Is the Eastern Orthodox Church the only true church?

[TheYOSHIDUDES]

Why do the Eastern Churches put an emphasis on icons? I know that it is not idol worship, but what does the church mean by " veneration " ?

[IoanIlieMinaGheorghe]

Jesus put his face on a napkin and sent it to King Abgar of Edessa that was cured by leper. Search google for "Abgar Edessa". Apsotle Luke was painter of icons. So read "abc to eternal life" for theory of life....You can find there that Protestantism may have lost eternal life by replacing Holy Communion with symbols, words or nothing. IMPORTANT!!!!!

[TheMistAnchorite]

this video is a lie

[aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa9219]

God was seen in two of his persons. We saw Jesus the God-Man, and we saw the Holy Spirit in the form of a dove. Both of those persons on God can be represented in Orthodox iconography. Technically, God the Father cannot be because we have never seen Him. We are not idolaters.

Continuing on.

We do not pray to "people." We ask saints to intercede on our behalf. I am sure that you have asked someone to pray for you. Why can we not ask people who have died and gone to heaven to pray for us?

[aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa9219]

Also, to fight against enemy influence, God made these requirements. However, the rule was obviously not followed to the letter. After all, the Ark of the Covenant had two statues of angels on it, and Moses had a bronze snake made to heal the people. So we see that there is a Biblical precedent for holy images. A final argument I would put is that the Orthodox Church only puts into images things we have actually seen. Before Christ, nobody had ever seen God in person, but after Christ,

[aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa9219]

I don't understand where the misconception comes from that we Orthodox pray to images. I have never prayed to an image in my life. I venerate icons, but that is more of a spiritual aid than an idol. I am assuming that you are referring to the proscription against graven images in the Bible. I invite you to look up the definition of the word "graven." I would also invite you to take the passages in the correct context. The ancient Jews were trying to separate themselves from the pagans.

[aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa9219]

I have never heard that story about Epiphanius, but even if it is true, that simply shows a divergence in belief by one saint. The veneration of images has been going on since at the very least the 4th century, if not earlier. It is an ancient practice deeply rooted in Tradition. Images existed in the Roman catacombs already in the second century, but we don't really know what their purpose was.

[nickbarounis9]

Also, regarding Orthodoxy not being decended from the first church, umm then who is? Orthodoxy is DIRECTLY part of the first church of the apostles. Then the split took place and the Catholic veared off on their own direction.

[nickbarounis9]

This man needs to do some more reasearch before opening his mouth. Orhodox do not worship icons nore do Catholics worship statues. The icons are a picture of the saint period-nothing holy in the picture itself, it just represents the saint. Just like you keep a picture of a dead relative and you might look at it and remember them and maybe cry. its kinda like that.

[loadedClownZ]

3:30, yeah the bible says also not to idolise statues so why do all these catholics kiss and bow down to statues huh, and they are not pictures, they are icons which are paintings and we dont bow to them, we kiss them.

[magnus56j]

"The idea that the Eastern Orthodox goes back before the Roman Catholic is laughable." Well you are just misunderstanding the Orthodox position. Orthodox don't deny that Rome shares historical roots with us from the beginning. What we are saying is that Rome fell into heresy so when you go into heresy, you are no longer part of the Church. The pope started his own church, so he broke away and hence the Roman Catholic is 1000 years old.

[bacamlovenatebe]

THIS IS TRUE Orthodox is the only true church!!!

[IoanIlieMinaGheorghe]

How Protestantism renounced Holy Communion for eternal life and many errors of Protestantism. Read "abc to eternal life". God actively fights for Eastern orthodox Church.

[IoanIlieMinaGheorghe]

There is no iconoclasm error and Protestantism invention in 100, 200, 300, 400, 500, 600, 700, 800, 900, 1000, 1100, 1200,1300,1400,1500... People in Early Church prayed in front of icons noit to icons like orthodox today. If Western Christians of first centuries would hear Protestantism of today, they would run screaming. See Holy Liturgy of Apostles James believed to be written in year 60, Holy Liturgy of Apostle Matthew , and many Holy Liturgies of Apostles and see what people did on Sunday.

[MrOphachew]

@IoanIlieMinaGheorghe -- The Orthodox have never at anytime in history prayed to icons they have only prayed before them.

