@monique2buttons try turning on the CC (closed captions), transcribe audio. it's not perfect, but the subtitles can bring across the gist of what he's saying. yeah, wonder what happened to the sound.
This is a wonderful video which was very well done. I am an Eastern Orthodox Christian from Toronto Canada and was wondering if you could answer in a video the history of Christmas and when and why it is still practiced today. For I do take part of a fellowship which reads the bible and we discuss many topics. And some people there believe that Christmas is evil and it is a tradition of man and misrepresents Christianity. They use the verses in Jeremiah chapter 10 vs. 2-4.
I think my reasoning is sound, and I'm certain that you are sure of your own, which is why I only asked the first question. I did not want to debate the subject, as I consider it fruitless. Understandably, by asking a question one often infers he is opening up a debate. I wasn't, though I did briefly participate in good sportsmanship.
There are no hard feelings on my part, and I appreciate your willingness to engage me. I look forward to the rest of your videos in this series.
I watched this video, liked it, and assumed that an honest question would be taken seriously. Instead, you have flippantly dismissed it. I'm not sure what kind of egregious Protestants you are used to arguing with, but some people are simply seekers, and do not recklessly bend the knee to every voice that says "thus sayeth the Lord."
Nikolai, I do not see how you could possibly consider my reply a "flippant dismissal." The ever-virginity of Mary is a foundational doctrine of the Orthodox Church. You could not be an Orthodox Christian without accepting the ever-virginity of Mary. There really is a problem with your reasoning about the subject and I tried to honestly answer it. If you cannot take my reply as a sincere answer, I am sorry, but you do need to rethink your reasoning.
Sex as you are thinking of it would not have been part of the culture of Paradise either. We cannot think in terms of the modern sexual revolution as having any roots in antiquity. It was only in early modern times that women enjoying sex was even a concept, except for whores and prostitutes (who were in it for the money, not the pleasure). For women, sex meant childbearing with great discomfort, illness and the danger of death. Yet to have a child (a boy) was obligation if it cd nt be avoided
Would it be unlikely for her to have enjoyed a glass of wine, or eaten a sumptuous morsel, or partaken of any other mundane delight after having conceived and born Christ? Why not go on to enjoy sex with her husband? Recall that in the garden of Eden it was not good for man (men and women) to be "alone." Sex was an integral part of that union, and this was even before the fall.
I appreciate your comments, but, if you are willing to, please answer the question I originally posted.
In the first place, it would not have been at all common for anyone in that culture to have had sex "for the enjoyment of it." If a man wanted to do that, he would be more likely to go to a prostitute. It would not have been common to have thought of sex outside of procreation; recreational sex was certainly not something that was done except between a man and a prostitute. Wine was common for everyone; it was safer than the water, though most of it would have been a bit vinegery.
I'm interested in converting to Orthodox Christianity but I'm not sure that I will be "accepted." I have a few divergent opinions about things I consider to be "non-essentials," but which probably are make-or-break issues to Orthodoxy. Please tell me, if I do not believe in the perpetual virginity of the Mother of God can I still be Orthodox? I do believe in the virgin birth of Christ, I just believe that Mary went on to be a wife to Joseph afterward.
I am not sure how one can conceive that the womb that bore the Incarnate God and became the tabernacle of the Uncreated and ineffable, could have possibly borne another or experience sexual penetration, but it would not have been unusual for her to remain a virgin. In that culture, it would have been quite well understood. The daughters of Zelophehad in the Old Testament would have also remained virgin for life, even though they were married.
I'm not a southern Baptist (though I live in the South). We don't believe Tradition is bad as long as it doesn't conflict with Scripture. Col 2:8 "Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ."
I found this video helpful. Some of your comments are harsh, but they seem to be true.
I am from a fundamentalist Baptist background. It has been a schoolmaster until I was recently introduced to Orthodoxy.
The problem is - many Protestants do not know the history of the church. Without this knowledge, all that is left is the Bible. That is an excellent remainder which can bring a person to faith in Christ, but even the Bible requires us to see the church as "the pillar and ground of the truth."
It requires somewhat more than that. For one thing, the Fundamentalist understanding of the Bible has,as I have discovered, driven many away from Christ. This is so because not every word of Scripture is true, and therefore not every word was "written by God." The Sun does not "also ariseth," nor does it "know its going down." In fact, it does neither of those things, and one would not make a day longer by causing the sun to stand still, since it is not going anywhere. there are others.
this is to finish up my reply to his emminence: those who show true fruit of conversion , the pursuing of a holy life and love of neighbor, have the God given right to believe themselves securre in Christ. Belief in the eternal security of the believer when properly understood does not lead to reckless living and arrogance, rather it leads to greatfulness to God for his mercy and total sovereignty. and by the way not all protestants believe in the eternal secuity of the believer although I do.
