What is the Church? - Why Apostolic Succession is Necessary

[@orthodox_soul]

When seeing the stark contrasts between Orthodoxy and Protestantism, what the viewer *must* understand--if they are a sincere, truth-seeking, Christ-loving person--is that these distinctions are not just a matter of *preference*, where we simply choose whichever course feels right to us personally. The status of one paradigm's legitimacy v.s. the other is not proven by just stringing together enough "evidence" for or against either system and then just deciding whether or not we're convinced (according to our own standard for whatever quality and amount of evidence is sufficient)--it's about analyzing the very *foundations* of two vastly different epistemologies, and identifying when a particular framework you've adopted is 1) subjective 2) arbitrary 3) internally inconsistent 4) logically incoherent 5) subject to change 6) ahistorical 7) unbiblical and 8) operates according to numerous double-standards that are *necessary* for the system to sustain itself. My contention is that Sola Scriptura is precisely this kind of foundation--it's a system built on sand. So, all other arguments are utterly moot--all disagreements over higher-order theology or anything else Orthodox-related that people struggle to understand or accept doesn't matter, because the alternative is already rendered untenable. There is no other recourse. To rectify this, one must be prepared to surrender their preconceived notions about the faith, and whatever doctrines they've wedded themselves to that are incompatible with the historic witness of the Church that *gave* you the Bible. Any other course of action is to doom oneself to be forever locked into a viscous stalemate of self-inflicted ignorance and/or delusion. But this is not what Christ wants for any of us! And, to ensure this would not be our fate, He made a Way. All we have to do is follow Him. Enjoin yourself to the Body of Christ, being mystically received into His one, true Church. Come to Holy Orthodoxy.

[@TheMorning_Son]

The body of christ is not the imperial Christian cult of emperors. You don't even keep thr same teachings because your church's Christology is an abomination

[@HusGoose]

@@orthodox_soul did you really just say basing faith and theological understanding on scripture alone is sinking sand?

[@acekoala457]

​@@HusGoose The issue is that Scripture itself runs contrary to this view, and the view of the Reformation, and places Authority in the Church, the Body of Christ, not in itself. Scripture has become like an Idol, something that exists in place of God. I came to Holy Orthodoxy from Protestantism, mostly low church evangelical traditions and at the end a begrudgingly Lutheran view. Eventually it tracked that no Protestant Church was even in continuity with itself, ever changing doctrines and ever separating sects. I was pushed over the edge that Evangelicalism is a offshoot of Lutheranism and shared in basically nothing with it's forebears when Scripture states that the Church is Unchanging as Christ is Unchanging. I couldn't in good conscience join myself to any Lutheran Denomination and ended up darkening the door of a Greek Orthodox Church at the end of the Coof and knew I was home.

[@HusGoose]

@@acekoala457 you are completely wrong. Only scripture is Theonupstos. The church is full of fallible men who have done fallible things throughout time. Churches are also capable of losing their lapstsnd if they lose the gospel. People in the EO would know this if they read the warnings in the text. But they don’t. They love taking the clergy’s word for what is worth believing in. If a church cannot honesty represent then clear text and it’s plain meaning, there is not an issue with the text… there is only an indictment on a church. Hence we come to EO and the itching ears therein.

[@HusGoose]

@@traviswilson36 yes that’s exactly what he said. EO reading comprehension on full display.

[@makingsmokesince76]

Almost two hours of not only thought provoking, but also high production value content?… Glory to God for all things! Thank you and may it be blessed.

[@mannss42884]

My thoughts exactly 🔥

[@TheChadmiral]

Hands down one of if not the easiest to understand and precise EO apologetic video essay I’ve seen. You did an excellent job laying out the material in a way that meets the average Protestant at their own educational level in terms of scriptural understanding and church history. I say this as someone who spent years wrestling with these questions myself before finally coming home. I’ll be referring people to this video as the opportunities present themselves, God bless ☦️.

[@orthodox_soul]

@@TheChadmiral thanks for the input brother. I just tried to break it down in a way that I would have wanted explained to me--and I have specific people in mind whose reasoning process I'm trying to appeal to, because I know how Protestants think. So I'm glad you feel moved to share it with others as well. May it be blessed!

[@HusGoose]

Great quality video but just the same old same from the EO… praying upon the historically ignorant to justify their errant theology and sotieriology.

[@orthodox_soul]

@@HusGoose starting a conversation by immediately presuming to know another's motives doesn't inspire much confidence as far as your own motives go. "I know for certain that this is disingenuous", said the disingenuous man. That's how that comes across. Because, historical ignorance is one thing we agree on, though you've clearly missed the entire point of the video in assuming your own modern position is the standard by which to evaluate all others. Most often, the objections I hear from Protestants are mere assertions that amount to little more than "nuh uh", without ever actually justifying their criticism with any explanation. Care to address the actual substance of any of the arguments?

[@HusGoose]

@@orthodox_soul no, reformed theology isn’t new or novel. If any EO knew church history they would know this. One of the reasons this video is a self-own. The reformation was about getting back to original intent. Asking grown up questions like: What did the writers of scriptures mean when they said what they said? How do we know what they meant? Well reading them in the context they established of course. Not reading contemporary beliefs or bizarre middle aged traditions into the text… that is called eisegesis. EO drifted from original intent over time and now resembles nothing anywhere close to what scripture intended, especially around salvation and sanctification. It’s why EO must suppress scripture, which is Theonupstos and elevate the ecclesia that is not. Just the opinions of a bunch of dudes with laughably low reading comprehension over time. Leading to contemporary EO with low reading comprehension but a love for tradition and great beards.

[@orthodox_soul]

@@HusGoose be honest, did you watch the video in its entirety? Because one of the central arguments I make is concerning the "original intent" of the Scriptures, and how we know what it was (and still is). Your comment gives the impression that you did *not* watch that far in, or else one would assume you would have responded to that specific point instead of making an identical argument that is already addressed in the video. Everything you've said thus far still adds up to nothing more than assertions. So, I'm now asking for the 2nd time: would you care to address any of the actual arguments that were made? Otherwise, this is just hot air and empty claims void of any merit that aren't worth time engaging with.

[@AlphaOmegaTruth7]

Keep making videos, I'm only 30 minutes in and I'm already thinking how this is one of the best Orthodox vids on utube I have watched in a while. All love and peace from God on High and God within, to you my Orthodox friend and brother.

