I'm Orthodox, the girl I'm courting is Roman Catholic. I have many Roman Catholic friends. Unity would be absolutely wonderful, but it has to happen properly, through a great Council involving *all* the bishops
Wouldn’t that be something if you could get the heads of every denomination to commit to a long deep conversation in some type of gathering that will take months or years to achieve unity. That would have such a huge impact on how the whole Christian world moves into this new coming age where evil seems to be more present almost as if the evil one is running out of time.
@@paquitojhs good luck finding the head of the Southern Baptist Convention. as long as evangelicals remain headless, conversations will remain impossible. the closest we will get in our lifetimes is unity between Rome and Constantinople
@@maxonmendel5757 There will be some unity with protestants as Matt is a good example of that but it will definitely be the minority of protestants that unite I believe unfortunately
@@maxonmendel5757 I think if most other Protestants were willing to come together most Baptists would be able to agree on sending representatives, there would obviously be holdouts, but I don't see an insurmountable obstacle there.
@@paquitojhs Churches might achieve some kind of unity but I seriously doubt that any denominations would even think unity worth pursuing. They have no episcopacy to speak of, they reject many sacraments, and they do not believe in the Real Presence. Unity under those conditions is pretty much impossible.
I am South African. We cannot change the past. We can celebrate our collective commonality Today in my area today Dutch Reformed. ANGLICAN Methodist and Roman Catholic Church joined in a park and Blessed the palms Then we all walked in procession to our various churches It was amazing. .
Wonderful to hear such news. When I was in graduate school in Stellenbosch in the mid-1980s, the Afrikaans-speaking Dutch Reformed Church had a distinct and pronounced anti-Catholic bias which I truly didn't understand. At the time, though, so much of South Africa was seemingly contradictory to my Catholic American upbringing. Thank the Lord for helping all of us overcome our superficial differences and biases, and better adhering to His Word.
Thank you for mentioning the Copts here. There are roughly 60 million Oriental Orthodox that separated centuries earlier, and I often here these conversations ignore them. Unfortunately though the Assyrians are almost never considered in discussions of church schisms - it’s like we don’t know what to do with them because they’re not Oriental Orthodox and they’re not Eastern Orthodox and they’re not Western, and because they’re a smaller group they just slip out of the conversation.
I am protestant who has learned a great deal from Anglicanism, Orthodox and Catholics. I am hopeful for all of us to be united. I am going to reach out to local church leaders with some basic questions. My hope is to forge relationships, find the common threads and get them to come together for different events, projects, missions, etc
Yes as a Catholic I have been saying this and saying this we need to come together where we can as Jesus wanted in scripture and as Bishop Fulton Seen said, we need to come together even if it’s only on our knees in prayer”
I'm Eastern Orthodox. The early councils were all Christological. If we were to merge Reformed confessions with the early creeds, that would deny some of the results of those councils. Nestorianism and monoenergism come to mind. Just my 2 cents.
Reformed confessions deny monoenergism and monotheletism -> Second Helvetic Confession. Monergism is not monoenergism. That is a word-concept fallacy. The accusation of Nestorianism is plain daft.
I'm an Orthodox Christian. The Church has always and will always be one. It cannot be divided. Heretics can go into schism and separate themselves from it, but that doesn't imply that the Church is then divided. The West was Orthodox before the Schism, and we still celebrate Western liturgies in the Western Rite.
Salvation to the early church was all about the incarnation and our participation in it through theosis. Of course if you reject this view and see salvation purely through this legalistic view of sin atonement it’s not going to make sense to you.
It's rather ironic that Dr Nichols has pictures of Luther and his wife behind him, when Luther said he would rather "drink pure blood with the pope than mere wine with the fanatics." By fanatics, Luther meant the Baptists. Protestants like to try to claim Luther, but he would consider most of them heretics, including the ones that name themselves after him.
I’m Protestant and have many close Catholic friends. I’d love to see the Eastern Church and the Western Catholics move closer together. As far as the Reformation goes, that will take many years and hard work to remedy, but I’m committed to working to create mutual understanding between my fellow Protestants and Catholics (I don’t know and Orthodox people). We’re all Christians. We all believe in the Holy Trinity, and that Jesus’ sacrifice is our redemption. God bless you all.
I'm optimistic as well Matt. Face to face conversations and real relationships with those of other Christian traditions are the place to start. We need supernatural grace to deal with our differences in a manner worthy of Christ. We must hold to the truth together, but we often struggle to love each other while hashing out the details. Your channel is a good example of how to get to know and appreciate those who we don't walk in lock step with. Keep it up!
I interviewed Father Moses for a paper for seminary. He is an Orthodox Priest in Billings Mt. And as he put it " If the leadership wanted it would already be done." I'm in agreement with this.
Another great video Matt. LCMS here. I am hopeful for our future together, although I worry about those churches who appear to have 1 foot out the door that you mentioned in one of your recent videos. I hope those churches don’t water things down for the rest of us.
I have been a part of many, many different flavors of Protestant Christianity. Berean, SBA, EFCA, Foursquare, Calvary Chapel, many non-denoms, and most recently, I’m a worship and youth minister for a Church of Christ. I am extremely optimistic about the trajectory of Christian unity. Though there are pockets that do not want to be unified, the more I look, the more I see the body of Christ coming together for the purpose of the Gospel.
I recently left a Pentecostal tradition and joined an ACNA church, and the number of similar stories I'm hearing and everything I'm learning about Anglicanism makes me optimistic. It feels like the right balance of ecumenism without compromise.
Charismatics are certainly an important part of Anglicanism! My church holds a monthly healing service which provides a good balance between following the BCP in Sunday worship while still allowing an opportunity for people to exercise their spiritual gifts in a corporate setting. We've had people healed during our services which has been amazing.
@@piratesmvp Perhaps Benny Hinn would be an excellent guest speaker in your church, considering he identifies as an Assemblies of God Pastor. What do you think?
The creeds are a good starting point for unity. Unfortunately, once people start getting into the details of when/how we are saved the disagreements start to crop up. That being said, I think things are looking slightly up.
We don't have to have complete conformity of belief to respect our fellow Christians. We can agree to disagree with others who hold sincere beliefs and expressions of worship without detracting from the authenticity of our respective faiths.
Just saying "the creeds" is problematic. There's one creed: the Nicene Creed, and it doesn't include the Filioque. So let's start there. The other "creeds" are accretions and distortions based on flawed premises.
@@jamesstevens8822The biggest schism (East West) was over geopolitics of the time; even prior to this regard the east and west had different traditions, nevertheless shared communion; they all professed the same creed and read the same canon. Stuff like leavened vs unleavened bread for the Eucharist wasn't what divided the church, just different interpretations with valid reasons.
Hi Matt, I appreciate the content as always. Long time subscriber here. Anyway, to answer your questions, I'm a Confessional Lutheran (more specifically Lutheran Church Missouri Synod, you interviewed a pastor from my denomination, Will Weedon, a few years back). In terms of the 3 big creeds, I agree with you that those are a good baseline. I do think something more to help clarify and expand on them can be helpful, but there is a danger in going too far, wanting to have a dozen or more additional statements, or letting every generation or two update/revise existing statements to better match their sensibilities and preferences. To that end, I favor the Augsburg Confession (the original Reformation Confession) and the Book of Concord as an elaboration. Conceptually, I would be open to 1 or 2 other Confessions if they were historical and properly and carefully articulated the Christian faith. With the Augsburg Confession and BoC, I don't think any other confession is really necessary, but conceptually I wouldn't oppose that if it would create greater unity. On the topic of unity, I favor theological unity but not necessarily organizational unity. There can be benefit to having smaller organizations independently run that believe similarly versus one monolithic organization that imposes centralized authority well beyond what it should.
I have to say that as an Eastern Orthodox, as much as I want unity, it cannot come without most denominations admitting that they were very very wrong and that they need to merge into what we found out to be the correct denomination. Since if we ended up doing an Ecumenical Council with all the Bishops of every church, what we'll end up with is discovering which one of us was the True Church all along and who are the reality deniers. I'm not trying to be divisive or toxic but that's just reality as is. Only one or a few denominations can be correct doctrinally, I say one or a few because there are cases of theologically identical denominations. Truth is not relative, there is only one truth, the question is if people would accept said truth to begin with. Even if we all speak of unity, we have to realize that the cost of unity is humility. One of us is right here and when we find out who, will everyone else be willing to admit to being: schismatisc, heretics, etc? I don't think so, and that saddens me since only the Oriental and Eastern Orthodox Churches can merge without having to forgo any significant doctrine. Especially in the light of conversations which establish Miaphysitism and Dyophysitism to essentially be saying the same thing.
@ronaldignacio3574 Indeed. The prescribed process was not followed and that shouldn't have happened, but the real question is this-is it Biblical? The answer is yes (see John 16:7).
I'm Roman Catholic and am extremely optimistic about the church's future. Especially the Catholic and Orthodox churches which I think could unify quite easily. Papal supremacy is something we may have to compromise on but I don't think most ordinary Catholics would be upset about it. As for Protestantism, the gaps between our doctrines of salvation and ecclesiology are a little harder to bridge, but overall our traditions have much in common.
Hey Matt, Thanks for all your hard work and effort with all that you do, it is really appreciated. First let me say that I am quick to agree that man "we" got problems in this world and we have met the enemy and they are "us". So there is plenty to lay awake and think about at night and how we could do a better job at being God's people, BUT, I take great comfort in knowing that various representatives of this group of humanity has been stumbling and bumbling along for over 2000 years and we are still here. Which is another giant confirmation that God is Sovereign and in control, and the end of this story has already been written. Our role is to keep trying as hard as we can, keep learning as much as we can, keep doing as much as we can, and most importantly as we are instructed in the Bible several times...."FEAR NOT", for God is with us to the end of the age. So yeah, I'm nervously optimistic and know that we have to put the backpack on and git 'er done, but don't worry, God's got this and us.
I am raised, schooled and churched my whole life as a Roman Catholic as well as my huge family. Personally I have attended Harvest Bible Church for 10 years of Bible study. I have a different more honest relationship with my Bible sisters. I am not comfortable taking sides but I prefer Catholic Church for communion and kneeling and Bible church for growing my dependency on God. They are both angry at one another. I think the priests and pastors both ignite that in their sermons sometimes sarcastically. Not sure how to change that but I love your channel and your voice is full of trust. Thank you for all the discussions and making a huge attempt to reach that goal.
What Dr. Nichols says at 4:53 is the most important part of this interview, and also why I think Protestants, Catholics, and the Orthodox will never reunite as one church. Conversely, I believe there is already one true church. That church already extends beyond denominational boundaries and contains all that have accepted Christ's free gift of salvation through faith. I find in my experiences that this church of believers already is working throughout the world to save lives and souls. My background is in small New England evangelical churches. The strongest churches that I've attended preach the Bible expositorially. This lets the Word speak for itself and avoids the very human tendency to skip passages that are seen as uncomfortable, irrelevant, or controversial. The message is simple. Christ clearly outlines who He is, His nature, and how people get right with God in the Gospels. For those of us who have received the gift of salvation, the next step is also simple - go and tell others.
I love your videos and they’re always so hopeful, but then I read the inevitable comments about how close you are to “coming home” and how excited they are that you’ll soon be “swimming the Tiber” and it’s just deflating. There can be unity. All it takes is for you to admit that they’re right and you’re wrong.
Jennifer I appreciate your comments so much. You really stand out here with your optimism and clarity and positivity. Thank you for that. I also find those kind of comments to be off-putting, but the people who are making them genuinely believe theirs is the only true expression of Christianity that exists. Based on that, I believe very flawed, assumption, they are trying to be kind in their own way. I don't care for the tone of it either, but I appreciate the sentiment buried deep down in there somewhere. All of that said, I would give the advice to all Catholics everywhere, that such comments are absolutely unfruitful if what they really hope to accomplish is to bring people into their particular expression of Christianity. Whether it's off-putting or not to someone, it isn't effective at all in moving the needle. All of that said for the second time, I think for the most part everybody handles their business really well here regardless of what expression of Christian faith they are coming from.