Again,. basing your security on the false and immoral doctrine of predestination is of no value. One must base such a security on the truth of the Gospel, not the Gnostic inheritance of Calvinism. The fact is, God does not judge or punish anyone, neither in this life nor the world to come. Our conscience is our judge both now and on the day "when the secrets of men's hearts shall be revealed."
Experience has taught us otherwise. The sophistic excuses that one has to make up in order to justify such a belief are incredible, in the true meaning of the world. John of Lyden was a good example of the degeneracy that such a teaching can create.
What two "sacraments" might those be? There are at least 23 "sacraments" taught by the holy fathers. Where the Gospel is ACCURATELY preached, and where the bishop and the baptised and Chrismated faithful are gathered together for the Eucharist
Thank you, Father, for showing how many fundamentalist Christians are crypto-gnostics: "salvation = knowledge of the literal truth of Scripture" rather than "salvation = grace of the Holy Spirit through sacramental life". Many defenders of "traditional marriage" are just as horrified of our vow of celibacy as they are of same-gender love, sometimes detesting us monks and nuns as they do gays and lesbians, rather than loving them and us as Christ loves all.
Actually, the so-called "traditional marriage" is not Scriptural. It comes precisely from Orthodox Christian Tradition (that nasty word again, eh). Originally, all marriage was common-law, women were bought or bartered for, and men could have more than one wife and/or concubines. The definition of marriage as one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others was define by Justinian the Great in the 500s, to end polygamy and concubinage.
You are miss informed about the reformation, the center of Luters argument was the corrupt church such as indulgences. It was not aganist tradition as you keep saying. Look as the 95 thesis it is not what you say. ML did not want to leave the church but would not recant what he was seeing in the church at ther time.
Indeed- however I humbly posit that it may be a little myopic to only view his thesis and not what he communicated in his words and ministry AFTER he and his followers had left the Latin church. Certainly he never intentioned the current state of things, and he quickly lost control of the movement he inspired; nevertheless he was adamant that the traditions of the Church were to be examined and those deemed non-essential by scriptural 'proofs' were to be exorcised from the common faith.
Proof-texting is the real problem. Alas, some sectarian minded Orthodox also conduct "Bible studies that way." One verse of Scripture means nothing. The entire narrative means quite a lot. When one verse is removed from the entire narrative, it can only lead to false understanding and false doctrines.
I've always understood that the thinking and the fleshing out of "once saved always saved" is destructive. But protestantism is not something that God cannot use, and has not used. Flawed, it is, but it does not mirror gnosticism. It is the dominant way of thinking in the United States. So either a reformation has to happen in the church again where we return to Orthodoxy or well..I don't know.
The "once saved always saved" notion was a teaching of the early Gnostics, not of the ancient Christian Church, and certainly not of the Apostles. Much of Protestantism is Gnostic, not Christian. Of course theosis does not excuse ones actions, but the "once saved always saved" theory opens one up to all sorts of sins without sincere repentance. This is very destructive. Sins are forgiven when one repents of them, not when one thinks he can get away with them "once saved always saved."
That wasn't my point. There are protestants out there who believe in the "once saved always saved" theory and still have truly repentant hearts. Even if their theology is wrong, it doesn't mean that God can't be found somewhere. If it's truth, it belongs to God. Not to protestantism, and not to Orthodoxy, but to God alone. And if the holy spirit didn't work in any of their lives...why would I be talking to you right now?
your eminence you may be sincere but you are sincerely wrong. First of all you misunderstand the whole basis of the eteranl security of the believer. John 10:27 -30 teaches eternal security of the believer as does John 6:37, John 17:2,6,9, 24; Romans 8:31 -39, Hebrews 7:25, Philipians 1:6, 1 Corinthians 1:8-9, 1 Thessalonians 5:23-24, 2 Thessalonians 3:3-2, 2 Timothy 1:12 and 2 Timothy 4:18. This doctrine does not mean all who profess to be Christians will be saved. Those who show true fruit of
No one doubts the surity, but it is not based on the idea that God got satisfied by the torture of His only Son, as the basic Calvinist doctrine teaches. Moreover, Baptists actually base their particular version of "once saved always saved" not on the doctrine of Redemption, but on the Gnostic doctrine of double predestination -- a doctrine which accounts genuine immorality to God. Orthodox Christians base their concept of salvation security on the co-suffering love of God with mankind.
