@@leeburne10 care to cite any specific examples? Your objection as it stands doesn't add up to much more than, "I didn't like that and I disagree."

@@deuslaudetur2451 they do reject them though. The dogmas and canons that come out of the Councils aren't like a buffet line, where we get to pick what we want to adopt into our belief system and leave out the things we personally disagree with. Protestants universally reject the Nicene Creed, they reject the Orthodox canon of Scripture, they reject the Theotokos and the saints, they reject iconography--and conversely, they widely accept the heresies of the filioque and Nestorianism which were condemned by the Councils (and these are just a few examples). Each of these items alone is enough to demonstrate that they don't believe the Councils were guided by the Holy Spirit. So, suffice to say, Protestants certainly do reject them.

@@mathiasha208 yooo was geht mein bruder!?

@@orthodox_soul Indeed my Brother !! Hope life is blessed for you and your Fam 🙌

@@TKCoutside I'm not sure what you mean. 🤔

@@orthodox_soul if I was in court giving testimony, the court transcripts would be automatically authoritative. They have the words of the judge, witnesses, possibly the accused. If the Scriptures are inspired by God, written by men, how do the words lose authority just because they are not human? The words, the image of God, creation, all are of God. It just doesn’t add up when I’m following the line of reasoning. If the words have no authority unless a person is reading them, what’s the difference? And if there is not agreement (within human limitations) of either the written word or the meaning/intention, we have an issue of who or what is the ultimate authority. It seems there is a synergy between Spirit, flesh, and the written word. Just my thoughts. I’m not trying to argue or debate because you definitely could be completely right and I’m way out in left field picking daisy’s 🙂

@@TKCoutside yes, we definitely affirm a synergistic perspective in Orthodoxy. I don't mean to say that the Scriptures don't possess authority--only that their authority is always contingent on persons, because their *interpretation and enforcement* are only possible in the context of their relation to persons. No text is self-interpreting. For the authority of the Bible to be effectual, it presumes that someone has the objectively true interpretation of its contents. That's all I'm saying. And just to clarify, when I say "persons", that refers to both the human and/or the divine.

@@orthodox_soul works for me brother 👍🏼👊🏼💯🙏🏼🙂

@@anthonyburrell5761 Respectfully brother, I'm not sure how to respond to this, honestly. Alot of time was spent repeating multiple points I already explicitly made in the video itself--meaning, I actually agree--and as a result, you're arguing against a few points that I didn't even make, which makes it somewhat redundant for me to challenge the conclusions you're presenting with counter-arguments. I already left several lengthy responses to your comment in the other thread, so I think I'll just wait for your thoughts on those.

@@alexlight4178 Bro.. My wife will confirm, I did an actual fist-pump upon reading this comment... I have been waiting all week to see if anyone would notice that! 🤣 You win dude. 👏🏽👏🏽

Glory to God for all dk ost’s

Glad you enjoyed it!

I'm in a similar situation. Currently attending a non denom church. I need the courage to leave.