No, the schism cannot be reversed currently because the reasons for its happening still remain. Those reasons are: The nonsensical practice of celebacy for the clergy by Catholics and the ultimate supremacy of the Pope (i.e. bishop of Rome). In the early centuries of Christianity, celebacy was voluntary. Matter of fact Paul in his letter to Timothy addresses the marriage of bishops (i.e. he approves of married bishops). Also, some of the Apostals were married. The second dubious point is the supremacy of the Pope. Again, in the early centuries of Christianity, there was no "Pope". There was a bishol of Rome who was equal in hierarchy to other bishops. This elevation of the bishop of Rome to Pope and head of the Western Christian church started when the bishop of Rome began coronating the emperors of the Holy Roman Empire. Thus giving him a "chip on his shoulder" hence enabling him to feel more important than the other bishops. The Eastern bishops threw him the middle finger and said "goodbye". And there is your schizm. If these reasons (stupidities practiced by the Catholic church with no theological basis) are not eliminated, the Eastern church will never want any reconciliation. And I am a former Catholic who left after intense study of Jan Huss and the Catholic church's "response" to him (at that time there were three Popes ..... a complete circus within the Catholic church)
I would say yes, the supremacy of the Pope over all bishops and patriarchs is a problem, . More importantly the problem is the changing of the creed without an ecumenical council, addition of the Filioque. Just recently I learned that Catholics actually produced false documents in the past to advance the filioque agenda. The celibacy of the priests doesn’t bother me. There are good reasons for celibate and married priests. It’s just the requirement of the bishop of Rome how he wants to run his churches and the priests have to obey to their bishop
Such as when we clean our bedrooms, it’s a mess to start with and it’s disorderly but it will all be worth it in the end. I pray for this to happen within our lifetimes, brothers 🙏🏼✝️☦️
I can't put a definitive label on what type of Christian I am, because I haven't found the right category to put myself in. I pessimistic when it comes to any kind of actual unification of the Church, but optimistic on us actually being civil to each other. My dad was raised Protestant. My mom was raised Catholic. Both of my sisters are very active in their Catholic churches. I married a life-long Lutheran. Shortly after getting married, we left the Lutheran church that her family had been attending, due to a new senior pastor, and we started attending a non-denominational (non-committal) church. While that church declared themselves as a "Bible" church, the teachings were very shallow. I often left services thinking that I could have gotten more theology out of an episode of VeggieTales. We returned to Lutheranism, but at a different congregation. Being in southern Indiana, our city of roughly 50,000 people has five LCMS churches and three ELCA churches. It was nice to get back into something with a little more commitment, however for many sermon series, the teaching still seemed pretty shallow and the Bible studies were of the fill-in-the-blank sort, with little to no discussion. That changed when our church called a pastor who is also a ordained rabbi. He brought the much deeper teachings that many within the congregation were starving for. We were blessed with him for somewhere around five years until he was called to a congregation in Michigan. While some within our congregation are still not ready to see the deeper levels of meaning within the Bible and the plethora of ways in which every story within the Bible "hyperlinks" to the others (both Old and New Testaments), those of us who are ready love meeting together and peeling back the layers. I will say this much... I do not agree with the Roman Catholic church that the Church should be Latin-based and Rome-based. I do not agree with the Eastern Orthodox that it should be Greek-based and Constantinople-based. The Church is Hebrew/Aramaic/Greek and centered solely around Jerusalem. The Bible makes that immensely clear. All of the "new festivals", such as Easter, Christmas, the days of individual saints and all the rest are non-Biblical and are human creations. God tells us very clearly in the Torah/Pentateuch exactly what our schedule for festivals and meetings with Him is to be. He gives us the His Sabbath (Saturday, not Sunday) and His Festivals. There is nowhere within Scripture where any of this is changed or done away with. Jesus did not negate any of God's commandments. He actually reinforced them and gave them even greater meaning. Thank you for all of the great content Matt! It is definitely a blessing to us all!
There are the Personal Ordinariates and the Western Orthodox within the Catholic and Orthodox Churches respectively, as well as a few sui juris churches within the Catholic Church.
Confusing, isn't it? I'm not too optimistic because there are so many different sects of Protestantism that think they're the only ones who have the truth, and that everyone else is the enemy. Background is Baptist and IFCA. As an adult I have been RCA, UMC, UCC, and ELCA. I don't agree 100% with any of these, but the bottom line is that we are all Christians.
We can't really have unity without a common conception of what constitutes Christian orthodoxy and what constitutes heterodoxy. Intercommunion presupposes unity of faith. I converted from Anglicanism to Orthodoxy in 1984 and I can't say I'm optimistic about the prospects for unity.
Matt, you and Dr. Nichols were talking about the creeds and the confessions. I think many people with a Baptist background like me may not be very familiar with these creeds and confessions, since in my experience, the only place Baptists are taught very much about the history of the church after biblical times is in seminary. I think it would be really interesting if you would do one or more videos that delve into greater detail about these creeds and confessions, explaining who wrote them, why they were written, what they contain and why they’re important.
From an Orthodox perspective, there isn’t true unity if it isn’t Eucharistic unity. I’m all for working with other Christian groups, but what isn’t productive is a false sense of unity when we don’t truly profess the same things. Ecumenism leads into relativism. With that said, as a former Southern Baptist, then confessionals reformed, now Orthodox Christian, I pray for the unity of Christendom every day. We should work to fight the secularism and evil of our day. Your channel is awesome, keep up the good work man.
My perception is the same (as a former messianic evangelical), we should work with other Christian groups for the betterment of societies and teaching Christ-likeness but spiritually as Orthodox we can never compromise on the living Tradition. It would be difficult to try and unite with those who see the Eucharist as a symbol or despise Iconography as “idols” (theres a few in my family). But I hope and pray as well. So far the only unity I’ve felt are my charismatic cousins becoming Orthodox too (alleluia) and my Catholic in-laws actually preferring that their son married an Orthodox
The reunification is possible in case of the Roman-Catholic, Orthodox, and Oriental churches, considering their similarities, stability of tradition, and tolerance of local diversity, but in case of the Protestants, especially the reformed ones, who have abandoned most of the Holy Tradition, they're too far gone to even consider such possibility.
Protestantism branch is going to take forever, though you could weed out the heretics by reaffirming the Nicene Creed alone. Apparently liberal Lutherans in one church in Minnesota profess the "Sparkle Creed" - I wish I was joking.
Great job putting this together Matt. As for the split, I believe the Church will unite eventually. Probably during the end times. Just my opinion based on the history of humanity. We seem to be able to look past our differences and unite when facing persecution and opposition. Thanks again.
Schism is a sin. Our blessed Lord commanded "that they may all be one, just as you, Father, are in me, and I in you, that they also may be in us, so that the world may believe that you have sent me". We must do everything possible to remove schism, and that includes the most important and powerful element, prayer
Your videos are fantastic! I really appreciate the way you approach each denomination with an open mind and a willingness to understand their beliefs. Thank you for sharing your insights and helping to navigate this complex issue. A bit about me, I'm Protestant, i've grown up in an Anglican church, although have always considered myself as a Christian. Didn't realise the conflicts between different sects until quite recently. I'm 15, and recently some Catholic kids scolded me for my faith, (I have nothing against the Catholic Church, and know that not everyone is like this) but it was then when i was launched into the world of the conflicts between Protestants and the Catholic Church and the Orthodox church. I'd ended up pretty discouraged by everything, with every answer i got about who was right, their was always a conflicting response. That's when i found your channel, i appreciate everything you have delved into :) Keep up the great videos man!
GOD BLESS you! Stand firm in your Christianity which is rooted and grounded in the Bible. Man has added or taken away many things in all denominations. GOD is always right. Cling to your Bible believing Christianity. The world always changes. GOD does not.
I appreciate the comment and I appreciate you being here. Insecure people, who mean well, will panic over you not seeing things their way, and from time to time they'll be cruel. This is true about life, not just church. Its not fun when you take those shots from people, but it's okay. That's them working out their own stuff even if they don't realize it. Lean heavily into the Bible and Christians who've been doing it longer and who live and think in a way that looks like Jesus. I'm proud of you for caring about the important stuff and putting in the effort to grow in that.
I’m sorry that any Catholic teenagers would have scolded you for your faith. That is absolutely not how we are called to interact with our brothers and sisters in Christ. That falls under the heading of proselytizing which is a no-no. I hope you think charitably of them and remember that our church is under a focused attack for our stance on the sanctity of life, the immutability of the nature of marriage, and our stance on transgender issues. We now have parishioners who have been trained for defense at every Mass, especially on days like today, Palm Sunday. The mainstream news is not reporting it but Masses are being invaded, priests attacked on the altar, parishioners threatened in the pews. Our churches are being robbed, vandalized and burned. The most evil thing of all is that our tabernacles are being wrenched open and the Eucharist is being defiled. It was less than two hundred years ago that Catholic Churches were burnt to the ground and Catholics beaten for practicing their religion, and there were no consequences for the perpetrators of those acts. Just as there are few consequences today. That doesn’t excuse their actions toward you in the least. Hopefully it does provide a bit of context.
@@countryboyred Yes, they are. We recognize one baptism for the forgiveness of sins. We accept their baptism as valid. We don’t except other baptisms such as LDS as they do not ascribe to the confessed beliefs of the common Christian Church.
This really makes me think man. I really love the church of Christ and I hope we can get to a healthy communion between all the "provinces" or as the bible says, all the members 🥲
I'm a member of one of the most aggressively autonomous church traditions out there, but I can see the necessity of unification. Continuing to be separated will not help us represent Christ on earth in these times, although it may have been acceptable in the past for each to explore his faith according to his conscience and break away, the time may have run out on that.
Exactly Jim. We are running out of time we need to do something because evil is spreading and you can feel it prowling like a roaring lion more than ever.
I'm writing a thesis/book/pamphlet(I don't know what it is) in which I try to articulate all of the biblical necessities for salvation, and putting less emphasis on any particular traditional or extra biblical doctrines. I've seen many videos where you seem to kick around the same idea, and I am really curious what you might think of the 16 points I've come to.
Based on Scriptural evidence, it seems necessary for their to be a perfect unity in body and in thought, as the Lord prayed for in John, and as St. Pail exhorts in 1 Corinthians. It doesn’t seem consistent to say we are one if so many core doctrines contradict one another among so many fractious denominations. Diversity of expressions is one thing, but diversity of doctrine is another.
Church of Christ kid here. I grow up incredibly sectarian. INCREDIBLY sectarian. I had my own road to Damascus moment(more like a series of moments over the last 8 years.) Now, I’m incredibly ecumenical in thought and action. I largely view us on the right path to reconciliation. However, more often than I care to admit I get discouraged when I run into someone who cares more about being right about this or that than loving brothers and sisters that Jesus died for.
Do you think that if the great schism had not happened, that the reformation would have happened? would it have played out differently? Obviously, there is little resemblance between mainline protestants and Eastern orthodox, but thinking in terms of alternate history, what might Christendom look like?
I am not sure how you'd investigate this but, I've been seeing a lot from those who have lived a "Christian" life but are transitioning to being a "Torah observant follower of Messiah." 2 bigger names that come to mind are Pastor Joe Fox and TJ Brooks from Bear Independent. What are your thoughts on this? It seems to make sense to me. And I am feeling pulled that way...
0:56 The metaphors typically used for the chuch are body, mother, and bride. How can all this disunity be a good thing? Imagine a young man, a bridegroom, about to marry a young woman so conflicted that it seems like she has over 30,000 different personalities. She cannot even make up her mind about the most basic questions. She splits at the first sign of trouble. What would you say to the bridegroom? "Go wife her up" or "Run"?
I had to cheat just a little bit on my giving up something for lent promise. And since I’m not Catholic, it’s OK that a snowstorm delayed Ash Wednesday by a week and that I had not turned off notifications for this channel. God says it’s alright?? 😊 I’ve been happily getting through these mere 40 days by only listening to podcasts. No other social media and no news. I’d like to call it a social media cleanse and it pretty much has made me not care about Facebook and Instagram, and all those other things that waste my time. I was raised Missouri Synod Lutheran but my folks, let me go to the Baptist Church or Assembly of God with friends. And I thought our church was so strict when I was growing up! So I think it’s may be easier for me to think of ways that we are more alike in our different denominations, as long as we agree that God is the one true God, that Jesus is our one, and only Savior, and there is no way to heaven, except through Jesus, the Word! Wow, this got long. Have a blessed Easter!
I'm not baptized in any church though long story there. The situation is more complex than just a simple up or down. there are two things in a regard to that. Some Christian traditions/ denominations have practitioners of said traditions view Practitioners of other traditions/denominations as " the enemy" despite their tradition/denomination saying they're not. or opposite a Christian tradition/denomination views another Christian tradition/denomination as being of Satan's kingdom. How do you think the two situations I have stated should be rectified? You do great work on this channel and I find it very informative to learn about other denominations/traditions. Keep up the great work.
I am not baptized in any denomination either, so I just call myself a disciple for now. Mine is also a long story; even the short version still isn't all that short, you know?
Orthodox priest here. I'm an arrow up guy. I would have to say there is no way I will ever accept the reformation confessions. Also, the Creeds are the place we need to go for unity. However, what the author meant is what it means. The line One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church has specific meaning. The RC, OO and EO churches are all fairly close in their understanding of that line. The rainbow of differing Protestants do not. So protestantism is the odd man out when it comes to the Creed. It is actually hard to see anything that encompasses all of protestantism that could possibly unite to the other three, while the other three can. My arrow is pointing up for two reasons 1. Christ will come back and burn away all that is unworthy and the gold will shine. 2. Some of that gold will be the love we have for one another, even if we are not taking the Eucharist together.
