Ah Yes, That Calvinist Orthodox Patriarch (Cyril Lucaris)

[@ElvisI97]

Modern Eastern Orthodox apologists seem to face a dilemma regarding Patriarch Cyril Lucaris. There are two common responses to his controversial status, but both ultimately fail to resolve the issue. 1) *Response 1: “Patriarch Cyril Lucaris was merely a heretic, and his confessions were condemned by the Synod of Jerusalem.”* The problem with this view is that Patriarch Cyril Lucaris was not only the Ecumenical Patriarch and Archbishop of Constantinople (the New Rome) but also a canonized saint. He was canonized by the Alexandrian Orthodox Church in 2009 and by the Ecumenical Patriarchate in 2022. This raises significant questions about whether a saint can simultaneously be venerated and regarded as a heretic, thus challenging the infallibility of the canonization process. 2) *Response 2: “Patriarch Cyril Lucaris was not a heretic, as his confessions were forgeries.”* This position is untenable given the substantial evidence supporting the authenticity of his confessions. For instance, his beliefs are corroborated by other letters, such as his letter to Antoine, and a Greek manuscript of his confessions bears his signature, authenticated by a Metropolitan who compared it with his other writings. Copies of his confessions circulated in the same areas where his New Testament translation was disseminated, not just in Calvinist centers. Additionally, this response fails to account for the writings of Orthodox individuals conspiring with Roman Catholics to have Cyril murdered. While some might argue that Cyril himself testified that his writings were forgeries, as presented in the Synod of Jerusalem, this claim is based on oral tradition developed after his death and contradicts his undisputed writings. It is also not unprecedented for church leaders to rewrite and reinvent someone's history to align with sainthood, as evidenced by the case of Constantine, who was later portrayed as baptized by Pope Sylvester instead of Eusebius of Nicomedia, and who reportedly succumbed to Arianism at the end of his life according to Jerome. In conclusion, neither response fully addresses the complexities surrounding Patriarch Cyril Lucaris's legacy, leaving modern Eastern Orthodox apologists with a significant challenge.

[@faithfulandfoolish]

No need to be hyperbolic. There really is no dilemma either way....forgery or not...the views communicated in the "Confessions" were completely rejected by Eastern Orthodoxy, and not rejected after some major delay or huge fictional swell of "calvinist Orthodoxy" at the time in the region. And being canonized in EO is not tacit endorsement of everything the person did or wrote. So why is Dr. Ortlund appealing to Cyril? If he did or did not write the "Confessions," what was espoused/communicated in the confessions were rejected fully by the Orthodox church. It's confusing at best as to why Dr. Ortlund is pretending Cyril was some mainstream Orthodox figure that should be emulated by the "now overly rigid" Orthodox of today (Dr. Ortlund's current bugaboo/parody/summary of Orthodox Theology/Dogma/Etc.) Why people continue to take a Dr. Orltund's explanations/takes about Eastern Orthodox history and theology seriously is beyond me. He would do well to engage with actual/current Orthodox priests, scholars and theologians who would no doubt welcome an honest discussion about his hangups with him. He may still end up disagreeing with EO, but he will at least have given the EO the irenic opportunity to portray their actual views more accurately,

[@StefanoNikolaou-m2d]

Whiile a Greek scholar did acknowledge that the signature on the Confession was Cyril's it doesn't prove much. Signatures can be forged and like all good bureaucrats, he probably had others sign for him. The Council of Jerusalem had access to a manuscript of Cyril Lucaris's homilies that they used to show that Cyril was Orthodox. This codex still exists. Protestants aren't interested in checking it. From what stages in his career did that come from? That Cyril didn't remove a single icon from a single church, that he commorarated the saints at every liturgy he held and that he used a liturgy that clearly advocates a real presence is very telling. His actions back up the evidence of the manuscript of his homilies that show Cyril was acting like a typical Orthodoxy hierarch right up to his death. Honestly, if Cyril was Protestant from 1623 or 1629 he had lots of time to act out his reforms (but never did). Hey people, we're talking 10 or 15 years here. Don't you find it stange that he did nothing?

[@StefanoNikolaou-m2d]

@@faithfulandfoolish I totally agree. If Cyril Lucaris was a Protestant then you have to also admit that his 'Reformation among the Orthodox' was a complete failure. I think the emphasis on Cyril Lucaris from Reformed Christians comes from their embarrassment at how unconvincing Eastern Christian found their claim that they were restoring Christianity to an earlier 'pristine' form.

[@emiliobazzarelli4270]

The solution is fairly obvious, he is a saint for being a martyr, not for his theology. Much like St Cyprian of Carthage his views being later condemned isn’t really relevant because he wasn’t canonized on the basis of his Calvinism. The decrees regarding his canonization really only focus on him as an anti-Catholic, not on his Protestant leanings. No orthodox would assert the infallibility of every saint, they have lots of saints who are filioquists and papalists and they anathematize both of those positions

[@DLBBAM]

Well no We can also say Yes, a patriarch can in fact be in error. It happens quite often actually. Our religion does not stand or fall on the opinions of one man. This is especially true regarding Ottoman era patriarchs of Constantinople in particular. These guys were installed by the Ottoman government and were usually boring more than puppets of the Islamic regime. Why should we be surprised that a man who was given his office by a party that was antagonistic to the Church might not fall in line with Orthodoxy? Bear in mind that the ecumenical patriarch really doesn't have any actual authority. He's not the Eastern Pope

[@ImagoDigest]

Every time I think I understand Church history God laughs a little harder and then tells Gavin to make another video.

[@pedroguimaraes6094]

The same can be said about history outside the Church-it’s full of nuances and unexpected developments. Yet, some choose to craft a simplified narrative, pretending it was straightforward, uniform, and that there was a 'universal consensus' on the doctrines their Church upholds today. As they do not claim to have an infallible magisterium or tradition, normally only Protestants are able to have an honest approach to the history of the Church.

[@EricAlHarb]

This patriarch was a mad man. He wanted to side with the Turkish Muslims against the Christians who opposed him.

[@Michiganman800]

Gavin Ortland : Did you ever hear of the life of Cyril Lucaris? I thought not. That's not a story the ecclesialists would tell you.

[@BerserkerSloth]

Is it possible to learn these letters?

[@simontemplar3359]

@@BerserkerSloth Not from a Catholic.