[@UncensoredChristian]

I’m in the process of leaving Protestantism. The evidence for orthodoxy is overwhelming!

[@chrislucastheprotestantview]

How so? Better yet, can you give me the name of a real protestant church? I'd like to find one myself. I think the problem might be that people are so ignorant and dumb that they can't figure out that most of these churches calling themselves Protestant are not actually protestant. And I'm not saying you are ignorant I'm just saying when I've heard these statements from most people is that when I asked them what church is Protestant I would really love to go to it, they keep naming me churches that are not Protestant

[@orthodox_soul]

@@UncensoredChristian Amen brother! I pray that you continue to pursue the one true faith--the spiritual fruits only get more rewarding the deeper you go. ☦️

[@OrthobroAustin]

@@chrislucastheprotestantviewProtestant is a reasonable catch all for those who protest (the holy tradition and church) and do their own thing. Some say that the Lutherans and Presbyterians, etc, are the only ones that are truly “protestant” because of the history.

[@chrislucastheprotestantview]

@OrthobroAustin well, I consider Andreas Karlstadt and Polycarp as protestant, because they actually protested the Roman church breaking away from apostolic teachings. Polycarp and the quartodecimans rejected Roman bishop Anicetus claims that he had the apostolic authority to change Passover to Easter Sunday and Sabbath to the weekly Sunday the Roman Bishop claimed to have this Authority but he could never demonstrate it or prove it to polycarp and this Authority has never been proven. So actually the Roman Church and the Orthodox Church are actually the ones that are breaking away from the apostolic teachings we see in the Bible and they're doing their own thing and being Wicked

[@chrislucastheprotestantview]

@@OrthobroAustin by the way I think Martin Luther held back the Protestant Reformation due to his anti-semitism and he rejected going Sola scriptura because he hated the Jews so much he didn't want to adopt anything that looked remotely Jewish even though it was scriptural. That's why he's silenced Andreas karlstadt

[@MoniqueMathiesen]

This is the best orthodox video I’ve seen. Production is fantastic and the content even better 🙏🏻 Thank you for this!

[@JosiahM77]

Deeper rooted me in conversion. Yet not able to attend the Church, however confident I'm where God wants me to be at the moment. Thank you brother and may God bless continuously you, your family, and Parish!

[@rips1231]

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

[@alexlight4178]

My priest emailed this vid out to the parish today, so theres one Like for you

[@tabre_]

How will the Protestants ever recover from this? Another S-tier video ☦️☦️☦️ Glory to God!

[@pharobron]

You put in some crazy effort for this. Thank you for your time energy and effort. Also you're hilarious 😂

[@orthodox_soul]

@@pharobron I decided it was time to cut loose a little bit and reveal the silly person that I actually am behind all the serious apologetics 😅 glad you enjoyed it!

[@pharobron]

@@orthodox_soul nah that's what made this video so authentic (in addition to ALL the information to gave and how you put it together). You definitely got a sub out of me brother. Pray for me, I am a protestant in a biblical studies program that has now been drawn to Holy Orthodoxy. Not an easy transition especially culturally but by the Grace of God He will lead us to all Truth.

[@orthodox_soul]

@@pharobron glory to God! That's fantastic to hear my friend. It can definitely be an intense transition process. I covered my own journey pretty extensively in my testimony video, so I can relate to those sentiments whole heartedly. But I'll tell you, for every spiritual, emotional or even physical obstacle that the enemy tries to put in your path to distract or discourage you, you can always rest in the promise that "those who persevere to the end will be saved." God will make a way 🙏🏽☦️

[@Nameless-q6v]

Alright, I'll hear more. Lol

[@acekoala457]

​@@pharobron I met a guy who went through Theological Training at Multnomah College in Portland and they visited a bunch of places that were "Christian but outside the Protestant Paradigm" and he said they visited St. George's Antiochian Orthodox Church and half the guys in the Class after Graduation became Orthodox. Multnomah doesn't visit St. George's anymore.

[@Journey_of_Abundance]

Excellent video that God-willing reaches many! If I may, I would argue that from 1 and 2 Timothy, we can conclude that the ministerial authority was passed on to third and fourth generation Christians. Thus, the objection that apostolic succession ceased with 2nd generation Christians not only has no merit but is disproven by these verses which directly contradict it: "Do not be hasty in the laying on of hands, nor take part in the sins of others; keep yourself pure." (1 Timothy 5:22) Paul is instructing Timothy to be careful who he lays hands on. This presumes Timothy has the authority to pass on ministerial authority to 3rd generation Christians. "and what you have heard from me in the presence of many witnesses, entrust to faithful men, who will be able to teach others also." (2 Timothy 2:2) The Greek word "hikanoi" is translated here as "able," but a more precise definition is "qualified." This means that Paul says the mechanism he lays out to Timothy to pass on the faith WILL produce competent and qualified men to lead and teach.

[@orthodox_soul]

@@Journey_of_Abundance excellent points! Apart from just sheer ignorance of church history, there really is no denying it.

[@jasonfrodge8742]

Re: Correct. 2 Timothy 2:2 is 100% affirmation of Holy Tradition, which of course includes Apostolic Succession.

[@adonisjryoutubr5025]

Agreeing with all the comments here. Absolutely phenomenal work and content. This will be shared a great many times!!!

[@Based_Orthooo]

I have to say, I've learned alot from you brother. Glory to God! ☦️

[@_stars_at_nite_7184]

Definitely sharing! Great presentation and God bless. 🙏🏼

[@ljordan1714]

The most comprehensive video about EO. I salute you Sir. If I don’t meet you in this lifetime, then I will embrace you in the here after. God bless you, my brother in arms 🙏

[@StormoGFX]

CHRIST is King! ✝️☦️

[@Donnielucas77]

I am new to your channel and was baptized and Chrismated on Lazarus Saturday this year. I love this video. Thank you for the time and research. I know it's laborious. I was raised in a oneness Pentecostal church, I was 4th generation in that movement, and later went on to Trinitarian Pentecostalism. I still have friends and family that are oneness Pentecostal and particularly a lifelong friend who now pastors the church we grew up in. He is fairly knowledgeable, but contends that oneness folks, and "Jesus name baptism" has existed through various groups in the first few centuries particularly. I would love for you to tackle the topic of heresies in the first 3 centuries and how the church maintained continuity. Thanks again for your service. May God Grant You Many Years

[@orthodox_soul]

@@Donnielucas77 Glory to God! I'm glad you found your way to the true Church my brother. It's good to have your support. I do intend to address the subject of heresy in a general sense, somewhere down the road. I have it in the project queue 👍🏽

[@Donnielucas77]

@@orthodox_soul I will be following your channel! Looking forward to your videos. Thanks again.