So,. but one can lose their faith and their salvation. The sophistic "Ah, but that means they were never predestined to salvation" (i.e., God created them for hell and will not allow them to be saved because he did not predestine them for it). Yes, I have heard that from the mouth of a Southern Baptist minister.
I just want to make it clear that I believe in theosis, but theosis doesn't give a believer the right to do whatever they want, nor does it mean that future sins are not fogiven. Jesus was the offering, and the blood does allow us to be redeemed people, for an eternity...not just until we mess up again.
I'm an intern at a Southern Baptist church, but I've never agreed with about 80% of their theology. I've read everyone from St. Thomas Aquinas to Rob Bell. I've been playing with this Orthodox stuff lately, and I'm figuring out that for the most part what I think is already Orthodox. Not everything, but most. I understand the emphasis on holy tradition and the role it plays, but lets not forget that God is not dependant upon Orthodoxy or tradition. God is still worshipped in unorthodox ways
Thank God for people like you father,and may your efforts help convert the protestants to the true orthodox faith. Greetings from Romania. God help us all.
I found this series a few weeks ago and listened to two right in the middle (or end it seems). Now I'm starting from the beginning. I'm a recovering Protestant that has read the Early Fathers and figured out that we need tradition. Everything you said in the videos I have listened to resounded with my spirit. I thank you for this series. It will help me in dealing with some troublesome relatives who are staunch protestants.
The protestant reformation is the greatest episode in deconstructionism in our history. In essence, it was a deconstruction of Christianity. This is the essence of my THE EDUCATED PERSON IN THE POST-CHRISTIAN ERA. Thank you for your comments, and for joining us in these broadcasts. We will be beginning our new series tomorrow. In Christ, Vladika lazar.
Good job Vladka. I think that if Protestants really want to seek the truth of the Orhtodox Faith, then they need to listen to what Jesus said, seek and you will find, knock and the door will be open, ask and it shall be given to you. This Scripture is so true. If anyone prays this prayer of seeking, then the Holy Spirit will lead them to the truth of the Ancient Holy Tradition of the Orthodox Christian Faith. The Protestant Chruch is nothing without Holy Tradition.
The Protestants believe that the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ has already paid for all their sins past and present with His blood on the cross. Thus supposedly their personal sins aren't counted as sins anymore. They believe that they are saved by faith alone, thus allowing them to basically do whatever they want.
If you think that all the sins that you will commit in the future are already paid by Christ, you need to have a serious talk with your spiritual father, because you clearly misunderstand the Holy Scriptures.
Protestants do not believe they can "do whatever they want." I know, I'm a former Protestant. They believe that the most they can ever be is a forgiven sinner. Thus, they will continue to sin until they die. And since they cannot "be perfect" and will "fall short", it is only by their faith in God's grace they will be "saved." They have no concept of theosis. That's why they don't understand Christ's "be perfect", St. James' "faith and works" or St. Paul's "work out your own salvation."
This is true, and nowhere was this fact more clearly demonstrated than in the Anabaptism movement of John of Leyden with his "Taborites." They concluded that, after being "reborn" they could do all the same things they had done before, and that these things, which had previously been sins, would no longer be sins (although they were the same acts and deeds). This is one of the great problems of fundamentalist "scripture only" ideologies. Vladika Lazar.
The protestants in this case baptists; which is a church that was founded in the early 1600's by John Smythe. And basically they deny and reject Matthew 16:18-19 and believe it is a lie and that the Lord lied and failed in what he said and sate out to do in that verse. Sacred Tradition? read 2 Thess. 2:15
John Smyth was an early baptist leader, yes, but not the founder. Baptists have no one singular founder of the denomination, although we believe Christ is theltimate founder of all who truly put their faith in Him as Lord and Savior. And we do believe Matthew 6:18-19, we believe it is speaking of the Church Universial not just one sect within it. And btw 2 Thessalonians 2:15 is speaking specifily of doctrinal traditions passed on by Paul not St. Nicholas, St. Basil, or your saints
The traditions passed on by St. Nicholas, St. Basil etc. 'are' the exact ones passed to them from The Apostles. John Smythe was the founder of what today is called the baptists Church(like it or not? history speaks for itself) and he probably wouldn't recognize the church he founded if he came back today. baptists not only reject and deny Matt 6:8-19 but Ephesians 4:4-6 also and have no clue. What is truely arrogant is saying nothing else matters but those (later man-made sola doctrines).