I'm a Protestant, but Catholic and Orthodox scriptural arguments have convinced me that you are correct in this matter. There should only be one church. The issue remain though - if there is only one church, what should it teach? I am still Protestant in my understanding of Scripture being more important than Church tradition (though I do think many Protestants went too far and threw out helpful and good practices in order to differentiate themselves from Catholicism). There are many matters of doctrine about which many good, genuine Christians are in disagreement over, many of which make such a project a non-starter. Even something as basic as to whether and how Jesus is present in the Lord's Supper would produce a bunch of issues in different groups for which they see no room to compromise. And like any compromise, all sides would have to retreat from absolutist positions. I think particularly Catholics have a very naive assumption that ecumenism means other Christians just straight up agreeing with Catholic doctrine in all things. And I have heard similar from many Orthodox Christians and Protestants, though both to a lesser extent. Personally, I believe that the Church's split was as a result of human sin, but it will not be fixed before Christ returns. In eternity, when we understand Him in full, then we will be one body against, but not before, sadly.
I'm a Baptist/Anabaptist and I feel that while unity is - very - important, there has never been a time in church history where unity has been a true reality. Even the creeds are examples of this - there was enough disunity and confusion that the church felt it right to come together and clarify their beliefs, but I think that the creeds only defined the beliefs of the majority, and provided consensus. While that's good, and while I am a proud cereal Christian, they haven't proven to provide much for unity over the centuries... this is why I'm such a big fan of this idea of convictional unity - it looks at our differences and our visible disunity and says "I'm going to choose to be different. I'm going to treat all these Christians as my family." and it treats the creeds as a foundation for our family values. We're all just trying to do our best at following Jesus in our contexts and situations. let's recognize that in eachother.
The late Thomas Oden was very interested in Church Unity. He was the primary editor of the "Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture". He himself was a Methodist in the tradition of John Wesley. Joel Elowsky, professor of historical theology at Concordia Seminary, St. Louis, wrote this of Oden. "He viewed it as providential that the church was renewing its interest in the Fathers. He believed that a study of the Fathers could lead to an ecumenism based on what he often referred to as the “classical Christian consensus”-or, put another way, “That which has been believed everywhere, always, and by all” (the canon of Vincent of Lerins). Oden suggested ecumenical talks between the branches of the Christian Traditions with the Early Church Fathers being the starting point....the idea was sadly rejected by Catholics, Reformed, and Evangelicals.
As an Eastern Orthodox Catechumen, i think its up, especially that the oriental and eastern churches are dialoging and God willing they recommunion pretty soon
I kind of doubt we'll have Christian unity again until after Jesus returns, but until then we could at least use our disagreements to be a "hotbed of charity" toward each other, as Lewis liked to talk about.
I think the focus on creedal differences alone is misguided. What we believe about the filioque or "faith alone" matters, sure, but how we behave also matters. Differences on divorce and remarriage can't just be ignored. Then there is the manner of worship. Even if a Baptist agreed with me on everything else, I'm not going to be united with him in a very important way so long as his Sunday worship doesn't include the Eucharist. Religion is creed, code, and cult (worship) so I think it will take Christ's second coming to completely heal the divisions.
I know I’m oversimplifying but focusing on the lordship of Christ is what breaks down any denominational differences in my experiences. You are a slave to whom you obey. Rom 6:16.
... I think someone like Paul Washer - he's one tough Calvinist, I know, but - he once remarked the one true church exists. And - it exists throughout all denominations where people, in truth and spirit, love Jesus Christ, to the glory of His Father and that Holy Ghost keeping us together. When you meet someone in this category, man - you know in your heart this person is a believer! With a capital B! They love Jesus Christ knowing full well: He's alive. Thank you Greetings from Scandinavia Kind regards Kim
@@patrickdean4853 until ALL accept the real presence, Body,Soul,and Divinity, of Our Lord Jesus in The Eucharist and His Blood in The Cup, there can be no unity.
Did you hear about the church in Connecticut where the Eucharist multiplied a few weeks ago? The priest had a bandaged hand so he gave the ciborium (bowl) to the Eucharistic minister to distribute. She should have ran out rather quickly with a need to refill. But after administering Communion to prob 150 people, she handed the ciborium back to the priest and it had roughly the same amount in it (or more!) as when he first gave it to her. He was in shock when he announced it to the parish.
@@MWroses yes, I did hear about it. The Bishop has said an investigation has been opened. The Vatican always requires the local Bishop to conduct an investigation before a Miracle may be proclaimed. The days we are in, I believe we will be hearing about a lot more.
As a Protestant who does not agree with transubstantiation (I'll note there are plenty of Protestants who do agree with transustantiation or something similar); a video on Eucharistic Miracles would be interesting. Some Eucharisitic miracles may well be legitimate in my opinion. But from the little I know about Eucharistic miracles, if legitimate, they don't prove anything about transubstantiation. Multiplication miracles like the above don't prove anything related to transubstantiation, obviously (incidentally, I've heard about a multiplication miracle invovling Haribos). There are other Eucaristic miracles that might be descibed as "transaccidentiation" from an aristotlian point of view, i.e. what you might call the accidents (what the bread/wine looks/tastes like) changes. I don't think these prove anything either. If on odd occasions God decides to perform a miracle to physically alter bread/wine to underline the point of the symbol (or not symbol), that doesn't neccessarily mean the bread/wine are changed every time. But to me, the issue is the whole framework of the discussion. While souls are a thing (and I'm happy to say that *Jesus* is present at the eucharist); to me, for physical objects like blood and wine, the 'accidents' and 'substance' (if you call them that) are one and the same thing. If something is made of grape cells and alcohol and doesn't contain any red or white blood cells; it makes no sense to call it blood instead of wine in any non-symbolic sense. In 'transaccidentiation' Eucharistic miracles, it might make sense to say the bread/wine did literally change to body/blood, but not in regular communion where 'transubstantiation' is supposed to be present. On another note, what do you mean here by 'unity'. Matt says in this video he's not hoping to have all christians under one organisation, and I would tend to agree, at least not if that organisation bills itself as being able to authoritatively decide doctrines. I feel like when Catholics talk about unity and when Protestants talk about unity, often they're talking about two different things.
I really appreciate the content and the nature of this conversation. Matt, thanks for what you do. I would very much like to see Dr. Nichol’s have a cameo in a Bible press conference.
Matt, I am a pastor of a small SBC church but decidedly not reformed. I have seen first hand both optimistic futures and pessimistic futures. I loved the video and the heart of the professor but I also felt there is seemingly little place in these conversations for those of us not reformed. The creeds are important but alot of the confessions would be a nonstarter for some us. As a "pre-augustinian" theological leaning pastor (not really Armenian) I would love to hear a perspective about this as well. I have many catholic and orthodox friends who I appreciate their sense of really leaning into the early church and their ways of interacting with the Scriptures and the Apolstolic teachings.
Is it possible that every split in Christianity is for political power within? The first split was Jew vs gentile, East vs West, Pope vs Kings, Kings vs non King approved, Govn't sanctioned vs all other. The Methodist claim a split for belief but actually the split is for who in power, women vs men, black vs white, sex obsesion vs sex obsesion. Lincoln had it right, although one of his best friends was a pastor, he attended services weekly, but when asked why he refused to join any church said, he would when the only requirement was to love god and your nieghbor. In other words nobody was in charge..........
Peace be upon you. I am a Muslim, but I am not a "Tridational" Muslim as I am in agreement with the Nicene Creed of 325 which reads: "We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of all things visible and invisible. And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, begotten of the Father, the only-begotten; that is, of the essence of the Father, God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father. By whom all things were made, both in heaven and on earth. Who for us men, and for our salvation, came down and was incarnate and was made man; he suffered, and the third day he rose again, ascended into heaven; from thence he shall come to judge the living and the dead. And in the Holy Ghost. But those who say: There was a time when he was not; or, He was not before he was made; or, He was made out of nothing, or out of another substance or thing; or, The Son of God is created, or changeable, or alterable - they are condemned by the holy catholic and apostolic Church."
@@matheusmotta1132 As my sect of Islam hold that Jesus Christ is Adam Kadmon in Hebrew , this means that while Jesus Christ begot of the essence(/the Holy Spirit) of God the Father, he was begotten before the World was.
There will never be uniformity of Christian thought/interpretation in this life, but that is not the point. Jesus’ ministry on earth was not to teach religion. It was to teach rightness of heart. His great sermon is the Sermon on the Mount. The beatitudes have nothing to do with creeds and doctrines. Jesus said “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. It has always been about correct attitude toward God. The greatest commandment was given to the Jews: “Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength.” Jesus reiterated that and added “love your neighbor as yourself” as our Christian outward expression toward our fellow humans. But he also said, “No one comes to the Father except through me.” Paul amplified this by stating, “If you declare with your mouth, ‘Jesus is Lord,’ and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. It does not require acceptance of creeds and particular doctrinal points to be pleasing in God’s eyes, but obedience to those two commandments Jesus taught and belief in him as the son of God. These are the things that unify Christians and in that way, Christians have always been unified. They just don’t seem to know it.
Why the church is in trouble is fairly obvious to me. The infiltration of the secular world through social pressures has changed the doctrine and philosophy of denominational leadership in an effort to keep people in the pews. Sermons today don't at all reflect the sermons of my childhood, say 40 years ago. There are shining lights however, Calvin Robinson is a good example of a pastor articulating my viewpoint in a respectful, loving way.
If only Protestants united with each other first, then perhaps a dialogue with Catholics and Orthodox Christians could take place. But you have Lutherans and the Reformed all in disagreement over one of the most important elements of Christian belief; The Sacraments. It was and still remains to be a point of contention among Protestants that has been the main reason why you all can’t commune with each other at the Lords Supper. If Brandon Robertson and Pastor Steven Anderson wouldn’t be able to be seen standing in the same room as each other, despite sharing the doctrine of the Solas, what hope could you have for an even bigger reach across many more differences. If you want unity with the Catholics, then you have to become a Catholic. If you want unity with the Orthodox, then become Orthodox. Otherwise we’re just wasting our breathe.
I am Catholic that attends Maronite, Polish, and Hispanic masses. Some churches are losing people, some are gaining. Some inter-fighting even within Catholic circles. Some churches face persecution from Islam and secularism. There is a level of distrust between church communities. Different churches teach contradictory doctrines which is not good. We have mormons that call themselves Christians yet attempt to convert those already validly baptized. They intend well but so frustrating. You are facilitating the kingdom, Jordan Peterson is also to a decent extent, etc. there’s always room for real hope, but many issues. God bless you, Mr. Matt.
We share common beliefs on things like the Trinity, the Resurrection, the Virgin birth. That's where it ends for the most part. How can Catholics, Orthodox, and Protestants ever be United? 2 would have to accept the Pope, 1 is not giving up the Pope, the Protestants are not accepting Tradition, at least not on the same level as Scripture. Its not possible this side of Eternity. I would love for it to happen, but it won't, not fully.
Hey Matt, I love the video man. a couple questions (anyone can hop on and respond): I know it is more complicated than this, but based on Mr. Nichols in this video, it seems like the fundamental idea of Protestantism (and as he said in the video, should be the fundamental concern of the Church by and large) is "How can I be saved?". He then goes on to say that the early Creeds don't say much about the doctrine of salvation. Why would the early church not have "clearly delineated" exactly how one is to be saved within the Creeds? Did the early church not see this as such an essential question like the Protestant church in particular does now? Was the fundamental mission of the early church more than just "saving souls"? Or did the early church see salvation as more of a "mystery" (using the terms that Mr. Nichols used to describe the Orthodox church in the previous video) that could not be so easily delineated? Also, it is my understanding that Ligonier (the ministry which Mr. Nichols works for) is, as Mr. Nichols says, "heavily leaning on the Reformed end", which generally means that they hold a view of soteriology that is line with Calvinism. I didn't know about Calvinism and Determinism and Double Predestination and all these topics until R.C Sproul (the founder of Ligonier) explained it in many of his videos. In the Calvinistic view of soteriology, if I am understanding it correctly, savlation is 100% "monergistic", God predetermined before the foundation of the world who is to be saved and who is to be condemned, and there is nothing that a man can "contribute" to his salvation. If that is the case, why is it necessary that the Creeds delineate clearly a doctrine of salvation? If salvation is monergistic, and the eternal destiny of a man has already been determined by God, why do the Creeds need to teach "how to be saved"? Thanks in advance!
