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.

Hey Steve, I thought it was just me. That was great to read 👍

@The Early Church Was Evangelical and Protestant jeez that’s quite harsh

@@justicebjorke2790 Jewish sects. NT 101. Jesus' entire ministry was a protest against certain Jewish ideas and practices.

​@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.

Yes, that is a hard way to be.

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.

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.

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.

@@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.

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.

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.

@@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.

​@@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!

@@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.

kzfaq.info/get/bejne/grR_ZZyCmdbUiJ8.html. 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.

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.

​@@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.

You‘re comment begs the question as to who the true believers are. What are the criteria for being a true believer?

​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.....

Are you Orthodox?

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.

I've experienced the same. It didn't seem good enough to listen and even just not say anything if I disagreed- it seemed like they expected me to grovel

Maybe you think its dismissive because its actually right and you are having a hard time of letting go a 500 year old tradition?

@@Giorginho 😂

@@Giorginho No, it is just their pride and thinking they are right.

Orthodox rarely fail to prove they are the most arrogant camp of Christians I have come across. Why wouldn't they be though. They are the only ones saved, even though they are by far the minority among the branches of Christianity. It's a cultish attitude, and cultists don't tend to be gracious to those outside their belief system. Their elitism tells them they are above simple bible imperatives of grace, love, patience, kindness, meekness and gentleness, because they have all the answers and are straight from the apostles. History belies this, but they believe it.

I'm so glad!

Orthodox hold to the traditions handed out from the apostles. There is no way the Orthodox, whatever their qualms against Catholics may be, would ditch essential teachings of Christianity to go along with a willful misreading and quartering of the Bible by infighting, murderous and self-styled "Reformers".

Very interesting point. The Protestants maintained much of the Western attitudes and never had a problem with the Filioque. Some background history of the previous century helps to understand the Western sort of cluelessness. The Council of Florence/Konstanz failed to unite East and West, though it almost happened. Islam was barking at the door, but was repulsed from going further West. The infidels had almost made it to Vienna. Conciliarism failed to be addressed though most bishops would have probably voted for it. The reason was war between France and the Papal states (or something like that). So while the East was constantly facing their failures with Islam as the reminder of apostasy and how a heresy can actually be very successful, the Westerners were concerned with their own internal problems exclusively. A family divided against itself cannot stand. And so we know the history. Interesting postscript: As recently as the 2000s the Anglican Church affirmed the Creed minus the Filioque which they first removed back in the 1980s. May revelation, joy and peace abound to you and your household of faith in the power and fellowship of the Gospel: "Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ and you shall be saved, you and your house."

Those are important points to know about the Lutheran response. I think the filioque was one of the biggest points for the Catholic/Orthodox split, along w/ the papacy. I definitely agree on the papacy, but presuming to know the deeper aspects of the nature of the trinity and be willing to split a church on it. No. It's funny, because Catholics and esp. Orthodox are usually content w/ some things being a deep mystery that we'll never have ultimate understanding about in our earthly form. There's some good natured ribbing about Orthodox and mysteries, and I've seen in their comments that they quite enjoy that and take it well. It's too bad that the Lutherans didn't know enough to leave one of the biggest sore spots alone.

I was wondering if he was responding to something else, like the situation at the time. Thanks for your insight.

Why

Well-said!

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.

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.

Thanks Dr. Bob! I got into Dollinger a little bit in my recent video on Vigilius -- just a little

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).

​ 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.

@@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.

@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.

This is a really good idea. Dr. ortlund, I hope you can get some air time with Trenham. He's well versed in Reformed theology and would make an excellent dialogue partner.

Trenham is an unapologetic EO priest, having come out of Reformed Protestant Evangelicalism and having written and spoken clearly against the theology of the Reformation. See his book, _Rock and Sand_, as well as his numerous videos contra the 5 solas.

@@hughmccann919 Thank you for sharing this! I thought he was of Greek descent. I had no idea. I think it would be great for Dr. Ortlund to do a video with a Greek Orthodox priest from Greek descent because a lot of their ties to the Orthodox faith is history and culture. I will edit my comment. Thank you again for sharing! I appreciate it.