[IoanIlieMinaGheorghe]

Jesus left his image on a napking and send it to King abgar od edessa and the King was cured of leper. Apostle Luke was painter of icons . Eastern orthodox Church is the Church in Heaven and iconoclasm there is not in Heaven. Jesus and Apostle Luke are in heaven. More, read "abc to eternal life" on google.

[eglaham]

This man is irresponsibly misinformed.

[magnus56j]

Yes the Holy Orthodox Christian Church founded by Jesus Christ is the One True Church! The 20th century church of Doug Wilson is not!!

[hastey1971]

Doug Wilson you have no idea, actually that whole video is laughable. I suggest you further research Orthodoxy before you open your mouth. You have no understanding of icons and their meaning. No one in the Orthodox church worships icons. Thery are visual depictions of events that serve as a reminder, as are words in a story.

[TheFederalistVoice]

Wilson is ignorant, because even though he points out that the East-West (Orthodox/Catholic) Schism split in the 11th Century, that was only because the Roman Church was becoming more and more progressive and the Eastern Christians became alarmed that the Roman Church was no longer following the path laid out by the early church, thus, the Eastern Orthodox Church has preserved the traditions of the earliest Christian churches...

[RUNZLIG811]

This man is a nut.. Christian art work is to set the mood for being Spiritual or tell a chronological story. Nothing more, nothing less! Should you through out every picture of your dead loved ones?It is nice to remeber those we love with a photo album.The ancient "photo album" was sculpture and Art. This man needs to find a petty angle some place else before he makes 30 more people ignorant..

[danhair]

I don't think he has any idea what he's talking about. I know Eastern Orthodox and they don't pray to idols or paintings, they believe that the it helps them focus their prays on God.

 Also to say that Orthodox and Catholic are the same age is like saying that every country in Europe is the same age because we were once all part of the Roman Empire. No that is not true, some are older then others.

[MrOphachew]

Doug Wilson is Biblically and Historically ignorant! He needs to research the Historical iconoclast and anti-iconoclast movements. Icons? read Exodus 25:18-19, Num. 21:8-9, 1 Kings 6:28-29, 1 Kings 7:25-45. I recommend the best books to read are by Jaroslav Pelikan or even better Clark Carlsons "What Every Protestant Should Know about the Orthodox Church"

[paulomi123]

and what about the veneration given in Scripture to the rod of Aaron, the jar of manna, and holy places like Mt. Sanai or Golgotha.matter is not bad , when Christ became flesh he glorified matter, an icon is a painted image of Christ just as Scripture is a written image of the Saviour

[paulomi123]

he has only mentioned what he wanted to, the early fathers were quick to defend the real presence in the eucharist, and also. he is right in asserting that the orthodox and catholic church were the same church at the beginning just like the catholic and calvinists were one before the reformation ,but that dosent deny the historic claim at all, otherwise you are to say that the calvinist and catholic church are the same and you end in a mess really, wrong way of finding historic church i wouldsay

[paulomi123]

he is talking about ignorance but i find ignorance on his part more, for example eastern orthodox churches dont "worship idols", we venerate them, to deny an icon of Jesus Christ is to deny His humanity, he has simply qouted two fathers ,one of them being the calvinist favourite ,augustine, i dont think he has made any point at all, secondly, the priest bow down before the eucharist because we unlike calvinists believe it becomes the real body and blood of Jesus Christ,

[ssvr]

@paulomi123 As stated b4, the argument "denying icons is denying the incarnation" is a non sequitur, will all due respect to J the Damascene. The Lord Himself said blessed are those who have NOT seen and still believe. We do not need a painted object to believe in the real incarnation of Christ. Secondly, the distinction you make between veneration and worship is not always understood by practitioners, abuses of such are well documented.

[ssvr]

"as Moses ages before enacted expressly, that neither a graven, nor molten, nor moulded, nor painted likeness should be made; so that we may not cleave to things of sense, but pass to intellectual objects: for familiarity with the sight disparages the reverence of what is divine; and to worship that which is immaterial by matter, is to dishonour it by sense.” -Clement of Alexandria, The Stromata 5.5

Clear evidence: early church did not venerate icons, this was a later development!

