Before You Become Eastern Orthodox...

[@TruthUnites]

Thanks everyone for watching and to those who commented. Just to address a few concerns: 1) Lots of comments are saying, "this is an emotional appeal," even though I anticipated that response and explicitly addressed it at 7:07. The concern is not emotionalism, but obedience to Jesus. Granted, we disagree on what it means to obey Jesus in discerning the church, but that should be the point of discussion, not emotion. See my discussion there and throughout. 2) Some are saying, "why are you only quoting one bishop to represent all of Orthodoxy, rather than encouraging people to talk to their priest?" Again, I addressed this at 3:41. Theophan is a saint and a contemporary father of the church so his views can't be dismissed as his own private view. They have more authority than an individual priest. Further, the whole goal of this video was to do a deep dive on one figure; I have given more of a serial survey in my prior video mentioned here at 2:15, where I walk through an array of saints and councils. 3) Others are appealing to another quote attributed to Theophan the Recluse. I am uncertain about the authenticity of this quote; we often find it cited on the internet but it seems to come to us indirectly (most commonly cited from Seraphim Rose) and I cannot locate the original source. The quote is also ambiguous: it cautions against worrying about the salvation of the non-Orthodox, perhaps hinting at its possibility (though still reflecting the same exclusivity about the “truth” and “heresy”). Hence my effort here at a careful exegesis of this longer letter Theophan, where his view of the non-Orthodox is given a fuller array of categories (heretics, false prophets, preaching another Christ, etc.), which I hope provides a fuller and more rounded portrait of his view. At any rate, however you interpret this particular quote, the basic concern of institutional exclusivity is not changed. For a fuller portrait of the entire late medieval and early modern Orthodox view, see my video "Does Eastern Orthodoxy Have the "Fullness of the Faith?" 4) Others are saying, “if you think the EO can be saved, why do you even care if Protestants become EO?” The answer to that is the truth matters. Just because salvation may be possible in a given context does not mean that its errors do not have serious consequences. I will keep trying to read comments as I have time; thank you all for engaging the video.

[@Aleksandr-Herman]

@@TruthUnites "the truth matters". So you attacked EO because the truth matters for them, but you excuse your attack because the truth matters to you.... Isn't it a little bit counterintuitive?

[@RouterOSRS]

Hi Gavin, Just wanted to say I appreciate your channel. You and Redeemed Zoomer were my first introduction to Orthodoxy which I am now actively converting to. I came from a Baptist background and watched pretty much all of your videos pertaining to Orthodoxy (and a handful of other KZbinrs cautioning against Orthodoxy).I really wanted to hear as much opposition to what I was doing before I made the choice. I especially enjoyed your conversation with Fr Demetrios Bathrellos. Even though I am converting, I do still enjoy listening to your videos. God bless you!

[@jamesbishop3091]

@@TruthUnites Hi Gavin, I’m confused about your 3rd paragraph. Since the additional quote being cited is “ambiguous” (in your opinion), you pretty much dismiss it? Seems convenient considering it demonstrates a stance contrary to the case that you built during the video.

[@KoiDotJpeg]

@@jamesbishop3091 bingo.

[@coreygossman6243]

Gavin, it seems you have applied a Roman Catholic view of saints and church fathers, which is that they cannot err on matters of doctrine. This is not the view of the EO church. Saint and Church Fathers err. Sainthood does not grant perfect knowledge. EO ecclesiology would be a good topic of study for you.

[@RouterOSRS]

“You ask, will the heterodox be saved… Why do you worry about them? They have a Saviour Who desires the salvation of every human being. He will take care of them. You and I should not be burdened with such a concern. Study yourself and your own sins… I will tell you one thing, however: should you, being Orthodox and possessing the Truth in its fullness, betray Orthodoxy, and enter a different faith, you will lose your soul forever.” ~ St. Theophan the Recluse

[@nmichaelmurphy]

This shines a light on the attempt made in this video.

[@KoiDotJpeg]

I thought this was Fr. Seraphim Rose Edit: Fun fact, it's not. Even more fitting that it is from the man whose letter Gavin is reading

[@TimothyAndrewHolman]

Barring the differences between Catholicism and Orthodoxy, as a Catholic, St Theophan sounds pretty based

[@ryanhwang4143]

So I should never consider converting to a Orthodox as a Protestant if I'm not absolutely certain I will forever stay an Orthodox. In light of this quote, God might save me as a Protestant but will definitely damn me if I leave Orthodoxy. Good to know.

[@EricTheYounger]

@@ryanhwang4143God is not mocked. Having heard the voice of truth but continuing in disobedience will make one’s own punishment more severe.

[@sgtshdfg]

Hello Gavin! This message is from an Orthodox priest who really likes your KZbin channel. I have found your studies, and your knowledge of the Church Fathers, to be really surprising and helpful! I even refer to them at my own parish (depending on the issue, as you'd expect!). Thank you for portraying such a peaceful posture even with those you disagree with. But I wouldn't make a comment if that's all I had to say on a video like this! In my opinion, you have a tendency, on this issue of the salvation of the non-Orthodox, to take quotes out of context and make absolute but incorrect conclusions. I'll give a few examples. The first example is from this video. From this letter of Saint Theophan, you make an absolute conclusion about the salvation of non-Orthodox. However, this letter was written in a very particular context which you said yourself in the video: that an Evangelical preacher was seemingly preaching among Russian Orthodox people, the implication being this took place in Orthodox Russia. As a pastor myself, I would immediately suspect that such a preacher would be doing this in order to win converts from the Orthodox Faith to his flock. In other words, this letter does not come as the result of two friends from two denominations, both faithful Christians in their own spheres, sitting down with each other and sharing their thoughts about each other's salvation; it is a defense of the flock, protecting the sheep from wandering astray from a potential poacher. I would expect nothing less from you if an Orthodox preacher were among your Baptist parishioners trying to convert people; I might even expect to hear you say, "Icons are an accretion, and may border on idolatry." You might find it extreme to call Orthodox idolaters, but it is not unreasonable for you to suggest it if you are encouraging your Baptist parishioner to remain Baptist. In addition, St. Theophan's advice is given to the Orthodox Christian who may be considering leaving the Church about the consequences he would face for leaving. On the issue of the status of the non-Orthodox themselves outside of the particulars mentioned in St. Theophan's letter, other commenters here have produced another quote from St. Theophan, who is open to the possibility for their salvation. I don't think we need to set St. Theophan against himself as if he were of two minds on the issue. The next example concerns your view of the Seventh Ecumenical Council and its anathemas of those who do not venerate icons. From what I can recall you saying in other videos, you believe these anathemas condemn a substantial number of well-meaning Christians, yourself included, who are outside the Orthodox Church. However, I believe you are taking the Seventh Council out of context. Anathemas are used internally, not externally. In other words, the Council anathematizes those within the Church who say such things, not those outside. As St. Paul says himself, "For what have I to do with judging those also who are outside? Do you not judge those who are inside?" (1 Cor 5:12). The last example I want to use is from your discussion of the "ark of salvation theory." As I've seen in your videos, you believe that the Orthodox Church has changed its stance on the salvation of non-Orthodox to being exclusive, reaching the height of this thinking in the medieval era and only abating in the past century. You take this as evidence that Orthodoxy's claim to never change its doctrinal stances is demonstrably false. However, this is also out of the very specific contexts in which Church Fathers wrote on these issues. Let me explain. In the period of the Early Church (up to even the Great Schism of 1054), the phrase "Catholic Church" had very obvious meaning -- it was the Church you found throughout the world, whether in India or Britain. The Early Church had no origin other than the apostles. All other churches (usually called schisms and heresies) were typically localized, and all had founders of their groups. These schisms/heresies were typically defined by open rejection of the Church, and attempting to proselytize members of the Church into joining their faction. At such a time, no wonder the Church spoke so clearly about salvation being within the Church, in a time of conflict with these non-Orthodox groups, and to keep the faithful from wandering away. Then, consider the Medieval period. Following the Great Schism, within only 150 years, the Roman Catholics were in open war against the Orthodox -- not with the pen, but the sword. They sacked Constantinople, installed a Latin Kingdom, and launched Crusades against the Kievan Rus in order to 'resubmit' them to the Bishop of Rome. The Roman Catholics were actually successful in conquering and converting many Orthodox into what is today called the Eastern Rite. I see it as no wonder, then, that the Orthodox would speak so vehemently against them, especially as concerns salvation. You have a very good video on the problems with pre-Reformation Roman Catholicism that I think helps prove this point. However, today, there are numerous differences with these two previous periods: 1) The vast majority of Christians are not in armed conflicts with one another, but live in relative peace. 2) Unlike in the period of Early Christianity, it is not factually clear who that "Catholic Church" is anymore. Even if you read piles of books, like-minded and well-meaning Christians come to very different conclusions. It is not the "slam-dunk" like it would have been in the 3rd century. 3) The schisms and heresies of the past were often defined, in especially their early years, by rejecting the Orthodox Church from which they divided. However, today's atmosphere is completely different. Most Christians of the world have been historically separated from the Orthodox Church for a thousand years, some even more. Most of them don't even know about Orthodoxy; and if they do, they probably have no idea, or motivation, to research it. This is why I agree with Metropolitan Philaret (Voznesensky), who said: "It is self evident, however, that sincere Christians who are Roman Catholics, or Lutherans, or members, of other non-Orthodox confessions, cannot be termed renegades or heretics-i.e. those who knowingly pervert the truth… They have been born and raised and are living according to the creed which they have inherited, just as do the majority of you who are Orthodox; in their lives there has not been a moment of personal and conscious renunciation of Orthodoxy. The Lord, ‘Who will have all men to be saved’ (1 Tim. 2:4) and ‘Who enlightens every man born into the world’ (Jn. 1.43), undoubtedly is leading them also towards salvation in His own way." When you consider, then, how much of the context surrounding this conversation has changed, I find it no wonder that modern Orthodox saints and authors are more open to the salvation of non-Orthodox. Much like St. Paul's own epistles, we must understand them not just based on their bare content, but to whom they are written and for what purpose. I believe it is incorrect to make absolute statements, therefore, using our Tradition as if it can be divorced from historical context. But I do want to add, and really mean: You do excellent work. I am sorry for all the toxic Orthodox responses you get online. I hope the 'tone' of my text appeared as peaceful as you are always in your videos. God bless you and thank you!

[@TruthUnites]

thank you for your charitable and thoughtful response! I am always so glad when we can argue well -- and I know that online reactions don't represent any tradition at its best.

[@ProphetGreg94]

I have a question for you: What is the EO church’s stance on eschatology? I’m not sure of all the details; however, I know you guy’s teach Jesus is coming back. But how do you justify the EO stance on being the one true church and being infallible in its teaching, when it is clear Jesus already returned in 70ad?

[@sgtshdfg]

​@@ProphetGreg94Are you a full preterist? We believe the destruction of the Temple in 70 AD was typologically related to the End, but not the Second Coming of Christ.

[@ProphetGreg94]

@@sgtshdfg I appreciate your answer. Where do you get the idea that it merely typological? 70ad was the reality, not a shadow. What scriptural justification is there to assert that it was merely typological? Jesus posited that his coming would be before the "passing of that generation" (Matthew 24: 30, 34). And we know that the destruction of the man of "lawlessness" occurs at the "brightness of the Lord's coming" (2 Thessalonians 2:3-4, 8). But that happens before the fall of the temple, since this takes place while the man of lawlessness "takes" his "seat in the temple" [Herodian temple destroyed in 70ad]. But then that means that the second coming's timing is constrained to that first century, since it doesn't take place AFTER the destruction of the temple, but before it. In addition, along those same lines, the second coming that Paul mentions in 2nd Thessalonians is not a different coming from the one mentioned in 1 Thessalonians 4, which is undeniably a recapitulation of Matthew 24, and it is in fact the resurrection. It is that same resurrection of Daniel 12, that Daniel informs us takes place immediately after the time of great "distress" (v.1), which is the great tribulation Jesus mentioned (Matthew 24:21). But that was in the first century too (revelation 1:9).

[@ProphetGreg94]

@@sgtshdfg So how can the EO church continue to assert a yet future coming, when it is clearly in contradiction with scripture? And with such assertions it is done so baselessly. Since the only second coming that can be referenced is the "coming" Jesus already fulfilled in the first century.

[@brickbrick8292]

Gavin, from the bottom of my heart, thank you for what you do. You and Jordan Cooper are the only forces that have held me back from leaving Protestantism by making me a Classical Protestant.

[@rodrobinson5484]

Eastern Orthodox theology acknowledges that God's mercy and grace extend beyond human understanding, and therefore it does not explicitly deny the possibility of salvation for those outside the Church, especially for those who have never had access to it. For individuals who have never encountered the Eastern Orthodox Church or had the opportunity to understand its teachings, the Orthodox perspective often rests on the concept of God’s *oikonomia* (economy) and boundless compassion. God's judgment and mercy are ultimately beyond human comprehension, and Orthodoxy affirms that God desires all people to be saved (1 Timothy 2:4). Thus, while the Church sees itself as the fullest means of receiving God’s grace, it leaves room for the possibility that God may save individuals outside the visible boundaries of the Orthodox Church, especially those who have sought truth and lived with sincerity according to the light they have received.

[@nicenefarm7640]

I think it is also important to point out that so many Patristic and early century quotes that are cherry-picked to show "there's no salvation outside the [Orthodox] Church" (and likewise cherry picked to make Orthodox appear bigoted) are written in a PRE-denominational setting. They are saying there's no salvation outside the Body of Christ; they aren't talking about institutional boundaries. This is an important point.

[@pstepk]

@@nicenefarm7640 But a main focus of this whole video was from a modern authority in the Orthodox Church who likened an evangelical preaching the Gospel to a false prophet and heretic... I wouldn't call that cherry picking.

[@nicenefarm7640]

@@pstepk Hi Pstepk. The irresponsible part of Dr. Ortlund making this video is to give you the impression that you are relaying to me. See here a quote from another Russian bishop from the same time period: Met. Philaret of Moscow: I do not presume to call false any church which believes that Jesus is the Christ. The Christian Church can only be either purely true, confessing the true and saving Divine teaching without the false admixtures and pernicious opinions of men, or not purely true, mixing with the true and saving teaching of faith in Christ the false and pernicious opinions of men. ...You expect now that I should give judgment concerning the other half of contemporary Christianity, but I do no more than simply look out upon them; in part I see how the Head and Lord of the Church heals the many deep wounds caused by the old serpent in all the parts and limbs of this body, applying now gentle, now strong, remedies, even fire and iron, in order to soften hardness, to draw out poison, to cleanse the wounds, to separate out malignant growth, to restore spirit and life in the half-dead and numbed structures. In such wise I attest my faith that in the end the power of God will evidently triumph over human weakness good over evil, unity over division, life over death. So, either Dr. Ortlund is ignorant of such perspectives (which are quite prevalent in Orthodoxy-historic and modern alike), or he is willfully blind in service of his apologetic aim. I'm afraid his apologetics are obscuring his "truth unites" branding. In his response to this same comment, you can see clearly that Dr. Ortlund is ok ignoring the "unites" part of "truth unites," rather seeing truth as a sword that he sweeps across the internet, in effect cutting us all to bits. This is very sad. This is not the work of a pastor. He seems so sincere, but perhaps he has lost perspective in all the positive attention he is getting. I sincerely hope he can pivot away from this type of selective rhetoric in service of pastoral unity. Does anyone online really need an additional reason to draw ideological lines between each other?

[@jamesbishop3091]

@@nicenefarm7640that’s a great point

[@EpistemicAnthony]

​@@pstepk Just because someone is a Saint does not mean they are doctrinally authoritative. We don't think the Saints are infallible.

[@HohoCumacho]

Pastor Gavin, you are doing a great work. I wish these videos had existed before I converted to Orthodoxy over a decade ago. What a breath of fresh air. I was deceived by the beauty and the seeming depth of tradition, the very things you identify as appealing to Protestants inquiring into Orthodoxy.

[@norala-gx9ld]

Jesus vs the Church is a false dichotomy. The Church is Christ’s Body. He speaks through the Church and saves through the Church. The Church is the visible prolongation of the Incarnation. Salvation is from Christ through His Church, including the Church’s Mysteries. This isn’t that hard to understand.

[@Presbapterian]

The one true church vs. visible church institutions... we can discern the problem with this approach. The issue is on the boundary of the one true church. The true catholicity.

[@jimyoung9262]

I'm glad you're happy. The Lord bless you.

[@rexlion4510]

I disagree. Salvation is by God's gift of grace, through faith in Jesus Christ. Jesus never once said that we should depend on the church or upon Sacraments/Mysteries. Believing in the church and its Sacraments is no better than believing in circumcision; you're precisely in the same boat as the church of Galatia was in.

[@daltonparker1086]

I agree with you in principle. But I think what rubs me the wrong way is that he claims Protestants are “preaching another Christ” when the evangelical is preaching salvation through Christ, and then doesn’t mention Christ once in his summary of how to be saved.

[@norala-gx9ld]

@@rexlion4510 Salvation is by God’s gift of grace, through faith in Jesus Christ, which comes through the preaching and sacramental ministry of the Church which Christ founded when He called His disciples and commissioned them to bring the gospel to the nations. Have you read the New Testament? It’s all there. And it’s all there in the earliest decades after the Apostles. This is Christianity 101.

[@sheldonthorpe4797]

Converted to orthodoxy after 30 years as an evangelical four years ago. Never looked back.

[@KoiDotJpeg]

@@sheldonthorpe4797 I'm not even saying to be condescending. I would probably sooner be martyred than betray the Orthodox Faith and go back to something like Evangelical or Baptist. It's so empty, and you can't help but painfully know this after experiencing Orthodoxy.

[@icxcnika7722]

@@sheldonthorpe4797 many years! Glory to Jesus Christ ☦️

[@FaithinChristCrucified]

​@KoiDotJpeg if God's Word and promises untarnished and unadulterated by ceremonial accretions are empty, then ok. Enjoy your liturgies. May you be blessed.

[@KoiDotJpeg]

@FaithinChristCrucified divine "ceremonial accretion," because we do things the the way the Church always has. I don't think you guys realize how far back it all goes. Chrismation as a Sacrament is written about by the 3rd century.

