Oh man this was good: “Irenicism is *not* compromise. It is *not* weakness. It’ll take all the strength you have.” 🔥 🔥 🔥
@joycegreer9391
Жыл бұрын
Yes, that is a hard way to be.
@saintejeannedarc9460
Жыл бұрын
It feels easier in the moment to just want to lose our cool and just tirade on the other side and tell them off. It's not really easier though, because it feels awful in my spirit when I've done that. There's no peace, just anger and self righteousness. What has been peaceful and become second nature over time is to live in that echumenical spirit. It's ok if they don't agree. I don't feel self righteous, because I asking God to lead me in truth and all of us will find out we were wrong on certain doctrinal issues when we know all things when we're glorified.
@chaddonal4331
Жыл бұрын
14:44 onward on irenicism! “It is not compromise. It is not weakness. It will take all the strength you have. You have to cling to the Holy Spirit to not fall into the vitriol.” “It’s not needed just sometimes; it is needed precisely for the tough times. And I believe it reflects God’s heart for the church today.” Wow. I wish every Christian on social media would hear and heed these words.
@dartheli7400
6 ай бұрын
What is the difference between irenicism and compromise? Because I find it hard to find common ground with people who e.g. intentionally break the second commandment (icon veneration), albeit they don‘t regard it as that.
@youcatastrophe6434
6 ай бұрын
@@dartheli7400 Good question. Here’s the problem: while you and I see it as a clear violation of Scripture, the EO church does not (which I see that you already acknowledged after going back and re-reading your comment). It would be one thing if they said, “Yep. We’re violating that commandment and we don’t care.” But the thing is, they’re not doing that. And you have literally millions of people in that church who have inherited a tradition that is very, very deeply engrained into their culture and spirituality. Moreover, they have inherited a long standing teaching tradition in the EO church that tells them that the practice of icon veneration is NOT a violation of the second commandment and that the second commandment is still valid but applies to other things. Not only are they taught that it is not a violation of the second commandment, but they are taught that this practice is good, proper, meaningful, and even required, in light of the incarnation. In other words, it’s very likely not a case of willful and outright violation in the minds of these people. So it requires understanding and patience to have discussions in a productive manner. So I’d say that while there’s definitely a time and a place for calling people out on their willful violation of scripture, we have to recognize those times where the reasoning behind the alleged “violation” is complex and therefore very difficult, if not impossible, for the “violator” to easily recognize.
@stevereason6931
Жыл бұрын
For the past 6 months I, as a Protestant born-again evangelical, have been studying Church history to help me understand how the split in Christendom occurred. My desire to know about the split resulted in re-reading our Lord's high priestly prayer in which He expresses that His followers are united as He and the Father are united. It grieves my heart that there is such a split in the body of Christ. I have read numerous articles and watched numerous KZitem videos from the perspectives of Roman Catholics, Orthodox and Protestants. Just last week your videos started popping up on my KZitem feed. Oh my gosh, what a blessing. I immediately subscribed after listening to the first video and told my wife I have found a Protestant of kindred spirit who has vast knowledge in Church history and communicates with a kind, humble spirit. I told my wife I learned a new word "Irenic"...YES! Dr. Ortlund, thank you from the bottom of my heart for putting out these videos. I look forward to watching as many of your videos as possible. You are demonstrating for the body of Christ (Protestants, Roman Catholics and the Orthodox) the ministry of reconciliation with a spirit of love. Blessings upon you brother!!
@TruthUnites
Жыл бұрын
Thank you so much for these kind words, Steve! I am so thrilled that my videos have been of use to you. God bless you in your study.
@HearGodsWord
Жыл бұрын
Hey Steve, I thought it was just me. That was great to read 👍
@johnbrion4565
Жыл бұрын
@The Early Church Was Evangelical and Protestant jeez that’s quite harsh
@joeoleary9010
Жыл бұрын
@@justicebjorke2790 Jewish sects. NT 101. Jesus' entire ministry was a protest against certain Jewish ideas and practices.
@theamericanpotatonamedphil4306
Жыл бұрын
@The Early Church Was Evangelical and Protestant dogmatic fools are the biggest threat to the church. Soften your heart to your brothers and sisters in Christ.
@nathanjustice9432
Жыл бұрын
Great video! I attended an Eastern Orthodox church service to see what it was like a year ago, and while I was talking with some of the members after the service, one of them mentioned this dialogue between the Patriarch and Lutheran theologians. He never mentioned where I could find it, so I'm glad you covered it in this video! Looking forward to reading it myself when I have some free time.
@alvinnlus
Жыл бұрын
kzitem.info/news/bejne/rYSFmG2HbaKhi6A. I humbly suggest that you watch at least one video from the other side, rather than just one from a protestant pastor who is mining the early church for polemics against the orthodox church. If you are not from a church that accepts more than two sexes, consider what your response will be should you be asked to respond to someone who believes that gender is fluid. Don't you think that you will be still correct, and viewed as arrogant still? That is where the lie of Gavin's video is.
@HectorTheGr8
Жыл бұрын
I’ll admit that I, all too often, can be the first one to get snarky in an online debate. I look back and I cringe. As a Protestant I really appreciate your videos and your kindness towards those who differ. Your videos offer great insights but also convict me of my un-Christ-like behavior sometimes. Lord have mercy. Thank you again for your channel. It is a blessing.
@TruthUnites
Жыл бұрын
thanks for your kind words. we are all in a continual process of repentance and becoming more like Christ. Thank God he gives us grace along the way.
@joycegreer9391
Жыл бұрын
It's not only you. It is very hard with people so deceived and nasty. It's a learning process to not get angry and lash out back at them, especially when they are doing personal attacks.
@saintejeannedarc9460
Жыл бұрын
@@joycegreer9391 After awhile it just becomes second nature to not take it personally, and to just be able to gracefully back off. I just say a prayer. I've been there though w/ that anger welling up, not saying I haven't. I'm not sure what was key to the shift where it's not hard anymore? I'd say praying and putting echumenism as number one, under our many biblical admonitions to show one another love, grace, peace, gentleness. Praise God, He's doing a work in me. He will in you too. It really is lovely to just not have that oppositional spirit well up all the time.
@joycegreer9391
Жыл бұрын
@@saintejeannedarc9460 I think it becomes easier with practice. At first comments are very shocking, especially when there is so much vitriol and false accusations. It takes practice to not take personally and offensively, to keep reminding that it is that person's problem as they don't know you at all. With practice you get to see everything people can dish out and the repetition of their claims and false accusations. It gets easier to become impersonal and better at writing responses. It is a work in progress to always speak the truth in love and not react to false accusations and insults. It's sure not always easy!
@saintejeannedarc9460
Жыл бұрын
@@joycegreer9391 I don't really get insults much. Political forums can get cray-cray. What I'm finding a bit more challenging again is the elitism and arrogance of the usually the Orthodox. Yeah, gotta take some deep breaths sometimes.
@CamGaylorMusic
Жыл бұрын
I use to really struggle with finding the “one true church” your channel has been great for easing that anxiety in my life. I personally feel the best in the conservative Lutheran type of churches. If I had to choose a second choice it would probably be some sort of conservative Anglican. In the end though I think all the true believers are the one true church regardless of their denomination
@saintejeannedarc9460
Жыл бұрын
Yes, praise God. That's the heart of echumenism. My Christian background was never one church either, but it was by default on the protestant side. Now I can attend Catholic Mass w/ comfort too. It took some getting used to, and I had to learn a lot. God prodded me several years ago, and pretty much said, that if I'm truly echumenical and strive for unity, I have to incl. Catholics too. So I obeyed. The ex Catholic, now evangelical members of my family were all concerned I was going to convert. I was open if that's what God called me to do, but that's not what my branching out was about.
@philippbrogli779
8 ай бұрын
@@saintejeannedarc9460What is your take on how the Catholic church treats Mary? I don't look for a divisive answer. I think certain traditions that certain Catholics do seem to attribute too much to the saints, especially Mary. And I'm curious how a person with more insight views that topic.
@dartheli7400
6 ай бұрын
You‘re comment begs the question as to who the true believers are. What are the criteria for being a true believer?
@BabylonianCaptivity
5 ай бұрын
Scripture and the Gospel....or rely on men! But which men? They all claim to be God's infallible mouthpiece in one form or way.....
@yourfavoritesteve
Жыл бұрын
The Lutherans and the Orthodox had a completely different phronema. I think the differences were actually much wider than perhaps we realize. The Orthodox have weathered a very long history of preserving the faith through strict adherence to the councils and tradition. Asking their patriarch to humbly consider compromising is like asking a teacher to consider changing his country’s constitution. He has no ability to step so far outside the bounds of his role. Since then, the western phronema has found its way into Eastern Orthodoxy and some of them have begun to craft bridge-like language to modify their position to be more palatable to western ears, but the Orthodox views are more substantial than just being intellectual arguments.
@saintejeannedarc9460
Жыл бұрын
Are you Orthodox?
@natebozeman4510
Жыл бұрын
I LOVED your call to irenicism at the end! It's something you inspire me in. I temperamentally can be argumentative, and your consistent call to this truly has affected me.
@The_Autistic_Christian
Жыл бұрын
I am not a Lutheran, but I have worshipped in a Lutheran church in the past and consider Lutherans my brothers in Christ. I am from a Christian Churches/Churches of Christ background myself, and used to attend Parkland Christian Church in Washington state, which for a time was holding its services on the campus of Pacific Lutheran University, so there was a lot of working and worshiping together going on, and I think we all learned much from each other. I see a lot more unity among various Protestant and Independent churches than I do between us and either Orthodox or Catholic (and I've bumped into the condescension from one of my Catholic friends so I can understand what the Tubingen brothers were dealing with).
@philippbrogli779
8 ай бұрын
For a long time I went to a protestant-Zwingli church. In my exchange semester I went to a Lutheran church. I was so clueless that I thought it was a catholic church. We always repeated a creed and it said catholic in that creed.😅 There were only around 5 to 10 people in that church, whereas the pastor was the only local person. Now I go to an independent church. I agree with you that there is a lot of unity with the various protestant and independent churches. But I would also say locally, the divide between protestant and catholic is also not that big. But the gap is certainly bigger, but there is regular working with each other.
@kriegjaeger
Жыл бұрын
Amazing how so little has changed haha. We have faster correspondence but the attitude issues are still most important! Thank you for this!
@emenem6131
Жыл бұрын
Amen. True humility I heard that. Been studying HUMILITY and the more I look for it the less I see in myself and the body of the church. It should be overflowing
@dogmatika7
7 ай бұрын
10 years from now - this will be one of the most important and influential christian yt vids of all time. amen!
@Papasquatch73
6 ай бұрын
Why
@andrewbrossman9902
Жыл бұрын
I like your channel. Your respectable even in your debate.
@TharMan9
Жыл бұрын
Gavin, thanks for taking on this very difficult subject!
@adecarion
Жыл бұрын
It seems like the big difference between Protestantism and Orthodoxy is that Orthodoxy has strong dogmatic convictions about theology and the Church, whereas Protestantism is a bit more relativistic and willing to accept different ideas. It also seems like Protestantism doesn't submit to a higher authority outside of its own interpretation of the Bible.
@TruthUnites
Жыл бұрын
Protestantism does not have a "relativistic" view of the church; we just think the church is institutionally fractured (and thus coheres in multiple institutions).
@adecarion
Жыл бұрын
@@TruthUnites Okay, so Protestantism dogmatically asserts that the "church" (lowercase?) does not find its identity within a single communion of believers who all accept the same deposit of faith, but rather, the church exists across various communions and is comprised of individuals who may have varying interpretations of Christian teaching, but whom all are part of God's community. Is this accurate? Also, I would be curious what you believe about Orthodox and Catholics who venerate icons. Do you believe that their potentially idolatrous activity would put them outside of the church? Would an Orthodox Christian or Roman Catholic need to accept a Protestant view of icons to avoid the sin of idolatry and be safely part of the "church" as Protestant's define it? In other words, do Orthodox and Catholic Christians need to assent to important Protestant doctrines that pertain to salvation to be considered part of the church as Protestantism defines it?