Long overdue! Great beginning and I look forward to the rest of the series! Sacred Tradition reflects that which the Lord said to the Apostles, "I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now. Howbeit, when the Spirit of Truth is come, He will guide you into all truth." (St. John 16: 12-13) Many of these truths are not known to the Protestant world and they need to be shared! Go for it!
I would go much further than calling the protestant God cruel and Harsh , Theodore Beza who helped forumulate the calvinist "5 points" said God was the "Author of Evil" but in some unknown way was not evil himself ?
im suprised how few calvinist know this.
as a former Protestant apologist who read the Early Fathers , it finally dawned on me How truly arrogant and ignorant protestants are I say this with much sorrow.
Yes the protestant tradition of no tradition is very silly , its funny that the bible says the gates of hell would never prevail against Christs Church , yet according to protestants they need to "witnes" to the only form of christianity that existed for first 1500 yrs of church , if they need to "bring " Orthodox to christ ", than that means the gates of hell not only prevailed but ran rough shod over church untill 16th century orthodoxy was invented.
true Christians have been here since the beginning of ther Christian faith and I would not be so haughty remeber a bull of excommunication lead to the formation of the orthodox church. I do not believe Orthdox Christians are lost but it is arrogant and noy historically accurate to say that the Orthodox was founded by Christ. An angry Metropolitan, bishop, or whatever he was did that. i think i would stay away from the catechims and get more into history and scripture. Sola Scriptura amen
It is not a matter of being haughty. The doctrine of Atonement is simply a reworking of a pagan idea. It is also at the root of modern atheism. I know that because I hear it from university students every year. The main reason they were turned off by Christianity, aside from the hate and malice preached by Fundamentalists, is the neo-Pagan doctrine of Atonement; something that was completely foreign to the Apostles and their successors. The idea, also, of predesitination is sheer Gnosticism.
the sound in this video comes out as loud static. can't make out any words. what gives? :(
XSC3 1 week ago
At some point this video must have had audio other than static given most of the comments. Now though... What happened? Can it be fixed?
mikejhm 1 year ago
What happened to the sound??
monique2buttons 1 year ago
@monique2buttons try turning on the CC (closed captions), transcribe audio. it's not perfect, but the subtitles can bring across the gist of what he's saying. yeah, wonder what happened to the sound.
XSC3 1 week ago
The soundtrack is all static now! Too bad.
Puchicas9 1 year ago
I would love your help on this topic.
With love in Christ. I thank you for what you are doing.
apdd08 2 years ago
This is a wonderful video which was very well done. I am an Eastern Orthodox Christian from Toronto Canada and was wondering if you could answer in a video the history of Christmas and when and why it is still practiced today. For I do take part of a fellowship which reads the bible and we discuss many topics. And some people there believe that Christmas is evil and it is a tradition of man and misrepresents Christianity. They use the verses in Jeremiah chapter 10 vs. 2-4.
apdd08 2 years ago
Will take up this subject shorly, in my next Q&A broadcast.
allsaintsmonastery 2 years ago
To the 'allsaintsmonastery'.
I am a Protestant but I think your analysis on Evangelical rejection of tradition is very important and totally accurate.
Reazzurro90 2 years ago 3
I like your movies. May God bless you. Please forgive me if I said anything bad.
IoanRomania09 2 years ago
Master bless
Thank you for what you are doing. Your words are ringing true with protestants and even reinvigorating Orthodox here in Minnesota.
Yours in Christ
Fr. Steven Johnson
FrSteven29 2 years ago
Very good and important video. I am Mexican and after much research and personal debate I converted to Orthodoxy. God Bless you all!
ajcastaneda413 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Click on my name and see Orthodox Miracles.
IoanRomania09 2 years ago
I think my reasoning is sound, and I'm certain that you are sure of your own, which is why I only asked the first question. I did not want to debate the subject, as I consider it fruitless. Understandably, by asking a question one often infers he is opening up a debate. I wasn't, though I did briefly participate in good sportsmanship.
There are no hard feelings on my part, and I appreciate your willingness to engage me. I look forward to the rest of your videos in this series.
KolyaKrasotkin 2 years ago
I watched this video, liked it, and assumed that an honest question would be taken seriously. Instead, you have flippantly dismissed it. I'm not sure what kind of egregious Protestants you are used to arguing with, but some people are simply seekers, and do not recklessly bend the knee to every voice that says "thus sayeth the Lord."
