Rrgarding the offices of the Church, the Eastern Orthodox Bible has an appendix on this. Their argument is that the distinction between bishop and presbyter under the monarchical episcopate structure was a semantic development, not an actual development of offices. That is, when the words were used interchangeably, there was still a "protopresbyter" for the sake of good order. Early in the second century - and we see this with Ignatius - the word "bishop" began to be used exclusively for the protopresbyter. The rest of the presbyters were still just called presbyters.
@WeakestAvenger
2 ай бұрын
Pascha is not Communion. I assume that was just him misspeaking. Pascha is Easter. Also, a criticism against the current Patriarch of Moscow is not necessarily a criticism of Eastern Orthodoxy as such.
@WeakestAvenger
2 ай бұрын
The Eastern Orthodox Church does not enumerate the mysteries as this guy suggests. You can just do a KZitem search and find priests talking about this. They hold to the seven that the Roman Catholic Church have, but they do not limit them to those. He later talks about the priesthood of all believers. Yes, very good, the NT says believers are a royal priesthood. But Israel in the OT was also called a kingdom of priests, amd yet they had a dedicated priesthood as well. So the priesthood of all believers does not by itself undercut the priesthood of the EOC or RCC. I think I will just add more of my comments to this one. In answer to the first Q&A question, he said that EO priests can get married. From my understanding, priests can BE married, but if they are to marry it has to be before their ordination. A single man who becomes ordained as a priest cannot then get married while a priest. I also think it a bit odd to criticize the EOC for their emphasis on the Incarnation but then go to Athanasius to argue for sola scriptura in the early church. Athanasius is, of course, the author of the famous treatise ON THE INCARNATION, which has that (also famous) line, "God became man that man might become deified" (I don't like the translate "might become God," because the Greek text doesn't just reuse the word θεός there). And by the way, in that treatise, Athanasius talks a lot about Christ's crucifixion and resurrection, so it isn't like he tosses those out to talk about the incarnation instead, although I have been a bit concerned myself about what I think is maybe an overemphasis on the incarnation. I'm also just not sure Dr. Costa is quite in tune with the nuances of how the EOC views salvation and "faith working through love" (which is from Galatians 5:6, by the way). In fact, in most of these discussions, the word "salvation" is never quite defined, and so I think there ends up being a lot of talking past one another, because people just aren't quite talking about the same thing. Although this video is titled "Eastern Orthodoxy & the Gospel," I didn't hear much about how EO actually denies the gospel. Again, to affirm "faith working through love" seems to me simply to affirm Galatians 5:6 and James 2:14-26. And while if you press Protestants, they will agree that salvation includes sanctification and glorification, salvation is really talked about and thought about as equal to justification (and "going to heaven when you die"). Salvation in the EOC seems to more explicitly and more consistently incorporate sanctification and glorification/deification, so that to say that salvation has no place for works sounds like saying that sanctification has no place for living a more holy life. Dr. Costa also references Joshua Schooping's book *Disillusioned*, which I have read, regarding Jesus being angry and people having to approach him through his mother. I think this is a valid criticism of those prayers and practices, but I do not think it is fair to equate that to the EO mindset generally, and especially not to the official teaching of the EOC. In fact, priests that I have listened to and read say over and over again that God is NOT angry with us and WANTS to save us. A common criticism from the EO against the Protestant understanding of penal substitution is that it an angry God who must be appeased by blood. Whatever you think of that criticism, it indicates a reluctance from the EOC to talk about God as angry and distant. I think there is a lot more that I could comment on here, but I will just give a summary now. While I think Dr. Costa gives a handful of points that are worth consideration, there is also to my estimation quite a bit of misrepresentation, as well as some odd arguments that don't have a lot of force. But I am not Eastern Orthodox, so take these things for what you will. I may also have misrepresented Eastern Orthodoxy somewhere. I appreciate the opportunity to hear arguments against Eastern Orthodoxy, though, as I continue my inquiry.
@ivoryjohn
4 ай бұрын
Not even 4 minutes in and I am already hearing error after error after error. Lord, have mercy.