@dustinneely
Жыл бұрын
@@TruthUnites you have a very modernist (ecumenical) view. For instance people like Oliver Cromwell didn't share your modernist sympathies. You don't seem to want to acknowledge the Protestant wars in England for instance. Or Cromwell unapologetically invading Ireland and butchering Irish Catholics. Yeah....very ecumenical.
@goyonman9655
Жыл бұрын
@@dustinneely I don't dont seem to remember Dr. Ortlund (or anyone else) denying protestant wars in England. Or regarding Cromwell (of all people) as infalliable
@joycegreer9391
Жыл бұрын
@@dustinneely Yes do forget all the millions tortured and killed by the RCC...smh.
@jonasopmeer
Жыл бұрын
Really appreciated this! Thanks again Dr O!
@capturedbyannamarie
11 ай бұрын
All the content you put out is so fascinating, and I have learned so much!
@nicklowe_
Жыл бұрын
Love these kinds of videos 😍
@DrBob-gr5ru
Жыл бұрын
Hey, Dr. O. I received that book as a loan a while ago from an Orthodox friend who is a deacon. Fascinating episode in church history! I think one of the driving forces behind the differential responses to ecumenism historically is the difference in ecclesiology between the Lutherans and the Greek Orthodox, leading to a different stance on catholicity. That "institutional exclusivism" of what I call the "Imperial churches" (i.e. those churches who can trace their hierarchy back to the episcopal and diocesan structure of the state church of the Late Roman Empire) is kind of baked in to that late Imperial state-church structure. You can see that institutional exclusivism develop in the relationship between the Eastern Roman Church and the church of Rome in the early medieval period, and between Constantinople and other churches on the fringes of her empire and in competing states (i.e. the Coptic, Ethiopian and Armenian churches and the recognized church of the Sassanian Empire that was called the "Nestorian" church). The issue of church and state and how we understand that in the broader context of ecclesiology is just as vital as the theological differences in understanding differing approaches to ecumenical relations. "Free churches" can have the biggest tent for catholicity, as they are not bound to the necessity of the historic episcopate rooted in the church of the Roman Empire. However, this freedom has its downsides too, especially in America, in which the first amendment allowed for the proliferation of many Restorationist cults such as the Mormons, JWs, and in a more qualified sense the Seventh Day Adventists (not to mention the rise of theological Liberalism). There are no simple answers for how to proceed in ecumenical relations. There is a great book by Thomas A. Howard called the "Pope and the Professor" on the lives of Pius IX and Dr. Johan von Dollinger, their fateful clash at Vatican I, and Dollinger leading the first modern ecumenical dialogues in the Bonn Reunion conferences. Would love to see you do a video on Dollinger and/or the Bonn Reunion conferences and how we can apply the lessons learned in then to today. Thanks, Dr. O, and Grace and Peace!
@TruthUnites
Жыл бұрын
Thanks Dr. Bob! I got into Dollinger a little bit in my recent video on Vigilius -- just a little
@vngelicath1580
Жыл бұрын
The historic episcopate (and episcopacy, generally) did predate the Constantinian shift. I would say that the model fit well within an imperial/monarchical system, but the structure as a legitimate development is still a well attested feature of historic catholicity (and not purely a byproduct of state-church).
@Jimmy-iy9pl
Жыл бұрын
If the apostle John had approved of the monarchical episcopate, and it seems likely that he did, I think you can make a pretty good case that the institution is of divine appointment.
@DrBob-gr5ru
Жыл бұрын
@@Jimmy-iy9pl Chapter and verse? Roman Catholic scholarship is clearly not with the "traditional" view of RC conservatives. If you want to make the argument that historical development is divine (i.e. the Newman Hypothesis) okay. That can be debated. But scholarship, including conservative scholarship, is pretty uniform on the fact that the monarchical episcopate is not a New Testament concept and developed at a later point in history. I think that is fatal to the case of the Imperial churches as their dogmatic statements assume the Apostolic Succession as the Apostles specially appointing bishops as priests in their place. This is not biblically nor historically tenable. Btw, why are the bishops in the modern Imperial churches mandated to be unmarried? Seems this violates the principle of married bishops in 1 Timothy 3, 4 and Titus 1, thus breaking alleged Apostolic succession, as the mandate of unmarried bishops violates the qualifications.
@vngelicath1580
Жыл бұрын
@DrBob-gr5ru The scholarship pretty universally attests that the three-fold order began as "apostle, bishop-presbyter, and deacon", that's why it's called apostolic succession (by the churches which regard that model as essential). Bishops are only important as such if they are in the line of the apostles, who are the truly essential office of leadership.
@jgiaq
Жыл бұрын
Awesome video! I love the charge at the end, that we are not compromising by suggesting that true Christians (and true churches) exist outside of Protestantism.
@saintejeannedarc9460
Жыл бұрын
If we are really bible believing Christians, then how could we claim that Catholic and Orthodox are not true Christians as well. They see Christ as ultimate redeemer and Lord. It's much more formal, but it's the same at its core. I think most protestants don't realize that and want to nitpick on what is different, than what is actually the same. It takes a fair bit of studying to get through the different language they use.
@alvinnlus
Жыл бұрын
And really it is not arrogance as Gavin puts in, quite uncharitably if I may add. No one got drowned (Anabaptists), burnt at the stake or had their heads removed. None of the protestants hands were free of blood. There are many churches that are totally independent from each other, and they just agree to the same seven ecumenical councils. Any independent protestant church can sign up and it is not about being exclusive, or insisting on being part of a larger organization. There were some young Christians who started out as Campus Crusade folks, then started their churches, and via a few camps they realized they wanted to joint the Orthodox Churches and did. Go you do likewise.
@tategarrett3042
Жыл бұрын
A useful comment, based on one or two others I saw that seem to have been deleted, is that Gavin is not at all wishy-washy or offended by the exclusivity of salvation and it's being through Christ alone. What he opposes is the way that Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy have inserted themselves between people and Christ and made participation in their organizational hierarchy mandatory for salvation (at least in the past). This is not at all to say that he, or Protestantism as a whole, deny that to be saved one's faith must be in Christ alone. Further, his intent is not to demand that all others come to accept his views, but that they not attempt to anathematize people out of the church for holding different views.
@harrygarris6921
Жыл бұрын
It’s not really as simplistic as you’re making it sound. The view was that participation in Christ was mandatory for salvation, which includes the sacraments. Both the Romans and the Greeks saw each others sacraments as invalid. So it’s less about having the right “church hierarchy” and more about having the right Eucharist, which they saw as tainted due to church corruption/teaching of heresy. Nearly all of the early Protestants saw sacramental participation as necessary for salvation too. The widespread rejection of the “necessity” of the Eucharist and baptism is a super modern accretion in the Protestant world. But they allowed that other church structures although they had theological issues in their view still had valid sacraments.
@tategarrett3042
Жыл бұрын
@@harrygarris6921 that's exactly what I mean - at the time when Protestantism arose both the Orthodox and Roman Catholic churches anathematized those who held different views on those issues and we're not a direct member of their organization. Regardless of modern day lapses in the street-level practice of Protestantism, the doctrines they have still do uphold the value of the Eucharist and baptism, though at times in different forms and with different language. They do not however, condemn all those who disagree with their expression of these sacraments.
@angru_arches
Жыл бұрын
@@harrygarris6921erm, please explain to me what you mean by "participation in Christ is mandatory, which includes sacraments"....are you saying that faith + sacraments = salvation??
@joekey8464
Жыл бұрын
Christ said He will build a church with His apostles (which He picked one by one). He did not say read only the bible and interpret it as you want. So yes, we have to participate and listen to His church. "If they still refuse to listen, tell it to the church; and if they refuse to listen even to the church, treat them as you would a pagan or a tax collector." Do you want to be a pagan or a tax collector?
@tategarrett3042
Жыл бұрын
@@joekey8464 Christ did indeed say that, and he indeed did not say to read our Bibles or take his word and use it to mean whatever we want. Protestantism also has never said that nor implied it. The drive of Protestantism is to return to the Apostolic teachings and practices that people, over time, have corrupted and added too. Thus historic Protestantism aims to be as close to the original teachings of Christ as possible, and thus is a part of the one true and Apostolic Church - the Bride of Christ. Yet for all this, Protestantism has never attempted to anathematize and exclude those from other traditions they believe have doctrinal errors, but have - from the very beginning up to the present day - maintained that they too are members of Christ's Church. And we would never attempt claim that those in these traditions should be treated "as pagans and tax collectors". Unfortunately the same does not always seem to be true of Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy. It is my hope and prayer that that will continue to change though and that Christ's love will triumph over human divisions.
@ElmarAusman
Жыл бұрын
I enjoy listening to you!!! Thanks a lot for all your work. So enlightening and edifying!
@TruthUnites
Жыл бұрын
I'm so glad!
@TheologicalAmatuer
Жыл бұрын
It seems to me that this should not be surprising that the orthodox would respond that way. The orthodox do not understand ecclesiology to be a second order theological issue, considering that apostolic succession is fundamental to access to the sacraments, which are seen as a central part of the application of salvation to the person, in both the catholic and orthodox view. The protestants reject that notion of succession and ecclesiology and then seem surprised when they are met with rejection. I’m not attempting to make a case for either side on this right now. Just pointing out that it seems strange that the protestants would be surprised by rejection by Catholic or orthodox at the time when the protestants are rejecting something that is central to both the Catholic and Orthodox faith.
@joycegreer9391
Жыл бұрын
That's because Protestants stand on the truth of the Gospel, not manmade beliefs and traditions like apostolic succession.
@VirginMostPowerfull
Жыл бұрын
@@joycegreer9391 No, that's because Protestants are innovators. The Protestant doctrine is novel, it was never believed before, and it has brought extreme division in Christianity now with everyone mocking us for having so many denominations when pretty much all of them are Protestant divisions.
@williampumpernickel4929
11 ай бұрын
@@joycegreer9391manmade? poor understanding you have
@joycegreer9391
11 ай бұрын
@@williampumpernickel4929 Indeed, scripture poor understanding you have.
@bonniejohnstone
3 ай бұрын
@@joycegreer9391 Where do you think the theology of the trinity came from? The canon of scripture? Methods of Baptism, the Eucharist, marriage etc? The Church. What you do today comes from tradition defended by Saints and Martyrs.
@maredondo
Жыл бұрын
God bless you. I appreciate your work here. I hear the same quotes and understand them a little different. But thank you for what you do.
@georgeluke6382
4 ай бұрын
Gavin, continually blessed by this channel. It pushes me to be a better Protestant who more firmly is ruled by the primacy of God's Word, and the authority of the foundation set by the apostles- and really wrestling to figure out what that foundation is in the natural revelation from God we've been given in our histories. We can be more unified, apostolic, catholic, and cheerfully dedicated to holiness that springs from the Lord of Truth as we commit all our institutional visible assemblies to reforming ourselves to conform to his Headship led by his Spirit, animating his Body/Temple/Church as the pillar and buttress of Truth. To really study history as God's revelation in time of fallible reflections of His Voice via real Spiritual artifacts and meditations meant to edify us, presupposing Scripture's unique ontological and internal claims about itself having the right as God's ontologically unique instrument of his Voice to infallibly norm all else, and seeing ourselves clearly as a medieval reform and resourcement historical movement, rather than a single visible ecclesiological hegemon of chaos and nominalism, is to start wrestling with what the beauty of what it means to be Protestant (and reformed catholics).
@ematouk100
Жыл бұрын
Excellent video!
@frankschaeffer8153
10 ай бұрын
The issue is that you are praising the Lutherans for having a moden mindset and rebuking Patriarch Jeremiah for having an ancient mindset. Did the Church ever talk to the heretics as if both were on the same level? Never. Would you talk to a Muslim or a Jew as if you had something to learn from them concerning the Faith? Surely not. What you have in mind is the modern "ecumenical" dialogue, which of course did not exist at the time. Protestantism was the prerequisite for this dialogue. The Patriarch simply treated the Lutherans with kindness and condescension to their lack of familiarity with the Apostolic Faith, that which had always been believed by all and everywhere, by all that is by the Orthodox, excluding of course the heretics. He tried to correct the Protestants on their errors, but when the latter proved to be stubborn, after (two or) three rebukes he let them go. That's the Scriptural approach. Ecumenism with its endless pointless dialogues is not the Scriptural approach. Concerning the docrtine of the Church, of course the Church, being guided by the Holy Spirit, is inerrant. How else could it be? Each individual has free well and thus can fall into error, but the Church is the Body of Christ, how can the Body of Christ err?
