Essential Christianity and Ecumenism-- Francis Chan, Hank Hanegraaff & KP Yohannan (Hank Unplugged)

The Key to Christian Unity is Humility…. is the second episode in this four part series of round table conversations and addresses the prayer for unity made by the Lord in His High Priestly Prayer “that they may all be one, just as you, Father, are in me, and I in you, that they also may be in us, so that the world may believe that you have sent me.” Many have said that the first step towards unity is humility-so how do we humble ourselves and pursue unity over the essentials of the historic Christian faith despite our differences?
Topics discussed include: Francis Chan addresses the issue of tribalism between Christian Churches and how to reconcile that with the Lord’s High Priestly Prayer that we might be one (0:25); can we unite over the essentials of the historic Christian faith by appealing to the maxim “in essentials unity, in non-essentials liberty and in all things charity?” (6:45); what we can learn from the parable of the Pharisee and the Publican as we engage with believers in Christ from different Christian traditions (12:30); a lesson of inclusivity that Metropolitan Yohan learned from George Verwer after writing Revolution in World Missions (14:10); the greatest doctrine is love (18:15); the criticality of working towards unity in the body of Christ in response to the Lord’s High Priestly Prayer “that they may all be one, just as you, Father, are in me, and I in you, that they also may be in us, so that the world may believe that you have sent me” (20:45); responding to Francis Chan moving to Hong Kong (24:35); Francis Chan discusses his love for evangelizing to those who have never heard the name of Christ while also feeling convicted about inviting people into the family of God while there is disunity in the body of Christ (28:15); the answer to the Lord’s High Priestly Prayer starts with humility (33:50).
-------------------------------------------------
Connect with the Christian Research Institute (CRI):
🔴 Subscribe to our channel: www.youtube.co...
🔴 Subscribe to the Bible Answer Man on Apple Podcasts: podcasts.apple...
✔️ Subscribe to “Hank Unplugged” on Apple Podcasts: podcasts.apple...
✔️ Subscribe to our magazine the Cʜʀɪsᴛɪᴀɴ Rᴇsᴇᴀʀᴄʜ Jᴏᴜʀɴᴀʟ's weekly podcast www.spreaker.c...
📒 Visit CRI’s website: www.equip.org/
✅ Listen to the Bible Answer Man broadcast live streaming Monday through Friday from 6-6:30 PM ET online at www.equip.org/
#hankhanegraaff #bibleanswerman #apologetics

[@Sam-rx4ik]

Hi Guys, just want to say thank you for another wonderful discussion. As a Protestant Evangelical,I’m really encouraged by this lovely Christ centred conversation. The fruits of the spirit is so important even when we may disagree.I see patience, love and gentleness in this conversation. On your point about humility I’m reminded of what Saint Silouan the Athonite said “Only to the humble does the Lord reveal himself in the Holy Spirit, and if we do not humble ourselves we shall not see God. Humility is the light in which we may behold the light which is God- in the words of the Psalmist in thy light we shall see light” I pray that we have humility to know the truth and experience God to the full. Look forward to the next video 👍

[@Elven.]

as a catholic I couldn't agree with you more on this!

[@r.antonionkodemos3745]

Amen

[@blakewidmer]

More, more, more! We need more of this open-hearted, open-handed, open-minded discussions where unity does not have to mean uniformity, but that unity means charity amongst the flock that our testimony is not veiled. Beautiful discussion yet again! Thank you brothers!

[@djnv4702]

Authentic, ancient, and beautiful Christianity. So refreshing. So deep and full of wisdom. ❤️

[@Orthodixi]

Beautifully said! When we love Christ, we love others. When we love ourself more than our God and neighbor, we fight. Well said, brothers, well said.

[@immaculateheart1267]

I was evangelical with the same yearnings at 33:13, attended several churches, high and low. Reverted to Catholicism. Faith and grace explosion. Everything I was searching for and more. And the deposit of faith, so rich, so deep. Hope Francis keeps searching.

[@Anthony-cz2fe]

My heart was moved with tears of Love by your love for one another. Pray more of our One Body of Christ replicates your humble example and overflows God's Grace to others that He may be honored and glorified 💖☦️🙏

[@pierreschiffer3180]

What do you mean by the one body of Christ? The sum of all denominations?

[@seungk8607]

Thank you Francis Chan for the passion. Thank you Hank Hanegraaff for astute explanations & KP Yohannan for your humility. That is so true, we all see dimly

[@CapnBud15]

I pray that the Lord will show me truth. I also pray that the Lord will give me the strength and courage to follow the truth he reveals to me, even if that truth is contrary to what I grew up believing.

[@immaculateheart1267]

A catholic priest mentioned this dialogue. I am Catholic. Very civil discourse.

[@Lepewhi]

What we all need, mutual respect.

[@estar1277]

I was in a denominational/traditional church years before. Today being a spirit filled tongue-speaking worshipping believer in love with God, I can testify that I cannot think of going back to where I was nor uniting with them or tolerating anything that fails to have life but only letter and words. I think the problem is we do not want to humble ourselves nor be a fool for the things of God. We just want to have it all right and appear all right even if it wud mean draining of our own spirit. How great is the Life and the Spirit that God has to offer, but only if we cud lay down our foolish crowns and be willing to be so poor before Him that he may fill us with His riches. But no, we do not follow Him as we shud nor do we let others follow Him as they ought to. We become an obstacle in their way. One way to check is- luk at the fruits of the followers, luk wer they are. Becoz of the leaders having the head knowledge alone and not having the adequate spiritual power to lead the people under them or anybody, the lives of these people have become so dry and miserable. A dead church is what it is, full of words but no life nor power. Even the so called full-time dedicated people under them need rescuing. I think this a great crime that is done to them, for which God shall hold them accountable. Why lead, if the person knows in their heart they are trying to be something which they are not. To the contrite, to the broken and to the one who dosent hides his sin He shall give His Grace. He is a Holy God that seeks for His children to be Holy like Him and not be unequally yolked with the proud, the deceived and the corrupted. Worship Him, not in our own terms but His!

[@devonp2756]

You say you speak in tongues. What known human language do you speak in?

[@josephdas7482]

Thank you, men! What a true witness to so humbly seek unity. I was a reformed pastor, serving a church and also pursuing post graduate studies in seminary when I seriously began to deal with the early Church, since it was my focus of study. For brevity, my path lead to becoming Catholic. As part of the Western Church, I so happily love my sister Eastern Church. Pope Saint John Paul II, refers to our East and West connection as the church that must breath with two lungs, “Ut Unum Sint”, that we may be one. I have great hope that this unified life giving breath will come to fullness and endure, for Christ has built his Church and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against her. I pray for you, brothers Francis and Hanegraaff, because I know the difficulties you face from those that come at you that are dear friends in the Lord. May almighty God continue to bless you men in all that he has given you to do. I agree with other comments about reaching out to Scott Hahn, also a former reformed pastor and convert to Catholicism. God used his example to help form me. I pray for continued humility and peace for the sake of Christ’s Church!

[@dougbell9543]

I am also now moving in the direction of orthodoxy. ✔️ Thank you, gentlemen.

[@777igg]

All three sound very sincere neither one of them are saying I have it all figured out or are trying to look down at each other because of certain views and this is my first time learning of and hearing from K.P Yohannan he really seems like he’s trying not to be misunderstood really show his love for God and people I think he’s pretty awesome I really appreciate him!

[@zorenleo]

Ignatius in his letter to the Smyrnaeans: “When the bishop is present, there let the congregation gather, just as where Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church”.

[@omiglio]

Very well said

[@jamesstandifer1683]

"For where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I among them.” -Jesus

[@pierreschiffer3180]

@@jamesstandifer1683 Indeed, but only within His Church, James: not in the gatherings of separatists and heretics. Read Paul and John and the entire early Church on schismatics and antichrists.

[@pierreschiffer3180]

Thank you for sharing your opinions and reasoning with us, my friend. Since you are vehemently opposed to the law, can we accurately describe your company as the mystery of lawlessness, possibly?

[@taylorlewko8934]

@Buff 4A7 "I have not come to abolish the law" - Jesus

[@pwaldorf]

God works through you guys to increase me opening my life as a living sacrifice to him and my love for all other brothers in our Lord Jesus Christ. God bless you all and keep working his glory through you.

[@nemobahari1]

Unity is such a deep subject that once we’ve attained it then and only then can we understand how Jesus is in unity with God the Father

[@ivanboivin3175]

I've long admire Chan as a model of sincere Christian expression, and Orthodoxy has been seriously on my radar for the last half a year or so; this conversation has been both personally timely and helpful. I appreciate the necessity of the boundaries established by the Church to protect the flock from theological innovations, and I see how chaotic the schisms of the last thousand years appear in that light. But, and may God correct me if my thinking is rebellious here, some of my reading of and listening to Orthodox commentary strikes me as a divisiveness borne more out of temperament than the teachings of Christ. In Luke 9, the disciples tried to stop a man from casting out demons in Jesus' name because he wasn't part of their group, but He rebuked them saying "Whoever is not against you is for you." Metropolitan Yohannan brings up the example of Sadhu Sundar Singh who, as far as I know, never joined a Canonical Church (the Angligans tried to claim him, but he seemed to stay a non-denom 'Man of God' all his life). God have mercy on all us sinners...

[@greenhaven-podcast]

Beautiful words! The best thing I can say is simply the ancient, "Come and see!" Once you're a part of "the family" you understand the way the family talks. ❤️🙏

[@patricklandfair4945]

@@greenhaven-podcast very well said, my family's conversion experience has been really amazing, we've fallen in love with holy Orthodoxy, but the initial step to go to our first liturgy was kind of scary. So glad we took the leap of faith after a long period of reading and thinking about it, its been more wonderful than I can explain.

[@greenhaven-podcast]

@@patricklandfair4945 Glory to God! Us too!

[@saenzperspectives]

Ivan regarding Luke 9: “I don’t see how this has anything to do with ecclesiology It is a principle of co-operation that we still follow- when someone is doing something in Jesus’ Name that is good- even if they are outside the Church- we thank God for it We don’t trivialize their position outside the Church however.”

[@ivanboivin3175]

@@saenzperspectives It seemed relevant because Jesus was not making a move to incorporate this man into His specific fellowship (the inference being that He considered him already a member of His flock). This is, of course, my 'Invisible Church' bias speaking, and I will consider your perspective, thank you.

[@shiranthiperera8109]

Praise God.....may WE all be ONE HIM. Most beautiful prayer of our Lord and let it be ours

[@DrSeanTobin]

Unity looks like this: “The Spirit and the Bride say, ‘Come!’” (Rev 22:17)

[@705-nun-ya]

To be one we all have to have the same belief! We can’t have as billion different beliefs! We have to have one. Christ never changed either did his church! Seek to enter into his church! The church that never changed its beliefs or dogmas or theology

[@705-nun-ya]

Drinker_Of_ Milk that’s not true, faith can bring you too it

[@taylorlewko8934]

@Drinker_Of_ Milk Have you even read the Church Fathers?

[@705-nun-ya]

Drinker_Of_ Milk the orthodox that has changed I would stay away from

[@jeremysmith2724]

Um, are you sure? What church hasn’t changed? Are you saying the Apostles and fathers walked around with candles ceremonially and had the same practices of worship? I’m pretty sure Christ condemned the tradition of men, which is present in Roman Catholicism and Orthodox Church. And when did God give men the right to reach into Heaven, pull down Christ and sacrifice Him on the altar for a remembrance of the Lord’s supper? I mean eating Jesus in the eucharist in the abomination called communion.

[@705-nun-ya]

@@jeremysmith2724 so should we just all believe 1 million different things and agree to disagree? That’s the way of the world. That’s not Christ way. Christ said have one mind one belief one faith. Not 1000 different faiths. He said I will be in them and make my abode with them how was he supposed to make his abode with me if it’s not through the Eucharist? As an Orthodox Christian we believe that God became man so that men could become like God. Does that mean that we have all the power of God has?no. Does that mean we should sacrifice our way of living as much as we are able? Yes. Does that mean the date it is deeper than just a scholastic way of understanding things? Well of course it’s God. You have to step outside yourself and outside of the worlds way of looking at things. To see why God became man why men have to reach for God!

[@ThePattersonPod]

This is very deceptive. You can tell this as soon as Francis Chan talks about how he was too focused on truth and had to refocus on love. False teachers love to set two realities against each other. We speak the truth in love, and we have unity around truth. Unity without truth is false love. This is destructive to the sheep, and it shows that these men may be hired hands. What fellowship has light with darkness?

[@TheAegis1000]

Jesus said ... "By this shall all men know that you are my disciples ... if you have LOVE one for another." Truth is, of course, important ... but LOVE covers a multitude of sins. Paul says that we now see through blurry glass, ... but that LOVE would endure to the end. The key to relationships is LOVE. God's LOVE conquers the awful truth of our sinfulness. LOVE is the only thing which will hold together Jews and Gentiles, rich and poor, slaves and free ... 1 Corinthians 13:13 And now abide faith, hope, and love, these three; but the greatest of these is love.