[@asherbernardi]

I'm so glad you that find beautiful and allows you to connect with God! I pray that your church helps you to hold fast to Christ. I do just hope you remember that the problems go both ways. While Evangelical churches can be shallow and naive, Orthodox churches can sometimes be totally devoid of the Holy Spirit, despite having the liturgy and the beauty, etc. This is especially true in parts of Eastern Europe and Russia, where it's often a "cultural orthodoxy," rather than genuine faith. There are many, many people who leave Orthodoxy because they finally find Jesus and their hearts are transformed because of someone outside the EO church sharing the gospel with them. You'll find some of them in this comment section, and I suspect that story is significantly more common than the other way around, at least outside the the united states, where we have our own kind of cultural Christianity. Ultimately, we should all be thrilled when a person gives their life to Jesus, even if that's not in the exact same way we did.

[@ilmarmeldre2568]

I grew up with Russian Otrhodox tradition and customs and I can tell hands down that some Americans are very naive, because they are looking for a historic church, BUT the modern Eastern Orthodox Church IS NOT AS historic as Early church. I do appreciate rich tradition and all that is good there, however you have to guys consider following things: lots of superstitions, sectic thinking, political nationalistic imperialism perspectives, mix with worldly ideas (as long as you are baptized, probably infant with no consent of yours and come to church occasionally and confess your sins - that’s nice, but your life remains almost as of atheist or agnostic), wierd traditions (along with good you get the bad ones), not to mention this hierarchy of legalism and religious system. Now some few years later after my conversion experience and transformation I came to re-consider some views and I stopped demonizing Eastern Orthodox church and saw the good part. Since nobody got it all right and we all need each other. But the Gospel was preached to me and more clearly revealed through evangelical Protestant friends and then I met Jesus and really started reading Bible, praying and saw my life changed. I do believe there are genuine Orthodox Christians and I encourage and cheer on everybody as long as they pursue Christ and His word and what He accomplished, not the religious system. And I tell you for me mostly it was superstitions and some wierd ideas and not being taught of the word of God. For some people it might have been very harsh legalism and bondage - I came dry out of the water and God showed mercy on me in many ways. I totally understand you if you are burnout on Pentecostal, charismatic or evangelical religious form, legalism or some cult, but it doesn’t mean you have to get yourself into another religious system. Dr. Outland has a good point, guys!!! We should be followers of Jesus and grow in the knowledge of God and we all are His church, One body, orthodox, eastern, Armenian, catholic, reformed, Protestant, non-denominational.

[@youcatastrophe6434]

I love this! Well said!

[@cleob9956]

@@ilmarmeldre2568 Amen!!!This is excellent.

[@kingattila506]

Same argument as the atheist “I grew up Christian”

[@ilmarmeldre2568]

@@kingattila506but that’s the problem with our Christianity… I was an atheist or agnostic in the heart. Nobody cared. Believe the Gospel through Protestant friends. Beware!!! I don’t batch on orthodox. But in my opinion and experience many people are just unbelievers wearing tradition clothes. It can be the same with many catholics and Protestants. That’s why Luther is right. We need to preach the Gospel of Grace every day, because we forget it every day… we need to remember it and awaken to it. Be orthodox if you will, but many orthodox don’t even believe what Early Church fathers actually taught about salvation through Christ and His atonement alone… and the West also in problems. We need a Reformation! Wake up and come back to the truth that is in Jesus!

[@matthiasbrandt1252]

Hallelujah!! Well said...with love, truth, and kindness.

[@King_Immanuel]

Most of these comments arent even adressing actual theology and the beliefs of the church. Its just saying how the converts can be rude lol

[@ProphetGreg94]

How is EO correct when they think Jesus is coming back when he already returned in 70ad?

[@inrmds]

@@ProphetGreg94 yeah your the odd one out on this one.

[@ProphetGreg94]

@@inrmds Jesus posited that his coming would be before the "passing of that generation" (Matthew 24: 30, 34). And we know that the destruction of the man of "lawlessness" occurs at the "brightness of the Lord's coming" (2 Thessalonians 2:3-4, 8 ). But that happens before the fall of the temple, since this takes place while the man of lawlessness "takes" his "seat in the temple" (v.4) [Herodian temple destroyed in 70ad]. But then that means that the second coming's timing is constrained to that first century, since it doesn't take place AFTER the destruction of the temple, but BEFORE it, because there has to be a temple standing for the lawless one "take his seat" in! In addition, and along those same lines, the second coming that Paul mentions in 2nd Thessalonians is not a different coming from the one mentioned in 1 Thessalonians 4, which is undeniably a recapitulation of Matthew 24; and this happens to also be the time of the resurrection. It is that same resurrection of Daniel 12 (which Jesus alludes to in Matthew 24:15), that Daniel informs us takes place immediately after the time of great "distress" (v.1), which is the great tribulation Jesus mentioned (Matthew 24:21). But that was in the first century (revelation 1:9). This being the case, why does the church continue to shout from the roof tops that we are on the cusp of a yet-future coming of Jesus, when his parousia had already taken place in 70ad!?

[@HohoCumacho]

Re: Orthodox "converts can be rude." Well, the fruit is known by the tree.

[@howwerwoss256]

This is an alluring feature of Orthodoxy for edge-lord theobros. I have a friend who is an orthodox priest, and he told me how concerned he is about the volatile personalities who jump from cagey Calvinism to Orthodoxy, with little desire to pursue true holiness. They love the liturgy, traditions, and debate, but hate their non-Orthodox opponents in word and deed.

[@morghe321]

@@howwerwoss256 well spoken. Thank you. These Orthobros are basically all converts.

[@icxcnika7722]

It sounds like you guys are coping. (Although I can't say I am surprised.) Instead of addressing the serious and legitimate concerns against the Protestant position (something Gavin rarely does), the best you can do to cope with the growing number of conversions from Protestantism to Orthodoxy is to either dismiss them altogether, reduce them, or minimize the valid reasons why many leave. It is an obvious tactic of deflection due to the current state of Protestantism's inability to adapt and account for its deficiencies. Instead, you try to sweep them under the rug and hope no one notices. By marginalizing (potential and actual) converts and branding them as "orthobros," it is surely not an effective apologetic strategy to persuade them or others to your position.

[@morghe321]

@@icxcnika7722 so the bad behavior of these Orthobro converts should just be ignored then? Deflection? Seriously? I could say the same about you. You're sweeping legitimate concerns under the rug.

[@icxcnika7722]

@@morghe321 "so the bad behavior of these Orthobro converts should just be ignored then?" Tell me this, what do you gain from having to adress the behavior of every single overzealous convert? Can you add another hour to your life by worrying about their behavior? Who has the time? If I had to spend every waking moment of my life worrying about "cage stage Calvinist" Reformed bros, arguing about soteriology and some meaningless theological opinion held by Charles Hodge, I would get nothing done in terms of personal daily devotion. // Deflection? Seriously? I could say the same about you. You're sweeping legitimate concerns under the rug// Don't _tu quoque_ fallacy me. The fact that many potential converts have converted for legitimate reasons, be they doctrinal or theological concerns, means that Protestantism isn't delivering the scriptural clarity the reformers promised. Furthermore, yes, you are deflecting. You are casting aspersions on converts by psychologizing their reasons for converting. By minimizing, reducing, and impugning their motives for conversion, all you do is slander them, like a cult that shuns those who leave. This is a typical coping mechanism employed by many cultic institutions that seek to justify and deal with the shortcomings of their own system when said system fails to facilitate uniformity, unity, and harmony.

[@inrmds]

​@@morghe321that's a horrible generalization.

[@jmh7977]

I find that appreciating Eastern Orthodoxy in person is far more apparent than Eastern Orthodoxy online. It is represented very poorly online, often by quite loud, rude, and obnoxious catechumins and fresh converts... which only serves to diminish the claims that are made. In person, away from the often loud, rude, and obnoxious personalities found online, Eastern Orthodoxy shines. All this coming from someone who is completely comfortable not being Eastern Orthodox, strengths and weaknesses may be more objectively observed and respected.

[@divinenatureonline]

As a non EO, I can respect this comment. 🙏

[@ArchangelIcon]

I totally agree. I've been Orthodox for over 30 years (convert from RC), and the current trend for recent converts 'teaching' on their KZbin channels, with little humility, is somewhat shocking. It bears no resemblance to parish worship and parish life and Orthodox ethos.

[@cozzwozzle]

I'm EO, and the majority of people online who I've interacted with that are representing EO, and even telling other people to convert to EO, aren't even EO themselves! It's crazy.

[@FirstnameLastname-qz9fr]

I've found TLM communities and the Latin mass quite similar. Much better in person, horrible online. Though I do think online EO might do better than online "trads".

[@david_porthouse]

Here in England, I simply don’t know anybody in the Orthodox Church. I form my view of Orthodoxy from what I see online and in the news. In theory, the Russian and Ukrainian Orthodox Churches need to get back together and send a joint mission to England to persuade the English to admit that John Fisher and Thomas More were fake saints.

[@simon-y2b]

Thank you Gavin! As a long-standing Protestant that has deeply engaged with your videos, this one has made me more encouraged to join Eastern Orthodoxy! I've outlined some reasons below... I'm 26, I grew up in an evangelical Baptist church in France, son of two Baptist missionaries, and ended up working for 4 years for the Church of England helping to run training for priests on church growth. I engaged wholeheartedly with Baptists, Conservative Evangelicals, Charismatics, 'Middle of the Road' Anglicans, Anglo-Catholics, as well as Liberal and Conservative versions of each. I came to find that Protestant "denominations" matter, as they shape the lens through which we view Jesus' teachings, even the way we read the Bible! Thus, there is no way of simply being a "Biblical" church. Not only that, Jesus' direct legacy was not a text. He didn't write anything. His legacy was Himself, and the Holy Spirit at work through His followers - the Church. What did these people do? They became bishops, priests, they consecrated church buildings, they fashioned liturgies, they kept the Holy Sacraments... This pattern of being is the true "lens" through which we should engage with God. This is the true faith of the apostles, this is the mark of a True Church! Back to my experience, I observed how normal an impulse it is for human beings to want to wholly engage with their church ie. their 'denomination'. "Everyone is responsible for their own discipleship" is a common mantra that summed this feeling up well for me. The underbelly of Protestant thinking has a deep (and I believe holy) desire for ALL of Jesus, the BEST, the MOST of the fruit of the Spirit. It is the current force driving charismatic movements up and down the US and the world. I'd call this Christian radicalism as I believe it is the same force behind Trad-Caths and Hyper Charismatics. However... 1) I found it impossible to wholeheartedly embrace a single denomination (Why have a separate denomination if you cannot commit to it fully? If you don't believe it to contain the 'fullness of the faith' in some way?) 2) I found that the yearning for radicalism in Protestantism sadly mostly leads to false doctrine, and for some reason simply does not resist the test of time. The rise and decline of Methodism and of the Jesus movement in the 60s are notable examples, as well as the liberalisation of current mainline Protestant denominations. If you can change fundamental aspects of Christianity such as the lived expression (or acting out) of the Church (priests/monks never ordained other priests before Martin Luther for example?), it becomes very difficult to justify not changing other fundamentals of the faith such as sexuality. - Yes but that's not Biblical you might argue - Yet there is a growing amount of learned biblical scholars that are wholeheartedly in support of women leadership or same sex marriage! In contrast to this - How is it that older churches have managed to survive and thrive for so long? If they are wrong, why are they so correct on many issues? This question and others ultimately led me to Eastern Orthodoxy. --- On the topic of salvation outside the Church, Gavin, the same criticism you pose to the EO, the same can be asked of Protestants concerning people from other faiths who either have never heard of Jesus or have been raised in a context which makes becoming Christian a lot harder. Does Jesus want the salvation of the whole human race? Yes He does! Has He offered this opportunity of salvation in the same way to everyone on Earth? Clearly not! Thanks be to God that He is a far more loving judge and Father than we ever could hope of being or can imagine. However, which is the "narrow path", the way of salvation that has been offered to us through Christ? It is to become a disciple of His. We become a disciple of Jesus by following in the footsteps of other disciples (not by following texts as these texts are not readily available or properly understood!). Those disciples developed and compiled doctrine through councils. The Eastern Orthodox church, despite the faults of its members, is the only one that stands in full step with those councils, and thus, can justifiably claim to hold onto the historic view of being a "One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church" (not Many Unholy UnCatholic and UnApostolic churches) - this has historically denoted a visible organisation of human beings, not a mere abstract concept! Heretics, even those with only slight disagreements were deemed separate to the Church and thus separate to Christ's body. What does that mean for their salvation? The same as it does for life long (and 'good-fruit-bearing') Muslims - God knows best! --- The topic of icons and especially praying to (dead) saints were a particular hurdle, and one I am currently still working through. However, is it idolatry? Factually, spiritually, my observation is that it simply isn't. The saints are only deemed as saints BECAUSE of Jesus. NEVER IN COMPETITION of Him. My counter question is: Why is it that most (if not all) historic churches venerate the saints? Is that a cause for "the great apostacy" of historic churches that some Protestant denominations explicitly or implicitly believe in? Is that really a plausible reading of the history of Christ's Church, that the majority of Christians in history somehow "had it wrong" or "missed the point"? Are we really that "enlightened" today? I'll stop there and just finish with this note: This is a comment written in passion, with probably many mistakes in form and substance, but I hope it to be edifying for Protestants who are curious as to the reasons one might embark on such a perilous (but SO REWARDING) journey!

[@rayfulmer5146]

Solid

[@my-spinning-wheel]

Welcome to the Church, brother

[@bethshallcross5991]

@@simon-y2b “Let them be one as I and my father are one.” Beautifully expressed and thanks for sharing!

[@alabamamotionpictureproduc6626]

Glory to God ☦

[@ProphetGreg94]

@@simon-y2b If you guys have the “truth”, then how did you guys not get your eschatology correct? You guys think Jesus is coming back. Jesus posited that his coming would be before the "passing of that generation" (Matthew 24: 30, 34). And we know that the destruction of the man of "lawlessness" occurs at the "brightness of the Lord's coming" (2 Thessalonians 2:3-4, 8 ). But that happens before the fall of the temple, since this takes place while the man of lawlessness "takes" his "seat in the temple" (v.4) [Herodian temple destroyed in 70ad]. But then that means that the second coming's timing is constrained to that first century, since it doesn't take place AFTER the destruction of the temple, but BEFORE it, because there has to be a temple standing for the lawless one "take his seat" in! In addition, and along those same lines, the second coming that Paul mentions in 2nd Thessalonians is not a different coming from the one mentioned in 1 Thessalonians 4, which is undeniably a recapitulation of Matthew 24; and this happens to also be the time of the resurrection. It is that same resurrection of Daniel 12 (which Jesus alludes to in Matthew 24:15), that Daniel informs us takes place immediately after the time of great "distress" (v.1), which is the great tribulation Jesus mentioned (Matthew 24:21). But that was in the first century (revelation 1:9). This being the case, why does the church continue to shout from the roof tops that we are on the cusp of a yet-future coming of Jesus, when his parousia had already taken place in 70ad!?

[@MelissaDougherty]

This is such an untapped area. So glad to see you covering it. My parents got married in the Greek Orthodox church (I'm Greek on my Dad's side), and I grew up with a lot of random info about the religion and the church. (Plus, our yearly visits to the Greek Fest they held cuz... Baklava.) But I never saw it seriously examined until recently since many people seem to be converting to it.

[@aheartonfire7191]

Hello!!!

[@triplea6174]

Wow interesting ! Im a former protestant who converted to orthodoxy. Hope you begin to rexamine thoroughly! Just as there are bad parishs/churches or cultural/lukewarm christians all over doesnt negate the said group/churchs truth & teachings. Godspeed melissa!

[@adamguy33]

Are we protestants, the jw's of eastern orthodoxy. Just some offshoot cult of the EO ?

[@McGheeBentle]

Greek churches (in America at least) are very eeehhh and lukewarm. I’m not saying all Greek Orthodox folks are like this, because there are obviously pious and genuine people and parishes in Greek Orthodoxy, but here in the States, Greek Orthodoxy has a reputation of being basically a “cultural club.” Many Greek Orthodox folks go to church solely to mingle with other Greek people, and anyone visiting the church from outside of that group is considered weird. Very sad, to be honest. But there is a growing contingency of faithful Americans finding Orthodoxy. Melissa, I don’t know that you have encountered this. It would be super interesting if you were to visit an Orthodox Church (OCA, ROCOR, Antiochian, or Serbian) and make a video about your experience. Would love to see it.

[@MaryEbr-yq7om]

@@MelissaDoughertyThe Greek Orthodox is the most mystical of the E. O. Churches. The belief in the importance of Grace which probably under a different name, is understood by the Jewish community as well makes the E.O. important path to spiritual ascension. The RC Church view that Grace as defined as something we may get which we don't deserve is too vague to be helpful; something saint do but no one else will accomplish. This idea is incorrect.

[@ryanmckenziegilbert4950]

Im Protestant but seems like we are telling EO what they believe and they say no we don’t believe that, and we just say no you have to believe that because of this guy said this. We should let them speak for themselves. This letter was in context of an EO leaving the church of course his letter is going to be firm and direct. This same guy also has been quoted elsewhere that it is possible for others to be saved. It’s a mystery. Theophan the Recluse. “You ask, will the heterodox be saved... Why do you worry about them? They have a Saviour Who desires the salvation of every human being. He will take care of them. You and I should not be burdened with such a concern. Study yourself and your own sins”. I don’t think EO converts have to say now all westerners are all 100% lost, it’s just not the case. This doesn’t seem fair to them.

[@toddvoss52]

I agree

[@janen668]

Exactly right!

[@Aleksandr-Herman]

Nicely put

[@jollymoonman4796]

Exemplary humility & intellectual honesty. Thank you X

[@KnightFel]

His question “why do you worry about them?” Is telling. Christians care for the unbeliever and WANT others to believe and evangelize. To have this flippant attitude towards the unbeliever betrays his claim of being in Christ.

