Sola Scriptura or Holy Tradition? w/ Dr. Gavin Ortlund And Fr. Stephen De Young

[@JonathanPageau]

The fact that this video did not end up being about Sola Scriptura, but about Nicea II was a good strategic move on the part of Ortlund. Always best to stay on the attack rather than having to defend how much Protestantism is a 16th century innovation which led to a massive splintering of denominations all claiming Sola Scriptura.

[@ZealousSeraphim]

I think Fr Stephen did a good job at diffusing his arguments all things considered. When he points out how Unitarians argue the same way for the first council of nicea, and how his response to Gavin is the same as Gavin’s response to the Unitarians; that the building blocks for both are in scripture, really takes away any force behind Gavin’s argument.

[@mattroorda2871]

Any discussion on Sola Scriptura is inevitably going to end up as a discussion of ecclesiology and phenomonology. In a way, I guess I'm glad Nicea II was brought up again. Dr. Ortlund appears to consider it as an indisputable fact that icon veneration is an "accretion". From memory, Craig Truglia's discussion with Dr. Ortlund was almost purely a historical discussion, which is the kind of argument Dr. Ortlund is primarily making. I thought Fr. De Young did a nice job of reframing the issue and pushing back.

[@saenzperspectives]

Although the below author is a Roman Catholic, I think his point is accurate regarding the issue of sola scriptura: Excerpt from “The Unintended Reformation: How a religious revolution secularized society” by Brad S. Gregory “Some theologically minded Reformation scholars are likely to dispute this reintegration of magisterial and radical Protestant reformers based on the reformers’ shared appeal to the authority of scripture. Whereas radical Protestants, it is sometimes alleged, indeed favored scripture alone (or scriptura nuda, “naked scripture”) and opened the way to an individualistic, hermeneutical anarchy, magisterial reformers such as Luther, Zwingli, Bucer, and Calvin maintained the importance of many aspects of tradition, such as the writings of the church fathers or the decrees of the early ecumenical councils, in addition to scripture. 69 But this distinction is untenable, because despite the undeniable influence of the church fathers (especially some aspects of the later Augustine) on the magisterial Protestant reformers, and notwithstanding their acceptance of early conciliar decrees, the magisterial reformers rejected patristic theological claims and interpretations of scripture, just as they rejected medieval exegesis, papal decrees, canon law, conciliar decrees, and ecclesiastical practices, precisely wherever any of these contradicted their own interpretations of the Bible. In no sense therefore was “tradition” for magisterial Protestant reformers an authority to which they deferred relative to their respective readings of scripture, as it was for their Catholic counterparts. This was the whole point and part of the power of “scripture alone.” Neither magisterial nor radical Protestant reformers modified their hermeneutical judgments when these were at odds with traditional authorities; instead, they rejected the latter at each point of disagreement. In principle and as a corollary of sola scriptura, tradition thus retained for them no independent authority. Luther was clear by the Leipzig Disputation in 1519 that the church fathers belonged on the same side as popes, councils, and canon law in contrast to the authority of scripture: “Even if Augustine and all the Fathers were to see in Peter the Rock of the church,” he said, “I will nevertheless oppose them-even as an isolated individual-supported by the authority of Paul and therefore by divine law.” 70 We have already seen that Zwingli cast aside the entire patristic and medieval theology of baptism because it conflicted with his biblical interpretation relative to the sacrament. Like Zwingli, both Bucer and Calvin followed suit more generally in their respective ways: the fathers and ecclesiastical tradition were criticized and rejected or simply ignored wherever they failed to corroborate a given reformer’s interpretation of scripture. 71 Radical reformers proceeded in the same way-but did so based on their different interpretations of scripture, despite the shared commitment of both groups, radical and magisterial, to the principle of sola scriptura. The difference between magisterial and radical reformers was therefore not that the former accepted some patristic writers, conciliar decrees, and ecclesiastical tradition as authoritative and the latter none. Rather, they all rejected every putative “authority” whenever the latter diverged from what each regarded as God’s truth, based on scripture as they respectively and contrarily understood it. Their respective distinctions between what in the church’s tradition was acceptable and unacceptable were themselves a function of their respective understandings of the Bible, which was of course the underlying bone of contention in the first place.”

[@jackcrow1204]

I expected better from you Mr. Pageau This is uncharitable and you know it

[@classicalhomeschoolcorner4505]

Is Nicea II not part of Eastern Orthodox tradition? I would think as one of the 7 councils it would reasonably fall under that umbrella?

[@rexxdauzat9505]

That's my priest! Love ya Fr. Stephen!

[@GV_777YT]

flex lol

[@911Glokk]

What does Fr. Stand for?

[@rexxdauzat9505]

@@911Glokk father

[@DCWoodWorking]

Fr Stephen has been such a huge influence for me. Currently reading the Religion of the Apostles.

[@NavelOrangeGazer]

@JunkyJeeMail Apocrypha and Whole Counsel of God are very good as well.

[@DCWoodWorking]

@JunkyJeeMail that's the next one I'm going to read!

[@DCWoodWorking]

@@NavelOrangeGazer I've read whole counsel was good and a fast one.

[@zealousideal]

Yeah, religion of the apostles is very good! Kind of sums up this whole discussion here. I read that a few years ago but I kind of sped read it and overlooked a lot. so I’m trying to go back and read it better and more closely and digest it all.

[@annalynn9325]

As someone who converted out of a reformed tradition into Orthodoxy, I appreciated the mutual respect of this dialogue

[@hopelessstrlstfan181]

Right, mutual respect because the driving force which moves the "Spirituality" of both parties is the anti-Catholic world view they share.

[@josiahalexander5697]

@@hopelessstrlstfan181 That’s silly brother. The spirit of truth transcends the denominationalism of this world. All glory is to God. If there is any truth in any of our worship, it is upheld by the Truth Himself. Nothing is so insubstantial that it can maintain its existence by being opposed to something, except the purely demonic, since the demonic is, by definition, the inversion of the good.

[@hopelessstrlstfan181]

@@josiahalexander5697 Sorry, buddy, but my post wasn't silly. I did write a longer response which you may have read, but it needed a lot of editing, so I took it down. I will re-post my response after I edit it.

[@josiahalexander5697]

@@hopelessstrlstfan181 No, I didn't see it.

[@IgnatiusSeventy7]

@@hopelessstrlstfan181 Correction, the Orthodox are not anti-catholic. The Orthodox are anti-papacy, and anti-innovations of Rome. Don't forget the full name of the Orthodox Church is first and foremost: “The Orthodox Catholic Church”. You can't get any more Catholic in the truest sense than Orthodoxy. The Church was a Pentaechy, Rome was only one of 5 major patriarchates each with their own jurisdiction. Beyond this other Churches had autocephaly in the Catholic Church preschism which Rome was a part of, and this is damning to the doctrine of papal superiority as is the rest of Church history pre-schism. It's a shame Rome was the only patriarchate in the West… Anyway, I thought their discussion was okay, I wish there was more 1 on 1 time.

[@rayfulmer5146]

Here's the thing with icons: The Coptics, Ethiopians, Malankara, Chaldeans and Assyrians were all separated from the Eastern Orthodox for 1600 years, meaning that they were not even at the 2nd Council of Nicaea. And yet... icons, monasticism, real presence eucharist, saints, and Marian devotion are ubiquitous in those churches. That's a pretty strong argument that the practices were widespread and early. Or at the very least not widely objectionable. They had to have predated Chalcedon. Yes, we might not see some of the explicit post-7th Ecumenical Council piety around icons yet, due to the fact that they were not reactionary. But those churches had no reason to back each other up other than legitimate conviction. If anything, the Copts could have gotten some free props from their Muslim overlords by affirming Iconoclasm.

[@matfejpatrusin4550]

That's a great point

[@anthonyantoine9232]

Very interesting point, actually.

[@connorblasing3969]

@@anthonyantoine9232It is a killer in my opinion.

[@paulsanders5235]

Excellent comment.

[@culpepper7665]

Excellent point

[@barry.anderberg]

Protestant here. I've been attending catechism class in the Eastern Orthodox church, and attending the Divine Liturgy when I can. I don't know when/if I'll convert but Orthodoxy is beautiful. Fr. De Young and Fr. Damick have been a big part of my interest in Orthodoxy starting with their amazing podcast The Lord of Spirits

[@mariomene2051]

I don't know why you don't find it ugly, contrived, as I do.

[@BarbaPamino]

​@@mariomene2051probably because he seeks to worship Christ, and you seek to worship self. I lot of people are going to find the kingdom of Heaven ugly, and be sick to their stomach just being near it.

[@aaronwolf4211]

It’s sad you think Orthodoxy is “ugly” and “contrived”. Makes me wonder what you find beautiful and organic then. Blank walls, a lecture, and a rock concert? How lovely…

[@mariomene2051]

@@BarbaPamino Wow, what an air tight argument! Using the same logic, the same could be said of you--you like it only because you seek to worship self, etc. You Orthodox don't like logic, I've heard and experienced, so I don't fault you for such silliness.

[@Gondor149]

​@@aaronwolf4211I do not think the reformed camps or Lutheran's are having "rock concerts".

[@laikwanstone8929]

Ortlund is a far better scholar and theologian that I’d imagined, and Father De Young is now a new favorite of mine as far as EO apologists go. He seems to have all the learning of Dyer (or close to it) but with irenic accessibility, class, and self-control. Truly a rarely good conversation.

[@Jeff_Huston]

As an Orthodox Christian, I'll add these two thoughts: 1. In regard to traditions such as the Assumption of Mary, Dr. Ortulnd (as most Protestants) express doubt (even concern) about the validity of the oral record, how/when it was recorded, etc. Therefore, Dr. Ortlund says the Protestant is compelled to apply his logical faculties, not set them aside, and so on. As a former Protestant, this resonates with me in this sense: as I was becoming Orthodox, I began to realize that my faith was ultimately limited to my logical faculties. In other words, while I did have faith in things that I couldn't prove scientifically or with absolute verifiable certainty, my faith only extended to the things that I could wrap my head around. I had faith in the things I could at least make sense of, and that making sense was often rooted in historical records, written records, etc. When I became Orthodox, however, I made the decision to extend my faith beyond that, to things I couldn't wrap my head around or offer any logical defense for, but I did so as an act of faith in the Church that had collectively come to these traditions as being true, based in oral tradition and Holy Spirit revelation, and put faith in those traditions that (by the power of the Holy Spirit and the Lordship of Christ) have been maintained consistently for 2,000 years (or nearly so). 2. Dr, Ortlund's presentation and defense of Sola Scriptura makes a lot of sense. As an argument, it works logically. Or in other words, it's easy to understand how someone very intelligent and reasoned could hear it and think, "Yeah, that makes sense. That's how it should work, especially given the kinds of human pitfalls that Dr. Ortlund points out and are very familiar to us as humans." In a sense, Holy Tradition as a model shouldn't work. It shouldn't be possible. AND YET, ultimately, I would say to anyone who's comparing & contrasting Protestantism and Orthodoxy to ask themselves this simple question: which path -- Sola Scriptura or Holy Tradition -- has the stronger, more convincing history of achieving and maintaining actual Church unity? Of the kind that is actually defined in the New Testament Scriptures, of being one (as Christ is one with the Father, etc.)? Historically, the answer is clear: 2,000 years of Orthodoxy has that kind of unity, not 500 years of Protestantism. Indeed, the history of Protestantism is continual and escalating disunity. If Sola Scriptura were truly the way, this would not be. And so, *the fruit* of Holy Tradition over time is much more (even infinitely more) convincing than the fruit over time of Sola Scriptura. And a final thought of gratitude: I so greatly appreciate how a non-combative, non-debate platform was provided for these two opposing sides. Too often on KZbin, you see a single Protestant presenting both sides of a "Protestant vs Roman Catholicism" or "Protestant vs Eastern Orthodoxy" debate, and the RC / EO views are inevitably misrepresented (even if unintentionally). This kind of format where two credible reps from both sides are given a fair forum to explain themselves is the only fruitful way to have these discussions with respect and accuracy. Thank you, Transfigured Life -- and kudos to Dr. Ortlund and Fr. Stephen!