[paulomi123]

@ssvr but clement is talking about making idols of worship, eastern orthodoxy dont worship idols, we venerate icons, there is a hugee difference between the two, now if you might look closely about God giving moses the commandments you will clearly see that immediately after the commandment God orders moses to fill the temple he makes after it with icons and even orders him to construct a statue of angels,

[ssvr]

@paulomi123 Doesn't the OC teach that we should read the old in light of the New? Why lean on what the jews did in temples when Jesus is the perfect revelation of God? Did not the Lord himself say blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed? His revelation supercedes whatever Moses did, for surely, one greater than Moses was and is here.

[MrOphachew]

@MrOphachew Nope, "What the word communicates through hearing, the painter shows silently". St. Basil "The icon is a song of triumph and a revelation. It is an enduring monument to the victory of the Saints". St. John of Damascus

[TheOrthodoxSteven]

You say that you don't want the Lord to return and find you "bowing to an idol." Fine. What will you say to Him, however, when He finds you holding to a blasphemous doctrine like substitutionary atonement, which casts God the Father as the main antagonist against humanity? What you will say in defense of your wretched Calvinism which teaches that Christ saves us not from sin, death, and hell but from God Himself? I will gladly venerate the holy icons and leave you to your miserable blasphemies!

[ssvr]

@TheOrthodoxSteven

The fact that penal substitutionary atonement is a perversion of the gospel and that calvinism's fruit is rotten does not necessarily mean that you are right in venerating icons. Non sequitur.

[TheOrthodoxSteven]

There's simplicity, Mr. Wilson, and then there is purposeful ignorance and obfuscation, and your little offering here is so thoroughly deceitful (and perhaps deceived, if you are truly ignorant of church history and teaching). You clearly know nothing about Holy Orthodoxy or the Apostolic age of the Church and how the faith was lived in the early centuries. So, the next time someone asks you a question about it, you should probably humbly decline and send them to a proper source. (Cont...)

[TheOrthodoxSteven]

In a way, I feel profoundly sorry for Protestants like Wilson. Because I regard their faith as sincere, I count them as my Christian brethren, but they are more than 1600 years removed from the Apostolic roots of the Christian Church. They're a movement born in rebellion against one heresy (the papacy) but have chartered a course even further away from the Church. In that way, they're like the Prodigal who, having remembered his father's love in his heart, finds he can't remember the way home.

[TheOrthodoxSteven]

I don't question Mr. Wilson's faith in Christ nor the sincerity of his convictions, but he belongs to a withered branch of "Christianity" whose only fruit is division. The truth is that Protestantism is built on heretical foundations (all of the "solas" and an individualism and rationalism that are completely antithetical to the Holy Gospel), and so it really isn't possible for him to judge the Church or her faith and practices. And that doesn't even broach the subject of his filthy Calvinism.

[ssvr]

@TheOrthodoxSteven

If I were you I would no be so quick to throw stones, even though I reject protestantism as well. If you want to talk about fruit, maybe you should start with the violence of the councils, continuing to this day in the recent display (again!) of greek orthodox fight armenians in the church of the Nativity with broomsticks and rocks.

[herewegokids7]

The Reformation was not a 'glorious cleansing of the Church.' It was a tragic divorce and the cause of ushering in the age of relativism.

[mishakol129]

@herewegokids7 So true, I like to call is Christian Babylon. When Luther nailed his 95 theses on the door of that church he started the Christian Tower of Babel... The word babylon means confusion.

[RUNZLIG811]

@herewegokids7 That's right and it led to a watering down of everything spiritual and beautiful. Now Churches are splitting and splitting for every reason under the sun. In fighting aNd made up Denominations have multiplied into thousands of versions of Christianity, and they all think they have finally got it right.. It's a tragedy. You are spot on!

[ssvr]

@RUNZLIG811 You mean infighting like greek orthodox and armenian priests and monks savaging each other with brooms and fists at the church of the nativity this past december?

[RUNZLIG811]

@ssvr No, I mean the make it up as you go along Christian Churches that are popping up all over the place because of this bitter seed false teaching! They would rather have a God gifted Artist paint a scene of a dope deal than him paint a scene of Revelations. It's more than a shame!!! God gifTS AND TALENTS ARE TO GLORIFY HIM! That could be a Painter, Singer, Composer ect.. If a so called man of God tells you that you can't use your talents to Glorify God than RUN! RUN FAR AWAY! Primitive!

[jet375]

@herewegokids7

u mad bro?