KolyaKrasotkin 2 years ago
Nikolai, I do not see how you could possibly consider my reply a "flippant dismissal." The ever-virginity of Mary is a foundational doctrine of the Orthodox Church. You could not be an Orthodox Christian without accepting the ever-virginity of Mary. There really is a problem with your reasoning about the subject and I tried to honestly answer it. If you cannot take my reply as a sincere answer, I am sorry, but you do need to rethink your reasoning.
allsaintsmonastery 2 years ago
@KolyaKrasotkin
Also even the first reformers like John Calvin and Martin Luther defended the ever-virginity of Mary
soncomputron 5 months ago
If I do not believe in the perpetual virginity of the Mother of God can I be Orthodox?
KolyaKrasotkin 2 years ago
I suppose I should have said cup of wine.
KolyaKrasotkin 2 years ago
Sex as you are thinking of it would not have been part of the culture of Paradise either. We cannot think in terms of the modern sexual revolution as having any roots in antiquity. It was only in early modern times that women enjoying sex was even a concept, except for whores and prostitutes (who were in it for the money, not the pleasure). For women, sex meant childbearing with great discomfort, illness and the danger of death. Yet to have a child (a boy) was obligation if it cd nt be avoided
allsaintsmonastery 2 years ago
Would it be unlikely for her to have enjoyed a glass of wine, or eaten a sumptuous morsel, or partaken of any other mundane delight after having conceived and born Christ? Why not go on to enjoy sex with her husband? Recall that in the garden of Eden it was not good for man (men and women) to be "alone." Sex was an integral part of that union, and this was even before the fall.
I appreciate your comments, but, if you are willing to, please answer the question I originally posted.
KolyaKrasotkin 2 years ago
In the first place, it would not have been at all common for anyone in that culture to have had sex "for the enjoyment of it." If a man wanted to do that, he would be more likely to go to a prostitute. It would not have been common to have thought of sex outside of procreation; recreational sex was certainly not something that was done except between a man and a prostitute. Wine was common for everyone; it was safer than the water, though most of it would have been a bit vinegery.
allsaintsmonastery 2 years ago
I'm interested in converting to Orthodox Christianity but I'm not sure that I will be "accepted." I have a few divergent opinions about things I consider to be "non-essentials," but which probably are make-or-break issues to Orthodoxy. Please tell me, if I do not believe in the perpetual virginity of the Mother of God can I still be Orthodox? I do believe in the virgin birth of Christ, I just believe that Mary went on to be a wife to Joseph afterward.
This is a sincere question.
KolyaKrasotkin 2 years ago
I am not sure how one can conceive that the womb that bore the Incarnate God and became the tabernacle of the Uncreated and ineffable, could have possibly borne another or experience sexual penetration, but it would not have been unusual for her to remain a virgin. In that culture, it would have been quite well understood. The daughters of Zelophehad in the Old Testament would have also remained virgin for life, even though they were married.
allsaintsmonastery 2 years ago
just beautiful! i love watching orthodoxy in action a loving tounge lashing.
emekonen 2 years ago
I'm not a southern Baptist (though I live in the South). We don't believe Tradition is bad as long as it doesn't conflict with Scripture. Col 2:8 "Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ."
JasonEldur 2 years ago
Thank you for a very balanced an perceptive video. +Christ IS Risen!+
michiganois 2 years ago
...meanwhile, I'm going to look for a "d" for than "an" thingy....
michiganois 2 years ago
Great vid, Father. Keep defending the Holy Faith!
DeiVerbum777 2 years ago
I found this video helpful. Some of your comments are harsh, but they seem to be true.
I am from a fundamentalist Baptist background. It has been a schoolmaster until I was recently introduced to Orthodoxy.
The problem is - many Protestants do not know the history of the church. Without this knowledge, all that is left is the Bible. That is an excellent remainder which can bring a person to faith in Christ, but even the Bible requires us to see the church as "the pillar and ground of the truth."
pcfriars2000 2 years ago
It requires somewhat more than that. For one thing, the Fundamentalist understanding of the Bible has,as I have discovered, driven many away from Christ. This is so because not every word of Scripture is true, and therefore not every word was "written by God." The Sun does not "also ariseth," nor does it "know its going down." In fact, it does neither of those things, and one would not make a day longer by causing the sun to stand still, since it is not going anywhere. there are others.
allsaintsmonastery 2 years ago
this is to finish up my reply to his emminence: those who show true fruit of conversion , the pursuing of a holy life and love of neighbor, have the God given right to believe themselves securre in Christ. Belief in the eternal security of the believer when properly understood does not lead to reckless living and arrogance, rather it leads to greatfulness to God for his mercy and total sovereignty. and by the way not all protestants believe in the eternal secuity of the believer although I do.