[@TheTransfiguredLife]

Great analysis! And thanks for your kind words! ☦️

[@Aaron-ox5ny]

Thank you for taking the time to share your thoughts. I couldn’t help but read through with a certain kind of longing for those to be my own thoughts. I’ve been a reformed Protestant for over a decade and beginning to formulate a foundation of serious doubts-not doubting the Gospel or the deity of Christ, but doubts about sanitizing the faith down to logical assertions like the 5 solas or the doctrines of grace. Your first point, about realizing your Christianity was built on and limited to what you could intellectualize about it really hit home with me. I find myself at the beginning of trying to navigate this transition, and I don’t know what step is next. Anyhow, thank you for sharing. I’m honestly delighted you’ve found resolve and satisfaction in participating in the true Church, its traditions, and ultimately in Jesus Christ.

[@Jeff_Huston]

@@Aaron-ox5ny Becoming Orthodox (and being Orthodox) is, in some respects, truly living by faith in ways that Protestantism never can be (and even discourages against). I made a decision to place faith in the early Church (and church fathers) and the consistent, unified dogmatic history of Eastern Orthodoxy over what I could understand, makes sense of, or "prove," and the result has been a level of spiritual growth and transformation I always longed for as a Protestant but found to be out of reach no matter how passionately or piously I pursued it.

[@zacharyevans8152]

My problem with extra-biblical traditions are not necessarily that because they are extra-Biblical they are inherently "bad". However, things like assumption of Mary or veneration of icons have a certain psychological aspect that cannot be overlooked. Some might hang much of the basis of their Christian faith on Marian dogmas like the latin american catholics do such as the assumption. And then one day, archaeologists discover Mary's grave in much confidence. How would this impact these people's faith? We do not have to worry about this with Christ because we are explicitly told through scripture that the tomb is empty and witnesses are recorded as seeing Him ascend. We really need to be careful to not seek a faith that makes us "feel" something "full" or "true". Emotions can get in the way of having Faith in Christ which is enough work on its own for us in our fallen forms. If we start building our houses on sand because we like the sunrise then we best be careful not to fall into the sea. I know these passages are taken out of context so don't hold that against me. I have "fullness of faith" that their wisdom is still relevant in these matters. Colossians 2:8 (ESV): “See to it that no one takes you captive by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the world, and not according to Christ.” 1 Corinthians 14:20 ESV Brothers, do not be children in your thinking. Be infants in evil, but in your thinking be mature. Romans 12:2 ESV Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewal of your mind, that by testing you may discern what is the will of God, what is good and acceptable and perfect. 1 Timothy 6:20 ESV O Timothy, guard the deposit entrusted to you. Avoid the irreverent babble and contradictions of what is falsely called “knowledge,”

[@Aaron-ox5ny]

@@Jeff_Huston I definitely see where you’re coming from. And I think those passages, to varying degrees, reflect what some of my apprehensions are concerning Orthodoxy. I don’t personally have fear that I’ll convert and be shattered by some archaeological discovery that challenges some aspect of Holy Tradition. I do, however, fear converting to Orthodoxy from Reformed Protestantism will necessarily entail adopting several dogmas that would make my current community of believers question whether I’ve adopted a Gospel of works and thereby label me a heretic and most likely end in some sort of falling out-that is, assuming that those seemingly Scriptural objections apply to the categories we’re assigning them. On the other hand, as an Orthodox believer, I’ll have to affirm beliefs (in EO and OO as far as I know) which anathematize people who DON’T believe in icon veneration, the assumption of Mary, the salvific nature of baptism or partaking of the Eucharist (etc.). It feels like a losing battle on each side and ultimately manifests as creating divisions within the Church. At this point, I’m convicted that the prayer habits, Biblical memorization and recitation as a lifestyle, and high church practices involving the sacraments are severely understated and neglected in the Protestant church writ large. I think asceticism, insofar as it means refusing worldly comforts for the purpose of alms-giving or personal discipline is also an extremely valuable practice. The expectation of fasting and feasting with the brethren seems Scriptural and spiritual beneficial… I could go on, but the point is, Orthodoxy is rich with what I believe is Biblically-rooted Christian practices. I don’t know where else to find this sort of church outside of Orthodoxy. I’d certainly entertain suggestions. I suppose the lurking question is: at what point am I using my own fleshly judgment to scrutinize spiritual realities that are higher than me, and which I simply can’t understand? I acknowledge the danger of picking and choosing what practices we adopt as believers is a slippery slope (even if we inform those adoptions or rejections with an appeal to this-or-that verse or theology). What’s more, according to Orthodoxy I don’t even have the Holy Spirit due to my deficient Protestant baptism. So if that’s true, is any of my “discernment” or “testing of doctrines” that’s causing me trepidation with formalizing my pursuit of the True Church even from God at all? Or should Scriptures like those in the previous comment and internal cues which cause me apprehension be heeded as the Holy Spirit prompting me to “pump the brakes” on abandoning my current Christian belief system, faith practice, and community? Those are really rhetorical questions which I don’t know if there is an answer to. This is truly the hardest thing I’ve ever wrestled with, and I appreciate the charitable dialogue.

[@Wraithninja1]

While I disagree with Dr Ortlund, I admire his charitable demeanor and willingness to engage in this debate. His work on icons prompted EO apologists to up their game and put out more in depth material on icons. That burst of material was helpful in my conversion from Prot to EO.

[@deadalivemaniac]

Amen, the material Seraphim put out was superb. I think we need to take these challenges with less hostility and more as a blessing to test our God-given cognitive faculties.

[@bradspitt3896]

I don't know about up their game, this stuff was already known.

[@Wraithninja1]

I’m speaking in the online sphere. For example OrthodoxChristianTheology started bringing out some great archaeological research beyond Dura Europos. Typically, what I would hear in Ortho media prior to Ortlund stirring the pot was just brief statements along the lines of, “We always had icons and icon veneration until the Muslims showed up and made it weird.”

[@OMNIBUBB]

Can you please point me to some of this convincing material in response to Gavin? His video on icon veneration clearly being an accretion made me much more comfortable leaving the EO, perhaps to return to the Protestant world. So … the opposite take-away, for me, hah!

[@bradspitt3896]

@@OMNIBUBB Seraphim Hamilton's vids on icon veneration. Gavin is a lightweight. He didn't even know if Jesus had one or two wills in the Trent Horn debate.

[@peteristevski3681]

Fr Jonathan and Luther, thanks for hosting this conversation between Dr. Ortlund and Fr De Young. Having my favourite Protestant and Orthodox scholars in conversation with one another has been a real treat. Thanks again, and God bless 😊

[@TheTransfiguredLife]

Our pleasure! ☦️

[@newmannahas]

For Dr Ortlund, sola scriptura is the more modest thesis that that there is no *infallible* rule of faith apart from scripture. This way, he believes, he is both protecting the "ontological uniqueness" of scripture (infallible), while also honoring the role of the community as well (allowing for *fallible* but still important rules of faith apart from scripture). While seemingly more reasonable than most permutations, this view is self-defeating as it ultimately undermines the ontological uniqueness of scripture. If the rule of faith by which the boundaries of scripture are defined is itself fallible--then this would mean that the boundaries of scripture are always revisable. And this is true--not just as an epistemic matter--but ontologically speaking. In other words, the very idea of scripture becomes the idea of a revisable collection of books--hardly an ontologically unique status. In short, for scripture to be the kind of thing that Dr. Ortlund wants it to be (a true touchstone)--the process by which it is defined must itself be sufficient to render it at the very least beyond revision. And Dr. Ortlund's position fails to meet this criterion. Dr. Ortlund's response seems to be to invoke the specter of infinite regress: If you posit a supposedly infallible rule of faith apart from scripture for defining scripture, can you not ask whether your grasp of that rule of faith is fallible? And if that grasp is fallible, would it not follow that everything that flows from it is also revisable? And so, would not the same objection that we raised to sola scriptura, apply equally to any alternative view? This rebuttal misses the mark for two reasons. First, the fact that other perspectives may also fail to create a north star does not mean that sola scriptura is a north star. It could be that there are simply no north stars! But second, and more fundamentally, this rebuttal is not sound as it confuses epistemology and ontology. The objection to sola scriptura is not that it can't get us out from under the epistemic infinite regress. Nothing can. At the end of any man's chain of reasoning is always his own fallible mind. Rather, the objection to sola scriptura has to do with the kind of thing that it defines scripture to be. Ascribing fallibility to the mechanism that defines scripture renders the idea of scripture as the idea of a text whose very nature it is to be revisable. In contrast, on a view that regards the community as capable of infallibly defining its text, the kind of thing that scripture becomes is a text whose boundaries are not revisable. This allows scripture to be (at least in principle) the kind of thing that can actually be a true touchstone. Whereas, if sola scriptura is correct, then it is not even possible in principle for scripture to be a true touchstone. Thus, far from protecting the ontological uniqueness of scripture, Dr. Ortlund's view does the opposite--it renders scripture an inferior kind of thing compared with what the Great Tradition defines it to be.

[@cronmaker2]

Yup I saw this in his SS debate with Trent Horn, basically "we both agree Scripture is infallible, therefore SS is the default unless proven otherwise". But that sidesteps he disagrees with RC/EO on what even constitutes Scripture. And that disagreement stems from the authority claims SS rejects. So the whole SS-by-default angle is a misfire.

[@GregSanders-m8w]

Very well said! Thank you.

[@newmannahas]

@@GregSanders-m8wthank you!

[@ZealousSeraphim]

If anyone is curious about the biblical building blocks for icon veneration, the the KZbin channel Seraphim Hamilton has videos responding to Gavin Ortlund defending the veneration of icons on the basis of scripture. Since this didn’t end up being laid out in this discussion.

[@lifewasgiventous1614]

I would also recommend gavins' responses to those videos as well.

[@christophergrant6989]

Great questions and answers. Both men had the space to give their views with little interruption or distraction. This is the kind of dialogue that needs to happen so that Protestants are presented with the best case for Orthodoxy.

[@bwgle]

I greatly respect the work and ministry and scholarship of both these men. Can’t wait! ☦️

[@feeble_stirrings]

This was excellent! If there was anyone I wanted Dr. Ortlund to talk to it would be Fr. Stephen. Thankful for the charitable and reasoned debate. Thanks for making this happen.

[@Dragoncurve]

They both did an excellent job

[@gabrielr4329]

I’m so glad I converted out Protestantism to the Orthodox Church ☦️

[@Vanpotheosis]

The Church of the Bible lives ☦️

[@BrandonTheInquirer]

Glory to God!

[@PaulDo22]

One step closer to the Universal Church!

[@Golden_writes550]

@@PaulDo22 That won't happen till the return of Christ.

[@PaulDo22]

@@Golden_writes550 That would be unified which won't happen until He returns. Until then we have His One, Holy, Universal, and Apostolic Church.