@JesusIsTheOnlyWayTruthLife
3 ай бұрын
If you're denying what the Gospel is, that a person is saved by faith in Jesus' atoning sacrifice on the cross for our sins, and not saved by anything else, then you believe in "another gospel" as the Apostle Paul urgently spoke out against in Galatians. There's no indication in the NT that churches displayed any of the things marked by the Eastern Orthodox Church, except for what Paul said is anathema, which is changing the Gospel that saves. The EO Church did not start in AD 33, it started when the Roman Catholic Church did, about 600 AD, with Pope Gregory, since EO and RC add and add and add some more to what's not found in the Bible. The only inspired and infallible words from God came via the authors of the 66 books of the Bible. Any source of any kind that contradicts the Bible is proven to be fallible and false. I wonder if you even watched the video the whole way through.
@greenacresorganics7922
Жыл бұрын
This guy has no concept of church history whatsoever. He says that Priests don't appear until the 4th century. This is blatantly false. Ignatius of Antioch wrote prior to 108 AD that the apostles set up a 3 office structure of Bishop, Priest, and Deacon. This is horrible propaganda, I can't even watch it it's so bad.
@ronfeledichuk531
Жыл бұрын
And yet there are those who know nothing about church history on here defending his untruths as the truth.
@greenacresorganics7922
Жыл бұрын
@@ronfeledichuk531 Baptists are completely out of touch with reality. They reject everything that went before them and set up a new religion. It's impossible for them to interpret bible correctly because they refuse to accept the proper context.
@greenacresorganics7922
Жыл бұрын
Ignatius of Antioch(martyred AD 108) wrote “In like manner, let all reverence the deacons as an appointment of Jesus Christ, and the bishop as Jesus Christ, who is the Son of the Father, and the presbyters as the Sanhedrin of God, and assembly of the apostles. Apart from these, there is no Church.”
@greenacresorganics7922
Жыл бұрын
^Clement of Rome echoes the same thing around 90 AD
@ronfeledichuk531
Жыл бұрын
Anyone that teaches no Priesthood or Apostolic Succession is either lying or ignorant of church history.
@ronfeledichuk531
Жыл бұрын
What an sorry case of not only historical but biblical knowledge.
@WeakestAvenger
2 ай бұрын
Did he just say that Cain's offering to God was rejected because it was produce from the ground, which was cursed and was a product of human labor? Wow, I have never heard that interpretation before. Surely, he doesn't think Abel did no work in caring for the flocks. I dont know, I think he maybe needs to rethink the story of Cain and Abel and whether Cain even had a good heart before God when he made his offering.
@ronfeledichuk531
Жыл бұрын
Wow, this fella is either completely ignorant of what Orthodox Christians believe, or disingenuous, or outright lying about it. Not sure which.
@lukasmiller486
Жыл бұрын
Ron Feledichuk, care to expound?
@ronfeledichuk531
Жыл бұрын
@@lukasmiller486 it's all summed up in what I said.
@leonardhunt7241
Жыл бұрын
@@ronfeledichuk531 It Certainly Sounds like the speaker has more backing up ⬆️ his statements than your unsubstantiated statements! Lol 😂
@greenacresorganics7922
Жыл бұрын
You're completely right.
@UnworthySeraphim
Жыл бұрын
@@lukasmiller486well 2 quick points, a tonsure is not a ponytail, it is a ritual removing of a portion of hair as a sign of dedication to God (a quick Google search could have helped Tony in this case), and "Pascha" is not our "Holy Communion". Pascha is the term for Passover which is now celebrated as "Easter". The feast of the Resurrection. Also if you look deeper into what's Sts Athanasius and Basil taught about Sacraments and the Faith in general, you will find it perfectly in line with Eastern Orthodoxy, and opposed to any Protestant sect. Also read the Canons from the first 4 Ecumenical councils which Tony said he (and all Protestants) are supposedly in total agreement with.
@leonardhunt7241
Жыл бұрын
45:25 Mary was ‘blessed AMONG women’ Luke 1:28 from the angel to Mary, Luke 1:42 from Elizabeth, her cousin, to Mary; But Jael is ‘blessed ABOVE THE WOMEN IN THE TENT’ Judges 5:24.
@adrianwhyatt594
4 ай бұрын
It is the church, not Holy Scripture which is the pillar and ground of the Truth. The True Orthodox Church is the one and only Church. The gates of hell will not prevail against it. Christ founded it in 33AD. Luther, a mere man, founded Reformed Protestantism in 1517, claiming to form the Church for the second time. This makes it impossible for ANY Protestant church to be the True Church.