[@davehanegraaff953]

“If this ethos of humility must prevail in the relations of the faithful toward the persecutors of the Church, how much more so should it prevail in the existing relations among Christians themselves! The peaceful resolution of existing differences in inter-Christian relations by no means implies estrangement from truth. For truth does not fear dialogue; on the contrary, truth employs dialogue as a means of finding acceptance and favor even among those who for various reasons reject it.” “Some, who already belong to the Church, fear that an invitation to unity, if extended in the interest of peaceful coexistence to the heterodox and to those of different faiths, invariably conceals some concession of the truth. They believe that his somehow entails an acceptance of syncretism or even that this unity is pursued within the framework of abandoning certain truths in order to agree on others purely and simply for the sake of unity. However, their perception is not truth; the unity of Christians cannot possibly achieved outside the one and only Jesus Christ, who does not accept contradictory or different accounts and descriptions.” “Ultimately, this is what we regard as the goal of dialogue-namely, the formation within us of that spiritual condition through which we will be able, by the grace of God, with pure minds and selfless intentions, to see truth itself in person, our Lord Jesus Christ, in His actual glory. When we have achieved this, we are filled with ecstasy and wonder at the vision of Mount Tabor, and all mortal flesh is silent, standing with fear and trembling. For then the soul stands in the presence of the king of glory, whom it has desired. In His presence, many of the problems dividing us imperfect human beings, and especially those issues bearing on personal conditions and distinctions, are minimized and become as nothing. Indeed, we too wonder how we could attribute such significance to these problems.” “Indifference to doctrine undermines interest in the truth. But the excessive treatment of minutia in doctrinal issues, which demand special training and the inspiration of the Holy Spirit for right understanding and proper articulation, entails the danger that the believer might put aside what directly concerns his salvation and instead try to become an expert and judge on issues in which he is not competent to pass judgment and does not understand…especially theologians or “theologizers,” who search for doctrinal errors in ecclesiastical speeches and texts, projecting their knowledge as superior to that of others.”

[@rwbrouwer]

Christ can save anyone inside and outside the Orthodox Church. As an Orthodox Christian I believe that there are many devout Christians with a sincere love for Christ in- and outside the Church. But our christian life comes down to this: to become by grace what God is by nature: that is: holy and sinless, to become a saint. And only the Orthodox Church can offer a safe path to attain this! On that path we do not consider our opinion of things, but we put ourselves aside, our opinions and will, and we hand ourselves over to a spiritual father (better: Christ in him) and we trust and follow his discernment of the spiritual things. This is what we mean by 'safe'. The apostles had disciples, and those disciples had later on also disciples, and so on. This is how the path/method to holiness was handed down to this day. I hope Francis Chan (this dear man!) will come to understand this. The Orthodox way of life is a completely different way of life, a life of crucifixion and glory that can not be explained unless you experience it. He should go for a week or 2 to Mount Athos and he will see that the Christian life is not a life of emotions, of talking about the Truth, it is simply an ascetic life and through this asceticism man becomes a vessel of grace.

[@josueinhan8436]

I have some dificults with this ascetism based on the letter of Saint Paul to the church of Colossos. I understand my orthodox brethren but, apostolically I don't think asceticism is a way of sanctification. It's very easy to be a saint in a monastery, but it's hard to be a saint in places such as Rio de Janeiro or any other coastal brazilian city, but there is the place where you have to be a saint. For a better reading about asceticism, read: ALL the letter to Colossians, specially: "Wherefore if ye be dead with Christ from the rudiments of the world, why, as though living in the world, are ye subject to ordinances, rudiments: or, elements (Touch not; taste not; handle not; Which all are to perish with the using;) after the commandments and doctrines of men? Which things have indeed a shew of wisdom in will worship, and humility, and neglecting of the body; not in any honour to the satisfying of the flesh. neglecting: or, punishing, or, not sparing" (KJV1769+ Col 2:20-23) "Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils; Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron; Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth. For every creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused, if it be received … thanksgiving: For it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer. If thou put the brethren in remembrance of these things … thou shalt be a good minister of Jesus Christ, nourished up in the words of faith and of good doctrine … whereunto thou hast attained … But refuse profane and old wives' fables, and exercise thyself rather unto godliness. For bodily exercise profiteth little: but godliness is profitable unto all things, having promise of the life that now is, and of that which is … come … This is a faithful saying and worthy of all acceptation …" (KJV1769+ 1Tim 4:1-9) Bodily exercise: A life of asceticism.

[@rwbrouwer]

Josué Inhan hi! I can recommend for you to read about the life of saint Porphyrios, he was a monk and lived for a great part of his life in the middle of Athens, in a rough area. But even the monks in monasteries, they know like no other the ways of the evil one and how he is trying to destroy humanity. The apostle Paul writes about asceticism, we have to make our body (read desires and passions) obedient to the spirit, instead of our spirit being obedient to our body

[@patricklandfair4945]

@@rwbrouwer also the fact that asceticism was a feature of Judaism and of Christ's own life/ministry. Christians during the 1st century when the apostles and first Bishops still lived were selling all their earthly possessions and moving to caves in the desert to pursue Christ with every remaining second of life. Such a life of ceaseless prayer and struggle and was anything but easy. Perhaps 16 centuries of Christian ascetics were all wrong until Martin Luther betrayed his own monastic vows and now only protestants are correct, but I think that's a pretty audacious position.

[@josueinhan8436]

@@patricklandfair4945 dear one, see my answer to Roelien

[@MD-cd7em]

THE " WAY...TRUTH...LIFE..AND PATH IS THROUGH CHRIST..NOT ANY DENOMINATIONAL ORGANIZATION... ONLY CHRIST!!.. HIM ALONE...GOD DOES NOT ACCEPT ANYTHING OTHER

[@joelanthony3585]

I sincerely enjoyed this conversation as an evangelical who has been researching Orthodoxy for the last year.

[@paisios2541]

There already is Christian unity, we shouldn't speak in this way. The Church is and has always been and always will be united because the Church is Christ and Christ cannot be divided from Himself. There are many sincere truth seeking people who are tragically separated from the Church, but we do them no good to tell them that they're already somehow "in" the Church. It would be like a doctor telling a cancer patient that he doesn't have a disease, it's not a loving act. We are called to love even our enemies, and so of course we love sincere people who desire to follow Christ, but we cannot call these people "our brothers in Christ". This presupposes the same faith, and the same participation in the Mysteries and the Eucharistic life of the Church, being members of the Body of Christ. We absolutely know where the Church is as well as where the Church isn't. The Church is the continuation of the Incarnation and it bears the same characteristic of being visibly identifiable. There was never a question of where Christ was. He was in Palestine 2000 years ago, and not anywhere else. This statement "we don't know where the Church isn't" is tragically a popular delusion that is widespread today and it is harmful and introduces confusion. Protestantism, Roman Catholicism, and other sects are delusions, they are spiritual sicknesses and they do harm do those who are misled by them. There can be no unity between truth and falsehood. We cannot say the Church is present within these sects. Of course God still loves these people and works in their lives, as He does for all people in the world, but this doesn't mean that these people are somehow mystically connected to the Church in some invisible way. Sincere people in heterodox sects are virtuous in spite of them being outside of the Church, and I think this is actually to their credit. We all as the prodigal son need to flee the city of delusion and return to the loving embrace of our Father in the one and only Church of Jesus Christ.

[@ilovechrist914]

I agree but being orthodox my self. These protestants they do have a sincere love for Christ. To say they ant brothers and sisters in Christ is saying there not Christians. End of the day judgement will come n it will be up to Christ to judge the living and the dead and the kingdom shall have no end.

[@ilovechrist914]

Also with that being said anything outside of the orthodox church we know its considered heretical . But then I ask my self what kind of God do we have if these protestant have a love of God but don't believe in the eucharist n all sacraments god has given us. I truly believe god has given us salvation through the church yet for people who are outside of it they believe in holy trinity they believe Christ is king if I was a priest and say even they don't believe in the fundamentals would I baptize them of course I prob won't. But I know Christ is loving and I guess if he was to condemn people outside of the church loving Christ n all worshiping him but not believing the sacraments n way of orthodox living then to still call them my brothers and sisters it's tuffy. But would still say yes coz they are lovers of Christ

[@SLVBULL]

adam bartell the main problem living outside the church is that your dogma is not consistent. You have 33,000 denominations of Protestant’s all interpreting the bible how they seem fit. This is dangerous not only to ones soul but to others who are misled. Spring water is purest at its source.

[@ilovechrist914]

@@SLVBULL Of course why drink dirty water walk abit further up the hill and drink clean water at it's purest source. But I think to say hank is calling his friends brothers and sisters in Christ is coz he sees the heart of the individual. Christ will be leading them to orthodoxy but because Francis Chan isn't 1000 percent orthodox to say his not a brother n sister In Christ you still wouldn't say it coz where not god we don't know how Christ would perceive the Christians outside of the church who believe in Christ but not live the orthodox lifestyle

[@ilovechrist914]

@@SLVBULL so I agree with you but it's harsh in a way if that makes sense

[@annmarie3573]

Lord, make us one as you and the Father are one! 💗

[@balung]

If you mean all Christians who believe in and follow Jesus to be One, yes. But, I definantly won't be joining the Roman Catholic Church anytime soon.

[@waynepelling5568]

I have reservations when John McArthur attacked Hank for becomming an Orthodox Christian,using language that was ungracioius. Hank's response was one of Grace and he nails it here again In stating "In Essentials Unity,in non essentials Liberty and in all things Charity "

[@jjcm3135]

Being Catholic (ie also Orthodox) is important. Yesterday was the feast day of St Miriam (the Lily of Palestine). How can such a life be possible? But such lives illuminate the Body of Christ in wonderful ways for over 2,000 yrs since Christ. I love Francis Chan for over 10 yrs. The wisdom of the Church is essential. Don’t get it confused with church politics which down through the ages up to today has often been poisonous. There is great beauty in the Church. The Eucharist is powerful.

[@Amishpeople]

Please keep me in prayer for unspoken prayers

[@Проповедиибеседы]

Questions from Orthodox to non-Orthodox (heterodox): 1. When did believers like you appear? 2. Who founded, laid the foundation for your creed and created the first as your community? 3. Who so believed (like you) in the 1,2,3 and until the 16th century ? Name at least one person for every century. 4. Does your creed resemble the teachings of the Apostles and their successors? 5. Do you have any succession from the Holy Apostles or some kind of connection with the ancient Christian Church? 6. How many times and how has your creed changed? 7. Is there evidence that a soul who professes and believes like you was saved after death, that is, escaped hell and was rewarded with the kingdom of heaven? 8. Who are heretics? (Tit. 3: 10,11; Gal. 5: 19-21 Give examples of heretics). 9. Who are the sectarians? (Matthew 18: 17. Give examples of sectarians). 10. What is your teaching on the Church of Christ? (Tell us about the properties of the Church. How do you interpret the second hemisphere of the Gospel of Matthew 16: 18 “... I will create My Church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it”) Interesting your view on the history of the Christian Church, so give a very brief overview of the life of the Church in history .

[@rodneymoore2671]

Good question...I guess I would have to go back to Acts 2 and 1 & 2 Timothy where individuals received the Spirit and walked in love without icons and symbols (or at least they were not explicitly documented in Scripture).

[@orthodoxfaith4785]

@@rodneymoore2671 Acts 2: 47 - "... And the Lord added to the church daily, such as should be saved." If salvation is outside the church, then why should those who are already being saved be applied to it? Titus 1: 5 - "For this reason I left you in Crete, so that you would complete the unfinished business and put elders (ἐπι­διορθώσῃ) in all the cities, as I ordered you." Acts 14: 23 - "Having ordained elders for them in every church (χειροτονήσαν­τες δὲ αὐτοῖς κατ᾿ ἐκκλησίαν πρεσβυτέρους), they prayed with fasting and gave them up to the Lord, in whom they believed." These two quotes say very clearly that without the elders (ἐπι­διορθώσῃ and πρεσβυτέρους) ordained (χειροτονήσαν­τες) by the Apostle, the work is not finished, incomplete, not completed, imperfect. Lk.10: 1; 17-19; Acts 9: 17-18; 13: 1-3; 2Ti1:6.

[@dave1370]

What's ironic is that many of the answers for Eastern Orthodoxy to the questions you posed would not be acceptable to Roman Catholicism, and the remaining questions are arbitrary and non sequitur.

[@dave1370]

@@orthodoxfaith4785 your comment assumes that an unbroken line, which there's no way you could prove without a doubt anyways, is actually necessary.

[@axelt7087]

Please remember the Church is one, the problem of the myriad of schismatics is mainly a western problem. We in the west need to be, so to speak, "evanglised" into the correct understanding of the Church. It all starts at understanding the early Church with the help of the Church fathers as metro KP has been discovering and Francis Chan is learning of and Hank has found.

[@chuddycuddles]

have moscow and constantinople reconciled yet?

[@pontification7891]

chuddycuddles you mean, “did Putin stop putting abusive pressure on the Moscow Patriarch? Because neither Russians nor Greeks nor Greek bishops have an issue.

[@pierreschiffer3180]

@@pontification7891 Indeed: the presence of so many schismatics is a western problem. Just as it was a problem for the early Church of Paul and John...

[@pierreschiffer3180]

Truth matter, life matters more? What kind of slogan is that? The ancient Catholic martyrs gave their lives for the truth and the modern world gives up truth for their lives. Where are you?

[@BibleAnswerMan]

Hank Hanegraaff see an organic unity between truth and life; hence, the maxim: Truth matters, life matters more.” The authentic Christian life involves both truth and life. Whereas it is vital to know the truth, it is magnanimously important for a person to be transformed by the Truth. Hank puts it this way: “There can be no life without truth, but above all, no truth without life” (Hank Hanegraaff, Truth Matters, Life Matters More: The Unexpected Beauty of an Authentic Christian Life [Nashville, TN: W. Publishing Group, 2019], 86.) Put it another way: “While truth is necessary, it is hardly sufficient. That the map is not the territory. That the menu is not the meal. That we must never mistake the cradle for its occupant. And that we are destined even now to experience life that is life to the full” (Ibid., xxxiv.). Both truth and life go together hand in hand. Faith and works go hand in hand. Authentic Christianity is more than just knowing some Bible facts, including the facts about Jesus in the Good Book. It is even more than just knowing the facts from the Good Book are true. The faith we place in the Scriptures transforms. Christianity has never been about being convinced about the truthfulness of a doctrinal statement, creed, or confession, though good theology is of infinite importance to the faith, it is impossible to have orthopraxy without orthodoxy, but authentic Christianity has always been about a relationship with God the Father through Jesus Christ the Son according to the powerful ministry of the Holy Spirit. Please see the articles.. www.equip.org/bible_answers/what-is-the-biblical-definition-of-faith/ www.equip.org/article/family-faith-and-father/ Hank explains all this in full detail in part 2 of Truth Matters, Life Matters More: The Unexpected Beauty of an Authentic Christian Life ~ www.equip.org/product/truth-matters-life-matters-more/ Hope all this clears up all the confusion!