jesusreigns22 2 years ago
Again,. basing your security on the false and immoral doctrine of predestination is of no value. One must base such a security on the truth of the Gospel, not the Gnostic inheritance of Calvinism. The fact is, God does not judge or punish anyone, neither in this life nor the world to come. Our conscience is our judge both now and on the day "when the secrets of men's hearts shall be revealed."
allsaintsmonastery 2 years ago
Experience has taught us otherwise. The sophistic excuses that one has to make up in order to justify such a belief are incredible, in the true meaning of the world. John of Lyden was a good example of the degeneracy that such a teaching can create.
allsaintsmonastery 2 years ago
oh boy bashing baptists again, why do these liturgical people never cease to surprise me.
jesusreigns22 2 years ago
Where the two sacraments are preached right, there is the church of God.
Mazinga 2 years ago
What two "sacraments" might those be? There are at least 23 "sacraments" taught by the holy fathers. Where the Gospel is ACCURATELY preached, and where the bishop and the baptised and Chrismated faithful are gathered together for the Eucharist
the fulness of the Church is there.
allsaintsmonastery 2 years ago
Holy baptism and holy communion.
Mazinga 2 years ago
Nothing like a good bible fight.. Five stars enjoyable and educational!
alunhughes 2 years ago
Thank you, Father, for showing how many fundamentalist Christians are crypto-gnostics: "salvation = knowledge of the literal truth of Scripture" rather than "salvation = grace of the Holy Spirit through sacramental life". Many defenders of "traditional marriage" are just as horrified of our vow of celibacy as they are of same-gender love, sometimes detesting us monks and nuns as they do gays and lesbians, rather than loving them and us as Christ loves all.
United in prayer.
thomasmatus 3 years ago
Actually, the so-called "traditional marriage" is not Scriptural. It comes precisely from Orthodox Christian Tradition (that nasty word again, eh). Originally, all marriage was common-law, women were bought or bartered for, and men could have more than one wife and/or concubines. The definition of marriage as one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others was define by Justinian the Great in the 500s, to end polygamy and concubinage.
allsaintsmonastery 2 years ago
Amen. Amen. Amen. Thank you Father for this wisdom.
CatholicandOrthodox 3 years ago
You are miss informed about the reformation, the center of Luters argument was the corrupt church such as indulgences. It was not aganist tradition as you keep saying. Look as the 95 thesis it is not what you say. ML did not want to leave the church but would not recant what he was seeing in the church at ther time.
jimmy2695 3 years ago
Indeed- however I humbly posit that it may be a little myopic to only view his thesis and not what he communicated in his words and ministry AFTER he and his followers had left the Latin church. Certainly he never intentioned the current state of things, and he quickly lost control of the movement he inspired; nevertheless he was adamant that the traditions of the Church were to be examined and those deemed non-essential by scriptural 'proofs' were to be exorcised from the common faith.
SteveBCcanada 3 years ago
Proof-texting is the real problem. Alas, some sectarian minded Orthodox also conduct "Bible studies that way." One verse of Scripture means nothing. The entire narrative means quite a lot. When one verse is removed from the entire narrative, it can only lead to false understanding and false doctrines.
allsaintsmonastery 2 years ago
Actually, we are dicussing Calvinism, not Lutheranism.
allsaintsmonastery 2 years ago
I've always understood that the thinking and the fleshing out of "once saved always saved" is destructive. But protestantism is not something that God cannot use, and has not used. Flawed, it is, but it does not mirror gnosticism. It is the dominant way of thinking in the United States. So either a reformation has to happen in the church again where we return to Orthodoxy or well..I don't know.
crisbeam 3 years ago
The "once saved always saved" notion was a teaching of the early Gnostics, not of the ancient Christian Church, and certainly not of the Apostles. Much of Protestantism is Gnostic, not Christian. Of course theosis does not excuse ones actions, but the "once saved always saved" theory opens one up to all sorts of sins without sincere repentance. This is very destructive. Sins are forgiven when one repents of them, not when one thinks he can get away with them "once saved always saved."
allsaintsmonastery 3 years ago
That wasn't my point. There are protestants out there who believe in the "once saved always saved" theory and still have truly repentant hearts. Even if their theology is wrong, it doesn't mean that God can't be found somewhere. If it's truth, it belongs to God. Not to protestantism, and not to Orthodoxy, but to God alone. And if the holy spirit didn't work in any of their lives...why would I be talking to you right now?
crisbeam 3 years ago
Please Archbishop do not sink to your counterpart's level.