[@legodavid9260]

Did you ever hear about the tragedy of Saint Cyril Lucaris the wise?

[@excellenceadigun9093]

@@legodavid9260I got it 👈😅

[@mrbungle2627]

They deemed him a heretic in the Synod of Jerusalem in 1672. As were many members of the Early Church. It's not like having a Protestant view somehow makes the position more tenable in the Early Church. Obviously the spirit of Martin Luther came from somewhere? It's not completely unique to him. Some say Marcion was a bishop - and all protestants would say he was a heretic. And Valentius was a proto-bishop that started promulgating Christian-Gnosticism. Is Marcionism and Christian-Gnosticism more tenable because leaders in the church succumbed to them? You only favor Protestantism because you suppose it is true.

[@Miderstyles2327]

My fellow brothers and sisters please pray for me . I’m going through severe ecclesial anxiety at the moment very horribly as a matter of fact . I don’t know which church is right and it torments me to the point where I can’t sleep. It’s so suffocating and I don’t know what to do .I’m scared of eternal damnation and it’s so crippling . I hear all the claims from Rome and Constantinople yet I find myself just going in circles exhausted and very scared . Please pray for me

[@TruthUnites]

May the lord guide you and give you peace

[@Miderstyles2327]

@@TruthUnitesthank you Dr. Ortlund 🙏🏽

[@Golfinthefamily]

What does the Bible teach about salvation? Trust in Jesus, not which specific church you belong to. That's where peace is. I will pray now. "If you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead...."

[@RansomedSoulPsalm49-15]

Cling to Christ and His word, not the threats of man. ❤ praying for you brother. remember that redemption is about Christ and coming to Him in faith, not frantically sweating over councils, message boards and youtube videos. The chief end of man is to worship God and enjoy Him eternally. Just keep praying, reading the word, going to church, serving your brothers and sisters, preaching the good news, loving God and loving neighbor. trust God

[@ocdchristian]

Just a couple of thoughts: It seems to be a theme with these polemic videos (against Orthodoxy), that Dr. Ortlund spends half the video establishing why what he's going to present should be authoritative for the Orthodox, and therefore the long-held beliefs of Orthodoxy are not valid...although Dr. Ortlund is always prefacing these as "I'm not trying to disprove Orthodoxy" (my paraphrase) - it really seems like that's the whole point of these videos. If a council decreed that the teachings of Patriarch Cyrill are heretical, he still could be canonized as a martyr. There are other examples of that happening (St. Gregory of Nyssa's teaching on the αποκαταστάσεις for example). Even if we were to admit that Sola Scriptura was a thing (which I don't), it doesn't really solve anything because interpretation of scripture is where difficulties arise. This whole debate about "infallibility" of this or that seems to me to be a very contemporary issue. I'm going to research the usage of this term in the ancient fathers.

[@Garry_Combine]

He does the same with Catholicism. He's a wolf in sheep's clothing who seeks to undermine the Church by twisting scripture and the Church Fathers. And now obscure figures

[@KS-if9og]

Gavin, can you also talk about: Feofan Prokopovich 1681-1736 - Eastern Orthodox Archbishop of Novgorod Platon (Levshin) 1737-1812 - Eastern Orthodox Metropolitan of Moscow Both of these men taught justification by faith alone and that good works are a result of that true faith.

[@tategarrett3042]

That's really cool.

[@ItsThatGuy1989]

Why does it feel like protestants are equivocating the pope with patriarchs. You do realize that we don't hold to some infallibility, right? That patriarchs can and have taught wrong doctrine? Pointing to any single example is just frivolous. Also you can find patriarchs far worse than these two.

[@KS-if9og]

Source: this was noted in the church history book series “2000 years of Christ’s Power” It seems Prokopovich is more well known so it’s easier to verify him. With Platon you can read his work here on page 98 - “of justifying faith” section: books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=qsECAAAAQAAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PA35&dq=info:1L8iB88fw8UJ:scholar.google.com/&ots=drME952jc3&sig=od7N-zE6mpeg8ivuAH5mkbpr3cQ#v=onepage&q&f=false here he expresses justification by faith alone.

[@KS-if9og]

Source: This was noted in a church history book series “2000 Years of Christ’s Power” Prokopovich is more well known and it is easy to verify this claim for him. For Platon, you can read his own words in his book: “The orthodox doctrine of the apostolic Eastern Church” (page 93, section “of justifying faith”) that he indeed taught justification by faith alone.

[@ItsThatGuy1989]

@@KS-if9og I don't see your point? Patriarchs aren't infallible. They can have wrong teaching

[@dvd1989]

Been waiting for this one. Look forward to watching it. Thank you, sir!

[@paulwoodhouse3386]

Now this is an Orthodox priest I can get behind!

[@charlesking9120]

I'm really grateful for the fact that your channel engages with so much history. My mind is always being changed by it, not that I don't also get a lot out of the Protestant apologetics. Thanks for all the time and energy you put into these presentations for those of us who don't have the time or ability to dig up the facts and organize them into something memorable.

[@vigilantezack]

That's because protestantism is focused on the study of the finalized work of scripture, not on validating ourselves through quote mining the ancients. The ancients aren't infallible, they weren't all 'right' all the time. We lack cultural context of how they lived and what exactly motivated them and what issues they were tackling in their time and society. We think they didn't have bias or personal motivations that could skew their thinking just like we have today? They did. Yet all those things affect the saints today, why wouldn't it affect them? Some groups/traditions have a tendency to elevate our forebears far beyond how we would treat any living saint today. In other words, do we treat Augustine just like how we might treat John Piper or MacArthur or D.A. Carson? If not, we should. I'll treat any dead saint the same as I treat a teacher today. They are a Christian trying to best understand their faith in their time. We tend to think "older is better" and ascribe an almost magical idea that saints after the apostles in the 1st and 2nd and 3rd centuries somehow lacked the ability to be wrong or misinterpret scripture or that their words carry the same infallible weight as scripture itself. But they don't. They didn't even have a "full bible" like we have today. Even within the words of the NT there are already many churches needing to be corrected for false doctrines and bad behaviors. Where there are humans, there will be error. This isn't to say we should ignore history or something, but it's simply to say that we should be treating them not much different than how we treat a great theologian right now in modern times. None of our great teachers are 100% correct on all topics they discuss. You're hard pressed to find any Christian who believes 100% in line with any well known figure of today. So we shouldn't pretend that church fathers or any dead saint is anything more than a faithful Christian parsing things out as best they can, no different than we still do today. And that they are certainly off base on some things. Scripture is not authorized or validated or doctrines validated by any collection of church father quotes. You don't "need" them, in other words. It's helpful, it's interesting, but it shouldn't be at the core of our beliefs. Too much infighting comes down to my church father quotes against your church father quotes which is just silly. Following a falsehood because it's "old tradition" will never make it become true. It only makes it much harder to correct. And therefore hanging your hat on "a church father said it, therefore I believe it" is more of a hinderance to good theology than a help, and that's why protestant/reformers focus on the ultimate highest authority and much less focus on worrying about what any famous dead saint may have taught. And no matter what doctrine you hold, you can find some saint or other who agrees with you. Then someone else will find some saint that doesn't. And then it becomes a debate about whose saint is more famous or more "authoritative" or a body count of how many saints you can find that agree with you verses against. This is not how we should study scripture. The work of "find church fathers and ancients who agree with you" is nowhere on the list of proper study techniques of sound biblical exegesis. If anything it's a simple logical error called "appeal to authority". There is no human, living or dead, that is an authority unto themselves. What we have is revealed scripture, authorized and infallible by the work of the Holy spirit guiding its authors into truth. Downstream of that, we only have fallible humans trying to discern it and live it out.