[@pierreschiffer3180]

@@BibleAnswerMan Well, to me your slogan sounds like you do not really insist on the one Gospel, but you might allow for any, as long as we "experience". We should remember that the spirit of antichrist also makes people to experience things, and makes them to believe in their own lies no less. A slogan like yours would never pass through the Early Church: so much is certain. It smells like relativism and/or indifferentism towards the singular truth of the Gospel.

[@janpham487]

Cool I caught that too! It’s Truth matters more. Jesus pressed on the truth n he said if u giv your life u shall hav eternal life so who ever came up with that slogan does not truly know God’s words . 🙅🏻‍♀️wrong! Not true!

[@Bamboozler68]

Time for him to talk to Catholic scholars.

[@riceninja051]

Francis Chan w/ Scott Hahn?

[@annathibeau9951]

That is exactly what I want to see.

[@J-PLeigh8409]

I could listen to these brothers in Christ & leaders in The Faith in so many more discussions. Their so humble & knowledgeable, we believers should be able to do this & learn from eachother & lift eachother up & edify one another. I need to remember that of Faith, Hope & Love the greatest of them is Love. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices w/ the Truth

[@J-PLeigh8409]

Galations 3:1 was about Christians being bewitched by the Jewish legalistic Mosiac law teachers & trying to get them to turn from The Truth, The Grace of Messiah Jesus The Son of God back to keeping the Mosiac law. Im sure you dislike or find something to twist & pick apart from every believer that ministers or preaches. Their are plenty that I take issue w/ believe me & I dont hold back as I know The Scriptures, but remember lets not judge their hearts. I personally only listen to Hank Hannegraff out of these 3 but Yohan I would check out more, I appreciated the discussions they have had including this one, you should listen to it 1st. Pride is dangerous & love should abound always. Im always up for discussions. I looked at your channel briefly & correct me if wrong but are you KJ only? Great translation but some more rescent have newer manuscripts plus the same such as ESV, ASB, NKJ, I know there are sum I wouldnt touch which are obvious. May we both grow in The Grace of God & The Lord Jesus Christ

[@J-PLeigh8409]

@@1john4six are you serious???? im sorry if I offend you even tho you clearly dont care who you speak against. You dont know me other than my edifying comment to other believers, that said "brothers in Christ" instead of Son of God. If you are that insane & trapped in your religious back biting, gossip, slandering then maybe you should search out your heart. Love God w/ all your heart, mind, soul & strength & love your neighbors as yourself, love covers a multitude of sins. I strongly believe in The Just, Holiness, Mercy & Grace of Almighty God & we are supposed to walk in love not your Pharisee spirit. You should know more about someone especially when their (me) is an Regenerated believer in The SON of GOD & Remember they overcame by The blood of Lamb Jesus Christ & the word of their testimony. Maybe dont let your testimony be attacking believers in Messiah Jesus, The King of Kings & Lord of Lords. Im really blown away, thats your thing?? If somebody every time they mention our Lord & Savior Jesus Christ, doesnt say Son of God you attack them????? Please w/ out writing all The Scriptures that I know & love, just answer me plainly please

[@J-PLeigh8409]

Funny thing is that I always give Praise, Honor & Glory to my Great God & Savior Jesus Christ in whom all things consist. I thank God everyday for conveying me & others into The Kingdom of The Son of His Love. The Word of God doesnt always say The Son of God when mentioning Jesus Christ, is that a problem for you?? God knows exactly where our heart is & that I speak of Him The King of The Universe, may He open your eyes & heart to know that love matters most, Love in The Son of God & love for eachother. God Bless in The Name above every Name Jesus Christ The Son of God

[@J-PLeigh8409]

@@1john4six eventually you gotta ask yourself why you dont have any fellowship or edifying relationships w/ real believers in Jesus Christ. Somebody should tell you its when the world hates you because they have no place in & hate The Son of The Living God Jesus Christ, not fellow believers. Were supposed to walk in love not fill up our hearts w/ contentions towards one another. Do you think The Lord would be pleased w/ you that your judging everybody's heart & eternal destiny, for Him. Apostle Peter told Jesus you are The Christ. Paul said nobody can call Jesus Lord but w/ The Holy Spirit. You must know there are other scriptures speaking of Jesus but not saying The Son of God. Even when Hes being born Hes Emmanuel. Are you possibly the only correct one on the planet in your mind?? Circumcise that pride out of your heart, it will help you

[@J-PLeigh8409]

@@1john4six a text w/ out a context is just a pretext to say whatever you want it to. Anybody can take 5,10,20 or more text from scripture & reply to someone & say this is to you when its completely baseless. Holding fast our profession/confession of Faith in The Son of God Jesus Christ, thats trusting, keeping faith in The Son of God & His Gospel that we have Peace w/ God by Him shedding His blood & dying for yours & my sins hence we come boldly to the Throne of Grace, not your no longer saved bcus you called Him The Christ, The Messiah, The Lord, Yeshua instead of The Son of God on an reply to others He died for. Its denying Him thats a problem, which when you love Him seems impossible eventho apostle Peter did 3 times & The Lord redeemed Him. Just consider the Truth of Gods Word & lift people up, I get rebuking wolves that dont preach Truth, & shy away from The Gospel of Jesus Christ but dont be one. I wont go back & forth anymore as I should have left it alone, we should not quarrel w/ eachother , so peace to you in The Name of The Son of The Living God Jesus Christ

[@alethaknittel9796]

I have felt this way for some time now, outside of the essentials maybe we will never all believe exactly the same but be unified. Not judging and saying my way is the only way. But what may bring you closer to the Father and be what you need in your sanctification journey isn't the same for everyone. So thankful I found these videos. I pray I always have a desire to learn.

[@elispena1719]

Thank you for shuch great explanation, Am so proud to be CATHOLIC, now and for ever until JESUS come for my soul. AMEM

[@jovianwee3446]

Yes we think we are very smart and trying to interprets and understand what GOD is and even argues among each other who is right and wrong. What we need to know is, GOD is love. That's it. The rest are not important. At the end we going to face GOD alone and answer to him. Before him we are just innocent child of his.

[@ronnestman4696]

Focus on all the Godly people and their faithfulness in this day and allow God to have his way with the rest! I love tour heart Francis. 😁

[@SR71pilot2007]

I am looking forward to hearing this!❤️🙏🏻

[@titaniumsteel9114]

Wearing a Cross is a silent proclamation of Jesus.

[@greglaprade7507]

Or a fashion statement

[@Elven.]

we gain nothing at tearing someone else down. When I was an atheist and I asked the Lord: if you're real what should I do, a man turned around a corner at that very oment wearing a t-shirt saying faith in very big letters and he was wearing a crucifix . Without those symbols I wouldn't have gotten such a straight forward answer.

[@titaniumsteel9114]

@@greglaprade7507 Reason #1 - Remembrance To Remember What True Love Looks Like The crucifix is different than the cross. The cross is the instrument of torture through which Jesus was murdered, a particular favorite of the Roman Empire. The cross is the altar on which the Son of Man offered Himself as an eternal sacrifice for the forgiveness of our sins. The cross is the new tree of life. The cross is significant, but only because of the time Jesus spent hanging from it. For some people the cross is scandalous. It is something they hold to be in the past. As a Catholic I believe that the sacrifice of Jesus on the cross is eternal, and made ever-present at every Mass held everyday in every country around the world. “But we proclaim Christ crucified, a stumbling block for Jews and foolishness for Gentiles, but to those who are called, Jews and Greeks alike, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God.” ~ 1 Corinthians 1:23-24 Don’t get me wrong. I know Jesus is not on the cross. He is not dead. He is risen. In fact: “A Catholic is one who believes that this Jesus remains alive, active, and accessible in and through His Church.” ~ Archbishop Timothy Cardinal Dolan Jesus on the cross is what matters. It is the ultimate act of God’s love for us. To gaze upon the crucifix for me is to look upon love in its most perfect expression. In the busyness of my daily life I need to be reminded of that, and reminded often. The crucifix around my neck serves as a reminder of God’s love for the world, but particularly God’s love for me. Reason #2 - Inspiration To Inspire Me to Take Up My Cross Daily The crucifix might be thought of as a gruesome sight. However, for me it is inspiring. To see Jesus on the cross is a reminder of the challenge He made to His disciples-the challenge He makes to me. “If anyone wishes to come after me, he must deny himself take up his cross daily and follow me.” ~ Luke 9:23 It’s not a suggestion or a good idea, it is the condition of discipleship. To be a disciple is to make your life about this challenge. And believe you me it is a challenge. This is why I need to be inspired. This is why I like to contemplate the image of Christ crucified, not because I enjoy seeing Him broken and bloody, but because I know those are the footsteps in which I must follow. As a Christian I know I am called to be a martyr-a witness. Who I am in life and in death must bear witness to Christ. Whether that means I will literally lay down my life for Him I cannot be certain, but come what may, the challenge made to we disciples is just that-to accept the pain and suffering that can and will come our way because of our free decision to follow Jesus. “Blessed are they who are persecuted for the sake of righteousness, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.” ~ Matthew 5:10 Seeing Jesus on the cross is an inspirational example that I am called to follow, and this is another reason for the crucifix around my neck. Reason #3 - Accountability So Others Will Hold Me Accountable as a Christian The last reason I wear a crucifix is for accountability. It is not jewelry. It is not meant to be flashy. But I do want others to see it. Not because I want them to think I am super holy, although I should be striving for holiness after all that is the call we share as Christians. I wear a crucifix so that others may know that I am a Christian and hold me accountable to that claim. For it is one thing to tell people you are a Christian and another to show them that you are. I want to be treated different because of my faith. I want people to know that I live my life differently than most. When they know this they will expect me to. And if I don’t, then I need to called out for it. Accountability is important. Fraternal correction is essential. We shouldn’t be able to parade around claiming to be new creations in Christ, but living lives that don’t follow suit. And the crucifix I wear is the perfect symbol of my faith that tells all those who encounter me that I am a Christian and take my faith seriously. I can’t wear the crucifix and then deny my faith. It would cause scandal. People would notice. So it is the perfect way to invite others to challenge me to live my faith. There may be other methods of achieving each of these three things shared here, but for me the crucifix is the best. If you wear a crucifix but don’t know why, then I hope these reflections have served to help you understand this practice on a deeper level. If you aren’t Catholic and always wondered why the crucifix is held in such high esteem among Catholics, then hopefully this explains it. May the sacrifice of Christ on the cross bring the power of God’s love and mercy into each of our lives that we may “proclaim Christ crucified” (1 Cor 1:23) and “make disciples of all nations” (Mt 28:19).

[@greglaprade7507]

@@titaniumsteel9114 I was referring to the fact that many secular celebrities and other people wear a cross as a fashion statement. No, I take God's Word very seriously... Sola scriptura... Scripture is my authority.

[@surfshop7552]

In France it would be the guillotine, in modern times it would be the electric chair or an assault rifle, my point is that it was the death machine of the day. We don't need to wear signs and symbols, as long as we are walking in the Spirit, we good.

[@Orthoindian]

It is not about hating other groups or saying they are going to hell but it's about loving them enough to speak the truth. Yes, we do not know where the Holy Spirit is not there but we also know that false beliefs do not save but only the Truth. Orthodoxy isn't optional after you know enough about it. We can't just start Apostolic 'churches' as KP Yohan did here. love “does not rejoice in wrongdoing, but rejoices in truth” (I Cor 13:6 ESV) I know many groups genuinely love Christ but sincerity doesn't make errors correct.

[@AndrewKendall71]

Is it not when a denomination or the Catholic church REQUIRES that open-handed matters be adhered to, like believing in the Marian dogmas or compulsion to receive the baptism of the Holy Spirit or doing certain grace-filled tasks, that the family of God gets carried step-by-step away from the gospel?

[@SLVBULL]

Spring water is purest at its source.

[@AnHebrewChild]

Which source is JESUS, God-the-Son and the words he spoke unto us. Is this what you're saying? "And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Teaching them **to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you:** and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen.

[@sami5to6]

St. Jerome, Letter to Pope Damasus 15, 2 (Inter 374-379 AD): "I speak with the successor of the fisherman...Though I acknowledge none as first except Christ, I am joined in communion with your Holiness, that is to say, in communion with the Chair of Peter (PAPACY). I know that it is upon that rock that the Church has been built. Whoever eats the Lamb outside this house is profane." AUGUSTINE "[In] the Catholic Church, there are many other things which most justly keep me in her bosom. The consent of peoples and nations keeps me in the Church; so does her authority, inaugurated by miracles, nourished by hope, enlarged by love, established by age. The succession of priests keeps me, beginning from the very seat of the Apostle Peter, to whom the Lord, after His resurrection, gave it in charge to feed His sheep, down to the present episcopate. And so, lastly, does the name itself of Catholic, which, not without reason, amid so many heresies, the Church has thus retained; so that, though all heretics wish to be called Catholics, yet when a stranger asks where the Catholic Church meets, no heretic will venture to point to his own chapel or house. Such then in number and importance are the precious ties belonging to the Christian name which keep a believer in the Catholic Church, as it is right they should.... With you, where there is none of these things to attract or keep me.... No one shall move me from the faith which binds my mind with ties so many and so strong to the Christian religion.... For my part, I should not believe the gospel except as moved by the authority of the Catholic Church." (Against the Epistle of Manichaeus [Contra Epistolam Manichaei Quam Vacant Fundamenti.) St. Peter Chrysologus, Letter to Eutyches 25, 2 (449 AD): "We exhort you in every respect, honorable brother, to heed obediently what has been written by the Most Blessed Pope of the City of Rome; for Blessed Peter, who lives and presides in his own see, provides the truth of faith to those who seek it. For we, by reason of our pursuit of peace and faith, cannot try cases on the faith without the consent of the Bishop of the City of Rome."

[@m.filmtrip]

In St. Paul’s epistle to the romans it says they can be cut off just like the Jews who rejected Christ. Romans 11:20.