[hokeyplyr22x]

Wow! it is true that before Jesus Christ, any "praying" to a "painting" would have been idolatry. But Jesus is a living icon of God. So Doug might as well say that, "believing in Jesus is idolatry", and by saying that he might as well call himself a Jew, not a Christian. No eastern orthodox christian prays to a "picture." The icons are a clear remembrance of a Christian family that stretches back over 2000 years. Doug Wilson is part of a Western Christian thought that is plain nonsense.

[mishakol129]

@hokeyplyr22x "Doug Wilson is part of a Western Christian" - exactly, and because of this he cannot see his own impassioned (irrational) judgmental-ism. This is the way that all Protestant Christians act who are true PROTESTants. They believe that the Church is evil and the "tradition of men", while Protestantism is not. But they've got it the other way around, Protestantism is the "tradition of men", not Orthodoxy. Their problem is hypocrisy and a failure to admit that they're wrong.

[jcouture300]

@hokeyplyr22x Yeah, I'm a Protestant currently studying such topics, and Wilson's argument here (I should say, "argument") is nothing but a strawman, regarding his depiction of icons. Though he chides the idea of Orthodoxy going back to the beginnings of the Church as coming from an ignorance of history (though he cites no substantive support for this statement), his understanding of the purpose of icons in the Orthodox Church is based on nothing more than ignorance.

[crafters1]

Private interpretation begets private theologies and result in individual salvation. We have no fundamental need to"be one (with each other) as God(the Trinity) is one" because my salvation is between me and my God. Hmmm this is a much bigger topic than this forum warrants. If you really want to understand the fundamental difference between Eastern and Western theology I recommend this article to you. If you can't accept this understanding of God everything else is futile to discuss

[crafters1]

must submit to. In order to satisfy that law God had to demand a fallen sort of justice. The understanding of God's justice as demanding a sacrifice to satisfy Himself or a higher law is a direct projection of our concept of justice upon God. Without the church as a "pillar and ground of truth" we will always read scripture and create God in our distorted image. This is why the prophecy(teachings) of the scriptures are of no private interpretation.

[crafters1]

When God created the world ex nihilo, from nothing, that nothingness came from within Himself as there was nothing else. The western theologies tend to be crypto neo-Platonists which is directly reflected in their soteriologies. In neo Platonsim God takes the chaos and balances it and brings order to it. If someone ie. Adam upsets that balance then an offsetting "payment" or act must take place to bring things back into balance. This would imply that there is a higher law that God must submit

[crafters1]

A lot of talking at cross purposes. A big fundamental problem in communication between Orthodox and Protestants/RC is that we use the same words to mean different things. The understanding of the theological terminology is based upon a different fundamental view of God and Creation. There is a strong propensity in the west to limit God to our time and laws.  The Orthodox see time itself as fallen, a rift in eternity that originates with Christ entering the world. When God created the world

[ssvr]

"They call themselves Gnostics. They also possess images, some of them painted, and others formed from different kinds of material. They maintain that a likeness of Christ was made by Pilate at that time when Jesus lived among them. They crown these images and set them up along with the images of the philosophers of the world... they place them with images of Pythagoras, Plato Aristotle. They have also other modes of honoriing these images, after the same manner of the gentiles." Ireneaus c. 180

[mishakol129]

@ssvr You're are abusing the sayings of the Fathers when you make such a bold assertion. That saying cannot possibly be seen to be condemning icons because Iranaeus was talking about the heretics who even went so far as to "place them with images of Pythagoras etc..."

So this was not a condemnation of Icons, but a condemnation of heretics who use icons in a heretical manner.

Again, you are abusing the Fathers.

Watch this video:

watch?v=paEofDHvpSk

[ssvr]

@mishakol129 Irenaeus simply said "They call themselves Gnostics". Whoever they were, they had a practice of bowing before painted images which Irenaeus clearly points to as foreign to the church. Again, there is zero evidence that the earliest church venerated icons. None. If you were to argue the case in a court of law, you would lose.

[cosmo1pug]

This guy tried debating hitchens. How is it they keep using the same failed logic. I will no longer tolerate theist logic

[Cikaski]

excuse me but the eastern orthodox does not worship these pictures called Icons. We simply venerate them. there is a difference in between worshiping and venerating. worshiping is like the so called religion Hinduism while the eastern orthodox simply just kissing the Icon. and that is what venerating means. not bowing down to the picture and acting like its God because we already know there is one God and one God only. Plus i am surprised you would think you would've known since your not one.