[@DavidSpalding-m3o]

Great video, what a wonderful example of following divine revelation no matter the cost.

[@JesusIsLordOurRedeemer]

Wonderful video my friend. This will greatly help our protestant brothers and sisters when explaining our position with our eastern orthodox brothers and sisters and show that our veiws can be found outside of the protestant reformers. Though i am not a Calvanist (Methodist) we agree on most things.

[@HoneyBadgerbtc]

Sure, and then when the ideas were immediately condemned lol.

[@ItsThatGuy1989]

@@JesusIsLordOurRedeemer I think there can be mutual respect in this regard. And we don't have to fight. However, the church vehemently opposed double Predestination, and most if not all of TULIP. Finding one instance in church history and acting like that is the collective mentality is just not accurate. Imagine if I found a Lutheran leader who said that we don't need faith alone, but works of righteous to get to heaven. Then I said "hey here you go. See, your denomination believes this." It's ignorant at best, and disenenuous and manipulative at worst

[@marnielazarescu4567]

No. Doctrine is handed down from Christ and protected by the church. Some think we can't trust a bunch of men in robes to preserve the true Faith, but why then should we trust one man in a robe, Cyril, whose views were not the views of the church? God forbid that true doctrine comes to us by the most correct sounding person who opines! Truth is protected by the consensus of the body of Christ.

[@roses993]

Cool!! Im also not calvanist (protestant here though). I grew up Methodist preachers kid😊

[@wboyle1996]

I'm a simple man. I see Gavin Ortlund video, I watch Gavin Ortlund video.

[@kennethjoseph8360]

😂same

[@jtrichards1231]

And after you (we) are a less simple man. :)

[@ForTheChristians]

Fascinating! I had no idea this guy existed. What a phenomenal video. Thank you.

[@MrDanielEarle]

As a protestant, I should get an icon of Cyril

[@doubtingthomas9117]

😂😂😂

[@permafrost7781]

lol

[@hexahexametermeter]

🤣

[@Michiganman800]

@@MrDanielEarle yeah, but don't pray to it

[@apostolicangl]

@@MrDanielEarle facts 😂

[@ansich3603]

God bless you Gavin for your relentless works ❤️❤️❤️ Greeting from Indonesia

[@roses993]

Great video! Videos like these make me happier to be protestant. Keep it up, gavin😊

[@michaeljay4816]

This presentation was a gem for me. Thank you Sir.

[@biblefirst5691]

HERE.WE.GO.

[@ninjason57]

I always thought that Cyril Lucaris would be an amazing fantasy wizard name

[@willisiswillis]

Sad to see all these Protestants yelling checkmate. It feels like more and more of these videos are a targeted campaign against EO in the spirit of competitive evangelism. This feels like a strawman, honestly. This patriarch does not define the whole of the faith or even have the smallest bearing on it. If anything it’s an interesting historical drama based on the power struggles of religion and government at the time. Nothing canonical or impactful for the understanding and legitimacy of EO theology. After watching, did my own research and Cyril’s history is extremely complex and disputed. It’s an interesting historical drama but I don’t see much use in this story for evangelizing to the Orthodox. Maybe the point here is Protestant-Calvinist confirmation bias but other than that, not really sure would change any traditional perspective an orthodox Christian would hold to at least in the context of undermining the validity of historical tradition in the EO church or in an ecclesiastically authoritative context within the Orthodox Church. If the goal really is evangelizing to the Orthodox or those considering Orthodoxy, it would be just as effective to make a video about Luther, Zwingli or Calvin. I don’t think this is as scandalous as most people are purporting it to be, at least in the general historical context as this is fairly inconsequential. If anything the fact that the EO church did not accept these Protestant tenants and endured this type of internal conflict is a strong testament of its authority and commitment to the maintaining of the original doctrines of the original church.

[@DPK5201]

History speaks for itself. The one takeaway might be the Catholics had reformers in their midst AND the Orthodox did too. I suspect most Orthodox may people today know Luther and Calvin but not Lucius

[@willisiswillis]

@ to clarify my point, I’m sure the orthodox did but even so, it’s a moot point-if an Orthodox Christian is possessed of a personal conviction of traditional and canonical Orthodox theological disinctives, an argument like this is not helpful. This video just feels like “hey, a patriarch hundreds of years ago, surrounded by controversy held some Calvinist views that never took root or changed/reformed the orthodox position so you should consider Protestantism”. Rather than appeal to exegesis of scripture, the church fathers, the earliest church councils, it’s a strange appeal to heritage that just doesn’t live up to its intended impact.

[@Devlin48]

Thank you, Gavin! Wonderful information! The more I learn of church history, the more I see just how varied and complicated it is.

[@Psychoveliatonet]

Lovely video! Great learning more about these figures of the church's history.

[@jtbasener1810]

I appreciate whenever I am just lazily scrolling down and, like an explosion of some hidden land mine, Gavin Ortlund's latest video just blows up out of nowhere. I look foward to this one for sure, hahaha.