As far as how to get unity, if it's just a matter of going with the majority, we should all become Catholic. However, I don't see that being palatable for most protestants unless Catholics recognize the Pope as the administrative head only and do away with praying to the saints (I expect those would be nonstarters for Catholics). For Lutherans to be willing to join with the Reformed, the Reformed would have to affirm the Real Presence in Communion, and heavily modify or get rid of a few parts of TULIP, which I imagine are nonstarters for them. For Baptists to join with any of the above, the others would have to deny anything other than symbolism in the Lord's Supper and also get rid of Infant Baptism and the concept of Baptismal Regeneration, another non-starter I'd imagine.
I’m hopeful because I believe that God always intended there be one Church as Jesus prayer with His Father in the garden states. It will be difficult since there’s so much human deference against it. But God always has a way. I’m now a Catholic who converted from different Protestant denominations.
Hello! I am Greek Orthodox. I think this idea of “define salvation” is an attempt to write out a specific formula or checklist for what will allow us to “go to heaven”. The issue with this is that it doesn’t make sense… God is not just, God is love… we cannot define how God chooses us… the man on the right of Christ was a criminal, who was never baptised and lived a life of sin, but Christ saved him… yet he made it to paradise with Christ as his personal escort. We are not supposed to act in the way God wants us to because we are trying to climb a corporate ladder… we do it because we love God, ourselves and because it is right.
A series (I can’t imagine discussing the topic for just an hour) dedicated to the Blessed Sacrament in so far as a Orthodox/Catholic as opposed to the various Protestant beliefs. Matthew 16-18 is also a interesting topic. It’s a big egg to crack, but certainly a very important question.
I'm optimistic about the potential to reverse the schisms, but pessimistic about achieving that dream. I've been talking to people from different church backgrounds and, in addition to having the creeds in common, we have something else in common which is what led to the schisms and holds us back today: Christians sinning against each other and not being held accountable. We can't stop humans from being sinners, but we can and must hold them accountable. I think all three forms of church polity (episcopal, presbyterian, congregational) are incapable of actually dealing with this. I'm working on a fourth form of polity.
Here is my take: Yes, we should be united. It is a scandal that hampers evangelism. Many times I have heard people say, "Why should I listen to what you Christian's believe? You cannot even agree among yourselves!" I am also of the opinion that the real cause of continuing separatism is not any difference in belief, but plain human sin. For example, the ARCIC (Anglican-Roman Catholic International Commission) dialogue has more-or-less resolved all the issues about belief. The lack of reunification is just due to sin because "I don't like you due to 400 years of hate."
I'm an eclectic, raised in the evangelical Prot tradition, became thoroughly convicted of 1689 federalism (Reformed Baptist) theology in my twenties, and gradually found Anglicans, Lutherans, Orthodox and Catholic brothers had better takes on some doctrines than I did, so now I'm a mutt and happily so. I'm convictionally Amil and therefore optimistic about the Church and pessimistic about the world. I see the Church as finding her way back to unity, though I don't think it looks like most people conceptualize; First, there is a lot of humility required, more than makes anyone comfortable: the Orthodox need to be willing to admit that the Church exists outside their borders, the Catholics need to admit that the Potentate/See is not the Head of the Church (though still the Patriarch of Rome, nothing unrespectable), and Prots need to admit that many, many mistakes were made from 1517 on and recant of much divisiveness. I think I might be alive long enough to see something start to move on this first point, and I hope so, because after that we just get to serve and bless and learn from one another in a way that is far less difficult than presently. That thought excites me deeply and is why I constantly look for opportunities for convictional, defiant unity. ;)
IMO if we want to achieve a functional unity as described in this video we need both to define salvation and the role of the sacraments. The NT describes that to be saved we need to be baptized in the name of The Father, The Son, and The Holy Spirit for remission of sins yet there's so many protestants who deny this, clumping it in with works and therefore unneeded in salvation. The other 6 sacraments are even more divisive. Since the sacraments work so closely with the doctrine of salvation we must iron them out too
Luke 23:39-43 So Yeshua is a liar since this guy didn't do your Sacraments and Pre-Requisites? Or Yeshua just happens to be inconsistent and made an exception for this guy he happen to be Crucified next to? Or is this guy in a state of forever purgatory/limbo because he confessed and believed, but didn't do the sacraments? This verse, alone, tells me that none of the sacraments work with the doctrine of Salvation if Yeshua tells this man, with certainty, that the Thief is going to be in paradise with him that day.
I’m Lutheran (LCMS). Sort term, five to ten years, I’m negative. Long term, I lean to the positive. Why? Short term, there are numerous false forms of Christianity. I’m thinking of NAR, Prosperity gospel.. these churches attract lots of people and money. In the meantime, that takes away from the true Christian churches. Truly Orthodox churches of all types are dying and churches closing. What happens then? If I’m a Lutheran, but there’s no more Lutheran churches near me, what do I do? Likely attend an EO church. If I’m EV Free, I might go Baptist. So true Christianity contracts under the assault of false forms of Christianity and society. In the meantime, thanks to the Internet, true Christians become more aware of what other ‘flavors’ of Christianity believe. And I think I see much more reading of and awareness of the early Christian fathers. They wrote from a similar time and had to present a united front against numerous heresies. I see their writings, coupled with the heresies and societal pressures as long term leading to a basic foundation for unity.
I have to say, if you would attend an Eastern Orthodox church but call NAR a false form of Christianity, you're misunderstanding EO, NAR or both. NAR (as originally described) are simply charismatic protestant churches with a centralised leadership structure and that uses 'apostle' language. Eastern Orthodoxy is continuationist on the gifts, has a more centralised leadership structure than the vast majority of churches that are called NAR, and believes in apostolic succession. The main reason Eastern Orthodoxy is not called NAR is that it is not Protestant. Otherwise, it is one of the most NAR denominations available. Yes, some 'NAR' churches may believe other things which you might also disagree with, such as prosperity theology. But the idea of NAR itself simply refers to leadership structure. I'm saying this as someone who rejects NAR, but goes to a C of E church so recognises some (unfortunate) NAR-like structures in my own denomination.
Efforts to resolve differences can go one of two ways. People either try through church politics, where everybody gets to keep their existing beliefs and organizations simply promise not to persecute each other. Or people can go to the Bible and study it to see if the doctrines they hold to are actually taught there. This is the only way that will create true oneness.
I don't believe the Church should be put back together, but I DO believe we should overlap and work together. The variety in the Church is actually a blessing.
The most fundamental Christian creed is Jesus is Lord. Let's build on what we hold in common, rather than what divides us. If we do not actively pursue the unity of all Christians we have not heard Jesus' final admonition to all believers on the night before he died, "that they may all be one!" (Jn 17:21)
Oh wow Matt I just joined an Antiochian Orthodox Church, and was Chrismated during Nativity this year. I was lucky, at the church I visited first I was very welcomed. However another church not too far away, I heard later, would have probably ignored me, more than one family in our church visited that Orthodox church first and felt unwelcome. I asked why this is!? I was told that it may be due to some “cradle” (people born into an orthodox faith family) that are orthodox immigrants, see their faith and nationality too closely linked, whether Ukrainian, Greek, Russian or the many other areas the churches spring from. They don’t know what to do with someone walking in that they don’t know. It is sad, and sinful how that happens, and I think it wounds Christ and pains him. I hope that as the immigrant population grows and has children and those children become adults with less firm ties to the former home land, the cultural differences fade and it becomes more Orthodox not Greek Orthodox or Russian etc. Please forgive us for this sin against you and your family. You should be welcome to attend any church! I am so sorry. That priest should be reported to his Bishop! We can not alienate people coming in to worship with us! We should be loving of anyone, of any culture and any clothing. Homeless or regal. ☦️ (Find a church whose website has pictures of people of all cultural backgrounds with children….those are living churches.)
Is the arrow pointing up or down? Our experience of the arrow will be wildly different but from where God views it, it has always been up. He is still making everything new, He is still reconciling all things to Himself, the one man's trespass that brought death to all is still answered by the other Man's sacrifice that brought justification and life to all, the "all" that were subjected to disobedience will be shown mercy, He is still on trajectory to become all in all in the ages to come. The conversation that has been reinvigorated about God's plan for the final restoration of all things is gaining ground. Don't be afraid to look outside of the Calvinistic or Armenian boxes that either represent God as being not entirely willing or not entirely able to reconcile all things to Himself.
To the point about how much specificity is needed in the doctrine of salvation, I think there needs to be at least a recognition that Christ's death & resurrection were not merely exemplary. In other words, it's not enough to leave it at "somehow" if that leaves open the option that Jesus just left us an example to follow by which we merit eternal life. Seems to me that there are indications in the NT itself (Gal. 1:9) that some soteriological views are enough to remove you from orthodoxy and not only aberrant views on theology proper.
Many of the bishops insist upon the schism, not to say they are just being stubborn or argumentative, I understand the idea of different paths of conduct, but ultimately God is grace, love and truth, how is endless schism a form of love, and grace? Yes it may be a respecting of truth but surely our love of christ has no opinion other than love in its totality, no gaps or pockets left empty, no variants to truly be found? It is the language surrounding this love that arrives at variants. Yes different paths of ecumenical positioning are right and good but to not have the moral character to abide with the outcomes of different paths seems beyond lame to me. I just watched Pasolini's film Love Meetings where he interviews lots of Italians about religious beliefs sex, moralities, the tradition and vulnerability and bias of traditions, and he made a good point of asking individuals who said they found many human behaviours shocking and degenerate (sexually speaking in this instance) and he asked them to describe the shock they felt, none of them even really knew what he meant, then they would say things like, it makes me uncomfortable. Essentially he knew he would arrive at a pile of footage of humans saying they were shocked but having no real physical or mental reactions within themselves that they could identify or describe, no outcomes that we know to be part of the parcel of true shock. Pasolini's point was none of these people were really shocked, but they were creating a form of unity surrounding moralising forms of judging others. Christ asks us not to exalt ourselves. we are each The Sinner, not a sinner, if we come to it well and right the Christian philosophy asks us to acknowledge our own sins not others people's so to say we are so shocked or indignant we can't so much as fathom or muster a polite way of being tolerant of others who do differently to the way we do . . . well, I apply all of this to the schism, how much of it is true inability to meet in the middle and how much is the schism now it's own foundation stone, it's own state of immovable morality exalting itself? seeing sinners but not saying I The Sinner. Does the schism affect me? yes deeply. My well-meaning unthinking atheist parents had me Christened in an Anglican Church because it was just a thing you did in the 1970s, they were part of a generation transitioning away from religious beliefs and culture. So now I can't get baptised or take communion in a church of my choosing and it stings my heart, the schism chooses to spend no time listening to this plea and I know it's because it chooses to not be able to have this conversation and embrace change as opposed to truly is incapable of this much needed graceful change
I'm Orthodox, the girl I'm courting is Roman Catholic. I have many Roman Catholic friends. Unity would be absolutely wonderful, but it has to happen properly, through a great Council involving *all* the bishops
Wouldn’t that be something if you could get the heads of every denomination to commit to a long deep conversation in some type of gathering that will take months or years to achieve unity. That would have such a huge impact on how the whole Christian world moves into this new coming age where evil seems to be more present almost as if the evil one is running out of time.
@@paquitojhs good luck finding the head of the Southern Baptist Convention.
as long as evangelicals remain headless, conversations will remain impossible. the closest we will get in our lifetimes is unity between Rome and Constantinople
@@maxonmendel5757
There will be some unity with protestants as Matt is a good example of that but it will definitely be the minority of protestants that unite I believe unfortunately
@@maxonmendel5757 I think if most other Protestants were willing to come together most Baptists would be able to agree on sending representatives, there would obviously be holdouts, but I don't see an insurmountable obstacle there.
@@paquitojhs Churches might achieve some kind of unity but I seriously doubt that any denominations would even think unity worth pursuing. They have no episcopacy to speak of, they reject many sacraments, and they do not believe in the Real Presence. Unity under those conditions is pretty much impossible.
I am South African. We cannot change the past. We can celebrate our collective commonality Today in my area today Dutch Reformed. ANGLICAN Methodist and Roman Catholic Church joined in a park and Blessed the palms Then we all walked in procession to our various churches It was amazing. .
This is just soooo beautiful to hear ❤
This is just soooo beautiful to hear ❤
@@Momma5000 It was like nobody cared which church you belonged to. We just took our palms and walked for Jesus Parents even brought their babies
That is sooo amazing! 😍
Wonderful to hear such news. When I was in graduate school in Stellenbosch in the mid-1980s, the Afrikaans-speaking Dutch Reformed Church had a distinct and pronounced anti-Catholic bias which I truly didn't understand. At the time, though, so much of South Africa was seemingly contradictory to my Catholic American upbringing. Thank the Lord for helping all of us overcome our superficial differences and biases, and better adhering to His Word.