@nathanmagnuson2589
Жыл бұрын
Protestant readings of church history is interesting but not terribly historical
@lukasmiller486
9 ай бұрын
Of course. They’re going to read church history through their own denomination spectacles instead of doing objective research on what ‘outsider’ historians have said about the development of their doctrines. I won’t accept Catholicism/Orthodoxy according to the likes of John MacArthur. I will do my research on their basic beliefs from independent resources before pronouncing an opinion on whether I agree with it or not.
@sstudios12
4 ай бұрын
i would have liked it if you had visited an orthodox priest first before making these assumptions. you are on a journey and hopefuly you will come to the church built by Jesus.
@mikezeke7041
Жыл бұрын
Thank you, what are other resources to pursue this?
@UnworthySeraphim
Жыл бұрын
A good resource would be to read ALL the teachings and writings of St Athanasius and St Basil on all the Sacraments (Eucharist/communion, Baptism, Confession etc.) and Salvation and all aspects of the Christian Faith in general. After all, according to Dr. Costa himself they are both very important Church Fathers who supposedly believe in Sola Scriptura. So their beliefs should be very in line with Reformed Protestants and just as "scriptural".... right?
@mikezeke7041
Жыл бұрын
@@UnworthySeraphim is it true about the leavened bread at the last supper?
@UnworthySeraphim
Жыл бұрын
@@mikezeke7041 Yes. Even according to Jewish law, it was perfectly lawful to eat leavened bread the night before Passover which is when the Last Supper took place. The Greek word used to describe the bread they ate in the passage also implies that it was leavened
@mikezeke7041
Жыл бұрын
@@UnworthySeraphim wasn’t the evening when the day began?
@BeniaminZaboj
Жыл бұрын
@@UnworthySeraphim Bread was not leavened, contrary, Eastern Orthodoxy is catastrophy and their claims of apostolic inheritence are failure
@lukasmiller486
Жыл бұрын
I’m not an expert in all denominations but I find it hypocritical to rag on Orthodoxy for all the things you don’t agree with when your denomination has cut out books from the Old Testament (Judith, Tobias, the Maccabean Trilogy, etc.) that were there from the very beginning (Dead sea scrolls, Septuigiant, etc.) and part of Church tradition for thousands of years just because they expressed sentiments that didn’t agree with your own personal narrative.
@leonardhunt7241
Жыл бұрын
Lukas Miller It’s interesting 🤨 that we find the fault in others and try to hide our own by slinging similarities to those testing us and/or our favorites. Jesus sets the example in his scrutiny of some of the seven churches: to have a spotless and without blemish congregation of believers In Christ Jesus whom the Father has sent.
@greenacresorganics7922
Жыл бұрын
It's funny too that he talks about Gnosticism, not realizing that his sect is HIGHLY influenced by Gnosticism/Neoplatonism.
@Lavender-blue80
Жыл бұрын
The books of the Apocrypha are not considered to be divinely inspired, are never quoted in the NT and that is why they are not in the Bible.
@franciscafazzo3460
9 ай бұрын
Never quoted from in the New Testament. Never used in the greek texted all and they were rejected by multiple early saints
@lukasmiller486
9 ай бұрын
@@franciscafazzo3460 so what? Esther is never quoted from in the New Testament and it’s still part of the Reformed Baptist canon even though there were excerpts cut out.
@leonardhunt7241
Жыл бұрын
44:35 Mary gave birth to the Word ( God ) Made Flesh and in that way Mary was the mother of God, but of God made Not God by his lack of eternal life, among others.
