms of modern churches expression of the faith; there is this huge church that only given 15 mins sermon filled with videos and the pastor is only there for the first sermon, then he satellites the video for other locations and replays the video for other proceeding church services; I know you won’t agree with this type of “pastoring” and it’s not real Protestantism, but that’s what modern orthodox think of when they think of Protestantism and the examples they use.)
Great video, as always!
I love that we can just affirm that Tradition and the Magisterium have erred and stick to the divine revelation of Scripture!
the thing is, orthodox believe they put together the Bible for everyone else and that we dont even use the right Bible. They have a ton of books not accepted in most canons and they claim to be the only right ones. its ridiculous
@@easytiger35 Why is it ridiculous? Why do trust a single troubled monk like Luther to remove 7 books from the bible? The Septuagint is referenced over 300 times in the NT. Jesus and his disciples most definitely studied the Septuagint as scripture yet Luther and you take your Canon from what the Jews who denied Jesus decided hundreds of years after Christ.
By what measuring stick can you say that tradition had erred? It’s not inconsistent with scripture. If on the other hand you object that it’s not CLEAR in scripture (e.g. icon veneration), then the problem is scripture itself literally says there are vehicles outside of itself for revealing truth (e.g. the spiritual gift of prophecy, look up prophetic tradition in the early church).
@@stratmatt22 I dont know of anyone who believes in "whatever Luther did is right". He was one of the people calling out how far off base the church of the time was....with their liturgies and rituals and the "church fathers" having final interpretation of scripture without discussion or nuance. Orthodox almost always straw man's the arguments against them. Many, many Christian theologians can explain why exactly we all use the same books in canons, except some like orthodox and catholic have some extras in there to support their claim of supremacy. By believing orthodox is THE only church, you have essentially completely missed what "the church" even is, yet always so confidently incorrect.
@@stratmatt22 You wrote: "Why do trust a single troubled monk like Luther to remove 7 books from the bible?" This is a falsehood, and I'm tired of seeing it repeated by ignorant people. The belief that the deuterocanonical books were of lesser divine inspiration is shown by Jerome's writings; it is a very old belief and it persisted right up until the time of the Reformation, when Rome decided to officially repudiate it. Luther merely held this age-old view and he didn't _delete_ those books, he simply didn't get around to translating them into German like he did the rest of the Bible. The KJV continued to include the deutero books until sometime in the 1800s, when the printer ceased including them to save printing costs of a portion which few Protestants were bothering to read anyway. But Anglicans to this day still have some readings from the deutero books in their lectionary. No one has "deleted" them!!!
This is an alluring feature of Orthodoxy for edge-lord theobros. I have a friend who is an orthodox priest, and he told me how concerned he is about the volatile personalities who jump from cagey Calvinism to Orthodoxy, with little desire to pursue true holiness. They love the liturgy, traditions, and debate, but hate their non-Orthodox opponents in word and deed.
@@howwerwoss256 well spoken. Thank you. These Orthobros are basically all converts.
It sounds like you guys are coping. (Although I can't say I am surprised.)
Instead of addressing the serious and legitimate concerns against the Protestant position (something Gavin rarely does), the best you can do to cope with the growing number of conversions from Protestantism to Orthodoxy is to either dismiss them altogether, reduce them, or minimize the valid reasons why many leave. It is an obvious tactic of deflection due to the current state of Protestantism's inability to adapt and account for its deficiencies. Instead, you try to sweep them under the rug and hope no one notices. By marginalizing (potential and actual) converts and branding them as "orthobros," it is surely not an effective apologetic strategy to persuade them or others to your position.
@@icxcnika7722 so the bad behavior of these Orthobro converts should just be ignored then? Deflection? Seriously? I could say the same about you. You're sweeping legitimate concerns under the rug.
@@morghe321
"so the bad behavior of these Orthobro converts should just be ignored then?"
Tell me this, what do you gain from having to adress the behavior of every single overzealous convert?
Can you add another hour to your life by worrying about their behavior? Who has the time?
If I had to spend every waking moment of my life worrying about "cage stage Calvinist" Reformed bros, arguing about soteriology and some meaningless theological opinion held by Charles Hodge, I would get nothing done in terms of personal daily devotion.
// Deflection? Seriously? I could say the same about you. You're sweeping legitimate concerns under the rug//
Don't _tu quoque_ fallacy me. The fact that many potential converts have converted for legitimate reasons, be they doctrinal or theological concerns, means that Protestantism isn't delivering the scriptural clarity the reformers promised. Furthermore, yes, you are deflecting.
You are casting aspersions on converts by psychologizing their reasons for converting. By minimizing, reducing, and impugning their motives for conversion, all you do is slander them, like a cult that shuns those who leave.
This is a typical coping mechanism employed by many cultic institutions that seek to justify and deal with the shortcomings of their own system when said system fails to facilitate uniformity, unity, and harmony.
@@morghe321that's a horrible generalization.
Watching it now, and you're right on. It's downright disturbing to see how many people are willing to say "yeah and it's BaSeD to say my fathers, mothers, mentors, and friends who all showed the fruits of the Spirit worship a FaKe Jesus and are gonna go to hell #imsoedgy". Like....the sheer callousness there. My word.