[@alexanderstallings9352]

Nuance and Charity maxxxxing

[@jmr10276]

Much irenicism

[@Jeff_Huston]

A third thought I'll add to the previous two I posted: In the final half-hour, Dr. Ortlund asks Fr. Stephen a few times (in various ways), "How can you be certain? Where do you find the confidence you're following the Holy Spirit and not creating an innovation?" -- especially since, Dr. Ortlund argues, that certain Councils or agreements on theology could've gone other ways. When I was a Protestant, this was very much my thinking, i.e. what I could take confidence in, theologically. And if I couldn't, then I'd be hesitant to embrace it. Protestants, by and large, operate this way. And so, when confidence is ultimately an individual metric and gauge, then every Protestant is going to naturally land at various degrees on confidence on any number of theological views and confessions. That is the opposite of spiritual unity with The Eternal. That is the antithesis of being guided by the Holy Spirit. Eastern Orthodoxy Christians, by contrast, don't take confidence in what they, individually, can be confident in. Instead, they take by faith the lasting, tested traditions of the Church (and consistent interpretations of the Scriptures by the Church that formed the Canon by the guidance of the Holy Spirit) over multiple millennia. Another way to think about it: there isn't an Orthodox Christian alive on earth today that has established a doctrine, dogma, confession or belief that is taught and practiced by the Orthodox Church. What is confessed and practiced (and what is the interpretation of Scripture) is exclusively what has been handed down over the centuries and millennia by the Church itself. You can see this in the historical record of the Scriptures and the writings of the early Church fathers. What was taught and practiced then is taught and practiced now in Orthodoxy. In THAT there is actually far more certainty and confidence than what individuals themselves can be certain and confident in, because the consistency of Orthodoxy over 2000 years is what "Christ maintaining His Church" looks like.

[@BrandonDiaz-uc8iu]

I felt that the conversation was somewhat fruitful in terms of clearly stating the view of each side of the discussion and not making caricatures or strawmans of either side. However, this discussion ended RIGHT when they were getting to the meat and potatoes of the disagreements. This needs to continue on maybe Dr. Ortlund will invite Fr. Stephen to come on to his channel to really flesh out these arguments on a theological basis. Thats really what we need to dive into here. Historical writings only tells us so much about the liturgical life of Christians in the first few centuries. We know where each side stands in terms of their view on historical matters but now lets talk theology.

[@mannss42884]

Right, I was very disappointed in Fathers defense of iconography. I felt he could have said much more?

[@bradspitt3896]

Seraphim Hamilton already debunked Ortlund's vids. I would even say DeSTrOyeD!

[@BrandonDiaz-uc8iu]

@JunkyJeeMail And thats why I think this is more a matter of theological understanding and of the heart. Because as far as history goes we have an ecumenical counsel that affirms the veneration of Icons and Gavin says its not early enough and unless we can produce a document explicitly affirming its practice within the first few centuries he can't accept it, but yet he as a reformer follows doctrines that did not come into practice until even much later than second Nicea. It seems to be a convenient position.

[@BrandonDiaz-uc8iu]

@@mannss42884 I agree. I hope they continue where they left off sometime in the future maybe.

[@BrandonDiaz-uc8iu]

@@bradspitt3896 I have not seen it. I will check that out today.

[@militemlucis6131]

Great conversation. Well done Gavin and Fr Stephen De Young. As an Anglican who agrees with a lot of orthodox theology i appreciated this conversation and believe both raised great points. Wish there was more of this in Christendom! Its a shame when atheists point out how horrible christians can be towards each other on various online communities. I hope conversations like this can change that narrative.

[@zealousideal]

Hey there brother, 100 % Agree! And thanks for your kind words. I’m trying to currently study about Anglicanism. There’s so many pros and cons with info on it out there. What made you choose Anglicanism? If you don’t mind I’m curious to know. Though I know many Anglicans leave it and many of their priests become RC or EO. I also know of many protestants that become Anglican and also some RC and EO’s too. Just want to get your take and reasoning if you don’t mind. I believe we are all Christians at the end of the day. I’ve never subscribed to the doctrine that there’s “only one true church” or true way, or that one certain group is better than the others. As a retired pastor and I was also RC and EO, I now see and think that we all just have different views and pieces of the greater puzzle! 🧩. Blessings.

[@militemlucis6131]

@@zealousideal Hi brother, Thank you for your kind words. I am more than happy to share my reason for being Anglican. I am bad at being succinct, so please skip ahead if my longish post is boring haha. I started my faith Journey in a pentacostal/apostolic low church. It was very much contempory and didnt have much regard for tradition at all. Although I had many friends there, the more i started to mature in my faith i found issues with what they were teaching. For example there was prosperity gospel teachings to a degree, a misuse of the spiritual gifts, and most sermons were essentialy a three point or 5 ways to type motivational talk with a scripture out of context thrown in there. That is all I knew. I ended up leaving that church and was in a spiritual abyss and didnt attend a church at all. I still was looking into things and kind of went the extreme opposite in my thinking. I was more reformed, systematic and full cessasionist for a while there. From what i was exposed to, both ways of thinking had one thing in common in that they disregarded history and tradition. Fast forward many years later it really hit me that I cant just ignore the history of the church and over that time I have grown to love the majority of what RC and EO are about. Ultimately I started attending a high Anglican church because it has tradition and the creeds but is not as rigid. For example I hold Mary in high regard but am less dogmatic about her. I also like icons and think they are inspirational and aid in worship, but dont put it on a level where its anathema if I dont adore and kiss them (forgive my ignorance if im wrong about that). Also the “one true church” has been personally been displayed to me in a very triumphalist manner which is very off putting. Regardless, I look at EO and RC as brothers in christ. Anglicanism has many different leanings under its umbrella while still being unified. I also love the book of common prayer and there approach of scripture, reason and tradition. I try to be always learning and an still on my journey and the Anglican church feels at home for me and has helped me grow in my faith. I recently purchased an orthodox study Bible and am loving it. The commentary and study notes are great. Sorry for the length of this post. Ps i agree with you about the pros and cons. some Anglican churches have let a very liberal mindset creep in and can be found to be very watered down which is a tragedy.

[@rayfulmer5146]

@@militemlucis6131 EO triumphalism is hilarious. Top-3 in World Most Dysfunctional Religious Bodies yet we can still be cocky. I don't think that it's necessary for Orthodoxy at all, and I'm definitely a One True Church man, but I'm sorry that it was presented in that fashion.

[@militemlucis6131]

@@rayfulmer5146 I will say thats been my personal experience and mainly online. In person the EO brothers i have come across have been great and kind.

[@rayfulmer5146]

@@militemlucis6131 non-psychos are 99% of the EO Church. It's only that the ratios are reversed online.

[@RuslanKD]

Glad these discussions are happening.

[@TheTransfiguredLife]

Thanks Ruslan! ☦️

[@bethannjohnson6436]

Father Stephen showing great charity & humility

[@makingsmokesince76]

Props for providing a reasonable platform for this discussion and bravo to Fr. Stephen for sharing and distilling our Holy Faith in a direct yet eloquent manner. Glory to God for all things!

[@aklt4923]

O.M.G. I am so excited for this one! Ya'll are pulling some awesome guests!

[@TheTransfiguredLife]

☦️🔥🔥

[@DD-bx8rb]

@@TheTransfiguredLife Both the Protestant sects and the Orthodox churches put their own rendering of Apostolic Tradition above the final authority of the Catholic Church.

[@robertattaway3119]

Thank you to the Transfigured Life, and especially to Fr. Stephen and Dr. Dortmund for having this important discussion.

[@OrthodoxInquiry]

Dortmund. LOL

[@consideringorthodoxy5495]

it's "Ortlund"

[@robertattaway3119]

@@consideringorthodoxy5495 , you're right. It was a mistake on my part. I didn't check the spell check...lol!

[@AJ-me1dg]

Icon veneration is hard to judge from a distance. Once you're in the Orthodox Church for a bit, you come to see the beauty of it.

[@robithesir]

Not just the beauty, but it necessity in worship

[@sotem3608]

As someone who does not properly understand this, how would you describe this? Also @robithesir mentions the necessity; How would you convey this to me? I'm trying to understand the veneration of Icons in the proper sense.

[@Theoretically-ko6lr]

@@sotem3608there is an enormous content on the internet talking about Orthodox icon veneration. Also lets remind ourselves of the Bible verse where God instructed the people how to build the temple and icons in the Old Testament. Glory to God my brother ❤

[@Theoretically-ko6lr]

@@sotem3608also this channel has an hour long video on the Icons. Its one of the first videos uploaded . Father explains it there very clearly. Hope that helps brother ❤

[@sotem3608]

@@Theoretically-ko6lr thanks for your comments, I'll check the videos. God bless you as well!

[@tylerfgc4704]

I am personally converting to Orthodoxy but I do appreciate these talks.

[@Boethium]

Really enjoyed this discussion. I have been inquiring at my local Orthodox Church for about 8 months now after having been in the Pentecostal Charismatic church my entire childhood and most of my adulthood. I am a big fan of both guests so this was really amazing to see show up in my feed.

[@cassidyanderson3722]

A few years ago, the pastor of a Pentecostal church in my city shuddered his church’s doors and led a small, but very devout, contingent into Orthodoxy. I pray you eventually find your way into the Church. God bless.

[@tategarrett3042]

I strongly recommend looking into historic Protestantism. As much as I appreciate the depth of faith and beauty of worship many EO churches and people I've known/been to the doctrinal issues they have are a severe point of contention. If you notice the other person's comment on your post here, I believe he's being fully sincere. Consistent EO members do not believe that you are in a church and do not have a valid Eucharist if you are not a member of their denomination and many would even say you are not a Christian. I think all the richness of the EO worship and liturgy can be found in Protestantism but without the doctrinal issues.

[@dannyjackson5189]

​@@tategarrett3042 There are no doctrinal issues. It is simply that protestant isn't is something that is an aberration and should not exist. It is reaction against a certain Bishop that has lasted 500 years. It would never have existed except for this occasion of pride. I think that Jesus Prophecy about it and also Paul as the great falling away that was supposed to take place. It is a falling away.

[@tategarrett3042]

@@dannyjackson5189 Thank you for illustrating my point for me. The EO church has the pride to claim that it alone contains real Christians, and it has the arrogance to try to limit both salvation and the blessings of God to only its members. This is the very thing I referred to.

[@JacksonScott-os7kj]

@@tategarrett3042 correction, Orthodoxy claims salvation cannot be had outside the Church. Everyone affirms this. Orthodoxy affirms it knows where the Church is, the Church is visible. Orthodoxy does not claim that everyone outside the visible Church will be damned, there is always an element of the Church where God is working that cannot be seen. Orthodoxy can refer to entire systems as wrong, but they do not pronounce damnation on specific individuals, that is for God alone to decide whether that person is inside or outside of the Church. However, Orthodox, knowing where the visible Church is, will encourage all to come to it and will discourage not being within the visible Church, and part of that discouragement is pointing out there is real risk to not joining the visible Church. This is not mean, prideful, nor arrogant. Many protestants claim Mormonism is a false system, and invite the individuals, without making individual pronouncements, to Protestantism. Orthodoxy simply does the same for Protestantism as Protestantism does for Mormonism (Orthodoxy also rejects Mormonism, but you get my point).

[@CosmicMystery7]

Pray for Dr. Ortlund.

[@davidjanbaz7728]

He praying 4 u 2 .

[@johnjelinek3983]

​@@davidjanbaz7728ain't that ironic? The gods of opposing faiths praying for each other?

[@CosmicMystery7]

​@@davidjanbaz7728 I hope so.

[@veritasquidestveritas]

These guys are schooling the young bucks to be a bit less tribalistic and to listen to each other with respect rather than venom. Eg as Christians!

[@davidjanbaz7728]

​@@johnjelinek3983what gods : your ignorance doesn't make sense!!! LOL 😂

[@kylesilva4063]

This was a great conversation! I think Gavin did a good job presenting the general concern Protestants have regarding Orthodoxy. As someone who genuinely considered converting to Orthodoxy I share many of those same concerns. I am genuinely thankful for the Orthodox Church as there is much I have learned and continue to learn. We need more conversations like this.

[@timluckritz810]

When you were considering Orthodoxy did you ever attend a Divine Liturgy?

[@kylesilva4063]

@@timluckritz810 to be honest no. My reasoning for that was I had already watched multiple Divine Liturgies on KZbin so I knew I would love Divine Liturgy. I didn’t want me enjoying Divine Liturgy to be the defining reason I convert to Orthodoxy.