[@VortexxFX]

I just watched this and your testimony video and both are very well written and produced. It’s nice to watch videos of such high quality. Keep up the good videos.

[@curiouse9252]

Thanks for this very well argued and detailed video.

[@orthodox_soul]

Glad you enjoyed it!

[@josephkusabs46]

This was really well presented - clear, coherent, compelling and creative. Thank you!

[@Marstang22]

Amazing work! Grateful for this and the immense amount of time this took to make. May it lead those searching to find.

[@thekinglink906]

Amazing work! This absolutely sums up everything I have gone through since my paradigm shift happened last year. Like a glass crash, or a lightbulb above the head. Once the shift happened, I could look at things through the historical lens you have laid out here. There may be many subjective "truths," but only one Objective truth. One that stands the test of time, and follows the traditions of the Apostles granted by Christ himself.

[@theancientwellyt]

Thank you so much for this! While some of it was admittedly "above my pay grade" its still accessible enough that I appreciate the logical consistency of the Orthodox Church all the more!

[@david_n_nettey]

This was very well produced and articulated! Keep up the good work and God bless!

[@avriel6903]

I have never seen you before! I am now commenting because I can already tell this is good and want to boost the algorithm. I realized it had to be necessary due to the weight that Ireneus puts on it in Against Heresies Book 3, along with the skeleton laid forth by Saint Ignatius. However, I feel people do not emphasize this topic enough! So, godspeed, soldier! The Lord is with thee!

[@orthodox_soul]

@@avriel6903 I appreciate your support! 😁 And amen!

[@keiganthetennessean1796]

Brother this video is awesome. I was finally able to finish it due to my hectic schedule. May God bless you, your family and parish. ☦ ☦ ☦

[@zzzaaayyynnn]

Speaking as an Orthodox Christian, this is an excellent explanation...and well-made video!

[@startoonXVII]

Wonderful Video! ☦️❤️ My whole family (parents and so on) are all Protestant, but the ironic thing is they are all different types. No one can agree fully with one another. I hope that someday that they will see the problem with that and the many other problems their separate denominations have, and come to the Holy Orthodox Church and all her glory!

[@kidusadugna653]

Why are your videos not getting more views? This video should have gone viral!!

[@BrettSayles]

Epic. Don't stop brother.

[@yecksd]

wonderful video, as i said previously. have you considered turning these longer videos into smaller "mini-episodes"? id like to share some of this, but i doubt my family would be able to watch it all

[@orthodox_soul]

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

[@i_assume]

Glory to God, i was making car example for a few years to show unity in multiplicity and the distinction between universals and particulars

[@anucasimeria7998]

Thank you for your work. God bless you and may our Lord Jesus Christ open their eyes and heart to see the truth!!! Lord have mercy on us all🙏🙏🙏

[@orthodox_soul]

Amen! I hope many Orthodox choose to share this with their Protestant friends and family.

[@IAMRYGAR]

Brother Macarius! Such a great video! Thanks for being you and breaking this stuff down into a video that I could feel comfortable sharing with someone without thinking “hmmmm this video explains a lot but not in a way that is understandable fully to who I’m sending it to” Love ! Great work ! 💜☦️💜

[@dinochicken1178]

This video is great, the editing is amazing. Documentary quality ☦️

[@joachimjustinmorgan4851]

Wow, excellent video. Good work man

[@AlphaOmegaTruth7]

Eastern Orthodoxy is the True Authentic Original Apostolic Church!!!

[@claesvanoldenphatt9972]

I undertake enacting the ideal notion of driving my platonically-ideal car which exists forever in potentiality. By it I potentially go to ideal places via perfectly straight lines of traverse. On the perfect iteration of Sunday my platonic ideal of a car takes me to an invisible, always potential church where the platonic angels sing.

[@orthodox_soul]

@@claesvanoldenphatt9972 bro, this is metaphysically hilarious 😂

[@chrislucastheprotestantview]

I love your point around the 37:00 to 38:00 mark, 100% proves the church of Rome and the so called "orthodox " church is wrong. We can see polycarp and the quartodecimans rejecting the Roman Bishops claim of apostolic Authority when the Roman Bishop is trying to promote changing Passover to Easter Sunday and Sabbath to the weekly sunday. And we can see in Scripture that Paul is observing Passover and Sabbath but we do not see him observing Easter Sunday or Sunday which just goes to show you that the Orthodox and Church of Rome are just claiming Apostolic Authority and they don't really have it. Because like you said, they are not holding on to the Traditions that we clearly see Paul and John and others doing

[@orthodox_soul]

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

[@chrislucastheprotestantview]

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

[@chrislucastheprotestantview]

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

[@chrislucastheprotestantview]

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

[@orthodox_soul]

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

[@3within1]

Very well done! Thank you for all the effort and glory be to God☦️

[@demystif-AI]

Good work brother views are increasing people want information on the history of the church there is a real yearning for truth

[@crispyjitsu]

Edits Go crazy. Good video. Glory to God.! ☦️

[@stallelio376]

What is the name of the track that is played during the “authority in scripture” part? The choir is really beautiful and id love to listen to it

[@stallelio376]

@@traviswilson36 ? Is that an insult pointed towards me or…?? 😂

[@NavelOrangeGazer]

It's interesting to note that at the time of the reformation it was popular amongst reformers to deny the authenticity of St. Ignatius of Antioch's Epistles so the denial of the episcopate is based on this ignorance. So it is the anti episcopal protestant who follows the traditions of ignorant men, ironically enough.

[@josiahkeen]

You should study the history of the manuscripts. There were spurious manuscripts in the recension that the Western church had - it wasn't until the late 1800s that discoveries that further discoveries gave Western theologians confidence to study the letters.

[@NavelOrangeGazer]

@@josiahkeen we know now so anyone following men from the 1500s divorced from the Church is just being obstinate in their own pride.

[@Orcneas23]

Ironically, it was largely Protestant scholarship that vindicated the Epistles of St. Ignatius as authentic. The spurious ones were never part of the Eastern tradition.

[@and1lnull]

We are so back

[@xnihilo64]

Dang, this is good! Gonna watch, re-watch again! suuuubed!