[@loganwillett2835]

Man Gavin, you have this nack of always posting videos on topics I’m having some or even much anxiety about and often lots of questions, and I always feel better after having watched them. God bless my friend.

[@Adam_Wilde]

No one should complain that this is being discussed, or how Dr. Gavin Ortlund sincerely interacts with this topic. This is part of history and needs to be brought up in dialogue and explored. If there is something right or wrong, we need to have that conversation. The topic addresses views of free will/predestination, Church authority, Church councils, infallibility, sacraments, and what salvation is. I hope we all repent and turn to Christ as we learn any information.

[@bradspitt3896]

Yes, it means nothing is new under the sun, and the Orthodox Church already dealt with these heresies.

[@good_grief3]

We've had many Patriarchs and Bishops that were incorrect in their theology or even heretics. The Faith and the Church holds fast in the face of these individuals, and the gates of hell does not prevail against the Church.

[@ElvisI97]

How many of them were the Ecumenical Patriarchs and canonized saints?

[@good_grief3]

@@ElvisI97 More than you might think! We don't believe men are infallible, not even our Patriarchs or Saints.

[@finrodfelagund8668]

@@ElvisI97 Many Ecumenical Patriarchs were heretics (Nestorius and Sergius come to my mind). Cyril Lukaris was canonized by the local Church of Alexandria. To be accepted as a saint, you need to be recognized by the whole Church, because local Churches can err. Cyril Lukaris is not the exception (Peter the Iberian comes to my mind, who was also wrongly seen as a saint in the local Church of Georgia for some time).

[@ElvisI97]

@@finrodfelagund8668 In 2022, the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople officially added Cyril Lucaris to the list of saints recognized by the Eastern Orthodox Church. This decision was highlighted during a service at the Patriarchate of Alexandria, where the current Patriarch referred to the recent decision of the Ecumenical Patriarchate to honor Saint Cyril Lucaris.

[@TPizzle96]

@@ElvisI97 Cyril Lucaris was canonized as his Confessio (the Calvinist work) is thought of to be a forgery by the Orthodox. His homilies contradict Reformed teachings at large.

[@catfinity8799]

Cyril doesn't necessarily teach only 2 sacraments; he teaches only 2 Evangelical sacraments. He may still refer to Holy Orders, Confirmation, Matrimony, Penance (or just Confession/Absolution), and/or Extreme Unction (some kind of annointing of the sick) as sacraments, just not as Evangelical sacraments necessary for salvation. Many Anglicans make this distinction.

[@tonisenihavea7600]

I think the term often used to differentiate the Eucharist and Baptism from the rest of the sacraments is "dominical sacrament," meaning a sacrament that was personally established by the Lord Jesus Christ while he was on earth.

[@catfinity8799]

@tonisenihavea7600 Either term is used. 39 Articles “There are two Sacraments ordained of Christ our Lord in the Gospel. . . . Those five commonly called Sacraments . . . are not to be counted for Sacraments of the Gospel . . . for that they have not any visible sign or ceremony ordained of God.”

[@j.g.4942]

Very similar to the Lutherans, the first called Evangelical

[@catfinity8799]

@@tonisenihavea7600 Either term is used. The 39 Articles primarily distinguish them as sacraments of the Gospel. “There are two Sacraments ordained of Christ our Lord in the Gospel, that is to say, Baptism and the Supper of the Lord. Those five commonly called Sacraments, that is to say, Confirmation, Penance, Orders, Matrimony, and Extreme Unction, are not to be counted for Sacraments of the Gospel, being such as have grown partly of the corrupt following of the Apostles, partly are states of life allowed in the Scriptures; but yet have not the like nature of Sacraments with Baptism and the Lord's Supper, for that they have not any visible sign or ceremony ordained of God.”

[@catfinity8799]

@@tonisenihavea7600 Distinguishing them as Evangelical sacraments makes more sense, because Jesus explicitly gave Absolution to the Apostles. Some count Absolution as its own sacrament or as part of Confession, which is either its own sacrament or part of the sacrament of Penance. So if you count Absolution as its own sacrament, then it would be a sacrament given by the Lord; it just doesn't have a specific visible sign or ceremony ordered by God like Baptism and the Eucharist do.

[@lemmingkingyt5618]

Lukaris has, on other occasions, supported monasticism and venerating the cross. I do think that (if possible) covering the specificities of his disagreements contra the Reformed would be helpful for this discussion - ive never heard this perspective from Protestants on cyril lukaris, they usually focus on reading the perceived commalities. Because, although Lukaris disagrees with Reformed on some things, the way he formulates his disagreements is probably enlightening as regards his real positions. I'll be honest, I do think some of Reformed Orthodoxy's concerns are amenable to a current EO's concerns, but that the current EO would express these views with more nuance. For example the idea of scripture above the church - EOs didn't distinguish the types of the magistereum at the time. I don't think Lukaris was necessarily saying that the councils proven by the Spirit were fallible, but that *men* were fallible. Hen he is speaking of fallibility, he's giving the image of a priest or bishop in your church telling you what to do, not necessarily an image of the universal church convening a council to clarify the dogma of the church in light of a new error. About icons and saints: I think any self-reflecting EO could lament the idolatrous extremities within his own tradition without condemning that tradition itself. The question is more about whether we ought to affirm the dogmas underpinning the veneration of icons or saints as apostolic - not whether they are completely 'safe' ideas which do not make way for the possibility of their extremities promoting error - but whether they are true. If but one person could conscionably benefit from, say, devotion to Mary, the Orthodox and Catholic churches will never ban it. Whereas, if just one person is harmed by a devotion to Mary, signing the cross or praying the hours, protestants will tend towards banning it. These are different kinds of scrupulosities.

[@ChristianCombatives]

Ah, you can't fool me. I see that thumbnail is just Spurgeon in a hat, nice try Gavin.

[@TruthUnites]

dang it, next time I will use someone less distinctive looking ... maybe Bavinck

[@kale6264]

The notification for this video has brightened was has been a very tough day for me, thank you

[@Jankowic]

Had to click when I saw the title, what an interesting piece of history I never knew about

[@morghe321]

Gavin has talked about this before. You must have missed it.

[@Jankowic]

@@morghe321 yeah, probably, I know about most of the people who had protestant-like views he explained but I don't remember Cyril Lucaris

[@apostolicangl]

Amazing video Gavin! I wonder if Cyril ever considering consulting England for theological insights. Early Anglicans would have had a lot in common with him.