[@sami5to6]

@@m.filmtrip Not if you believe what Jesus said, "the gates of hell shall not prevail against it". Speaking to Peter whom Jesus just established His Church on.

[@saenzperspectives]

“Saint Augustine says Christ built his Church not on a man but on Peter’s confession. What is Peter’s confession? ‘You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.’ There’s the rock for you, there’s the foundation, there’s where the Church has been built, which the gates of the underworld cannot conquer. (Sermon 229) None of the fathers indicate papal supremacy. Rather, all of them indicate equality of the successors of the Apostles; the bishops. Let's take Saint Cyprian Bishop of Carthage, who considered Peter the rock (but saw every bishop as owning the chair of peter) he says: "Certainly the other Apostles also were what Peter was, endued with an equal fellowship both of honour and power; but a commencement is made from unity, that the Church may be set before as one; which one Church, in the Song of Songs, doth the Holy Spirit design and name in the Person of our Lord: My dove, My spotless one, is but one; she is the only one of her mother, elect of her that bare her (Cant. 9:6) (A Library of the Fathers of the Holy Catholic Church (Oxford: Parker, 1844), Cyprian, On The Unity of the Church 3, p. 133). Saint John Chrysostom: "For the Son of thunder(John), the beloved of Christ, the pillar of the Churches throughout the world, who holds the keys of heaven, who drank the cup of Christ, and was baptized with His baptism, who lay upon his Master’s bosom, with much confidence, this man now comes forward to us now " (Philip Schaff, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1956), Volume XIV, Saint Chrysostom, Homilies on the Gospel of John, Homily 1.1, p. 1). St. Bede: “Although it may seem that this power of loosing and binding was given by the Lord only to Peter, we must nevertheless know without any doubt that it was given to the other apostles…Indeed even now the same office is committed to the whole Church in her bishops and priests.” [Bede the Venerable, Homilies on the Gospels: Book One: Advent to Lent, Hom. I.20, p. 202.] St. Isidore of Seville: “So Peter first received the power of binding and loosing, and he first led people to faith by the power of his preaching. Still, the other Apostles have been made equal with Peter in a fellowship of dignity and power. They also, having been sent out into all the world, preached the Gospel. Having descended from these apostles, the bishops have succeeded them, and through all the world they have been established in the seats of the apostles” (De Ecclesiasticus, II.5, M.P.L., Vol. 83, Col. 781-782). Origen: "But if you think the whole church to be built by God upon that one Peter only, what would you say of John the son of thunder or each of the Apostles? Are we to venture to say that the gates of Hades do not prevail against Peter by a special privilege, but prevail against the other Apostles and the perfect? What is said surely belongs to each and all of them, since all are ‘Peter’ and the ‘Rock,’ and the church of God has been built upon them all, and against none who are such do the gates of Hades prevail. Is it to Peter alone that the Lord gives the keys of the kingdom of Heaven, and will no other of the blessed receive them? But if this privilege, ‘I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven,’ is common to the others, so also are all the preceding words addressed as it were to Peter (Origen on Matthew XII, 10 as cited in eyendorff J. The Primacy of Peter: essays in ecclesiology and the early church St Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1992, p. 61). Canon 1, Fourth Lateran Council "There is one Universal Church of the faithful, outside of which there is absolutely no salvation. In which there is the same priest and sacrifice, Jesus Christ, whose body and blood are truly contained in the sacrament of the altar under the forms of bread and wine; the bread being changed (transsubstantiatio) by divine power into the body, and the wine into the blood, so that to realize the mystery of unity we may receive of Him what He has received of us. And this sacrament no one can effect except the priest who has been duly ordained in accordance with the keys of the Church, which Jesus Christ Himself gave to the Apostles and their successors.” So a Catholic ‘infallible’ ecumenical council declared that peter did not alone receive the keys of heaven but also the apostles and their successors. ”If, however, Jovinianus should obstinately contend that John was not a virgin, (whereas we have maintained that his virginity was the cause of the special love our Lord bore to him), let him explain, if he was not a virgin, why it was that he was loved more than the other Apostles. But you say, Matthew 16:18 the Church was founded upon Peter: although elsewhere the same is attributed to all the Apostles, and they all receive the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and the strength of the Church depends upon them all alike, yet one among the twelve is chosen so that when a head has been appointed, there may be no occasion for schism. ”St. Jerome, Against Jovianus, Book I: 26 ”St. Bruno of Segni : "Here in fact this statement is said principally to Peter, and it ought to be understood as being said to the rest of the apostles. And not only to the apostles, but truly also to the bishops and priests. In fact, the keys and powers themselves have been given by the Lord to not only will free the Church, but also to open the heavens to others. ”if the keys are the powers of binding and loosing,did not the Lord give this privilege to all the apostles in Matthew 18:18? “Truly I tell you, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven." One pope, venerated as a saint by Roman Catholics is Pope St. Gregory the Great (590-604), who famously opposed Patriarch John of Constantinople’s desire to add the term “Ecumenical” to his title, writing to the patriarch that ”Whoever calls himself the universal bishop, or desires this title, is, by his pride, the precursor of Antichrist, because he thus attempts to raise himself above the others. The error into which he falls springs from pride equal to that of Antichrist; for as that Wicked One wished to be regarded as exalted above other men, like a god, so likewise whoever would be called sole bishop exalteth himself above others.” Here's St. Gregory the Great, Pope of Rome A.D. 590-604, writing to St. Eulogius of Alexandria on how the See of Peter subsists in three patriarchates (Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch): "Wherefore though there are many apostles, yet with regard to the principality itself the See of the Prince of the apostles alone has grown strong in authority, which in three places is the See of one. For he himself exalted the See in which he deigned even to rest and end the present life. He himself adorned the See to which he sent his disciple as evangelist. He himself established the See in which, though he was to leave it, he sat for seven years. Since then it is the See of one, and one See, over which by Divine authority three bishops now preside, whatever good I hear of you, this I impute to myself. If you believe anything good of me, impute this to your merits, since we are one in Him Who says, 'That they all may be one, as You, Father, art in me, and I in you that they also may be one in us' [John 17:21]." Cyprian of Carthage: “The Lord says to Peter: ‘I say to you,’ he says, ‘that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church.’ . . . On him [Peter] he builds the Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep [John 21:17], and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair [cathedra], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were that also which Peter was [i.e., apostles], but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair. So too, all [the apostles] are shepherds, and the flock is shown to be one, fed by all the apostles in single-minded accord. If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he [should] desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?” (The Unity of the Catholic Church 4; 1st edition [A.D. 251]).

[@saenzperspectives]

consider the Chieti 2016 agreement which can be found on the Vatican website: “...Appeals to the bishop of Rome from the East expressed the communion of the Church, but the bishop of Rome did not exercise canonical authority over the churches of the East.”-(2016 Chieti Agreement)”

[@saenzperspectives]

“The Place of Rome in the Apostolic Church Significantly, most Roman Catholic historians recognize that the Popes did not have universal jurisdiction during the first centuries of Christian history. Instead, they recognize that the Papacy, as it exists today, was the result of centuries of growth and evolution. For example, the Pope did not achieve complete authority over Roman Catholic doctrine until the declaration of papal infallibility at the First Vatican Council in 1870. One Roman Catholic historian wrote, “The primacy of the Church of Rome naturally did not appear all at once and in its full external development. It developed organically and as need required.” 308 As the bishop of the largest and most influential city in the world, the Bishop of Rome naturally occupied a position of great prestige. Most Christians looked to the Church of Rome for leadership from the very beginning of church history. Anyone with a cause would have had a stronger case with Roman support. For this reason, both heretics and Orthodox theologians tried to win the favor of the Bishop of Rome for their cause. In 343 or 344, the Council of Sardica, one of the local councils recognized by the Council in Trullo, granted deposed bishops the right to request that the Bishop of Rome appoint local bishops to hear their appeal. However, the canon did not give the Pope the authority to resolve the matter himself. 309 The Bishop of Rome as “First Among Equals” in the Apostolic Church There was no question that the Pope held a primacy of honor as “first among equals,” during the first 1,000 years of Christian history. For example, St. Ignatius addresses the Church of Rome in very flowerily words, “worthy of honour, worthy of the highest happiness, worthy of praise, worthy of credit worthy of being deemed holy, and which presides over love…” 310 However, this honorary status did not give the Pope universal jurisdiction. In the same letter, St. Ignatius is also careful to limit the actual authority of the Bishop of Rome to “the region of the Romans.” 311 During his disagreement with Pope St. Stephen over Baptism, St. Cyprian specifically rejected the idea that Rome had authority over the other bishops. He wrote, “Certainly the rest of the apostles were exactly what Peter was; they were endowed with an equal share of office and power…. The episcopate is a single whole, in which each bishop’s share gives him a right to, and a responsibility for the whole.” 312 Although Roman Bishops began to claim authority over other bishops fairly early, it took centuries before they were strong enough to enforce these claims. Because the early Church used the administrative divisions already used by the Roman Empire, the Bishop of Rome only exercised jurisdiction over the ten provinces governed by the prefect of Rome during the first five centuries of Church history. For example, at the close of the first century, St. Clement, the Bishop of Rome, had the authority to advise the Church of Corinth in his Epistle to the Church in Corinth because the city was one of those ruled directly by Rome. For this reason, the Corinthian Church was under the authority of the Bishop of the imperial city. Outside of the areas ruled directly from Rome, the Western Church followed the same practice of the East, where local metropolitans and synods administered the Church. For example, Milan operated as an independent or autocephalous Church under the leadership of its own bishop rather than that of the Bishop of Rome. 313 The Bishop of Rome was only able to extend his authority over the other bishops of the West after centuries of effort. Rome was never able to persuade the Eastern Bishops to accept papal authority. Unfortunately, the Eastern bishops were not fully aware of the growing Roman claims until it was too late to avoid conflict with Rome. 314 Thus, Rome did not exercise universal jurisdiction during the era of the Ecumenical Councils. Nor was Rome above the authority of a general council as later Popes would claim. Instead, the Bishops of Rome were subject to the decisions of ecumenical councils just like any other bishop. For example, the Sixth Ecumenical Council, Constantinople III, did not hesitate to claim authority over the Pope when it condemned Pope Honorius I in 680. The Canons of the Ecumenical Councils and Papal Authority It is not possible to reconcile the papal claims to universal jurisdiction with the canons of the Ecumenical Councils. In addition to its doctrinal decisions, the Councils adopted rules called canons to regulate the life of the Church. Because the Church used the administrative divisions of the Roman Empire, the bishops of the provincial capitals had presided over meetings or synods of the bishops of the smaller towns in the province since the beginning of Church history. The bishops who lived in the provincial capital or metropolis of the region were eventually called Metropolitans. The First Council of Nicea reaffirmed this practice and recognized the authority of provincial synods to elect the bishops of the dioceses in their provinces. The council also decreed that the local synods of the bishops should meet in each province at least twice a year, once before Lent and once in the fall. In 528, the Emperor Justinian ruled that the metropolitan and bishops of a province would elect bishops from a list of three candidates nominated by the clergy and faithful of the diocese. 315 Canon thirty five of the Apostolic Canons, a set of ancient canons given ecumenical authority by the Council in Trullo in 692, considered by Orthodox a continuation of the Fifth and Sixth Ecumenical Councils, summarizes the Eastern model for the proper administration of the Church. The bishops of every nation must acknowledge him who is first among them and account him as their head, and do nothing of consequence without his consent; but each may do those things only which concern his own parish and the country places which belong to it. But neither let him (who is the first) do anything without the consent of all; for so there will be unanimity and God will be glorified through the Lord in the Holy Spirit. 316 The Development of the Five Patriarchates From the division of the Church into local provincial Churches, the system of five Patriarchs developed. The First Council of Nicea reaffirmed the authority of the Metropolitan of Alexandria over the Churches in Egypt and North Africa, Antioch over the Churches in the Middle East, and Rome over the Churches in those areas ruled directly by Rome. 317 In time, the Metropolitans of Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch began to be called Patriarchs from the Greek word for Father. The Bishops of Rome and Alexandria also adopted the title Pope, also from the word for Father. Eventually, the Second Ecumenical Council approved a canon that would have wide-ranging consequences. The Second Canon of that council decreed that “The Bishop of Constantinople, however, shall have the prerogative of honor after the Bishop of Rome; because Constantinople is the New Rome.” 318 In 330, Emperor Constantine moved the capital of the Roman Empire to Byzantium, an ancient Greek fishing village. Byzantium, which he renamed Constantinople, became a Christian alternative to pagan Rome. 319 Finally, the Fourth Ecumenical Council, The Council of Chalcedon in 451, which set the standard for orthodox Christology, granted patriarchial dignity to Jerusalem. 320 This completed the formation of the Pentarchy or division of the Church into five self-governing local provincial Churches: Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem. The Orthodox Church has continued to this day to be a federation of locally governed Churches. The Council of Chalcedon made another very important decision concerning the administration of the Church. In 451, the Twenty Eighth Canon of the Council of Chalcedon recognized the equality of the Bishop of Constantinople with the Bishop of Rome. Significantly, the canon did not base the Roman primacy of honor on the belief that St. Peter was the traditional founder of the Roman Church. Instead, the fathers of the council considered the Bishop of Rome senior among the world’s bishops because he was bishop of the old capital of the empire. Since Constantinople had taken the place of the old Rome and was the new capital of the Empire, the fathers of the council decreed that the Bishop of Constantinople should have equal status with the Bishop of Rome. 321 Pope St. Leo View of Primacy Pope St. Leo objected strongly to Canon 28 of the Council of Chalcedon. His arguments are very interesting in the light of the claims of his successors. He did not object to the canon because of a theory of Papal or Petrine supremacy. Instead, he rejected the canon because it set aside the ranking of Churches established by the First Ecumenical Council, the First Council of Nicea. 322 Specifically, the Bishop of Rome rejected this canon because the council elevated Constantinople at the expense of Alexandria and Antioch which the Council of Nicea had ranked second and third in status. He wrote, “The rights of provincial primates may not be overthrown nor metropolitan bishops be defrauded of privileges based on “antiquity.” 323...