Thank you for mentioning the Copts here. There are roughly 60 million Oriental Orthodox that separated centuries earlier, and I often here these conversations ignore them. Unfortunately though the Assyrians are almost never considered in discussions of church schisms - it’s like we don’t know what to do with them because they’re not Oriental Orthodox and they’re not Eastern Orthodox and they’re not Western, and because they’re a smaller group they just slip out of the conversation.
Why are the assyrians broken off?
@@odetafecani1614 Council of Ephesus.
Aren’t they the first Christian nation or something like that?
@@paquitojhs Armenia is the first country that adopted Christianity as the official religion
@@odetafecani1614 what about first nation?
I am protestant who has learned a great deal from Anglicanism, Orthodox and Catholics. I am hopeful for all of us to be united. I am going to reach out to local church leaders with some basic questions. My hope is to forge relationships, find the common threads and get them to come together for different events, projects, missions, etc
Yes as a Catholic I have been saying this and saying this we need to come together where we can as Jesus wanted in scripture and as Bishop Fulton Seen said, we need to come together even if it’s only on our knees in prayer”
I'm Eastern Orthodox. The early councils were all Christological. If we were to merge Reformed confessions with the early creeds, that would deny some of the results of those councils. Nestorianism and monoenergism come to mind. Just my 2 cents.
Reformed confessions deny monoenergism and monotheletism -> Second Helvetic Confession.
Monergism is not monoenergism. That is a word-concept fallacy.
The accusation of Nestorianism is plain daft.
On the other hand, the Lutheran confessions literally include the creeds...
I'm an Orthodox Christian. The Church has always and will always be one. It cannot be divided. Heretics can go into schism and separate themselves from it, but that doesn't imply that the Church is then divided. The West was Orthodox before the Schism, and we still celebrate Western liturgies in the Western Rite.
I fear that you cannot see the salvation construct within the Creeds without understanding the Sacraments as the early Church who wrote the Creed did.
Salvation to the early church was all about the incarnation and our participation in it through theosis. Of course if you reject this view and see salvation purely through this legalistic view of sin atonement it’s not going to make sense to you.
A Catholic here. Praying for unity. God Bless!🙏❤
It's rather ironic that Dr Nichols has pictures of Luther and his wife behind him, when Luther said he would rather "drink pure blood with the pope than mere wine with the fanatics." By fanatics, Luther meant the Baptists. Protestants like to try to claim Luther, but he would consider most of them heretics, including the ones that name themselves after him.
I was thinking about that irony as well.
I’m Protestant and have many close Catholic friends. I’d love to see the Eastern Church and the Western Catholics move closer together. As far as the Reformation goes, that will take many years and hard work to remedy, but I’m committed to working to create mutual understanding between my fellow Protestants and Catholics (I don’t know and Orthodox people). We’re all Christians. We all believe in the Holy Trinity, and that Jesus’ sacrifice is our redemption. God bless you all.
I'm a Lutheran who semi-regulary attends RCC masses (and has attended a few EO Divine Liturgies)
I'm optimistic as well Matt. Face to face conversations and real relationships with those of other Christian traditions are the place to start. We need supernatural grace to deal with our differences in a manner worthy of Christ. We must hold to the truth together, but we often struggle to love each other while hashing out the details. Your channel is a good example of how to get to know and appreciate those who we don't walk in lock step with. Keep it up!
Amen to that ☦️✝️🙏🏼
Thank you for your content brother. Love it man!
I interviewed Father Moses for a paper for seminary. He is an Orthodox Priest in Billings Mt. And as he put it " If the leadership wanted it would already be done." I'm in agreement with this.
Lemme say that as a Reformed Presbyterian, I disagree and I think the Creeds are more fundamental than the 5 Solas
I am classical pentecostal and am excited about the future of the Church as we put our hearts and minds together.
Another great video Matt. LCMS here. I am hopeful for our future together, although I worry about those churches who appear to have 1 foot out the door that you mentioned in one of your recent videos. I hope those churches don’t water things down for the rest of us.
I have been a part of many, many different flavors of Protestant Christianity. Berean, SBA, EFCA, Foursquare, Calvary Chapel, many non-denoms, and most recently, I’m a worship and youth minister for a Church of Christ.
I am extremely optimistic about the trajectory of Christian unity. Though there are pockets that do not want to be unified, the more I look, the more I see the body of Christ coming together for the purpose of the Gospel.
I recently left a Pentecostal tradition and joined an ACNA church, and the number of similar stories I'm hearing and everything I'm learning about Anglicanism makes me optimistic. It feels like the right balance of ecumenism without compromise.
I am in a similar position, left the Episcopal church and found brethren of similar viewpoint in the ACNA. Praise God.
Charismatics are certainly an important part of Anglicanism! My church holds a monthly healing service which provides a good balance between following the BCP in Sunday worship while still allowing an opportunity for people to exercise their spiritual gifts in a corporate setting. We've had people healed during our services which has been amazing.
@@piratesmvp Perhaps Benny Hinn would be an excellent guest speaker in your church, considering he identifies as an Assemblies of God Pastor. What do you think?
@@mikelilley Absolutely not. I'm not sure what Assemblies of God has to do with the ACNA.
problem is, Pope Leo XIII declared Anglican orders (ordinations) invalid
The creeds are a good starting point for unity. Unfortunately, once people start getting into the details of when/how we are saved the disagreements start to crop up. That being said, I think things are looking slightly up.
We don't have to have complete conformity of belief to respect our fellow Christians. We can agree to disagree with others who hold sincere beliefs and expressions of worship without detracting from the authenticity of our respective faiths.
Just saying "the creeds" is problematic. There's one creed: the Nicene Creed, and it doesn't include the Filioque. So let's start there. The other "creeds" are accretions and distortions based on flawed premises.
@@jamesstevens8822The biggest schism (East West) was over geopolitics of the time; even prior to this regard the east and west had different traditions, nevertheless shared communion; they all professed the same creed and read the same canon. Stuff like leavened vs unleavened bread for the Eucharist wasn't what divided the church, just different interpretations with valid reasons.
Hi Matt, I appreciate the content as always. Long time subscriber here. Anyway, to answer your questions, I'm a Confessional Lutheran (more specifically Lutheran Church Missouri Synod, you interviewed a pastor from my denomination, Will Weedon, a few years back). In terms of the 3 big creeds, I agree with you that those are a good baseline. I do think something more to help clarify and expand on them can be helpful, but there is a danger in going too far, wanting to have a dozen or more additional statements, or letting every generation or two update/revise existing statements to better match their sensibilities and preferences. To that end, I favor the Augsburg Confession (the original Reformation Confession) and the Book of Concord as an elaboration. Conceptually, I would be open to 1 or 2 other Confessions if they were historical and properly and carefully articulated the Christian faith. With the Augsburg Confession and BoC, I don't think any other confession is really necessary, but conceptually I wouldn't oppose that if it would create greater unity. On the topic of unity, I favor theological unity but not necessarily organizational unity. There can be benefit to having smaller organizations independently run that believe similarly versus one monolithic organization that imposes centralized authority well beyond what it should.
We can't even agree on the proper wording of the Nicene Creed. Any other accretions are just cause (or symptom) of further theological divisions.
I have to say that as an Eastern Orthodox, as much as I want unity, it cannot come without most denominations admitting that they were very very wrong and that they need to merge into what we found out to be the correct denomination. Since if we ended up doing an Ecumenical Council with all the Bishops of every church, what we'll end up with is discovering which one of us was the True Church all along and who are the reality deniers.
I'm not trying to be divisive or toxic but that's just reality as is. Only one or a few denominations can be correct doctrinally, I say one or a few because there are cases of theologically identical denominations. Truth is not relative, there is only one truth, the question is if people would accept said truth to begin with.
Even if we all speak of unity, we have to realize that the cost of unity is humility. One of us is right here and when we find out who, will everyone else be willing to admit to being: schismatisc, heretics, etc? I don't think so, and that saddens me since only the Oriental and Eastern Orthodox Churches can merge without having to forgo any significant doctrine. Especially in the light of conversations which establish Miaphysitism and Dyophysitism to essentially be saying the same thing.
Step 1: there's only one creed: the Nicene Creed. And the original creed doesn't include the Filioque. So let's start with that.
Fiioque is biblical even the orthodox church cannot refute it. They are just prideful by not consulting them hence they keep on criticizing it .
@ronaldignacio3574 Indeed. The prescribed process was not followed and that shouldn't have happened, but the real question is this-is it Biblical? The answer is yes (see John 16:7).
I just want to point out the huge difference in concerns between the reformation denominations and the older church branches.
I'm Roman Catholic and am extremely optimistic about the church's future. Especially the Catholic and Orthodox churches which I think could unify quite easily. Papal supremacy is something we may have to compromise on but I don't think most ordinary Catholics would be upset about it.
As for Protestantism, the gaps between our doctrines of salvation and ecclesiology are a little harder to bridge, but overall our traditions have much in common.
Hey Matt,
Thanks for all your hard work and effort with all that you do, it is really appreciated.
First let me say that I am quick to agree that man "we" got problems in this world and we have met the enemy and they are "us". So there is plenty to lay awake and think about at night and how we could do a better job at being God's people, BUT, I take great comfort in knowing that various representatives of this group of humanity has been stumbling and bumbling along for over 2000 years and we are still here. Which is another giant confirmation that God is Sovereign and in control, and the end of this story has already been written. Our role is to keep trying as hard as we can, keep learning as much as we can, keep doing as much as we can, and most importantly as we are instructed in the Bible several times...."FEAR NOT", for God is with us to the end of the age. So yeah, I'm nervously optimistic and know that we have to put the backpack on and git 'er done, but don't worry, God's got this and us.
Lutheran leaning in my understanding of Scriptural interpretation but really enjoy these conversations. Thank you for spurring on these conversations.
I am raised, schooled and churched my whole life as a Roman Catholic as well as my huge family. Personally I have attended Harvest Bible Church for 10 years of Bible study. I have a different more honest relationship with my Bible sisters. I am not comfortable taking sides but I prefer Catholic Church for communion and kneeling and Bible church for growing my dependency on God. They are both angry at one another. I think the priests and pastors both ignite that in their sermons sometimes sarcastically. Not sure how to change that but I love your channel and your voice is full of trust. Thank you for all the discussions and making a huge attempt to reach that goal.
What Dr. Nichols says at 4:53 is the most important part of this interview, and also why I think Protestants, Catholics, and the Orthodox will never reunite as one church. Conversely, I believe there is already one true church. That church already extends beyond denominational boundaries and contains all that have accepted Christ's free gift of salvation through faith. I find in my experiences that this church of believers already is working throughout the world to save lives and souls.
My background is in small New England evangelical churches. The strongest churches that I've attended preach the Bible expositorially. This lets the Word speak for itself and avoids the very human tendency to skip passages that are seen as uncomfortable, irrelevant, or controversial. The message is simple. Christ clearly outlines who He is, His nature, and how people get right with God in the Gospels. For those of us who have received the gift of salvation, the next step is also simple - go and tell others.
I'm a Roman Catholic from the SSPX. It wont be easy to unite the Church but it's possible.
I love your videos and they’re always so hopeful, but then I read the inevitable comments about how close you are to “coming home” and how excited they are that you’ll soon be “swimming the Tiber” and it’s just deflating. There can be unity. All it takes is for you to admit that they’re right and you’re wrong.
Jennifer I appreciate your comments so much. You really stand out here with your optimism and clarity and positivity. Thank you for that.
I also find those kind of comments to be off-putting, but the people who are making them genuinely believe theirs is the only true expression of Christianity that exists. Based on that, I believe very flawed, assumption, they are trying to be kind in their own way. I don't care for the tone of it either, but I appreciate the sentiment buried deep down in there somewhere.
All of that said, I would give the advice to all Catholics everywhere, that such comments are absolutely unfruitful if what they really hope to accomplish is to bring people into their particular expression of Christianity. Whether it's off-putting or not to someone, it isn't effective at all in moving the needle.
All of that said for the second time, I think for the most part everybody handles their business really well here regardless of what expression of Christian faith they are coming from.
@@MattWhitmanTMBH As always you’ve put into words what I’ve felt and done it more graciously.
No, the schism cannot be reversed currently because the reasons for its happening still remain. Those reasons are: The nonsensical practice of celebacy for the clergy by Catholics and the ultimate supremacy of the Pope (i.e. bishop of Rome). In the early centuries of Christianity, celebacy was voluntary. Matter of fact Paul in his letter to Timothy addresses the marriage of bishops (i.e. he approves of married bishops). Also, some of the Apostals were married. The second dubious point is the supremacy of the Pope. Again, in the early centuries of Christianity, there was no "Pope". There was a bishol of Rome who was equal in hierarchy to other bishops. This elevation of the bishop of Rome to Pope and head of the Western Christian church started when the bishop of Rome began coronating the emperors of the Holy Roman Empire. Thus giving him a "chip on his shoulder" hence enabling him to feel more important than the other bishops. The Eastern bishops threw him the middle finger and said "goodbye". And there is your schizm. If these reasons (stupidities practiced by the Catholic church with no theological basis) are not eliminated, the Eastern church will never want any reconciliation. And I am a former Catholic who left after intense study of Jan Huss and the Catholic church's "response" to him (at that time there were three Popes ..... a complete circus within the Catholic church)
I would say yes, the supremacy of the Pope over all bishops and patriarchs is a problem, .