[@TruthUnites]

Thanks! Yes, he had much contact with the Church of England

[@Chris-j1y4x]

Try reading Decree 17, Council of Jerusalem (1672). The Orthodox Church investigation exonerated Cyril Lucaris (1572-1628) of writing the Protestant fabrications, and therefore of heresy. If Cyril had betrayed the Eucharist then there is zero chance he would have canonized St Cyril in 2009.

[@InspironGantry]

@Chris-j1y4x The channel addresses this in the pinned text. His letters are still extant and teach the same things.

[@simon330]

Every video release this year so far has been incredible

[@tategarrett3042]

Thank you so much for this excellent video! It's great to see more people discussing this often forgotten defender of the faith.

[@joeoleary9010]

The idea of that Cyril’s writings were fabricated to make them appear Calvinist likely comes from a polemical interpretation of history. Some critics, especially from within Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox traditions, have argued that Protestant theologians may have misrepresented Cyril’s views in ways that conformed to later Protestant theological positions. This could involve misinterpreting or selectively quoting Cyril's works to bolster Protestant positions. The accusation of "fabrication" would arise in the context of these more contentious debates over theological correctness. However, there is no clear evidence that Protestant scholars intentionally *forged* or fabricated Cyril's writings to align with Calvinism. Rather, it’s more a case of theological re-reading and reinterpretation, where certain ideas in Cyril’s works were viewed through the lens of later Reformation thought.

[@mythco.3461]

Pray for reform is just about all we can do these days sadly. And reform all around, modern Protestant, Romish and Eastern. The church just needs to settle down and talk and actually discuss these things and find unity in Christ; visibly as well as invisibly.

[@jonathanspeicher5298]

The earthly investments the bishops and overseers have made will need to be destroyed before this happens... 😔

[@iustuspeccator]

A timely exhortation, especially considering the 2,000th anniversary of the founding of Christ's Church rolls around about 5-8 years from now, according to historical consensus. "That they all may be one," He prayed. Indifference to the scandal of disunity of the Body of Christ is doubly pernicious, a desperate but cunning strategy of the Evil One.

[@OldThingsPassAway]

Excellent! This is fantastic, Gavin!

[@ChristianSultze]

4 minutes in... and I'm convinced Cyril was a very cool dude.😂

[@ChristianSalzillo]

Fascinating, Gavin! This is the kind of content I'm here for!

[@chasingtheLord96]

Starting Nick needhams fourth volume of church history, “2000 years of Christs power” and saw this in chapter 8 the final chapter.. excited to get a preview before reading about it!

[@hookoffthejab1]

Just got that book for Christmas and that makes me even more excited to get to it. How do you like it so far?

[@chasingtheLord96]

@ dude I have been recommending it to all my friends. I can’t put them down!! I read the first 2 volumes in about 4 weeks. It’s gripping, educational, warm, devotional, etc. I love the primary resource writings at the end of every chapter! You’ll enjoy them.

[@SirMemesAlot71]

This whole subject is ridiculous because you’re trying to mind read St. Cyril Lucaris despite when he was taken to ecclesiastical court he denied the works were his. Also, he never attempted to change anything. He served the Liturgy and made no attempt to reform the liturgy. He didn’t white wash any of the cathedrals. His homilies were standard and no where does he openly criticize Orthodox theology. So your entire basis for trying to attack Orthodoxy is to say that 1 Bishop intellectually assented to Calvinism but then proceeded to do nothing with respect to implementation. And that is supposed to make me want to convert to Calvinism because…?

[@hexahexametermeter]

Here you come with zero source material.

[@SirMemesAlot71]

@ because I’m criticizing the methodology. Also there’s no Greek Calvinist church that traces its founding to St. Cyril Lucaris. Also he was exonerated by when he was put on ecclesiastical trial, because he denied the confession. Also he was a staunch opponent of the Unia with Rome, so it makes sense for Latins to try to make a forgery. But my primary issue is that trying to mind read a historical figure while actively ignoring what they actually did is ridiculous. I can quote mine Napoleon to be a pacifist if I really want to, but obviously his actions would contradict that.

[@joeoleary9010]

@@SirMemesAlot71 Although Cyril faced opposition from various factions, including some bishops who supported Nestorius, there is no historical record of him being formally tried in an ecclesiastical court and denying a confession. His theological positions and actions were challenged by some of his contemporaries, but the Council of Ephesus ultimately reaffirmed his orthodoxy, and Cyril was not condemned in any formal ecclesiastical court. On the contrary, he was recognized as a defender of the faith.

[@StefanoNikolaou-m2d]

I've done a lot of research myself and I support everything you say. Even those sources that see Cyril Lucaris as a full blown Calvinist don't deny he never took down a single icon or tried to change the liturgy. Can you imagine Cyril Lucaris kissing and venerating icons every time he stepped in a church but thinking it was idolatry? Most claim he was Protestant by 1629 but some say 1623. So he has 10 or 15 years to start a reform but in that 10 or 15 years he did nothing. Doesn't sound convincing in the slightest.

[@hexahexametermeter]

@@StefanoNikolaou-m2d Cool, he was a Calvinist Anglican.

[@pw7712]

Great subject and good job explaining it! : - )

[@MaxMan592]

Michael Angold, The Cambridge History of Eastern Christianity, p. 199- “Although in the absence of conclusive evidence the question of authorship has remained open to this day, the confession itself has been unanimously condemned by the Orthodox. A long polemic against the confession lingered on in the Catholic tradition, and Roman Catholic theologians accused the Orthodox of being receptive to Protestantism because of their failure to condemn Loukaris himself.”

[@hexahexametermeter]

Protestantism--at least with a covenantal view of baptism and acknowledgement of the Lords Supper as more than a mere symbol--is well within the scope of early church Catholicity.

[@andrewbolton2298]

He studied in Geneva, presumably that's where he picked up these ideas.

[@StefanoNikolaou-m2d]

Cyril Loukaris never went to Geneva. The Confession was printed there. I have always wondered what he thought of the Calvinst schism over Jacob Arminius as well as the sectarian violence of the 30 Years War? Protestants neglect the fact that Calvinism in the early 17th century wasn't particularly edifying.