[@JanBear]

@@kylesilva4063 KZbin is great; books are great; comment sections can be great. But they are not the church. Until you've experienced the Divine Liturgy--the real, unfiltered life of the church--that lady singing off-key, toddlers taking off to run down the aisle followed by a patient mother or father, regretting the shoes you wore--while the saints look down on you in calm and welcoming love, and the music (even though it's not as polished as what you hear on KZbin) expresses the most profound truths about the faith in deep and resonant poetry--until you've experienced the church in all its human-divine contradictions, you haven't experienced the Church. Blessings to you wherever your path takes you.

[@kylesilva4063]

@@JanBear I totally understand your point. I will say to get you to understand my point, that I try not to base what is true from experience or feelings. For instance and please don’t take offense at this but Mormons make similar arguments. They will say come to the church and experience it for yourself. This feeling or experience shouldn’t be how truth is tested. So, when I was testing orthodoxy I didn’t want feelings to be a primary influence if that makes sense. Again I apologize if I offended anyone, I was just trying to relate my struggle in an example. Blessings to you as well!

[@ryanbutela]

⁠@@kylesilva4063if you ever consider Orthodoxy again, and I pray that you do, please attend a Divine Liturgy. I understand your apprehension with elevating “feelings” in your discernment of truth. I’ve felt that in many Protestant worship songs, that made me “feel” emotion but I don’t think it was fruitful. However, living in the life of Christ is entirely experiential. It is the daily life of being a Christian, following the cycle of the services, the scripture readings, following a prayer rule morning and nightly that all constitute the experience of being a Christian. When I say you need to experience a Divine Liturgy, I do not mean that you should just go see it and “observe” one and see how it makes you feel. I mean, you need to enter in and be a part of the practice to fully grasp the transformation that occurs during the experience. It does not happen on the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and so on. But, it’s the continual practice that does so. As I have heard Father Stephen say, paraphrasing- “Christ is not going to ask you “Did you (mentally) believe all the right doctrinal statements?” He will say “Did you do what I asked of you”” I have had countless moments of zero “feeling” where my emotions are numb while in Church, and at the same time I have shed many tears. These feelings I experience are not what I would use to declare that it is true. I would say however, that the radical transformation of my life and heart that has occurred, is the experiential aspect that I am referring to. May Lord inspire you to give it another chance ☦️

[@issaavedra]

Fr. Stephen De Young

[@JunakBlazheski]

Beautiful conversation! Thank you Transfigured life!

[@rojcewiczj]

I feel like there is something very basic going on here, namely; the Orthodox position being the living continuity of the apostolic faith and Protestantism being the attempt to reconstruct Christianity using modern techniques of thought and historical research. The challenge of the Orthodox position is that your expected to point at something outside of the living Tradition for justification when the reality of the faith is lived within the Tradition. Its like having to leave a house and argue about whats going on inside from whats going on outside, it would be clearer to just go inside and see. I think Dr Ortlund, like perhaps all of us, would have to live as an Orthodox christian for a year or so to begin to understand.

[@OMNIBUBB]

Not “reconstruct” - that implies they think the Church died or was broken or was abandoned by the Holy Spirit. You “reconstruct” something that ceased to be. Calvin viewed the RCC he was critiquing as still containing within her “true churches.”

[@gregcoogan8270]

You're right, however, a protestant would say that the "house" isn't the real "house" anymore, or that the "house", has burned down or been destroyed and that we need to rebuild the house, they will eschew an invitation to go live in the house because it would in their mind, be akin to going to live in a burned down or missing house.

[@GhostofFranky]

@@OMNIBUBBthey also don’t believe the church is a visible church but a secret one that no one knows who the real christians are. There are a few from each different church in their view and every pastor is trying to reform his previous pastor. Go look at francis chan. Every year some dude comes out and says I was raised this way but I started reading the bible and I realized “they didn’t have rock bands in the early church! We need to get back to how they lived in the early church!” And they dont see the Ortho Church as being that church

[@huntz0r]

​@@OMNIBUBB but in saying that, Calvin was casting the "true church" as a kind of Platonic form, and opining on which churches resemble it most closely and where they need tweaking to resemble it better. So it is true that Protestantism is trying to reconstruct the "true church" out of whatever the best material is it can find. 500 years on, it is still trying to do that and most Protestants still do not think there is any currently existing church that can be called the "true church".

[@EricBryant]

... And if that is true, the reverse would ALSO apply: How many Orthodox Christians, priests or theologians, even bother to *understand* the richness of Protestant traditions, let alone ever attend a Protestant catechism for 2 yrs. Don't just apply the principle one way. Apply it BOTH ways. Which, admittedly is hard to do when you already think you have the fullness of the faith.

[@orthochap9124]

The end of Mark mentions confirming the word through signs and wonders. Well, the Lord has been confirming Nicea II with signs and wonders through myrrh streaming and miracle working icons for centuries, that point needs to be acknowledged as well!

[@deadalivemaniac]

That’s a great point, I wonder how Ortlund would respond besides just saying it’s fake.

[@newkingjames1757]

One of Gavin's main issues is that although the "telephone game" may have revised oral tradition over time, he never proves that it has.(other than "I think", "I believe ", etc etc) He just assumes that because it's a possibility, it must have happened. It ultimately comes down to "since this runs contrary to my Protestant presuppositions and my own understanding, it must be an accretion". Gavin also relies on an absence of early evidence being evidence of absence. Unfortunately for him, that is a fallacy.

[@Racingbro1986]

The issue is “infallibility “ should not be attached to anything that has the possibility of human error. Everyone’s interpretation of scripture is falible including the churches.

[@newkingjames1757]

@@Racingbro1986 Is the interpretation that the original authors (the Apostles) intended fallible?

[@MrownXXV]

@@Racingbro1986everyone’s interpretations are fallible. Therefore we can never come to an accurate binding knowledge of the truth

[@NavelOrangeGazer]

@@MrownXXV that's why scripture is clear that the Church is the pillar and ground of Truth. Not random men's (every protestant pastor) opinions.

[@MrownXXV]

@@NavelOrangeGazer I know im just pointing out that it logically makes christianity incoherent.

[@Benjamin-bq7tc]

By the way, I wanted to add that this was a very enlightening discussion on all sides. I thorougly enjoyed it, and would even say that it was a blessing. Thanks for your efforts to make this discussion available.

[@bionicmosquito2296]

This is the tone and demeanor that I appreciate in such dialogues. First, coming from two highly educated and dedicated Christians; a discussion on points of agreement; and an expression of why one believes what he believes instead of an attack on (usually a straw man) of the other's views. I look forward to the follow up conversation here, as well as the discussion between these two men to soon be posted at Dr. Ortlund's channel.

[@GeorgeLiavas]

I think theres some confusion over what oral tradition is. Its not like broken telephone as Dr. Ortlund mentions. As in the Old testament Oral transmission, it is rather, hearing or practicing something exhaustively so that you know it so well, that if the story or practice is deviated from, its immediately recognised. In this sense oral transmission is much harder to "corrupt" as oppose to altering the transmission of texts.

[@cronmaker2]

It's a strange characterization of Tradition more akin to gnosticism, as if it's a secret passed along by whispers to select bishops. Tradition is perfectly public via liturgy and common faith and practice, which also serves as a safeguard when innovations or supposed "traditions" are advanced by heretics. Even if one takes mundane examples of tradition, his characterization is off. Does he think Baptist tradition, American tradition, his family's traditions, etc over the generations are akin to a game of telephone? Of course not, they're lived out and passed down through practice, custom, photos, speeches, writings, etc.

[@GeorgeLiavas]

@@cronmaker2 totally

[@Zangified02]

@@cronmaker2indeed

[@DD-bx8rb]

@@cronmaker2 All Apostolic Tadition was originally Oral. And Oral Tradition that was not eventually written down as Scripture, was eventually written down by the Early Church Fathers! The Church has the divine guarantee to teach Christ's truth concerning the Written and Oral Tradition, both of which come from the Church. "The church is the pillar and foundation of the truth" (1Tim 3;15) and not the private interetations of an individual/group. Both the Protestant sects and the Orthodox churches put their own rendering of Apostolic Tradition above the final authority of the Catholic Church.

[@steadydividends571]

Oh baby this will be great. I’m tuning in for sure

[@jonathanhnosko7563]

This was so refreshing! The discussion was both charitable and firm. It really helped highlight where both sides are coming from and the sticking points for each. Great strides were made in my understanding of the issues. Thank you Gavin and Stephen for sharing your insights and for Jonathan and Luther for such great questions and for being such gracious hosts. I really look forward to your comments!

[@thattimestampguy]