[@David-kz2im]

Perfect video! God bless you for your efforts.

[@dezdaking]

Excellent, high quality, informative video brother! Would love to have a video on the cannon! God bless you and your family 🙏🏿☦

[@bonniegadsden9097]

Excellent presentation. Thank you. Well done!

[@orthodoxyissigma1734]

Keep up the great work

[@abigailwillis1656]

Hello, Protestant inquirer of 2 years here. I appreciate your high-quality edits and arguments for Eastern Orthodoxy. I would like to bring up my concern about Orthodoxy and its ecclesiology. Would very much appreciate a response, as this is genuine concern I have as a fellow lover of the Triune God and truth seeker. My intuition is that fewer and fewer people baptized into the Orthodox Church are actually maintaining the church phronema (a debatable topic of what this is), especially with the wave of converts and inquirers we see in America (myself included). So, there is a movement to preserve this phronema, but I'm not optimistic about the success of that over time... in any case, just the fact that the struggle is happening is enough to tell me that many Orthodox acknowledge that what unites them is something altogether immaterial. Everyone knows what the "Orthodox Church" is, but no one can define it in its fullness without appealing to something "abstract" or unquantifiable, like the fact that it's Christ's body or the fact that they seek to walk in the ways of the apostles and maintain the faith they were delivered or it encompasses the life of the Holy Spirit. Once you bring in anything more concrete than that (like who's in communion with each other or who listens to what bishop, teachings by specific church fathers, etc.), you run into exceptions to the rule, contradictions, politics, and divisions. So, I am questioning what all this means... my Protestant view of the church has always been that it is "invisible" in the sense that no one can pick a concrete quantifier and neatly identify all who are a part of Christ's body. The Holy Spirit is the invisible binder, which we can identify in faith but not by any other physical means (think about like 1 Corinthians 12:3, 1 John chapters 3-5, Galations 5:22-24, etc.). I do see the Church as synonymous with "those people who are saved/experiencing salvation through theosis", because we can't be saved apart from being united with Christ. I think this is how many Protestants see the church, consciously or unconsciously (BTW, Protestantism is NOT a church. The word protestant is commonly used to refer to any professing Christian who isn't an ecclesial "exclusivist" ("No salvation outside of the RC/EO/Oriental/True Orthodox/LDS, etc. Church"). In that sense, a Protestant does not necessarily accept all the Solas or teachings of Luther, Zwingli, Calvin, etc. Nor are they necessarily historically illiterate.) And many Orthodox too, acknowledge that we don't know how individuals will be judged by God, in the ultimate sense. And yet, they can look at Protestants collectively and say they are not in the ark of salvation?? No... it just doesn't make sense to me. I'm rambling, but I hope you can understand at least some of what I'm trying to say. My goal in life is to love and serve the Lord and love and serve my neighbor all the days of my life. Soooooo many people know and love the Lord (enough to die for him!) "apart from the Church". If the fullness of the Orthodox Church is not necessary for this goal, why should I treat it like it is??? This is a sincere question, which I do not mean to ask with disrespect or malice. God bless you. 🙏

[@joachimjustinmorgan4851]

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

[@abigailwillis1656]

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

[@neyneynanamo2071]

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

[@abigailwillis1656]

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

[@neyneynanamo2071]

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

[@emmanueloganla5953]

Masterful!

[@JesusChristGnosis]

Excellent video dude!

[@hippios]

Excellent work! ☦

[@jonathanisaacteel2976]

Excellent presentation

[@dirtpoorrobins]

52:00 I call this error people make, “releasing a bull in your own china shop”

[@nicksor2543]

Such high producthion value great content god bless i hope thee is more to come

[@oakandiron_]

Super-Luther-Man… got me😆 On serious note though, great video! Glory to God for all things!!

[@AmericanwrCymraeg]

​@@traviswilson36Says the guy obsessively trolling a KZbin channel. :-)

[@AmericanwrCymraeg]

@@traviswilson36 If you ever find Christ, you're going to feel really silly looking back on these comments.

[@LOGICLOGOS]

Excellent video Sir well done 🫡

[@anthonyburrell5761]