[@legodavid9260]

Hey Gavin, could you at any point do a video covering the Strigolniki movement? It was a movement in 14th century Russia that seperated itself from the Russian Orthodox Church, which it viewed as corrupt and comprised, and rejected all the various Orthodox rituals and the role of the clergy in favor of a more personal experience with God. I would love to see it coverted because it shows that Protestant-like tendencies have always been present, not just in the Catholic Church but even in Medieval Orthdoxy.

[@HDwedge012]

There’s always been a ‘Protestant’ undercurrent. It just manifests itself when corruption gets out of control.

[@TennisFreakHD]

Amazing video!

[@donaldmonzon1774]

Excellent 👍

[@misterclbg]

Cyril understood the distinctions between outward sacrament and inward reality. These distinctions are more comprehensible than attributing one to another, leading to imbalance doctrine of transubstantiation

[@PhronemaofourFathers]

Gavin: "What if I told you, I found someone condemned as a hereitc by the East, who agrees with protestantism?"

[@andyramirez6016]

Shhh

[@andygarcia2113]

😂😂😂 I know like shocker

[@KnightFel]

Heretics love to condemn truth by calling it heresy.

[@mrbungle2627]

@@KnightFel That's why I'm a gnostic, Arian, Donatist, Marcionite... and Calvinist ;)

[@comradecosmonaut563]

"... and then they canonized him anyway. Remember, no mistakes. "

[@landowar2162]

It would be wrong to call him orthodox tbh, since his views basically reflects what the Orthodox Church considers heresy. Just because he held these views for a while before being anathematized doesn’t qualify to call him an ”Orthodox Calvinist”.

[@Mighty_Jared]

Welp, considering he was an Orthodox Patriarch, it would be difficult to label him as anything else.

[@TruthUnites]

the point about historical contingency I was making is that AT THAT TIME, Calvinism and Orthodoxy were not seen as antithetical as they are today

[@thinkerj]

Sounds like the "no true Scotsman" fallacy to me.

[@Кивис-ч3й]

​@@thinkerj He was literally anathematized and there was a council called to address his theology.

[@Кивис-ч3й]

​@@TruthUnites They were seen as antithetical. Because they are.

[@Tiredhike]

Came for the video, stayed for the comments 🍿

[@dallasbrat81]

The more I study and watch Gavin and others . I see God plan and other followers in every Church

[@protestanttoorthodox3625]

Dr. Ortland have you seen the new documentary on Icons? It’s called “The Hidden History of early Christian art”. It’s on the Harmony KZbin channel.

[@donpattonjr]

Cyril Lucaris or Kyrillos Loukaris (Greek: Κύριλλος Λούκαρις; 13 November 1572 - 27 June 1638) was a Greek prelate and theologian, and a native of Candia, Crete (then under the Republic of Venice). He later became the Greek Patriarch of Alexandria as Cyril III and Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople as Cyril I. He has been said to have attempted a reform of the Eastern Orthodox Church along Calvinist Protestant lines.[1][2] Attempts to bring Calvinism into the Orthodox Church were rejected, and Cyril's actions, motivations, and specific viewpoints remain a matter of debate among scholars. "Attempts to bring Calvinism into the Orthodox Church were rejected"...

[@wills9392]

Is the church infallible?

[@donpattonjr]

@wills9392 No, the Orthodox Church does not believe that any individual leader of the Church is infallible. However, the Orthodox Church does believe that the Church is guided by the Holy Spirit and makes correct decisions..

[@PseudoWeasel]

Hi Gavin, thank you for this video! I found another very interesting Orthodox figure: Avvakum Petrov. Wikipedia: "Starting in 1652 Nikon, as the patriarch of the Russian Church, initiated a wide range of reforms in Russian liturgy and theology. These reforms were intended mostly to bring the Russian Church into line with the other Eastern Orthodox Churches of Eastern Europe and the Middle East. Avvakum and others strongly rejected these changes. They saw them as a corruption of the Russian Church, which they considered to be the true Church of God. The other churches were more closely related to Constantinople in their liturgies. Avvakum argued that Constantinople fell to the Turks because of these heretical beliefs and practices." Eventually he was executed for his protests and is venerated by 'Old Beleiver Russian Orthodox'.

[@pamarks]

Interesting overview of an interesting topic. Not sure how this factors into the polemical debate which many of your subscribers are having. It has no direct implications from what i can see. If we were all honest about the history of christianity we'd recognize its messy and the strongest institutional claims are overstated. And to that I say, "so what?"

[@juliomereb6316]

He was upbraided by his heretical views quite fast. And the resulting document produced in a local council, The Confession of Dositheus, became the official Orthodox response to the diabolical heresy of Calvinism.

[@joeoleary9010]

Quite fast? Lucari's views weren't officially repudiated by the EO church until after he died.

[@zewisdom4822]

Protestants: We lost true Scholars of church history that delves as much as our Reformation fathers and their successors. Then Gavin drops a video Protestants again: Oh dear! We have that one true Scholar!

[@pete3397]

Cyril's views on the authority of Scripture appear to be quite close to the same views held by Augustine.

[@aceswizzo8665]

Many orthodox people claim those writings are forgery ..I just want to know the truth

[@TruthUnites]

watch the video, I give 3 arguments for its authenticity, which is a consensus outside of Orthodoxy

[@Gregorydrobny]

@@TruthUnites I hate to break this to you, but there is no such thing as "non-biased scholars," especially in this realm, and the colloquial fallback on "consensus" doesn't really help in this regard (as is often the case). Being 1) a scholar, and 2) outside of the Orthodox Church is not a combination by which a magical potion of objectivity is bestowed.

[@WanderingThief]

@@TruthUnitesConsensus doesn’t prove something to be true.

[@Dee-nonamnamrson8718]

​@WanderingThief Not on its own. But when there is a consensus amongst everyone except those who's beliefs require it to be false, it is telling.

[@ikemeitz5287]

@@Gregorydrobny He cited several people who are within the orthodox church as well.

[@kentemple7026]

As usual, excellent video! another video on Cyril Lucaris is done by "ancient paths TV" on you tube, run by Pastor Jason Wallace (Orthodox Presbyterian Church) - it is excellent and goes into the history more of Cyril and the evidences of his own signature on his letters and writings and how the Jesuits and Muslim Turks conspired together to kill him.

[@wesb211]

Excellent

[@MichaelVFlowers]

Luther of the East? Shouldn't he be called The Calvin of the East?