*Sola Scriptura* 5:02 The Scripture. 5:31 Post-Apostolic Era. 6:07 Ontologically Unique, Inspired Word of God. 6:50 "Scripture is The Speech of God." *Holy Tradition: The Orthodox vs The Roman Catholic Understanding* 8:05 8:51 The Life of The Holy Spirit in The Church. 10:30 The Holy Spirit Inspired The Scriptures, The Holy Spirit Governs The Handing Down of The Scriptures. 10:58 Collective Guidance and Inspiration. _The Holy Spirit Will Lead You Into All Truth_ 11:45 An Ecumenical Council is a great gathering of members of The Church. 12:15 Individuals, Collectives, get things wrong sometimes, The Holy Spirit Guides The Church. 13:04 It is not always clear, but over time, God reveals. *Sola Scriptura is seen as a Doctrine. Is it of Divine Inspiration or of Practical Necessity?* 14:35 15:27 It's the effort to be faithful to Divine Inspiration. 15:37 It is of Practical Necessity. We need to be guarded against errors that creep in. 16:23 The Holy Spirit has NEVER Abandoned The Church. 17:38 The Pharisees "yolked people to error." 18:50 The Scripture is Unique. 19:01 I Want To Be Faithful To Christ. 20:08 The Church Claims to Be Infallible. 20:35 We Want To Be Faithful To God. *The Danger of Sola Scriptura* 21:20 How do we judge between _different interpretations_ of Scripture? 22:28 There is a difference in the Protestant vs The Orthodox view of Revelation. 24:18 The Bible 24:45 Interpreting Scripture. 25:07 The Necessity of The Church. *Why Sola Scriptura is Untenable* 26:37 26:58 There are a number of issues we would have: 27:14 Sola Scriptura takes away The Authority of The Holy Spirit and gives it to The Bible. *Revisable vs Unrevisable Church Doctrines* 28:15 If everything is revisable... 28:34 A Unitarian wants to alter Nicea I. 29:15 From someone outside of Sola Scriptura, altering Nicea I and Nicea II aren't much different behaviors. 29:39 American and European Protestantism take Sempfer Reformata to an extreme of "Everything Is Revisable." - Ex. Ordaining Women - Ex. Changing Views on Moral Issues 30:09 One reason alot of people are coming to The Orthodox Church now is BECAUSE they find the idea that Nothing Is Revisable attractive. 30:23 "Because even in The Roman Catholic Church, Now it seems like just about everything is revisable." 30:50 Fr Stephen De Young "appreciates Dr Ortlund's clarification in terms of Propositional Revelation, and referencing Dutch People is a good way to come close to my heart." *The Theotokos' Body Taken Up Into Heaven* 31:42 The Orthodox Church believes, not dogmatically but this is something we believe. 32:24 "When do we have a text that says this?" "So what?" "It happened. People remembered it. At some point someone wrote about it." "We don't know, we just have what we have." 33:27 Something The Spirit of God did. Dr Gavin appreciates The Anchor of Unrevisable Parts of Orthodox Christianity. 34:05 Dr Gavin likes the Unrevisable Deposit "Nothing Is Revisable" piece of Orthodoxy. 34:43 "We look to The Scripture as The Supreme North Star for how we locate that Unreviasble Body of Teachings.." *"The Councils Can Get It Wrong"* 35:23 Saint Augustine of Hippo. The Plenary Councils. 35:38 "The Councils aren't necessarily infallible or unrevisable." 36:05 "Should we accept this as true?" 36:22 Demeaning Gnostic Texts. *Gavin Ortlund's Hesitancy to Affirm Orthodox Dogma* 36:36 Bodily Assumptions To Heaven. 37:13 "It's what's positively protrayed in the historical data." 37:23 "I don't think I have a reason to say why Dogma is True." *Father Stephen clarifies* 38:15 "The First Thing We Have is not The First Appearance. It's The First Thing That Survived To Today." 38:30 A Gnostic Letter from The 2nd Century. 38:58 Mary's Body Taken Up Into Heaven. 39:05 Moses' Body Taken Up To Heaven, alluded to by Saint Jude. *"Hold Fast To The Traditions I Have Taught You, Whether By Word or By Letter."* 39:30 "What is the Protestant Concern with Holy Tradition?" 40:05 Saint Paul to The Thessalonians "Hold Fast To The Traditions I Have Taught You, Whether By Word or By Letter." 40:40 Paul speaking to Timothy, 1st Generation to 2nd Generation Christians, 3rd Generation, 4th Generation. *How Do We Understand The Protestant Concern about Holy Tradition?* 41:28 Oral Traditions. Sola Scriptura is NOT opposed to Oral Tradition. *After The Apostles Die, now how do we function?* Gavin asks, 42:08 No more Scripture is being written. Fallible Transmission Process. 42:32 The Word Tradition, what are we meaning by Tradition. *The Protestant Concern over Holy Tradition* 43:02 The Concern is with: The Traditions that DON'T have a plausible relationship with Apostolic Teaching, and yet, are commanded to be received with Equal Reverance as The Scripture Itself. "The Telephone Game." Disputes coming up. 44:21 There is a difference between + What The Apostles Taught - That which is bequeathed to us 2000 years later through a Very Fallible 45:00 Nicea II. "We just wanna follow our conscious." *Phenomenology* 46:15 We only have access to The Scriptures by our act of reading them, and interpreting them, and that is where the fallibility enters in. _Sola Scriptura arose in The Reformation_ 47:55 Sola Scriptura - The Roman Catholic Church was in fact using Falsified Documents 49:20 - THE ISSUE: It's Not The Reformation anymore. 49:31 We have Archaelogically Uncovered 1st Century Synagogues In Gallilee. 49:45 John Calvin was wrong about Iconography, although he couldn't have known any better, Calvin was working on what he had. 50:38 The Context we have conditions the interpretations we have of The Scriptures. *Icons* 52:05 Dr Gavin Ortlund is not convinced Icon Veneration is Apostolic, he thinks it is a Later Innovation in The Partistic Era. "Is there ANY Infallible Authorities OUTSIDE OF Scripture?" 53:47 54:16 From The Orthodox Perspective, the framing of the question needs to be shifted, The Holy Spirit is THE Locus of Authority. Infallibility is With The Holy Spirit. 54:41 The Infallibility is With The Holy Spirit. 55:04 The Church Verifies That. 55:47 We Pray that we be able, By The Holy Spirit, to interpret scripture correctly. *Gavin is happy speaking with Orthodox Christians* 56:59 57:39 "The Holy Spirit works in different ways. In our individual life and our Corporate life." 58:25 Some Protestants act in a highly individualistic way. That is not in Gavin Ortlund's Heart. 59:20 Council Politics were BRUTAL! *The 90 Second Go Answer The Front Door Break* 1:00:10 30 Minutes of Open Discussion 1:02:35 1:04:51 The Council of Frankfurt. 1:06:09 Nicea II. Seesaw Power Struggle. "How do you know The Holy Spirit is Guiding The Church?" 1:07:08 "How do you know?" 1:08:08 "Most of what you say about Nicea II could be said about Nicea I." 1:08:36 Because Nicea II has been reaffirmed and reaffirmed throughout time, NOT just by Other Councils, but by Practice. by what we perceive to be The whole Church. 1:09:19 The Council of Frankfurt. The term "Homo-Ousios." 1:11:31 "It sounds like it's making The Church a law to herself." 1:12:24 *You see the veneration of icons as a violation of the scriptures and I do not.* Protestant Iconoclasts, Council of Frankfurt Iconoclasts - Icon Veneration IS an innovation. Orthodox Icon Veneration, Council of Nicea II and Church reaffirmation thereafter. + Icon Veneration is NOT an innovation, it has persisted throughout time. 1:15:00 The Historian Eusebius 1:16:06 Anathema! Separation From God. 1:17:17 St Basil The Great "What is given to The Image, passes to The Prototype." 1:18:15 Worship of God: Father, Son, Holy Spirit. 1:18:54 Expressing Love of Other People and God. 1:20:09 The People Who Present Anti-Iconography Arguments DON'T Have Saint Next To Their Name, for various reasons. 1:20:21 If something is a common practice, who is more likely to write about it, the supporters of the common practice or the opposition of the common practice? 1:22:51 The Historian Eusebius 1:24:05 The Trinity. 1:26:14 "If only we had a time machine to go back in time to a 2nd century synagogue." 1:26:50 The List of Icon-Haters are not Saints. 1:27:10 The Historian Eusebius makes some erronious claims about Saint Photini 1:28:40 "Clearly" Icon Veneration "it was a practice because Iconoclasts rose to oppose it." 1:32:30 Gavin Ortlund maintains his conviction belief that Ancient Christians Did NOT venerate Icons. 1:36:26 _What it means to be Protestant?_ book publishing 1:37:03 Stephen De Young is writing a book on Saint Paul.

[@TheTransfiguredLife]

Excellent. Thanks for this! ☦️

[@dannoel2351]

@@TheTransfiguredLife I would recommend pinning this or adding the timestamps to the description

[@Zangified02]

@@TheTransfiguredLifeindeed pinning this will future viewers and even old viewers returning to the video as it convenient and easier to navigate

[@TheTransfiguredLife]

@@dannoel2351 Thanks Daniel just finish adding your request to the description.

[@zealousideal]

Love Dr. Gavin O. He’s so professional and knowledgeable and thought he did very well. But also love Fr. Deyoung and greatly respect both. Nice work to all! Good to see some good content and dialogue from both sides like this. Hope to see much more!! Blessings.

[@VickersJon]

Loved the discussion. Thanks! -A Reformed Protestant

[@forestantemesaris8447]

Very helpful discussion. Thanks for hosting and posting!

[@newkingjames1757]

The Protestant "I" vs The Orthodox "we". Subjective Interpretation vs Collective Knowledge. Sola Scriptura vs Holy Tradition Revolution vs Unrevisable Anchor

[@cassidyanderson3722]

Gavin may be the only reformed KZbin personality that I respect, but I can’t understand why he places so much importance on, “I think.” If I approached the faith with that mindset, I wouldn’t be a Christian at all.

[@williamsmith5049]

​@@cassidyanderson3722it's because he's working towards his own conclusions, intellectually

[@newkingjames1757]

@@cassidyanderson3722 I lost count on the amount of times he said "I think", "I believe", "my conscience", etc etc. We are to expect this tho. Protestantism is highly individualized.

[@newkingjames1757]

@@williamsmith5049 leaning on his own understanding

[@davidjanbaz7728]

​@@newkingjames1757LOL 😂 no leaning on the Holy Scriptures: your leaning on the fallible magisterium that you think can't be in error. We believe in the Priesthood of all Christians: NOT just your clergy as you do. But having said that: we don't just say everyone's opinion about doctrines is on an equal level of good Exigesis. Or we wouldn't have Pastors or Biblical Scholars that work on accurate interpretations of the Bible for their denominations and thus it isn't a free for all in as your confused Catholic strawmaning of Sola Scriptura indicates.

[@2stephenschwartz]

This video will obviously be an accretion

[@TheTransfiguredLife]

You win the internet for today!! 🤣🤣

[@TheTransfiguredLife]

@@2stephenschwartz Thanks brother. Your kind words are appreciated. Pray for me! ☦️

[@andreaurelius45]

I acreted earlier today, so I am good.

[@frjamesbozeman5375]

Best comment and observation so far.

[@DouglasHorch]

Hahaha 😂😂😂😂 well played

[@Dwell.within]

Looking forward to this! 🫵🏼💯☦️

[@1988bogdana]

I enjoyed very respectful discussion. There were no low blows or attempts to downplay the opponents opinions and beliefs.

[@Journey_of_Abundance]

Honestly asserting that icon veneration is idolatry is a low blow. No matter how softly Ortlund says it.

[@1988bogdana]

@@Journey_of_Abundance yes and no. A lot of Protestants feel this way regardless. They don’t know any better and that’s what they were taught. Still, it was carefully put out there by the opponent as a part of his opinions and beliefs. I heard much more agressive statements about icons.

[@timluckritz810]

​@@Journey_of_Abundance think of it this way. Worship for Orthodox Christians is participation in the Eucharist. Protestants don't have this. The best they have in their services is what we would call veneration. That's why they think it is idolatry when we venerate. Veneration is the closest they come to worship, so they literally CAN'T see the difference. You have to show them what worship is and change their mindset about that before they can understand it.

[@Journey_of_Abundance]

@@timluckritz810 I fully agree

[@NavelOrangeGazer]

@@timluckritz810 yup, this is the crux of their hang-up for the most part.

[@jamesb6818]

As a Protestant (barely) who’s been wrestling with these questions for 2 plus years, please do more conversation like this. I absolutely love the charity displayed here and see much more accomplished with these types of dialogues. Thank you and PS subscribed.

[@jotink1]

Gavin did very good in articulating Protestants views and a very cordial discussion. I am convinced in my Protestantism and still convinced but learned a great deal of where the arguments differ.

[@john-markharris6068]

I'm curious as to which biblical canon you approve of and how you know its the true scriptures given by God?

[@jotink1]

@@john-markharris6068 I could ask you the same question. Is it the Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox or some other none Protestant tradition?I know the same way as everyone knows anything from the evidence in church history and the scriptures themselves to see how they are described internally..We all rely on our tradition and investigate the evidence and decide which one is right.If I have a different canon to you this does not leave me in no mans land or without God's guidance if it does then we are all up the creek because we all have slightly different canons.

[@john-markharris6068]

@@jotink1 You are correct that at the individual level we are all equal in that we must make a decision. But you don't have a normative authority that binds you to a specific canon. And the scriptures don't give you the canon. sorry. You can read and study the church's book and history and come to the "spirit guided" conviction that the book of revelation doesn't need to be in the bible. Sola scriptura presupposes that you have the right canon and you can offer zero infallible evidence that your canon is correct because you trust yourself and not the church unless it gives you what you want. But you don't have to be like that. You can have the full faith and life of the christ and not just propositional knowledge about verses from the bible. And I know the scriptures because I submit to the church which is guided by the spirit. It is the one and only church and this is not an invisible church because thats a church that doesn't exist. Do you believe the church actually exist in a visible and tangible sense? or is the body of christ invisible?

[@john-markharris6068]

@@jotink1 You are correct in the fact as individuals we all must make decisions and trust our reasoning. But if you are protestant your tradition isn't binding on you at all. protestantism means no tradition is infallible. sola scriptura means only the scriptures are infallible and you technically can't access that infallibility because you interpret them with your fallible reason. And sola scriptura presupposes that you have the right canon but you can't prove that unless you appeal to a fallible source outside the bible.

[@john-markharris6068]

@@jotink1 I see the presuppositions of sola scriptura similar to that of atheists. an atheist borrows from God to reason and think that God isn't the ground of his reasoning and ignore his rightful place in their life. Protestants who hold to sola scriptura use the church's book to reason that the church doesn't have a place of authority over them. And protestants give lip service to the church. but they usually mean the non existent "invisible church" the one that doesn't acutally have a physical reality so it doesn't have authority over how they live in the physical world. Its a magical church that they can't see or touch so they don't have to submit to what it says because it doesn't speak to them.