This was a fantastic video. Probabiy the best EO apologetic I've seen. I do disagree, however. There are a few issues i would like to address. 1) You cite the paradigm shift required to move from a subjective, individual lens of truth to trusting the church. The EO version of the church. But near the conclusion of your video, you say that the reformesrs were right to reject the papacy. The papacy also boasts of apastolic succession. Orientsl orthodox also boasts apostolic succession. Anglecans can boast apostolic succession technically, Mormons can boast of an apostolic office. If the principle is "trust the church" lens, then on what grounds are you confident that your sacraments are valid? And you are trusting the correct church? How do you avoid using a subjective personal lens when trying to differentiate between churches? If you can, as an EO beleiver, apply critical evaluation to other churches that claim apostolic succession, then why would the EO church be excempt? Unless you simply presuppose EO is true, you trust it based on your evaluation of some set of evidence through some sort of lens and conclude it is more likely true than your other options. It would seem more consistent then, for a seeker of truth to use this same standard as a means to critique the EO claims. Or even the claims of apostolic succession and its entailments. In other words, you can't get to EO over the other churches based on "trust the church"? That paradigm has to be discarded. IMO. 2) I know one can not do a comprehensive analysis of ecclesial history in a 2 hour video, so there is tons of ground not covered. However, I feel that many of your claims are unsupported. The evidence must actually be examined and addressed because "trusting the church" isn't a principle that will give you any confidence when comparing churches. 3) You offer a challenge to explain away the current EO view of ignatius' Ecclesial framework. I'll offer a theory that i think better fits the evidence, and in doing so I will get to Ignatius. The priority of the church is to proclaim the necessary truth of Christ and bare witness to Him. Essential to this is getting who Christ is and how His followers should live correct. The apostles were granted authority to rightly comprehend and teach Jesus' doctrine. This authority was evidenced by signs and wonders. The apostles taught by both oral and written means. It is the teaching of the Chriat through the Apostles that must be preserved. Subsequent officers of the church were judged based on whether or not they adhered to the Apostles' teachings. It was the teaching OF THE APOSTLES that authority over the potential leaders(Gal 1:8) This could be written or oral. If a later person (after the death of the apostles) CLAIMS an apostolic teaching that flatly contradicts something the apostles wrote, we KNOW they are a false teacher. This fits the precedent of Christ Himself in relying on the WRITTEN WORD to correct those who claim a succession of authority. Neither Polycarp nor Clement nor the NT mention a 3 fold office. Thia is unique to Clement in that era. As the church was growing and spreading, a framework of a bishop hierarchy developed as a means of organization. This framework was not commanded nor condemned by apostolic teaching. It was simply a practical measure to ensure unity of core principles. So it was not a necessary option nor a condemned option....but a permisable option. Further, in Ignatius exhortation to submit to the bishop, he is writing letters with the intent that they be read among people that were 90% illiterate and did not likely even have access to most apostolic writings. Ignatiuss was writing during a time before we had a record of disagreeing bishops. It was as if he could not even imagine that bishops would disagree about things (what would parishioners do who heard Ignatius letter...but also heard disagreement in bishops BEFORE church councils were called?) But we know that by LATER eras bishops WERE disagreeimg. So, in an era where the direct Apostolic testimony is inaccessible to 90% of Christendom....what is the most likely way that a parishioners would have of knowing what Christ taught? His best bet was to listen to the guy, who knew the guy who knew the guy. At this early stage, Christianity was simplified, and there was less chance for corruption and accretion to build. The bishops were in harmony in terms of a simplified faith (we know this from Irenaeus and Tertulian) No where in Ignatius' letters does he say that he expects this system to be universally and eternal binding on the church at all times. That's a later anachronism. So ignatius was not corrupting or misunderstanding the Apostles. He was exhorting appropriate direction to fit the circumstances of the time. Later writers wishing to establish a particular interpretation as "orthodox" take this princple and assume it applies to all sorts of disagreements that were not discussed during the time of Ignatius ( the fact.that later bishops would disagree about things is evidence supporting either faulty transmission of some "truths" or at the least develop and disagreement of understanding.) Likewise....when we read Ireneaus or Tertulian, we see a simpler version of the faith. It is this simple version of the faith that is appealed to when speaking of church unilty and tracing traditions back to the apostles. These passages are in context to Gnostic critics of the church. The traditional churches founded by the apostles were ALWAYS in unity against the GNOSTICS. That does not entail they were in unity concerning wvery issue that would ever possibly come up. More likley, most of the later issues weren't points of teaching at all In later centuries new teachings or understandings would emerge....and thinkimg that these new teachings or disagreements HAD to be settled one way or the other the later guys on both sides of the issue would claim tradition has ALWAYS been on THEIR side. And then they vote to decide who's "right" and try to cite Irenaeus, Tertulian, Clement, Polycarp and Ignatius ( who claimed a simpler more basic unity) and try to assume the issues they are discussing should be 1:58:53 settled in the same way the issues in earlier centuries, with different evidence available, concerning far less clear and importan issues. In effect, i think examining history as opposed to "trusting the church" is a better framework for determining what is true. That evidence points to fallible institutions Evidence shows us that apostolic transmission isn't infallible Unlike in Ignatius' ers (when the apostolic writings werent available, you probably couldnt read anyways, and younwwre maybe just 2 generatuons from the apostles) your best chance at knowing what the Apostles taught is to read what they wrote or approved of. 4) How donwe know what those writings are? The same way we know Jesus rose feom the dead. Examine the evidence. If you want an infallible foundation, an ecclesial "normative authority" won't help you. It just changes where your subjectivity enters. How do we find Truth? I would argue the same principle applies today that applied at all times in History OT 2nd temple period. Apostolic age 2nd-4th centuries Etc. Fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge Follow the Evidence. John 10:38. Have a sincere heart.

[@orthodox_soul]

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

[@anthonyburrell5761]

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

[@orthodox_soul]

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

[@orthodox_soul]

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

[@orthodox_soul]

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

[@armbarfan]

How can I find a valid orthodox church in my area. I looked in Google maps and am thoroughly confused? Thanks if you reply.

[@orthodox_soul]

What region of the world are you in?

[@dynamic9016]

Interesting, but I'm Roman Catholic..I took me 28 years to see such..I've listened to Orthodox thinkers and apologist like David Bradshaw, Jay Dyer etc n thanks for such..

[@orthodox_soul]

@@dynamic9016 I appreciate the feedback, and I'm glad you could still appreciate the material and have been open to learning from Orthodox, despite being Catholic. I hope your studies continue to help you grow in your faith. 🙏🏽

[@Orthoindian]

This is good. I'm gald you clarified that the sarcasm is for the likes of James White and Ortland C.

[@orthodox_soul]

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

[@LadderOfDescent]

Good stuff. How long have you been orthodox?

[@josiahkeen]

Is it canonical to have multiple bishops under different patriarchs expressing apostolic authority in the same city?

[@orthodox_soul]

@@josiahkeen I suppose it depends on the circumstance/context you mean? There can be scenarios where one bishop is over-reaching into the canonical jurisdiction of another bishop, or tries to unilaterally exercise authority in some universal capacity, which is inappropriate and unorthodox. But here in America, the situation is rather unique, because there can be multiple jurisdictions present in a single city--so, for there to be multiple bishops representing different autocephalous churches is to be expected.

[@josiahkeen]

In your first paragraph are you referring to the EP's actions in Ukraine and his claim to have authority over the barbarian lands (including America)? In your second paragraph, concerning America, there are some Orthodox who say while the situation in understandable given recent history is nevertheless uncanonical. How serious do you see these issues relative to the Orthodox claims of ecclesiology?

[@orthodox_soul]

@@josiahkeen that would be one example, yea. Whichever end of the spectrum is in question--whether it's Ecumenism blurring the lines of canonical boundaries or hyper legalism going the route of schism--canonical irregularities can certainly manifest in a handful of ways. These matters are to be taken serious in the sense that the threat of schism caused by such canonical disputes typically scandalize the faithful and are detrimental to everyone if it happens. But I don't take it serious in the sense that Orthodox claims of ecclesiology are affected by these issues in general. The fact that certain irregularities or the occasional infighting happens has nothing to do with whether or not Orthodox ecclesiology itself is true *in principle*. All it really demonstrates is that we're sinners. No surprise there.

[@josiahkeen]

@@orthodox_soul Thank you for your response and your willingness to admit that Orthodox are not fulfilling in practice what they teach in principle. The events of recent years surrounding the EP and MP, vaccine debates, reception of converts etc have only increased the gulf between what the Orthodox canons lay out on how the heirs of the apostles are to govern and how the bishops are actually governing. I'd love to see more honest admission and exploration of this by Orthodox apologists as it will only be a matter of time before converts/inquirers will discover these issues. So far Fr. Josiah is where I see the most engagement with this topic and it isn't on his top 10 of issues he posts about.