This would be fascinating!

Protestantism does not have a "relativistic" view of the church; we just think the church is institutionally fractured (and thus coheres in multiple institutions).

@@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?

​@@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.

@@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

@@dustinneely Yes do forget all the millions tortured and killed by the RCC...smh.

That's because Protestants stand on the truth of the Gospel, not manmade beliefs and traditions like apostolic succession.

@@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.

@@joycegreer9391manmade? poor understanding you have

@@williampumpernickel4929 Indeed, scripture poor understanding you have.

@@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.

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.

@@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.

​@@harrygarris6921erm, please explain to me what you mean by "participation in Christ is mandatory, which includes sacraments"....are you saying that faith + sacraments = salvation??

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?

@@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.

Yes, that's exactly what Gavin is saying or at least implying: Orthodox should compromise His charitable tone doesn't trump his ridiculous position

@@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.

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.

Someone else who read this book mentioned what Gavin did not. That the Lutherans went on about the filioque at great length and were pressing on a big contentious sore spot. They thought dialogue may have went better if they had not.

@@saintejeannedarc9460 yes I realize having watch many of Gavin's videos to get the other view (I just converted from Baptist to Orthodox) is that his agenda is clearly polemic and is not to seek unity. Still he 'steel man's " the protestant case, so once I can get past it I am home free. lol

I agree. I didn’t feel as if Jeremiah was being condescending at all. Using the “fatherly” type of language makes perfect sense considering the Orthodox are about 1500 years older than the Protestants. I thought it was appropriate.

Yes, that would be great!

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.

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.

That mischaracterization is a two-way street.

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)

​@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.

@@mthf5645 No, Protestant is pure theology which includes humility. Something you lack as seen in another comment you made.

In so much as Protestant individuals practice Catholic-Orthodox theology, they are behaving in alignment with Christ. In so much, as they detour from it, they are caught up in division (diablos).

@@Danaluni59 But not biblical theology?

@@joycegreer9391biblical by their own interpretation

@@williampumpernickel4929 That's what everyone has. Read and study God's Word. Every individual is personally responsible.

I'm Eastern Orthodox and I would love to delve into those differences with you!

Copts are Oriental Orthodox not Eastern Orthodox.

What do you mean by "like Protestants"? Priestly celibacy is Latin and always has been

@@Giorginho Really?? I guess the Orthodox people I listen to neither mention this or I missed it. I listened to a very long video by an Orthodox about Catholic marriage annulment and I don't remember him mentioning that.

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.

Yes, Michael the Deacon of the Ethiopian Orthodox Church visited with Luther and approved the Augsburg and Lutheran Mass etc..

@@Athabrose Ok, thanks for that reply. Very interesting point of unity in Church history. We need more like that today!

No, just better catholicity than Roman Catholics.

@@joycegreer9391 Roman Catholics have done most of the ecumenical reach outs throughout history, and the word is itself most used by Catholics.

@@joycegreer9391 You care to explain yourself? How are Lutherans bested in this category?

Well said

It's not sad. I wish the current Patriarch of Constantinople had the same attitude.

@@dustinneely Hurry and paint a picture for me so I can bow down to it.

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.

@@jg7923 hurry and have a doctrinal dispute so you can break off and form another "church".

@@dustinneely Hurry and call yourself an old calendarist or true orthodox etc.

Very accurate in regards to the traditions that adhere to Sola Scriptura.

There are not '35,000 denominations' in any meaningful or accurate sense. This is a myth.

@@justicebjorke2790 Indeed, one could (on paper) pursue such a ludicrous route and potentially end up with any number of denominations they wanted based on self-determined criteria (and, indeed, that actually IS how many of these somewhat silly numbers are reached). But 'meaningful or accurate' was not an unimportant afterthought of an inclusion in my reply - there was a reason for its inclusion.

@@Mic1904 would protestants say that the patriarch was faithful to the scriptures here? "A man that is a heretic, after the first and second admonition, abandon" (Titus 3:10)

​@@aheadofmetal Well, now, there's an interesting question. Because if, indeed, one is to abandon a person who persists in division and heresy after the second admonition, what would that look like in practical and in ecclesiastical church terms? As in, you and I are both in 'the Church', one of us declares something that the other deems divisive and heretical, and the other then 'abandons' them having nothing more to do with them - what does that look like in the context of the church? Where are you or I going in that situation?