[@ora_et_labora1095]

I love Gavin!

[@BrandonTheInquirer]

As someone who has spent over 30 years in a variety of denominations in protestantism, I'm now an inquirer seeking conversion and currently attending catechism at my local Greek mission parish. I've been consuming a vast array of debates between Orthodox Christians and Protestants. It's often embarrassing watching the various defenders of protestantism and their prideful ignorance. But I must say, I was impressed with Dr. Ortlund. While I have disagreements, he still gave a clear and studied defense of his position. He actually knew more about Church history than any other protestant debater I've seen. I'm thankful to the Lord for this entire panel and I was able to share this with one of my employees at work who is contemplating conversion to Holy Orthodoxy.

[@MajorMustang1117]

Yes. Dr. Ortland was a huge help to me when I was a Protestant as well. He has a lot of knowledge and has certainly done his research. Of course, I ended up becoming Orthodox, but I'm still so grateful at his loving attitude when debating others. Very grateful he is around.

[@John-ot7si]

As a Catholic, I want to commend you for all your work. God Bless you!

[@TheTransfiguredLife]

Thanks John! ☦️

[@amieroberg5252]

Epic!!!!!!!! So looking forward to this one!!!!!

[@MichaelOregonia]

This highlights perfectly my own reasons for moving from the reformed tradition to Orthodox Christianity. The idea that modern historians have greater access to the truth than the Holy Tradition of The Church is precisely the spiritual void that I felt in my own life so many years ago.

[@aklt4923]

This was really, really great. I have one critique: it ended far too soon. 😅 It felt like they were just getting deep into the meat of where the disagreement lies and then it had to end. A part 2, 3, and maybe 4 perhaps? 😁

[@TheTransfiguredLife]

I feel you Alicia and completely agree 😅. We wanted it to be longer too. Dr.Gavin mentioned the time so we already knew it had to be wrapped up. Part 2? Idk, we will see. 🙂☦️

[@matty31272]

Let's hope there's more like this.

[@robinphillips3819]

I only watched this once, so it’s possible that my overall impression of the discussion may be simplistic, or something I would revise on a second go-through. But overall, I was disappointed. As an Orthodox Christian, I was hoping to hear knock out arguments for Orthodoxy, which is usually a bad sign anyway, so maybe it’s a good thing that (at least in my opinion) the debate didn’t deliver on that. Before explaining why I think this (that the debate didn’t deliver good arguments for Orthodoxy), I want to say that I have tremendous respect for Fr. Stephen. He acted as a mentor to me when I was writing my book about creation for Ancient Faith, not to mention that he wrote the Foreword to it. I have probably learned more from Fr. Stephen then from any other priest except the one that brought me into the church. I admire him his wisdom and charitable spirit, while his intellectual generosity is something I aspire to emulate. I hope readers will keep that context in mind as I share my concerns about Fr. Stephen’s positions. It seemed that, despite all the details, nuances, and qualifications, both gentlemen were basically making the same argument, as follows: •) Dr. Gavin argued that church tradition can error, therefore we need an infallible standard. That infallible standard is the Holy Spirit inspired scripture. •) Fr. Stephen De Young argued that interpretation of scripture can error, therefore we need an infallible standard. That infallible standard is the Holy Spirit working in church tradition. Structurally, this is the same argument, only inverted. If we threw a Roman Catholic into the mix, he would introduce papal authority as the loadstar for infallibility, certainty, grounded-ness, and unrevisable authority. This reminds me of what C.S. Lewis said in his essay “On the Reading of Old Books,” about how, when we look at certain times of history, we see the same background assumptions shared by opponents even when they think they are most at variance. Personally, I would want to problematize both gentlemen’s positions. Yes, we have a crisis of authority today and people are offering revisionist accounts of Christianity to justify everything from gender reassignment surgery to polyamory. But that won’t be solved by finding some type of epistemological silver bullet, let alone figuring out whether the Bible is over the church or whether the church is over the Bible. I have been in both Orthodox and Protestant churches that went woke. The problem is deeper than figuring out the right mechanism for infallibility. I know Orthodox scholars trying to find references in the fathers and councils to support same-sex relationships, transgenderism, female priests, etc. Sure, we can claim that within a true understanding of Orthodoxy nothing is revisable, and that consequently error will eventually be corrected, but Dr. Gavin can make the same argument within his paradigm: that a true understanding of scripture excludes all such vice and error, and that consequently error is eventually corrected through semper reformanda. Another problem is that these arguments set us up with an infinite regress. This recently came up in an email discussion with some friends when someone referenced the view that we need “an authoritative community interpreter” to prevent hermeneutical chaos. This is what I wrote then: “If it takes an authoritative community interpreter to understand Scripture, then how does this avoid an infinite regress whereby you would need an authoritative community interpreter to understand the authoritative community interpreter, ad infinitum? Sometimes the appeal to ‘an authoritative community interpreter’ is part of a larger polemic against “private judgment” that draws on the epistemological skepticism of God-haters like Hume and Kant and then posits the Roman magisterium as the solution. But if the normal operations of the mind cannot understand how to interpret 1 Timothy, then how can the normal operations of the mind understand how to interpret Pope Leo telling me how to interpret 1 Timothy? If private judgment is insufficient for determining what Paul meant in his letter to the Corinthians, then why is it not equally insufficient for determining that I need the Roman magisterium to tell me what Paul meant in his letter to the Corinthians?” Substitute Pope Leo with “church councils” and I think this points to a potential weakness in Fr. Stephen’s argument. And this is more than mere logic-chopping: the inability to know, understand, and interpret what the Ecumenical councils actually mean (and which councils even are truly ecumenical - a point that Christendom has never been able to agree on) is a very concrete and practical question. Are the councils merely infallible in their dogmatic statements but not their canons about practical matters? Are the councils infallible when anathematizing positions if the viewpoints they are anathematizing are caricatures? And what does it mean for a council to not merely be true, but “infallible”? Technically to be infallible would mean, not merely that the council did not error, but that it could not error. But it is not clear that the members of ecumenical councils believed this about themselves. For an Orthodox person to navigate these complex questions involves the confluence of many cognitive dynamics including epistemic virtue, community accountability, discussion, prayer, reason grounded inferences, historical study, etc. Yet ironically, these are the same dynamics the Orthodox will problematize as “subjective” when classical Protestants employ them in the interpretation of scripture. Yet the Orthodox must tackle interpretive questions about councils (questions every bit as difficult as scriptural exegesis) before statements about the “infallibility” of church tradition can even be meaningful, let alone achieve epistemic warrant. Or consider that Fr. Stephen De Young said that in the context of the 16th century, Sola Scriptura made total sense, although now that we have so much more historical information, his approach (the approach Fr. Stephen was arguing for in the discussion) is more reasonable. But doesn’t that line of reasoning make Fr. Stephen’s position vulnerable to endless revisability since future historical discoveries may undermine Orthodox historical claims? Who’s to say what will be more reasonable in a hundred years from now? This question is not purely hypothetical, given that most of the church fathers work has not yet been translated into English. There is perhaps an even deeper problem to the underlying model of the basic argument (and again, I am arguing that both gentlemen are presenting inverted versions of the same argument). I will be the first to defend the concept of hierarchy against modern egalitarianism. But in some contexts a hierarchical model breaks down. To ask which authority is “over” another (are church councils corrected by our interpretation of scripture or visa versa?) is already to have moved beyond the Patristic notion-evident as early as the Pauline corpus, I would argue-that the Holy Spirit working in scriptural interpretation corrects error in the church and the Holy Spirit working in the church corrects errors in biblical interpretation. Neither one is “over” the other in an exclusive sense because scripture and councils (and also, I would argue, additional authorities including the Holy Spirit working through reason and experience) create networks of accountability, and webs of multiple reciprocities. That isn’t as neat and tidy as we might like, and it doesn’t offer an epistemological silver bullet, yet sometimes the neat and tidy solutions risk becoming either too brittle, in which case they can backfire (as in Roman Catholicism) or they end up dying the death of a thousand qualifications because they don’t actually work in the real world. I would suggest that something like the latter is occurring here: these types of apologetics don’t actually work in the real world, and to compensate for that, so many accretions and qualifications have to be added that the arguments end up approaching, but never quite achieving, the explanatory power claimed for them. Let me demonstrate, although it seems I need to split this up into two sets of comments because of word length.

[@cronmaker2]

The PJ critique does not entail skepticism from which an infinite regress follows. It doesn't deny all humans use reason and must interpret and make choices. If a text's clarity lies along a spectrum (as Protestants acknowledge), and an authoritative interpreter/adjudicator can iteratively clarify the text's meaning as well as its own judgments, there's no need for a regress, a terminus can be reached. There is obviously a difference in the position of lawyers/judges with a supreme court vs without, or the position of someone reading say Joyce's Finnegan's Wake with Joyce sitting next to him offering clarifying feedback vs one reading FW isolated. In all cases one still reasons and interprets. To your other point, yes viewing one of the legs of Scripture, Tradition, Church (be it Rome or East) as superior rather than correlative and mutually reinforcing mischaracterizes things I think. Although one can still say Scripture is uniquely authoritative from inspiration or has priority (analogous to how the gospels have a primacy in liturgy over other Scripture, though obviously that doesn't diminish the non-gospels).

[@MajorMustang1117]

Ortlund is such a good man. I loved his videos in my search for answers. Very glad I was able to hear both sides from good men before I finally accepted Holy Orthodoxy.

[@JacquelineRPrice]

The conversation at the end could have been longer. I felt like they were just getting warmed up!

[@rebeccahuber8286]

thank you for this; exremely helpful and I plan to view it more than once. Respect to both theologians!

[@CosmicMystery7]

I've presented this argument before, but I believe it to be the death knell for the Protestant aniconist position: Even the mere existence of Jewish and Christian images in the early centuries confirms the Orthodox position. The outward manifestation of veneration (kissing, bowing, etc.) is nothing more than the expression of an inward disposition. This is akin to kissing your wife as a physical expression of your love for her. I would argue that the creation of an image that one feels honor, love, respect, etc. towards, is inherently venerative. When you combine that with the historical fact that Near Eastern, Middle Eastern, Mediterranean, and other cultures express this through kissing and bowing (especially true in the ancient world, as we see in the Scriptures themselves), it really deals a blow to the aniconist position. Fr. Stephen Freeman once said "if early Christianity developed in the modern American milieu we would shake hands with icons instead of kissing them." A funny comment, but it points to truth. Furthermore, another blow to the aniconist is the fact that every group that broke away from the Church early on before Nicaea II maintains the exact same tradition of icon veneration. My feeling is that Dr. Ortlund would think twice before stepping in an image of Christ. That, in and of itself, is veneration. When you combine this with a study of the theological ramifications (read St. Theodore the Studdite and St. John's treatises on icons) and the Scriptures themselves, the aniconist has no leg to stand on. I'd also argue that we have evidence for the veneration of saints and relics way before icons. That's really early in the historical record with Polycarp. This is inextricably bound up with the Orthodox notion of veneration. As I see it, the only two defensible positions are iconodulia and iconoclasm. And iconoclasm runs into some serious issues as well; so much so that the Amish are the only group that even attempts to carry it out practically.

[@mannss42884]

You did a better defense than Father. Ugh.

[@NavelOrangeGazer]

If you want some entertainment go Google calvinists reacting to the scene where the Japanese pagans make the Christians in the novel and movie Silence trample the images of Christ. There's a whole reddit thread where the calvinists grapple with whether they would trample the images of Christ.