More importantly the problem is the changing of the creed without an ecumenical council, addition of the Filioque. Just recently I learned that Catholics actually produced false documents in the past to advance the filioque agenda.
The celibacy of the priests doesn’t bother me. There are good reasons for celibate and married priests. It’s just the requirement of the bishop of Rome how he wants to run his churches and the priests have to obey to their bishop
Right when I'm ordering the Ancient Faith Study Bible and this video shows up. Nice!
Such as when we clean our bedrooms, it’s a mess to start with and it’s disorderly but it will all be worth it in the end. I pray for this to happen within our lifetimes, brothers 🙏🏼✝️☦️
I can't put a definitive label on what type of Christian I am, because I haven't found the right category to put myself in. I pessimistic when it comes to any kind of actual unification of the Church, but optimistic on us actually being civil to each other.
My dad was raised Protestant. My mom was raised Catholic. Both of my sisters are very active in their Catholic churches. I married a life-long Lutheran. Shortly after getting married, we left the Lutheran church that her family had been attending, due to a new senior pastor, and we started attending a non-denominational (non-committal) church. While that church declared themselves as a "Bible" church, the teachings were very shallow. I often left services thinking that I could have gotten more theology out of an episode of VeggieTales. We returned to Lutheranism, but at a different congregation. Being in southern Indiana, our city of roughly 50,000 people has five LCMS churches and three ELCA churches. It was nice to get back into something with a little more commitment, however for many sermon series, the teaching still seemed pretty shallow and the Bible studies were of the fill-in-the-blank sort, with little to no discussion.
That changed when our church called a pastor who is also a ordained rabbi. He brought the much deeper teachings that many within the congregation were starving for. We were blessed with him for somewhere around five years until he was called to a congregation in Michigan. While some within our congregation are still not ready to see the deeper levels of meaning within the Bible and the plethora of ways in which every story within the Bible "hyperlinks" to the others (both Old and New Testaments), those of us who are ready love meeting together and peeling back the layers.
I will say this much... I do not agree with the Roman Catholic church that the Church should be Latin-based and Rome-based. I do not agree with the Eastern Orthodox that it should be Greek-based and Constantinople-based. The Church is Hebrew/Aramaic/Greek and centered solely around Jerusalem. The Bible makes that immensely clear. All of the "new festivals", such as Easter, Christmas, the days of individual saints and all the rest are non-Biblical and are human creations. God tells us very clearly in the Torah/Pentateuch exactly what our schedule for festivals and meetings with Him is to be. He gives us the His Sabbath (Saturday, not Sunday) and His Festivals. There is nowhere within Scripture where any of this is changed or done away with. Jesus did not negate any of God's commandments. He actually reinforced them and gave them even greater meaning.
Thank you for all of the great content Matt! It is definitely a blessing to us all!
There are the Personal Ordinariates and the Western Orthodox within the Catholic and Orthodox Churches respectively, as well as a few sui juris churches within the Catholic Church.
Confusing, isn't it?
I'm not too optimistic because there are so many different sects of Protestantism that think they're the only ones who have the truth, and that everyone else is the enemy. Background is Baptist and IFCA. As an adult I have been RCA, UMC, UCC, and ELCA. I don't agree 100% with any of these, but the bottom line is that we are all Christians.
We can't really have unity without a common conception of what constitutes Christian orthodoxy and what constitutes heterodoxy. Intercommunion presupposes unity of faith. I converted from Anglicanism to Orthodoxy in 1984 and I can't say I'm optimistic about the prospects for unity.
Matt, you and Dr. Nichols were talking about the creeds and the confessions. I think many people with a Baptist background like me may not be very familiar with these creeds and confessions, since in my experience, the only place Baptists are taught very much about the history of the church after biblical times is in seminary.
I think it would be really interesting if you would do one or more videos that delve into greater detail about these creeds and confessions, explaining who wrote them, why they were written, what they contain and why they’re important.
From an Orthodox perspective, there isn’t true unity if it isn’t Eucharistic unity. I’m all for working with other Christian groups, but what isn’t productive is a false sense of unity when we don’t truly profess the same things. Ecumenism leads into relativism.
With that said, as a former Southern Baptist, then confessionals reformed, now Orthodox Christian, I pray for the unity of Christendom every day. We should work to fight the secularism and evil of our day.
Your channel is awesome, keep up the good work man.
My perception is the same (as a former messianic evangelical), we should work with other Christian groups for the betterment of societies and teaching Christ-likeness but spiritually as Orthodox we can never compromise on the living Tradition. It would be difficult to try and unite with those who see the Eucharist as a symbol or despise Iconography as “idols” (theres a few in my family). But I hope and pray as well. So far the only unity I’ve felt are my charismatic cousins becoming Orthodox too (alleluia) and my Catholic in-laws actually preferring that their son married an Orthodox
The reunification is possible in case of the Roman-Catholic, Orthodox, and Oriental churches, considering their similarities, stability of tradition, and tolerance of local diversity, but in case of the Protestants, especially the reformed ones, who have abandoned most of the Holy Tradition, they're too far gone to even consider such possibility.
Protestantism branch is going to take forever, though you could weed out the heretics by reaffirming the Nicene Creed alone. Apparently liberal Lutherans in one church in Minnesota profess the "Sparkle Creed" - I wish I was joking.
Great job putting this together Matt. As for the split, I believe the Church will unite eventually. Probably during the end times. Just my opinion based on the history of humanity. We seem to be able to look past our differences and unite when facing persecution and opposition. Thanks again.
Schism is a sin. Our blessed Lord commanded "that they may all be one, just as you, Father, are in me, and I in you, that they also may be in us, so that the world may believe that you have sent me". We must do everything possible to remove schism, and that includes the most important and powerful element, prayer
I have a mix of orthodox and Valentinan beliefs but your channel inspired me to do something similar to what you are doing but within my means.
Your videos are fantastic! I really appreciate the way you approach each denomination with an open mind and a willingness to understand their beliefs. Thank you for sharing your insights and helping to navigate this complex issue. A bit about me, I'm Protestant, i've grown up in an Anglican church, although have always considered myself as a Christian. Didn't realise the conflicts between different sects until quite recently. I'm 15, and recently some Catholic kids scolded me for my faith, (I have nothing against the Catholic Church, and know that not everyone is like this) but it was then when i was launched into the world of the conflicts between Protestants and the Catholic Church and the Orthodox church. I'd ended up pretty discouraged by everything, with every answer i got about who was right, their was always a conflicting response. That's when i found your channel, i appreciate everything you have delved into :) Keep up the great videos man!
GOD BLESS you! Stand firm in your Christianity which is rooted and grounded in the Bible. Man has added or taken away many things in all denominations. GOD is always right. Cling to your Bible believing Christianity. The world always changes. GOD does not.
I appreciate the comment and I appreciate you being here. Insecure people, who mean well, will panic over you not seeing things their way, and from time to time they'll be cruel. This is true about life, not just church.
Its not fun when you take those shots from people, but it's okay. That's them working out their own stuff even if they don't realize it.
Lean heavily into the Bible and Christians who've been doing it longer and who live and think in a way that looks like Jesus.
I'm proud of you for caring about the important stuff and putting in the effort to grow in that.
I’m sorry that any Catholic teenagers would have scolded you for your faith. That is absolutely not how we are called to interact with our brothers and sisters in Christ. That falls under the heading of proselytizing which is a no-no.
I hope you think charitably of them and remember that our church is under a focused attack for our stance on the sanctity of life, the immutability of the nature of marriage, and our stance on transgender issues. We now have parishioners who have been trained for defense at every Mass, especially on days like today, Palm Sunday. The mainstream news is not reporting it but Masses are being invaded, priests attacked on the altar, parishioners threatened in the pews. Our churches are being robbed, vandalized and burned. The most evil thing of all is that our tabernacles are being wrenched open and the Eucharist is being defiled.
It was less than two hundred years ago that Catholic Churches were burnt to the ground and Catholics beaten for practicing their religion, and there were no consequences for the perpetrators of those acts. Just as there are few consequences today.
That doesn’t excuse their actions toward you in the least. Hopefully it does provide a bit of context.
@@ohmightywezare they truly your brothers and sisters in Christ though? I mean that’s sort of the entire issue between prots and Catholics
@@countryboyred Yes, they are. We recognize one baptism for the forgiveness of sins. We accept their baptism as valid.
We don’t except other baptisms such as LDS as they do not ascribe to the confessed beliefs of the common Christian Church.
This really makes me think man. I really love the church of Christ and I hope we can get to a healthy communion between all the "provinces" or as the bible says, all the members 🥲
I'm a member of one of the most aggressively autonomous church traditions out there, but I can see the necessity of unification. Continuing to be separated will not help us represent Christ on earth in these times, although it may have been acceptable in the past for each to explore his faith according to his conscience and break away, the time may have run out on that.
Exactly Jim. We are running out of time we need to do something because evil is spreading and you can feel it prowling like a roaring lion more than ever.
@@paquitojhs And unite with the Papacy that is fronting the unity of Abrahamic Faiths as if all are one?
I'm writing a thesis/book/pamphlet(I don't know what it is) in which I try to articulate all of the biblical necessities for salvation, and putting less emphasis on any particular traditional or extra biblical doctrines. I've seen many videos where you seem to kick around the same idea, and I am really curious what you might think of the 16 points I've come to.
Based on Scriptural evidence, it seems necessary for their to be a perfect unity in body and in thought, as the Lord prayed for in John, and as St. Pail exhorts in 1 Corinthians.
It doesn’t seem consistent to say we are one if so many core doctrines contradict one another among so many fractious denominations.
Diversity of expressions is one thing, but diversity of doctrine is another.
Church of Christ kid here. I grow up incredibly sectarian. INCREDIBLY sectarian.
I had my own road to Damascus moment(more like a series of moments over the last 8 years.) Now, I’m incredibly ecumenical in thought and action.
I largely view us on the right path to reconciliation. However, more often than I care to admit I get discouraged when I run into someone who cares more about being right about this or that than loving brothers and sisters that Jesus died for.
Do you think that if the great schism had not happened, that the reformation would have happened? would it have played out differently? Obviously, there is little resemblance between mainline protestants and Eastern orthodox, but thinking in terms of alternate history, what might Christendom look like?
More like the Catholic Church in which there is technically central unity but you have a wide variety of expressions.
I am hopeful for our reunification. Christ's hope and prayer for us to be one is a powerful testament for this.
I am not sure how you'd investigate this but, I've been seeing a lot from those who have lived a "Christian" life but are transitioning to being a "Torah observant follower of Messiah." 2 bigger names that come to mind are Pastor Joe Fox and TJ Brooks from Bear Independent.
What are your thoughts on this? It seems to make sense to me. And I am feeling pulled that way...
0:56
The metaphors typically used for the chuch are body, mother, and bride.
How can all this disunity be a good thing?
Imagine a young man, a bridegroom, about to marry a young woman so conflicted that it seems like she has over 30,000 different personalities. She cannot even make up her mind about the most basic questions. She splits at the first sign of trouble.
What would you say to the bridegroom? "Go wife her up" or "Run"?
I had to cheat just a little bit on my giving up something for lent promise. And since I’m not Catholic, it’s OK that a snowstorm delayed Ash Wednesday by a week and that I had not turned off notifications for this channel. God says it’s alright?? 😊
I’ve been happily getting through these mere 40 days by only listening to podcasts. No other social media and no news. I’d like to call it a social media cleanse and it pretty much has made me not care about Facebook and Instagram, and all those other things that waste my time. I was raised Missouri Synod Lutheran but my folks, let me go to the Baptist Church or Assembly of God with friends. And I thought our church was so strict when I was growing up! So I think it’s may be easier for me to think of ways that we are more alike in our different denominations, as long as we agree that God is the one true God, that Jesus is our one, and only Savior, and there is no way to heaven, except through Jesus, the Word!
Wow, this got long. Have a blessed Easter!
I'm not baptized in any church though long story there. The situation is more complex than just a simple up or down. there are two things in a regard to that. Some Christian traditions/ denominations have practitioners of said traditions view Practitioners of other traditions/denominations as " the enemy" despite their tradition/denomination saying they're not. or opposite a Christian tradition/denomination views another Christian tradition/denomination as being of Satan's kingdom.