@@anglicanaesthetics Have you actually seen anyone say that or is this a calumnious extrapolation of what you think we're saying?
100%. It’s shocked me for a long time how many people might love their family heritage and living family and then actively move to EO alone, not realizing they are joining a confession that says that person’s ancestors and immediate family who are Christian are actually empty vessels. They either have no idea or think it’s not a required belief, negating the whole appeal of the “unchanged” church.
@TheologyVisualized The same argument, literally the same argument, was used by pagans multiple times early in Church history, to stop people from converting to Christ, that by doing so, they were saying that all of their ancestors were in Hell. Should they have remained pagan, rather than accept the exclusivity claimed by Christ?
Note : it's not an adequate response to say that their ancestors were pagans, while here we're talking about fellow Christians. The logic of the argument and its emotional appeal work equally well in either case.
What's important is what the Scriptures teach, what is true, and what is pleasing to God.
In either case, this is a caricature of what we actually believe.
@@AmericanwrCymraeg Thank you! I am reminded of the saying I have heard several times: "We know where the Holy Spirit is, we don't know where he is not". I have not heard any Orthodox Priest say that everyone outside of Orthodoxy is damned. That would be like putting God in a box and knowing exactly what he should be doing, which is exactly what Orthodoxy does not do. (Protestant inquirer in Wales)
This is so schitzo
I'm grateful for your videos Gavin.. I was thinking to become eastern orthodox, I was even considering roman catholicism at one time. But after looking at the history of them all, I think Protestantism is a lot better for me. I think roman catholicism and eastern orthodoxy are like "holier than thou" religion, they thought that the church is more important than the Saviour.
The Church is where you get to know the Saviour. It's not "either/or". You cannot divorce Christ from his body - that's a protestant misunderstanding of the truth. You're either in Christ, or you're not - You're either part of the Church or you're not. You cannot be both outside the Church and in Christ at the same time, that's complete nonsense.
@Lessonius What you said is your opinion, stop saying it like it's a fact. I'm grateful that Apollos, Peter and Paul didn't behave you, otherwise there will be no unity between them
This was wonderful, the faith changes and grows. The faith grew after Noah, it grew through the prophets, it grew again through Jesus, and grew again through the apostolic successors.
I am Roman Catholic and we believe through the gift of the holy spirit the faith still moves and the reformation was more examples of growth. Vatican 2 is more growth through the holy spirit and we believe our brothers and sisters in Christ are saved, it may be a softening but it is also faith growth through the holy spirit. Orothodoxy is not acknowledging history of the faith and its changing with the times (to a point)
Gavin, the same question that you encourage Protestants to ask about Eastern Orthodoxy concerning the latter's willingness to damn all the beauty, goodness, wonder, and dedication found in other forms of Christianity is also what you should encourage Christians at large to ask themselves regarding other faiths: Can you make peace with a religious view that relegates faithful Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, Humanists, and others to some eternal punishment merely for not being Christian, irrespective of what they believe and how they live?
We can make peace, of course, and are supposed to live in peace with everyone as much as we can. We cannot agree theologically with groups we have irreconcilable theological differences with. Also we don't condemn anyone to hell, or want anyone to go to hell. It's simply a reality which exists, which we have no control over. It doesn't mean we want people to go there or persecute them for not believing as we do.
We have peace with other religions. Those who do not want to be with Christ in Heaven simply will not be based on their free will. It's like if 1 person drove to a mountain and the other person to a lake then of course that's their respective destination. A Christian may invite others to the mountain but the hike is hard. We can't force them up it if they really want to get a solid tan by the lake instead.
@@CreationGrid You didn't understand how the word "peace" is being used in this context. You shouldn't believe in good conscience that only people who agree with your specific theology will be blessed by God for eternity.
@@KingoftheJuice18 I don't think you're understanding our religion and theology. The Bible does not teach that anyone is good or superior, it teaches that all humans are corrupt and going to hell by default. Hell is eternal separation from God, and we are born apart from God because of our wicked nature. If you want to go into God's house, you have to enter based on the conditions he establishes. Just like if you want to come into my house, or I into yours, there are some conditions, yes? We are told not to abuse or oppress anyone, or use force to bring people into our religion. However, we cannot change our holy text because other people don't like the message. Jesus said he would be a stumbling block for many, and not everyone would be able to accept his message. We also don't have any authority to determine who gets into heaven and who doesn't.
@@Procopius464 But you don't have to believe everything your religion may have taught in the past. In fact, you don't believe or take literally everything your religion says. Based on what you've written, I'm guessing that you don't believe in a literal "lake of fire," even though the NT talks specifically about a lake of fire. We must use the minds and reason that God gave us to determine the genuine meaning of holy texts. It's not an escape clause to say that Jesus told us that his teachings wouldn't make sense.
You're making God sound very bad. According to you, a person is born condemned through absolutely no fault of their own. The only way that someone can escape this condition, according to you, is to become a Christian. It doesn't matter how you live or if you believe in the one God in another faith-you're condemned. Fortunately, that's not the truth about God, because such a God would not be worthy of reverent, adoring worship, only of fear.