[@christopheraaronbaker]

Pastor Francis has the Christian zeal of a Protestant Christian thirsting for the fullness of the church.

[@latinboyyy305]

You know what's interesting.....the blood flows in the shape of the cross when it travels through your heart. From the superior and inferior vena cava into the the atrium, through the ventricle, into the lungs and back to the atrium, then the other ventricle and out through the aorta.

[@saws_n_stuff]

A great blessing! Thank you.

[@DistinctiveThinking]

So...would you feel this way about a member of the church of Jesus Christ of Laterday Saints whom also believe in apostolic succession?

[@BibleAnswerMan]

@Ann The Church of Jesus Christ Latter-day Saints (LDS) teachings confound, confuse, and contradict the teachings of Christianity. LDS apostles never really believe their apostles can be traced back to Christ, since the basis of the so-called new revelation that comes with the forming and publishing of the Book of Mormon declares all denominations are false, which implies that the line of apostles was lost. So, LDS may have apostles but none of them are in a line of succession traced back to Christ. See the following… www.equip.org/articles/the-basics-of-mormonism/ www.equip.org/article/mormonism-christian-cult/ Mormonism represents a schism that denies the essential doctrines of historic Christianity. Of course, when it comes to Christian unity. The LDS can repudiate the teachings and prophetic status of Joseph Smith, denounce the Doctrines and Covenants + the Pearl of Great Price + on-going so-called new revelations from the LDS apostles as coming from the Lord, reject the doctrinal perversion that as God once was so man will be (i.e., that LDS heavenly father was once a man who became God and that the LDS man can too become God as the heavenly father did), they can dispense with the secret temple rituals that are occultic, and such can be a positive move towards Christian unity. The kind of unity that Christ spoke about can never really happen for those who want to maintain the LDS doctrinal errors.

[@DistinctiveThinking]

@@BibleAnswerMan What is the difference in the errors you just listed, and the errors in Roman Catholic beliefs, such a s "To Jesus thru Mary? Why would God want a person who believes in Jesus the only mediator sent by God to pray to Mary in order to come to Jesus?Or invoke her name to help them instead of Jesus? I mean no disrespect, I just find this among many other things confusing to the simplicity of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. I personally do not find that particular doctrine any less blasphemous then LDS belief that Heavenly Father was once a man like you who attained godhood. What's the difference...godhood, sainthood, both are taught on the basis of works to be elevated to that degree. IMO the most significant gift for anyone's salvation was the Attonment of Jesus Christ. His blood shed for our reconciliation. Mary did not die on the cross, and neither did Joseph Smith for my sins. I guess we all must follow the dictates of our own conscience as far as living out our faith to Christ. As far as Apostolic succession, I realize there is historical evidence but seems to me the lifestyle lived by those claiming this calling from God should reflect the nature of Jesus Christ. I think in both respective churches we could agree that has not been the case. I was just curious as to your thoughts on others claiming what you have converted to believe. I think there are many contradictions to Biblical Christianity in Roman Catholic doctrine as well. Thank you for taking the time to answer me.

[@BibleAnswerMan]

@Ann ~ Hank Hanegraaff has never been a Roman Catholic. Hank neither agrees with in total nor can defend the Roman Catholic articulation on Mary. There is thus disagreement on the Immaculate Conception, for example. See the following articles... www.equip.org/questions-answers-orthodoxy/ www.equip.org/articles/what-is-eastern-orthodoxy/ Also take time to carefully listen to the discussio with Nathan Jacobs on this episode of Hank Unplugged... www.equip.org/hank-unplugged-podcast-and-shorts/misunderstanding-faith-works-and-mary-the-mother-of-god-with-nathan-jacobs/ When ancient Christians declared, "God became a man so man might become God" they were referring to deification. Deification is the idea that God became a man so that man may become God. Humans never become like God in essence or ascend into divinity; rather, God redeems and restores humans so that they can participate in the energies of God. They are transformed into the likeness of Christ. Another word for deification is theosis. Hank addresses deification extensively in Truth Matters, Life Matters More: The Unexpected Beauty of an Authentic Christian Life (www.equip.org/product/truth-matters-life-matters-more/) Deification is also addressed in these resources: Life in the Trinity: An Introduction to Theology with the Help of the Church Fathers (www.equip.org/product/life-trinity-introduction-theology-help-church-fathers/) by Donald Fairbairn and Union with Christ: The Way to Know and Enjoy God (www.equip.org/product/union-with-christ-the-way-to-know-and-enjoy-god/) by Rankin Wilbourne

[@lucyhidayat9063]

Hmmm...the word church can be understood in 2 ways. And as i read the bible, never did it occur to me that there has to one single church as say, catholicism defines it. There are small congregations/churches and the 1st church in judea didnt even impose such stature but only the main aspects of how the rest of the churches must ascribe to. Division is inevitable, and it s a way to know whether our allegiance is to a religious authority or God's word and His Holy Spirit s leading.

[@kingdomking10]

This is so beautiful.

[@amandabula8732]

Francis Roman Catholic do not venerate Icon or statues. Those article of art when there was not a bible was a way of expressing the Gospel. The sign of the cross is like the fish a way of Christians identifying one another my brother God Bless You!

[@arijoseph2832]

Amen

[@Ортодокс-э2у]

"It is a mistake to think that all Orthodox are really not sectarians and that all sectarians are really not Orthodox. Not every Orthodox by name is such in spirit, and not every sectarian by name is such in spirit, and nowadays in particular one can meet an "Orthodox" - a real sectarian in his spirit: fanatical, unloving, rationally narrow, resting on a human point, not hungry, not thirsting for the truth of God, but satiated with his proud truth, severely judging a person from the top of his imaginary truth - outwardly dogmatically right, but devoid of birth in the Spirit. And, on the contrary, one can meet a sectarian who clearly does not understand the meaning of Orthodox service to God in Spirit and Truth, does not recognize this or that expression of church truth, but in fact conceals in himself a lot of truly God, truly loving in Christ, truly fraternal to people." Archbishop John Shakhovskoy

[@DerAtalaya]

Gálatas 1:6-9 Reina-Valera 1960 No hay otro evangelio 6 Estoy maravillado de que tan pronto os hayáis alejado del que os llamó por la gracia de Cristo, para seguir un evangelio diferente. 7 No que haya otro, sino que hay algunos que os perturban y quieren pervertir el evangelio de Cristo. 8 Mas si aun nosotros, o un ángel del cielo, os anunciare otro evangelio diferente del que os hemos anunciado, sea anatema. 9 Como antes hemos dicho, también ahora lo repito: Si alguno os predica diferente evangelio del que habéis recibido, sea anatema.

[@777igg]

I could understand Francis Chan when he says it sounds offensive like watching Nathan Jacobs movie becoming truly human how he was reading many protestant books and commentaries so much that he almost predicted well they were going to say he didn’t wanna go to church anymore and at first glance it does feeling sound like he’s making it seem like protestants and evangelicals have no validity we are second-best but as you think about it I don’t think that was his intent I believe he was simply sharing his story and addressing the growing secularism of our Society discovering the deep inherited beliefs of the ancient universal church.

[@maxonmendel5757]

anybody have a link to this whole video in order?

[@BibleAnswerMan]

You can download the full audios at the links below... www.equip.org/unplugged/history-mystery-and-the-eucharist-with-francis-chan-and-metropolitian-yohan-k-p-yohannan/ www.equip.org/unplugged/the-key-to-christian-unity-is-humility-with-francis-chan-and-metropolitan-yohan/

[@TVTechInc]

Hank and Francis were once sound teachers, but have drifted. They are misleading many with their heresy.

[@jimmynikolaidis385]

I'd love to know what KP and Francis think of the overwhelming evidence (both biblical and historical) supporting Apostolic Succession. Is it something that can be waved away as being non-essential?

[@BibleAnswerMan]

KP explains the importance of Apostolic Succession in Never Give Up. Please listen to the Hank Unplugged episode with KP www.equip.org/unplugged/never-give-up-with-k-p-yohannan/ You can get all the details in Never Give Up > www.equip.org/product/never-give-up-the-story-of-a-broken-man-impacting-a-generation/

[@jimmynikolaidis385]

Drinker_Of_ Milk I believe that the Holy Spirit of God works everywhere. I also believe that, in those Christians seeking all truths and refusing to become complacent, He will lead them home. The Lord called Himself Truth, after all. “We know where the Church is; we do not know where the Church is not.”

[@dave1370]

Overwhelming evidence? Only if you use question begging tactics and unwarranted extrapolations.

[@JostefDKC]

What really depends is the new creation!... Was there a time that you you realized that Christ died for you? Thats what depends... And after that stay humble and learn to Love Him and Love people

[@scottforesman7968]

is KP Yohannan Orthodox?

[@BibleAnswerMan]

KP Yohannan is not Eastern Orthodox. He is the Metropolitan of Believers Eastern Church in India.

[@johnphilemon7004]

Why is Francis so concerned about the traditions of man? I know he is familiar with the beginning of Mark chapter 7, Galatians 1:14, and Colossians 2:8. We are saved by grace alone through faith alone (Eph 2:8-9 and Rom 11:6). Works are a product of your faith (Rom 3:27-31 and James 2:14-26) it does not get you in the right standing (justified) with God (Gal 5:3; James 2:10; Rom 10:4).

[@thebluedan]

I don’t know this looks and awful lot like the invisible church to me...meaning a church without walls...or a church with walls of loving one another so that the world may know. What did Jesus say to the woman at the well about where one should worship, where is the location of spirit and truth...a day is coming... I thinks some orthodox misunderstand this idea of the invisible church. You can only guess you know what is the church until that day. I like what Hanks reminds us the could of witnesses... church members that preceded the church Old Testament believers, the thief on the cross...etc...more than the stars

[@DrChrisPM]

Francis Chan needs to chat with Justin Peters and James White

[@jamesstandifer1683]

Are believers that are not eastern orthodox apart of the body of Christ?

[@BibleAnswerMan]

Your question is dealt with in Know the Faith: A Handbook for Orthodox Christians and Inquirers by Michael Shanbour www.equip.org/product/know-the-faith-a-handbook-for-orthodox-christians-and-inquirers/ See also relevant discussion in The Orthodox Church: An Introduction to Eastern Christianity by Timothy Ware We can know where the Church exists (it is where authentic believers gather) but we do not know here the Church is not.

[@ThePattersonPod]

This changed my mind. I agree with you guys. How could Jesus be so divisive and call out the Pharisees? Man, if only he could have had the wisdom that you all offer. Or that Paul guy, why would he ever hand people over to Satan? What a meanie head. Let’s all just agree on one thing, Matthew 18 should be removed. It’s uncomfortable. And that 1 Timothy deal where Paul explains that Timothy should hold fast to sound doctrine, and Titus where he tells him to refute those contradict sound doctrine. This whole Christianity thing is really easy when you minimize the amount of pages that you have to read from the Bible. Thanks for the help guys!

[@TheAegis1000]

Perhaps you might consider how many pages of the Bible the early christians had available to read. Paul said to the Philippian jailer ... "Believe on the name of Jesus Christ ... and you shall be saved." This is what the early church knew. We may know more now, ... but it doesn't change the simplicity of the truth ... P.S. The Pharisees weren't a part of the body of Christ ... and Paul suggested the ONE believer engaging in sinful activity ... be turned over to Satan (to motivate to repentance) ...

[@mythologicalmyth]

UNITY is everyone on the diluted fringes returning to the Divine Liturgy of St John Chrysostom/Basil. Unifying under Literal Interpretation of John 6 as Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ commanded and reiterated as literal.

[@michaelg.tucker6363]

Basic logic and common sense based upon properly knowing and understanding GOD's Word and Christian history. First, both the Christians and the Jews had the Old Testament as it was completed approximately 400 years prior to Jesus Christs life. The O.T. is GOD’s eternal Word. Secondly, The first century disciples, and every other first century Christian, had the N.T. because Jesus Christ (while living here on Earth as being both fully GOD and fully man) taught the Disciples His eternal Word that gives us the N.T. The N.T. disciples were the ones who heard Jesus Christs words first hand and took His Words to those in their area of influence. Those Words by Jesus Christ, along with His ministry, were eventually written down in the four Gospels, and the rest of the N.T., by the Disciples and those who heard and followed the disciples, and then eventually was given to rest of the known world. Third, ALL of the N.T. letters had been written prior to the end of the end of the first century and had been circulated and were in process of being circulated. And prior to the Nicene Counsel the 27 books/letters had been accepted by the church as canon. So therefore, they did have the entire Holy Bible (both O.T. and N.T.) even if ALL 27 books/letters had not been properly canonized prior to the Nicene Counsel. Fourth, Jesus Christ and the Bible claim that He is GOD; so therefore, since ALL Scripture comes from GOD/Jesus Christ (whose is eternal) then there could be NO Holy Bible without GOD/Jesus Christ. No pastor/preacher could preach and teach GOD’s Word unless GOD first gave us (mankind) His Word. He is the eternal author of His Word (the Holy Bible)- not man. Fifth, There would be no church, nor would there be a universe (which includes mankind) unless GOD FIRST- a. created the universe and mankind; b. provided a way for mankind to be saved/redeemed from our sins through repentance of sins and faith in Jesus Christ as our LORD and Savior; and c. inspired mankind to write down His eternal Word that teaches/instructs us (mankind) that Jesus Christ is the head of the church (not man nor some fallible, sinful pope), what the church is, and how to govern the church. Sixth, GOD is the creator, mankind is not the creator. GOD is eternal, mankind is not eternal. GOD is providentially sovereign over His creation; which includes His Word (the Holy Bible), mankind is not providentially sovereign over, nor within, GOD’s creation. So therefore, once again, basic Biblical logic and human common sense dictates that mankind did not write down the Holy Bible and give it GOD; but rather, GOD gave mankind the Holy Bible and inspired mankind (through the O.T. writers/prophets and N.T. Apostles/disciples) to write down His eternal Word- the Holy Bible. Which therefore logically dictates that since GOD is providentially sovereign over, and within, His creation, then that means that His eternal Word comes from Him and is the authority over both the church and our individual human Christian lives/faith. There would be NO Holy Bible without GOD who is the eternal author of His Word.