I appreciate you being civil, despite that you disagree, and taking the time to pose serious questions in your comment (and for your positive feedback on the video itself!), so I'll do my best to give you a thoughtful response. Your first point you made is a major one, as it's the issue that deals with the foundations of the paradigm itself. So, it's vital that I point out that, in this objection you're making, you're misunderstanding something fundamental based on a (very common) category error. You asked: "How do you avoid using a subjective personal lens when trying to differentiate between churches? If you can, as an EO beleiver, apply critical evaluation to other churches that claim apostolic succession, then why would the EO church be exempt?" In this one question, you're actually addressing two separate issues. When we're talking about authority (i.e. apostolic succession), there is a difference between one's individual epistemic certitude as to which specific communion that claims to have succession is actually the one, true Church v.s. the principle of normative authority itself. What I'm arguing is that, in Protestantism, the principle itself does not even exist, and so I) there is no means of giving any justification for the canon of Scripture, and II) even if there *were* some way to give an account for the canon, there is no objective standard for how to interpret its contents, and III) no authority that is capable of *binding* anyone to that particular canon or its interpretation. In other words, "normative authority" = an authoritative body external to oneself (like the college of the Apostles) that dictates how something like baptism or the Eucharist are to be understood and applied, and who has the authority to tell you, "this is what Christian dogma is, permanently, and you are never permitted to deviate from it..." This has nothing to do with my own ability, or yours, as individuals, to personally discern which specific confession of faith is THE Church--that is its own question that belongs in a separate category--this is just about whether or not the mechanism of transmitted authority exists at all--and the point of the video is to demonstrate that the early Christians unanimously believed and taught that it did, as it is the apostolic teaching that has its origin in Christ Himself. - - - "Neither Polycarp nor Clement nor the NT mention a 3 fold office[...].As the church was growing and spreading, a framework of a bishop hierarchy developed as a means of organization. This framework was not commanded nor condemned by apostolic teaching" I'm content to agree with that first half. We have no problem conceding that the office was developed to better accommodate the needs of the Church. And we have no problem admitting it, primarily because this development doesn't constitute the kind of change that many Protestants insist that it does, by implying this is "an accretion" that somehow makes the Church fundamentally something else that it previously was not--even though the core principle is fundamentally the same--which is simply a failure to make the right distinctions. But where I would detract from your statement is where you said this was "permissible" but not "necessary". It seems quite like an "easy for you to say" kind of situation, as I'm sure it'd change your perspective if you had to actually be *IN* the position of having to oversee and govern an increasingly large collective of faithful who would be better catered to at a more intimate level if certain duties and tasks of the office were relegated to others. I mean... define "necessary". When the Church grew to a point that it was no longer feasible for only those operating in the capacity of bishops to maintain on their own by serving the dual-function of both presbyter and bishop, then I'd say that qualifies as necessary. - - - "...he is writing letters with the intent that they be read among people that were 90% illiterate and did not likely even have access to most apostolic writings" Agreed. Which is yet another strong case *against* Sola Scriptura being true, as it was demonstrably not believed or applied by the early Christians who were (as I've said) "trusting the Church", as there was no alternative for them other than to have faith that these men of God would lead them in truth, through the Holy Spirit, according to the will of God. - - - "No where in Ignatius' letters does he say that he expects this system to be universally and eternal binding on the church at all times[...]He was exhorting appropriate direction to fit the circumstances of the time." I already addressed this exact line of reasoning in the video and offered several different potential defeaters for it through the use of both Scripture and deductive logic. I'm not seeing anything by way of counter-arguments against this point other than to point out that sometimes bishops disagreed. I'm not sure why you think it necessarily follows that any disagreement automatically = evidence of faulty transmission, or that therefore apostolic succession is false? No one in the Orthodox Church claims every individual bishop/saint is infallible. We readily acknowledge that Church history was quite messy--there was the occasional in-fighting, there were administrative complications, constant heretical teachers emerging from among Her ranks, multiple schisms, and even people who never saw eye-to-eye with each other despite that we now recognize *both* as having been saints. I think some Protestants are under the impression that we think it was all this perfectly neat and orderly thing at all times where everyone agreed on everything and were united in every thought and belief at all times, but that's not the case (I'm not sure if you think that's what we believe, but I wanted to clarify, just in case). But either way, however neat or messy one conceives of the early church's history, it doesn't invalidate or disprove *on principle* that there is only one Church, which is apostolic/hierarchical in its structure, and which is not only responsible but *necessary* to give an account for the canon of Scripture, because it was guided and preserved by the Holy Spirit...because there is only one Christ. - - - "...later guys on both sides of the issue would claim tradition has ALWAYS been on THEIR side. And then they vote to decide who's "right" " As it says in Acts 15:28, "It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us..." This is one of the biblical precedents for holding councils, which isn't simply them "thinking that these new teachings or disagreements HAD to be settled one way or the other", because deferring to the fact that the faith was once "simpler" fails to factor in that it was also *smaller* and was heavily persecuted for several centuries. So, naturally, as it expanded and more fallible people came into the fold, it became necessary to address numerous issues and heresies as they emerged, as the enemy continually threatened to undermine the truth and infiltrate the Body of Christ to destroy its purity, which isn't just a matter of them convening councils so they can "vote on who's right". I think that's a gross over-simplification and misrepresents the reality of what the bishops have had to deal with throughout the life of the Church (offering protections through dogmas you now benefit from). It also disregards that the Bible itself explicitly portrays the Holy Spirit's involvement when Apostolic authorities come together to hold a council--so it can't be just a trivial, manmade accretion that unnecessarily complicates the faith, because God Himself is shown to be included in the process. - - - "Evidence shows apostolic succession isn't infallible" I don't think it's intentional, but you've set up a strawman here. No one is arguing that the process of transmitting authority is infallible--just that it is objectively real and required. I acknowledged in the video that Scripture itself warns "do not lay hands hastily", meaning it is already known that things can go wrong and false teachers can be appointed. - - - "your best chance at knowing what the Apostles taught is to read what they wrote or approved of. How do we know what those writings are? The same way we know Jesus rose from the dead. Examine the evidence." My friend, this is circular reasoning. You're asking, "how do we know the writings?" But then, you answer by saying, "Same way we know Jesus rose from the dead" (which is according to the writings that you just said were in question). So, we know the writings by examining the writings. It's a tautology. Also, when you say, "examine the evidence", aren't you presuming that the evidence is reliable? And if so, does this not bring you right back to the inescapable point that you have to *trust the Church* to have faithfully and diligently transmitted that evidence without alteration or error? Because we're talking about centuries after the apostolic era, which is a long time for the texts to be circulating through the hands of an institution that you're saying introduced all kinds of accretions and ideas that aren't necessarily true. So, the only real question is, if the Ecumenical Councils weren't guided by the Holy Spirit and protected from error (i.e. infallible), then how can you say with any confidence that you have the correct canon of Scripture *without* relying on the Body of believers that produced it? If you *don't* trust the Church, then how exactly can you trust the evidence, when the evidence itself comes from that very same institution? - - - Again, I appreciate your effort to deal with the issues earnestly. I only wish that every Protestant that came to interact in the comments had been as sincere as you, as this has been a refreshing exchange. So I thank you for that. Keep seeking Truth, brother. I hope we can interact again in the future. God bless.