@shelleeyoung8496
8 ай бұрын
Well said
@bclark63
Жыл бұрын
This is so, so good! If only the modern followers of Luther and Calvin were as ecumenical as their founders! And I realize, in some way Calvin and Luther were pretty strident toward other groups! It almost seems, in my experience, modern Protestants who identify as Lutherans, Calvinists, and generally Evangelical are often woefully ignorant of the theology of Luther and Calvin and of others whom they criticize...and perhaps that's one reason they are so divisive today. They mischaracterize the other side so badly!
@daliborbenes5025
Жыл бұрын
Sadly, many orthodox Protestants today have abandoned Ecumenism as a liberal tendency. American Evangelicals are often restorationist and look down on church history with suspicion. Confessional Lutherans and Reformed are often defensive about maintaining their own tradition. This results in Ecumenical statements, like the Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification, being made by liberal Protestants, and therefore they are oftentimes more concerned with being nice than engaging the actual differences.
@carlopiedad6429
Жыл бұрын
When I was a Lutheran I visit Reformed churches frequently and have fellowship with them as brothers and sisters in Christ. We have a lot of agreements in many doctrines and It made me happy tho there are also many parts where we get to disagree, but still I love those guys.
@wayned803
Жыл бұрын
Hahahahaha hahahaha hahahaha... We must at least give some measure of credit to folks like Luther and Calvin for at least trying to reach out to an Apostolic Church after Rome recognized them as heretics (if for no other reason than "successful heresy" requires the backing of as many bishops as possible, regardless of whether from West or East)
@Stigma-ba115
Жыл бұрын
@wayned803 Luther was no Heretic. The corrupt papacy only declared hom heretical because Luther threatened their earthly power, but had no biblical backing. Luther even challenged them to their faces to back up their claims with scripture, and they could not.
@VirginMostPowerfull
Жыл бұрын
@@Stigma-ba115 Luther was and will always remain a heretic according to both East and West. Sola Scriptura is a heresy, denial of the real presence in the Eucharist is heresy, denial of Purgatory in the West and post death purification on the East is heresy, denial of an institutional Church founded by Christ which continues to this day is heresy. According to the witness of a nun who had a vision, Luther is damned.
@RellGiles
Жыл бұрын
“Spiritual sons of my humble self” 😂
@tretaylor1230
5 ай бұрын
I recently left the Baptist church and started going to an Eastern Orthodox Church in search of the ‘ancient faith’. It’s been a few months and quickly realized things that didn’t sit well with my conscience. 1. Ecumenism and everything it stands for. Protestant martyrs dying in vain (from their pov) not being able to pray with others, no matter your faith in Christ and what fruit you bore, you’re damned outside the eastern church. 2 the extreme views of Mary. They believe that she lived in the Temple in the Holy of Holies for 12 years and a lot of other things that I was unaware of and would’ve been mentioned in scripture if true. 3 my previous baptism meant nothing and would have been made to be baptized again and it all just feels very legalistic. They definitely don’t believe in assurance of salvation and being saved by faith. These are just a few things. I say all that to them say I found this KZitem channel and it has helped me IMMENSELY!! Thank you Gavin.
@CorbinatorLoL
Жыл бұрын
Thank you for briefly walking us through this unique moment in church history. I love being catholic (URCNA - Continental Reformed) and finding "new" (old) ways to practice my catholicity. Your videos are so helpful in showcasing apostolic expressions of catholicity rooted in the scriptures as opposed to the rigid expressions rooted in ecclesiological exclusivism, protestant and non-protestant alike. So, thank you for that!
@saintejeannedarc9460
Жыл бұрын
I have little idea what you just said, because Catholics sure do talk funny. It's just my light hearted way of saying that we can have a language barrier, because of different traditions. It is great to see Catholics and Orthodox in here and enjoying what Dr. Ortlund so graciously offers as information for bridge building.
@IC_XC_NIKA
Жыл бұрын
I'm so glad I read this book a year ago because that's not the impression I got from the Eastern side. Why do you assume the Patriarch was being patronizing especially after you admitted that its like to very different cultures. From the Patriarch's vantage points he sees it as the German academics interested in joining "The Church" not a discussion between "two churches". So of course in the last letter the Patriarch is filled with grief and desires to discuss no further because the Lutheran side has made up their mind on eccesiology and their private interpretation of true doctrine. (He's adhering to the book of proverbs at that point to not argue with scholars) If the Reformers aren't interested in reforming why should the Patriach continue to go back and forth? That's not how Orthodox Christianity works. Was the Patriarch supposed to compromise the Churches rich faith and history to appease the Lutherans new found 16th century tradition? Dr.Gavin from an Orthodox perspective that's nonsense.
@Giorginho
Жыл бұрын
Yes, that's exactly what Gavin is saying or at least implying: Orthodox should compromise His charitable tone doesn't trump his ridiculous position
@choicemeatrandy6572
Жыл бұрын
@@Giorginho The Lutherans were being cordial in their view that catholicity can be enjoyed between believers in different traditions, Jeremias was only going to be cordial with them if they joined the EO church. It was never going to work out, as they say.
@randomname2366
Жыл бұрын
This was an enjoyable listen. I spoke with a Coptic priest and he mentioned this exact dialogue. I thought for a few weeks I was aligning with the orthodox church on some doctrines but I disagree too much on certain major issues to ever convert.
@andreichira7518
Жыл бұрын
I'm Eastern Orthodox and I would love to delve into those differences with you!
@hildegardnessie8438
Жыл бұрын
Copts are Oriental Orthodox not Eastern Orthodox.
@henrytucker7189
Жыл бұрын
Do you feel you may be neglecting a major hang up with any discussion of ecumenicism between Lutherans and Orthodox--namely, the importance of Apostolic Succession to the Orthodox? It's the same for the Western Church. Their view was (is) that the one way to have real catholic unity is through a bishop ordained in Apostolic Succession. East and West have always been in agreement on this. They point to exhortations from the Apostles, Ignatius, Irenaeus, etc. It's the main reason Catholics believe Orthodox have valid ordinations and sacraments even thought they're considered schismatics. This puts Jeremiah's "condescension" towards the Lutherans in a proper context. If Apostolic Succession was the basis of Catholicity for 1,500 years, then the Lutherans were trying to have their cake and eat it. They wanted the freedom to interpret Scripture and operate their churches however they desired (without regard to any spiritual oversight or obligation beyond their own fidelity to Scripture, Creeds and Confessions). This view of catholicity was foreign to Rome and Constantinople. More than schismatics, the Reformers were considered rebels (or anarchists). So, perhaps Jeremiah disliked the fact that the Lutherans were presuming their position that one can remain "catholic" without the necessary "spiritual pedigree" if you will. From Jeremiah's perspective, the points of disagreement with the Lutherans were points of unity with Rome. Thanks for the video!
@legodavid9260
Жыл бұрын
So basically, the Orthodox Church just responded by saying "Either join us or leave us alone, bye". That's so sad to hear. In an alternate reality, it would be very interesting to see what would have happened had the Orthodox been more open to collaboration. Could there have been more unity and not nearly as many splinter groups emerging shortly after Luther? I guess we'll never know...
@dustinneely
Жыл бұрын
It's not sad. I wish the current Patriarch of Constantinople had the same attitude.
@jg7923
Жыл бұрын
@@dustinneely Hurry and paint a picture for me so I can bow down to it.
@joeoleary9010
Жыл бұрын
a sect originates or evolves from other sects, but sects do not "join together" or collaborate into some kind of hybrid form. It just doesn't happen, not in Christianity or any religion.
@dustinneely
Жыл бұрын
@@jg7923 hurry and have a doctrinal dispute so you can break off and form another "church".
@jg7923
Жыл бұрын
@@dustinneely Hurry and call yourself an old calendarist or true orthodox etc.
@cmc1517
Жыл бұрын
Is there somewhere I can watch your sermons?
@cqbarnieify
6 ай бұрын
Believing that one’s church cannot error, could explain how Patriarch Kirill is so effectively able to further his and Putin’s horrific agenda regarding Ukraine. Kirill is shockingly and ruthlessly powerful, yet faithful Russians seem to blindly follow him no matter how ugly the situation.
@ChristianEphraimson
3 ай бұрын
Kirill is not the church. He is a bishop in the church but he isn't the orthodox equivalent of the Pontiff. Every man may hold error but the greater body of Christ's bride cannot error for long unless the promise of Christ isn't true.
@duncescotus2342
Жыл бұрын
Didn't Luther himself confer with an Ethiopian higher up and determine that essentially their doctrines of justification were similar if not identical? But yes, Lutherans do absolutely present a better "catholicity" and always have, to the dismay of more "reformed" brothers!
@Athabrose
Жыл бұрын
Yes, Michael the Deacon of the Ethiopian Orthodox Church visited with Luther and approved the Augsburg and Lutheran Mass etc..
@duncescotus2342
Жыл бұрын
@@Athabrose Ok, thanks for that reply. Very interesting point of unity in Church history. We need more like that today!
@joycegreer9391
Жыл бұрын
No, just better catholicity than Roman Catholics.
@VirginMostPowerfull
Жыл бұрын
@@joycegreer9391 Roman Catholics have done most of the ecumenical reach outs throughout history, and the word is itself most used by Catholics.
@duncescotus2342
Жыл бұрын
@@joycegreer9391 You care to explain yourself? How are Lutherans bested in this category?
@MrTeaSPoon12
Жыл бұрын
I know this probably just looks to most Protestants like the EO (or RC) Church are rigid, elitist, exclusive, and will only acknowledge others being in good faith if those Christians are already on “the same team”. But I would encourage you to try to see past the response instantiated here as something beyond hard-headedness and arrogance. That impression comes off very clearly, in favor of the Protestants, in the video. What doesn’t come across is that this interaction is not happening in a vacuum. It’s been over a millennia and a half since Christ’s coming. If you believe that Christians should belong to the Church that Christ founded, then new Churches, groups, sects should not be springing up. Anything new that does come on the scene SHOULD instantly send off alarm bells that there has been a deviation from what Christ founded. The Protestant comes off to the EO’s, not as cordial, but as saying “we respect you so please also will you respect my obviously invalid Church that some guy set up a couple minutes ago”. That might not be how you see it, but you need to try to understand how things were perceived in their proper historical context.
@TruthUnites
Жыл бұрын
I understand what you’re trying to get at here, but I think the idea of an “obviously invalid church set up five minutes ago” as a way of framing things is an example of the rigidity and assumed superiority. That Lutheranism is not a church is not obvious at all. On some of the doctrinal issues at play, I think it’s fairly obvious in the opposite direction (for example, icon veneration).
@MrTeaSPoon12
Жыл бұрын
@@TruthUnites That might have sounded harsh, but I phrased it that way to underscore why Protestants are not met on the level playing ground they think it is. The lack of historical precedent to their institution implicates a departure from apostolic lineage, and thus from the historical particular ministry of Christ. That is the way that Protestantism is going to be met by Christian Church bodies with an ancient pedigree and it’s important for Protestants to grapple with that perspective when dealing with RC, ECs, etc. That is simply the point I mean to convey.
@MrTeaSPoon12
Жыл бұрын
To put the issues a little more in the foreground from your reply, Christianity is not just about doctrines and Jesus did not just teach ideas. He was a particular man and established a particular, visible Church on His apostles. Of course doctrine is important. But to ignore the importance of belonging to visible institutions with credible claims of succession from what Christ established, in favor of merely doctrinal descent claimed by a reading of Scripture is how these interactions are premised with opposition from the outset.
@TruthUnites
Жыл бұрын
@@MrTeaSPoon12 Thanks for the reply. I think I understand what you’re trying to say, but again the idea that protestants are wrong to expect a “level playing ground” is part of the very mentality that we find reflective of arrogance. The eastern orthodox view of icon veneration has zero historical precedent for the first 500 years of church history. So when you assert that we have no historical basis, it doesn’t seem to be grasped that we’re saying the exact same thing about many aspects of your tradition. Someone is right, and someone is wrong, but it shouldn’t be assumed at the outset.