[@beecee3161]

As an Orthodox I disagree. The mere existence of something at any point or time in the church doesn't prove its validity. On the other hand, the fact that there has seemingly always been disagreement about this topic, among others, shows there has been contention in the Church over truth from the get go.

[@christophergrant6989]

@CosmicMystery7 I believe there is a more fundamental issue for Protestants behind their objection to the veneration of icons. That is the veneration and intercession of saints. That is where the discussion should be focused.

[@TheMhouk2]

absolutely this.

[@CharlesCherryWatercolors]

Great discussion, as expected. Ortlund is arguing like a western scholar steeped in the Enlightenement tradition, using the first person singular a lot. DeYoung is arguing like an Eastern thinker, or trying to, given the platform. It's pretty amazing that they are both so charitable, which speaks volumes for both their characters and Christian lives. I'll definitely watch this again.

[@DD-bx8rb]

Both the Protestant sects and the Orthodox churches put their own rendering of Apostolic Tradition above the final authority of the Catholic Church. Just ask the 22 Eastern Catholic Churches that returned to the Rock of Peter after centuries of schizm.

[@TheClements-DL]

Now Dr. Ortlund has to make video discussing why - from the NT - the honor paid to the image cannot pass to the prototype and how that is theologically antithetical to Christian teaching. Because the issue is not whether it happened, but whether it could have happened given the theological understanding of the early Christian Church. This is pressed out in 1:35:21. If a Universalist can argue on the basis of history that the doctrine of the Trinity was not present in the historical documents prior to the advent of the later ecumenical councils (which obviously does not mean no one believed in the Trinity prior to this point) the evidence gets reduced to Scriptural, NT witness. To prove that the Orthodox position is untenable and is wrong to believe in and distorts the faith, Dr. Ortlund would need to prove that it is so from the NT. He may wish to say - I don’t have to do that, I just believe Christians don’t have to venerate icons. But why don’t they have to? It may be okay for individuals not to venerate icons if they so choose but they cannot be opposed to practice if the claim that the honor paid to the image passes to the prototype. To encourage people not to practice would be problematic if this statement is true in light of the parable of the sheep and the goats. The better question is, why would you not venerate icons?

[@machinotaur]

Ortlund acted as an accuser in this talk. Fr. Stephen was INCREDIBLY nice for not trying to hold him to the same standard on sola scriptura. Ortlund used the word "arbitrary" twice in this talk with seemingly no self-awareness; and I find the end bit about Eusebius was especially telling. A very useful talk.

[@aliyamathiesen7290]

So excited for this video!

[@sillysyriac8925]

Still surprised Ortlund hasn't considered a lesser known quote of Gregory of Nyssa on Icon and relic veneration from the 4th century. I suspect its because Gregory of Nyssa’s description of icon veneration was not among those published the usual Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers series but in "Patrologia Graeca" from Jacques-Paul Migne. "Should a person come to a place similar to our assembly today where the memory of the just and the rest of the saints is present, first consider this house’s great dignity to which souls are lead. God’s temple is brightly adorned with magnificence and is embellished with decorations, pictures of animals which masons have fashioned with delicate silver figures. It exhibits images of flowers made in the likeness of the martyr’s virtues, his struggles, sufferings, the various savage actions of tyrants, assaults, that fiery furnace, the athlete’s blessed consummation and the human form of Christ presiding over all these events. They are like a book skillfully interpreting by means of colors which express the martyr’s struggles and glorify the temple with resplendent beauty. The pictures located on the walls are eloquent by their silence and offer significant testimony; the pavement on which people tread is combined with small stones and is significant to mention in itself. These spectacles strike the senses and delight the eye by drawing us near to [the martyr’s tomb] which we believe to be both a sanctification and blessing. If anyone takes dust from the martyr’s resting place, it is a gift and a deserving treasure. Should a person have both the good fortune and permission to touch the relics, this experience is a highly valued prize and seems like a dream both to those who were cured and whose wish was fulfilled. The body appears as if it were alive and healthy: the eyes, mouth, ears, as well as the other senses are a cause for pouring out tears of reverence and emotion. In this way one implores the martyr who intercedes on our behalf and is an attendant of God for imparting those favors and blessings which people seek." (Sanidopoulos, text in English with emphasis added; cf. Pelikan p. 106; see also Migne’s Patrologia Graeca 46:737-740, text in Latin and Greek; and Cavarnos’ text in Greek). The dates for these massive accretions keep getting pushed further and further back, which makes me wonder when we begin to stray into areas of absurdity.

[@cronmaker2]

If I remember, when confronted with early relic veneration evidence, he then makes a distinction between images and relics, as if the principle underlying veneration of either isn't the same. It's a rather desperate evasion.

[@EricBryant]

Does 4th century prove that the Apostles engaged in this practice?

[@jonathanjacobson9725]

​​@@EricBryant Acts 5:14-16 and Acts 19:11-12 describe how God healed the sick by the shadow of St Peter (a kind of icon) and objects that touched St Paul (that is, relics). Therefore, icon and relic veneration is in the apostolic age, and the veneration of the Ark of the Covenant enforced by God (2 Samuel 6) is even more ancient.

[@EricBryant]

@@jonathanjacobson9725 Being healed by Peter's shadow has nothing to do with an icon. But how about let's deal with two plain text examples in Scripture of someone other than God being worshipped: An Angel : Rev 22:8-9 8 Now I, John, [c]saw and heard these things. And when I heard and saw, I fell down to worship before the feet of the angel who showed me these things. 9 Then he said to me, “See that you do not do that. [d]For I am your fellow servant, and of your brethren the prophets, and of those who keep the words of this book. Worship God.” St. Peter himself: Acts 10:24-26 Peter Meets Cornelius 24 And the following day they entered Caesarea. Now Cornelius was waiting for them, and had called together his relatives and close friends. 25 As Peter was coming in, Cornelius met him and fell down at his feet and worshiped him. 26 But Peter lifted him up, saying, “Stand up; I myself am also a man." Two clear places where veneration of a saint or angel was about to happen, but was commanded to stop. Of course you don't like Sola Scriptura because it prevents you from standing in the place of trying to have control over a fellow Christian. Or how about St. Paul in Colossians 2? So let no one judge you in food or in drink, or regarding a [j]festival or a new moon or sabbaths, 17 which are a shadow of things to come, but the [k]substance is of Christ. 18 Let no one cheat you of your reward, taking delight in false humility and worship of angels, intruding into those things which he has [l]not seen, vainly puffed up by his fleshly mind, 19 and not holding fast to the Head, from whom all the body, nourished and knit together by joints and ligaments, grows with the increase that is from God."

[@timluckritz810]

​@@EricBryantI say this in love Brother. You are confusing worship and veneration. Orthodoxy has a different understanding of what worship is than Protestantism is and that is the source of the confusion. We believe worship is sacrifice culminating in the Eucharist and Communion which is why it is central to our Liturgy. Reflecting back on my many years as a Protestant what was considered worship by Protestants we would call veneration. An example of this is found in music: We sing hymns that praise God and Saints and call it veneration. Protestants sing songs that praise God and call it worship. Secular artists sing songs talking about how great their girlfriend is. Is that worship or veneration? We would say he is venerating her because he shows his girlfriend honor, but he isn't worshipping her. I don't think the average protestant would say this is worship either. But I think it highlights that the issue is what we understand worship to be.

[@TheClements-DL]

I found Dr. Ortlund’s concern about “inconsistency,” 1:31:50 telling right before his own claim about inconsistency was redirected and applied to his own methodology for proving the Trinity. I think it demonstrates the blindness that many of us have when examining these issues. We all need to be careful when applying standards for disbelieving in claims different from our own. All too often we are quick to uncritically cast judgement on the systems we disbelieve in an attempt to refute someone else’s belief system and validate our own.

[@TheEasthasYeast]

At the 59:08 Gavin says the difference between the Council of Hieria and the Council of Nicea 2 is a lot of politics. This is incorrect. Council of Nicea 2 directly answers this question when it says of Hieria: “And how can a council be ‘great and ecumenical’ when it received neither recognition nor assent from the primates of the other churches, but they cosigned it to anathema? It did not enjoy the cooperation of the then Pope of Rome or his priests, neither by means of His representatives or an encyclical letter, as is the rule for councils; nor did it win the assent of the patriarchs of the east of Alexandria, Antioch, and the Holy City, or of their priests and bishops.” -Richard Price, 7th Ecumenical Council, 6th Session As it clearly says there, the difference between the two is not politics but rather patriarchal ratification. Gavin’s statement is only half true as there were politics at the time, but that is not what the christians back then thought was the difference. Gavin is just wrong on this point. I feel like I have noticed issues like this all too often when Gavin discusses history.

[@acekoala457]

Hieria also contradicts the 6th and 5th Ecumenical Councils that speak on what Icons were appropriate for Veneration. The Anathema against the Angus Dei, "Lamb of God", Icons was enumerated at the 6th Ecumenical Council.

[@DD-bx8rb]

@@acekoala457 The Church has the divine guarantee to teach Christ's truth concerning the Written and Oral Tradition, both of which come from the Church. "The church is the pillar and foundation of the truth" (1Tim 3;15) and not the private interetations of an individual/group. Both the Protestant sects and the Orthodox churches put their own rendering of Apostolic Tradition above the final authority of the Catholic Church.

[@bwgle]

Next discussion: what are biblical and theological building blocks for veneration, and are they equal in weight to those for Trinity? Also, is the lack of support for veneration between 1st-5th century equivalent to the lack of support for Trinitarianism? Would also like to hear Fr. Stephen discuss the incarnational foundations inherent in images of God. I understand Ortland opposes veneration more than images as such, but J.I. Packer is very influential in Baptist thought and it would be worth the discussion. Excellent talk. May we have more like this. Glory to God.

[@esoterico7750]

Check out seraphim Hamiltons video on veneration in the first centuries…. In the martyrdom of polycarp we see the cult of the martyrs in the first century

[@bwgle]

@@esoterico7750 thanks! This one? kzbin.info/www/bejne/rqCZXoh6oZytp5osi=ds4_bYqxokNndwUr

[@robertotapia8086]

@TheTransfiguredLife as a Catholic i appreciate you bringing these brothers together this was very edifying. Is it possible to do a 2nd part and add a top Catholic apologist let's say @Trent Horn .Please & Thank you your Catholic brother Robert from Puerto Rico 🇵🇷

[@jamesbarksdale978]

I'm a Protestant in a liturgical tradition, and have had a long-running interest in Orthodoxy. I appreciate Gavin and his thoughtful videos. I frequently don't agree with him, since he is a Baptist, but I rarely come away from one of his posts without being challenged to consider things more deeply. I feel the same about The Transfigured Life, and Fr De Young. Not being a fan of debates, I am finding this discussion encouraging. Thanks! Regarding Sola Scriptura, I've come to see it as a dead-end road. Ultimately, it boils down to the subjective interpretation of Scripture, the clearest evidence of which is the continuous fracturing of Protestant churches and denominations over biblical interpretation. Luther, himself, opened this Pandora's Box when he made himself the authoritative interpreter of Scripture over against the Catholic Church. Conversely, the Orthodox belief in Holy Tradition mitigates this tendency.

[@timluckritz810]

It sounds like you are on the right track Brother. Now what do we have to do to get you to go to a Divine Liturgy? 😉

[@mattklein3877]

Even if Gavin has an issue with icon veneration and it's supposed absence prior to 500 (btw read St. John Chrysostoms Cult of Saints), how does he handle relics? The practice of venerating relics is widely evident prior to 500. The theology behind relics is closely linked to icons. In other videos, Gavin claims he studied Augustine... did he not read confessions or city of god? In which Augustine points to miracles still occurring through the relics of saints? In confessions, Monica goes to the shrines of saints to pray for her son... is a shrine not for 'cultish' use? It's also ironic how he states the Orthodox are inconsistently applying qualifications while he is quite clearly doing that. And that's the big issue, there's this issue of what's your criteria? It's never defined beyond this murky understanding of Sola scriptura. Lastly, he keeps making this statement that 'all the early church' rejected icons but never gives an example other than tertullian or eusebius yet presses fr stephen for evidence. You can't make sweeping statements without examples and put the burden of proof on the contrary opinion. That's just poor argumentation

[@edalbanese6310]

You are wrong. You need to read more

[@mattklein3877]

@@edalbanese6310 I'm always open to suggestions

[@deadalivemaniac]

@@edalbanese6310literally one step above, “It’s an accretion,” as an argument.