How do you think the two situations I have stated should be rectified? You do great work on this channel and I find it very informative to learn about other denominations/traditions. Keep up the great work.
I am not baptized in any denomination either, so I just call myself a disciple for now. Mine is also a long story; even the short version still isn't all that short, you know?
@@s.s.9149 i know the feeling
Orthodox priest here. I'm an arrow up guy. I would have to say there is no way I will ever accept the reformation confessions. Also, the Creeds are the place we need to go for unity. However, what the author meant is what it means. The line One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church has specific meaning. The RC, OO and EO churches are all fairly close in their understanding of that line. The rainbow of differing Protestants do not. So protestantism is the odd man out when it comes to the Creed. It is actually hard to see anything that encompasses all of protestantism that could possibly unite to the other three, while the other three can. My arrow is pointing up for two reasons 1. Christ will come back and burn away all that is unworthy and the gold will shine. 2. Some of that gold will be the love we have for one another, even if we are not taking the Eucharist together.
I'm a Protestant, but Catholic and Orthodox scriptural arguments have convinced me that you are correct in this matter. There should only be one church.
The issue remain though - if there is only one church, what should it teach? I am still Protestant in my understanding of Scripture being more important than Church tradition (though I do think many Protestants went too far and threw out helpful and good practices in order to differentiate themselves from Catholicism). There are many matters of doctrine about which many good, genuine Christians are in disagreement over, many of which make such a project a non-starter. Even something as basic as to whether and how Jesus is present in the Lord's Supper would produce a bunch of issues in different groups for which they see no room to compromise.
And like any compromise, all sides would have to retreat from absolutist positions. I think particularly Catholics have a very naive assumption that ecumenism means other Christians just straight up agreeing with Catholic doctrine in all things. And I have heard similar from many Orthodox Christians and Protestants, though both to a lesser extent.
Personally, I believe that the Church's split was as a result of human sin, but it will not be fixed before Christ returns. In eternity, when we understand Him in full, then we will be one body against, but not before, sadly.
"Not quite my tempo." Wow, what a way to frame the councils.
I'm a Baptist/Anabaptist and I feel that while unity is - very - important, there has never been a time in church history where unity has been a true reality. Even the creeds are examples of this - there was enough disunity and confusion that the church felt it right to come together and clarify their beliefs, but I think that the creeds only defined the beliefs of the majority, and provided consensus. While that's good, and while I am a proud cereal Christian, they haven't proven to provide much for unity over the centuries...
this is why I'm such a big fan of this idea of convictional unity - it looks at our differences and our visible disunity and says "I'm going to choose to be different. I'm going to treat all these Christians as my family." and it treats the creeds as a foundation for our family values. We're all just trying to do our best at following Jesus in our contexts and situations. let's recognize that in eachother.
The late Thomas Oden was very interested in Church Unity. He was the primary editor of the "Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture". He himself was a Methodist in the tradition of John Wesley.
Joel Elowsky, professor of historical theology at Concordia Seminary, St. Louis, wrote this of Oden.
"He viewed it as providential that the church was renewing its interest in the Fathers. He believed that a study of the Fathers could lead to an ecumenism based on what he often referred to as the “classical Christian consensus”-or, put another way, “That which has been believed everywhere, always, and by all” (the canon of Vincent of Lerins).
Oden suggested ecumenical talks between the branches of the Christian Traditions with the Early Church Fathers being the starting point....the idea was sadly rejected by Catholics, Reformed, and Evangelicals.
As an Eastern Orthodox Catechumen, i think its up, especially that the oriental and eastern churches are dialoging and God willing they recommunion pretty soon
I kind of doubt we'll have Christian unity again until after Jesus returns, but until then we could at least use our disagreements to be a "hotbed of charity" toward each other, as Lewis liked to talk about.
I am clergy in the UCC United Church of Christ. Our slogan comes from scripture, “that they may all be one”. I am optimistic that this will happen!
Thumbnail of the year
I’m a Lutheran subscriber.
Reversing the Schism is a necessary step.
I think the focus on creedal differences alone is misguided. What we believe about the filioque or "faith alone" matters, sure, but how we behave also matters. Differences on divorce and remarriage can't just be ignored. Then there is the manner of worship. Even if a Baptist agreed with me on everything else, I'm not going to be united with him in a very important way so long as his Sunday worship doesn't include the Eucharist. Religion is creed, code, and cult (worship) so I think it will take Christ's second coming to completely heal the divisions.
I know I’m oversimplifying but focusing on the lordship of Christ is what breaks down any denominational differences in my experiences. You are a slave to whom you obey. Rom 6:16.
... I think someone like Paul Washer - he's one tough Calvinist, I know, but - he once remarked the one true church exists. And - it exists throughout all denominations where people, in truth and spirit, love Jesus Christ, to the glory of His Father and that Holy Ghost keeping us together.
When you meet someone in this category, man - you know in your heart this person is a believer! With a capital B! They love Jesus Christ knowing full well: He's alive.
Thank you
Greetings from Scandinavia
Kind regards Kim
Matt, please do a video on Modern Eucharistic Miracles. A good place to start on modern day unification.
That might be a hit heavy for any Protestant… but it is a great topic
@@patrickdean4853 until ALL accept the real presence, Body,Soul,and Divinity, of Our Lord Jesus in The Eucharist and His Blood in The Cup, there can be no unity.
Did you hear about the church in Connecticut where the Eucharist multiplied a few weeks ago? The priest had a bandaged hand so he gave the ciborium (bowl) to the Eucharistic minister to distribute. She should have ran out rather quickly with a need to refill. But after administering Communion to prob 150 people, she handed the ciborium back to the priest and it had roughly the same amount in it (or more!) as when he first gave it to her. He was in shock when he announced it to the parish.
@@MWroses yes, I did hear about it. The Bishop has said an investigation has been opened. The Vatican always requires the local Bishop to conduct an investigation before a Miracle may be proclaimed.
The days we are in, I believe we will be hearing about a lot more.
As a Protestant who does not agree with transubstantiation (I'll note there are plenty of Protestants who do agree with transustantiation or something similar); a video on Eucharistic Miracles would be interesting.
Some Eucharisitic miracles may well be legitimate in my opinion.
But from the little I know about Eucharistic miracles, if legitimate, they don't prove anything about transubstantiation.
Multiplication miracles like the above don't prove anything related to transubstantiation, obviously (incidentally, I've heard about a multiplication miracle invovling Haribos).
There are other Eucaristic miracles that might be descibed as "transaccidentiation" from an aristotlian point of view, i.e. what you might call the accidents (what the bread/wine looks/tastes like) changes.
I don't think these prove anything either.
If on odd occasions God decides to perform a miracle to physically alter bread/wine to underline the point of the symbol (or not symbol), that doesn't neccessarily mean the bread/wine are changed every time.
But to me, the issue is the whole framework of the discussion. While souls are a thing (and I'm happy to say that *Jesus* is present at the eucharist); to me, for physical objects like blood and wine, the 'accidents' and 'substance' (if you call them that) are one and the same thing. If something is made of grape cells and alcohol and doesn't contain any red or white blood cells; it makes no sense to call it blood instead of wine in any non-symbolic sense.
In 'transaccidentiation' Eucharistic miracles, it might make sense to say the bread/wine did literally change to body/blood, but not in regular communion where 'transubstantiation' is supposed to be present.
On another note, what do you mean here by 'unity'. Matt says in this video he's not hoping to have all christians under one organisation, and I would tend to agree, at least not if that organisation bills itself as being able to authoritatively decide doctrines.
I feel like when Catholics talk about unity and when Protestants talk about unity, often they're talking about two different things.
I really appreciate the content and the nature of this conversation. Matt, thanks for what you do. I would very much like to see Dr. Nichol’s have a cameo in a Bible press conference.
A press conference after the rain has started held by people not on the ark
Matt, I am a pastor of a small SBC church but decidedly not reformed. I have seen first hand both optimistic futures and pessimistic futures. I loved the video and the heart of the professor but I also felt there is seemingly little place in these conversations for those of us not reformed. The creeds are important but alot of the confessions would be a nonstarter for some us. As a "pre-augustinian" theological leaning pastor (not really Armenian) I would love to hear a perspective about this as well. I have many catholic and orthodox friends who I appreciate their sense of really leaning into the early church and their ways of interacting with the Scriptures and the Apolstolic teachings.
Is it possible that every split in Christianity is for political power within? The first split was Jew vs gentile, East vs West, Pope vs Kings, Kings vs non King approved, Govn't sanctioned vs all other. The Methodist claim a split for belief but actually the split is for who in power, women vs men, black vs white, sex obsesion vs sex obsesion. Lincoln had it right, although one of his best friends was a pastor, he attended services weekly, but when asked why he refused to join any church said, he would when the only requirement was to love god and your nieghbor. In other words nobody was in charge..........
In the begining what 3 creeds he's talking about ?
The real problem is that everyone wants their denomination to be the one everyone reforms to... which is why such a gathering hasn't occured yet
Peace be upon you. I am a Muslim, but I am not a "Tridational" Muslim as I am in agreement with the Nicene Creed of 325 which reads:
"We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of all things visible and invisible. And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, begotten of the Father, the only-begotten; that is, of the essence of the Father, God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father. By whom all things were made, both in heaven and on earth. Who for us men, and for our salvation, came down and was incarnate and was made man; he suffered, and the third day he rose again, ascended into heaven; from thence he shall come to judge the living and the dead. And in the Holy Ghost. But those who say: There was a time when he was not; or, He was not before he was made; or, He was made out of nothing, or out of another substance or thing; or, The Son of God is created, or changeable, or alterable - they are condemned by the holy catholic and apostolic Church."
Come home to the Holy Catholic Apostolic Orthodox Church
@@matheusmotta1132 As my sect of Islam hold that Jesus Christ is Adam Kadmon in Hebrew , this means that while Jesus Christ begot of the essence(/the Holy Spirit) of God the Father, he was begotten before the World was.
@@idris_haris_al-kalima What sect of Islam is this? It’s fascinating and I’ve never heard of it!
There will never be uniformity of Christian thought/interpretation in this life, but that is not the point. Jesus’ ministry on earth was not to teach religion. It was to teach rightness of heart. His great sermon is the Sermon on the Mount. The beatitudes have nothing to do with creeds and doctrines.
Jesus said “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven.
It has always been about correct attitude toward God. The greatest commandment was given to the Jews: “Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength.” Jesus reiterated that and added “love your neighbor as yourself” as our Christian outward expression toward our fellow humans.
But he also said, “No one comes to the Father except through me.” Paul amplified this by stating, “If you declare with your mouth, ‘Jesus is Lord,’ and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.
It does not require acceptance of creeds and particular doctrinal points to be pleasing in God’s eyes, but obedience to those two commandments Jesus taught and belief in him as the son of God. These are the things that unify Christians and in that way, Christians have always been unified. They just don’t seem to know it.
Why the church is in trouble is fairly obvious to me. The infiltration of the secular world through social pressures has changed the doctrine and philosophy of denominational leadership in an effort to keep people in the pews. Sermons today don't at all reflect the sermons of my childhood, say 40 years ago. There are shining lights however, Calvin Robinson is a good example of a pastor articulating my viewpoint in a respectful, loving way.
Good video you're almost there.
Or maybe you are.
If only Protestants united with each other first, then perhaps a dialogue with Catholics and Orthodox Christians could take place. But you have Lutherans and the Reformed all in disagreement over one of the most important elements of Christian belief; The Sacraments. It was and still remains to be a point of contention among Protestants that has been the main reason why you all can’t commune with each other at the Lords Supper.
If Brandon Robertson and Pastor Steven Anderson wouldn’t be able to be seen standing in the same room as each other, despite sharing the doctrine of the Solas, what hope could you have for an even bigger reach across many more differences.
If you want unity with the Catholics, then you have to become a Catholic. If you want unity with the Orthodox, then become Orthodox. Otherwise we’re just wasting our breathe.
I am Catholic that attends Maronite, Polish, and Hispanic masses.
Some churches are losing people, some are gaining. Some inter-fighting even within Catholic circles.
Some churches face persecution from Islam and secularism.
There is a level of distrust between church communities. Different churches teach contradictory doctrines which is not good. We have mormons that call themselves Christians yet attempt to convert those already validly baptized. They intend well but so frustrating.
You are facilitating the kingdom, Jordan Peterson is also to a decent extent, etc. there’s always room for real hope, but many issues. God bless you, Mr. Matt.
We share common beliefs on things like the Trinity, the Resurrection, the Virgin birth. That's where it ends for the most part. How can Catholics, Orthodox, and Protestants ever be United? 2 would have to accept the Pope, 1 is not giving up the Pope, the Protestants are not accepting Tradition, at least not on the same level as Scripture. Its not possible this side of Eternity. I would love for it to happen, but it won't, not fully.