@TruthUnites
Жыл бұрын
@@MrTeaSPoon12 on this comment, we totally agree that Christianity is not just about doctrines, and that there is a visible church. We simply do not restrict that church to the Eastern orthodox institution.
@garrettklawuhn9874
Жыл бұрын
Referring to the Lutherans as “sons” is not in the least bit condescending from the Patriarch. It shows commonality and familiarity. The Patriarch refers to all non bishop-Christians as children. And as the Patriarch not further engaging with the Lutherans after they refused correction, this is again how a patriarch would respond to disent. Him not continuing to argue with the Lutherans was him being polite. Part of the issue is the cultural difference. It makes sense that Gavin would see the Lutherans as polite but not the Patriarch as being polite because their culture is more similar to his. However, the Patriarch treated the Lutherans very kindly according to his own culture.
@tategarrett3042
Жыл бұрын
That's an interesting aspect to add and I'm sure Gavin was aware of this. What he is drawing out here is the essential difference that to the Protestants, the Orthodox church was Christian, but to the Orthodox, when it became clear that the Protestants were not going to compromise their theology and join with Eastern Orthodoxy, they cut off the dialogue and refused to acknowledge the validity of their faith.
@ElvisI97
Жыл бұрын
However the EOs response is in lock step with their views of Christians outside of their church (basically anathema). I would consider he wasn't being condescending if they didn't already have such a view against non-EO for centuries.
@garrettklawuhn9874
Жыл бұрын
@@ElvisI97 I don’t think viewing people as outside of the Church is synonymous with being condescending. The Lutherans were holding onto and refusing to repent of a (in the East’s eyes) heresy that had been condemned for over 500 years.
@phoglebice
Жыл бұрын
Gavin, I’ve heard about a meeting between a monk from the Ethiopian Orthodox Tewhado church and Martin Luther (often noted by orthodox people in my native country Ethiopia). Do you know anything about the supposed exchange between the two?
@__.Sara.__
Жыл бұрын
11:18 I laughed out loud at letter #3 😂
@noelguzman4247
Жыл бұрын
This is great
@anselman3156
Жыл бұрын
The friendly relations of Anglicans and Eastern Orthodoxy, especially early 20th century, is worth looking into. Anglican theologian Eric L Mascall does an eirenic consideration of the relation of Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Anglican and Protestant understandings of grace in his Gifford Lectures (available online). Also his book Christ, the Christian and the Church, recently re published. Jordan Cooper the Lutheran You Tuber also has comparisons of Lutheranism and Orthodoxy. I think he has studied Mannermaa the Finnish Lutheran theologian who has tried to find some common ground with Orthodox, in his work Christ Present in Faith, on Luther's view of justification. You might have encountered these already. If not, I hope you may find some material in them to consider.
@tookie36
3 ай бұрын
“You don’t need to become a Lutheran”… just have to agree with our exact ideology
@roses993
Ай бұрын
Catholicism- church is above Jesus words. Mary doctrines even if invented over 300 yrs after Christ, we still believe in them. For uncertain reason, we believe we are the one true church even if book of acts church had zero statues, zero praying to saints, zero mary doctrines, zero indulgences, zero pencances.
@jamiecharles8334
8 ай бұрын
Great video Gavin.
@nordscan9043
Жыл бұрын
Är du svensk?(Are you Swedish?)
@nathandrew4522
Жыл бұрын
A definition of your view of catholicity is required here . I think your coming from a quite different understanding of its implications . A short video with regards is needed
@timosbraun2931
10 ай бұрын
I'm not sure you'll read this comment, but here are my thoughts. You quote that the Lutherans have a better version of catholicity than the orthodox or catholics, with the quote at 13:36. In that quote, the Lutherans say that "who hold the right interpretation of Christ". This brings the question of who holds the right interpretation. I think they are equally un-catholic, in the way that you define it, by saying that you must have to have the same interpretation.
@johnnyd2383
6 ай бұрын
This video confirms the correctness of the response of the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople - write to us only on the matters of friendship and NOT on the matters of faith... as what you believe is NOT ancient Christian Faith delivered by the Lord to the Saints.
@doublecutnut753
Жыл бұрын
It seems like Jeremias was using the Matthew 10:14 principle- shaking the dust of his feet.
@corex72
Ай бұрын
I’m getting to a point where all three sides whether they’re right or wrong it’s not something I want to be a part of. Or anything divergent. I’m not deconstructing. I love Jesus by trying to keep his commands because that’s how he says to love him. I don’t care for all the big words anymore. All of us need to remember that narrow is the way that leads to life and wide is the way that leads to destruction. If you’re in a big group that all agree, maybe you should take a look at yourself. And start noticing those solitary people, the quiet ones that are watching all the sides. And fully engaged with the spirit and the word.
@EricBryant
7 ай бұрын
04:59: This is a great point. But I found during my Orthodox catechism that the Eastern Orthodox actually do differ on the nature of Scripture. EO reject Sola Scriptura. They don't see Scripture really as having a more authoritative ontological nature than Tradition (theopneustos) doesn't mean for them what it means for us as reformed Christians. They don't just differ on the _interpretation_ of Scriptures, they differ on the very nature of Scripture. Scripture isn't the EO's highest authority. Really, Sola Fide and Sola Scriptura are the two foundation stones on which EO either stands or falls (along with Roman Catholicism).
@annakimborahpa
Жыл бұрын
1. The 16th century Orthodox Patriarch of Constantinople was never going to compromise with the Lutherans on (A) the episcopacy based on apostolic succession, (B) the number of sacraments as seven, (C) praying to the saints, particularly to Panagia (translated as All-Holy, the Eastern Orthodox name for the mother of Jesus) and (D) the veneration of icons. 2. If their dialogue continued, perhaps they might have considered developing a theology of the Pope as the Antichrist that was one of Martin Luther's teachings contained in his 1537 Smalcald Articles which became authoritative in Lutheranism when added to the Book of Concord in 1580. Luther's final written testament in 1545 was Against the Papacy, An Institution of the Devil, published one year before his death. 3. As it is, the Patriarch cut it short and for four and one half centuries since then there has been no major theological agreement ever enacted between Orthodoxy and Protestantism. 4. However, at the conclusion of the Catholic Church's Second Vatican Council on December 7, 1965, there was issued the JOINT CATHOLIC-ORTHODOX DECLARATION OF HIS HOLINESS POPE PAUL VI AND THE ECUMENICAL PATRIARCH ATHENAGORAS I (of Constantinople) whose No. 5 reads: "Pope Paul VI and Patriarch Athenagoras I with his synod realize that this gesture of justice and mutual pardon is not sufficient to end both old and more recent differences between the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church." "Through the action of the Holy Spirit those differences will be overcome through cleansing of hearts, through regret for historical wrongs, and through an efficacious determination to arrive at a common understanding and expression of the faith of the Apostles and its demands." "They hope, nevertheless, that this act will be pleasing to God, who is prompt to pardon us when we pardon each other. They hope that the whole Christian world, especially the entire Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church will appreciate this gesture as an expression of a sincere desire shared in common for reconciliation, and as an invitation to follow out in a spirit of trust, esteem and mutual charity the dialogue which, with Gods help, will lead to living together again, for the greater good of souls and the coming of the kingdom of God, in that full communion of faith, fraternal accord and sacramental life which existed among them during the first thousand years of the life of the Church."
@mj6493
Жыл бұрын
High-level visits and discussions between the LWF (Lutheran World Federation) and the Ecumenical Patriarchate, the spiritual leadership of the Orthodox world, began in 1967. Plans for a global ecumenical dialogue between the two sides began shortly afterwards and were developed over the following decade. The international Lutheran-Orthodox Joint Commission met for the first time in Espoo, Finland, in 1981 and has been working continuously since then, creating common ground on different topics and agreeing on a number of joint statements. Significant common statements include Salvation: Grace, Justification and Synergy (1998) and Baptism and Chrismation as Sacraments of Initiation into the Church (2004). The topic of the current phase of dialogue, which began in 2019, is focused on the Holy Spirit in the life of the Church. The Evangelical Church in Germany (EKD), which includes Reformed and United churches in its membership, has been especially active in encouraging regional dialogues with Orthodox churches. Intensive Lutheran-Orthodox dialogue has also been carried out in Finland. Documents agreed upon and produced by regional dialogues since the 1960s include following dialogues: Finnish Lutheran Church - Russian Orthodox Church EKD (Evangelical Church in Germany) - Russian Orthodox Church EKD - Ecumenical Patriarchate EKD - Romanian Orthodox Church Federation of Evangelical Churches (BEK) [DDR] - Russian Orthodox Church BEK [DDR] /EKD - Bulgarian Orthodox Church Lutheran-Orthodox dialogue in the U.S. Estonian Evangelical Lutheran Church - Estonian Apostolic Orthodox Church - from Lutheran World Federation, "Lutheran - Orthodox dialogue"
@annakimborahpa
Жыл бұрын
@@mj6493 1. Is there anything in these agreements you mentioned between Lutherans and Orthodox on, for example, (A) the episcopacy being rooted in apostolic succession, (B) seven sacraments, i.e., the Seven Holy Mysteries, (C) prayers to saints including the mother of Jesus and (D) the veneration of icons? These four doctrines are common among the Catholic, Eastern and Oriental Orthodox Churches and the Assyrian Church of the East. To my knowledge, these four doctrines are not in common between Protestants and Orthodox. 2. Is there anything in these agreements between Lutherans and Orthodox about the Pope, the Catholic Bishop of Rome, being the Antichrist? Starting with Martin Luther, all of the 16th century Protestant Reformers were unanimous in teaching that the Pope is the Antichrist. These included those who both (A) formally taught this in their writings and (B) initiated movements that continue on to the present day, as in the aforementioned Luther (Lutheranism), John Calvin (Reformed), Thomas Cranmer (Anglicanism), and Calvin's student John Knox (Presbyterianism). 3. Following in the 17th century, (A) the free-lance Anglican clergyman John Wesley and founder of Methodism also taught the Pope is the Antichrist, as did (B) the 1646 Westminster Confession of Faith that became authoritative for the Church of Scotland and related Presbyterian churches worldwide and (C) the 1689 London Baptist Confession of Faith that the Reformed Churches adhere to. 4. The reason I mention this is that since there are contemporary Protestants who believe that the Pope is Antichrist, I would like to suggest to them an opening for fellowship with contemporary Orthodox who also hold similar views about the papacy. For example, Orthodox apologist and male enhancement supplement salesman Jay Dyer recommends in his December 1, 2022 youtube video 'Top 15 Orthodox Books - Introduction to Orthodox Theology' the book Orthodox Faith and Life in Christ by St. Justin Popovic. 5. According to Orthodox Wiki, Fr. Justin Popovic (1894-1979) "was formally glorified as saint by the Holy Synod of the Serbian Orthodox Church on May 2, 2010, and commemorated on June 1 each year." 6. In the aforementioned video, Jay Dyer states at 20:32-56: "This classic text by St. Justin Popovic, Orthodox Faith and Life in Christ, firstly because the essay that deals with the critique of natural theology and this is the great vindication of the stuff that I've said for so long that the Orthodox do not do natural theology the way that the Latins do and, you know, a lot of people got upset with that. They thought I was making it up. No, I'm just getting it from this (holding up the book). I'm just repeating what our saints say." Further at 20:57 - 21:15, Dyer states of Fr. Popovic's book: "Likewise he has great critiques of papalism at a philsophical, cultural, geopolitical level so all those things are also very key, very relevant and very necessary if you want to understand Orthodox theology." 7. Published in paperback in 1994, Orthodox Faith and Life in Christ by St. Justin Popovic contains the following passage from its chapter Reflections on the Infallibility of European Man: "In the kingdom of humanism the place of the God-man has been usurped by the 'Vicarious Christi', and the God-man has thus been exiled to heaven...In the history of the human race there have been three principal falls: that of Adam, that of Judas, and that of the pope...the dogma of papal infallibility is not only a heresy but the greatest heresy against the True Church of Christ, which has existed in our temporal world as a theanthropic body ever since the appearance of the God-man. No other heresy has revolted so violently and so completely against the God-man Christ and His Church as has the papacy with the dogma of the pope-man's infallibility. There is no doubt about it. This dogma is the heresy of heresies, a revolt without precedent against the God-man Christ on this earth, a new betrayal of Christ, a new crucifixion of the Lord, this time not on wood but on the golden cross of papal humanism. And these things are hell, damnation for the wretched earthly being called man."