@orthodox_soul Thank you for your response. I appreciate both the effort and demeanor of your response. I apologize that I did not clarify my points sufficiently in my first comment. The first point I raised was meant to establish that the ecclesial view of apostolic succession taken by the EO does not lead to epistemic certainty. Depending upon how you frame the discussion, it could be two separate questions (as you describe) or one broader question. Even if the point is divided into separate questions, how one answers one question will effect how one answers the other question. And those questions could come in either order. You argue that the version of apostolic succession held by the EO provides a normative authority not offered in a protestant view. I am pointing out that the Ecclesialist view held by the EO does not provide an infallible normative authority because different branches of Ecclesialists come to different conclusions. Now sure, you could say but "I ASSUME my branch has the correct Ecclesial lineage therefore I can trust its conclusions". But this is no different than a Lutheran or an Anglican saying "I assume my branch of Sola Scriptura has the right interpretation therefore I can trust its conclusions". You argue that normative authority does not exist in a Protestant view. I disagree. The normative authority is the teaching of the Apostles in regard to the Gospel of Christ. You may counter by saying "But the protestant has no infallible means to know what this teaching is!" To which I am simply pointing out that an ecclesialist likewise has no infallible means by which to know what his normative authority is. IF you did there would not but the broad range of disagreement that exists among different ecclesialist branches. You can try to get around this by just ASSUMING your branch is correct. But so can any branch of protestant ASSUME his branch is correct. Likewise any worldview could just assert it is correct by assumption. But if we seek to determine which view is correct, we must back up and look at the evidence. For example, lets say that tomorrow "Bob" began to claim he spoke for the true church via apostolic succession. That the apostolic authority skips 50 generations and he has now been imbued with such authority. He argues that in order to have certitude of belief, you must trust his authority, because HE represents the "true church". You would likely disagree and cite evidence as to why his claims are not trustworthy. You can't just trust "Bobs" version of the church and his version of apostolic succession because "Trust Bobs church" When I look at the EO, I do the very same thing. The evidence does not fit the current EO claims, IMO. You attempt to establish the EO version of Apostolic succession by appeal to Ignatius and even go so far as to say that citing further evidence is not necessary.. You did provide some other patristic quotations in support of your claim. I pointed out that those quotations do not support the current version of the EO church. The context of those quotations are of a different kind. Aimed exclusively at Gnostics and Judiazers. Groups directly opposed by the original apostles. The church in that era had a simpler "rule of faith" than what is required by the current EO tradition. The appeal to a common and continuous teaching does not apply to the rulings of councils 100s of years later, or there would be no need for councils. In reference to Ignatius, do you think he believed that a local bishop had greater authority than the Apostle John? I mean, if we take Ignatius literally, at face value, the Bishop is equal to Christ? What if John disagrees with the local bishop? Who is right? What if it was 3 bishops vs John? 5? 10? No, the authority was given to John by Jesus, attested to by signs and wonders. When John passes authority to the next generation, this authority is of a different nature. An authority subject to John. We can be confident this authority was of a different type because the office of Apostle came with different criteria than the appointment of elders. What if 2 bishops disagree? What do we make of Ignatius? How do we reconcile Ignatius with disagreeing bishops? Where does Ignatius imagine an ecumenical council? or Iranaeus? or Polycarp, or Tertullian? or Justin Martyr? My point in this line of questioning is two fold. 1) establish that apostolic succession is validated by Continuity with the Apostles TEACHING. The laying on of hands was a fallible measure meant to safe guard this teaching. But it was fallible, as we KNOW by disagreeing bishops. The Apostles TEACHING whether written or oral was infallible. Later teachings don't Judge the apostles teachings...But are Judged BY the apostles Teaching. 2) the 3 fold office, Then later the idea that INFALLIBLE ecumenical councils (presided over by those who's teaching are DEMONSTRABELY fallible), determine new necessary dogmas binding for all the church are developments. Therefore, conclusions of these councils are judged by the APOSTLES Teaching. Not the other way around. The primary principle that both Paul and Ignatius appeal to is preserving the apostolic TEACHING. Bishops are a fallible means to that end. So if Paul writes a letter that says do "XYZ"....that Letter has authority because PAUL has the authority. The authority of the scriptures comes from the authors. The apostles. Now if Paul writes a letter that says do "XYZ"....it doesn't matter if 50 bishops all agree in saying DON'T do "XYZ". The normative authority is Paul's teaching. You spend some time arguing in your video that "only people have authority, not documents". But a document can clearly carry the authority of the author. Didn't Jesus quote scripture as a way to reference the Fathers' authority? Wasn't it Jesus' primary mode of argumentation to reference scripture as authoritative? I know that you appeal to the council of Jerusalem to establish the authority of subsequent councils. But the conclusions reached at those councils were the conclusions of the Apostles that were given infallible authority. The proposition that future councils would be infallible is absent in anything in the first 2 centuries. All subsequent councils are to be judged by the Apostles TEACHING. Next you pose a the question of how I can know that canon without trusting the councils to be infallible. I don't see why I have to know the canon list is infallible. I can take evidence to be historically reliable. That is the same way I can conclude that later councils do not reflect prior christian thought. The historical reliability of earlier sources allows me see if later councils are consistent. Does this mean that if have a fallible source list of infallible teaching. Sure. But so does any ecclesialist, like an EO. There is no infallible list of infallible teachings in the EO tradition. You already conceded that church history is "messy". It seems subjective to argue that the protestant view just makes things "too messy". When I stated that I can know the apostles teachings the same way that I can know Jesus rose from the dead, you counter by saying this is circular. Not so. I can be confident that Jesus rose from the dead because that is the unanimous testimony of those in the best position to know. This testimony comes in direct opposition to the temporal interests and eschatological expectations of the witnesses. It is the best explanation of the evidence. I can be confident the testimony that I am reading reflects the testimony of the apostles because the earliest accounts that are in accordance with the Hebrew scriptures reference those writings as accounts of those witnesses. No infallible authority is required.