[@acekoala457]

​@@josiahkeen Historically the Canon of 1 Bishop per city has been circumvented by putting Bishop over individual burghs in Larger Cities, which could be done in America but there is much pride in being the "Metropolitan of New York". 90% of Orthodox will say that it is a problem but offer no solution. Only 2 Jurisdictions have made moves to get away from NY, but not other Multi-Episcopal Cities, the OCA moved it's Metropolitan See to DC, which makes sense, and Antioch is going to make her first Cathedral, St. Nicholas in Brooklyn, into a Auxiliary See and move the Metropolitan See to Pennsylvania. No insofar as the Sacraments, this situation doesn't effect them until a Council calls it to issue, which the Bishops absolutely should.

[@deuslaudetur2451]

I feel like Protestants don’t reject the councils, but merely replace them with textual critics

[@orthodox_soul]

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

[@KnoxEmDown]

Your thumbnail is pretty good, though I think you could afford to make the protestant gaggle bigger, along with the title text. It can be hard to read thumbnails on smaller devices, so it's good to maximize text size.

[@orthodox_soul]

@@KnoxEmDown I actually had an inner debate over that exact issue as I toyed around with the graphic and tried a few different sizing options. I'll bare that in mind in the future, thanks for the input 🙏🏽

[@KnoxEmDown]

@@orthodox_soul Any time hoss, you hooked me in the first 5 seconds of your video with the slick meme. I recommend using the new multiple thumbnail testing option if it's available to you.

[@mathiasha208]

Greets from vienna

[@orthodox_soul]

@@mathiasha208 yooo was geht mein bruder!?

[@mathiasha208]

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

[@ninjason57]

How was the man who cast out demons, separate from the disciples Jesus sent, able to be successful outside apostolic succession? If Jesus started the process of apostolic succession then that man was outside that system.

[@orthodox_soul]

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

[@josiahkeen]

Do Orthodox have a term for those people who are baptized into the Orthodox Church and visibly attending and participating in its worship but who are "stiff-necked" with "hearts and ears uncircumcised" (Acts 7:51)? Perhaps Orthodox don't conceive of such people existing?

[@orthodox_soul]

Oh yes, of course we do. There is just as much the concept in Orthodoxy of "those who are Christian in name only" as there is anywhere else. I've encountered plenty of individuals like that myself since I converted. After all, if we didn't conceive of anyone that way, then it'd seem we wouldn't be able to have any concept of people being heretics, since--historically speaking--that is the category of "believer" that you're describing as being stiff necked and hard-hearted. It's a problem of the will. The sacraments are vitally important, but not to the exclusion of having humility and actual repentance; otherwise, the externals are basically moot.

[@josiahkeen]

@@orthodox_soul Thank you for the response. The way I understand the Reformed teaching on visible vs invisible is precisely this distinction. Reformed Protestants do believe there is a visible church with teaching, discipline, ordinances, and government but that many who are members of this visible church may be only externally attending are not truly united to Christ. You cited the WCF which along with the Belgic Confession do state that there are qualities that distinguish a true and false visible church. I recognize that not every Protestant has this teaching and that perhaps the "invisible church" idea has led some not to consider whether there is a visible church at all.

[@acekoala457]

"It is good that they are here"

[@anthonyburrell5761]

I have made a more general critique of your video in another comment. Here, I would like to focus on the logical syllogism that you present around the 36:00-minute mark of the video. It seems that you made an equivocation error between points 3 and 4. Which of course will impact point 5. The error is in that you assume that the office and function of the apostles that were appointed by Christ is identical in function to the subsequent office, which those apostles would appoint later. We can be confident that the subsequent office does not carry the same functions as the previous office for several reasons. The office and ministry of apostle was appointed to specified group to whom Jesus the Messiah would personally reveal Himself to and choose. Matt 10 gives some signs that the Apostles would do, such as heal sick, raise the dead, drive out demons Acts 1 These Apostles are told they will be especially instructed and empowered by the Holy Spirit and to Wait in Jerusalem for the baptism of the Holy Spirit. Before this special empowerment, a replacement for Judas is picked. Criteria of the replacement - to take over the "Apostolic ministry" that Judas had forsaken. the candidate had to have been present for the whole of Jesus; ministry through the resurrection and ascension. They were then chosen by prayer and casting of lots. John 14 Jesus tells them he will empower them by the Holy Spirit to recall His Doctrine. "The Holy Spirit will teach YOU all things and remind YOU of everything I said TO YOU." Jesus spoke with them over 40 days after the resurrection teaching about the kingdom of God. Acts 1/ Luke 24. (Jesus would commission others, like James and Paul, but these were accompanied by face to face appearances with the Lord. The specific role of the Ministry of the Apostles ended when the lives of the Apostles ended. No replacement for James was sought, and no apostolic witness is ever mentioned of the extension of this office to those not Face to Face acquainted with our Lord. Rev 21, the names of the apostles are on the foundation of the walls. Arguing that the subsequent office of Elder/overseer carries the same function of the previous office of "Ministry of the Apostles" would be like arguing that the "Ministry of the Apostles" must carry the same function as the office and function of "Messiah".....you may as well argue for "messianic succession" What Paul commissioned Timothy and Titus to do was to appoint ELDERS. These Elders are to teach the things the Apostles taught them. However, no promise of divine assistance is given in recalling doctrine or persevation from error. Warnings are particularly fiven that some would fail and to act cautiously, specifically because this process going forward WOULD BE FALLIBLE. Just read the criteria list from Acts 1 vs. the qualifications in 1st Tim 2 and Titus 1. The office of elder is not ontologically identical to office Jesus called the Apostles to. In fact, they are drastically different. They have a different title. They have different criteria They have different promises They have different functions. IT seems that your paradigm is incorrect from top to bottom. Yes, the Father appoints the Son, but that doesn't entail identical authority and function. The Son appointed Apostles, but they don't come identical authority and function. The Apostles appointed Elders, but they don't come with identical authority and function. And yes, future elders were to appoint future elders. There is some overlap from the previous office to the subsequent office. But that in no way even begins to make the case that these future elders should be treated like the Apostles that Jesus picked for a particular ministry. As to using Ignatius as your primary post apostolic witness. More problems arise. In Ignatius's letters, He equates the Bishops with Christ. Do you think this means Ignatius thinks that bishops are infallible, or does he think Christ is fallible? Or do you think he is speaking in a non literal fashion. Elsewhere in his letters, He also speaks of having no greater authority himself than the people he is writing to. So Ignatius will require some non literal interpretation or lead to some very strange theology . If we look to Clement, we see that he refers to a succession of Elders and not a succession Apsotles. The Apsotles gave direction for future elders to appoint future elders. It is a different office. If we read Polycarp, he like Clement makes a clear distinction between his fellow presbytery and the Apostles. And like Ignatius, he holds the audience to whom he writes as more learned than he. The Apostolic writings make clear and obvious distinction between the Apostles appointed IN PERSON by Jesus Himself and the subsequent Elders that those Apostles would appoint. Our earliest post apostolic witnesses in Clement and Polycarp continue this clear distinction. Your one witness,Ignatius, MUST be taken figuratively, or else you end up with either a fallible Jesus or individual infallible bishops (who later happen to disagree with one another). So your syllogism only proves that Elders are to appoint Elders. An additional point. There is nothing in your syllogism (or scripture) that precludes elders from being appointed by other means. In other words, this DOES NOT rule out Elders being legitimately appointed by non Elders. I know you essentially claimed your syllogism is irrefutable. And if all you mean to establish is that Elders are to continue appointing elders... then you may be correct. But if you are trying to establish anything close to the EO view of ecclesiology, you have a LONG way to go.