@mj6493
Жыл бұрын
@@annakimborahpa These ecumenical dialogues usually result in lengthy statements that affirm common ground but also highlight areas of continuing conversation. Here’s a sample from dialogue on the apostolicity of the Church: 12. The church is apostolic because it is built upon the foundation of the apostles, of which Christ is the chief cornerstone (Ephesians 2:20), sent by his Father for the salvation of the world (John 3:16). The Church is apostolic in several senses. First, the original meaning of the word “apostolic” refers to one who is sent. The apostles are called apostles because they were sent by Christ to proclaim the Gospel to the whole creation (Mark 16:15). The Church is apostolic inasmuch as it continues to be obedient to Christ’s command to proclaim the Gospel to all nations and to baptize them into the Church (Matthew 28:19). Second, the Church is apostolic in that it devotes itself “to the apostles’ teaching and the fellowship, to the breaking of bread and the prayers” (Acts 2:42). This means that the Church maintains the living tradition received by the apostles from Christ, which includes both right teaching (orthodoxia) and right practice (orthopraxia). a. The Orthodox affirm the apostolicity of the Church also as the continuation of the apostolic tradition, which is maintained by the historic succession of bishops as the heads of local eucharistic communities, which include the whole people of God. Thus the whole Church as communion across time and space does not look simply backward but forward because it is eschatological in character. b. Lutherans understand the Church to be in succession to the Church of the apostles, teaching apostolic doctrine, preaching the gospel purely, and administering the sacraments rightly. Some Lutherans also point to their line of historic succession reaching back past the Reformation to the undivided Church, while other Lutherans emphasize the first two senses of the church’s apostolicity without denying the value of historic succession. Lutherans did not intend to start a new or other Church but to be faithful to the apostolic witness transmitted by the Church in the Scriptures, creeds, and ecumenical councils, especially evident in Lutheran teaching on the Trinity and the person of Christ. As Melanchthon comments in the Apology to the Augsburg Confession, “We have not said anything new here” (VII-VIII.7). All of these lengthy statements are available online. Regarding Lutheran statements on the papacy, I’d encourage caution. The 16th century polemic got pretty ugly on both sides. Lutherans today recognize this and are able to contextualize those statements historically and move forward toward better understanding.
@annakimborahpa
Жыл бұрын
@@mj6493 Thank you for the courtesy of your reply. 1. You wrote: "These ecumenical dialogues usually result in lengthy statements that affirm common ground but also highlight areas of continuing conversation." Response: Would "continuing conversation" be a euphemism for disagreement between the Lutherans and Orthodox? 2. Regarding 12 b., were the Lutherans actually "faithful to the apostolic witness transmitted by the Church in the Scriptures, creeds, and ecumenical councils"? A. The Lutherans rejected the Council of Trent's teaching that the number of sacraments is seven, which the Orthodox Churches (Eastern & Oriental), as well as the Assyrian Church of the East have accepted. B. As a result, the Lutherans rejected the scriptural evidence for four of the seven sacraments: (1) Confirmation: Acts of the Apostles 8:14-17 (2) Holy Orders: Genesis 14: 18-20; Psalm 110:4; Hebrews 7; Luke 22:14-20 (3) Marriage: Matthew 5:31-32; Ephesians 5:21-33 (4) Anointing of the Sick: James 5:14-15 3. The Lutherans, if they are faithful to Martin Luther's Smalcald Articles contained in the authoritative Book of Concord, reject the invocation of saints where he stated: “The invocation of saints is also one of the Antichrist’s abuses that conflicts with the chief article and destroys the knowledge of Christ.” Doesn't that mean the rejection of the Second Council of Nicaea's (A.D. 757) blessing the practice of venerating sacred images, which is first and foremost praying to Christ, His saints and His angels through their images? 4. Based upon 1-3 above, would it be accurate for Lutherans to include with Philip Melenchthon's statement “We have not said anything new here” the clarification of 'but rather we have subtracted'? 5. However, I say that Martin Luther actually added three new teachings which were adopted by all the subsequent 16th century Protestant Reformers, including Calvin, Cranmer and Knox: A. Justification by faith alone: (1) That on his own authority in his German translation of the Bible, Luther added the word ALONE (Allein) to Romans 3:28 to read, "For we hold that a man is justified by faith ALONE (Allein)" to justify his doctrine of Sola Fide, i.e., Justification by Faith Alone. [Michael Davies, Cranmer's Godly Order (Ft. Collins, Colorado, 1995), p.25.] (2) That he wrote the following regarding his addition of the word ALONE (Allein) to Romans 3:28: "If your papist worries you about the word 'alone', just tell him plainly that Dr. Martin Luther will have it so, and says: 'Papist and donkey are one and the same thing; sic volo, sic jubeo, stat pro ratione voluntas.' ["I wish it, I command it. Let my will take the place of a reason." (Luther quoting the Latin from 1st-2nd AD author Juvenal's satirical poems Satyrai)] For we must not be the pupils or disciples of the papists, but on the contrary their masters and judges. We ought to swagger and hammer on their donkey-heads, and, as Paul challenged the sanctimonious fools of his day, so I will also challenge these donkeys of mine." [G.W. Bromiley, Thomas Cranmer Theologian (London, 1956), p.36.] (3) That in addition to the above concerning Romans 3:28, Luther also wrote: "I am sorry now that I did not add the word 'all' so that it would read 'without all works of all laws', and thus ring out loudly and completely. However, it shall stand as it is in my New Testament, and though all the Papist-donkeys go mad about it, they shall not move me from this." [A. Hilliard Atteridge, Martin Luther (London, 1940), pp.19-20.] B. That the Catholic Mass is an abomination before God: (1) "I declare that all the brothels (though God has reproved them severely), all the manslaughters, murders, thefts and adulteries have wrought less abomination than the popish mass." [Martin Luther, D Martin Luthers Werke, Kritische Gesamtausgabe (Weimar, 1833), vol. XV, p. 774] (2) "It is indeed upon the Mass as on a rock that the whole Papal system is built, with its monasteries, its bishoprics, its collegiate churches, its altars, its ministries, its doctrine, i.e., with all its guts. All these cannot fail to crumble once their sacrilegious and abominable Mass fails." [Martin Luther, Against Henry, King of England, 1522, D Martin Luthers Werke, Kritische Gesamtausgabe (Weimar, 1833), vol. X, p. 220] C. And, of course, the teaching contained in Martin Luther's final published testament Against the Papacy, An Institution of the Devil where he personally addressed the Bishop of Rome with these words: "I would not dream of judging or punishing you, except to say that you were born from the behind of the devil, are full of devils, lies, blasphemy, and idolatry; are the instigator of these things, God’s enemy, Antichrist, desolater of Christendom, and steward of Sodom." [Against the Roman Papacy, an Institution of the Devil, 1545, pg. 363 of Luther’s Works, Vol. 41] Since you wrote, "The 16th century polemic got pretty ugly on both sides", could you provide me anything ugly on the Catholic side that matches Martin Luther's seemingly unparalleled gift for invective and insult as exemplified in the quote immediately above? Personally, I think that in his final years Luther was experiencing dementia brought on by years of excessive alcohol intake under the forms of wine and beer. 6. Regarding the papacy, perhaps a majority of Lutherans "are able to contextualize those statements historically and move forward toward better understanding", as well as doing the same mental compartmentalization with Martin Luther's second to last published work, his 1543 Against The Jews And Their Lie that four centuries later the Third Reich quoted as justification for the genocide of European Jewry. 7. However, some contemporary Lutherans, as well as other current day Protestants, persist in teaching the Pope is the Antichrist that involves an eschatological connotation in which this demonic institution will persist until vanquished by Jesus Christ at His Second Coming. For example: A. In Ready to Harvest's youtube video of April 10, 2022, 'What is the Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod? (WELS)' the narrator states at 10:30-50: 'A very small part of the WELS lengthy treatise on the Pope being the Antichrist says': "Since Scripture teaches that the Antichrist would be revealed and gives the marks by which the Antichrist is to be recognized (2 Thessalonians 2:6-8), and since this prophecy has been clearly fulfilled in the history and development of the Roman Papacy, it is Scripture that reveals that the Papacy is the Antichrist." B. In the 21st century, the 1689 London Baptist Confession of Faith received a translation update into modern English published by The Founders Ministry, an independent association within the Southern Baptist Convention headed by Tom Ascol, who in 2022 made an unsuccessful bid for presidency of the SBC coming in second with approximately 40% of the vote. Chapter 26, Article 4 of that confession reads: "The Pope of Roman Catholicism cannot in any sense be head of the church; rather, he is the antichrist, the man of lawlessness, and the son of destruction, who exalts himself in the church against Christ and all that is called God. The Lord will destroy him with the brightness of his coming" (alluding to 2 Thessalonians 2:2-9).
@mj6493
Жыл бұрын
@@annakimborahpa Your response is way more than I have the time to respond to, but I’ll try to make a few comments. Ecumenically speaking, “continuing conversation” might mean a failure to come to an agreed common statement, but it might simply mean that a particular subject of conversation is scheduled for a later date. You’ve certainly raked up a sizable collection of Lutheran invective. I can only reply that Luther was exceptional in his ability to use the most colorful and at times crass language to challenge his opponents. In my opinion, though, his charged polemic was coupled with a keen theological mind that set forth a Reformation that was overdue. Happily, there were more reasonable and constructive colleagues, like Philip Melanchthon and the later Lutheran scholastics, that gave form to the movement. Otherwise, the Reformation would have flamed out within Luther’s lifetime. I would again caution you about characterizing Lutherans with some of the anti-Catholic invective of the 16th century. Sure, there are some Lutherans who want to carry the worst of that era into the present moment, but most do not. Also, be careful about some of your claims about Lutheran doctrine. For example, Lutherans share with all Christians the two dominical sacraments, but that doesn’t mean that they have dispensed with the other rites. They still practice these rites, but because they don’t contain a physical element (like water, or bread and wine) combined with the Word of God, they are less inclined to call them sacraments. It’s largely a matter of definition, not theology. About the Mass, Luther was particularly speaking to the medieval abuses (i.e., the Mass as merit) not the Mass itself. He challenged any practice that obscured the Gospel. From the Augsburg Confession, Article 24: About the Mass, “Our churches are falsely accused of doing away with the mass, for we have kept the mass and celebrate it with the highest reverence.” On that, you would be better served by reading the Augsburg Confession and the Apology of the Augsburg Confession as a summary of Lutheran theology. Not everything Luther said or did was embraced by the movement that bears his name. I feel it’s also important to comment on Luther’s late in life invective against the Jews. To be clear, no modern Lutheran would defend his criticism of the Jews. Lutheran Churches have condemned this writing and have apologized to the Jewish community for his hurtful comments. It is one of the saddest episodes in the Reformation. Wouldn’t you likewise want to condemn the treatment of Jews in Catholic Spain during the Inquisition?
@Daniel_Miller300
2 ай бұрын
So what would unity look like in this case? After all, from Jeremiah's perspective, this was just the Western church fragmenting even further after splitting off from the one true church in 1054. How do Lutherans unite with Orthodox when Catholics and Orthodox have much more in common than Orthodox and Protestants?