[@MrCastleJohnny]

Maybe your next video should be about Arius, praising him how great man he was?

[@andreasgiannakopoulos2738]

Ok. This is the part that protestants don't understand. There were protestantic influences since the time of ottoman occupation. However those influences were corrected by the next generations of theologians. When the Byzantine Empire collapsed western philosophy,theology and sciences became prominent. Anything that was happening in the west was becoming known through educated Greeks who lived outside Ottoman empire. There were scholars like Korais who were also influenced by protestants. So the Orthodox were influenced at a specific time but when they started elaborating in tradition and patristic theology all protestantic influences were removed. However it is unlikely that Cyril was influenced so much by protestantism since he always battled against western influences

[@flavadave3943]

I’m sorry, but after reading that confession, I just don’t care much about the rest. If he believed so much in scripture, then the belief in an elect was irrational and in fact, contradictory.

[@jarrahe]

I find it cute how our protestant brethren are trying so hard to find anyone they can from history to latch on to, in order to cobble together a claim to historicity.

[@DPK5201]

Were being introduced to more and more all the time .

[@jarrahe]

@DPK5201 it is like trying to cross a canyon... but instead of taking the bridge that has already been there for ages, you are building a new one with handfuls of wooden boards. There is not even nearly enough to cross the gap yet, nor a foundation or support beams to hold it up.

[@DPK5201]

@@jarrahe were getting there. Watch out!

[@tomblixtbredelius9027]

Except the old bridge has a hundred twists and turns and some of its paths lead directly to the bottom of the canyon

[@dallasbrat81]

We need a movie made about him

[@earlygenesistherevealedcos1982]

Luther of the east? Luther was not a Calvinist.

[@DPK5201]

Duh!

[@channelsofinterest272]

Love this..God bless

[@rej4166]

How cool would it be to have EO liturgy and piety with reformed theology?

[@andrewp3495]

The liturgy wouldn't last with reformed theology. "Just heterodox me and my (Orthodox) bible". The liturgy isn't aesthetic, it is revelatory and mystical. Reformed theology is systematic, reductionist, and intellectual, not mystical.

[@CanditoTrainingHQ]

well the moment the iconoclast is built, reformed theology conflicts. And the moment the iconoclast is rolled out of the church, the liturgy doesnt exactly have direction.

[@andrewp3495]

Right, it's like maximalist vs minimalist

[@puritanpioneer1646]

Thank you for this. Video Recommendation: It would be awesome if you did a video on polygamy, I think a in depth video on that would be really helpful, on weather its inherently wrong, why it isn't outright forbidden in the bible etc etc, thanks!

[@toddvoss52]

I wondered when you were going to get around to discussing this guy and the related events .

[@sierragrey7910]

Thank you. Cyril is indeed worthy of a dissertation.

[@jamiecharles8334]

“Simplistic narratives about church history” Spot on Gavin. History is messy. Nothing is simple. And that makes it all the more rewarding to dig through. Thanks for your videos.

[@CatholicWithaBiblePodcast]

I’ve always wanted to hear about how Orthodoxy handled the 1600s political climate of Christianity. That’s wild to see in the east.

[@croinkix]

My reaction to his name was also "ah yes"

[@mburumorris3166]

What was the state of orthodox theology under Ottoman rule ? When the turks had closed down theological schools in the East , many orthodox then gained their theology from the west and therefore expressed western ideas as though they were orthodox. Refusing to acknowledge the political context in which Cyril lived and gained his theology, does zero justice to the historical accuracy of church history in this video. It is sad that Cyril in his attempt to refute the Roman Catholics , used Protestant theological formulations instead of relying on the patristics but orthodox theological education had been steadily destroyed by the turkish rule.

[@zalmoxis3707]

So what? Nestorius was the archbishop of Constantinople, too. Bishops can be in error, we see that in the NT. That’s why we Eastern Orthodox use the synodal, patristic-consensus view. We don’t rely on any one particular bishop or father. This just shows the Orthodox Church battled with (and eventually prevailed against) the Protestant error, the same way it prevailed against the Arian error, Sabellian error, Roman Catholic error, etc.

[@BarkotSentayehu]

But this bishop is a saint of the orthodox church

[@loganholly8401]

He's a saint in your Church though. The point being, you can hold those views and still be canonized. It's not to say he has to be right over your whole Church, you're missing the point of Gavin using him.

[@jonathanspeicher5298]

If you all rely on the synodial system, why was the first thing y'all did after the Czar's death to elect a Patriarch after 2 centuries of synodial rule? 🤔

[@Ant794]

“Prevailed against the Protestant error”, as it took hold in nearly the entire western hemisphere

[@Кивис-ч3й]

​​@@Ant794 Because we didn't have power over the the Western Hemisphere?!? Lmao, what even is this argument? Hinduism and Buddhism completely dominates in the far east, does that mean Protestantism is wrong?

[@octaviosalcedo9239]

Fantastic

[@tonycostatorontoapologetic5307]

Great video Gavin.

[@justthink8952]

Gavin: Cyril taught that he has no teaching authority and that all believers can interpret the scripture for themselves. Thus us perfectly in line with what protestants have always been shouting

[@annakimborahpa]

1. By accepting John Calvin as his personal theologian in his 1629 Confession and then later becoming seated as the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople in 1636, Cyril Lucaris appears to be a one-off in the history of the Eastern Orthodox Church. 2. Dr. Ortlund speaking at 24:31-25:09: "In fact, we can say indirectly Cyril is somewhat responsible for shaping modern Eastern Orthodoxy away from Protestantism because the Synod of Jerusalem [1672], which really defined Eastern Orthodoxy in the modern era and was very anti-Protestant, was in response to Cyril. Phillip Schaff says that the Synod of Jerusalem did for Eastern Orthodoxy what the Council of Trent did for Roman Catholicism. In both cases, they're kind of codifying and systematizing and coalescing against the Protestant Reformation. So it's really cementing the divide." Response: Needless to say, there are many points of doctrinal convergence between the Orthodox Synod of Jerusalem and the Catholic Council of Trent. These two councils would stimulate ecumenical repercussions in the following centuries, culminating in the Joint Catholic-Orthodox Declaration of His Holiness Pope Paul VI and the Ecumenical Patriarch Athenagoras I, December 6, 1965 that concludes with the following: "They hope that the whole Christian world, especially the entire Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church will appreciate this gesture as an expression of a sincere desire shared in common for reconciliation, and as an invitation to follow out in a spirit of trust, esteem and mutual charity the dialogue which, with Gods help, will lead to living together again, for the greater good of souls and the coming of the kingdom of God, in that full communion of faith, fraternal accord and sacramental life which existed among them during the first thousand years of the life of the Church." [vatican va /content/paul-vi/en/speeches/1965/documents/hf_p-vi_spe_19651207_common-declaration.html] 3. Gospel of John 17:20-21 (KJV): Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word; That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me. 4. And if the King James Bible was good enough for St. John ... and thank God for Cyril Lucaris. He was a martyr after all.