[@orthodox_soul]

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

[@stevecochran9078]

The absence of authority creates chaos and confusion.

[@HusGoose]

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

[@WPAOrthodox]

☦️☦️☦️

[@GreasedDolphin]

Fun fact acts 13:2 the ministering to the lord is actually liturgy in Greek “ Λειτουργούντων” δὲ αὐτῶν τῷ Κυρίῳ …

[@orthodox_soul]

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

[@AlphaOmegaTruth7]

Orthodox Church ❤

[@mythologicalmyth]

I’m EO looking for understanding people to rebutt the saints’ opinion of St Peter. Tired of him being denigrated the way Prots denigrate the Holy Virgin. John VI, Patriarch of Constantinople (715) The Pope of Rome, the head of the Christian priesthood, whom in Peter, the Lord commanded to confirm his brethren. (John VI, Epist. ad Constantin. Pap. ad. Combefis, Auctuar. Bibl. P.P. Graec.tom. ii. p. 211, seq.) St. Nicephorus, Patriarch of Constantinople (758-828) Without whom (the Romans presiding in the seventh Council) a doctrine brought forward in the Church could not, even though confirmed by canonical decrees and by ecclesiastical usuage, ever obtain full approval or currency. For it is they (the Popes of Rome) who have had assigned to them the rule in sacred things, and who have received into their hands the dignity of headship among the Apostles. (Nicephorus, Niceph. Cpl. pro. s. imag. c 25 [Mai N. Bibl. pp. ii. 30]). John VI, Patriarch of Constantinople (715) The Pope of Rome, the head of the Christian priesthood, whom in Peter, the Lord commanded to confirm his brethren. (John VI, Epist. ad Constantin. Pap. ad. Combefis, Auctuar. Bibl. P.P. Graec.tom. ii. p. 211, seq.) St. Nicephorus, Patriarch of Constantinople (758-828) Without whom (the Romans presiding in the seventh Council) a doctrine brought forward in the Church could not, even though confirmed by canonical decrees and by ecclesiastical usuage, ever obtain full approval or currency. For it is they (the Popes of Rome) who have had assigned to them the rule in sacred things, and who have received into their hands the dignity of headship among the Apostles. (Nicephorus, Niceph. Cpl. pro. s. imag. c 25 [Mai N. Bibl. pp. ii. 30]).

[@mythologicalmyth]

St. Optatus of Milevis (360-80): “And though this has been thus written, nevertheless, for the sake of unity, blessed Peter (for whom it would have been enough if after his denial he had obtained pardon only) both deserved to be placed over all the Apostles, and alone received the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven, which he was to communicate to the rest” Will you [the Donatists] be able to prove that the Chair of Peter is a lie--and the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven, which were granted him by Christ, with which we are in communion?” (Book 7.3 from Against Parmenian). St. Optatus of Milevis (360-80): “And though this has been thus written, nevertheless, for the sake of unity, blessed Peter (for whom it would have been enough if after his denial he had obtained pardon only) both deserved to be placed over all the Apostles, and alone received the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven, which he was to communicate to the rest” Will you [the Donatists] be able to prove that the Chair of Peter is a lie--and the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven, which were granted him by Christ, with which we are in communion?” (Book 7.3 from Against Parmenian). And he said to him: I will give to you the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven (Matthew 16: 18-19); so to speak he [Peter] alone receives the powers of binding and loosing. And since that one man [Peter] must have spoken for everyone, and since here he must have received [the keys] as the bearing person of unity itself; therefore one [receives] for everyone, because unity is in everyone [of the apostles] (Alcuin of York, Commentary on the Gospel of John, Patrologia Latina 100: 0983A). And though this has been thus written, nevertheless, for the sake of unity, blessed Peter (for whom it would have been enough if after his denial he had obtained pardon only) both deserved to be placed over all the Apostles, and alone received the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven, which he was to communicate to the rest (Saint Optatus of Milevis, Book 7.3 from Against Parmenian). And yet, out of the whole world, one, Peter, is chosen, who presides both at the call of the Gentiles, and over all the apostles and collected fathers of the Church; so that though there be , among God’s people, many priests and many shepherds, yet Peter especially rules all whom Christ also rules originally. Beloved, it is a great and wonderful sharing of his own power which the divine honor bestowed on this man, and if he wished that other rulers should be in common with him, yet he did never give except through him what he denied to others....’I will give unto thee the keys’….the right of this power did indeed pass on to the other apostles, and the order of this decree passed on to all chiefs of the Church; but not in vain was that which was imparted to all was entrusted to one”.…So then in Peter the strength of all is fortified, and the help of divine grace is so ordered that the stability which through Christ is given to Peter, through Peter is conveyed to the other Apostles” (Saint Leo the Great, Sermon 4, PL 54.149)

[@yecksd]

ive heard it said that St Peter and his successors were particularly blessed by God to be leaders in the Church - insofar as they kept to Orthodoxy. not sure if this helps but thought id share

[@NavelOrangeGazer]

St. Peter wasn't the first bishop of Rome. St. Linus was. Read the apostolic constitutions. St. Peter was bishop of Antioch so any papal post hoc "keys" and all the quote mine decontextualized nonsense theology would have to apply to Antioch but it doesn't because it's later circular innovations to justify Rome's heresy. Romes honor was based on being the martyrdom site of two apostles St. Peter and St. Paul. (Hence the feast of Ss. Peter and Paul). There is no feast of "St. Peter bishop of Rome." Making up stuff about St. Peter is far more dishonourable.