@rickwhyte7716
4 ай бұрын
thanks.. excellent words
@mattroorda2871
Жыл бұрын
Respectfully, I don't think this was an entirely fair assessment of Jeremias' correspondence with the Lutheran theologians from Tubingen. -Regarding Jeremias' addressing the Lutherans as sons, I think it very unlikely that this was intended to be condescending. In Orthodoxy, priests and bishops frequently address people as sons or daughters as a function of their office. This would go double for the Ecumenical Patriarch. As an Orthodox Christian, I would interpret this form of address as a form of affection and would feel very warmly received by it. Furthermore, I think his addressing these non-Orthodox Christians as sons speaks to a generosity of soul and a desire for bonds of love to be formed between them. -I don't think the differing visions of Catholicity critique is entirely fair, considering the historical context. The Protestant attitude of considering Christians from different traditions as being true Christians, while I don't completely disagree with it, was an innovative way of looking at things that resulted from the Reformation. Orthodoxy never went through the Reformation, so this way of viewing things would have been completely alien to Jeremias. As such, I don't think it is fair to hold him to that standard. -Regarding Jeremias' ending the theological discussion, I think there are a few important facets to consider: Jeremias lived under the thumb of the Ottomans, and as such his freedom was severely restricted. Much of his day-to-day concern was likely dedicated to the survival of his flock and the preservation of their right to worship and operate independently of the Ottomans. Jeremias was also deposed from his office and then reinstated between his second and third letters. As such, this correspondence was likely not the highest priority for him. Secondly, I'm sure that many of you have had theological discussions with somebody and after a time, you realize that they are so dug-in that they are not going to change their minds no matter what you say to them. I have had many such relationships. There comes a point where further theological discussion is mostly fruitless, and all you can do is try to love them as well as you can. This is how I perceive Jeremias' decision to end the correspondence.
@billmartin3561
Жыл бұрын
Gavin, do you believe Catholics are saved?
@cephasmwila7537
Жыл бұрын
Yes he does... Some of them
@JoshuaCookLibertyIsRising
Жыл бұрын
Have you dialogued recently with the American Orthodox Church?
@Silverhailo21
Жыл бұрын
You should read the responses from the reformers after being asked to correct their errors.
@sevynn3970
Жыл бұрын
Indeed, this a bit of one sided presentation of the topic.
@OnTheThirdDay
Жыл бұрын
What happened? Do you know of people who have also talked about this topic?
@wayned803
Жыл бұрын
Well clearly the Reformers were very humble and devoted to unity. In other news, it appears the UMC is about to make a proclamation on something, so we should get our cigars handy, because probably at least three new denominations are gonna be born as a result
@1984SheepDog
Жыл бұрын
@@wayned803 very humble people lol
@wayned803
Жыл бұрын
@@1984SheepDog I'm hoping one day Gavin does a video about the Calvin vs Sadoletto debate with the result that at least one Protestant viewer has the initially unsettling but ultimately beneficial epiphany of "Uhm...why is this lawyer arguing with a solemnly sworn and sacramentally ordained successor of the Apostles of Jesus?"
@MikePasqqsaPekiM
Жыл бұрын
So Jeremiah basically wrote “Here I stand, I can do no other” ? 😜
@amakrid
7 ай бұрын
😀
@andrewvalantine184
Жыл бұрын
Gavin, excellent and timely video on a personal level. I was exploring the EO church but ultimately rejected in favor of Lutheranism. Unfortunately it led to a schism in my own home. I ultimately couldn’t accept the EO view on justification and their exclusivistic view on their church being the one true church. It was far too sectarian than what the Bible seems to describe as those belonging to Christ’s church. One question however based on the Lutheran’s quote at the end. Can we really even say, from a Lutheran view, or even broadly Reformed/Protestant view that the EO church has the same Gospel? I currently would hold that we have different views on the Gospel. The anathema’s of the 7th ecumenical council seem to preclude agreement on what counts as the Gospel. I am curious where you would land on this; can we really say there is agreement on the Gospel between the two groups?
@Giorginho
Жыл бұрын
Its the only consistent position
@Jimmy-iy9pl
Жыл бұрын
It depends on what you would consider the Gospel.
@VirginMostPowerfull
Жыл бұрын
So in résumé, both the Western Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox churches declare you heretics. Food for thought.
@saintejeannedarc9460
Жыл бұрын
@@Jimmy-iy9pl The ultimate core gospel is that Christ died to redeem sinners to God. We all hold that view as Christians. That where echumenism can always exist w/ our core values as Christians.
@saintejeannedarc9460
Жыл бұрын
Any church claiming to be the only and one true church is in error. I totally understand each church believing it has more of the truth than other churches. Even though that's not at all measurable by us, and only by God, that's the main reason why one adheres to one faith tradition over another.
@benwiegold5051
Жыл бұрын
The filioque was one of the primary reasons that the Great Schism happened, of course the Orthodox weren't going to overlook that with the Reformers. Adherence to the filioque is a rejection of the original Nicea-Constantioplitan creed, which is the clearest exposition of the Orthodox faith. The Reformers didn't adhere to the creed, so of course the Orthodox viewed them as being of a different faith.
@palermotrapani9067
Жыл бұрын
That is the position today that Eastern Orthodox say, but it is ex post rationalization that does not stand up to historical facts. Regarding the Filioque, The Creed at Nicea in 325 said nothing of procession (and the earlier Apostles Creed, the baptismal Creed of the Church of Rome, dating to the time of Saint Hippolytus of Rome says nothing of procession). At Constantinople in 381 AD, the Eastern Church, mostly Greek Bishops from regions near Constantinople added to the Creed unilaterally (stop and think about that). At Ephesus in 431 AD, the Creed was recited in its original Nicene form. It wasn't till the Council of Chalcedon in 451 that Constantinople was given "Ecumenical status". Now by the time of Chalcedon in 451 AD, where it was the Latin Theological formula and Doctrine of Pope Saint Leo the Great which became the dogmatic Christological definition regarding the hypostatic union of the Divine and Human natures of Christ, the same Pope Leo in Letter 15 in the sub-section "The Priscillianists' denial of the Trinity refuted" clearly teaches the Filioque. Now, was Pope Saint Leo the Great unorthodox for teaching the Filioque? (you can find Pope Leo the Great's Letter 15 at newadvent). So the Eastern Orthodox approved Pope Saint Leo the Great as "Peter speaking through Leo" at Chalcedon in 451 AD when years before he taught the "Filioque" You can't have it both ways. Prior to Pope Leo the Great, numerous Fathers in the West taught the Filioque.Saint Hillary of Poitiers (The Trinity circa 356 AD). Saint Ambrose in Milan teaches it in his work on the Holy Spirit (381 AD), Saint Augustine teaches it numerous writings, and in the East, it is clear that Saint Cyril of Alexandria teaches it in his work "On the Trinity" (423 AD). Nicea in 325 AD said do not change the Creed, they (Constantinopile in 381 AD) did unilaterally). Rome saw the addition to the Creed as not changing the faith but Rome understood the procession of the Holy Spirit to mean from the Father "through the Son" (a Patre per filium), which was a valid expression of the procession that was also found in the works of Hillary and Augustine, although they preferred from the Father and Son. Maximus the Confessor, viewed the Filioque as a valid expression of the Creed that did not conflict with the procession "a Patre per filium". It was Patriarch Photios 1 who was from what gather, the first to assert the Filioque was heretical. That of course was also due to other conflicts he had with the Pope in Rome. So both expressions from the Catholic point of view that I noted above, are valid. But the rigid Eastern position that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father "alone" which seems to often theorized from the Roman view makes it hard to see how the Son and Holy Spirit are different. Under both expressions, regardless if the Creed states the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and Son or the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son, the Source of the Trinity is still the Father according to Catholic Doctrine.
@benwiegold5051
Жыл бұрын
@@palermotrapani9067 Well that’s a lot of history I can’t respond to out of my own ignorance. But it still stands that this would have been the EP’s position, hence why he would respond the way he did.
@palermotrapani9067
Жыл бұрын
@@benwiegold5051 The issue with the Lutherans, who held to the Filioque, dealt with way more issues beyond just that. Ecclesiology, sacraments (all 7), the eucharistic theology of the Lutherans, soteriology, sola fide, among them.
@benwiegold5051
Жыл бұрын
@@palermotrapani9067 Of course, these are all reasons that the EP would have viewed them as not being part of the same church, but given the context regarding Rome, my only point is that the Filioque would have been top of the list. I think it’s the first point addressed in the EP’s 3rd letter actually.
@palermotrapani9067
Жыл бұрын
@@benwiegold5051 Ok, my understanding is we are looking at why the EO viewed the Lutherans has not only schismatics, but holding to many heretical doctrines. Rome does not require the Filioque to be said in the Eastern Churches that are in communion with Rome. They can say the Creed without it.
@cfroi08
4 ай бұрын
From what authority did Luther draw on to relable books of the Bible as Apocrypha? If he believes in Sola Scriptura why would he alter the Scripture?
@jonhilderbrand4615
6 ай бұрын
Bro. Gavin, is there anything to be said, in the search for the "true church," about the fruit (Matthew 7:20)? If we are to know true prophets by their fruit, can we know which congregation "speaks for Christ" more surely by _their_ fruit? If so, are there differences between Protestant and Orthodox (and Roman Catholic) on what is meant by fruit. If not, can it be any kind of guide? If the question isn't clear, I'll be glad to clarify. Thanks, my friend! Love your channel!
@maredondo
Жыл бұрын
"Prayerful wish for salvation..." 12:22
@philipatoz
Жыл бұрын
These splits typically stem from deviations from the clear teachings of Scripture, as well as the desire for certain groups and individuals to maintain and wield unchallenged power and the right to declare or break new doctrines. It's the same reason the Pharisees loved lording over the people in Jesus' time on earth, with their copious, burdensome additions to The Law - as they enjoyed their power, positions, prestige, and being large and in charge.
@joycegreer9391
Жыл бұрын
Definitely. Very Pharisaical.
@jbchoc
Жыл бұрын
That is why tithing 10% to your pastor is so much more christian.
@joycegreer9391
Жыл бұрын
@@jbchoc It is to the church, actually God, and it is biblical.
@jesse77able
Жыл бұрын
The early Church was exclusive as you acknowledge. I wonder why? The answer to that question is the key to the differences, pretty simple. Be honest with the answer to that question and you will convert to Orthodoxy, Christ’s Church formed at Pentecost, and prophesied throughout the Old Testament.
@jesse77able
Жыл бұрын
@@mthf5645 No need to, the theology doesn’t constantly change.
@jesse77able
Жыл бұрын
@@mthf5645 What? Those councils occurred when it was all one Church, in order to explicate doctrine, not invent it, and also counter heresy that threatened the Christian faith.
@TheGodSchema
5 ай бұрын
I see Sola Scriptura as a compromise because you must assume the text is self-sufficient. Clearly it is not. Sola Fide is often described as a forensic declaration. However, this contradicts James' understanding. Even the demons have faith and tremble. So then, by what does God judge you? By actions (works). Too many protestant churches almost promote atheism, just live in faith good luck!
@palabraviva5840
Жыл бұрын
Hey Gavin, have you studied the history about how Catholicism got to Mexico?
@gjshordja
5 ай бұрын
Yes Lutherans were looking for friends in Eastern Orthodox Church but they got rejected, well we didn’t need them they said after they got rejected. Lol 😮
@kainech
Жыл бұрын
I think you've misunderstood the tone of the EP. If people approach him with his titles and expressing a desire for union, he's going to see them as offering to be spiritual sons. It's literally an informal institution within Orthodoxy. Then he offers correction and instruction about how to move forward. As it becomes clear that's not what's happening, he changes his tone. From his perspective, these are divisive sectarians that will not submit to anybody's judgments and feigned the offer for union. A good parallel would be the discussions between Christians who have embraced the novel views on gender that have cropped up and those who hold to the historical forms. The former get frustrated when their positions aren't treated as equals at the table. The latter, to whom I belong, don't think such a novel and innovative view should be treated as an equal. It is something new and different. I will speak to the person for a little while, but there comes a point when I tell them we need to agree to disagree and move on. They also likewise approach with "We want to have dialogue," but it is rarely more than an attempt to draw me into their camp. Both sides end up frustrated. I think this is a very good parallel to what happened. Jeremiah also embraced catholicity. "Catholic" wasn't an inclusive theological term until fairly recently. It started in Ignatius, and its entire purpose was to exclude people that weren't in his church. That's its purpose in the creed; all creeds are by nature exclusionary. "Catholic" is from Aristotle's attributes of καθ' εκαστων and καθ' καθολων with the former meaning "individual" or "particular" attributes and the latter denoting attributes that are part necessary for a complete example of something. I have hazel eyes, which are not catholic for a human. I have a head. That is catholic for a human. In the sense used in the first centuries (with no exceptions I can think of), "catholic" is used to describe the body that is complete, lacking nothing to be a proper church. The sectarians, by contrast, are lacking something. "Universal" as a definition comes later, and the irenic across communions much later. The patriarch would use the oldest definition, which is still in use among Orthodox (cf. Zizioulas' work on it).