[@Buffenmeyer]

Years ago I looked into Orthodoxy and attended the OC for over a year. I even helped my cousin to convert but never was able to bring myself to join. Because Protestantism has a “plainness” to it, many are overwhelmed by the beauty and history of Orthodoxy. The biggest unsettlement for me was that members (especially converts) were always praising and extolling the beauties and virtues of the church, but you would never hear them exhibiting the same language and excitement about Christ our Savior. After some years when the novelty wears off, one is left with a church very similar to all other churches - with problems, inconsistencies, and even scandals. Praise God he is condescending to save us despite our churches! 😸 thank you for making this video!

[@SeraphimWebster]

Issues with other parishioners isn’t a good argument against the Church itself and its teachings.

[@julesgomes2922]

I agree. It's the same with converts to the Roman Church. They continually exalt the church but hardly speak of Christ.

[@stratmatt22]

@@julesgomes2922 The Church IS the body of Christ... 1 Corinthians 12:12-27. Of course you wouldn't realize that as a Protestant especially the part where Paul says "so that there should be no division in the body, but that its parts should have equal concern for each other." This is the problem with the sole focus on a personal relationship with Jesus. It isn't just a personal relationship with Jesus, it is a loving relationship with your neighbor, your enemies, your family.

[@jamesbishop3091]

“you would never hear them exhibiting the same language and excitement about Christ our Savior.” I find this a bit hard to believe. The icon of Christ is always the largest icon in the church. And there are usually multiple icons of Christ displayed throughout. Orthodox prayer life centers around the Jesus Prayer. Most of the liturgy is prayers to the holy trinity. And have you ever skimmed through an orthodox prayer book? It’s littered with prayers and hymns about Christ. Sure we give attention to the holy saints, but nothing in comparison to Christ.

[@SeraphimWebster]

@@jamesbishop3091 it’s also worth noting on top of this great statement that we don’t attribute any “special powers” to the Saints, rather it is through them crucifying their passions that allowed Christ to use them as vessels and work great miracles through them, who are beacons of His light. It is Christ working through all of the saints, thus by venerating saints we are actually by in large venerating Christ

[@dumbidols]

It should also be noted that up until relatively recently most protestant denominations were exclusivists and did not interact even with other protestants because you dont leaven your lump. This is the standard view within Christianity. The nondenominational or otherwise united Protestantism is a modern novelty.

[@biblefirst5691]

Comment section is flooding with the most fine cope you could possibly get.

[@EpistemicAnthony]

Not a very charitable way to speak of people with very easy rebuttals, including quotes form St Theophan that directly contradict Gavins interpretation of him.

[@biblefirst5691]

@@EpistemicAnthony If you wanna say that its not neccessary to EO in order to be saved PERFECT! State it now for us all to see and I let it all go.

[@EpistemicAnthony]

@biblefirst5691 That wouldn't be helpful, be our definition of "saved" is different than yours, so we'd be talking past eachother. I can affirm that Protestants are separated from slavation while also affirming that they can still get into heaven.

[@King_Immanuel]

The only cope is coming from Ortlund and his subscribers

[@MichaelH__J]

@@biblefirst5691 refute the claims.

[@tanagrant9225]

What a wonderful video. This video put into words my biggest problem with Eastern orthodoxy, and this exclusionist mentality is the reason I left. My only problem with this video is that it didn't come out sooner! God bless you dr. Ortlund, May this reach the heart of many so they don't have to go through the pain that I and many others have over ecclesial anxiety.

[@hesicast]

The door is narrow

[@StGeorgeBrotherhood]

Hi Tana Grant. I'm so disappointed that Dr. Gavin is promoting such division and promoting false impressions. Please also consider this statement from another Russian bishop from the same time period (that wasn't quote mined from a personal letter of his, as this Theophan quote was). There is tremendous conciliarity within the Orthodox Church: Met. Philaret of Moscow: I do not presume to call false any church which believes that Jesus is the Christ. The Christian Church can only be either purely true, confessing the true and saving Divine teaching without the false admixtures and pernicious opinions of men, or not purely true, mixing with the true and saving teaching of faith in Christ the false and pernicious opinions of men. ...You expect now that I should give judgment concerning the other half of contemporary Christianity, but I do no more than simply look out upon them; in part I see how the Head and Lord of the Church heals the many deep wounds caused by the old serpent in all the parts and limbs of this body, applying now gentle, now strong, remedies, even fire and iron, in order to soften hardness, to draw out poison, to cleanse the wounds, to separate out malignant growth, to restore spirit and life in the half-dead and numbed structures. In such wise I attest my faith that in the end the power of God will evidently triumph over human weakness good over evil, unity over division, life over death.

[@silverecho1201]

You simply chose to be of the world. I chose to follow Christ and his clearly established church. It's not my concern what happens to family. I love them and God is just, so I have hope. But at the end of the day it's "Thy will be done." Not "My will be done." God is just and love Anyone that doesn't make it to heaven doesn't deserve to be there

[@roses993]

Awesome! May God lead u to a beautiful bible based church that teaches the true gospel😊❤

[@zemotheon12987]

Hi Gavin, I am an Orthodox Christian, and a convert from Protestantism. I want to add a bit of context here to what St. Theophan is writing by including a quote from another letter, which I think may be relevant: "You ask, will the heterodox be saved. Why do you worry about them? They have a Saviour Who desires the salvation of every human being. He will take care of them. You and I should not be burdened with such a concern. Study yourself and your own sins... I will tell you one thing, however: should you, being Orthodox and possessing the Truth in its fullness, betray Orthodoxy, and enter a different faith, you will lose your soul forever." --- St. Theophan the Recluse I think St. Theophan's problem is more with Orthodox christians leaving the Orthodox Church than anything else.

[@ArchangelIcon]

That is such a good point about Theophan's text being for Orthodox Christians, and not for others. Those who do not Orthodoxy cannot be judged for turning from something they don't know. And Orthodoxy doesn't judge them for it.

[@Cletus_the_Elder]

The quoted text actually sounds a lot worse. St. Theophan refers to Orthodoxy as the "Truth" and what Protestants believe as a "different faith" and a diversion from Orthodox orthodoxy as a betrayal. Pretty stark language. He even says "They have a Savior" which could be interpreted as Protestants have a different theology or that Protestants have a Savior that is not the Orthodox Savior.

[@outsideanarchism5650]

@@Cletus_the_Elderwell they do have a different theology and do to differences in Christology I think you could argue to some extent they do have a different savior. Just as most Christians would admit the Christ of the JWs or Mormons is different than that of the rest of Christianity.

[@Jd-808]

@@Cletus_the_Elder So you think St Theophan believes this other being actually exists and will take take care of them, then? This is absurd. And yes, Orthodoxy is the truth and heterodoxy is a deviation from the truth...obviously.

[@Jd-808]

@@outsideanarchism5650 they can’t have a different savior, because only one Savior exists.

[@anestichristos]

It’s puzzling why being outside the Church strikes such a dissonant chord, given that historically, the Church has consistently regarded those beyond its bounds in just this way. Only if one were to invent an “invisibility cloak” to obscure the Church’s boundaries could the notion of being “outside” seem so foreign or out of place.

[@TheB1nary]

This "invisibility cloak" term intrigues me: do you not think that God alone knows who are His? If so, it is possible that someone can be fully involved in the externals of Church membership in an EO context and not be...Christian? So there is an invisibility element to those are truly His. Do you not think this is the case?

[@bruhmingo]

You have omitted the potential of fractures WITHIN the church.

[@justchilling704]

@@TheB1naryThey aren’t ready for this convo.

[@EpistemicAnthony]

​@TheB1nary Your question makes no sense within the context of Orthodox belief. To be "Christian" is by definition to be part of the Church. But being a "Christian" does not guarantee that you will end up in heaven. You are using the word "Church" to indicate a category that we don't think exists.

[@HohoCumacho]

The only dissonance is Theophan's, throwing out a "heretic" here and a "they are far from the truth" there.

[@MichaelH__J]

“The mercies of God are not bound by the visible boundaries of the Church. God alone knows the heart, and He judges not as man judges. God’s ways are beyond our understanding, and His grace can act upon all who seek Him sincerely.” “We do not have the right to judge the fate of those outside the Church. Rather, we trust in the boundless mercy of God, who desires that all men come to the knowledge of the truth and be saved. He will judge each according to his heart.” “The Church is the vessel of salvation, and yet, we cannot say that grace is absent from those who sincerely seek God, even if they do not yet know the fullness of the truth. God prepares each soul in His own way.” - SAINT THEOPHAN THE RECLUSE we take someone’s theology, not three pages of it. Also, yeah, what he said is accurate, anglicans we’re going into well established Russian EO neighborhoods and calling people to the name of Christ, that’s fine, but also a slightly off interpretation. Of course people are going to reject that.

[@AmericanwrCymraeg]

This is what's so troubling about videos like this, although I'm trying to make the charitable assumption and assume that this is unintentional misrepresentation, rather than deliberate. As you show, St. Theophan wrote many things that would cut directly against the interpretation of this letter that Gavin is giving here. If you say that his views are authoritative because he's a bishop and a saint, and so he can't just be dismissed, you have to take **all** of his writings together. The way Gavin is interpreting him goes against St. Theophan's own words. It's exactly what people do with the Scriptures, by pulling isolated verses and opposing them to other verses, without trying to see how they work together. You can pick things in isolation and build whatever narrative you want to build, but if your read of what an author is saying contradicts the totality of their writings and thoughts, your narrative is a false one. The same thing was true with his most recent video on icons. When he referred to his view of the scholarly consensus, Eusebius, Fr. Price, etc. I had a couple that was inquiring into Orthodoxy who were shaken by what they heard. Rather than argue with them, I just had them read Eusebius's writings, read what Fr. Price actually said about Eusebius, etc. and compare that to what the video said, without offering my own commentary. They came away very angry at Dr. Ortlund, saying that they felt like he had lied to them. I don't agree with that and told them so. I don't believe it's a deliberate deception. But I do hope that people will read the sources in question for themselves, rather than trusting what someone else says about them.

[@Aleksandr-Herman]

​@@AmericanwrCymraeg if dr Gavin makes unintentional mistakes out of his ignorance, his words can't be trusted just because he is sincere. If he twists facts knowingly and intentionally his words can't be trusted because of the ill intentions. In both cases his words can't be trusted.

[@Aleksandr-Herman]

"we take someone's theology, not the pages of it" So well said 👍❤️

[@Mere-Theism]

@@AmericanwrCymraeg At this point it really seems deliberate. Gavin repeatedly dismisses quotes that contradict his narrative and doubles down on using a different measure for Orthodoxy (and Catholicism) than for his own tradition. He might think he's genuine, but everything he's saying just betrays motivated reasoning.

[@pianoatthirty]

@@Mere-Theism It’s because when you really look into “Protestant Theology”, it’s all smoke and mirrors. There is no sin, no need to obey anything, no need to even DO anything, “just accept Jesus into your heart” and then proceed to tell everyone else who lives their faith according to a tradition that “they’re wrong.”

[@alecfoster448]

I would greatly appreciate if this was a topic of discussion between Dr. Ortlund and Fr. Stephen De Young

[@MicahMarshall4Truth]

Agreed

[@raphaelfeneje486]

I think he's already have a conversation with him, just not in depth

[@Josue-pi4ce]

Yeah, their last discussion was just getting to the important distinctions (that I think Gavin mostly misses or glosses over in his critiques) at the end. I wish he'd dialogue about these concerns more instead of just copy/pasting quotes and professing that his interpretation of them are representative of what the church teaches

[@lcs-salam]

Comments are not interacting enough with the anathemas EO have declared which do make salvation extremely exclusive within their tradition (their interpretation and organization of the church). This is very problematic and does not appear consistently applied by EO. We Protestants do not have that same problem as we have grounds within our system to aknowledge the inclusion of non-Protestants in the church.

[@KingoftheJuice18]

Gavin, the same question that you encourage Protestants to ask about Eastern Orthodoxy concerning the latter's willingness to damn all the beauty, goodness, wonder, and dedication found in other forms of Christianity is also what you should encourage Christians at large to ask themselves regarding other faiths: Can you make peace with a religious view that relegates faithful Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, Humanists, and others to some eternal punishment merely for not being Christian, irrespective of what they believe and how they live?

[@Jeremy.Mathetes]

Thank you for all the hard work, Dr. Ortlund. This was quite timely. EO seems to be drawing a lot of young people at the moment and I think there isn't enough Protestant engagement with it. Keep up the amazing work!

[@triplea6174]

Well besides orthodoxy not being well known yet in the west, its growing, EO is more predominant in europe, yet EO is drawing ppl to it because of the traditional aspect but evem more so than that is the fullness of the truth which speaks to the soul/heart. Few protestants are informed/equipped to engage EO, while EO is prepared for protestants, RC, etc This teases the depth & caution that EO contains.

[@kingattila506]

There’s been a lot of Protestant engagement against Holy Orthodoxy. The Protestant position is simply untenable. It’s that simple.

[@kevinmac8629]

Not one known Protestant apologist online has done a good job against any Orthodox apologist.

[@Dropkicksmurphie]

There's been a significant amount of Protestant engagement...and it's been the definition of cringe. Most of them look exactly like this video: A few spicy quotes are produced, the Protestant commentator adds 5 personal assumptions (just like they do with Scripture) and act automatically like that's the truth while everyone else in the room laughs at them. Rinse and repeat.

[@bulb2279]

Because protestantism is a walking corpse of a religion, and young people are tired of being forcibly separated from Christ by their organizations.

[@IdolKiller]

Every tradition has a history of damning those who disagree and are outside it. The Reformed burned people alive, believing they were sending them straight to hell, Rome did similarly, the East saw those outsode Orthodoxy as in peril. So that line of argumentation doesn't seem to me to be super strong.

[@TruthUnites]

thanks for the comment! I have addressed this in various places, but just to reiterate: I am not arguing that exclusivity is itself bad, but that ecclesial institutional exclusivity is bad because of the spiritual fruit reflected in multiple institutions (especially in the case of Eastern Orthodoxy, since 85% of Christendom is non-Orthodox and yet exhibits the fruit of the gospel). Hope that clarifies. I do agree that Rome has a problem here historically, but most Protestant traditions have not been institutional exclusivists.

[@OrthoBro7516]

@@TruthUnites St Cyril of Jerusalem Catechetical Lectures addresses this. He argues that the fruit means nothing if not connected to True Doctrine and the true faith.

[@TheBillyDWilliams]

Thanks for the video! Before I get into the meat of my comment: disclaimer that I am indeed a Protestant, not EO. I do have to say, I’m not sure I understand the point of this type of argument. EO ecclesiology does not take the statements of a single bishop to be dogmatic or “authoritative for the whole tradition”. That’s simply a misunderstanding of their structure. Even if one were to accept the validity of that claim, the fact that the argument is essentially “they used to say A and now they say B” is not a defeater for their claims. You can look back in pretty much any tradition’s history and find something said that they no longer affirm. For example, Lutherans no longer kill Anabaptists. Most independent Church of Christ congregations no longer say that they’re the only true Christians. Most Baptists no longer say that Catholics aren’t saved. To find a bunch of old personal statements that have been opposed by actual authoritative teaching and use them as a warning of “this is what you’re agreeing with” just seems… dishonest? Anachronistic? Genuinely confused? It’s like someone pulling out Luther’s antisemitism and claiming that Lutheranism endorses it. I don’t know, because Gavin seems like a great guy, so I want to give him the benefit of the doubt. But this is just… odd.

[@TruthUnites]

hello! I suggest watching at 3:41 where I address this. God bless.

[@TheBillyDWilliams]

@@TruthUniteshi Dr Ortlund! Love your videos, thanks for all the work you put into them and the benefit they’ve been to me personally. 😊 Respectfully, the statements at that timestamp are still a misunderstanding of EO ecclesiology. For the EO (and Catholics I believe) a persons sainthood does not confer authoritative status on any particular thing they say. So, as this is a personal letter and not a doctrinal pronouncement, I do think this can safely be categorized as “personal belief”. Especially in light of Theophan’s other famous quote about the salvation of the heterodox. Additionally, I’m unaware of “contemporary Church Father” being a category within EO thought. Googling the phrase only brought up a single podcast episode using that term for him. Could you clarify that term/claim for me at all? Thanks again!

[@brightsidemma]

@@TheBillyDWilliamsI’m orthodox, and I’m also unfamiliar with the term “contemporary church father”. Seems like Dr. Ortlund is using the term to make his argument appear stronger. Thank you for pushing back on him.

[@TheBillyDWilliams]

@ ah, good to know. I won’t pretend to know EO tradition extensively, I’d just never heard that one before.

[@TruthUnites]

@@TheBillyDWilliams hello! Thanks for watching, and glad the videos have been beneficial! I said "contemporary father," not "contemporary Church Father." You will find the former label used in print for authoritative more recent theologians. Its actually used in the very text I held up and cited in this video. In Eastern Orthodox theology, saints are typically taken as having a level of theological authority, but if you disagree, you can disregard Theophan and just go with the entire millennium preceding him, which affirmed the same view. I document this in my video "Does Eastern Orthodoxy Have the "Fullness of the Faith?"

[@Instynctofficial]

Going from a Slavic baptist to orthodox, I found the only difference is icons in church, we still had pastor confessions, and the communion was the body and blood not a symbol, we had to do works like behave good to be saved, and we called everyone that’s not baptist a heretic and they do Christianity wrong. We even had a service dedicated to showing the church on how Pentecostals have demons and they showed a lot of examples of people falling and screaming. And other Protestant churches near me are all either liberal, non denominational, or very small so I’d rather be orthodox, it changed my life to actually believe in Christ for once in my life, I even joined the choir.

[@ProphetGreg94]

@@Instynctofficial If you guys have the “truth”, then how did you guys not get your eschatology correct? You guys think Jesus is coming back. Jesus posited that his coming would be before the "passing of that generation" (Matthew 24: 30, 34). And we know that the destruction of the man of "lawlessness" occurs at the "brightness of the Lord's coming" (2 Thessalonians 2:3-4, 8 ). But that happens before the fall of the temple, since this takes place while the man of lawlessness "takes" his "seat in the temple" (v.4) [Herodian temple destroyed in 70ad]. But then that means that the second coming's timing is constrained to that first century, since it doesn't take place AFTER the destruction of the temple, but BEFORE it, because there has to be a temple standing for the lawless one "take his seat" in! In addition, and along those same lines, the second coming that Paul mentions in 2nd Thessalonians is not a different coming from the one mentioned in 1 Thessalonians 4, which is undeniably a recapitulation of Matthew 24; and this happens to also be the time of the resurrection. It is that same resurrection of Daniel 12 (which Jesus alludes to in Matthew 24:15), that Daniel informs us takes place immediately after the time of great "distress" (v.1), which is the great tribulation Jesus mentioned (Matthew 24:21). But that was in the first century (revelation 1:9). This being the case, why does the church continue to shout from the roof tops that we are on the cusp of a yet-future coming of Jesus, when his parousia had already taken place in 70ad!?