Are we too competitive to come together? Will we always bristle at a new believer who goes to the other guy's church?
Love the thumbnail image.
Yeah that Lego church is pretty sweet
@Jim-Mc Midjourney AI I'm sure.
Hey Matt, I love the video man. a couple questions (anyone can hop on and respond):
I know it is more complicated than this, but based on Mr. Nichols in this video, it seems like the fundamental idea of Protestantism (and as he said in the video, should be the fundamental concern of the Church by and large) is "How can I be saved?". He then goes on to say that the early Creeds don't say much about the doctrine of salvation.
Why would the early church not have "clearly delineated" exactly how one is to be saved within the Creeds?
Did the early church not see this as such an essential question like the Protestant church in particular does now? Was the fundamental mission of the early church more than just "saving souls"?
Or did the early church see salvation as more of a "mystery" (using the terms that Mr. Nichols used to describe the Orthodox church in the previous video) that could not be so easily delineated?
Also, it is my understanding that Ligonier (the ministry which Mr. Nichols works for) is, as Mr. Nichols says, "heavily leaning on the Reformed end", which generally means that they hold a view of soteriology that is line with Calvinism. I didn't know about Calvinism and Determinism and Double Predestination and all these topics until R.C Sproul (the founder of Ligonier) explained it in many of his videos.
In the Calvinistic view of soteriology, if I am understanding it correctly, savlation is 100% "monergistic", God predetermined before the foundation of the world who is to be saved and who is to be condemned, and there is nothing that a man can "contribute" to his salvation. If that is the case, why is it necessary that the Creeds delineate clearly a doctrine of salvation? If salvation is monergistic, and the eternal destiny of a man has already been determined by God, why do the Creeds need to teach "how to be saved"?
Thanks in advance!
As far as how to get unity, if it's just a matter of going with the majority, we should all become Catholic. However, I don't see that being palatable for most protestants unless Catholics recognize the Pope as the administrative head only and do away with praying to the saints (I expect those would be nonstarters for Catholics). For Lutherans to be willing to join with the Reformed, the Reformed would have to affirm the Real Presence in Communion, and heavily modify or get rid of a few parts of TULIP, which I imagine are nonstarters for them. For Baptists to join with any of the above, the others would have to deny anything other than symbolism in the Lord's Supper and also get rid of Infant Baptism and the concept of Baptismal Regeneration, another non-starter I'd imagine.
I’m hopeful because I believe that God always intended there be one Church as Jesus prayer with His Father in the garden states. It will be difficult since there’s so much human deference against it. But God always has a way. I’m now a Catholic who converted from different Protestant denominations.
Hello! I am Greek Orthodox. I think this idea of “define salvation” is an attempt to write out a specific formula or checklist for what will allow us to “go to heaven”. The issue with this is that it doesn’t make sense… God is not just, God is love… we cannot define how God chooses us… the man on the right of Christ was a criminal, who was never baptised and lived a life of sin, but Christ saved him… yet he made it to paradise with Christ as his personal escort. We are not supposed to act in the way God wants us to because we are trying to climb a corporate ladder… we do it because we love God, ourselves and because it is right.
A series (I can’t imagine discussing the topic for just an hour) dedicated to the Blessed Sacrament in so far as a Orthodox/Catholic as opposed to the various Protestant beliefs. Matthew 16-18 is also a interesting topic. It’s a big egg to crack, but certainly a very important question.
I'm optimistic about the potential to reverse the schisms, but pessimistic about achieving that dream. I've been talking to people from different church backgrounds and, in addition to having the creeds in common, we have something else in common which is what led to the schisms and holds us back today: Christians sinning against each other and not being held accountable. We can't stop humans from being sinners, but we can and must hold them accountable. I think all three forms of church polity (episcopal, presbyterian, congregational) are incapable of actually dealing with this. I'm working on a fourth form of polity.
Here is my take: Yes, we should be united. It is a scandal that hampers evangelism. Many times I have heard people say, "Why should I listen to what you Christian's believe? You cannot even agree among yourselves!"
I am also of the opinion that the real cause of continuing separatism is not any difference in belief, but plain human sin. For example, the ARCIC (Anglican-Roman Catholic International Commission) dialogue has more-or-less resolved all the issues about belief. The lack of reunification is just due to sin because "I don't like you due to 400 years of hate."
I'm an eclectic, raised in the evangelical Prot tradition, became thoroughly convicted of 1689 federalism (Reformed Baptist) theology in my twenties, and gradually found Anglicans, Lutherans, Orthodox and Catholic brothers had better takes on some doctrines than I did, so now I'm a mutt and happily so.
I'm convictionally Amil and therefore optimistic about the Church and pessimistic about the world. I see the Church as finding her way back to unity, though I don't think it looks like most people conceptualize;
First, there is a lot of humility required, more than makes anyone comfortable: the Orthodox need to be willing to admit that the Church exists outside their borders, the Catholics need to admit that the Potentate/See is not the Head of the Church (though still the Patriarch of Rome, nothing unrespectable), and Prots need to admit that many, many mistakes were made from 1517 on and recant of much divisiveness.
I think I might be alive long enough to see something start to move on this first point, and I hope so, because after that we just get to serve and bless and learn from one another in a way that is far less difficult than presently. That thought excites me deeply and is why I constantly look for opportunities for convictional, defiant unity. ;)
IMO if we want to achieve a functional unity as described in this video we need both to define salvation and the role of the sacraments. The NT describes that to be saved we need to be baptized in the name of The Father, The Son, and The Holy Spirit for remission of sins yet there's so many protestants who deny this, clumping it in with works and therefore unneeded in salvation. The other 6 sacraments are even more divisive. Since the sacraments work so closely with the doctrine of salvation we must iron them out too
Luke 23:39-43
So Yeshua is a liar since this guy didn't do your Sacraments and Pre-Requisites?
Or Yeshua just happens to be inconsistent and made an exception for this guy he happen to be Crucified next to?
Or is this guy in a state of forever purgatory/limbo because he confessed and believed, but didn't do the sacraments?
This verse, alone, tells me that none of the sacraments work with the doctrine of Salvation if Yeshua tells this man, with certainty, that the Thief is going to be in paradise with him that day.
I’m Lutheran (LCMS). Sort term, five to ten years, I’m negative. Long term, I lean to the positive. Why?
Short term, there are numerous false forms of Christianity. I’m thinking of NAR, Prosperity gospel.. these churches attract lots of people and money. In the meantime, that takes away from the true Christian churches. Truly Orthodox churches of all types are dying and churches closing. What happens then?
If I’m a Lutheran, but there’s no more Lutheran churches near me, what do I do? Likely attend an EO church. If I’m EV Free, I might go Baptist.
So true Christianity contracts under the assault of false forms of Christianity and society. In the meantime, thanks to the Internet, true Christians become more aware of what other ‘flavors’ of Christianity believe. And I think I see much more reading of and awareness of the early Christian fathers. They wrote from a similar time and had to present a united front against numerous heresies.
I see their writings, coupled with the heresies and societal pressures as long term leading to a basic foundation for unity.
I have to say, if you would attend an Eastern Orthodox church but call NAR a false form of Christianity, you're misunderstanding EO, NAR or both.
NAR (as originally described) are simply charismatic protestant churches with a centralised leadership structure and that uses 'apostle' language.
Eastern Orthodoxy is continuationist on the gifts, has a more centralised leadership structure than the vast majority of churches that are called NAR, and believes in apostolic succession.
The main reason Eastern Orthodoxy is not called NAR is that it is not Protestant. Otherwise, it is one of the most NAR denominations available.
Yes, some 'NAR' churches may believe other things which you might also disagree with, such as prosperity theology. But the idea of NAR itself simply refers to leadership structure.
I'm saying this as someone who rejects NAR, but goes to a C of E church so recognises some (unfortunate) NAR-like structures in my own denomination.
Efforts to resolve differences can go one of two ways. People either try through church politics, where everybody gets to keep their existing beliefs and organizations simply promise not to persecute each other. Or people can go to the Bible and study it to see if the doctrines they hold to are actually taught there. This is the only way that will create true oneness.
Matt, about time someone fixes this problem, let me know how I can help. 👍😎
I don't believe the Church should be put back together, but I DO believe we should overlap and work together. The variety in the Church is actually a blessing.
The most fundamental Christian creed is Jesus is Lord. Let's build on what we hold in common, rather than what divides us. If we do not actively pursue the unity of all Christians we have not heard Jesus' final admonition to all believers on the night before he died, "that they may all be one!" (Jn 17:21)
In think we need to get rid of all the translations of the Bible that aren’t the closest to the original. Does anyone else find that frustrating?
Oh wow Matt I just joined an Antiochian Orthodox Church, and was Chrismated during Nativity this year.
I was lucky, at the church I visited first I was very welcomed. However another church not too far away, I heard later, would have probably ignored me, more than one family in our church visited that Orthodox church first and felt unwelcome.
I asked why this is!? I was told that it may be due to some “cradle” (people born into an orthodox faith family) that are orthodox immigrants, see their faith and nationality too closely linked, whether Ukrainian, Greek, Russian or the many other areas the churches spring from. They don’t know what to do with someone walking in that they don’t know. It is sad, and sinful how that happens, and I think it wounds Christ and pains him. I hope that as the immigrant population grows and has children and those children become adults with less firm ties to the former home land, the cultural differences fade and it becomes more Orthodox not Greek Orthodox or Russian etc.
Please forgive us for this sin against you and your family. You should be welcome to attend any church!
I am so sorry. That priest should be reported to his Bishop! We can not alienate people coming in to worship with us! We should be loving of anyone, of any culture and any clothing. Homeless or regal. ☦️ (Find a church whose website has pictures of people of all cultural backgrounds with children….those are living churches.)
Is the arrow pointing up or down? Our experience of the arrow will be wildly different but from where God views it, it has always been up. He is still making everything new, He is still reconciling all things to Himself, the one man's trespass that brought death to all is still answered by the other Man's sacrifice that brought justification and life to all, the "all" that were subjected to disobedience will be shown mercy, He is still on trajectory to become all in all in the ages to come.
The conversation that has been reinvigorated about God's plan for the final restoration of all things is gaining ground. Don't be afraid to look outside of the Calvinistic or Armenian boxes that either represent God as being not entirely willing or not entirely able to reconcile all things to Himself.
To the point about how much specificity is needed in the doctrine of salvation, I think there needs to be at least a recognition that Christ's death & resurrection were not merely exemplary. In other words, it's not enough to leave it at "somehow" if that leaves open the option that Jesus just left us an example to follow by which we merit eternal life. Seems to me that there are indications in the NT itself (Gal. 1:9) that some soteriological views are enough to remove you from orthodoxy and not only aberrant views on theology proper.
Many of the bishops insist upon the schism, not to say they are just being stubborn or argumentative, I understand the idea of different paths of conduct, but ultimately God is grace, love and truth, how is endless schism a form of love, and grace? Yes it may be a respecting of truth but surely our love of christ has no opinion other than love in its totality, no gaps or pockets left empty, no variants to truly be found? It is the language surrounding this love that arrives at variants. Yes different paths of ecumenical positioning are right and good but to not have the moral character to abide with the outcomes of different paths seems beyond lame to me. I just watched Pasolini's film Love Meetings where he interviews lots of Italians about religious beliefs sex, moralities, the tradition and vulnerability and bias of traditions, and he made a good point of asking individuals who said they found many human behaviours shocking and degenerate (sexually speaking in this instance) and he asked them to describe the shock they felt, none of them even really knew what he meant, then they would say things like, it makes me uncomfortable. Essentially he knew he would arrive at a pile of footage of humans saying they were shocked but having no real physical or mental reactions within themselves that they could identify or describe, no outcomes that we know to be part of the parcel of true shock. Pasolini's point was none of these people were really shocked, but they were creating a form of unity surrounding moralising forms of judging others. Christ asks us not to exalt ourselves. we are each The Sinner, not a sinner, if we come to it well and right the Christian philosophy asks us to acknowledge our own sins not others people's so to say we are so shocked or indignant we can't so much as fathom or muster a polite way of being tolerant of others who do differently to the way we do . . . well, I apply all of this to the schism, how much of it is true inability to meet in the middle and how much is the schism now it's own foundation stone, it's own state of immovable morality exalting itself? seeing sinners but not saying I The Sinner. Does the schism affect me? yes deeply. My well-meaning unthinking atheist parents had me Christened in an Anglican Church because it was just a thing you did in the 1970s, they were part of a generation transitioning away from religious beliefs and culture. So now I can't get baptised or take communion in a church of my choosing and it stings my heart, the schism chooses to spend no time listening to this plea and I know it's because it chooses to not be able to have this conversation and embrace change as opposed to truly is incapable of this much needed graceful change