​@@anthonyburrell5761 "In reference to Ignatius, do you think he believed that a local bishop had greater authority than the Apostle John?[...]What if John disagrees with the local bishop? Who is right?" This is an interesting thought experiment. In the video, I made the point that, having been discipled under the Apostles directly, St. Ignatius would understand the intended meaning of their teachings. That is to say, *his* interpretation of their teachings is more reliable and thus more credible than the interpretation of someone whose only access to apostolic teaching is reading words on paper 2,000 years later. So, you're asking the wrong question, "did he believe that a local bishop had greater authority than the Apostle John?", when you should be asking, "did he believe a local bishop had greater authority than a Protestant layperson of the 21st century?" Because, the unanimous assumption of all Protestants is that *their own private interpretation* of apostolic teaching is in fact the accurate one, and that St. Ignatius and all subsequent "ecclesialists" were mistaken. This is the argument presented in the video. Reframing it the way you did in your question, while interesting, is shifting the parameters of the discussion away from the original point... ...which is that, regardless if you are in the 1st century or the 21st century, apostolic teaching must be *interpreted*.

​@@anthonyburrell5761 (1/3) Thanks for that response. I can see where the main points of separation are now. "...the ecclesialist view held by the EO does not provide an infallible normative authority because different branches of ecclesialists come to different conclusions." This is a non sequitor, and as a result, the entirety of the argument hinges on this fundamental misconception. It's just like saying that, since there is a multiplicity of religions in the world who all claim they are exclusively the one way to God, that therefore Christianity does not provide the infallible truth, because different religions come to different conclusions." It does not follow from the fact that bishops occasionally disagree that therefore there is no infallible normative authority. It does not follow that, because heretics have historically separated themselves from the one true Church into different ecclesial communions, that therefore the Ecumenical Councils are not infallible or that the true Church cannot be known. Also, there is a distinction between fallible individuals like St. Augustine and St. John Chrysostom having a doctrinal disagreement vs the 7 Ecumenical Councils which each built off of one another and affirmed the dogmas of previous Councils. The whole point of the Councils was that when disagreements emerged that were significant enough to disrupt continuity with the apostolic teaching, then they would hold Councils to settle the matter and to correctly exposit what the apostolic teaching was, in accordance with the Holy Spirit whose guidance they collectively submitted themselves to. Once the Council is closed, the matter is settled; there are no disagreements on dogmatics or errors in theology that the Church can universally bind the conscience of all the faithful to accept. Again, even though you're acknowledging that you are aware there is a distinction between epistemic certitude and normative authority, you're still confusing what that distinction actually entails between the two categories. Because, unless I'm misunderstanding, you seem to be saying that a lack of certitude is a defeater for the principle itself. That, unless every individual knows exactly where the true confession of faith is at all times with infallible certitude, then there is no infallible normative authority at all. That's where the mistake is. That the 4th Ecumenical Council is qualitatively infallible and must be accepted, is not contingent on my ability or inability to recognize it. That the Orthodox Church provides a mechanism of normative authority is not contingent on whether or not I am able to personally distinguish it from other Ecclesial confessions as being the right one. This is the central point that must be hammered home. And to that point, you said several times that "I can ASSUME my branch has the correct ecclesial lineage...", when this statement is itself making an assumption. To be clear, merely "assuming" is not the means by which Orthodox arrive at the one true faith; it is by the Holy Spirit. Protestants and Catholics all agree on this point with respect to their own individual epistemic certitude--where we disagree is the **means** the Holy Spirit uses to delineate the Apostolic deposit of faith. For Catholics, it's the one supreme and infallible guy in Rome through whom the Spirit operates. For Protestants, it's every individual who is guided to true understanding through the Bible alone. And for the Orthodox, it's the entire collective of Church Fathers, saints and Ecumenical Councils across the centuries, together with the Liturgy, the sacred Scriptures and Holy Tradition. So, we're saying, if taken together, the Holy Spirit uses all of these things to guide the faithful--including on an individual basis--to discern what the apostolic teaching is, and thus to know where the true Church is. This is not "assuming my branch". It's taking a holistic approach that allows us to actually be consistent in our ability to give an account for the canon of Scripture **as well as** being consistent with history and what is stated in Scripture itself, as it relates to the beliefs and practices of the earliest Christians. Protestantism has no means whatsoever of giving an account that is logically or historically consistent, and so in that case the position really is just assumed. But as far as "Ecclesialists" go, there are only a limited number of options that are tenable. The Coptics have a heretical Christology--it's a departure from the apostolic teaching. The Catholics have a heretical ecclesiology and Trinitarian theology--it's a departure from apostolic teaching. Protestants, depending on who we're talking about, are in varying degrees of error--from a Nestorian view of the atonement, to a Nestorian Ecclesiology, to an Arian/Apollonarian/Nestorian/Sabellian Christology, to a Gnostic sacramentology, to a Marcion biblical theology, etc--all of which are a departure from apostolic teaching. This is just a small sample of the list of heresies the councils battled against and protected us from, so I'm curious which dogmas you have in mind that are "demonstrably fallible" that specifically came out of the councils.