Praying God continues to bless your ministry
I find that appreciating Eastern Orthodoxy in person is far more apparent than Eastern Orthodoxy online. It is represented very poorly online, often by quite loud, rude, and obnoxious catechumins and fresh converts... which only serves to diminish the claims that are made. In person, away from the often loud, rude, and obnoxious personalities found online, Eastern Orthodoxy shines. All this coming from someone who is completely comfortable not being Eastern Orthodox, strengths and weaknesses may be more objectively observed and respected.
As a non EO, I can respect this comment. 🙏
I totally agree. I've been Orthodox for over 30 years (convert from RC), and the current trend for recent converts 'teaching' on their UA-cam channels, with little humility, is somewhat shocking. It bears no resemblance to parish worship and parish life and Orthodox ethos.
I'm EO, and the majority of people online who I've interacted with that are representing EO, and even telling other people to convert to EO, aren't even EO themselves! It's crazy.
I've found TLM communities and the Latin mass quite similar. Much better in person, horrible online. Though I do think online EO might do better than online "trads".
Here in England, I simply don’t know anybody in the Orthodox Church. I form my view of Orthodoxy from what I see online and in the news. In theory, the Russian and Ukrainian Orthodox Churches need to get back together and send a joint mission to England to persuade the English to admit that John Fisher and Thomas More were fake saints.
There was once a form of popular EO apologetics that downplayed the Church's exclusivist claims, but it seems to have abated a lot in recent years. I think, nowadays, people are much more aware of this already (and I talk to new inquirers into Orthodoxy frequently IRL). And in my case (converting over a decade ago from evangelicalism), I found this very book in our parish bookstore and read it before converting.
I like to look at the history of Christ's church. One thing that always sticks out is the traditions that happen to develop over time. I am one who thinks that we can use Holy Scripture as a measuring rod to gauge doctrinal developments and practices within the church. Thanks, brother Gavin, for your labors in the kingdom.
I'm so thankful for Dr. Ortlund and his icon accretion videos and the responses that it spawned. They propelled me to become an Orthodox catachumen! I anticipate this video and the ensuing responses that will show the correct EO understanding will convert many more. Glory to God!
This is like listening to Richard Dawkins if he became a protestant.
Im not orthodox but this was infuriating to listen to.
LOL 😂
protestants try not to use "ill pray for you" as a statement to bash people with challenge impossible; whenever you cant defend your beliefs just tell the other party youll pray for them, Phariseemaxxing
@@deathfalcon602 not even
I love Gavin!!! He is the reason I have fallen in love with Theology and Protestantism.
Same here!!!😊 I love our protestant faith and the well articulated arguments he makes 😊
God bless your soul, it’s not easy to make a video like this. But the truth never is
Gavin doesn’t seem to understand that true Orthodoxy is always the middle ground between two extremes. They must be consistent with the traditional theology on one hand, and on the other hand they know that God is free to manage his house however he pleases. Theophan didn’t find it necessary to explain the counterbalance to his position. There is simply more to this conversation. The fact that the Protestant movement has had success doesn’t mean the apostolic deposit is false or insufficient. Our theology is specific but God’s ways are higher and we can still be confounded and amazed by his will.
Second bit of confusion I have with him is that he tries to speak on behalf of Protestants about the necessity for works. It’s as if he thinks he can protect his own universal deposit of faith. However, there simply isn’t enough unity in Protestant church to say what Protestants actually believe. This is happened because, as he models, there isn’t an imperative for obedience to the shepherds of the church in Protestantism. He personally seems to have a strong sense of obedience. However he is a far cry from Luther because he has found his own interpretation of scripture. The fact that he is a Baptist testifies that he is at least another 2 degrees of schism down the road from his forefather and marches along the road “continual reform.” Meanwhile, other forms of mainline Protestantism can hardly outline some sort deposit. Many would rather refute the real presence of God in communion, have gay and women pastors serving their communion, and swirl around in every form of doctrinal chaos. The people can disagree with their shepherds then run off to create a new church according to their desires and it’s called reform.
This is exactly what Theophan was protecting his sheep from when he stated his “very exacting” position. We have freedom unto good works because of our obedience. Nonetheless I always appreciate Gavin’s effort to sincerely state his concerns.
I am hoping to be baptized this Pascha. It’s good that we have intelligent people asking valid questions. Christ said if you love me then you will obey my commands and my words. Thus, I am thankful that my obedience will only be encouraged and edified in the Orthodox church.
Great video Pastor Gavin. Very informative. God bless.
Excited for this one
Orthodox view Protestants similar to how Protestants view Mormons?
You know Mormons aren't Trinitarians : your compassion is incoherent.
@@davidjanbaz7728 Do Orthodox view Protestants as having flawed trinitarian theology?
@@pigetstuck Yes, because they followed the Roman Catholics with their addition to the Nicean creed.
@@jbn668 if the Catholics went back to the original creed, would they then be part of the true church again?
@@pigetstuck Not unless they renounce other doctrines they added, like purgatory, infallible papacy etc.
Thank you, your book is great !