[@balung]

Someone will have to give, can't see the Catholic Church doing that. Remember Luther wanted to reform the Catholic Church, they didn't reform, hence the Protestant Reformation. Has the Catholic Church reformed since then?

[@BibleAnswerMan]

Good point. Reuniting is a work in progress. There are ongoing attempts to move forward. None of the obstacles are easy to navigate. Here are a couple of articles from Protestants grappling with relations with Roman Catholicism. See 1) www.equip.org/articles/they-went-out-from-us-but-were-not-really-of-us/ 2) www.equip.org/articles/returning-to-rome/ Each camp has a non-negotiable which has to have serious consideration.

[@titaniumsteel9114]

Reason #1 - Remembrance To Remember What True Love Looks Like The crucifix is different than the cross. The cross is the instrument of torture through which Jesus was murdered, a particular favorite of the Roman Empire. The cross is the altar on which the Son of Man offered Himself as an eternal sacrifice for the forgiveness of our sins. The cross is the new tree of life. The cross is significant, but only because of the time Jesus spent hanging from it. For some people the cross is scandalous. It is something they hold to be in the past. As a Catholic I believe that the sacrifice of Jesus on the cross is eternal, and made ever-present at every Mass held everyday in every country around the world. “But we proclaim Christ crucified, a stumbling block for Jews and foolishness for Gentiles, but to those who are called, Jews and Greeks alike, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God.” ~ 1 Corinthians 1:23-24 Don’t get me wrong. I know Jesus is not on the cross. He is not dead. He is risen. In fact: “A Catholic is one who believes that this Jesus remains alive, active, and accessible in and through His Church.” ~ Archbishop Timothy Cardinal Dolan Jesus on the cross is what matters. It is the ultimate act of God’s love for us. To gaze upon the crucifix for me is to look upon love in its most perfect expression. In the busyness of my daily life I need to be reminded of that, and reminded often. The crucifix around my neck serves as a reminder of God’s love for the world, but particularly God’s love for me. Reason #2 - Inspiration To Inspire Me to Take Up My Cross Daily The crucifix might be thought of as a gruesome sight. However, for me it is inspiring. To see Jesus on the cross is a reminder of the challenge He made to His disciples-the challenge He makes to me. “If anyone wishes to come after me, he must deny himself take up his cross daily and follow me.” ~ Luke 9:23 It’s not a suggestion or a good idea, it is the condition of discipleship. To be a disciple is to make your life about this challenge. And believe you me it is a challenge. This is why I need to be inspired. This is why I like to contemplate the image of Christ crucified, not because I enjoy seeing Him broken and bloody, but because I know those are the footsteps in which I must follow. As a Christian I know I am called to be a martyr-a witness. Who I am in life and in death must bear witness to Christ. Whether that means I will literally lay down my life for Him I cannot be certain, but come what may, the challenge made to we disciples is just that-to accept the pain and suffering that can and will come our way because of our free decision to follow Jesus. “Blessed are they who are persecuted for the sake of righteousness, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.” ~ Matthew 5:10 Seeing Jesus on the cross is an inspirational example that I am called to follow, and this is another reason for the crucifix around my neck. Reason #3 - Accountability So Others Will Hold Me Accountable as a Christian The last reason I wear a crucifix is for accountability. It is not jewelry. It is not meant to be flashy. But I do want others to see it. Not because I want them to think I am super holy, although I should be striving for holiness after all that is the call we share as Christians. I wear a crucifix so that others may know that I am a Christian and hold me accountable to that claim. For it is one thing to tell people you are a Christian and another to show them that you are. I want to be treated different because of my faith. I want people to know that I live my life differently than most. When they know this they will expect me to. And if I don’t, then I need to called out for it. Accountability is important. Fraternal correction is essential. We shouldn’t be able to parade around claiming to be new creations in Christ, but living lives that don’t follow suit. And the crucifix I wear is the perfect symbol of my faith that tells all those who encounter me that I am a Christian and take my faith seriously. I can’t wear the crucifix and then deny my faith. It would cause scandal. People would notice. So it is the perfect way to invite others to challenge me to live my faith. There may be other methods of achieving each of these three things shared here, but for me the crucifix is the best. If you wear a crucifix but don’t know why, then I hope these reflections have served to help you understand this practice on a deeper level. If you aren’t Catholic and always wondered why the crucifix is held in such high esteem among Catholics, then hopefully this explains it. May the sacrifice of Christ on the cross bring the power of God’s love and mercy into each of our lives that we may “proclaim Christ crucified” (1 Cor 1:23) and “make disciples of all nations” (Mt 28:19).

[@silveriorebelo8045]

why would protestants be saved when they don't have life in them, since they deny the Eucharist??? - as Jesus explains: you need to eat my flesh and drink my blood in order to have life in you.... --and why should we treat protestants that deny that the sacrament of Baptism regenerates as being Christian at all??

[@robertmcvicar5824]

God doesn't want us to be one with these idolaters he wants to come out from among them and to be separate. If you love the truth you don't do what Mr Chan is doing here.

[@_2013-2022]

...I believe in the Holy Spirit, the holy catholic* church, the communion of saints... *that is, the true Christian church of all times and all places. The true church has three essential marks, so what is the point of this emotional conversation?

[@pierreschiffer3180]

Funny how all non-Catholics define Catholic to their own ideas...

[@_2013-2022]

@@pierreschiffer3180 I'd say the way around i.e. it is funny how Catholic define this word after they have cursed the Gospel of faith (Council of Trent). By the way Catholic never took these curses back.

[@pierreschiffer3180]

@@_2013-2022 The Catholic Church has been teaching the same Gospel from the very beginning and she has been anathema-sing heretics from the beginning as well. There is nothing new with Trent, my friend. How we Catholics define the word Catholic? Well, we define it as it has been defined for 2000 years now. Again nothing new.

[@_2013-2022]

@@pierreschiffer3180 Justification is pure sovereign grace in Christ and for the sake of Him alone, i.e. by His righteousness thru faith only, I mean imputation, that is the point. If you prefer to believe analytic justification it is up to you, personally along with all Christians I believe synthetic, i.e. five Sola(s) what Catholic church always does but not the people who call themselves Catholic.

[@pierreschiffer3180]

@@_2013-2022 So you go by the teachings of John Calvin? Why do you follow John Calvin and not another man? The Catholic Church has never taught any of these five solas. Never at any time in history. Anyway, thank you for sharing your opinions regarding justification. Do you admit to the possibility that your understanding of Biblical justification is false? That your understanding of Scripture is erroneous?

[@wendy911]

It is those that get out of her , that are the true church ! We align with God not man !

[@ThruTheUnknown]

I am completely sympathetic to Chan even as someone who has "banged heads" with other Christians on theological issues. It would be nice if we could agree to disagree but then the anglicans (which i attend partly for this reason) have shown even that can be a bit of a mess as well. We need some agreed essentials of faith. But what about unitarians? i think unitarianism is a GROSS error but i can't say they arent saved. That's the problem we've got how do we find the bare minimum essentials? Is faith in Jesus as our messiah enough? Does he have to be Lord and Saviour and God incarnate, eternally existing with the Father as well? I think so...but thats detrimental to unitarians. Could we say that the rest are perhaps saved but are not considered mainstream Christian and therefore we are not to associate with them at all (as in not invited to Christian apologetic and different ministry conventions)?

[@BibleAnswerMan]

Good question. Much of has to do with the main and plain teachings of early Christianity as preserved in the Scriptures. The precedence of the same essentials throughout church history can never be ignored either or despised. Take, for example, the Christian belief that Christ died upon the cross, He rose again on the third day, and He is the Lord of the universe. Such as simple statement that even child who reads the New Testament can figure it out. The gospel creed preserved in 1 Corinthian 15:3-4 goes back to within weeks of the Easter event. It was believed well before the NT writers put it down from pen to parchment. But, this central teaching is always being challenged. Islam will say that Christ never really died upon the cross, but just someone who looked very like Him. Liberal scholars will say Christ died upon the cross but He never really rose from the dead; rather, His body as thrown in a pauper’s grave possibly eaten by dogs or other wild animals, and the Easter event was something other than witnessing Christ risen from the dead. Jehovah’s Witnesses will say Christ died upon the cross, but His body dissolved into gases, and the risen Lord was something of a phantasm. The problem comes with denying what is most obviously proclaimed by historic Christianity. When it comes to Unitarianism, it is a relatively new comer in church history, being a movement with a unique doctrinal innovation about the Godhead that has only been around less than 500 years; however, their denial of the Trinity and divinity of Jesus Christ strikes against what Christians have always affirmed. Please see the following articles… www.equip.org/bible_answers/what-is-essential-christian-doctrine-/ www.equip.org/article/how-was-orthodoxy-established-in-the-ecumenical-councils/ www.equip.org/article/creeds-relics-relevant/ www.equip.org/article/no-creed-but-the-bible-ancient-creeds-and-contemporary-faith/ www.equip.org/articles/the-essential-doctrines-of-the-christian-faith-part-one-/ www.equip.org/articles/the-essential-doctrines-of-the-christian-faith-part-two-/

[@pierreschiffer3180]

@@BibleAnswerMan May I pose you a question? Do you really believe that the Orthodox Churches constitute the true Church? I would not possibly know how, to be honest, for there are so many and although many are in communion, others excommunicate each other, which is not much different compared to Protestantism. There you see exactly the same: some churches shake hands and others exchange fists. Only the units are larger in Eastern Orthodoxy. The Orthodox Churches go by a long Tradition, but the Church also requires contemporary presidency on the highest level. Without the latter, there remains the possibility that two or more presidents or bishops disagree and then there does not remain any living authority to settle the issue. The result must be division sooner or later, which we indeed see among the Orthodox Churches. We should compare the Church to the Old Testament Church, which was also led by a president on her exodus to the promised land. Without such, the sheep remain without shepherd and division will strike.

[@ThruTheUnknown]

@@pierreschiffer3180 This is true. While the current notion the Catholics have about a leader with absolute ultimate unilateral power never existed, the early church did see Rome as being like a mother (the best analogy or way i can explain it). She was always there and had a role to nuture and foster the faith of other churches at times through history. But what if you mother becomes a tramp do you not have the right to stand up to her, call her out and tell her to straighten up as she is degrading herself and her reputation in front of the world? The Catholic church reject the wording and language of procession of the holy spirit penned in the 2nd ecumenical council. The oriental church reject the language in the 4th ecumenical council. The rest of the Christian world wait for the Catholic church to come home and accept orthodoxy again and to be the mother that she used to be. I say this as someone attending an Anglican church but through covid and reading the church fathers becoming very much convinced of the orthodox church.

[@pierreschiffer3180]

@@ThruTheUnknown What do you mean by "absolute ultimate unilateral power"? Can you give some examples? I have in mind the action of Pope Clement, who threatened to excommunicate a large cluster of churches around 100 AD. The world has become a mess and with that the Church has strengthened her central authority: makes sense. From your text I make that you insist that the EO lost her mother. To say that your mother became a tramp is purely subjective: such is a Protestant argument, where everyone decides for himself. The Catholic Church rejects something of the second EC? That is not true: she penned the text herself. Several fathers taught Filioque: why would this be wrong? You write: "The rest of the Christian world wait for the Catholic church to come home and accept orthodoxy again and to be the mother that she used to be." My response: ?!? The Church is still the Church, my friend: never ever happened. Finally: I studied the early Church as well and I do not have much clue as how you become convinced of the EO. I do not believe in any EO at all. They broke away one by one; already starting quite early. Not one I believe in and not one I would enter.

[@ThruTheUnknown]

@@pierreschiffer3180 So you're saying the pope can't rule out of the seat with out anyone's permission? Vatican 1 makes that clear. I've already explained OBJECTIVELY why she is a tramp. If you have deaf ears to this then there is no point in discussing any further I'm afraid as you dont really seem to care about seeking unity. There is a reason why the Catholic church is on her own and that's because she refuses to be corrected.