[@mythologicalmyth]

@@NavelOrangeGazer 🥱 The Antioch Peter First spaghetti.

[@mythologicalmyth]

@@NavelOrangeGazer Thanks for the nonsense Naval ManGayzer!!!! You have an incoherent argument. Pope St Peter at Antioch has no relevance whatsoever to where he was martyred, or Second in his ministry. 🥱 I won’t respond to this level of emotional projecting and incoherence. Sorry. You’re not ready for this. Refute the saints! Not me.

[@alexlight4178]

Opening up with donkey kong ost? Im in

[@orthodox_soul]

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

[@alexlight4178]

Glory to God for all dk ost’s

[@yecksd]

i apologize for my previous comment

[@orthodox_soul]

@@yecksd not at all, enthusiasm is encouraged! I got plenty silly myself in the video anyway haha

[@lepajelena7441]

☦️ Excellent 👏 👏 👏 Protestantism turned people into their own infallible pope 😂

[@mythologicalmyth]

And it seems Orthodoxy has done the same in many ways with independent jurisdictions ex-communicating each other whenever they have political differences. Craig Truglia admits there is evidence for Roman Catholic succession from the pope.

[@lepajelena7441]

@@mythologicalmyth There is not apostolic succession in the papacy because they don’t have the faith or communion.

[@mythologicalmyth]

@@lepajelena7441 prove it!

[@mythologicalmyth]

@@lepajelena7441 St. Optatus of Milevis (360-80): “And though this has been thus written, nevertheless, for the sake of unity, blessed Peter (for whom it would have been enough if after his denial he had obtained pardon only) both deserved to be placed over all the Apostles, and alone received the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven, which he was to communicate to the rest” Will you [the Donatists] be able to prove that the Chair of Peter is a lie--and the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven, which were granted him by Christ, with which we are in communion?” (Book 7.3 from Against Parmenian).

[@mythologicalmyth]

@@lepajelena7441 don’t say It’s not mentioned in Scripture or your Sola. Don’t say the early councils because they are not dogmatic or catechetical like Catholics.

[@alek27e]

34:21 Church slavonic ❤

[@alexlight4178]

40 minutes in so far… i think protestants are able to justify a lot of their stuff bc they just dont know orthodoxy exists. The only expression of apostolic succession theyre aware of is within roman Catholicism, so theyre going ‘i dont care about logic i just know theyre doing something wrong.’ I can empathize

[@mythologicalmyth]

St. John Chrysostom, Patriarch of Constantinople (c. 387) Peter himself the Head or Crown of the Apostles, the First in the Church, the Friend of Christ, who received a revelation, not from man, but from the Father, as the Lord bears witness to him, saying, 'Blessed art thou, This very Peter and when I name Peter I name that unbroken Rock, that firm Foundation, the Great Apostle, First of the disciples, the First called, and the First who obeyed he was guilty ...even denying the Lord." (Chrysostom, T. ii. Hom) Peter, the Leader of the choir of Apostles, the Mouth of the disciples, the Pillar of the Church, the Buttress of the faith, the Foundation of the confession, the Fisherman of the universe. (Chrysostom, T. iii Hom).

[@TKCoutside]

Man writes Scripture via the inspiration of God, seems the words are part of the authority 🤷‍♂️

[@orthodox_soul]

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

[@TKCoutside]

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

[@orthodox_soul]

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

[@TKCoutside]

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

[@gooberpeas535]

The Father is not the only one who sends the Holy Spirit. Jesus gives the Holy Spirit too. Luke 24:49, John 20:22. And the Father sends the Holy Spirit in the name of Jesus. John 14:26

[@orthodox_soul]

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

[@sdjohnson223]

❤

[@yecksd]

more banger content yummers

[@leeburne10]

Wow, so much error in the assertions against the Protestants and no humility in regards outlining the position of EO. Good try but a major fail. I understand why people accept the arguments in this presentation without testing the claims. Why would you! A little leaven comes to mind.

[@orthodox_soul]

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

[@gooberpeas535]

Nope. God said to try the spirits to see if they are of Him. And the Orthodoxy/Roman Catholic church is not of Him. We are also to be like the Bereans and search the Scriptures daily to see if what we're being told is true. Orthodoxy/Romam Catholicism is false. Read the Old Testament. Those who willingly followed after false teachers were punished along with them. Your church is as much of a cult as the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society.

[@olubunmiolumuyiwa]

So which church would you say a person should be a member of? I believe it is the Orthodox Church, which church would you say?

[@orthodox_soul]

@@gooberpeas535 Be honest, did you actually watch the video? Because, all I see is you making assertions, but not addressing any of the actual arguments that were made. In which case, there'd be no reason to take what you're saying seriously.

[@birb349]

My man, calling God's 2000 year old church a cult on the level of watchtower with no evidence Is probably not the best decision.

[@OrthobroAustin]

Your Beroean example is aside from both your point, and the Holy Paul’s point. He stated that they received the word with eagerness and were more noble-minded in searching the scripture to see the truth of this apostolic preaching (which they already eagerly received, but searched the scripture to discern whether or not that is right), in contrast to those who simply openly rejected the apostolic preaching out of pocket like the large number of Jews unconvinced at his preaching in Thessaloniki. His point is not that it is better to be skeptical and test things against your private reading of the scripture, it is in fact this skepticism which condemned the Jews in Thessaloniki who likely already preferred a Rabbinic understanding of the scriptures which put them in opposition to holy Paul, it is the eager receptiveness coupled with the desire to understand the truth which shows the Beroeans more noble minded. Moreover, the gospel says, “Whoever receives you receives me, whoever rejects you rejects me” Those who accept the apostolic preaching without scrupulous deferment to their own reading of scripture are in no way less noble-minded.

[@acekoala457]

"Your Church is a cult." Until you need to justify the Scriptural Canon.