​@@anthonyburrell5761 (2/3) When you say that, in Protestantism, "the normative authority is the teaching of the Apostles", you are correct in anticipating my objection that this fails to take into account I) how one knows what those teachings are (in the sense of even knowing what the Scriptures are) and II) what their objective interpretation is. And yet, another fundamental misunderstanding is revealed in your next statement, when you defend this objection by saying, "I am pointing out that the Ecclesialist likewise has no infallible means by which to know what his normative authority is." First of all, nothing better demonstrates my point that you are confusing categories than your using the phrase "infallible means of knowing". No one is saying my individual epistemic certitude is itself infallible--that is a separate issue. The **means** of knowing are not the infallible thing in question. Secondly, this is a tu quoque--to simply shift the problem to the Orthodox by saying "well you don't know either!" does nothing to resolve the dilemma in your own system. So the problem still stands. Thirdly, and most importantly...even if we set both of those things aside, it's crucial that you understand this point: it *still* isn't a problem for the Orthodox when you say, "I have a fallible source list of infallible teaching. But so does any Ecclesialist, like an EO. There is no infallible list of infallible teachings in the EO tradition", and the reason this is not a problem for us is because we have a completely different system and a different epistemology. We aren't the ones claiming Sola Scriptura, so this critique doesn't even apply to us. The necessity of an infallible canon only becomes a problem when you claim that the canon is your sole and final authority, being the only infallible rule--we recognize persons and groups as being authoritative in the normative sense. You may not realize it, but this is a devastating admission on your part. You've effectively just surrendered the entire Protestant paradigm and acknowledged it is epistemologically unsound, because you've just admitted to the possibility that you may have the wrong list of books in your canon of Scripture. How can you do proper theology if you have the wrong books? Any verse you quote as a supporting argument *assumes* the particular book you are citing from is 100% guaranteed to be canonical--yet, at the same time, it is openly acknowledged that the list is fallible and thus *could* be incorrect? The very phrase "a fallible list of infallible books" is itself completely incoherent and contradictory, and it automatically undoes the entire argument Protestants make. The Councils made decisions over the centuries during the gradual process of compiling the canon--infallible simply means protected from error--so, either those decisions they made were protected from error or they weren't. If they weren't (or if Luther wasn't) then you're inescapably admitting you may have a false biblical canon. That's the answer to your question, "I don't see why I have to know the canon list is infallible."

@@GreasedDolphin I didn't even know that! 🤯

I hear you brother (or sister?). I started making Shorts, and I did create a few clips from the testimony based on your suggestion. It's tricky though, because with subjects like this that are so heavily contested (since it directly conflicts with Protestant ecclesiology and their entire conception of "church") it makes it virtually impossible to make a compelling case without covering all the necessary ground, which naturally requires more time. One way or the other, people are gonna have to invest the time at some point--I've already done the leg work by compiling all the relevant info into one place to make it readily accessible for them--otherwise, if the content is short and sweet, THEN the excuse for them not feeling persuaded ends up being because "there's just not enough evidence". The inclusion of additional context and related themes is rather unavoidable, or else they'll just say they're unconvinced. I'll definitely put out material that's shorter, at times. But, I've elected to just believe His sheep know His voice, and they will follow. If folks don't care enough about the Truth to put in the time and energy, then they probably aren't my target audience anyway.

@@Nameless-q6v it would be my pleasure! You'll find all my socials on my channel. Please, do feel free to reach out any time.

@@thekinglink906 ding ding ding, winner winner chicken dinner! Haha spot on brother. I'm glad you managed to see through the veil.

I'm beginning to suspect that no Protestants who choose to comment are ever going to address the actual substance of any of the arguments made in the presentation--which you think someone would have done by now if it were so easily proven false--which is unfortunate, as I've been looking forward to having at least **some** kind of meaningful exchange. Instead, everyone has elected to obfuscate and deflect to other subjects, continually vindicating the very points made about how you only ever read Scripture and church history through the lens of your own presuppositions, and then insist that the Spirit has revealed whatever conclusions you arrived at (even though the entire thought process was already predetermined according to your own biases which had nothing to do with the Spirit or the inspiration of Scripture). Either you don't understand that this is a **paradigm-level** critique--and that your **paradigm** is epistemologically untenable--or you **do** understand, and are intentionally avoiding answering any of the questions/arguments I posed, because you aren't able to deal with them. Either way, all you've done is expose that you are unwilling or unable to engage.