[@bobblobby9603]

"Works of art cannot then be sacred and divine." Clement of Alexandria "There shall be no pictures in the church, lest what is worshipped and adored should be depicted on the walls." Synod of Elvira, 306 AD "Seeing this, and being loth that an image of a man should be hung up in Christ’s church contrary to the teaching of the Scriptures, I tore it asunder and advised the custodians of the place to use it as a winding sheet for some poor person." Epiphanius of Salamis

[@saenzperspectives]

“...This kind of bold language is something of a tradition in many Protestant fundamentalist circles, showing up in sermons or Sunday School lesson, but such dogmatism is completely out of place and inappropriate in a scholarly context, especially not in a refereed journal article!... In my article...I made the following assessment about Calvin’s handling of patristic literature: However, in dealing with patristic literature it is not enough throw out names and councils as Calvin did. One must show how these references demonstrate a universal consensus among the church Fathers (i.e., Vincent of Lerins’ famous canon: “What has been believed everywhere, always and by all” Quod ubique, quod semper, quod ab omnibus). In the field of constitutional law the legal scholar’s strongest argument rests upon the findings of the Supreme Court, not the lower courts. Calvin’s references to one minor bishop (Epiphanius) or one local council (Elvira) or the polemical work sponsored by a king (Libri Carolini by Charlemagne) are all minor league stuff in comparison to the universal authority of an Ecumenical Council (Nicea II) and the reputation of highly respected church Fathers (John of Damascus and Theodore the Studite). Carpenter’s handling of historical evidences and sources from early church fathers and church councils is much like amateur lawyers attempting to practice law before the Supreme Court. The American legal system consists of a network of hierarchies. We cannot pick and choose court decisions to live by; this will result in judicial anarchy! For Orthodoxy the Seven Ecumenical Councils have settled doctrinal controversies thereby restoring unity to the Church. Having ignored or outright rejected the Ecumenical Councils Protestant Christianity has become a confused cacophony of doctrines and creeds...”-Robert Arakaki blogs.ancientfaith.com/orthodoxbridge/a-response-to-john-b-carpenters-icons-and-the-eastern-orthodox-claim-to-continuity-with-the-early-church/

[@saenzperspectives]

Excerpt from “Christians and Images: Early Christian Attitudes Toward Images” by Steven Bigham Short excerpt from the chapter “The Jewish Attitudes Toward Images” “...What then is the simple, clear and elegant interpretation that explains the changing attitudes and practices of ancient Judaism concerning images? It is based on a reading of the Second Commandment that clearly distinguishes between an idolatrous art, obviously forbidden, and a non-idolatrous art, either symbolic, decorative or pedagogical. This latter kind of art is allowed in a context where the danger of idolatry is minimal or nonexistent. This interpretation is not artificially imposed on the biblical text from the outside, but rather derives directly from the text itself. By reading Dt 5:8-9 together as the expression of one idea, we arrive at a prohibition of idolatrous art alone. By reading the two verses separately as two commandments, we eliminate the category of non-idolatrous art. If we reread all the historical, archeological and literary evidence in the light of these two categories of art, we will see that the theory of Jewish hostility toward all figurative art is untenable 2.3 The Application of the Hypothesis. Let us begin with a few Old Testament events that demonstrate the distinction described above. They show how it operated in a period when, according to the theory that claims an absolute rejection of images in Israel, we ought to find very stringent practices. We can, first of all, eliminate those events that obviously associate images and idolatry: for example, 1) the golden calf that the people erected when Moses was late in coming down from the mountain (Ex. 32); 2) the statue of Nebuchadnezzar (Dn 3-4); 3) the statue of Zeus that Antiochus Epiphanes set up in the Temple (1 M 1:41-64); 4) the statue of himself that Caligula wanted to put in the Temple. Other examples of idolatry could be cited, but let us study rather the examples which undermine the credibility of the rigorist interpretation of the Second Commandment and which confirm the thesis of at least two kinds of images. • The cherubim on the ark of the testimony: Ex 25:122. We have here images of angelic beings, even made of gold like the calf in Ex. 23, which are not in the least likely to become idols or to take God's place, because, as His throne, He sits between them. Placed so close to God Himself and so intimately linked with the worship of the true God, the cherubim could never be separated from that worship and become themselves the object of misdirected, idolatrous worship. The cherubim on the Ark of the Testimony are a real problem for the advocates of rigorism, because God Himself ordered Moses to have them made. The untenable contradiction in the divine commands disappears if we assume a relative interpretation of the Second Commandment that allows for non-idolatrous, liturgical images. • The embroidered cherubim in the tabernacle: Ex 26:1, 31. God also ordered that cherubim be embroidered on ten curtains of fine linen for use in the tabernacle. It seems that there were at least ten cherubim, one for each curtain, but the text does not specify the exact number of cherubim. In addition, God ordered that a veil be placed between the Holy and the Holy of Holies of the tabernacle. This veil was also decorated with cherubim, though the text again does not state their size or number. What we said above for the sculpted cherubim on the Ark of the Testimony is equally valid for these images. The praise of Bezalel: Ex 31:1-11. After having ordered Moses to prepare the tabernacle and its furnishings, God designated Bezalel, son of Uri, to be the master workman, to design and to execute all the art work necessary for the tabernacle. Oholiab, son of Ahisamack, was also named along with all the other men "that they may make all that I have commanded you. . ." Among other things, these workers made the mercy seat whose two ends were decorated with the winged cherubim. The praise which God gives to Bezalel and the other artists, seeing that their task was to sculpt golden figurative images, would be contradictory and out of place in the context of an absolute prohibition against the making of all images. God's words go beyond simple praise; their tone comes close to that of a special consecration, as in the case of a prophet: ‘I have filled him with the Spirit of God, with ability and intelligence, with knowledge and all craftsmanship, to devise artistic designs, to work in gold, silver and bronze... and I have given to all able men ability that they may make all that I have commanded you.’ We have clearly expressed in this passage, the distinction between the two kinds of images: when an artist, an image maker, sculpts non- idolatrous, liturgical images for the glory of God, he is praised and blessed by God. The natural corollary follows, however: if an artist makes idols, he will be condemned. The bronze serpent: Nm 21:4-9. God again orders that a "graven image" be made, an image of something "that is on the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth," a bronze serpent. The purpose of making the serpent was to serve as an antidote to the poisonous snakes God sent to punish the people who spoke against Him and Moses. By looking at the bronze snake, those who were bitten would not die. This story shows how a sculpted image can be used in a non-idolatrous way but according to the rigorist interpretation of the Second Commandment, this image should not have been permitted. Centuries later, however, when this image-was it really the snake Moses made, or a reproduction?-became an object of idolatrous worship, King Hezekiah destroyed it and other objects of idolatrous worship with which Israel had contaminated itself (see 2 K 18:1-4). This episode shows how an object, an image, normally not considered to be an idol, can become one. Idolatry is determined by a person's intention and attitude toward an image, and not by the image itself. Who would go so far as to say that museums that contain paintings or statues of mythical deities are pagan temples? Who would even use the word idol to talk about these images?...Since the Israelites offered idolatrous worship to the serpent, a thing that previously was not an idol, became one. It is interesting to note that Hezekiah did not seem at all concerned that the image of the serpent, at least the one made by Moses, existed by divine command. For Hezekiah, whatever the origin, human or divine, of an image that has become an idol, it deserves to be destroyed...

[@saenzperspectives]

...Solomon's temple: 1 K 6:23-35 & 7:15-37. Solomon's Temple was a veritable art gallery; it is also a nightmare for the advocates of the rigorist interpretation. For the Temple's Holy of Holies, Solomon had two enormous cherubim sculpted out of wood and covered in gold. The king also had cherubim, palm trees and open flowers sculpted on all the walls of the Temple, and the door to the Holy of Holies was covered with these same images. He also put carved pomegranates on the capitals of columns. The molten sea sat on 12 bulls, and on the frames of the panels that formed the 10 stands, he put lions, bulls and cherubim. We can use the same argument here as in the case of the cherubim in the desert tabernacle: where there is no risk of turning worship of God toward sculpted images, this figurative art can have a place in worship. On the basis of this principle, Solomon felt quite free to put such images in the Temple, and by so doing, he introduced new types of non-idolatrous images, new in comparison with the tabernacle in the desert. It is important to note that beside all the reproaches that subsequent biblical authors made against Solomon, the wise king was never criticized for having broken the Second Commandment [in the making of non-idolatrous images in the Temple.] Flavius Josephus, however, did reproach Solomon for having introduced bulls and lions into the Temple, for him a violation of the commandment. We will examine this reproach later on and see that it is absolutely unique in all of Jewish literature. • Solomon's Throne: 1 K 10:18-20. Solomon had lions carved on his throne, a place obviously less holy than the Temple, but nonetheless of great importance. It was the royal seat of the Lord's anointed: ‘The king also made a great ivory throne [which] had six steps, and at the back of the throne was a calf's head and on each side of the seat were arm rests and two lions standing beside the arm rests, while twelve lions stood there one on each end of a step on the six steps. The like of it was never made in any kingdom.’ The biblical author not only did not criticize these "graven images," but he was manifestly impressed by them and quite proud of the king's glory as revealed in his throne. • Ezekiel's vision: Ez 41:15-21. After 25 years of captivity, the Prophet Ezekiel had a vision in which he saw the Temple restored. He described the various furnishings of the Temple whose interior, the Holy, was decorated with cherubim and palm trees: "Every cherub had two faces: the face of a man toward the palm tree on the one side, and the face of a young lion toward the palm tree on the other side." It [is] not impossible that the cherubim on the Ark of the testimony, and in Solomon's Temple, also had human faces, but the biblical text does not make this clear. Ezekiel, on the other hand, clearly introduces, at least in theory and assuming these images did not already exist, a new element into the category of permitted images: the human face. The lions and palm trees have already been noticed. The prophet did not speak of an Ark decorated with cherubim or of sculpted cherubim in the Holy of Holies, following Solomon's example. Nonetheless, since Solomon had giant cherubim sculpted for the real Temple, it is not impossible that Ezekiel would have put them in the future Temple, but in describing the Holy of Holies, Ezekiel spoke only about its measurements, nothing about its furnishings. Concerning the prophet's attitude toward images, we can deduce nothing from his silence regarding the cherubim in the Holy of Holies, the molten sea and the bronze basins held up by bulls and lions. This omission is less significant since he placed cherubim with human and lion faces in the restored Temple. • The real, but mitigated, praise of the engraver: Ec 38:27. ‘So it is with every workman and craftsman, toiling day and night; those who engrave seals, always trying to think of new designs: they set their heart on producing a good likeness, and stay up perfecting the work.’ In this passage, the author praises Jewish engravers and other gifted and able craftsmen. He uses the same tone for farmers, blacksmiths and potters (38:24 - 39:1-11) that are necessary for every city. The skill and usefulness of these workers do not compare, however, with the wisdom of the scribe who in his leisure time "devotes his soul to reflecting on the Law of the Most High." The author's evaluation of these crafts in relation to the scribe-they are obviously on a lower level-is not what is important here. Our attention is drawn rather to the fact that a biblical author had no trouble praising workmen who made non-idolatrous images, even if they were only seals. The text itself does not mention what kinds of images were carved on the seals, but it says that there were always "new designs." Nothing prevents us from supposing that the engravers carved plants, animals and human beings on their seals. The oldest existing Jewish seal dates from 922 to 746 B. C. depending on the factors chosen for its dating47. A lion is carved on the seal. It is less surprising to allow the possibility of carved animals and humans on Jewish seals when we take into account that at a later period, that of the rabbis, even pagan gods, under certain conditions, could be carved on seals.48 • The condemnation of artistes: Ws 13-15. The campaign against idolatry and artists who use their talent to produce idols is sometimes cited as proof of the Old Testament's antipathy against all images and artists. In this vein, Cohen has written the following: ‘The author of the Wisdom of Solomon, who lived during the first century before the C. E., frowned upon the fruitless labor of the painter for another reason [other than idolatry]. According to him, the art of painting "leadeth fools into lust," an evident allusion to Pygmalion, King of Cyprus, who fell in love with a statue of Venus.’49 It is quite true that the author makes some very severe statements against various kinds of artists: ‘No invention of perverted human skill has led us astray, no painter's sterile labour, no figure daubed with as sorted colours, the sight of which sets fools yearning and reverencing the lifeless form of some unbreathing image.’ (Ws15:4-5) It is obvious, however, that the author's fury is directed against idols and artists who make them. Nothing is said about non-idolatrous images, nor the artists who make them. In describing the origin of idol worship, the author of Wisdom describes the progressive transformation of images into idols, images which at the beginning were not idols. For example, he notes the father crying about his prematurely dead son. The father had a portrait made to which eventually the family gave disproportionate veneration (W14:5) Another example is the worship of kings thought to be gods. At first, their images were simply honored, but that veneration progressively turned into idolatry (Ws 14:16-20). In both cases, the real problem seems to have been not the existence of images of human beings, whether portraits or statues, but rather the transformation of honor and veneration into idolatrous worship. This is the same transformation, in a pagan context, that we saw in the biblical story of the bronze serpent which became the object of idolatrous worship. It is possible that the author of Wisdom thought that this transformation was inevitable due to the weakness of foolish men carried away by their passions and the seductive power of images. It is also possible, however, for "intelligent men," that is those who know and worship the true God, not to fall into the same trap as the pagans. Most of the Old Testament passages noted in this section have always been, and still are, part of the standard answers of those who defend Christian images and their veneration against all kinds of iconoclasm based on the Second Commandment. In that sense, we have not brought forward new material. St. John of Damascus, On the Divine Images50 in the eighth century, as well as modern authors51, have noted them, but it is nonetheless important to bring together the biblical evidence which supports the thesis presented in this study.”

[@bobblobby9603]

​@@saenzperspectives I don't know anyone who is against the use of all images within the church. I'm sure those people exist, but I'm not one of them. All those verses you cite only apply to those who would insist that we should have no images at all in the worship space. Although many in the early church argued precisely that. What the second commandment clearly forbids is the making of an image of something to be worshipped. i.e Making images of Jesus, and then worshipping him through it. The early centuries of the Church are completely against Eastern Orthodoxy, and Roman Catholicism on this point. The church Fathers were aniconic. www.thegospelcoalition.org/themelios/article/answering-eastern-orthodox-apologists-regarding-icons/

[@DrSeanTobin]

Francis shares the burden for Union and Unity as St. Ignatius of Antioch (100AD)!

[@balung]

I won't be coming back to the Roman Catholic Church anytime soon. I'm already part of the unseen church, the Bride of Christ.

[@sacredcowtipper1378]

Is there a reason why I never got a response after three years? Hope you guys repented since this. Jesus said, “he came to bring a sword”. Division is needed if something is false.

[@khealer]

"Love" and "ecumenism". It would be funny if it wasn't sad.

[@userscnamesux775]

I didn't know that Jesus was the Leader of tribes, I thought He is the only way to Father God.

[@pg618]

You do not see in the scriptures Christ wanting everyone to be one as the number 1 priority over reality and truth giving up anything in order to be one. it's not in the bible. When Christ said this is my body and this is my blood many could not take that and went away. Jesus did not say no no please don't misunderstand me, please come back for unity. He said nothing which is to say goodbye.