@cassidyanderson3722
Жыл бұрын
Exclusivity is a fundamental EO belief and Gavin must respect that in order for there to be dialogue. To suggest that there is another “church” is so insulting to the EO belief system that it is a nonstarter. They must be met on their own terms.
@joeoleary9010
Жыл бұрын
Exclusivity was also a fundamental belief of the Pharisees.
@cassidyanderson3722
Жыл бұрын
@@joeoleary9010 No, it wasn’t. They accepted the Sadducees and Essenes as Jews. Rabbinical Judaism, which arose after the end of the Pharisaical era (the destruction of the second temple), accepts a wide variety of differing claims to legitimate Judaism. Irrespective, even if the Pharisees were exclusive, it’s entirely irrelevant to the topic here. Christianity is a very exclusive religion which believes that there is only One Body of Christ. All of those Churches mentioned in the scriptures (Antioch, Corinth, Ephesus, Thessaloniki, Philip, etc.) remain today; they are all still in communion with one another; and, they are all Orthodox.
@joeoleary9010
Жыл бұрын
@@cassidyanderson3722 The Pharisees weren't exclusive, and they cheerfully accepted Jesus' ministry? And that guy Paul, he really didn't persecute Christians during his career as a Pharisee? You can define exclusivity as you like, but my point is that the intolerance Jesus preached against is a pretty near cousin to the present day banter over which church is the correct one.
@cassidyanderson3722
Жыл бұрын
@@joeoleary9010 To be inclusive means accepting a new religion? Is that what Gavin is suggesting we do? Should we have no exclusivity re: Mormons, Muslims, etc.?
@joycegreer9391
Жыл бұрын
Then their terms are very ungodly.
@benwiegold5051
Жыл бұрын
As for referring to them as "sons" - where did the Lutherans get their New Testament from?
@j.g.4942
Жыл бұрын
The Apostles and Evangelists, same as everyone else. Or from printers or scribes, same as everyone else.
@benwiegold5051
Жыл бұрын
@@j.g.4942 Luther had a great distrust for all things Roman / Latin (understandably so), and so he relied on the Byzantine texts for translating the New Testament into German. The Ecumenical Patriarch was the head of the Byzantine Church (the Orthodox Church). This is why some argue that Protestants are indebted to the Orthodox for being able to even have a Bible that is free from Papal influence to begin with. (The Vatican had all sorts of forgeries from Augustine and others that they used to justify Papal inventions like purchasing indulgences for instance). Though unfortunately Luther rejected the Greek Old Testament which the Orthodox Church used. Of course the Greek Old Testament gives credence to the idea of praying to the saints, yet Baruch and Maccabees are not found in the Hebrew Old Testament. So it's easy to accuse an older church than your own that they're not following the Bible, when you've removed books from the Bible that don't support your views. So from the EP's standpoint, you have these German guys who are breaking away from the Roman Catholic Church, which in your view is a heretical church, and you're hoping to steer them back to the true Church which sadly they've never known. Yet instead they take your NT, reject your OT, and start telling you your doctrines are wrong. Even though monasticism and praying to the saints was always part of Christianity, and the filioque was never in the original creed, the word "catholic" in the creed was always understood to mean those in actual communion with each other, etc.
@j.g.4942
Жыл бұрын
@@benwiegold5051 you're missing a few pieces of context on the Central/Northern European front (it was Erasmus' edition Luther used, so he's indebted to the Roman Humanists rather than the 'Byzantine' church; also have a look into the sins of mediaeval monasticism and preV2 Roman veiws on the ontological heirarchy of Christians 'a monks sweeping is better than a son's honouring of parents') That's why the Germanic Lutherans claim 'we teach nothing new' just as the 'Byzantine' church does
@j.g.4942
Жыл бұрын
Also in his suspicion of German translation from Latin translations Luther looked to the Jewish presentations of the Hebrew for better or worse (he'd likely prefer the texts of the dead sea scrolls if they were available)
@benwiegold5051
Жыл бұрын
@@j.g.4942 Definitely for worse, he rejected prophecies of Christ, notably Wisdom chapter 2.
@andrewbrossman9902
Жыл бұрын
The orthodox tradition did veer off into Calvinism for awhile in the 1600’s. Do a segment on that.
@awake3083
Жыл бұрын
We aren't fond of Calvin.
@mattroorda2871
Жыл бұрын
I think what you meant to say is that one Orthodox bishop may or may not have veered into Calvinism for a time in the 1600s. The Orthodox Tradition as a whole certainly did not.
@thomasfryxelius5526
Жыл бұрын
Hello Gavin! I love your videos and think they are very helpful. This video shows how orthodox can easily be viewed as christian brothers and sisters; we agree on the essentials but differ on important but not crucial issues. One of the few issues I am struggling with in the catholic-protestant issue is this very issue: Is the split over the Gospel itself, in which case it would be fair to evangelise catholics, or are the differences not central to the Gospel, so that we can differ as brothers? You seem to consider catholics to be christians and brothers. Why? To me, I´m doubtful. Because as I see it adding works to the Gospel is a denial of the Gospel, so that Paul says that if the galatians are circumcised, signifying that they intend to keep the Law, they are severed from Christ and Christ will be of no benefit to them. It seems clear to me that Roman Catholicism teaches that works add to your righteousness, and that you are saved by your works (that are empowered by Grace). This idea is the basis for indulgences, their view of Saints as well as the doctrine of Purgatory. If you can add something to your righteousness, then it is not the righteousness of Christ which is perfect. If anything is lacking in your holiness such that Purgatory is necessary, that holiness is not the perfect righteousness of Jesus. In the NT all believers are Saints because of faith, but in catholicism Saints are those whose own personal righteousness reaches a certain degree. So the whole system seems based on our own righteousness. I hope you have the time to answer this, I realise it´s vital to get this right and I would love someone to make the case for protestants accepting catholics as siblings in the faith.
@joycegreer9391
Жыл бұрын
Yeah, I agree with you about the differences in the Gospel with R Cath. They do preach a different gospel and a different Jesus. They have their own manmade religious system in place of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Their Jesus only made salvation possible, but most of it is up to them which means lots of work. Also, Mary seems more important to them than Jesus.
@Weston2022
Жыл бұрын
Your last statement. "All who love the gospel of Christ". That's the whole problem brother. Rome doesn't have the Gospel. At least not according to the book of Galatians.
@eyesee9715
Жыл бұрын
Min 13:51 “We do not innovate in any matters of faith” said they then, but how accurate is this of Protestants today?
@choicemeatrandy6572
Жыл бұрын
Very accurate in regards to the traditions that adhere to Sola Scriptura.
@marcuswilliams7448
Жыл бұрын
I do think the Lutheran position on unity was represented reductively. "Who hold the right interpretation of Christ" is, for the Confessional Lutheran then, as now, represented in the Augsburg Confession, primarily, along with the remainder of the 1580 Book of Concord.
@TruthUnites
Жыл бұрын
hey Marcus. Thanks for weighing in. Would you acknowledge that the Lutherans thought Jeremiah was a Christian, and the EO church was a church?
@marcuswilliams7448
Жыл бұрын
@@TruthUnites Yes. And that would be the present position of the Confessional Lutheran Church, and my own position. Francis Pieper, a 20th century dogmatician, sets forth the principle called "felicitous inconsistency." That is, we don't restrict the possibility of Christians exclusively to those who subscribe to the 1580 Book of Concord, but acknowledge that, despite false beliefs, there are Christians in many other traditions, including Rome and the East, as well as other streams that come forth from the 16th c. Reformation. Nevertheless, unity, defined as Altar and Pulpit Fellowship (as I think is entailed in the Augsburg Confession), is not reduced to agreement in the Gospel in any sort of vague manner. So, even as the East would not permit a Lutheran pastor to preach or preside at their Liturgy, neither would Confessional Lutheran congregations permit pastors who do not subscribe to the 1580 Book of Concord to preach or preside over the Sacrament. And, as the East practices Closed Communion, Confessional Lutheran Pastors/Congregations would admit to the Sacrament only those who have been instructed according to our theological standards and are in good standing at their respective congregation.
@TruthUnites
Жыл бұрын
@@marcuswilliams7448 thanks for answering! The basic recognition we agree upon, then, is the primary point of this video. As you know, this is not reciprocated from the Eastern Orthodox. They do not see you or I as part of a legitimate church.
@marcuswilliams7448
Жыл бұрын
@@TruthUnites Right. I wasn't commenting on the video altogether. I thought the representation of the Lutheran response as to what establishes unity in the Church gave the impression that, in effect, the Lutheran theologians would have shared the pulpit and communion in a broader way than is the case, is all.
@TruthUnites
Жыл бұрын
@@marcuswilliams7448 ah. right. yes, I do appreciate the closed communion/pulpit view. thanks for clarifying.
@jamesbarksdale978
4 ай бұрын
Maybe in a different era communication between Lutherans and Eastern Orthodoxy would have gone better. If any Protestant church would have achieved unity with the Orthodox, it would have been the Lutherans, who were closest to them sacramentally and shared their dislike for the papacy. Regarding the Filioque, Protestantism needs to drop it. Maybe... Just maybe it can be shown that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, but at what cost? For centuries it wasn't in the Creed. Then the Pope unilaterally decided to include it at great offense to the East. Is it really that important? I say "no". It's adiaphora. Do we really want to build bridges? Here's a good place to start.
@andrettanylund830
3 ай бұрын
The more i learn about Luther snd Calvin the mire i turn away from protestinism. They changed christianity.
@Edward-ng8oo
Жыл бұрын
Later Lutherans deviated from Luther's uncompromising position on the importance of true doctrine. Luther was not prepared to accept that those who refuse to believe the truth, after being instructed in it, can be true Christians. Below are some quotes from his writings which show that he held that it's essential to believe only true doctrine. Therefore do not doubt that if you deny God in one article, then you have surely denied Him in all; for He does not permit Himself to be divided piecemeal into many articles, but He is altogether in every one and all of them and always one God … In short, we want to retain all articles of the Christian faith absolutely pure and sure and not give up one tittle of them no matter whether they are great or small (though none is small or unimportant to us). And so it must be, for the doctrine is our only light which shines upon our way and guides us to heaven. If we allow it to be made weak and feeble in one place, it will surely become altogether powerless; If we fail at this point, love will not help us... It is certain that whosoever does not rightly believe or desire one article (after he has been admonished or instructed) he surely believes none seriously and in true faith... Therefore you have the choice: either believe everything and all, plainly and simply, or else believe nothing. The Holy Spirit does not permit himself to be separated or divided so that He would teach or have us believe one doctrine truly and another falsely. Exceptions (of course) are the weak who are ready to be instructed and do not contradict maliciously. For this reason, as I often advise, doctrine must be carefully distinguished from life. Doctrine is heaven; life is earth. In life are sin, error, impurity, and misery -with vinegar, as men are wont to say. There love should close an eye, should tolerate, be deceived, believe, hope, and bear everything; there the forgiveness of sins should mean most, if only sin and error are not defended. But in doctrine there is no error, and hence no need for any forgiveness of sins. Therefore there is no similarity at all between doctrine and life. One little point of doctrine is worth more than heaven and earth. This is why we cannot bear to have it violated in the least. But to errors of life we can close an eye almost to the point of blindness. For we, too, daily err in life and morals, as all saints do; and these imperfections they confess earnestly in the Lord's Prayer and in the Creed. But by the grace of God our doctrine is pure. All our articles of faith are sound and are grounded in Holy Writ. The devil would gladly contaminate and overturn these. Therefore he so cunningly attacks us with the specious argument that the love and harmony of the churches are not to be violated
@OnTheThirdDay
Жыл бұрын
He sounds very Catholic here. (I am commenting to get further notifications on your comment.)