[@paveli1181]

What is missing from icon veneration discussion is its function in understanding that Jesus came in the flesh. Criticism of that came from Platenist Greeks. And its not a coincidence that reformation was concurrent with Renaissance which is a rebirth of greek pagan thought.

[@Journey_of_Abundance]

The primary difference between these two positions is that Fr Stephen's position comes from a comprehensive examination of the historical record and epistimic consistency, whereas Gavin's position comes from cursory, revisionist understanding of history viewed through a modernist paradigm. The preponderance of evidence overwhelmingly supports the Orthodox position, but there are a lot of western people in the modern era who are unable and/or unwilling to question the foundational paradigm in which they were born into.

[@NickandBear]

Great comment

[@bwgle]

I don’t think that’s a fair comment considering Ortland’s education and academic work. I’m an OC, but I think Ortlund is honest, nuanced, and has good perspective even though I don’t agree with his conclusions.

[@Journey_of_Abundance]

@@bwgle Then why doesn't his own church look like anything like an early church?

[@bwgle]

@@Journey_of_Abundanceyou were not criticizing his church. You were criticizing he methods. I think his methods are respectable, but his conclusions are wrong.

[@bwgle]

@@Journey_of_Abundancenot saying his methods are perfect, but your comment is reductionist, inflammatory, unhelpful, and all-too-common for us Orthodox on youtube.

[@steadydividends571]

I do think Fr. Stephen’s point about Unitarians saying the same thing about Nicea I that Gavin is saying about Nicea II (I.e no historical proof it was apostolic doctrine) needs some attention. Fr. Stephen is right in saying you won’t find anything historical or from scripture saying the father and son are of the same essence (ousia) which is the beating heart of the debate with the Arians and subsequently the semi-arians. Using the same standard Gavin is using for Nicea II we would have the reject the doctrine that the father and son are of the same essence which would radically alter the person of Jesus Christ. We could then apply that standard (has to have pre nicene historical proof or spelled in scriptures) to any of the other Christological debates and would they not all fall apart? Two natures two wills etc?

[@TheClements-DL]

I found it fascinating how Gavin complained about “inconsistency,” about iconography and which was immediately thrown back at him at the end of applying his own approach to the issue.

[@MythwrightWorkshop]

​@@TheClements-DL that defensiveness is not unique to Gavin. It is called "having eyes and refusing to see". There was a certain biblical figure who's name escapes me, that pointed out we are all guilty of this when someone upends our apple-cart and we aren't ready for it.

[@knightrider585]

Two fantastic guests. Great format where people can discuss and get an understanding of each others thinking.

[@transfigured3673]

The "Transfigured" channel is watching "The Transfigured Life" channel and then "Transfigured" is mentioned by Fr. Stephen DeYoung. Mind Blown.

[@Chip-q7p]

I hope for an amazing debate! As someone struggling with this very issue this hopefully will be a blessing for many of us striving to seek the truth in all things 🙏❤️

[@ICXC_Humbly]

God BLESS you!! 🙏 PRAYING! If you don't mind me asking which "compartment" of Theology do you struggle with the most? I have resources! (I USED to be a new ager and then had an experience of God's Grace after hearing the gospel and followed Him. I was confused about ecclesiology for 4 years until God led me to His Holy Church!)

[@MastaC2803]

Dr. Ortlund stating we have to be careful with post apostolic writings because of a fallible transmission process is an interesting take. Wouldn’t that same concern have to apply to Scripture as it was copied and translated by the same fallible collective?? I am probably misunderstanding that point so somebody correct me if I’m wrong. Also, I love seeing protestants and orthodox discussing these things. Look forward to more like it.

[@tategarrett3042]

I'm so glad to see ongoing interaction on this subject - with two debates from James White (one done and another upcoming) plus this and other videos coming out, we have a wonderful abundance of thoughtful interaction with this issue. God bless us with clarity of thought and abundance of love for him and each other as we consider these issues!

[@gelmallakh]

Love the closing comment from Fr Stephen, love the richness and fullness of my Orthodox Church, may the Lord guide everyone who seeks truth

[@lalarsen11]

a dream debate or discussion from both sides of the aisle here. fantastic!

[@joshf7321]

This is gonna be good

[@mitchcapps6021]

Very much enjoyed the discussion.

[@TheTransfiguredLife]

Glory to God! ☦️

[@tupacamaruiv5804]

It’s great to see people with more knowledge about western Christianity learn about Orthodoxy. I pray all Christians come to the true church. ☦️

[@DD-bx8rb]

Both the Protestant sects and the Orthodox churches put their own rendering of Apostolic Tradition above the final authority of the Catholic Church.

[@EricBryant]

It would also be great if more Orthodox thought they could learn something from Western Christians. Oh that's right: we're not really Christians to you. I forgot.

[@DD-bx8rb]

@@EricBryant The many and various Orthodox churches do not compromise all of the east of the Church. There are 22 Catholic Churches in the East. The East is not synonymous with Orthodox churches.

[@kale6264]

Great discussion, love Gavin!

[@maximustheconfessor72]

I loved this conversation and format. As a an EO catechumen, I cannot figure out why Fr. Stephen didn't bring up interpretation of scripture by the Saints via theosis. Theosis is the foundation of Orthodox dogma and the only means by which the Church interprets scripture, yet it wasn't mentioned once.

[@nuzzi6620]

Perhaps it isn’t your job-especially as a mere catechumen-to “figure out” for yourself such things as “Orthodox dogma” and why a long-serving, seasoned and scholarly priest of the Church of Christ wouldn’t use said dogma in a high-level conversation with a convicted Protestant and academic pastor who does not accept Orthodox presuppositions and dogma in the first place?

[@conquisitorveritas]

@@nuzzi6620why so much acidity in your response. No need for it. Chill. It’s Great Lent.

[@mosescosme8629]

This is a brilliant format for a topic like this. Very glad to have watched this.

[@jdsmith2k7]

Oh snap! This is gonna be a good one!

[@redeemed354]

Maybe I missed it, but I felt like more emphasis should have been placed on "what is Normative Authority?".

[@brettk1517]

Lutheran here! Great conversation guys!

[@ArchangelIcon]

This was such an excellent discussion, with such generous-hearted people. Greatly edifying. Thank you.

[@Theoretically-ko6lr]

Orthodoxy is the one and true church. Glory to God ❤

[@welemmanuel]

Regarding the argument from the OT cases of going astray or the Pharisees, doesn't the Church after Christ would have a difference in normative authority? like, OT councils didn't have the promise to be guided by the Spirit as far as I know, so while any individual or collective can go astray, the Church as a whole can't. Guess that's where "invisible Church" alternative explanation is needed for a protestant. Also, did the apostles held anything like councils, Scripture (OT), what Jesus taught, etc. as infallible? in other words, was there any way for the apostles to know if the Spirit was guiding the Church? was there a need to? did that change after having a canon of Scripture? I wouldn't dare to answer definitively, but I can see how trying to "solve" one apparent problem could bring new problems by itself. Thanks for this discussion and hoping to hear your follow up analysis.

[@cronmaker2]

The NT church certainly has greater promises - perpetual and unconditional - and given the OT structure foreshadowed something greater, we wouldn't expect NT situation to be identical in quality (antitype is always greater than the type) as Gavin's objection supposes. OT had infallible mechanisms like the prophets but these were sporadic and temporary to point to Christ (so obviously when He came onto the scene the Pharisees and other existing authority structures would be supplanted), NT church situation is the mystical body of Christ with perpetual presence of the spirit. Further, in neither the OT or NT do we see it limiting divinely established authority by the authority of the individual or sanctioning sectarianism - there was still only one Israel.

[@helenkamenos8563]

The First Ecumenical Council of Jerusalem found in Acts 15: 23 "They wrote this letter by them: The apostles, the elders, and the brethren, To the brethren who are of the Gentiles in Antioch, Syria, and Cilicia: Greetings. 24 Since we have heard that some who went out from us have troubled you with words, unsettling your souls, [h]saying, “You must be circumcised and keep the law”-to whom we gave no such commandment- 25 it seemed good to us, being assembled with one accord, to send chosen men to you with our beloved Barnabas and Paul, 26 men who have risked their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. 27 We have therefore sent Judas and Silas, who will also report the same things by word of mouth. 28 For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things: 29 that you abstain from things offered to idols, from blood, from things strangled, and from sexual[j] immorality. If you keep yourselves from these, you will do well. Farewell."

[@Hreodrich]

The telephone game analogy has always bothered me. While I understand the point it seems to me that the assumed accumulation of errors is actually itself an artifact of effects of our technological paradigm. By that I mean the assumed inevitability of changes along transmission is only something one would assume under a technological paradigm because the presence of technology that is/was designed specifically to offload the burden that was until then placed on the faculty of memory is itself what is responsible for the degradation of the faculty of memory such that an inevitable loss of information is assumed to simply be the given. This hasn’t been the case until modernity. Just looking into the details of various cultures oral traditions ( ex Australian aboriginals and more recently Giadorno Bruno) shows us that the ability of a people to orally transmit data rigorously is a function of their prioritization of that endeavor. You need not have writing or a tape recorder to ensure the same message gets passed down word for word if that is itself deemed as necessary. Seem unlikely because it’s hard for our modern minds to imagine managing such a task? Well obviously it would be because we don’t actually exercise our faculty of memory nor do we regularly place such a priority on doing so. It’s also hard for us to imagine a human being running 155miles in a day because we outsource such a need to combustion engines to the point that very a few alive are capable but that is not ground to declare it impossible especially to declare that it has always been impossible in the way it is today. The telephone game is just not a sound assumption. It’s possibly true but not necessarily true.

[@chazcontramundum2224]

I think it was missed that Dr. Ortlund was talking about the bodily assumption of Mary as it is proposed by Rome, in which she DID NOT DIE, but rather was assumed directly to Heaven, like Enoch and Elijah. Fr. Stephen was talking about the assumption of her flesh AFTER her dormition (falling asleep/physical death).

[@lemon3897]

Rome also holds she died as theolegumenon

[@matthewgroh8797]

I don't think Dr. Ortlund accepts either understanding.

[@chazcontramundum2224]

@@lemon3897 That's right, but the proposition that she was assumed alive (like Enoch) is specifically Roman. It's not dogmatic, but to whatever extend it is believed, it is NOT Orthodox.

[@chazcontramundum2224]

@@matthewgroh8797 Right... but the issue is that he's confusing OUR theologoumenon (acceptable, but not dogmatic position) of the assumption of her body after death with Rome's theologoumenon of the assumption of her ALIVE, body and soul, like Enoch and Elijah.

[@HumanDignity10]

The Catholic Church does not take a dogmatic position on whether or not she experienced a bodily death but it is the common teaching in the ordinary Catholic Magisterium that Our Lady underwent bodily death.

[@parkermize]

I've been waiting for this.

[@Vinsanity997]

I’d like some clarification on the iconoclasm of Saint Epifanius

[@ApostolicStorm]

Saint Paul wrote: “Be ye followers of me, even as I also am of Christ. Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances, as I delivered them to you.” - 1 Corinthians 11:1-2 (KJV) Ordinances = Traditions

[@ihidaya888]

First time on the channel. Great discussion! Maybe be blessed!

[@TheTransfiguredLife]

Appreciate it! ☦️