[@christophergrant6989]

What was the point of this video? It's not like the Church received his Calvinist teaching. Even if there were 100 like him, what would it prove. Probably the best take-away for Protestants is that he never left the Church. The Church was not 'refomed' by him, either. So, again, what is the fascination with him?

[@permafrost7781]

If you found this guy, you went pretty deep lol. Good stuff.

[@permafrost7781]

Hey Gavin, is that the staff of hermes the patriarch holds? Asking for a friend. And what does that staff do or mean exactly?

[@Gronky-sv5yp]

Wow, i've Heard stories about him being murdered and his controversies, but never about him canonized as a saints.

[@misterclbg]

the tradition of the church is definitively inseparable to the identity of the church as the subject of redemption. as the redeemed entity, church is always an authoritative creature, always subordinate to the Divine.

[@Motomack1042]

Don't forget to mention in 1672 at the Synod of Jerusalem all Calvinist doctrines were condemned.

[@alypiusloft]

I'll be watching when I can, but leaving a note that the document attributed to St Cyril is a footnote in his campaign against the Papism. He was not, in other words, trying to Reform the Orthodox Church.

[@DagimFeleke-c9h]

I am Ethiopian christian please can you use( subtitle ) your english is so difficult. 😊

[@gabrielgabriel5177]

You can turn the automatic subtitles on. They should help

[@anthonyd4678]

Based

[@SolaScriptura21]

Super cool

[@livingbranches777]

I don't know any other Orthodox Christians that believe in transubstantiation. We believe that the Eucharist is the real presence, and also that it is red and wine. This is the incarnational view just like Jesus Christ has two natures he is fully God and fully human the Eucharist is fully Jesus and fully bread and wine

[@Thatoneguy-pu8ty]

Exactly like Lutheranism

[@livingbranches777]

@@Thatoneguy-pu8ty the Greek term is metaousiosis- or change of essence, inner reality. The problem with transubstantiation is in defining a mystery it comes too close to Nestorianism.

[@Thatoneguy-pu8ty]

@@livingbranches777 interesting. We Lutherans just say that the the body and blood is with, in, and under the bread and wine. “…in the Lord’s Supper the body and blood of Christ are truly and substantially present, and are truly tendered with those things which are seen, bread and wine.” Art. 10 of the Apology of the Augsburg Confession. Other than than it’s just a mystery.

[@Mr.MattSim]

This is fascinating! I will point out that I think one cannot so quickly assume that Cyril's word choices align so quickly and easily with our theory-laden expectations shaped by the Enlightenment, rationalism, scholasticism, and substance dualism; all of which would have be foreign or imported to the East. He clearly rejects his understanding of transubstantiation, but on the basis of not adding to Christ's institution. So when Cyril says "spiritually and inwardly partake" it is doubtful that he intends to put forward his own philosophical framework in place of the scholastic one, let alone Calvin's. His attitude on that point seems more similar to Luther even if his words - on the surface - appear more similar to Calvin.

[@KingoftheJuice18]

If you say that man may deceive and be deceived, then it follows that the product of the Holy Spirit-for all intents and purposes-cannot be regarded as infallible, because its Words must be interpreted and applied by fallible man.

[@adamgoldwasser]

Good thing Orthodoxy isn't based on one guy

[@joeoleary9010]

It seems rather to be based on the same platform as Catholicism: No matter what inconsistencies, it's pure, unchanged, and infallible.

[@DPK5201]

Im just a simple layman. There is a lot of nerdy theological chest bumping going on in these comments..

[@brendangolledge8312]

This seems logically necessary to me: If (God controls everything absolutely) + (God wants everyone to be saved) --> (Everyone is saved) I used the parenthesis above to designate specific concepts. If this were a math proof, then it could be written A + B --> C But pretty much all Christian denominations agree that everyone is not saved. So, if everyone is not saved, one of the first to premises must be false. Calvinism says that God controls everything absolutely and absolutely nothing comes down to human will. So, if everyone is not saved, then that means God doesn't want people to be saved. This means plainly that God created some people to be damned to hell from the beginning of the universe with no way out. It seems clear to me that the more reasonable teaching is that God doesn't absolutely control everything, because he allows humans to exercise their free will. It even says in the Bible that sin started because of the choices of Adam and Eve. It seems like a bizarre thing to me to say then that human free will doesn't matter, given that humans make choices in the Bible. This isn't to say that God couldn't force everything to be the way he wanted, but that he chooses not to, because he values our choices. I thought once about the worst thing I could possibly imagine. The first thing I thought of is that a meteor hits the Earth and kills everyone and everything. Then I thought, if the laws of physics broke somehow and existence simply stopped existing, that would be even worse. But what would be even worse than that would be an actively malicious God who created beings to be given excruciating torture forever with no way out. I couldn't think of anything worse than that. But the Calvinist God is very close to this worst-case-possible scenario. He just arbitrarily chooses not to torture some people, while most of the people are still getting tortured. The Calvinist God is literally almost as bad as the very worst thing I can even IMAGINE. So, I can't believe in the Calvinist God. The traditional churches also don't make sense. All the churches before Protestantism said that they were the one true church, and anyone not in their church was damned. But the splits between their churches are about things like Christology and the Filioque, which I sometimes don't even understand and certainly can't verify. That means that according to their church doctrines, my eternal salvation is dependent on making an arbitrary choice on doctrine which I don't even understand. Protestants do better in this regard, but many of them (the Calvinists) believe in a God that is almost perfectly malevolent. These types of thoughts make me doubt very much that God is guiding the church. It says right in the New Testament that God is not the author of confusion. How then do you explain the extraordinary confusion in the church? If the church is necessary for salvation, and God wants people to be saved, wouldn't God disallow false or confusing teachings in his church?