[@MusculusPulveri]

I’ve been told that Non-Orthodox Christian’s are not part of the body of Christ by an Orthodox Christian.

[@erichenkel4393]

They aren’t, because the body of Christ cannot be split

[@joevi2593]

​@@erichenkel4393you guys are murdering each other on the Ukraine-Russian battlefield. Your priests are blessing weapons of war to help murder each other more. Get real with your man-made religion that has NOTHING to do with Jesus.

[@MusculusPulveri]

@@erichenkel4393the body of Christ is not found exclusively in an institution.

[@MichaelH__J]

@@MusculusPulveriGrace can be outside of the church and works of the spirit depending on the person or whatever the case may be, but the body of Christ is the Eastern Orthodox Church, it is one body.

[@user-vv1do1wg1j]

​@@MusculusPulverithen why does Christ tell his apostles to make bishops teach them properly and make sure this continues saying they carry the grace of God if there isnt a historical institution? if you deny this then you deny the early church, the source of everything protestantism comes from, you unroot yourself when you admit you deny Christ's promise.

[@youcatastrophe6434]

Something I’ve noticed with these videos (specifically when they’re addressing anything concerning the Eastern Orthodox Church) is that the vast majority of the comments contain absolutely no responses to the actual claims made in the video (which Gavin always does a great job carefully articulating), but rather sink to insults, ad-hominems, question-begging assertions, and what-aboutisms. I’d love to see some actual engagement from EO’s that doesn’t resort to one of those types of responses.

[@AmericanwrCymraeg]

There are numerous responses addressing his claims directly, just like there are numerous comments from Protestants saying various vile and slanderous things about us. And vice versa. But people see what tends to confirm their own feelings of their side being more virtuous and disregard and overlook anything that contradicts that.

[@youcatastrophe6434]

@@AmericanwrCymraeg Well you’re right about that. I’ll take your word for it (in regard to their being numerous comments addressing his claims directly) because what you’re saying is generally true about all internet comments. But honestly, af the point that I posted that comment I hadn’t seen a single response from any EO-defenders (not a single one) that had responded to Gavin’s claims directly.

[@Cletus_the_Elder]

Goodness, this was excellent. The sober, austere, ceremonial nature of the Eastern Orthodox tradition must slake the thirst of many Protestants, whose Protestant leaders are in disagreement with church "fathers," leaders, and saints pre-Reformation and even post-Reformation, whose liturgy changes with the mood of the time, whose history seems relatively shallow, whose clergy seem to pursue the activities of the secular world. One of the many things I love about this channel is that it allows Protestants to tap into history and claim the history of the faith in-between the New Testament and Martin Luther as ours, too.

[@CurtosiusMaximus828]

You can claim it all you want but it’s dishonest. For every church father you can claim as “your own” I show you how thoroughly Catholic they really are.

[@triplea6174]

Fact is they were apart of the catholic church friend & you cant claim them but you can cite them all you want in vain. But while there are faithful protestants due to their faith, does not make their church true. It is because of Gods mercy that they can see paradise...

[@triplea6174]

@@CurtosiusMaximus828 that was to the op's comment, im in agreement, reread brother.

[@CurtosiusMaximus828]

@@triplea6174 my apologies brother. 💪🏻

[@simontemplar3359]

@@CurtosiusMaximus828 Wow.. high on the Popium I see...

[@ClauGutierrezY]

I lived for the first half of my life in South America (Chile). I grew up a Baptist and now I'm a happy Reformed Anglican in the UK. During that first half of my life, no Eastern Orthodox, nor Assyrian Church of the East missionary nor anyone from any tradition past Western Europe ever approached my grand parents, my parents or me with the Gospel. If they believe so strongly they're the true church to me that's nothing but arrogance if that conviction is not accompanied with a true love for those that are supposedly lost outside of the church. Unless being the "true church" gives them a pass to skip Matthew 22:39 in the same way they skip Mark 9:40. Back then, there was only one Greek Orthodox Parish in Santiago, maybe the size of my parents house,. Today there are six in a city of +6M people and no more than 60 Eastern Orthodox churches across South America today. If they effectively are the true one church, that means that people like me and my ancestors mean nothing to God... and I think we all know the answer to that. Please anathematise me one at a time.

[@issaavedra]

That is not how it works in the Church. Sure, there will be some people who will take that position and point to Acts 16:6-8, when the Holy Spirit blocked the route to Asia, Mysia and Bithynia, and say that God knows that the seed will not sprout there. But the vast majority of Saints and theologians take the position that only God knows. You have to pursue the Truth, but it is not for you to judge the Salvation of others. I mean, we don't even affirm that Judas is in hell... how could we say that other christians are there?

[@fr.davidbibeau621]

@@ClauGutierrezY my brother, in the last century the Greeks had just barely got out from the yoke of Islam and the Russians were being slaughtered by communists. The Greeks and Arabs that fled to South America were simply trying to get in their feet. They did not have the resources to do heavy missionary work like baptists and Catholics.

[@ClauGutierrezY]

​@@issaavedra so I guess, and as usual with EOs, we leave it up to "mystery". It's easy with the eternity of others. Such a stretch.

[@ClauGutierrezY]

​​@@fr.davidbibeau621 the primitive church reached almost the whole known world by foot and camel and the "one true church" hasn't been able to spread the gospel in the 2nd and 3rd world up to today? The underground church in China is sending missionaries to the spiritually dying Europe, and smuggling Bibles in under one of the most infamous communist regimes known historically by mankind. I guess it doesn't count because they're primarily evangelical, charismatic and RC?

[@issaavedra]

@@ClauGutierrezY I mean, why should we dogmatically affirm things we don't know? I really don't understand what your criticism is.

[@DeeZ36]

I'm grateful for your videos Gavin.. I was thinking to become eastern orthodox, I was even considering roman catholicism at one time. But after looking at the history of them all, I think Protestantism is a lot better for me. I think roman catholicism and eastern orthodoxy are like "holier than thou" religion, they thought that the church is more important than the Saviour.

[@katskillz]

You noted: "It does seem weird to assume that just because someone is within the church they don't need to have the gospel preached to them people in the church all the time routinely need the gospel to be preached to them afresh." I would agree, but my understanding of the EO perspective is that their lifelong, diligent application of and devotion to the mystical rituals, sacraments, icons, etc. IS their sustaining "preaching" of the Gospel afresh, as it can only be found in the Church's sacred acts, and experienced as the beginnings of theosis. They do not particularly think of the Gospel as Protestants do, apart from its one time saving event in baptism, thereafter the Gospel is worked out in the process ultimately leading to theosis.

[@triplea6174]

Correct it seems weird or uncomfortable because the way the churchs theology & mindset flows.

[@Phill0old]

Preaching the gospel cannot be done by not preaching. Nothing else is preaching the gospel. It can be nice, it can be all sorts of things but it cannot be preaching the gospel if it isn't preaching.

[@Nolongeraslave]

@@katskillz The point in your paragraph 2 goes well with my observation. If it is not necessary to remind people of the gospel that saves, then that Church becomes a "folk religion". Case in point, your great, great, great grandfather found Christ and converted to Him, he raised his children, grand children strictly in Church, they also raises theirs in the Church and all are members by "birth". That is what I mean by folk religion. Yous see, God has no grandchildren thus the necessity of presenting the gospel on every opportunity. There is no other tradition that understand this as Protestants. Every person must be born of God individually through the preaching of the Gospel. Orthodox Church does not evangelise. The story which Gavin is narrating in not to be tossed out of the window, it is a reality.

[@katskillz]

​@@Nolongeraslave I agree, I just wanted to (hopefully) accurately present the EO's own position to the best my understanding. I believe it to be wrong, and the main reason it is wrong is because the EO theology mistakenly takes a specific doctrine of theosis / deification and makes it the central dogma around which ALL other doctrines and practices must flow from or fortify their belief in. This is not how the early Church fathers understood things. Nevertheless, they are blind to the courtroom framing of justification and condemnation in Pauline soteriology. They are blind to the comprehensive pervasiveness of original sin requiring a substitutionary atonement where Adam and his spiritual family stand in a position of demerit needing satisfaction for sin a state of being, by means of a substitute. And they are adamently blind to the distinction between the Content of Gospel and the Consequences of the Gospel. Thus for them ecclesiology basically is soteriology. If one, in their system, is diligently tending to the collective dynamics of the Church's praxis, then one is saved individually, period.

[@Jacob.Lionsfood]

I hope everyone in this chain realizes that preaching happens all the time within the Church. It doesn’t stop after catechism lol.

[@brando3342]

Genuine question about something. So, the claim is that one should not become a Catholic or Eastern Orthodox, because they would be committing to a congregation that historically has essentially said "our way is the only way". Okay, but consider this; isn't it the exact same case for the Protestant position in a video like this? If it really is the case that there are true bothers and sisters in Christ across Protestants, Catholics and EOs... why would Protestants feel the need to keep anyone OUT of any one of them equally? It just seems to me like a case of "rules for thee, but not for me". As in, my appeal for you not to join EO does not apply equally to Catholic or EO appeals for you to not join Protestantism for... reasons. I don't know those reasons, why wouldn't it apply equally? Really does seem like one's advocation of their own sect is a "this is right, and that is not, so don't join that" situation regardless of what side one is on.

[@npuritan6769]

We affirm that our Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox brothers are Christians and can be saved. But there are serious errors within those churches that could jeopardize the salvation of a Christian within that church. That is why we would try to dissuade people from converting. Our way isn't the only way to follow Christ, but we believe it is the best way.

[@brando3342]

@@npuritan6769 But, that's the exact same argument on the other side/sides as well...

[@Phlebas9202]

​@@brando3342no. They do not traditionally affirm others are Christian. This is changing slowly. From the Catholic side this changed a lot with Vatican 2.

[@alecfoster448]

I had the same thought. It seems harsh, but I was unsurprised by the content of the letter. We are so used to the liberality of “many ways have something true in them” that we are surprised when someone says “we are right and the rest are wrong”

[@Aleksandr-Herman]

Good point. Clearly double standards.

[@theknight8524]

One thing i have noticed is that both Orthodox and muslims will spam the comment section violently, if you release a video critizing them Some of them even make a case by bringing up their (Protestant/Christian) upbringing.

[@hesicast]

Well at least they did not murder heretics.....just saying You're commenting on individual s who are probably fresh Orthodox. I am commenting on the actual churches from lutheran's to Calvinist who murdered heretics. Just saying protestantism doesn't have a good track record as a church. If it was the true body of Christ, I don't think they would murder heretics. They would pray for their salvation and wish them back into the body. By their fruits you shall know them.

[@simon-y2b]

That's what passion does man :)

[@returnfreedom]

Yea forget all the other vids where Protestants have to attack Orthodoxy bringing up the same topics such as idolatry, repetitive prayers, etc etc, even though they all been answered. From my prospective, pride seems way more prevalent in the Protestant realm

[@voicegea3995]

“You’ll know them by their fruits” Their fruits are so similar… If you know, you know

[@ProphetGreg94]

@@theknight8524 pretty much

[@renrichardson6517]

It is frankly quite surprising to see how many defenses of Orthodoxy in the comments do not address the point of this video, nor even attempt to.

[@KoiDotJpeg]

Gavin, I appreciate this video. I was not aware of this letter from Fr. Theophan despite being an Eastern Orthodox Catechumen. I found nothing scandalizing, though, after watching the video, so I suppose that means I at least know what I am getting into. I agree, though, I do love the directness with which Fr. Theophan speaks in this letter. I would like to respond with a few notes from myself, as an Eastern-Orthodox Catechumen- both for you and others considering your arguments against Orthodoxy. I apologize for wordiness, but I want to lay out our understanding of what you brought up (as best as I can, and in no capacity an official representative of the Church, since I am not yet Baptized). 6:30 - The entire point of this passage in Mark 9 is that if he is truly for Christ, he will wind up in The Church eventually anyways and be united with them. Also, this was before Pentecost, when The Church was set up 16:35 - Regarding this "Simple, repentance-based Gospel message," I simply do not think there is any proof in Scripture of such a requirement of "The Gospel" to be so "simple." In fact, I think what Fr. Theophan presents around 21:30 is fairly reasonable, and not that complicated; only complicated in comparison to the common Evangelical Gospel preached these days. My Deacon said to me the other day: The Faith is not supposed to be complicated. It's supposed to be lived. If you sincerely seek Christ and life in him within the Church, you will fulfill what Fr. Theophan has listed. 19:15 - The only place "justified by faith alone" appears in Scripture is in James 2. "You see then that a man is justified by works, and NOT by faith only." James directly tells us that we are also justified by works. The common reading of Protestants that this is only about external Justification in the eyes of others doesn't make any sense, and it makes us a slave to the perceptions of others. The Confession of Dositheos, Decree 13, explains this well: "We believe a man to be not simply justified through faith alone, but through faith which works through love, that is to say, through faith and works. But [the idea] that faith can fulfill the function of a hand that lays hold on the righteousness which is in Christ, and can then apply it unto us for salvation, we know to be far from all Orthodoxy. For faith so understood would be possible in all, and so none could miss salvation, which is obviously false. But on the contrary, we rather believe that it is not the correlative of faith, but the faith which is in us, justifies through works, with Christ. But we regard works not as witnesses certifying our calling, but as being fruits in themselves, through which faith becomes efficacious, and as in themselves meriting, through the Divine promises {cf. 2 Corinthians 5:10} that each of the Faithful may receive what is done through his own body, whether it be good or bad." I know, perhaps, this may seem like an overplayed response, using James 2 (I'm sure you see it all the time), but it must be said. James very clearly lays out the role works have in our Salvation: James 2:22 - Do you see that faith was working together with his works, and by works faith was made perfect?" 21:25 - "That sounds pretty exacting" - well, it is. 1 Timothy 3:15 - The Church is the Pillar and Ground of Truth. Rebelling against the Church is rebelling against the Truth, and Christ, as it is the BODY of Christ. I don't think he says anything unreasonable. 23:30 - Correct, no salvation outside of the Church. If someone is saved outside the Church, it is because God mystically unites them to the Body of Christ, The Church, when they die because he finds it fitting. This is an extraordinary circumstance though, not the normative means of salvation. And I find this no more scandalizing than saying "Christianity is the only true religion." As far as this "serious concern of 2,000,000,000 Christians in the West"... I find this simply to be an emotional appeal. 24:45 - "Is the Eastern Orthodox Church the savior instead of Jesus" - The Orthodox Church IS The Body of Christ. So it is not either/or, but one and the same. The Church is the Body of Christ here on Earth. Christ has given us the Orthodox Church and the Sacraments for our Salvation. Idolatry of the Church would be very difficult to achieve, because you'd have to first embrace a misunderstanding that the Church is a separate entity from Christ, and then hold it in higher regard than God himself. The only example of this that may come to mind is the Orthobro phenomena, where Orthobros idolize an IDEA of the Church they have in their head as this based, red-pilled, political thing as opposed to Death to the World, Spiritual transformation. 29:16 - Seeing as this entire video uses Theophan as the de facto view of Salvation in Orthodoxy, I think it would only be fair to also include this quote from him about Salvation of the Heterodox. "You ask, will the heterodox be saved... Why do you worry about them? They have a Saviour Who desires the salvation of every human being. He will take care of them. You and I should not be burdened with such a concern. Study yourself and your own sins... I will tell you one thing, however: should you, being Orthodox and possessing the Truth in its fullness, betray Orthodoxy, and enter a different faith, you will lose your soul forever" Frankly, this painting of the two options you frame is very deceptive and is, again, more of an appeal to emotion. "Either he is wrong and his entire tradition is wrong, or all these other 2,000,000,000 are damned." Yet, as you should see from this quote FROM THEOPHAN, it is not that cut and dry. 30:00 - How do we explain with this supposed second of our only 2 logical conclusions, the miracles, the hospitals, empire of Christianity, etc outside of Orthodoxy? I will do my best to answer (even though this was a false dichotomy you provided to use, since as shown above, Fr Theophan does not leave it so cut and dry. 1) Miracles themselves can never be proof of which faith is the true faith. There are "miracles" that occur in other religions outside of Christianity. Appealing to these other "miracles" does not prove anything, really. Within Orthodoxy, we can take miracles such as the wonderworking Icons as affirmations that strengthen our faith, but not proof of the Church in and of themselves. because as you say, Pentecostals could go "But look here! We have faith healings and speaking in tongues!" and Catholics may say "Look! We have Eucharistic Miracles." I think his Bible verse may address your appeal to miracles: Matthew 7 - v22 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?’ v23 And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!’ 2) As far as Matthew 7:18 - A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a bad tree bear good fruit - will have to get back to this, however, using this to disprove any ecclesiastical exclusivity is a dangerous game, because then you as a heretic, or member of another religion, can point to the good deeds you have done as proof that your religion/sect is a "good tree." So I don't think regardless this disproves our views. 3) Number games are irrelevant when it comes to Doctrine and Dogmas of the Faith. This applies both outside of Christianity, and "within" Christianity, speaking inter-denominationally. 30:45 - Again, a mischaracterization, requiring us to unambiguously label all outside the Church, all actions, teachings, people, as all-together "completely dark, heretical, falsehood." There are bits of truth and goodness even in other RELIGIONS. However, they are still outside the Church, and are still riddled with falsehood. Feeding a homeless man from the kindness of your heart is a good work and Godly act whether you're Orthodox, Protestant, Buddhist, Luciferian, etc. I find your characterization of the conclusions of Orthodoxy to be pretty baseless and misleading, to be honest. 31:00 Once again. Even though you erroneously conclude the universal, unambiguous damnation of all non-Orthodox, a quote from the SAME MAN WHOSE LETTER YOU ARE READING: "You ask, will the heterodox be saved... Why do you worry about them? They have a Savior Who desires the salvation of every human being. He will take care of them. You and I should not be burdened with such a concern. Study yourself and your own sins... I will tell you one thing, however: should you, being Orthodox and possessing the Truth in its fullness, betray Orthodoxy, and enter a different faith, you will lose your soul forever." Bearing in mind Matthew 7:1 - "Judge not, lest ye be judged." There are very few situations where can know an individual to be damned for certain. But we know that as Orthodox Christians, WE must be in the Church to be saved. There is a big emphasis on focusing on our own sins and deep, continued repentance that you seem to be either unaware of or not mentioning in this video. 32:30 - I will only bring up that despite what you say about Calvin, he set up a very strict Theocracy in which he punished people who went against him or his teachings. This buddy-buddy modern Protestant ecumenism is just as much an innovation as you often accuse the views of some modern Orthodox as being. I also think it's silly to act like Protestantism is this united front, when the historical practice has been closed-communion (especially among Lutherans). Since communion is, in part, a statement of theological agreement, being in the same Church. If this view of Protestantism you have were the case, would not all Protestants practice open communion with each other?