@leonardhunt7241
Жыл бұрын
40:51 Did Jesus Christ have two wills / natures - a God nature and a man nature?!!? John 1:1-4 the Word Was God John 1:1-3, was with - reciprocally responding to, alongside, nearby, looking 👀 to 🚶🏽, going to - God [ Greek, ton Theon: the God ], John 1:1-2, had eternal life ‘in him was life (eternal life)’ John 1:4, and wore a God’s material uncreated beforeCreation Spirit body Before the Word Was Made Flesh: Philippians 2:6 ‘being in the form (morphe: shape, form, body, and by extension ‘nature’ whatever has the ‘kind’ - God made everything after its ‘kind’ Genesis 1:12, 1:21, … of thing has the nature of the thing, such as a bird has a bird nature, man a man nature, or God a God nature), even as the Father, a man in their - Jewish: God’s - law, has Has HAS his material body / a Spirit body: God is Spirit, John4:24 / and a spirit of man which is in him Zechariah 12:1, and 1st Corinthians 2:11 called the Holy Spirit John 14:26 of God ( Spirit of God, 1st Corinthians 2:11-2). John 1:14 has ‘the Word was Made Flesh’, Philippians 2:7-3 ‘Made in the likeness of men’ having ‘put on the likeness of sinful flesh’ Romans 8:3, but earlier in Philippians 2:7-2 had ‘put on the form (morphe: shape, form, body, and by extension ‘nature’, a body God had prepared for him to wear, as the Word said when coming into the world Hebrews 10:5. Hebrews 2:17-1 is more explicit ‘wherefore IN ALL THINGS it BEHOOVED HIM TO BE MADE LIKE UNTO HIS BRETHREN’ ‘that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God for the sins of the people ‘ Hebrews 2:17-2. As man has not a God nature and a man nature, Neither Did Jesus Christ Have A God nature and a man nature! Remember:? IN ALL THINGS?! Furthermore, whereas Jesus, while the Word (God), had eternal life ‘in him - Jesus as the Word - was life (eternal life)’, as Made Flesh IN ALL THINGS had flesh and bones 🦴 and blood 🩸 - the life of the flesh is in the blood 🩸 Leviticus 17:11. Not until John 5:26 ‘as the Father has life in himself so has he given the Son to have life in himself ‘ , After Jesus was anointed by the Spirit remaining on him Luke 3:22-23, John 1:32-34, 3:34 when Jesus was about thirty years old ( before Jesus Christ was of the age of inheritance, thirty years old). What 😮 brings us to that answer? John 5:24 ‘he that hears my word and believes on him that sent me has everlasting life’ shows Jesus didn’t / couldn’t (?) give eternal life to believers, only believing in him that sent Christ Jesus gave eternal life then and there in John 5:24! Could Jesus have had the fullness of the Godhead bodily Then? Without life eternal? Colossians 1:19 ‘it pleased (the Father) that in him - Jesus - SHOULD ALL THE FULLNESS DWELL ‘.?!? There was a time ? when it Didn’t DIDNT didn’t please PLEASE Please The Father THAT ALL FULNESS SHOULD DWELL IN JESUS? Only When it pleased the Father THAT ALL FULLNESS SHOULD DWELL IN JESUS, Could the passage be true: ‘for in him - Jesus - DWELLS ALL THE FULLNESS OF THE GODHEAD BODILY.’ As Jesus / the Word Was God was Made Flesh / had no eternal life until After John 5:26, Neither Did Jesus Christ have the FULLNESS OF THE GODHEAD DWELL BODILY IN HIM until After Colossians 1:19 was satisfied, fulfilled. By these we know Jesus Didn’t have a God nature and a man nature, but a man’s nature ONLY (but only in the likeness of sinful flesh Romans 8:3; that is, before sin made Adam’s flesh a sinful flesh, 1st Corinthians 15:45). I hope this helps
@ronfeledichuk531
Жыл бұрын
Completely incorrect .
@leonardhunt7241
Жыл бұрын
@@ronfeledichuk531 Did Jesus have a God nature and a man nature? Which is incorrect and Why 🤔 A: Jesus had a God nature and a man nature? B: Scripture: Jesus Didn’t Have a God Nature and a Man Nature BECAUSE NONE OF HIS BRETHREN HAD BOTH A GOD NATURE AND A MAN NATURE, Hebrews 2:17 ‘IN ALL THINGS it Behooved Him To Be Made Like UNTO HIS BRETHREN’ Hebrews 2:17.
@leonardhunt7241
Жыл бұрын
@@ronfeledichuk531 Your reply is unfounded therefore unreliable, because it offers no help whatsoever.
@ronfeledichuk531
Жыл бұрын
@@leonardhunt7241 there is only 1 person in Jesus Christ, and that is God the Word who assumed human nature.
@leonardhunt7241
Жыл бұрын
@@ronfeledichuk531 only one ☝️ person in Christ? Who said otherwise? Or were you just being rhetorical? God the Word was made, Not Assumed, flesh. God the Word became Not God Any longer! Had God the Word Assumed ( what does that mean actually?) flesh would he have given up Not Being God Any More, which he - God the Word - did? It sounds like we agreed 👍.
Пікірлер: 84