Honestly if not for the love I was shown by my Protestant friends and their families I would not be Christian today
jesujoyofmansdesirin 2 years ago
your eminence you may be sincere but you are sincerely wrong. First of all you misunderstand the whole basis of the eteranl security of the believer. John 10:27 -30 teaches eternal security of the believer as does John 6:37, John 17:2,6,9, 24; Romans 8:31 -39, Hebrews 7:25, Philipians 1:6, 1 Corinthians 1:8-9, 1 Thessalonians 5:23-24, 2 Thessalonians 3:3-2, 2 Timothy 1:12 and 2 Timothy 4:18. This doctrine does not mean all who profess to be Christians will be saved. Those who show true fruit of
jesusreigns22 2 years ago
No one doubts the surity, but it is not based on the idea that God got satisfied by the torture of His only Son, as the basic Calvinist doctrine teaches. Moreover, Baptists actually base their particular version of "once saved always saved" not on the doctrine of Redemption, but on the Gnostic doctrine of double predestination -- a doctrine which accounts genuine immorality to God. Orthodox Christians base their concept of salvation security on the co-suffering love of God with mankind.
allsaintsmonastery 2 years ago
So,. but one can lose their faith and their salvation. The sophistic "Ah, but that means they were never predestined to salvation" (i.e., God created them for hell and will not allow them to be saved because he did not predestine them for it). Yes, I have heard that from the mouth of a Southern Baptist minister.
allsaintsmonastery 2 years ago
I just want to make it clear that I believe in theosis, but theosis doesn't give a believer the right to do whatever they want, nor does it mean that future sins are not fogiven. Jesus was the offering, and the blood does allow us to be redeemed people, for an eternity...not just until we mess up again.
crisbeam 3 years ago
I'm an intern at a Southern Baptist church, but I've never agreed with about 80% of their theology. I've read everyone from St. Thomas Aquinas to Rob Bell. I've been playing with this Orthodox stuff lately, and I'm figuring out that for the most part what I think is already Orthodox. Not everything, but most. I understand the emphasis on holy tradition and the role it plays, but lets not forget that God is not dependant upon Orthodoxy or tradition. God is still worshipped in unorthodox ways
crisbeam 3 years ago
Thank God for people like you father,and may your efforts help convert the protestants to the true orthodox faith. Greetings from Romania. God help us all.
ReikonZ 3 years ago 5
I found this series a few weeks ago and listened to two right in the middle (or end it seems). Now I'm starting from the beginning. I'm a recovering Protestant that has read the Early Fathers and figured out that we need tradition. Everything you said in the videos I have listened to resounded with my spirit. I thank you for this series. It will help me in dealing with some troublesome relatives who are staunch protestants.
shadowmane20 3 years ago 5
The Protestant Deformation was the necessary precondition for modern secularism.
patrissimo 4 years ago
The protestant reformation is the greatest episode in deconstructionism in our history. In essence, it was a deconstruction of Christianity. This is the essence of my THE EDUCATED PERSON IN THE POST-CHRISTIAN ERA. Thank you for your comments, and for joining us in these broadcasts. We will be beginning our new series tomorrow. In Christ, Vladika lazar.
allsaintsmonastery 4 years ago
Baptist "theology" is such a sick joke and the joke is on them. I feel sorry for them.
patrissimo 4 years ago
Good job Vladka. I think that if Protestants really want to seek the truth of the Orhtodox Faith, then they need to listen to what Jesus said, seek and you will find, knock and the door will be open, ask and it shall be given to you. This Scripture is so true. If anyone prays this prayer of seeking, then the Holy Spirit will lead them to the truth of the Ancient Holy Tradition of the Orthodox Christian Faith. The Protestant Chruch is nothing without Holy Tradition.
jdalbashvili 4 years ago 3
Thank you your eminence.
Psalm130 4 years ago
Thank you for your comments. They are very much appreciated. I hope that you will join us as we begin our new series. In Christ, Vladika Lazar.
allsaintsmonastery 4 years ago
The Protestants believe that the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ has already paid for all their sins past and present with His blood on the cross. Thus supposedly their personal sins aren't counted as sins anymore. They believe that they are saved by faith alone, thus allowing them to basically do whatever they want.
How convenient.
BorislavX 4 years ago
He did pay for ALL our sins. Ever read the New Testament? I'm Orthodox and even I know this.
albval1 4 years ago
If you think that all the sins that you will commit in the future are already paid by Christ, you need to have a serious talk with your spiritual father, because you clearly misunderstand the Holy Scriptures.