[@KoiDotJpeg]

34:30 - "Can you really stand before Christ and say you submitted to a system that requires you to reject 85% of those who can say the Apostles Creed" ... Matthew 7:21 - “Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven. Matthew 7:14 - Because narrow is the gate and difficult is the way which leads to life, and there are few who find it. Again, just an appeal to emotion. Yes, it is the hard truth that most Christians are outside the Church. That doesn't make it any less correct. The New Testament is dripping with warnings of false doctrine, apostasy, false prophets, wolves in sheeps' clothing, etc. We MUST remain vigilant. I hope others considering or critical of Orthodoxy found this response to Gavin helpful.

[@pogodonuts]

Great writeup, and it's nice to see your view as a catechumen. I've been struggling with my doubts about protestantism and am heavily looking into orthodoxy. Thank you for clearly laying out this rebuttal.

[@sezcerjan4431]

Wow, thoroughly well thought through and gracious rebuttal! Thank you for addressing these points (from a reformed prot inquiring into orthodoxy) 👍👍👍

[@KoiDotJpeg]

@@sezcerjan4431 I am humbled, glad you liked this response. I recommend you attend an Orthodox Divine Liturgy, first and foremost. Experience the faith first, dive into learning and material after, is how I would do it. I knew I was home when I attended my first service. May God bless your journey, my friend. I pray you join me in coming home to the Church.

[@KoiDotJpeg]

@@pogodonuts Glory to God, thank you for the comment. I am humbled my reply was beneficial to you. I highly recommend you visit a Divine Liturgy (with a bit of research beforehand) to experience a taste of the faith firsthand. This is what really did it to me. It was foreign, I was confused, there were some alarm bells ringing from my Protestant background... but I knew I was home. May God bless you in your journey, and I pray you follow me home :)

[@jonhilderbrand4615]

As a lifelong Baptist (non-Calvinist, 😊) I was ignorant of EO teachings for most of my life, until I gained a Russian friend some years ago. So grateful for discovering your content in light of that relationship. It's been a great help! God bless! Oh, I've also found the lack of evangelizing by the EO church to be a bit disturbing. Say what you will about the Catholics and Protestants, they have evangelized like crazy!

[@raphaelfeneje486]

What's funny is that the Protestants indirectly forced the Roman Catholics to evangelize. LOL

[@Seanain_O_hEarchai]

@@raphaelfeneje486 forced? The reason so much of Africa, Asia and South America is Christian is because of the Catholics. 😂

[@rsissel1]

But no one beats the Mormons (per capita)

[@CastanOpiu]

Orthodox Christianity is only for heavenly warriors with the faith of a soldier compared to the rest denominations no civilian amateur faith is allowed, the Ethiopian Orthodox church is for the faith equivalent of a Colonel in military experience and Flat Earthers Christians of the Ephraim awakening faith is the equivalent of a General in military experience. This is why in the True church believers are standing like a platoon of soldiers waiting orders from Jesus, meanwhile catholic heretics and the weakly faith denominations they don't respect Jesus they need to seat.

[@raphaelfeneje486]

@@CastanOpiu It must be cool convincing yourself, especially when you're In falsehood. LOL. Really cool.

[@feralandroid]

The problem with these videos is the Protestant is using a different definition of Salvation then the Orthodox. Salvation for an Orthodox person is a process called theosis, its not about going to heaven. For the protestant, salvation is a one time thing that means you get into heaven. Until you understand this, you will not understand the Orthodox point of view or how they read the bible. Even Jesus says you have to be baptized for salvation. But that doesn't mean you have to be baptized to go to heaven. In order to be saved, meaning becoming more and more like Christ, you must be part of the church and partake of the mysteries. Jesus is the final judge, but he has given us the church for our salvation. Protestants will still be in heaven, but they will not have the fullness of salvation in this life.

[@TheHatchet2]

I think protestants believe in this concept. We merely split it into its component parts. We refer to "being saved" generally as the status of one's eternal soul having your name written in God's book of life, also referred to as "justification" or "I am saved." It refers to what happens when we confess that Jesus is Lord and believe in His death and resurrection. The second concept refers to our soul in this present moment. Our mind, will, and emotions are undergoing a process of being transformed by the Holy Spirit who began to dwell in us upon our declaration of faith. He by virtue of being the living Spirit (our old man is dead) begins the process to change our hearts and minds. We call this "sanctification," or "I am being saved." Lastly, we know that our flesh is sinful and will die, through old age, sickness, or disease. It is irredeemable, therefore upon the return of Christ, we know that we will be given new, glorified bodies, free from the curse of sin and death. This is the final portion of the process and is called "glorification," or "I will be saved." Justification occurs upon confession, sanctification is a process over the course of our life and it's made complete upon Christ's return and with that comes our glorification.

[@feralandroid]

@@TheHatchet2 Yea, I understand. I used to be a protestant and understand protestant theology. My point is in EO and RC, Salvation is the entire process. When a protestant asks "are you saved" they mean, did you speak the magic words and are now in the book of life. This concept is so foreign to EO and RC ways of looking at salvation. Salvation is Ontological not Judicial. So Gavin's video doesn't really make sense because he misunderstands the basic concepts Theophane is talking about.

[@Mlena7]

Dr. Ortland’s question hit the nail on the head. I think there is a major danger of idolatry of the Orthodox Church. That was my experience.. I knew many that basically worshiped Orthodoxy. I suppose there are temptations in every denomination. For me, Orthodoxy became a barrier, blocking my relationship with Christ. It was very strange. Plus the intense pride in Orthodoxy wasn’t good for me either. As for converts, the honeymoon period wears off so hopefully they are there for Christ Himself. No liturgy is more beautiful than the triune God.

[@kevinmac8629]

@@Mlena7 Is Protestantism literally anti-christianity at this point?

[@King_Immanuel]

One can make an idol out of anything. I understand your point, but once you get out of the orthobro trad sphere on social media you see that no one really does that

[@Mlena7]

@@King_Immanuel When I was Orthodox, I had no interaction with an “OrthoBro Trad Sphere”.. All my experience was completely at the parish level. It was a long time ago. Before the internet made priests famous.

[@Mlena7]

@@kevinmac8629 Whatever happened to the diplomatic “not the fullness of the faith” line? Thats the one they used to feed converts. Then when the converts are on the inside, the truth comes out. My favorite were the stoney silences when anyone mentioned the Armenians or Byz Catholics in a positive way or when a parishioner marries a Maronite in Lebanon. I am just happy they started saying heterodox instead of heretic. Much nicer. My friends who are still EO are the best ones. That was God’s mercy on me.

[@blissseeker4719]

@@kevinmac8629 no

[@MultiRobinso]

But Dr Gavin, is this not like the way protestant view JW or Mormons? The way a lot of protestant traditions view Eastern Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism? You said it yourself, your deep concern that adherents of the Eastern Orthodox faith may very well have their church as an idol, becoming idolaters. Do you believe there are idolaters in heaven? You sound just as worried as St Theophan. Shedding tears for lost lambs and both fighting for your flock and your faith. So I admire your pastoral care for the weary christians seeking other boats, but beware that your views as shown in this video is the same way non-christians view us christians.

[@rexlion4510]

Jesus said, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." (John 14:6). So we Christians must represent Jesus' claim of exclusivity. But Jesus never said, 'X denomination is the Way...' and that is why the exclusivity claims of EOC, JW, RCC, and any group that makes such claims, are flawed & false. So even though you can see what appears to be a similarity, at the root they are very different.

[@processandbeing]

Not really. Aside from salvation, the JW and LDS christologies are very different than any (small-o) orthodox Christian expression.

[@mapa6772]

Gavin is not having tears for lost lambs. There have been so many theologians better scholars than himself going over to EO he feels the need to protect the territory.

[@MultiRobinso]

​@@rexlion4510Yes, truly He said that and JW and Mormons believes that too. So what is your point really? Jesus is The way, but all denominations have their own view of Him and how He delegated the responsibility to His disciples after ascension and how He lives through the church today. EO or RCC doesn't believe the Church substitutes Christ but believes that he tangibly reveals himself through the sacraments and the apostolic teachings

[@MultiRobinso]

​@@processandbeing I meant the way Gavin expressed his concerns for idolatry within the EO church and how that could be a detriment to ones salvation. Which any protestant would also be concerned for when talking to a Mormon or JW

[@IsaacArellano-n4u]

You have said what I have been trying to say to my eastern brothers for a long time in a nutshell. The taking for granted of the west and the people (Catholic, Protestant, Anglican, Evangelical, etc.) it has brought forth and the beauty they have preached and lives they have lived for Christ. I am Roman Catholic but most of my readings, meditations, and inspirations come from people like Jonathan Edward’s, George Muller, Wurmbrand, NT Wright, and YOU!

[@cleob9956]

That’s so encouraging to know, brother.

[@CurtosiusMaximus828]

Eek. Not safe bro. You might as well read Arius

[@SJackson-sk4be]

As a protestant, I'm truly glad to have you as my brother in Christ. ❤

[@IsaacArellano-n4u]

If this bishop spoke for the whole Orthodox Church, sadly they can’t say the same. Amen brother, likewise!

[@ansich3603]

God bless you Dr. Ortlund, you videos always useful to me to strenghten my love for Scripture, God's words. I hope you will always filled with Holy Spirit ❤️❤️❤️

[@elnathan2930]

I love Gavin!!! He is the reason I have fallen in love with Theology and Protestantism.

[@roses993]

Same here!!!😊 I love our protestant faith and the well articulated arguments he makes 😊

[@jimyoung9262]

Excellent video Dr. O. I have a couple of family members who left the non-denominational protestant church we all once attended together, citing legitimate complaints about fundamentalism issues in our former church, and legitimate appreciation for the beauty of the Orthodox liturgy. Thankfully we are still close and I expressed to them a desire to not brand one another as heretics as we agree to disagree. Thanks again. You're my favorite "sellout" 😉

[@ricksonora6656]

Heretics cause division. Unless someone is in a teaching position, heretic is the wrong word. The right word is apostate.

[@issaavedra]

Very often the answer of priests and Saints is the same: "Work on your salvation! If you are worried about your non-Orthodox family and friends, pray for them". And I appreciate the rigorist approach, remind me that this is not a game, and I shouldn't be collecting weird theological opinions, the path is narrow and a little mistakes have serious consequences in the long run. I don't understand why you keep pressing this point. In our traditions we have people who think that only people in the Eastern Orthodox Church will be saved, we have (hopeful) universalists, we have people in between and the majority: those who tell you to pray, go to Church, fast and remember that God is infinitely more merciful than you are.

[@ElvisI97]

The problem is that the rigorists have an easier time defending their position in line with their canonical teachings and teachings of various Saints. However, the EO priests who are either open to salvation outside the church rarely defend their case from tradition but rather seem to be within the spirit of ecumenism.

[@issaavedra]

@@ElvisI97 They are more vocal and people are more "scandalized" by them, but I don't think there is more evidence for the "no salvation outside the visible Church" position. For example, the Church doesn't even affirm that Judas is in hell. As St. Maximus said: "May God keep me too from condemning anyone and saying that no one but myself is saved" Even priest that are very "rigid", like Fr. Peter Heers, when pressed on this issue he respond the same: "I don't know, that is God's business".

[@anglicanaesthetics]

Watching it now, and you're right on. It's downright disturbing to see how many people are willing to say "yeah and it's BaSeD to say my fathers, mothers, mentors, and friends who all showed the fruits of the Spirit worship a FaKe Jesus and are gonna go to hell #imsoedgy". Like....the sheer callousness there. My word.

[@AmericanwrCymraeg]

@@anglicanaesthetics Have you actually seen anyone say that or is this a calumnious extrapolation of what you think we're saying?

[@TheologyVisualized]

100%. It’s shocked me for a long time how many people might love their family heritage and living family and then actively move to EO alone, not realizing they are joining a confession that says that person’s ancestors and immediate family who are Christian are actually empty vessels. They either have no idea or think it’s not a required belief, negating the whole appeal of the “unchanged” church.

[@AmericanwrCymraeg]

@TheologyVisualized The same argument, literally the same argument, was used by pagans multiple times early in Church history, to stop people from converting to Christ, that by doing so, they were saying that all of their ancestors were in Hell. Should they have remained pagan, rather than accept the exclusivity claimed by Christ? Note : it's not an adequate response to say that their ancestors were pagans, while here we're talking about fellow Christians. The logic of the argument and its emotional appeal work equally well in either case. What's important is what the Scriptures teach, what is true, and what is pleasing to God. In either case, this is a caricature of what we actually believe.

[@janen668]

@@AmericanwrCymraeg Thank you! I am reminded of the saying I have heard several times: "We know where the Holy Spirit is, we don't know where he is not". I have not heard any Orthodox Priest say that everyone outside of Orthodoxy is damned. That would be like putting God in a box and knowing exactly what he should be doing, which is exactly what Orthodoxy does not do. (Protestant inquirer in Wales)

[@MegaMetal96]

This is so schitzo

[@adonisjryoutubr5025]

Orthodox people who deny that we believe there is no salvation outside of the Church need to hear this and be rebuked so thank you Gavin for accurately displaying through Theophan what we believe. I knew this teaching leaving Protestantism into Eastern Orthodoxy almost a year ago and this teaching Gavin is elaborating on is actually one of the big reasons I knew it was the truth. This idea that all people who claim to be Christians must be saved is nowhere to be found in Scripture. Mark 9 does not justify being a heretic and teaching a false gospel. Jesus said Not everyone who calls him Lord will be saved...this is the exact problem Gavin has with Eastern Orthodoxy which teaches exactly what Christ taught! There is only one church because there is only one visible distinguishable covenant body and bride of the Lord. I say this as lovingly as I can but Gavin doesnt understand our obsession with church because he doesnt understand theosis...the concept of the church of God being literally conjoined to Christ. We become one with Him in the church. We receive His actual flesh and become His literal body. (Eph 4:30) To be one with the church is to be one with Jesus who deifies it. Thats what is missing in Protestantism. There is no true church or deification through the sacraments and priesthood EXACTLY as Theophan says and its not just him. Read Athanasius, Cyprian, Ambrose of Milan, Irenaeus, Ignatius (disciple of the apostle John), and especially Augustine of Hippo who Protestants claim to love and agree with. They all speak with one voice! "He can not have God for His father who does not have the church for his mother!" -Augustine

[@andygarcia2113]

Hey I love holy orthodoxy and it quite hard for me this teaching because of people outside of the church who are seeking to love Jesus and live holy lives. I understand this but I do wonder if there is a little bit of nuance here

[@rexlion4510]

You're substituting faith in your denomination (EO) for faith in the _finished, once-for-all, propitiatory sacrifice of Christ on the cross_ for your complete redemption from sin. Nowhere do we read that Jesus required belief in a particular church organization for one's salvation & justification. You wrote: "This idea that all people who claim to be Christians must be saved is nowhere to be found in Scripture." But this is NOT the idea which Gavin and other Christians are conveying! You've presented a straw man. The idea Christians convey, which IS found (repeatedly) in Scripture, is that all who believe in Jesus as their Savior from sin _are saved_ and _will be saved,_ so long as they persevere in their faith in Jesus Christ (i.e., they do not apostasize). Yes, there is only one church... and it transcends all denominational barriers. God does not look at the name over the building's doorway; He looks for the blood of Christ applied through faith to the doorposts of a person's heart. Jesus' true church crosses all denominational lines. There are true, born-again Christians in practically all denominations. Likewise, there are plenty of faux Christians in all denominations. Denominationalism means nothing; faith in Christ's redemption at a personal level means everything, because through faith apart from works we are counted righteous by God as a gift of His grace.

[@andygarcia2113]

@@rexlion4510 I know were you are coming from, but were there denominations in the early church and a variety of teaching and doctrines? was there not one understanding and one teaching and one church. I mean did Christ not say the holy spirit would lead you into all truth. frankly I was tired the many different versions of truth in protestant circles, and asked my self what did the early church believe How did they understand the gospel. Not saying this to debate and no hate on my part by any means, but if Christ is the truth does any lie come from him and his holy spirit.

[@tiffybobiffy85]

​​@@rexlion4510the reason prots are leaving for EO is because the invisible church is a massive accretion on which protestantism rests, and it's illogical, it's not historical, it's fence jumping. Big reason I left protestantism after 30 years, it's simply not the true, visible, historic church Christ left that He promised would be lead by Him, that He'd never leave and that the Holy Spirit would guide into all truth. If the scripture is true and the church is the pillar and bulwark of truth as stated in scripture then any other church existing can't be the true Church, it makes Christ a liar.

[@kage239]

What would be your argument against Catholics having a true Eucharist?

[@nemochuggles]

Thanks, this is helpful for a Protestant peeking into Orthodoxy.

[@ArchangelIcon]

If you are peaking into Orthodoxy, the best route to take is to simply attend an Orthodox liturgy and experience, and discuss your questions with the priest over coffee hour. Orthodoxy is primarily experiential.