@@Mic1904 I believe Josiah Trenham made a comment on the schism of 1054, which I think likely holds true to your comment. Something to the effect of, "The sin occures on both sides, the party who falls away and the one who ultimately allows the division to continue." I think that is likely good pastoral advice, but Im honestly out of my depth on this one. I think it is also easy to look back in time with 20/20 vision and say "oh, Obviously Martin Luther should have humbled himself and returned home". But if I was a 16th century peasant in Germany under papal rule, I probably would have followed Luther and the reformers. I wouldnt have had the benefit of any knowledge of church history, Orthodoxy or "free information". Interesting thought exeriment anyway...

Yes he does... Some of them

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.

The Apostles and Evangelists, same as everyone else. Or from printers or scribes, same as everyone else.

@@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.

@@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

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)

@@j.g.4942 Definitely for worse, he rejected prophecies of Christ, notably Wisdom chapter 2.

hey Marcus. Thanks for weighing in. Would you acknowledge that the Lutherans thought Jeremiah was a Christian, and the EO church was a church?

@@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.

@@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.

@@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.

@@marcuswilliams7448 ah. right. yes, I do appreciate the closed communion/pulpit view. thanks for clarifying.

Thanks for the comment. I am aware of the EO claim. The fact that you do not consider me in the church does not require that I do not consider EO as Christians.

Well said Orthodox brother ( or sister!)

Its the only consistent position

It depends on what you would consider the Gospel.

So in résumé, both the Western Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox churches declare you heretics. Food for thought.

@@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.

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.

@@mthf5645 No need to, the theology doesn’t constantly change.

@@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.

😀

I can totally understand this. If you’re at all familiar with the Jesus movement or the charismatics, back in the mid-20th century, you may have heard that it affected Roman Catholics too. I don’t know about EO. It could be helpful to compare this to the household of Cornelius in Acts; since the Holy Spirit fell on them, Peter was able to recognize them as true believers. As far as the doctrinal stuff, you have to keep in mind that both of those traditions are so ancient and have so many teachings they hold to, that some of those teachings are going to be self-contradictory, so individual adherents to the faith are really going to have to pick and choose which teachings they personally hold most important. For example, RC and EO believe in the truth of the Bible, so any member of their church could technically read the Bible and believe it.

I’d also like to point out that there are some people who may be in more “correct” denominations who may not truly be born again anyway and may need to be evangelized. The correctness of a group’s teaching is only one of several factors that can influence whether a person in it is truly born again.

@@reepicheepsfriend I whole heartedly agree with much of what you said. Any one who isn’t born again, regardless of their church identity, need to be told about the gospel of Christ. We get faith through hearing the gospel of Christ, my concern is that the gospel of Christ, the gospel of grace isn’t preached in Catholic church’s or EO church’s. We 100% need more than head knowledge of the gospel, we need the Holy Spirit given through faith in Christ, at the same time if we have a wrong head knowledge of the gospel then it will affect our heart and potentially our salvation as paul tells us in Gal 1. How can we “come” together when different gospels are preached in different churches? I don’t think we can, unless we all submit to our Lord Jesus Christ and His gospel of grace.

@circle.dot.raindrops good, glad to hear that Catholics believe in faith alone in Christ Alone by grace alone and nothing of yourselves what so ever contributes in any way towards your justification before God. Our righteousness before God is the righteousness of Christ through Faith in Him alone. So glad Catholics affirm and believe this.

@circle.dot.raindrops you keep working for your salvation. I’m gonna go with the gospel of grace, the gospel of Christ. Not some man made gospel that doesn’t save

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.

@@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.

@@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.

@@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.

@@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.

The first question that pops up in my head is the following: Is icon veneration right and acceptable to God?

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"

@@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."

@@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.

@@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).

@@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?

Exclusivity was also a fundamental belief of the Pharisees.

@@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.

@@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.

@@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.?

Then their terms are very ungodly.