BorislavX 4 years ago
Protestants do not believe they can "do whatever they want." I know, I'm a former Protestant. They believe that the most they can ever be is a forgiven sinner. Thus, they will continue to sin until they die. And since they cannot "be perfect" and will "fall short", it is only by their faith in God's grace they will be "saved." They have no concept of theosis. That's why they don't understand Christ's "be perfect", St. James' "faith and works" or St. Paul's "work out your own salvation."
stcolmcille 4 years ago 2
This is true, and nowhere was this fact more clearly demonstrated than in the Anabaptism movement of John of Leyden with his "Taborites." They concluded that, after being "reborn" they could do all the same things they had done before, and that these things, which had previously been sins, would no longer be sins (although they were the same acts and deeds). This is one of the great problems of fundamentalist "scripture only" ideologies. Vladika Lazar.
allsaintsmonastery 4 years ago
The protestants in this case baptists; which is a church that was founded in the early 1600's by John Smythe. And basically they deny and reject Matthew 16:18-19 and believe it is a lie and that the Lord lied and failed in what he said and sate out to do in that verse. Sacred Tradition? read 2 Thess. 2:15
ophuchew 4 years ago
John Smyth was an early baptist leader, yes, but not the founder. Baptists have no one singular founder of the denomination, although we believe Christ is theltimate founder of all who truly put their faith in Him as Lord and Savior. And we do believe Matthew 6:18-19, we believe it is speaking of the Church Universial not just one sect within it. And btw 2 Thessalonians 2:15 is speaking specifily of doctrinal traditions passed on by Paul not St. Nicholas, St. Basil, or your saints
jesusreigns22 2 years ago
The traditions passed on by St. Nicholas, St. Basil etc. 'are' the exact ones passed to them from The Apostles. John Smythe was the founder of what today is called the baptists Church(like it or not? history speaks for itself) and he probably wouldn't recognize the church he founded if he came back today. baptists not only reject and deny Matt 6:8-19 but Ephesians 4:4-6 also and have no clue. What is truely arrogant is saying nothing else matters but those (later man-made sola doctrines).
ophachew 2 years ago
I ment Matt 16:18-19
ophachew 2 years ago
Good answer to a protestant! :)
Orthodox Christians don't know Christ?!Then who knows if we don't know who Christ is!!
JelenaSRB87 4 years ago
Long overdue! Great beginning and I look forward to the rest of the series! Sacred Tradition reflects that which the Lord said to the Apostles, "I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now. Howbeit, when the Spirit of Truth is come, He will guide you into all truth." (St. John 16: 12-13) Many of these truths are not known to the Protestant world and they need to be shared! Go for it!
szalhome 4 years ago
I would go much further than calling the protestant God cruel and Harsh , Theodore Beza who helped forumulate the calvinist "5 points" said God was the "Author of Evil" but in some unknown way was not evil himself ?
im suprised how few calvinist know this.
as a former Protestant apologist who read the Early Fathers , it finally dawned on me How truly arrogant and ignorant protestants are I say this with much sorrow.
grandconjunct 4 years ago
Yes the protestant tradition of no tradition is very silly , its funny that the bible says the gates of hell would never prevail against Christs Church , yet according to protestants they need to "witnes" to the only form of christianity that existed for first 1500 yrs of church , if they need to "bring " Orthodox to christ ", than that means the gates of hell not only prevailed but ran rough shod over church untill 16th century orthodoxy was invented.
grandconjunct 4 years ago
true Christians have been here since the beginning of ther Christian faith and I would not be so haughty remeber a bull of excommunication lead to the formation of the orthodox church. I do not believe Orthdox Christians are lost but it is arrogant and noy historically accurate to say that the Orthodox was founded by Christ. An angry Metropolitan, bishop, or whatever he was did that. i think i would stay away from the catechims and get more into history and scripture. Sola Scriptura amen
jesusreigns22 2 years ago
It is not a matter of being haughty. The doctrine of Atonement is simply a reworking of a pagan idea. It is also at the root of modern atheism. I know that because I hear it from university students every year. The main reason they were turned off by Christianity, aside from the hate and malice preached by Fundamentalists, is the neo-Pagan doctrine of Atonement; something that was completely foreign to the Apostles and their successors. The idea, also, of predesitination is sheer Gnosticism.
allsaintsmonastery 2 years ago
Even Orthodox believe in some form of atonement, don't they? Just not penal substitution.
KabaneTheChristian 2 years ago