@@orthodox_soul I think my point did address what you said in the video. Because I brought up polycarp who rejected the Roman Bishops claimed that he had Apostolic authority to change Passover to Easter Sunday. And we see the apostles keeping Sabbath and keeping Passover but the thing we don't see is them observing Sunday and doing Easter Sunday. So therefore we know that the Orthodox and Roman Church just broke off from the apostles and wanted to do their own thing and claim Apostolic Authority when they didn't have it

@orthodox_soul I guess what I'm trying to figure out is how much different is it between the cult which is called The Seventh-Day Adventist who decided willy-nilly change God's calendar and times because they think they got a prophet with this Apostolic Authority versus the roman/Orthodox churches who have a bishop claiming the same thing? Just because you people changed things 1800 years ago versus 150 years ago, it seems like you both have the same amount of proof for your Authority, which is zero. Polycarp never saw this proof. No quartodeciman saw this proof. Anicetus just claimed it. Polycarp said he was keeping the TRADITIONS taught to him BY THE APOSTLES THEMSELVES, and we SEE THESE TRADITIONS IN SCRIPTURE. We don't see your traditions in scripture

​@orthodox_soul also, one more point, I am probably the first protestant you had to respond to because most of them blindly follow a bunch of crap that is only found in the catholic church and not in the bible. I look at Andreas Karlstadt as being a real protestant. Luther, to me, held everyone back with his rabid antisemitism and he wanted to hold onto Catholic doctrines only found in the catholic church and not in scripture. Polycarp, to me, would be the original protestant since he was the first to reject the Roman bishop's claims.

@@chrislucastheprotestantview "I think I did address what you said in the video" --you addressed the subject, not the arguments. So, I'll be doing the same with your objection in brushing past it, as the way you've framed it is inconsequential anyway. All I'll say is, we keep the Saturday Sabbath in Orthodoxy (surprise). But, since your way of doing theology is entirely subjective, you miss the spirit of the text, and as has historically been the case with every heretic or cult throughout history, you tend to find one single area in Scripture to hyper-fixate on (i.e. the Sabbath) and then you proceed to build your entire personality around that one thing, and read all other passages in the Bible and all other events in Church history through that lens of whatever it is you wrongly presuppose to be the case, because of your flawed hermeneutic. Sabbath was made for man, not the other way around. Christ is the Lord of the Sabbath; we rest in Him. We're 2,000 years later, and people still haven't figured this out. As it stands, you can't even give an account for the canon of Scripture itself. Unless you can provide some justification for how you know you have the correct canon of Scripture, then your position is totally arbitrary, either way. So, when you say other Protestants "blindly follow a bunch of crap from the Catholic church that's not in the Bible", you fail to realize that you yourself are following and acknowledging someone else's authoritative decision about the Bible itself and which books belong in it. Protestants didn't compile the canon, so who did? And by what authority? Who gave it to them? Until you explain any of that, there's nothing to contend with.

Can you define cult? Because if Orthodoxy is considered a cult you are very likely a member of a cult if you are from a regular protestant church.

@@johnmackie9498 Leaders cannot be questioned, no matter which branch of Catholicism you're in, whether Orthodoxy or Roman, the leaders are infallible and hold "all truth." They put emphasis on man teaching you the Word of God instead of the Holy Spirit. You're not allowed to study anything for yourself (more emphasis on man's teaching). Works are added for salvation- you must be baptized, do the sacraments or whatever else you're told, in order to be saved and/or maintain salvation. They ALWAYS claim to be the only truth, only way, only life, etc. Orthodoxy members worship Mary just as much as the other branches of Catholicism. Luciferian symbols can be found throughout all false religions. They change the meaning of words and doctrines in the Bible, like the man in the video saying Jesus does not send the Holy Spirit, when He Himself said He does. He also says there is no "invisible church" when the Bible talks about those who worship God in Spirit and Truth, who are of one Spirit and one Lord. "Invisible church" does not mean it can't be seen, it means it comprises of believers all over the world who are unable to meet together in one building, it's all truly born-again believers. They usually have their own version of the Bible, and/or extra-biblical sources they rely on. There's more but that's enough for now. "Protestant" is a derogatory term used for those who were Catholic but no longer agreed with one or more doctrines of Catholicism. The fact that you used it shows your cult mentality of "we are the true church, everybody outside of us is wrong." There have always been true Christians, before, during and after the reign of Catholicism. Research real history and not the one you've been spoon-fed all your life. "Protestants" back in the day were killed by the Catholic church, your "mother church." People were burned at the stake for simply wanting a Bible they could read in their own lanvuage and not Latin. I am not "protestant" because I was never a Catholic. I am a Bible believing, born-again Christian. Your use of "protestant" is equivalent to those who use "Palestine" as a name for the land of Israel. Derogatory terms meant to take away the identity of a person or people. "Palenstine" came from Rome as well as "protestant."

@@johnmackie9498 One major sign of a cult is when they claim that the Bible is insufficient, just like this man has claimed "Sola Scriptura is a foundation of sand". That goes against everything the Bible is about. Putting the traditions of man over the word of God always has negative consequences and leads to cults. It also leads to faith in man's word instead of God's. Jesus said we are sanctified by the truth of God's Word. We are washed by God's Word. We have the armour of God, which includes the Holy Spirit and His Word. Jesus said we live by every Word that proceeds out of the mouth of God (Bible). "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:" 2 Timothy 3:16 Sola Scriptura is TRUTH and NOT a foundation of sand! That is blasphemy!

@gooberpeas535 you respond to a month old comment and decide not even address what my comment said. Cite me the source that says a cult is when a group denies sola scriptura. Easy to make a argument when you just make things up this is why people leave protestantism.