[@easytiger35]

@@ArchangelIcon sounds like a sales pitch from a cult. "I can't explain it, you just have to come get brainwashed in person by drinking holy water and kiss these pictures of saints for no reason whatsoever"

[@raphaelfeneje486]

​@@ArchangelIcon LOL

[@mariomene2051]

@@nemochuggles I've been to a liturgy. If you're holding fast to Scripture, and to Christ, it won't move you to faith in Orthodoxy. I saw the blasphemy of a man bowing to a piece of art, and was offended.

[@ArchangelIcon]

@@mariomene2051 Maybe you should check out what the bowing to the piece of art represents, from the Orthodox perspective.

[@pigetstuck]

Orthodox view Protestants similar to how Protestants view Mormons?

[@davidjanbaz7728]

You know Mormons aren't Trinitarians : your compassion is incoherent.

[@pigetstuck]

@@davidjanbaz7728 Do Orthodox view Protestants as having flawed trinitarian theology?

[@janen668]

@@pigetstuck Yes, because they followed the Roman Catholics with their addition to the Nicean creed.

[@pigetstuck]

@@janen668 if the Catholics went back to the original creed, would they then be part of the true church again?

[@janen668]

@@pigetstuck Not unless they renounce other doctrines they added, like purgatory, infallible papacy etc.

[@brandonclark908]

Baptist from the east Tennessee area. Thank you for your ministry, Gavin!

[@Stanzan52]

Great video as always. After being discouraged from RC with the issues surrounding the Papacy, I am turning to evaluating EO and will use this topic as a main point of contention.

[@WaterMelon-Cat]

Check out Lutheranism. Reformed Romanism.

[@FaithinChristCrucified]

Study many books, but live in scripture. You'll see the EO doesn't square with scripture fully. I've had to lay it aside.

[@willw1753]

@@FaithinChristCrucified But Protestantism does? Lmao. Protestantism is a false man-made trash heap.

[@willw1753]

If you want truth and valid sacraments, you will become RC or EO. There is no other option.

[@Stanzan52]

@@willw1753 Those two are mutually exclusive.

[@stayready6170]

Although I am new to Orthodoxy and I am still a Catechumen, I see exactly what Theophan is saying in his letter and where the misunderstanding and disagreement comes from. In a protestants mind, he believes he is "saved" because he believes in christ. Meaning a protestant believes that If he dies believing in Jesus and having repented of his sins, he will go to heaven. And although this is also the concept of salvation to an Orthodox, An Orthodox doesn't profess to be saved and doesn't assume that if he dies he will go to heaven. The Orthodox teaching is that one must always strive to be closer to christ and continue in the sacraments to have the best chance of going to heaven. Although an Orthodox can look at the life of an individual after he dies and say with almost certainty, but not 100% certainty, that some people made it to heaven, as The Church does with canonized saints. Theophan is also saying that just because the preacher is preaching what sounds like sound doctrine, he also will eventually teach heresy, and also his simplistic view of salvation is leading people astray in and of itself. Because the preacher was taught by people who have different interpretations than The Orthodox church, he will have people believing in things that are not correct and are heresy. He is saying that The Orthodox Church got its beliefs and traditions from Jesus and the apostles themselves, so they alone know the correct interpretation and fullness of faith. Roman Catholics added onto those teachings, which caused the protestants to break away from them, and they took away from the fullness of the teachings and traditions of The Church. Two people can hear the same basic fundamentals of the Gospel and take away completely different interpretations, In fact you can read the Whole Bible cover to cover, but without having somebody there to answer questions and misunderstandings, you could be believing in an interpretation that was not taught by Jesus and the apostles. And like I said I am still learning and praying to God to reveal his whole truth and show me the way, so I am not trying to say I am an expert but just commenting on what I see and believe to be true and what I got from this video.

[@JacobVashchenko]

I had a similar thought, considering the worldview of this Russian priest, he isn't wrong in what he is saying. When we anachronise the word salvation limited to the Protestant definition, this leads tl a lot of misunderstanding and quote mining where the paradigm being presented is actually slightly different from what is intended in the meaning.

[@simon-y2b]

100% agree! The risk of heresy is too great to not be attached to the One Holy Apostolic Church.

[@bornagainbach2731]

@stayready6170 You say we can read the whole Bible, but without having somebody there to answer questions and misunderstandings, we could be believing a false interpretation. That is definitely the case when we attempt to read without the Holy Spirit! But how do you know the people answering your questions are not leading you astray? They cannot prove to you that their current views of the scriptures go back to the 1st century, and they are warned by Paul who said, "I fear, lest somehow, as the serpent deceived Eve by his craftiness, so your minds may be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ" (II Cor. 11:3). Yet you say "his simplistic view of salvation is leading people astray". So your solution is to enter into the endless complexity and "mystery" of the Eastern Orthodox religion, which claims they alone can correctly interpret scripture - yet they are nowhere to be found in much of the Western world. Think my friend - this is the very departure from the "simplicity that is in Christ Jesus" Paul warned us about.

[@Jeremy.Mathetes]

@@stayready6170 this is something I hear a lot from EO converts: “our definition of salvation is so different from yours, none of your critiques land.” I think that is missing Gavin’s point; however you define salvation, whatever nuances you give it-regardless of how different it is from the Protestant understanding-let’s just assume it does mean something completely different, whatever IT is, it is only for those within the EO institution. That’s the exclusivist claim which Gavin is talking about. If you feel good about believing that then great! I certainly do not. Especially if the EO definition of salvation does indeed have to do with healing from the corruption of sin.

[@stayready6170]

@@bornagainbach2731 So why is it that you have different people who “guided by the Holy Spirit” have different interpretations? And why so many denominations? You have one group of people who believe they are predestined to go to heaven and if you are not randomly chosen by God to be the elect, you are going to hell and there’s nothing you can do about it. You have another group that believe that all you have to do is say a prayer to Jesus and accept him into your heart and that you sealed and saved and that after no sin too great to separate you from heaven(once saved always saved) And we have another group of people who believe in the true definition of baptism and communion, yet they have female pastors and homosexual clergy, and you have another group of people who believe the Holy Spirit makes them speak in “Angelic languages” and fall on the floor when the pastor blows air on them. And another group who “speak in tongues” who are into prosperity, and another who are Oneness Pentecostals, not to mention the modern new heretical doctrine of “The Rapture” and the false interpretation of the millennial reign of Christ. And don’t get me started on Christian Zionists. All claim to be guided by the “Holy Spirit” All one has to do is study church history to find out who, with the real Holy Spirit, and knowledge and tradition passed on from the apostles, decided what books were to be in the Bible and what books were out. It is the same people who wrote the Nicene creed with the help of the true Holy Spirit and knowledge and tradition of the apostles. The same Nicene creed that defines what it means to be a Christian, that is the basis for every Trinitarian believing church. Except all the Protestant churches take out the last part of the Nicene creed that says “I believe in One Holy Apostolic Catholic Church.” So to answer your question, how do I know who is not gonna lead me astray? I’m gonna go with the One Holy Apostolic Catholic Church who with the Holy Spirit defined for the world what Christianity is in writing and who put the Bible together.

[@HandlesAreStupid2024]

Listening to OrthoBros they definitely come off as "I am better than you".

[@EricAlHarb]

Well no one attained unity with God with knowledge of theory, but submissions of one’s passions.

[@johnnygnash2253]

Especially converts.

[@icxcnika7722]

And how is that any different from the "cage stage" Reformed bro or Rad Trad? I've encountered many Reformed bros who brag about how many systematics they've read of their proficiency in Greek hermeneutics, etc... That each tradition has its overzealous converts is a problem we all have. It's not specific to one tradition.

[@TheB1nary]

@@EricAlHarb Nobody can kil sin (passions) except by the Spirit (Romans). So you put the cart before the horse there.

[@EricAlHarb]

@@TheB1nary it’s a both-and, God and man work together as in Christ the first born to kill the passions.

[@CC-E.O.Inquirer]

Gavin, if you anticipated being called out for appealing to emotion, that alone should have raised a red flag. Recognizing the emotional angle doesn’t make the approach any less of a fallacy-it only highlights it. Just because a truth might be uncomfortable or challenging doesn’t make it any less true. Trying to make people “feel bad” for joining a system with clear definitions of what the Church is and isn’t doesn’t change the truth of that system. Something I’ve noticed is that you’re often led by hyper-emotional responses, and it seems this time is no different. It comes across as if you’re feeling uncertain about your position, trying to convince others to stay rather than genuinely engaging with what’s drawing them elsewhere. This kind of appeal won’t resonate in the long run, especially for those seeking something deeper and more historically rooted. Your use of St. Theophan’s words also seems like a misrepresentation. St. Theophan was speaking about Orthodox Christians abandoning their faith-not about people from other backgrounds exploring Orthodoxy. Using his words out of context misrepresents both the saint and the tradition you’re critiquing. In Orthodoxy, saints and Church Fathers are grounded in a specific context; selectively quoting them without understanding the intended audience risks distorting the message. At this point, it feels like this is a cheap shot at Orthodoxy, and a straw man. which is disappointing. It’s unfortunate that this is all you could conjure up in response. Centering your argument on the words of a single bishop or a misrepresented saint shows a misunderstanding of how Orthodoxy functions. Orthodox teachings aren’t based on isolated opinions or selective interpretations. Decisions are grounded in scripture,councils, tradition, and the Church’s collective discernment-not cherry-picked quotes. This misses the historically grounded, cohesive foundation that gives Orthodoxy its theological depth. For me, hyper-emotionalism in Protestantism was a red flag, and this video reminds me of why I left. Emotional appeals might sway people temporarily, but they won’t sustain them. Truth matters more than feelings, and relying on emotion isn’t an enduring approach. People are drawn to Orthodoxy for its depth, stability, and historical consistency-not an emotional reaction. Ultimately, truth stands on its own, regardless of how it makes us feel. I find it perplexing that you feel such a strong urge to win over other Christians to Protestantism, especially when its foundations lack a clear biblical basis. Have you considered whether this impulse might reflect insecurity in your own position? Instead of fostering genuine dialogue about faith, it seems more like a defense mechanism. The principle of sola scriptura presents a significant problem: if each denomination claims to adhere to this doctrine yet interprets Scripture in vastly different ways, how can we trust that it leads us to a unified understanding of truth? This contradiction undermines the very promise of sola scriptura. your fervent attempts to draw Christians away from Orthodoxy to Protestantism raise several important questions about the nature of faith and the necessity of conversion. If you truly believe that these individuals are already saved, it seems puzzling to advocate for their shift to a different tradition. This situation feels contradictory, as it implies that the assurance of their salvation is contingent upon adhering to a specific interpretation of Christianity. If we are united in our faith in Christ, what is the underlying motive for seeking to “win” them over to a particular denominational viewpoint? This quest for conversion appears less about nurturing faith and more about affirming allegiance to a specific tradition, which can be problematic. Furthermore, your reliance on emotional appeals in this context seems to detract from the objective truth that should be at the forefront of faith discussions. While emotions are an inherent part of the human experience, they can often cloud our judgment and lead us away from reasoned discourse. Emotional arguments may resonate in the moment but fail to establish a firm foundation for lasting belief. Instead of fostering genuine understanding, such appeals can create superficial connections that ultimately falter when faced with the complexities of faith. The Orthodox tradition offers a more grounded approach that invites believers to engage with the faith intellectually, historically, and spiritually, encouraging a deeper exploration of truth rather than a reaction to feelings. In light of this, it is worth considering whether an emotional appeal to convert others is truly rooted in love and concern for their spiritual well-being or if it reflects an insecurity about the validity of Protestantism itself. The Church should be a place where truth prevails, not a battleground for competing emotional narratives. True conversion should arise from a profound encounter with Christ and His teachings, not from an emotional tug-of-war.

[@Orthocurious]

Very well said!

[@ExpiditionWild]

Nobody reading all that shit

[@matthiasbrandt1252]

Another great accomplishment Gavin! Thank you for such a clear presentation....again done with love and firm fidelity to God's Word. May the Lord multiply this video's reach to His glory and people's blessing.

[@talmadgeblack1385]

Dr. Ortlund - thank you for the video. As a person who is going through this journey from Protestant to Orthodox, I appreciate your concerns. It has been some time since I read the book Dominion; however, doesn’t Mr. Holland end the book showing that the evolution of the Western church has landed us in this disunited state we are in? How does one compare Protestantism to Orthodoxy? As a Protestant, what are you protesting? For how long does the protest last? Which branch of Protestantism is correct? Some of them? All of them? For example, the Methodists have gone through a major split. Is the UMC still part of the one apostolic church? Is the new GMC part of the one apostolic church? If they both are, why did they split? If only one is, which one? Christ says “Repent, the kingdom of God is at hand”. Repent - turn around, change the way look at things, the looks you look at change. The Orthodox outlook or phronema is incomparable to the Protestant view. Here is a question to ask - if it weren’t for the unyielding nature of Orthodoxy, where would “the Church” be today? If that backbone of steadiness that answers “What is truth?” with “It is He”, were not ever present and praying for us all, where would we be? The search for truth leads to some rather unexpected places. Small is the gate and narrow is the road that leads to life and few will find it (Matthew 7:14). Glory to God in the highest and on earth peace, goodwill to men. Amen

[@fr.davidbibeau621]

Dude I get this same response from many of the protestant pastors here in Mississippi. Had preachers say I was preaching a false gospel, called a snake. Once again you get way too simplistic. As I've shared on your other videos in this vein there were other voices. The softening of this issue is not a change in doctrine, nor is it from protestantism. It is from our own history. You're also selective in your own Tradition. Luther and other reformers called the Catholic Church the antichrist. That's a lack of love. The 39 articles are clear that the patriarchs of the East are from the same error as the Catholics. Theophan the recluse is a great saint, and in this letter he's trying to stop a protestant preacher, who obviously doesn't think Orthodox are saved, from converting people. He's doing the same thing you are doing with this video. Trying to stop people from converting. Nothing in this letter is dogmatic. I'd say he's right from the perspective of people leaving the Orthodox Church.

[@mebobbygillis]

I was Protestant for 25 years. I became Orthodox after 5 years of inquiring and attending divine Liturgy for a year and I haven't looked back. There is nothing as fulfilling as the Orthodox faith. There is nothing like Divine Liturgy.

[@matthiasbrandt1252]

I'm sure you have very "fulfilling" experiences, and like Gavin said, there is beauty in Orthodox services. But you should really "look back" if you would live a life with Christ based on GOD'S WORD...instead of man made traditions.

[@Dhavroch]

@@matthiasbrandt1252Apologies for being blunt, but Protestants do not escape from tradition. The very interpretative framework you use for scripture either consciously or unconsciously is itself an inherited tradition. The way your church is structured is in a tradition. It’s been 2000 years since Christ, there is no way to escape that our interaction with the faith is at least somewhat mediated by tradition.

[@anestichristos]

@Dhavroch Right on, call it like it is.

[@Joe10e84]

So you rely on the experience?

[@CC-E.O.Inquirer]

@@matthiasbrandt1252😂 so Martin Luther, Calvin, zwingili didn’t introduce man made traditions 😂

[@JulesGomes-v4w]

Another great video, Dr. Ortlund! The Lord is using you mightily in this entire debate and discussion. I pray many will find the assurance of salvation through your ministry.

[@ferguson1376]

We view salvation differently; salvation is not forensically imputed but ontologically imparted. It is a healing of the entire person. It is a process: past, present and future. And clearly he is laying out the normative way for this specific believer who has access to a canonical Church. There are extra normative ways which must not be relied on however (thief). And the charismatic bounds of the Church are unknowable. You cannot sever this context.

[@XiHamORTHOCN]

☦️🙏

[@faithfulandfoolish]

Um…hospitals took root in Eastern or united/pre-schism Christianity as well as all the other things you claim as being exclusively the domain of “western Christianity”. Also, it is not the burden of EO to accept later developments, it is the burden of the later developments/denominations to explain why they are not EO. You would do well to stop creating videos against EO which largely strawman and misrepresent the actual history and teaching of EO. There are plenty of charitable EO priests and historians who would be willing to actually discuss with you your hangups and/or points of disagreement. But instead you just dig deeper holes of falsehood and misrepresentation with your vids in this regard; despite your calm tone. It’s not a good look (for a historian/theologian) and unfair to the audiences of these videos.

[@charlesiragui2473]

Gavin, you state that by proclaiming itself the true church (we do not know where the church is not but we do know where the church is), the EO esteem themselves the sole inheritors of the Kingdom of Heaven. Lex orandi lex credendi. In every liturgy the Orthodox sing “and all mankind”, praying for the salvation of all people. The Orthodox avow themselves to be sinners in need of healing, as the Publican who was justified by his humility and repentance. At the end of every Lent, the reading is Matthew 25: the Last Judgment. How will all people be judged? By their compassion to those in need whom they encountered, images of Christ in our lives. The Orthodox believe that they have “the true faith, worshiping the undivided Trinity”. It simply does not follow that all others are therefore damned.

[@protestanttoorthodox3625]

Tom Holland has also explicitly made the claim that the reformation led to modern day atheism in the west.

[@roses993]

And catholicism led to reformation. Praise God for reformation!! So many people loving God and getting saved. Atheism is a result of a culture abandoning God. Strong Christian protestant churches having nothing to do with atheism

[@ProphetGreg94]

@@protestanttoorthodox3625 and?

[@jeremyfrost3127]

Gavin - you kept hitting on the exclusivity piece but glossed over the fact that Theophan literally says in that passage that God desires that all should be saved and implies that the Anglican’s salvation is ultimately up to God (which is the EO view). I think we have to consider if EO is the true church, how else could they protect that apart from exclusivity?

[@mertonhirsch4734]

My dad was an Orthodox priest. A few things he mentioned over the years. 1) God can save anyone, but everyone in heaven is Orthodox. Also that does not imply universalism. 2) If non-Orthodox are saved it will be through the work, prayers and presence of Christ's body, the Church, on earth. 3) Salvation is identical to being Orthodox, tautologically. Being saved means you are Orthodox and being Orthodox means you are saved. 4) There are 3 realms, a) What we know is the church; b) What we know is not the Church; c) What we don't know is or is not the Church.

[@AmericanwrCymraeg]

Memory eternal to your father!

[@HohoCumacho]

All that to say that non-Orthodox are not saved. #2 is a tease though, but it is a conditional "*If* non-Orthodox are saved. Why shouldn't I understand that just to mean that non-Orthodox can be saved ... if they become Orthodox?