[@brendagula6290]

Francis Chan, the Bible is correct about salvation being a personal decision because no church can save you and no other person but Jesus can save you. We have a personal relationship with God but we also have a relationship with the body of Christ/church. When churches like Catholics and Greek Orthodox say the oral tradition of the church handed down by priests, archbishop's, and Peter are the only ones to say how we should interpret Bible or Hank saying tradition came before the written word of God, therefore church is the soul authoroty to interpret truth that is wrong. In 1 john 1:2 says we have an annointing of the Holy Spirit and he teaches us all things because Holy Spirit lives in the believer. We are Holy Spirit taught and we can do with Holy Spirit what Martin Luther did when he questioned the Catholic Church about being saved by faith alone through faith. The fact that Hank says only the body of oral tradition and only they can interpret goes against what Jesus said. Jesus said to the Jews, "You follow the laws of man rather than the laws of God".: The Pharisees had their oral tradition that wasn't written down and Jesus was speaking of what was written down. Jesus explains- you take man's traditions above the written word of God. Do you equate the Bible with tradition? NO! Hank says oh the Bible wasn't written yet so tradition is above God's word. Absolutely not because Jesus always says, "it is written, do you not know, etc and Jesus always refers to God's word not tradition" Jesus used the old scriptures to make his point. We have God's word so we look to God's word for answers not tradition! So Francis you were not wrong about studying the word of God alone. Yes we go to church to be encouraged and to be taught but we are told in the Bible we are to EXAMINE that what we are being taught is true/correct! I don't believe in the Trans of the Greek Orthodox and Catholics believe in the eucharist but I do value their teaching when it comes to the importance of what communion is and how important it is to God and I have to admit many Christian protestants do not take communion with the reverance or importance it deserves. Like Dr. Tony Evans said, what sexual intimitacy is between a man and a woman, it is the same intimacy with the believer and God. I mean Greek Orthodox broke of Catholic church and Protestants broke off Catholics and I am really thankful for the revelation Martin Luther had by Holy Spirit regarding being saved by grace alone through faith. I know they will cite James saying hey you need works plus grace but that would contradict Paul's teachings and others so what James is this: your life needs to match your faith. Another tradition is Catholics and Greek Orthodox is the worship or reverance of Mary and saints but I don't see that anywhere in the Bible. When people wanted to kneel and reverance Peter or Apostles they refused and said hey we are men just like you or when even the apostle Johnl wanted to give reverance to angel for showing him what was to take place in Revelation angel said only worship God. I don't see any reverance or worship in the Bible of any saint, apostle, Mary or anyone except God. So just because tradition tels me to do it, I just cannot make myself to do it. Anyway Francis, it's great you are questioning things but remember, God has all the answers in His word the Bible, not a church.

[@Apakmanski]

I tried, but could not finish watching this. When this group talks about “essentials”, the discussion is around the intellect (head knowledge). Orthodoxy is primarily about the heart, loving God and our neighbors. Francis Chan is sad to watch in this context because he is trying to figure everything out in his own head. Hank is disappointing because he explains things in such forensic terms. This conversation felt like the blind leading the blind. Stop, and read the Fathers and immerse yourselves in the services of the Orthodox Church.

[@BibleAnswerMan]

@Apakmanski Can you further expound on why Francis Chan “trying to figure everything out in his own head”? Would you say that there can be a “Tribalism” that exacerbates division between Protestants, Catholics and Eastern Orthodox?

[@LisaSmith-bo7mp]

Jesus....

[@Vebedar]

But monks are an innovation. Nuns a later (Catholic) innovation. There is proof that much of Orthodox tradition is an innovation. And I love the Orthodox Church. But the idea that salvation is in “the Church that Jesus built” is false. Jesus built His temple in the body of believer. The Ekklesia is an extension, but all churches have a stumble. This is why Martin Luther looked at the scripture and declared Christ alone. (I am not a Protestant nor Catholic).

[@kstewart3052]

So many accretions to the faith in Orthodoxy.....perhaps it should be called Heterodoxy....and the Orthodox claim that Protestants have a faith that didn't exist prior to the 16th century. So untrue! Alas, the idol of religiosity is terribly enticing, and quite deadly. Let's be honest, if Peter, Paul, and the other apostles encountered Orthodoxy today, they wouldn't know what it was. So Orthodoxy's claim that the Orthodox church is the original church of the Apostles is bunk.

[@sehatti2841]

To dig deep in history is to cease to be protestant. "St. John Henry Newman".

[@FBCTrona]

These men are way off. The key to unity is right doctrine. But what do you expect from three men who’s doctrine is all over the place and allow for various gospels

[@MD-cd7em]

THE VERY .." PERSONS" WHO HAVE BASHED THESE GUYS...DOCTRINE IS NOT PERFECT EITHER!... THE POINT THESE THREE ARE,MAKING IS ABOUT LOVE...THE APOSTLE PAUL SAID IT IS SUPREME....CHRIST SAID THE BRETHREN WOULD BE KNOWN FOR THEIR LOVE FOR THE BRETHREN??... DO YOU SEE THAT " LOVE" ISSUING FORTH FROM THE " ONES " WHO HAVE BASHED THEM??

[@FBCTrona]

M D All caps? Nice. I don’t know how that gets your point across. Anyways the man who made the point about false teachers and those who preach another gospel was Paul the apostle. Your beef is with him

[@rosemaryrojahn584]

What would Walter Martin think of this discussion?? The true Bible answer man. Doctrine matters!!

[@BibleAnswerMan]

Dr. Walter Martin would have been pleased with the discussion. Dr. Martin was always open to dialogue on important doctrinal matters of the Christian faith. This conversation is well within the spirit of Dr. Martin own life and legacy. See The Bible Answer Man: Walter Martin and Hank Hanegraaff by Cindee Martin Morgan > www.equip.org/product/the-bible-answer-man-walter-martin-and-hank-hanegraaff-dr-martins-daughter-reflects-on-cris-founder-its-history-and-its-current-president/

[@xenofonz7640]

Francis raises a very important issue then Hank in his usual way confuses the issue and goes off at various tangents to avoid resolving it. Metropolitan Yohan does make at least some attempt at resolving the issue. Look it's very simply. No church has a monopoly on Christ and His saving Grace. Anyone who implies a particular church does have such a monopoly and teaches it is the only true church is an anathema to Christ. I meet some fellow Christians at the Greek Orthodox Church I attend who say very bad things about other Christians simply because they attend a non-Orthodox church, apart from the cults. I bite my tongue and try to avoid any confrontation and just pray that one day they drop that self-righteous and arrogant attitude. We will find many people on the other side who are saved and have come from many different denominations, not just one. The fact of the matter is that one’s destiny is up to the individual and Christ, not any particular church. Francis’ frustration is understandable and the solution is only by way of Christ Jesus.

[@m.filmtrip]

That’s a weird opinion considering how much effort the Church Fathers in the first thousand years put into refuting heresy and defining the boundaries of the church 🤔 how much emphasis they put on unity in the truth.

[@xenofonz7640]

@@m.filmtrip That was my point but it appears you misunderstood what I said, assuming you are using the right definition of THE CHURCH.

[@m.filmtrip]

XenofonZ what I mean is, the different denominations teach a bunch of conflicting doctrines many of which were already ruled out by the ecumenical councils. There’s no way to gloss over that stuff. Sure I agree God can save anyone and it will no doubt be a surprise who ends up in paradise, but just like Jesus said to the Samaritan woman “We know who we worship, salvation is of the Jews”, Orthodoxy can rightfully make that claim now. A bunch of conflicting beliefs just can’t all be true, and the Church has always historically sorted out differences in councils, not merely agreed to disagree on doctrine.

[@CasusBelli65]

Francis really needs to speak with folk like Dr Scott Hanh and Dr David Anders.

[@Tilldeatharmwrestling]

Or Josiah Trenham...

[@annathibeau9951]

This would be incredible!! 🙏🙏🙏

[@fsnicolas]

Or Jeff Cavins, Trent Horn...

[@xpictos777]

I had many of the same questions as Pastor Chan. I found my home in Holy Orthodoxy (2.5 years now). A journey to join myself to the bride of Christ. It has been the most incredible journey I wish all my protestant brothers and sisters could go on.

[@mjt1517]

If you were a Protestant, you were already "joined to the bride of Christ".

[@elchingon561]

​@@mjt1517Which one? The Baptist? The Church of Christ? The Assembly of God? Or any of the thousands of other "Protestant" churches?

[@Sicilian1S]

​@@elchingon561 As a christ follower . Are you ok ,were not catholic

[@circadiancircus]

This is amazing to me. Francis Chan indirectly made me question reformed Theology, and made me question the way we do Church in America, and Hank was the one that made me research Holy Orthodoxy and Church history; I was Charismated two years ago.

[@ThePattersonPod]

I’m sorry to hear that. I’d like to point out that the unity that these men push for is a false unity. Christ came and warned that he would set families against each other. He also warned us to be careful when all men speak well of you. I believe it is Paul who asks, “What fellowship has light with darkness?” Please don’t let these men deceive you, they have false unity and blur essential doctrines like sola fide.

[@house0paine535]

@Larson what alternative understanding of unity would you suggest?

[@johnflorio3576]

@Lance Patterson: What did Christ preach in John 17:21?

[@michaelclay7822]

⁠@@ThePattersonPod there will be disunity between believers and unbelievers. Families will split between believers and unbelievers. Christ prayed for unity of his disciples though. You’re making an accusation that simply isn’t accurate. We are all called to unity. We are called to hold fast to the traditions taught by Jesus Christ and his apostles either by word or letter. In Christ there is neither Jew nor Greek, there is no advocation for division, there are repeated calls for unity in Christ. I understand that your theology necessitates the view you’ve given here though.

[@emidior7948]

I so hope everyone from every denomination sees this discussion

[@rebekahbrown2817]

These have been such a blessing to me as a life long Evangelical on the verge of becoming a catechumen. Glory to Jesus Christ!

[@Lepewhi]

@Joe Gar Where do you think the Bible came from. And what came first the Bible or the Church?

[@Lepewhi]

Are you a catechumen in the Orthodox or Catholic Church? Either way. Welcome to historical Christianity.

[@rebekahbrown2817]

@@Lepewhi the Orthodox church!

[@Lepewhi]

@Joe Gar So, let me get this right. Christianity didn't begin until the reformation??? Have you even read the Early Church Fathers? I doubt it. It really doesn't matter what you think anywqy.

[@Lepewhi]

@@rebekahbrown2817 Well, I'm sure you are welcomed.

[@thailandtransformedtadkiem2773]

As I Catholic I find this absolutely beautiful and informative!

[@thailandtransformedtadkiem2773]

I have recommend your videos to other interdenominational debate by Catholics. God has taught me the direct way by firstly putting me with the poor Aboriginal people in Australia for 20 years and now I am on an island in Thailand 99.9% Buddhist living next to the Bhuddist for temple 5 years. Amazing life lessons!

[@Cocomelon_baby-gr4qg]

Francis Chan’s (and my own) conservative evangelical Protestant tradition tends to close itself off from the wider body. It’s so great to see Chan asking sincere questions and engaging in this dialogue. Hank’s journey to Orthodoxy is instructive too. Love this series.

[@Subeffulgent]

May God bless you Francis Chan 👉✝

[@mattwagner1027]

FC is already one of the most blessed men alive

[@fernandosaludes4515]

It is more important to grow in love than to grow in knowledge.

[@clarion1571]

Hank ... many years ago I was a Oneness Pentecostal ... and I did not like Hank Hanegraaff. Then there was this odd journey where I encountered Francis Chan. I loved Chan. He challenged me deeply. Then I wound up an Orthodox convert rejoicing to receive Hank (like a real Paul is now a Christian experience for me). Then these videos. I weep. You both are voices for the Gospel - powerful. You are in my constant prayers. May the risen Lord continue to use you both for His Eternal Glory+++

[@SaHayes-it2uw]

Can I ask...why did you become orthodox? I'm evangelical so just curious about your journey. Thx.

[@clarion1571]

@@SaHayes-it2uw hey thanks! You know, it has been a life long journey with many Divine appointments along the way. As I said above I began as a very young Oneness Pentecostal. I actually began to preach publicly at about 15 years old. By the time I reached my mid 20s I was pastoring a congregation (talk about growing up quickly :) ). But it was in my 20s that several things aligned to knock me off my footing with regards to my faith in Christ. I had tremendous struggles with aspects of things I had been taught. It was like pulling on a thread and it unraveled me. Once I started questioning, it was like I didn't know how to stop. It went from "why should I believe this doctrine" to "why should I believe the Bible"? This was, of course, the precipice of the slippery slope through loosely defined "Christian" spirituality to outright "spiritual but not religious". It was at that point that I began to study various religions. My idea was to come to a syncristic understanding. To find the underlying truth of all religions. Oddly enough, and by God's mercy, I did encounter the truth...but not in a way I had anticipated. Everything I studied kept bringing me back to Christ. Buddhist literature...they are talking about Christ. Hinduism...Christ. It finally got through...Christ. He is the truth, and this is acknowledged by everyone in some way it seems. Perhaps distorted...but understood on some level. So...with a renewed conviction I decided to return to Christ. But with no assumptions. I wanted to know the "real" Christ, apart from anyone's tradition. I studied everything Christian, became an armchair scholar on ancient gnosticism. It was in this search that I kept tripping over the "Eastern Church" and their views on things. Again, the clues started to add up...ok, what is this Eastern Church? When I finally showed up at St Luke's Orthodox Christian Church, I was a open enough to this "expression of Christianity" ... that's how I looked at it. It seemed as good as any. But it was there that the Christ I had been seeking found me. He suprised me. I told my priest that I came there feeling like an adult among children, but I was overwhelmed soon with the feeling of being a child among fathers. The more I read, the more I was overwhelmed. At some point I gladly surrendered to the overwhelming call. I was home at last. Looking back I see myself in the story of the Prodigal Son. I remember times of spiritual starvation where I would dined with the swine. I am glad to serve in his house...but he has called me a son. Glory to Jesus Christ! Did I mention that it is a long story ;)

[@Ортодокс-э2у]

The Church is a society of believers, founded by the Lord Jesus Christ, redeemed by His sufferings on the Cross, united among themselves by one true faith under the Head of Jesus Christ, with the lawful priesthood ordained successively from the Apostles, participating in the reception of the Holy Sacraments, in which the grace of St. Spirit to receive eternal life. The Church is the Body, the head of which is Christ.