@@johnmackie9498 I'm late in replying because I'm not glued to KZbin watching a bunch of false teachers. You asked me to define a cult and I gave you one major red flag for identifying a cult; denying the sufficiency of God's Word. The Mormons do it, the Jehovah's Witnesses do it, the Muslims do it, and all branches of Catholicism, including yours, does it. Do you believe that God is the author of the Bible? (2 Timothy 3:16-17) Do you believe that those who wrote the Bible were told by God the Holy Spirit what to write? (2 Peter 1:21) Do you believe Jesus is God? (John 1:1) Do you believe Jesus is the Word? (John 1:1) Do you believe that God cannot lie? (Titus 1:2) Do you believe it is the Holy Spirit who teaches us? (John 14:26) Do you believe Jesus rebuked the devil with God's Word? (Matthew 4:1-11) Do you believe God's Word is truth and that we are sanctified by it? (John 17:17) Do you believe we are washed by God's Word? (Ephesians 5:26) If you believe in all of that then why would you say that the Bible is insufficient for us? In whom do you rely on for salvation and truth? Jude tells us to "earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints." Then he tells us how to do that in verses 17, 20 & 21. Maybe you don't understand what sola scriptura means? It means that only the Scriptures (Holy Bible) is a publicly accessible, infallible verbal expression of God’s truth available today, therefore it should be the Christian's final authority as to doctrines and practices, not men and their "traditions" (Mark 7:7-8). The purpose of the church is to share the gospel of Jesus and teach what the Word of God says, not to add to it or change it or incorprate some new teaching that most often goes against it. If you are not a cult then... Show me in the Bible where it says... ...Your church is the final authority. (The Word of God is. 2 Timothy 3:16-17) ...That the body and blood of Jesus is literally in a wafer and wine. (Jesus was crucified once, there is no more sacrifice for sin. Hebrews 7:27. Besides that, mysticism (what transubstantiation is) is forbidden by God.) ...That salvation is only found through your church. (Salvation only comes through Jesus Christ. Acts 4:12) ...Your church is the only one with truth. (Jesus is the way, truth and life. God's Word is truth. The Holy Spirit is Truth. John 14:6, 16:13, 17:17) ...We should pray to Mary or dead saints, which is necromancy. (Jesus said to only pray TO the Father and in His name. Matthew 6:6-13, Philippians 4:6, John 14:13,-14, 16:23-24) Also, I would prefer you to not call me "Protestant" because I was never a Catholic. That was a derogatory term for the Catholic dissenters in the 1500's. True Christians existed before "Mother Rome" took over. And I find it ironic that Orthodoxy is so exclusive yet is a member of the ecumenical World Council of Churches. Yet another red flag.

@@gooberpeas535 you're confusing terms, listen more carefully to what was said. "The Holy Spirit *proceeds from* the Father alone." Procession ≠ sending. I'm talking specifically about hypostatic origins, hence my saying "The Father is the 'sole cause'".

@ninjason57 that's a valid question. And you're right, that man was indeed outside of the fold. This is an instance where it's crucial to bare in mind that we must take the entire witness of Scripture into account, because our theology must be able to harmonize different passages and reflect an understanding of Scripture that is internally consistent. In the passage you're referring to (e.g. Mark 9), Jesus says, "He who is not against us is on our side." But then, in Matthew 12, Christ also says, "He who is not with Me is against Me, and scatters abroad." We can't uphold one text to the exclusion of the other, meaning there's a specific context in which we're meant to understand each that reconciles them. Earlier in that same passage in Matthew 12, Jesus also states, "Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation, and every city or house divided against itself will not stand." Protestantism is, by its very nature, a system of various divisions and subdivisions--it's disqualified by default on the basis of Scripture. To immediately begin fragmenting over doctrinal disagreements almost as soon as their movement began proved to be a defining feature of the Reformation, which prevails to this day. So, when He tells the apostles in Mark 9, "Do not forbid him, for no one who works a miracle in My name can soon afterward speak evil of Me", it's not some proclamation of an all-inclusive priesthood, but rather it's an implicit acknowledgment that these men **are going to be** brought under the episcopate, because having truly believed, they won't speak against Christ. But even if that wasn't the case, and it turns out to be one of those situations where "Many will say to Me in that day, ‘Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?’ And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!’ ...we Orthodox affirm that the grace of God is at work everywhere, even (and especially) among those who have yet to take shelter on the Ark. How else would any of us ever come to know God, if it weren't for Him being revealed to us by some means prior to our conversion? This means His power and presence can be revealed by any means, through any one. The question is, I) is that the normative experience, and II) is it the common/permanent standard God intended for all times and places? One can only answer "yes" if they first disregard all other Scripture that indicates the opposite, some of which I shared in this comment and many others which I put in the video. The point is, once a person has believed, is that where the process is supposed to end? Is that all authority really is? The significant point of departure here is over one fundamental assumption: I think a lot of people **assume** the reason the Apostles objected to those outside the fold performing miracles was out of jealously or feeling their own authority was somehow threatened, when in actuality the motive is that their is supposed to be episcopal unity. It doesn't end with just "belief", because we are supposed to come under the episcopate. There is only one Christ, and He only established one Church. Because there is only one Body. And we, as members of that one Body who are perfectly united together, come together around one altar. Everything is One. And we must join ourselves to that One. "I am the vine, you are the branches. He who abides in Me, and I in him, bears much fruit; for without Me you can do nothing. If anyone does not abide in Me, he is cast out as a branch and is withered; and they gather them and throw them into the fire, and they are burned." (John 15:5-6)