[@mertonhirsch4734]

@@HohoCumacho Not at all. It means that you may possibly be saved without ever formally joining the Orthodox church, but that the Church should not try to figure out where, when and how God accomplishes that, and that the Church being the body of Christ will be ONE, UNITED in belief after this world has passed away. God's justice is a purifying fire. Whatever is not pure in any of us is incompatable with it. So we are saved once, but we continue to throw off the dead skin of the old man, and the vestiges of sin in our minds and bodies. They are incompatible with God.

[@danir8953]

You nailed it. As a citizen of Romania, a country which is 80% Eastern Orthodox but has been historically over 90%, I can say that the fruits of Eastern Orthodoxy are bitter and inedible, but I see in the last years an aggresive campaign of PR in the US., presenting a version of Orthodoxy that is not actually what really happens in practice. 1. The Eastern Orthodox Church often forgets how small and impactless it is. Besides the fact that it counts only about 230 millions, in reality majority of the members of this church are unpracticants and furthermore you'll rarely find a regular Orthodox member (non-clerical) that actually knows a single verse from the Bible. They treasure more the tradition (which differs in each Orthodox country) than the Scripture. It's quite sad to visit a sermon because you will find mostly old people attending, not because the trend has changed, but because this is the pattern: you live all your live without attending the church once, but when you get old and you feel that the death is close, they are becoming more religious, but most of them are actually too old already to realize how difficult to follow the Liturgy is. Most don't even understand what it is preached, they just stare at empty space and do the sign of the cross from time to time, when the priest or the person near them is doing it. 2. It's incredible the discrepancy between the Orthodox and West countries when it comes to criminality, poverty, level of education, addictions (most common being alchoolism). Orthodox clergy argue that the problem is actually rooted in the lack of resources, which causes education problems. But then I ask: do you believe that is normal for the "real church of Christ" to be so uneducated, both in spiritual and on material matters? In reality, each National Orthodox Church has a lot of resources, but they don't care about making an impact in the society, they would rather prefer to build imposing churches instead of help raising the level of education. Of course, they do actions of charity, but they are too litle when compared to their size and wealth. 3. I believe that is the only Christian denomination that is deliberately spreading and preaching hate towards the other denominations. As you mentioned, they believe that they are the only Church and all of the others are heretics, including the Roman-Catholics. Not long ago - 30 years max - they were studing in the Orthodox Seminary about the "sects" which included all the other denominations. I know several cases of Orthodox priests who engaged in physical violence towards protestants who were trying to do acts of charity is poor and isolated villages, arguing that they are trying to "deceive the Orthodox people". (obviously, those poor people were mostly alchoolic and have no relation with God whatsoever, so they couldn't be deceived since they never knew God) 4. They are closely related with the most corrupt members of the state. Unsurprisingly, the countries where the Orthodoxy is popular have very corrupt leaders with very corrupt organizations behind them and those organizations contain without a doubt, high members from the Clergy. 80 years ago, the Romanian Orthodox Church was sending Protestants in Siberia to freeze because they were refusing to make the sign of the cross and kiss some icons. These are just some small things that quickly came into my mind, from my point of view, the Eastern Orthodoxy is one of the most dangerous Christian denominations because it is profoundly corrupt and it also like to keep its members DUMB.

[@gracenotes5379]

I think a core point being made here is that if you are attracted to Eastern Orthodox adherence (perhaps by aesthetic considerations) make sure you are willing to swallow the whole (and that the whole is not just beautiful, but true). The benefit of exegeting this letter from St. Theothan is that it presents the claims of Eastern Orthodoxy in rather blunt and plain terms, rather than vague appeals to the mystery and ancient wisdom of the church.

[@TruthUnites]

well said

[@AmericanwrCymraeg]

@@gracenotes5379 I've been a priest for a long time and have baptized many converts. I always talk to inquirers about their motivations and what's leading them to consider Orthodoxy. I'd be hard pressed to think of a single person who was coming for aesthetical reasons, yet I consistently here Protestants dismissively deriding new Orthodox Christians as only caring about aesthetics, rather than doctrine. It's a caricature and not a particularly helpful one. Obviously, enjoying or appreciating beauty is not the same thing as being motivated to convert for those reasons.

[@raphaelfeneje486]

​@@AmericanwrCymraeg What's the reason they convert??

[@AmericanwrCymraeg]

@@raphaelfeneje486 Generally history, doctrine, stability, things like that.

[@pianoatthirty]

@@raphaelfeneje486 Study the Reformation and early christian writings and you'll see why.

[@aceswizzo8665]

Can someone explain to me why orthodox are mad at dr ortlund im no orthodox expert but they absolutely teach there's no salvation outside of the orthodox church so if you not physically apart of the church you won't be saved so if your catholic or protestant and you put your faith in Christ you wont be saved

[@MichaelH__J]

@@aceswizzo8665 the top comments here can answer your question

[@wormius7350]

Thank you, Dr. Ortlund. I had attended an Eastern Orthodox Divine Liturgy this weekend and was surprised when the priest’s sermon focused entirely on the saint whose day the liturgy was being held for. There was no mention of evangelism, forgiveness of sins, Christ’s Kingdom, it was all focused on following the liturgy. The grass is not always greener, guys. If you are some form of protestant and you leave for Eastern Orthodoxy, you are giving up good, long sermons focusing on teaching the word.

[@WeakestAvenger]

Protestant here who has attended a couple of Divine Liturgies. Were you able to follow along with the Liturgy? Because all of those things you say weren't in the sermon are in the Liturgy. Long sermons aren't the be-all, end-all of Christian worship.

[@wormius7350]

@@WeakestAvenger The liturgy was actually quite difficult to follow. It switched from Greek to English at random points between hymns. And in the liturgy, the priest and deacon were off doing their own thing in front of the altar. It made me feel like I was only observing the service and never actually participating in it. That is another issue I had, that the service was mostly in Greek. It negates the idea of the catholic (universal) church the Orthodox claim they are. If I can’t partake in the full liturgy, why bother? Your church will always be a tiny minority if you don’t preach to the people in a language they understand.

[@ArchangelIcon]

Orthodox sermons are always to do with the feast or the story of the saint of the day, relating it to our lives and path to Christ. The worship is more important than the preaching. Bible and book study groups deal with other aspects, but the services are choc-o-bloc with the other things you mention.

[@alypiusloft]

Keep in mind that priests should be most concerned with the needs of the parishioners. His preaching is also not required to speak to the text directly. The homily is not academic Bible study time. It is the time for the flock to be given the medicine they need, which might mean hearing about the Saint being celebrated.

[@AmericanwrCymraeg]

@@wormius7350 Because a particular Church's services were in Greek, that negates the universality of Orthodoxy? There's a Korean language Protestant church not far from my house. If I visited, would that negate Protestantism? Most Orthodox parishes in the United States worship in English. Those that don't are often responding to the needs of the people in the congregation. Some do hold on to their language of ethnic heritage too long, but that's true elsewhere as well. Growing up as a Protestant, our services still had a lot of German in them.

[@FaithinChristCrucified]

The response to the response to the response is already being prepared!😂 Great to see you doing this. So helpful. I too was pondering if EO were committing ecclesiolatry: equating the Bride to their institutions and even to Christ Himself with no wiggle room. All else is considered a dead branch by many Orthodox. And I know from within...! Great people, amazing liturgies but if you really get into scripture the difference is so remarkable. Its why they proof text rather than do expository preaching and study saints rather than the Bible typically. God bless them though, they have much to share if they can get beyond infallible canons that wall them into ecclesial exclusivism. I've changed and my allegiance is to Christ, not an institution, Bishop or priest. Scripture is setting me free of this salvation by church and priest approach, because its tone is so different to the NT message as a whole.

[@esoterico7750]

It’s not about institution at all it’s about the correct faith. The NT is super explicit that there is one faith and that those teaching something else aren’t part of the church. This is also the view of the entire early church, the medieval church east and west, and many Protestant reformers

[@FaithinChristCrucified]

Yes but the accretions brother....The accretions!​@@esoterico7750

[@EricTheYounger]

Saint Ignatius said we need to look to our bishop as God himself. He claimed these were not his own words but were a divine revelation from the Holy Spirit, and he died as a martyr to prove it. Then the church unanimously conformed to what he taught for thousands of years.

[@FaithinChristCrucified]

​@@EricTheYoungerwell OK buddy. But if it takes you far from the Gospel and the Word of God it won't help you one bit. Money, corruption and power airbrushed the Gospel early doors and still does! Scripture: check everything by it. ❤

[@FaithinChristCrucified]

Medieval institutions binding the conscience and suffocating the Gospel and its power and freedom. ​@esoterico7750

[@TaterTheBeloved]

Great video Gavin. Sola scriptura ❤

[@fingerscrossed1307]

Gavin, please make one on the Godhead. I really never understood this concept. I do believe in the trinity, but finding it hard yo grapple it as a Godhead. To me that would suggest that the Son and Spirit know the hour too, whereas my opinion is they both know the "when" but the final say is the Father's alone. As it has been said by Jesus. So at least to me there is a clear hierarchy.

[@AmericanwrCymraeg]

The truth or falsity of St Theophan's claims shouldn't be influenced by appealing emotionally to what that would mean for billions of Christians in the West, otherwise the same logic would lead one necessarily to universalism. The number of Muslims and other non Christians is greater than the number of non Orthodox Western Christians, and each of them is a person created in the image and likeness of God, someone for whom Christ died. What about the salvation of all of those billions? "Utter lack of love" indeed! Obviously, you would say that they should be evangelized and that the truth of what the Bible teaches isn't hindered by that consideration. Rather, there would be more benefit in trying to understand how people like St Theophan and others can both speak positively of salvation of non Orthodox Christians and yet speak like he does in this letter. Another example would be Fr Seraphim Rose, often considered to be a stark opponent of ecumenism and a proponent of the necessity of the Orthodox Church, and yet also speaks of Protestants as having a real relationship with Christ and potential for salvation. And it simply isn't true that Orthodoxy, in the particular band of centuries you're restricting yourself to in order to make your point, taught differently than before or after. See, for example, St Theophylact of Ochrid in the late 11th century, the earliest Orthodox views of Anglicanism, etc

[@TruthUnites]

as I repeatedly stated during the video, it is not an emotional appeal, but an appeal to obey Jesus' commandments of discerning his followers.

[@AmericanwrCymraeg]

@TruthUnites I mean no disrespect, but it can absolutely be both, and comments here show that it was taken as such. People are responding by accusing us of thinking it's "based" to imagine our ancestors in Hell.

[@AmericanwrCymraeg]

@@TruthUnites Also, the comment in the video that it would show an "utter lack of love" to condemn two billion Western Christians to hell is different than saying it would show a lack of the discernment Christ commands us to have. Those are separate arguments. Pointing out that you said it would show a lack of discernment doesn't mean it's all that you said. The logic of it being "unloving" absolutely applies more broadly and leads to universalism.

[@user-vv1do1wg1j]

​@@TruthUnitesit is an emotional appeal, i can say the same thing for non christians lol, and its no wonder since protestantism is slowly melting into the one world religion; you will be saying these same things to justify your praying with muslims and hindus soon.

[@user-vv1do1wg1j]

it is an utter lack of love to condemn all non christians so you must deny Christ and affirm humanism, this is what Christ teaches us. amazing.

[@deathfalcon602]

This is like listening to Richard Dawkins if he became a protestant. Im not orthodox but this was infuriating to listen to.

[@davidjanbaz7728]

LOL 😂

[@user-vv1do1wg1j]

protestants try not to use "ill pray for you" as a statement to bash people with challenge impossible; whenever you cant defend your beliefs just tell the other party youll pray for them, Phariseemaxxing

[@ProphetGreg94]

@@deathfalcon602 not even

[@raphaelfeneje486]

Thanks for your works, Dr Gavin. God bless you immensely. It's refreshing. You've been a blessing to the body of Christ 🙏❤️✝️

[@Usmcpb23]

You say "we can affirm them as Christians". I ask by what standard? What threshold is met? Are Mormons Christians? Are Methodists Christians? if so by what standard? What threshold do they meet? St Theophan does not seem to be, at least by me reckoning, saying anything other than: maintain the faith which was passed down to you and to all of us by the Apostles and you will be saved. He says that the heretics will deceive you to abandon that faith, but are they not doing this? Is that not why he wrote the letter? The young person who wrote to him was having troubles reconciling his faith, the faith of the church , with the evangelical's teaching. St. Theophan is, like a good shepherd, reaffirming the faith the sheep has expressed and lived in as the "saving faith". Would you not do the same for one of your sheep? To say that Orthodoxy is the one true church, is not to say that no one else is saved by God. It is to say that God saves whosoever he sees fit, and it is by the saving Orthodox faith he does so. You said that "is it Christ who saves or the church", is the church not the body off Christ? In this way are the two not made one, as in a marriage? We cannot separate the faith of the church, the church herself, and Christ. These are all one? Are they not? The 5 listed things as you pointed them out are critical to salvation, and there administration is guarded and performed faithfully by the body off Christ, the Orthodox Church, but we need not concern ourselves with the mysteries of God, and His saving work as it applies to all others. Whether JRR Tolkien or CS Lewis are in heaven is not a concern of mine, and I should not bother with it. I should only seek truth myself and in that Christ will wrap me in his arms and welcome me home, if I prove faithful in my journey. Would you not agree sir?

[@EpistemicAnthony]

I'm just now beginning to watch this video, but there's a problem for me... I see that Gavin is quoting one saint to try to prove a point, and in his own comment he says that saints have "more authority than a priest." I find the line of reasoning here to be highly suspect. It seems that Protestants and Roman Catholics are unable to comprehend the nature of a synodal/concilliar church, and instead always default back to one man's opinions. One saint is not, in fact, an authority. It is absolutely the case that saints get things wrong. The mere title of "Saint" is not an indication that they are infallible in all their opinions. It doesn't mean they are infallible in *any* of their opinions. Rather, it is the consensus of the whole church in council that we are to follow. St Augustine, for example, was wrong on a great many points of theology. One does not become a Saint by being correct in all opinions. The consensus of the church is that we cannot judge the eternal fate of anyone.

[@mcchubbz2975]

This is such an underrated take. Especially when in dialog with Catholics. They always bring up “Your patriarchy did X, Y, Z” when you point to contradictions in the papacy. They don’t understand that since their entire religion is tied to the pope you can critique the pope and get the point across about contradictions. No one single bishop in Orthodoxy is infallible and we don’t make the claim. Of course debates with Protestants is much simpler since they effectively have a circular system anyway.

[@EpistemicAnthony]

@mcchubbz2975 Exactly. Saints are wrong all the time. St Irenaus was wrong when he said Jesus lived to be 50. St Clement was wrong when he said the Phoenix was a real bird that rose from ashes. In discussions with Protestants, when Ii bring up early church consensus, they will often say things like "but this guy [insert random early church figure] wrote the opposite!" Okay, cool, but he was an outlier. If we are going to pay attention to exceptions, then we have to do it consistently, and that means I can have a Bible with only 10 books in it, because that's what Marcion did with THE FIRST canon of scripture.

[@mcchubbz2975]

@ Yeah Protestants LOVE to say “We got our Bible from Jerome” but then they go on to say Jerome got EVERY OTHER THING wrong. Which just begs the question. I don’t even understand the desire to quote a father you disagree with entirely anyway about what church even is. I find it to be highly offensive towards the saints. Just say “I don’t like X, Y, Z so I don’t do it”

[@ProphetGreg94]

@@EpistemicAnthony If you guys have the “truth”, then how did you guys not get your eschatology correct? You guys think Jesus is coming back. Jesus posited that his coming would be before the "passing of that generation" (Matthew 24: 30, 34). And we know that the destruction of the man of "lawlessness" occurs at the "brightness of the Lord's coming" (2 Thessalonians 2:3-4, 8 ). But that happens before the fall of the temple, since this takes place while the man of lawlessness "takes" his "seat in the temple" (v.4) [Herodian temple destroyed in 70ad]. But then that means that the second coming's timing is constrained to that first century, since it doesn't take place AFTER the destruction of the temple, but BEFORE it, because there has to be a temple standing for the lawless one "take his seat" in! In addition, and along those same lines, the second coming that Paul mentions in 2nd Thessalonians is not a different coming from the one mentioned in 1 Thessalonians 4, which is undeniably a recapitulation of Matthew 24; and this happens to also be the time of the resurrection. It is that same resurrection of Daniel 12 (which Jesus alludes to in Matthew 24:15), that Daniel informs us takes place immediately after the time of great "distress" (v.1), which is the great tribulation Jesus mentioned (Matthew 24:21). But that was in the first century (revelation 1:9). This being the case, why does the church continue to shout from the roof tops that we are on the cusp of a yet-future coming of Jesus, when his parousia had already taken place in 70ad!?

[@EpistemicAnthony]

@ProphetGreg94 The root problem with your entire argument is that it hinges on your personal interpretation of the text. I don't think that's what Jesus's statement about His return means. Your entire comment is your own speculation from cobblong some clues together. You're one guy out of billions with one interpretation out of thousands. You don't know anything.

[@hermanessences]

Great video! I'm glad I didn't submit in the end to the siren's call of the Orthodox LARP factor. Became Methodist instead.

[@willgd]

Gavin is the final boss before you can become Orthodox

[@johngeverett]

Thoughtful and thorough, as usual. I considered Orthodoxy, but found them obsessive about nonessentials, like how to hold your fingers when crossing yourself, and the exact wording of the Jesus Prayer. They certainly cannot say with Paul, "I was determined to know nothing among you save Jesus Christ and him crucified."

[@zebre676]

This is blatantly untrue. I've been told by many part of the community that the way the sign of the cross is done isn't something that is do or die. Likewise, many from the community and many holy people I've heard have said the specific manner in which the Jesus prayer can be said in a multitude of manners. Ultimately, it's the state of how you orient yourself toward God in prayer is what matters, the words are simply a tool to aid you in that. I've heard this specific info from the orthodox book written by Hieromonk Damascene called "Christ the Eternal Tao".

[@FaithinChristCrucified]

AMEN! Compared to Galatians, Romans, Hebrews it's like a different religion. The fine print is overwhelming if you take it seriously...and if you don't, why bother with it at all?