@Giorginho
Жыл бұрын
This quote refutes Gavin's whole position
@Edward-ng8oo
Жыл бұрын
@@Giorginho True. Also it wasn't just on this that they deviated from Luther's position. If one reads The Bondage of the Will which was Luther's reply to Erasmus, one sees that Luther argued strenuously for the truth of double predestination, yet only a matter of a few decades after his death (1546) in the 1580's his successors vehemently denied double predestination. This position of single predestination, which was adopted when Lutherans subscribed to the Formula of Concord, has been the official position of so-called confessional Lutherans ever since. Many of them simply won't accept that Luther did argue on the basis of Scripture (Romans 9 in particular) for the truth of predestination to hell. They really should be named after Martin Chemnitz as he was the one who was largely responsible for denying that Scripture teaches that God has predestined some to be damned. I'm in agreement with Luther that there's no free will and that God by His hidden eternal will has willed whatever takes place, and that He now in time omnipotently works it so that all things are predestined to happen according to His foreknowledge. I therefore hold with Luther to the truth of absolute predestination.
@VirginMostPowerfull
Жыл бұрын
It just goes to show that he should have stayed Catholic all along, his legacy is as sporadic and divisive as it is false.
@Edward-ng8oo
Жыл бұрын
@@VirginMostPowerfull Luther was expecting that the situation after his death would deteriorate. Even Melanchthon who worked closely with him in the early days of the Reformation fell away from the pure doctrine that Luther had re-established. I had a Roman Catholic upbringing, and I don't accept that Luther's teaching was false. It was the church under the authority of the popes which had left the true way, not Luther. The idea that salvation isn't simply a gift received through faith alone, and that one needs to earn one's place in heaven through works, and purgatory awaits those who aren't saintly enough is completely false. In reality Luther was catholic in belief. It's those who support the papacy who have wrongly claimed the title Catholic for themselves and their belief system. The papacy never existed in the early church, and it's not found in Scripture. Roman Catholicism is based on fabrication and misinterpretation of Scripture.
@KyleNewsom-v8x
6 ай бұрын
But as an Orthodox...there is alot we differ on..so much we cant even talk to eachother nowadays We cannot be one with any christian body but the body of christ is the EO church i say this as a former protestant "The gates of hades will not prevail against the church" Christ said "I will build my church" We dont believe that the bishops are infallable that the spirit of the church leads us that is the holy spirit We would have to say the spirit is fallable if the spirit of the church is We cannot be one we love everyone but all these pseudo catholic docrines are dangerous...just see for yourself read the modern Orthodox saints..i promise you will never be confused but be at peace
@giovanni545
Жыл бұрын
Revelation 12:17 King James Version 17 And the dragon was wroth with the woman, and went to make war with the remnant of her seed, which keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ.
@crisgon9552
Жыл бұрын
I am not sure how I feel about this video. I do appreciate your commitment for Christians to love one another but this is a bit bias against the Orthodox side. This is a but extreme comparison but I see the Orthodox as meeting a Mormon for the first time. They see their beliefs as completely wrong. To deny the "correct" interpretation of Holy Scripture and the True Presence of the Eucharist is to literally deny Christ. Same as in the Marburg Colloquy with Luther and Zwingli. It is easy to say we need to focus on a mere Christianity but one side will obviously see themselves as correct. To compromise is blasphemous.
@justchilling704
Жыл бұрын
I disagree, and the Orthadox were familiar with everything the Lutherans believed. It was nowhere near meeting a Mormon. I think this was fair coverage.
@Mrdllish777
Жыл бұрын
The Point Gavin made brother was that both sides see themselves as correct not just 1 side. Exclusivity is what Gavin speaks against.
@IC_XC_NIKA
Жыл бұрын
@@Mrdllish777 yes but that's Gavin's opinion. If the Orthodox Church disagrees with Lutheran scholarship they're not required to give up their faith for the sake of "unity". That's not how true unity works.
@toughbiblepassages9082
Жыл бұрын
The only dogma of Eastern Orthodox that stands in the way of communal relations with Protestants, is the belief that all are condemned to hell if not a member of the Eastern Orthodox Church. There is a large swath of Protestants who think orthodox aren’t Christians because of the issue of “sola fide” however that part of Protestantism’s once held view is changing quite rapidly the more both sides learn about each other. But to believe that anyone outside Eastern Orthodoxy is damned, is a very very difficult doctrine to defend based on scripture, and while I agree with you that it is extremely dangerous to “give up” doctrines for the sake of unity, especially if those doctrines are deeply held convictions, it’s also extremely dangerous to hold fundamental convictions that are not in scripture.
@freda7961
Жыл бұрын
@@IC_XC_NIKA Because that’s how Protestantism works, and that’s the lense through which Gavin sees things, which I disagree with.
@GratiaPrima_
Жыл бұрын
I can see the view that Jeremiah was condescending but I don’t know if I agree with it. Am I the only one who kind of loves Jeremiah? Based and fatherly. There’s no need to wrestle together for the truth when it’s already been recognized by the Church. Ex: number of and reason for sacraments.
@TruthUnites
Жыл бұрын
There is not one church father who thought the number of sacraments was 7. Not a single one. Locking oneself into that view and blocking out dialogue is neither based nor fatherly.
@GratiaPrima_
Жыл бұрын
@@TruthUnitesfair enough. I see the thinking. But we’re not saying ECFs recognized and taught the number of sacraments. But the Church eventually and authoritatively did. And the Lutherans disagreed. Their prerogative. But the Catholic and Orthodox Churches are not obligated to rehash what’s already been recognized. Someone either agrees or they don’t.
@zemotheon12987
Жыл бұрын
Hey Gavin, have you encountered any of the more recent Orthodox theologians that are saying the same thing about the number of sacraments in the fathers? They're taking more of a maximalist view now of what a sacrament is, but they'd still say more than two. Do you have any thoughts on that?
@ElvisI97
Жыл бұрын
@@GratiaPrima_ the mentality you are presenting is exactly that's being addressed in this video.
@ElvisI97
Жыл бұрын
The EO patriarch would say the same thing to Roman Catholics when it comes to the Filioque, purgatory, papacy etc. Hopefully that helps you see why this mentality can make unity across institutional lines impossible.
@fantasia55
Жыл бұрын
Orthodox have apostolic succession and so are a Church. Protestant denominations are Bible study groups and lecture clubs.
@noahjohnson2611
4 ай бұрын
If you believe your church to be The Church, it is not loving to be ecumenical in the manner suggested here.
@andrettanylund830
3 ай бұрын
I want I make it clear that I like you and know you are a Christian but since you have studied church history you should know what the early church believed and Calvin came later
@Quisl
Жыл бұрын
4:12 I had to laugh, I was in Tübingen and its not compareable to Istanbul nowadays. :D
@Gruenders
Жыл бұрын
I think Gavin misinterpreted the patriarch’s comments. I read those not as condescending but as attempts at being familial and welcoming. Perhaps if one is not familiar with Orthodox content this is not readily apparent.
@ready1fire1aim1
Жыл бұрын
Law of Moses is knowing Good from Evil: Genesis 1 is God 😇 (Elohim) and Spirit of God (Ruach Elohim). Genesis 2 is the LORD of God 👿 (Yahweh Elohim) and, later, Spirit of the LORD (Ruach Yahweh). Genesis 3 has a clever snake 🐍 (the snake knew Elohim, of Genesis 1, from Yahweh of Elohim, of Genesis 2. So, the snake passed the Law of Moses). What is the difference between Elohim and Yahweh? According to the documentary hypothesis, these variations are the products of different source texts and narratives that constitute the composition of the Torah: Elohim from Genesis 1 is the name of God used in the Elohist (E) and Priestly (P) sources, while Yahweh from Genesis 2 is the name of God used in the Jahwist (J) source. Who was Yahweh originally? Yahweh was originally described as one of the sons of El (Elohim) in Deuteronomy 32:8-9, but this was removed by a later emendation to the text. With the notable exception of Yahweh himself, the deities worshipped by Israel were also Canaanite. These included El, the ruler of the pantheon, Asherah, his consort, and Baal. How did Yahweh become god? "Yahweh" was differentiated out of "Yahu" by the etymologizing fancy of the priests of the sanctuary of Sinai in the land of Mutsri. The Calebite clans in the south of Judah, whose arms placed David on the throne, worshiped this god; and when David became king, he made Yahweh the national god of Israel. Did the Midianites worship Yahweh? According to Karel van der Toorn, "By the 14th century BC, before the cult of Yahweh had reached Israel, groups of Edomites and Midianites worshipped Yahweh as their god;" this conclusion is based on identification between Midianites and the Shasu. Are El and Yahweh the same? El (E source) was the name of the God of Israel in the Bronze Age and Yahweh (J source) becomes the name of the god of the Israelites in the Iron Age. Yahwism "Uncountable" (religion, historical): The polytheistic religion of Iron Age Israelites. Yahweh is from Edom and Seir, not Israel (judges 5, deuteronomy 33). Bronze Age Israel 🇮🇱 > Iron Age Israel 🇮🇱 (Canaan)
@GV_777YT
Жыл бұрын
All Luther had to do was to denounce his Megalomania and join Orthodoxy. But he didn't and here we are now 😅
@ChristianEphraimson
3 ай бұрын
He's a German. They aren't known for their humility nor willingness to concede.
@JohnVandivier
Жыл бұрын
I heard Jeremiah was a bullfrog
@MikePasqqsaPekiM
Жыл бұрын
There are real, tangible consequences in differences of doctrine when we look through centuries of Church life, instead of looking at merely the contemporary scene. What is the fruit of Protestantism? Compromises on sacraments. Compromises on marriage Condemnation of practices foreign to their culture (veneration of saints, iconography) Many conflicting views on free will Many conflicting views on if someone can lose their salvation Many conflicting views on the consequences of sin. Many conflicting views on the necessity to evangelize. A canon of Scripture foreign to all churches existing before the 16th century. …and they are dogmatic that disagreements with their toleration on these matters cannot be dogmatic. For the new Protestant church being founded this year, it works. For the Protestant branches founded centuries ago…it has not. Mandated tolerance never remains tolerant, but it will perpetuate confusion for the faithful who are trying to find the narrow path.
@hughmccann919
3 ай бұрын
Both Rome and the East can't receive the truth of the gospel. Their's are other gospels, other Christs, other spirits ~ 2 Cor. 11:4.
@AugsburgPilgrim
Жыл бұрын
You should make a video on the time when the Eastern Orthodox church was officially Protestant for a few years under Cyril Lucaris.
@ETHANGELIST
10 ай бұрын
Thank you Gavin. But we MUST understand that true Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox people do NOT love the Gospel of Jesus Christ. I've been called a heretic multiple times by them, laughed at, having a fake church, a false gospel and so on. We cannot blindly compromise for the sake of unity and gentleness
@captainmarvel76927
Жыл бұрын
There is no primarch of the eastern orthodox chruch. At the time of the interchange Moscow under the Romanoff's already began the advocacy of Moscow being the third Rome and having primacy over Constantinople. Secondly, the patriarch of Constantinople was under the authority of Islam and the Ottoman Empire, far more complex. The protestants in this exchange directly contradicted their entire faith positions because they accepted apostolic positions, thus it continues to advance how protestant Christianity is invalid, and well dying. Go to the Netherlands today where the dutch reformed traditon in calvinism was a power house (and for the slave trade) it is now all but dead.
@PetarStamenkovic
Жыл бұрын
You need to be a protestant first to think protestants were better in that debate. You need to accept all the various new interpretations and deviations that is foreign to the original church to think their insistence on deviations should be perceived as debatable. You either adopt true teaching or you go on creating your own and "improving" dogma and theology as you see fit. The logical conclusion of that logic is progressive Christianity- why bother with Christ being God at all? Why not include all the religions and all people and all faiths. Religion and Christianity is anything you want it to be. Why bother people with sin, inconvenience and hatefulness? If anyone can interpret the scripture, anyone will and they will conclude that they're right. Everyone else is clearly a hateful bigot who just hates others.
@j.g.4942
Жыл бұрын
Yes the radical reformation seeks so much to be radical that its descendants are not. It's not as if true teaching (The Holy Spirit) abandoned the church where Latin was spoken; why adopt Coptic or Greek true teaching when you have it in you're own language?
@protestanttoorthodox3625
Жыл бұрын
You don’t have the same trinity. That is a lie. The Filioque is a heresy
@jbchoc
Жыл бұрын
It is not. kzitem.info/news/bejne/tW6g34ewsKBqm6Q and kzitem.info/news/bejne/woitqntvmoVnoX4
Пікірлер: 766