You can’t “Love the Lord,” while actively living in disobedient to Christs commandments. If you’re not following Christ into His Church, then you are not partaking in his body and blood, which a Christ of course commands us to do. The New Testsment has a number of commands which also require you to be part of His church. You’re correct that you were rambling and making a lot of assumptions and reading way into many things about a church that you’re not part of. There’s no way to do Justice to the topics you bring up in a comment. The things I brought up above should point you in the right direction though as far as your idea that you can just “love the Lord “and yet not be part of the church. Here are some scriptures that presume that people following Christ are part of the Church. Not an invisible make believe church, but the actual church. Christ wasn’t an invisible make believe Christ, so I don’t know why anyone would think His church would be invisible. There are passages of scripture that don’t require the church to be a visible/tangible church, like Ephesians 1:22-23 and Ephesians 4:4-6, but those don’t support that the Churches founded by the Apostles were “invisible.” Conversely however, scriptures that support the Orthodox “visible church,” do negate that the church could potentially be invisible. - Matthew 16:18: - Luke 22:19-20, - Matthew 18:17 - Acts 2:42 - The Eucharist (1 Corinthians 10:16-17; 11:23-29) - Acts 15 the Council of Jerusalem - Ephesians 4:4-6 - Hebrews 10:25 - Hebrews 13:17 - Corinthians 12:12-27 - Orthodox understanding of the visible church is strongly supported by the emphasis on apostolic authority, sacramental life, communal worship, and hierarchical structure, which are evident throughout the New Testament.

​@@joachimjustinmorgan4851 I appreciate your response! And I absolutely agree that I can't "love the Lord" without actively living a life of repentance and pursuing total obedience to his commandments. This is a given for me in my comment above. But exactly how to do that is what is being debated. If I am following your argument correctly, you and other Orthodox Christians say that following the Orthodox Church is a requirement for following Christ. And I am simply saying, it is not a requirement. You can follow, learn about, love and serve, and authentically experience Christ in other churches. I believe in the church and I believe it is necessary for our faith walk. But, being a part of the church is, in my view, a synonym for being a Christian and experiencing salvation through Christ. There are visible and invisible aspects of it, for sure! And many of the visible signs are worth fighting for and are being fought for, in the Orthodox church and Protestant/RC churches alike. But, again, the OBJECTIVE, fail-proof signifier of those who are being saved is the Holy Spirit working in and through them, and a confession and living out of faith in Christ. And these things are necessarily "invisible". Or perhaps a preferable word, SPIRITUAL. The spiritual reality does not in any way diminish the physical reality, but it is the stronger reality which we strive to submit our physical/fleshly reality to. The invisible/spiritual reality cannot be seen, but it is no less real and no less powerful. "God is spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth"; consider Jesus's words in John 4:24 and John 5:24. Jesus says many things to this effect. The spiritual reality enables us to see how the thief on the cross was saved, moments before his death. It allows us to see how the widow who gave 2 pennies gave more than all the others in the temple. It allows us to see how the first will be last and the last will be first. The spiritual reality takes precedent over the physical. Am I saying that physical signs of the church aren't important. No! I'm just saying they cannot be used to identify all who are in Christ. Jesus is never recorded to have commanded people to "Join my church". And, I think the reason for this is because, if you are following Christ and experiencing salvation in following him, you ARE a member of his church/body! It's a given that you are united with him. He is in you, and you in him (consider 1 John chapters 3:11-4:21).

@@abigailwillis1656 Hello brother, to me it seems like in your comment the problem is the protestant mentality that goes by "what is the minimum I can do and still be saved" and The Lord answers the problem of the minimum doing in the parable of the ten virgins. May God help you find answer to all your questions.

@neyneynanamo2071 Appreciate your response. I am your sister in Christ. My aim is not to figure out what the minimum requirements for salvation are. I presented a case and definition of the church above, and I am looking for an answer to my questions. If you or any Orthodox Christian can address my concerns, I would be very grateful.

@@abigailwillis1656 Well, I'm no theologian, and I don't want to sound too harsh but you say why would it be necessary to pe Orthodox si ce we all believe in the same God. But let's think about that. The orthodox are the only ones that kept the creed unchanged and the creed is kind of the definition of the God that we believe in. So do we really worship the same God? Yes, we use the same name for God, but a different trinity seems to me like a different god. And that is just the first change...there are a 1000 years of modifications after that.

@@Orthoindian Yes. Those who are NOT ignorant of the history, and have had ample opportunity to humble themselves for years, but instead consciously choose to double-down in their stubbornness, and THEN continue in making their disingenuous arguments against the biblical and historic facts they intentionally misrepresent in order to favor their own position while giving the impression that everything else is "an accretion"... It's pure sophistry and delusion. At which point, it's time to stop dealing with them as gently (though never with hate or contempt).

@@stevecochran9078 and corrupt authority incapable of teaching scripture multiplies blindness