[@FaithinChristCrucified]

​@zebre676 check out EO canons on the specific rules for fasting and a million and one rules making it the friendly and esoteric face of religious legalism mediated through a spiritual father who may or may not be a legalist in dealing with you, when it suits! Oh the freedom and power of the Gospel: unmediated access to Jesus. No fuss, no frills but no one mediating your access to Christ and his Salvation. ❤

[@BLynn]

So Gavin, I have found many of the channels I follow that are not specifically about understanding scripture, the hosts seem to reveal at different times that they are from LDS (Mormons). They seem to be mistaken, claim to be Christian & use language to sound more like churches based on the trinity and the saving grace of the crucifixion. Do we challenge them or do we allow them to be confused that they are the same? If we challenge them are we doing the same thing the former Eastern Orthodox church has done?

[@josephgoemans6948]

Elaborate way of saying: "If Protestantism is true, Orthodoxy is false" yeah we know that

[@AmericanwrCymraeg]

With regards to Mark 9, the clear counterpoint is both Luke 11 and Acts 19:11-17. When people tried to cast out demons without authority, the demons responded by beating them up. What is the difference between Mark 9 and Luke 11? And between Mark 9 and Acts? The specifics both of what's said and what the context is matter enormously. Obviously, the sacred Scriptures don't contradict each other. Likewise, St Theophan both speaks positively about the possibility of the salvation of the non Orthodox *and* writes this way to an Orthodox person tempted to leave the Church. And there is no conflict between the two views. St Theophan isn't contradicting himself anymore than Christ is in Mark and Luke. A good Biblical exegesis should take into account the entirety of the Scriptures on a particular subject, not isolated verses. The same is true in understanding the thinking of a particular writer, like St Theophan. This is similar to when people claim that St Gregory of Nyssa was a universalist by pulling out isolated passages from his writings, while ignoring all the others where he speaks of eternal hell and eternal punishment. As has been noted, St Gregory sounds hopefully universalist where the Scriptures do and speaks of eternal hell where the Scriptures do.

[@Galmala94]

"When people tried to cast out demons without authority, the demons responded by beating them up." Do Protestants and Catholics have the authority to cast out demons? Have Protestants and Catholics performed real exorcisms that worked?

[@AmericanwrCymraeg]

@@Galmala94 Whether Christ has chosen at times to cast out demons through them and whether they had the authority to do that are separate questions. What God establishes as normative doesn't bind His freedom to work. Both Mark and Luke are true on this. Also, I'm not saying this applies to Protestants, but Christ makes this distinction clear in Matthew, that people can cast out demons through Him without being with Him. Matthew 7:21-23.

[@johnlardas3221]

Dr Ortlund, you call Orthodoxy idolatrous. Scripture says idolaters do not inherit the kingdom of heaven. How is this not damning the Orthodox?

[@DrBob-gr5ru]

Here to push back against the swamping

[@KillerofGods]

Swamping?

[@mikeoxmaul1788]

😂

[@morghe321]

I'm here for the pingponging.

[@FaithinChristCrucified]

Yet it gets old. The pingpongers are young and/or professionals on a pay roll. But what a great ministry Ortlund has at present! So good!​@@morghe321

[@kennynoNope]

One thing I don’t hear a lot is that making people who are educated and believe in Christ to be baptized for a year is totally heterodox. Making an arbitrary system of a priest picking and choosing who can be baptized is the exact opposite of what the apostles did.

[@mkmeix]

I had a lot of thoughts watching this video - but one question that always comes to mind when people speak out against the EO is: why would you NOT want the Church you are part of, or want to become a member of, to make the claim they are the One True Church? (being right about that claim is another thing) BUT, I don't really see any Christians believing that Christ established multiple Churches at Pentecost, or the Apostles speaking kindly of schism - so is it the pervasive 'invisible' Church idea that leads to this way of thinking? Simply modern day ecumenism feel-goodery and the desire not to offend? A prideful position of 'if I'm unsure then no one can be'? A dismissive mindset that views other traditions as heretical anyway but believes them to be ignorant of said heresy? Or a lazy viewpoint that would argue the Truth is too difficult and demands too much to determine and therefore cannot be found? To strive to be as clear as Theophan, if Dr. Ortlund views EO to be Christians, what does that really mean? If Christians can be idolaters or schismatics or heretics or preaching a false Gospel then what does being Christian actually entail? I know he has made many videos addressing that sort of question but ultimately the 'lowest-common-denominator-Christianity' falls flat. "Christian" has to mean something, and that meaning is bound to the Church through Christ, something I think Theophan put to words better than I ever could.

[@AmericanwrCymraeg]

Exactly.

[@rexlion4510]

You wrote: "why would you NOT want the Church you are part of, or want to become a member of, to make the claim they are the One True Church?" Answer: because making such a claim is arrogant, hubristic, and presumptuous. I left the church of Rome and will never return, partly because they have historically held that exact attitude. I grew up in the RCC being taught to look down my nose at all non-Catholics as inferior and almost assuredly condemned to perdition unless they became RC. What a sick attitude, and thank God He mercifully delivered me from the church that taught me such a false viewpoint! Being Christian means being joined to God, depending on God, walking with God in intimate daily fellowship. Although Christians are all a part of Jesus' ekklesia and are brethren, it is only through their being joined as individual members to Christ that they can walk as brethren. Lifting up the church, as if it were something necessary to salvation, magnifies and glorifies the body rather than the Head, Christ.

[@PaperBagGambles]

Claiming pride and perfection as a man is sinful. We acknowledge our brokenness, Protestant's don't claim our institution is the one true church, but rather the genuine Christian's as a whole, or also referenced as "The Body of Christ". Every church has its flaws, I've discerned Catholicism and Orthodox and am still yet to find justified arguments for intercession, icon veneration, sunday sabbath, etc... and that's ok, because every church has it's flaws. The difference is Protestant's are willing to humble themselves and acknowledge that. That is where we differ, we believe all true Christian's are followers of Christ, while the "true churches" believe only those within the church. (Unironically if you're in a church you consider true, you can't even be sure of your salvation) 1 Kings 8:39 God bless.

[@mkmeix]

@@rexlion4510 I guess I view it precisely the opposite. Realizing the very nature of Truth is exclusive and singular was very humbling for myself. And being taught to look down on others outside the Church is not helpful at all, but we certainly should seek to avoid false Gospels and false teachers and safeguard the faith once for all delivered. That begs the question though, if there are false Gospels to be avoided what really constitutes the True Gospel? Your second point doesn't really seem to address the question either frankly - what does being joined to God, depending on God, walking with God, look like? Are there ways that people could claim to do that and be mistaken and need correction? Who is to do the correcting and how? I think these questions only highlight the distinction in how Orthodox view the nature of the Church compared to Protestants - it is not a manmade institution but a Divinely founded, created, and lead institution, making it unlike anything else on Earth.

[@mkmeix]

@@PaperBagGambles Some questions that I had may help to highlight how we are thinking differently of the issue: Is the Body of Christ, lead by Christ as its head, perfect or imperfect? Can that Body ever be divided or separated? Is the Body of Christ simply spiritual in nature or physical as well? And I don't hold to any form of 'assurance of salvation' - we can be assured God will keep his promises to those that remain faithful, but being a member of the true Church does not equal automatic salvation and never has.

[@luisr5577]

Any form of Christianity that supports Nicaea II has a tremendous load of problems to solve. I pray for them because many of them really love Jesus.

[@a.ihistory5879]

Icons are objectively beautiful and tell stories of the churches rich history. They have always been around even well before nicea 2. Anyone who rejects it has a load of problems, they must explain why it is that we need to throw away thousands of years of church history because pastor Bob with no basis of authority says so

[@luisr5577]

@@a.ihistory5879 No one is discussing the presence of images or supporting iconoclasm. Simply put, all the Fathers and early Christians who addressed image worship rejected it. Worship of icons emerged much later, around the sixth Century. Also, Nicaea II lacked legates from Jerusalem, Alexandria, and Antioch, so it wasn’t truly ecumenical. It's funny. Fun fact: Nicaea II cited the supposed correspondence between Jesus and King Abgar to support its conclusions🤣🤣

[@morghe321]

​​​@@luisr5577I have heard about the supposed correspondence between Agbar and Jesus, but I didn't know Nicaea II cited it to support its conclusions. 😅

[@dubbstepl273]

@@luisr5577 Then Joshua tore his clothes, and fell to the earth on his face before the ark of the Lord until evening, he and the elders of Israel; and they put dust on their heads. - Joshua 7:6. So Joshua venerating the ark with cherubim on it is wrong now?

[@luisr5577]

@@dubbstepl273 Same old, refuted verse yet again. None of the Hebrew words are ever used for veneration or adoration. No early Christian Father supported your interpretation of Joshua, simply there was no veneration to the Ark, nor did Rabbis like Maimonides, Rashi, or the Talmud. Early Christians like Justin Martyr, Athenagoras, Eusebius, and Origen all condemned icon veneration. Also, Nicaea II lacked legates from Antioch, Jerusalem, and Alexandria, so it wasn't truly ecumenical

[@alt8938]

This is a good video idea. A lot of people jump in because there's a lot of good apologetics from Christianity that have been painted as uniquely Eastern Orthodox (the TAG argument for example) when there's nothing uniquely EO about them at all. To anyone looking into EO, just remember to approach topics with intellectual honesty. I recommend the channel "dwong", who is a Roman Catholic (I am not), for a refutation of the EO position's on the Filioque, and the Essence-Energy distinction. If you're convinced that EO is wrong on those topics you can't convert if you're an intellectually honest person.

[@tategarrett3042]

I've listened to his videos on that too and though I also am not part of the RCC I found them useful

[@FaithinChristCrucified]

Yes but the EO promotes going "beyond" the intellect. Which can lock a person in: in false mysticism ...Christian Buddhism! Was my experience...

[@icxcnika7722]

​@@FaithinChristCrucified tell me you don't understand hesychasm, without telling me you don't understand hesychasm.

[@inrmds]

Taking understanding and "following" based of short videos even apologetical books as your basis purely for your understanding is wrong. Thousands of years of christian history cant be undermined by quote mining.

[@OrthodoxLoner]

"It is not for us to define the state of those who are outside the Orthodox Church. If God wishes to grant salvation to some who are Christians in the best way they know, but without ever knowing the Orthodox Church-that is up to Him, not us. But when He does this, it is outside the normal way that He established for salvation-which is in the Church, as a part of the Body of Christ." - Fr. Seraphim Rose

[@renrichardson6517]

And therein lies the issue. Fr. Rose's own position is heterodox by historical Orthodoxy.

[@whomptalosis22]

@@renrichardson6517Where there are 3 orthodox, there are 4 opinions

[@TruthUnites]

Rose died in the 1980s. As we have said over and over, we are speaking of the 9th-19th centuries, from which 20th century innovations depart.

[@KnightFel]

Foolish. Christ saves all who repent and put their trust in Him. That’s the real church.

[@OrthodoxLoner]

@@KnightFel Oneness Pentecostals have nothing to fear then.

[@lazaruscomeforth7646]

My understanding of Gavin's point is that it's the East's radical narrowing of the boundaries of the Church to itself that is the critique. It's not the idea that outside the Church there is no salvation that is the complaint, it's the artificial confusion that the EO is the total and exclusive sum of the Church on earth.

[@mapa6772]

And rightly but the EO makes no such claim as it is not Jesus at the judgment. For us it is very clear that people like GO who lead people astray with bad theology are not walking towards their salvation but that the Protestant who lives, breathes and loves Christ without spreading bad doctrine to other Christians, may well live in the Spirit and can only be judged by Jesus, not the EO. EOs with no love and no Christ in their heart, are also not saved. Salvation is possible in the EO, not guaranteed.

[@janen668]

"Jesus Christ is the Head of the Church.""The Church is the pillar and ground of the truth." Is it surprising therefore that the Church has to be a body of believers, not just spiritual and invisible, but also practising the commandments (sacraments etc.)

[@theepitomeministry]

Great video, as always! I love that we can just affirm that Tradition and the Magisterium have erred and stick to the divine revelation of Scripture!

[@easytiger35]

the thing is, orthodox believe they put together the Bible for everyone else and that we dont even use the right Bible. They have a ton of books not accepted in most canons and they claim to be the only right ones. its ridiculous

[@stratmatt22]

@@easytiger35 Why is it ridiculous? Why do trust a single troubled monk like Luther to remove 7 books from the bible? The Septuagint is referenced over 300 times in the NT. Jesus and his disciples most definitely studied the Septuagint as scripture yet Luther and you take your Canon from what the Jews who denied Jesus decided hundreds of years after Christ.

[@EricTheYounger]

By what measuring stick can you say that tradition had erred? It’s not inconsistent with scripture. If on the other hand you object that it’s not CLEAR in scripture (e.g. icon veneration), then the problem is scripture itself literally says there are vehicles outside of itself for revealing truth (e.g. the spiritual gift of prophecy, look up prophetic tradition in the early church).

[@easytiger35]

@@stratmatt22 I dont know of anyone who believes in "whatever Luther did is right". He was one of the people calling out how far off base the church of the time was....with their liturgies and rituals and the "church fathers" having final interpretation of scripture without discussion or nuance. Orthodox almost always straw man's the arguments against them. Many, many Christian theologians can explain why exactly we all use the same books in canons, except some like orthodox and catholic have some extras in there to support their claim of supremacy. By believing orthodox is THE only church, you have essentially completely missed what "the church" even is, yet always so confidently incorrect.

[@rexlion4510]

@@stratmatt22 You wrote: "Why do trust a single troubled monk like Luther to remove 7 books from the bible?" This is a falsehood, and I'm tired of seeing it repeated by ignorant people. The belief that the deuterocanonical books were of lesser divine inspiration is shown by Jerome's writings; it is a very old belief and it persisted right up until the time of the Reformation, when Rome decided to officially repudiate it. Luther merely held this age-old view and he didn't _delete_ those books, he simply didn't get around to translating them into German like he did the rest of the Bible. The KJV continued to include the deutero books until sometime in the 1800s, when the printer ceased including them to save printing costs of a portion which few Protestants were bothering to read anyway. But Anglicans to this day still have some readings from the deutero books in their lectionary. No one has "deleted" them!!!

[@DrMarkich]

Thank you so much for this video, Dr Ortlund! It is so fascinating to now see you read the writings of the easter-orthodox church fathers, after me having the personal experience, talking with my parents, talking with eastern-orthodox priests in Ukraine and seeing my experience confirmed by the writings of their church fathers. Thank you for shedding light on this topic!

[@Saschakraft98]

I did consider what converting entailed to my prior Christian experience and for all other Christian’s outside of eastern othrodoxy; the conclusion I came to was that the truth is more important than lukewarm ecumenism.

[@ProphetGreg94]

@@Saschakraft98 If you guys have the “truth”, then how did you guys not get your eschatology correct? You guys think Jesus is coming back. Jesus posited that his coming would be before the "passing of that generation" (Matthew 24: 30, 34). And we know that the destruction of the man of "lawlessness" occurs at the "brightness of the Lord's coming" (2 Thessalonians 2:3-4, 8 ). But that happens before the fall of the temple, since this takes place while the man of lawlessness "takes" his "seat in the temple" (v.4) [Herodian temple destroyed in 70ad]. But then that means that the second coming's timing is constrained to that first century, since it doesn't take place AFTER the destruction of the temple, but BEFORE it, because there has to be a temple standing for the lawless one "take his seat" in! In addition, and along those same lines, the second coming that Paul mentions in 2nd Thessalonians is not a different coming from the one mentioned in 1 Thessalonians 4, which is undeniably a recapitulation of Matthew 24; and this happens to also be the time of the resurrection. It is that same resurrection of Daniel 12 (which Jesus alludes to in Matthew 24:15), that Daniel informs us takes place immediately after the time of great "distress" (v.1), which is the great tribulation Jesus mentioned (Matthew 24:21). But that was in the first century (revelation 1:9). This being the case, why does the church continue to shout from the roof tops that we are on the cusp of a yet-future coming of Jesus, when his parousia had already taken place in 70ad!?

[@roses993]

"Theres an entire christian empire of miracles, good works hospitals, outside of eastern orthodoxy" wow gavin!! So true. Ive seen so many non orthodox christians in passionate love with Jesus, doing charitable work, preaching the gospel. Becoming orthodox means that empire with good fruits is false. Which btw is not biblical. Its insane to think people convert who orthodoxy come to terms with this!! So glad none of of my family is orthodox and nor we plan to ever be. As a biblical protestant, i believe u can be saved the way that Jesus taught. Accepting Christ and repentence. I believe baptists, catholics, methodists, orthodox, anglican, etc who do that shall be saved. I didnt say it. JESUS DID.

[@WaterMelon-Cat]

I talked to a guy who had converted to EO and shared his witness to me. I was interested and asked him if he could clarify some positions for me such as their view of Ancestral sin. He said “I do not know, I just follow EO for their Saints” it dawned on me as I talk to more and more converts that these people converted for the aesthetic and culture, NOT the theology.

[@MichaelH__J]

Might be your experience but generally not the case, the theology is what keeps people in.

[@triplea6174]

Tho some do that it isnt wrong if theyre guided/taught by their fr/pastor. Some atm in their life may not be able to articulate it, doesnt negate what they experienced as invalid or wrong. For some are mini theologians/studious more than others & others are more visual. But trust me, you'll find both sides of the aisles in many churches along with community.

[@easytiger35]

definitely what it seems like. They will quote scripture to back up a view, but then they claim that the Bible is not the Word of God and that really their church history and official interpretations are the final say in everything. They think we have to go to THEM to even get the right interpretation. The essentially refuse to give the power all to God and cling to holding their own power through their specific buildings, rituals, and idol worship. They are more into physical reality than invisible spirituality.

[@ArchangelIcon]

I know very many converts from protestantism to EO, and not one converted because of the saints. In fact, the saints are ofen a difficulty that many need to overcome because of their protestantism. Many convert because of the assurance of the faith of the early Church, and the fullness and reverence of the worship within tons of Scripture that it involves.

[@easytiger35]

@@MichaelH__J yeah, plenty of people stick to bad theology in christianity as well as other religions. Doesnt mean youre on the right track.