[arthistorybuff99]

As i believe it, they are not idols, they are Icons. They are not praying to it as it is god, however they are using it as a tool to have their prayers heard.

[jemoijemoi1]

Doug Weilson is an idiot.Orthodox do not pray to pictures.They pray to what it is in the represerntations in the pictures which is Jesus Christ.Doug wilson is the stereotypical american schismatic:stupid,without any view of Christian faith,this dude has probably never read a theological book in his life.The truth is Americans are too dumb to understand the orthodox Church which requires years of universitarian preparations.Wilson comes form the country from which most sects come from.Bleah...

[NilDesperandum777]

3:28 -- What utter balls. Exodus and onward...The Father Almighty created a material world, in which material tools are used to enhance person's faith, in a material world that hallows God's Goodness. The Temple was instructed to be fashioned by men under the direction of Heaven using specific colours, stones, materials etc...To an illiterate population, the picture or carving of Scripture's record serves to direct the believer to God, and God alone. Protest if you must but do so in honestly.

[EvertonFooty]

The author mentions that the Bible says not to bow down to a creature yet he bows down to Jesus, a creature. HYPOCRITE!

[dannyz1308]

@EvertonFooty Jesus is creator, not creation

[jaffknot]

You can fit so much ignorance in a five-minute video. Calvinism (predestination, penal substitution, irrresistible grace, etc.) that really is laughable.

[marmolejomarc]

One more thing be careful your intellect does not become the treasure the rich man could not part with to enter the kingdom of heaven.. For God uses the dumb and simple to confound the wise...

[marmolejomarc]

you also seem to be bias in your understanding of history.. you dont mention people were tortured and killed and persecuted for having icons your dont mention very well known saints defended the right for icons.. you dont mention the earliest churches found even had mosaics.. icons have been around for a very long time.. you believe the history you want to believe as every historian does.. ur remarks and arrogance make me sick.. if ur gonna talk history lay out all the facts.. sir

[marmolejomarc]

You intellectuals think you have it all figured out.. you want to know what laughable is that protestants have over 25000 denominations all claiming to have the correct teachings and all pointing fingers at one an other.. the reason why so many people fail to become christian in the west... real Christians not trademark Christianity were fellowship is Starbucks cup of coffee and a group of guys watching football after service.. ur quite laughable sir..

[SuperScarrow]

You do not know how to use icons. You do not know Christ. Icons aren't worshipped, they are the bible in colour! Jesus at the last supper said,"this is my body, this is my blood". Not symbolises, it is! It is his body and blood. Please don't shout false claims if you have know idea what you are talking about.

[tinypocket222]

/watch?feature=player_embedded­&v=q1D5HjC0qiY

[AlveusLacuna]

This guy's name is Anachronistic Wilson.

[AlveusLacuna]

If anyone claimed that Orthodoxy has an older lineage than Roman Catholicism, then it was simply assuming that what is now "Roman Catholicism" did not exist before the schism. In that framing, Roman Catholicism with it's maligned doctrines "came in to being" after the schism in the same way that the Lutherans, Reformed churches, Anglicans, et cetera "came into being" at formal breaks at later times. Before the schism, there was One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church which was Orthodox.

[minasoliman]

The letter of Epiphanius of Salamis supposedly is an 8th Century fraud written by Iconoclasts to try to put some sort of "patristic" support. But the truth is icons even existed in Jewish temples, as a first century Jewish temple recently discovered has shown. If you visit ancient Egyptian churches that date from the second and third centuries, icons are there as well. In fact, even in the Old Testament (Exodus 26), they made carved images of cherubim in the Holy Temple.

[nicea2787]

Mr. Wilson's proscription of images only works if the images depict things worshiped as deities. Mr. Wilson doesn't want to be caught kneeling in front of an image when Jesus returns because he can't grasp that nobody in Orthodoxy worships any god other than the Holy Trinity. Frankly, I think God is smarter than that, especially if He deigned to put images all over the temple, to descend in glory between the cherubim, and constantly use images of supernatural beings throughout salvation history.

[MrOphachew]

Of course it is. John 4:4-6. Also, read "Eusebius: A Chronicle of the History of the Church." & "Early Christian Writings" "The Christian Tradition" by Jaroslav Pelikan

This guys ignorant he doesn't want you to know about 2 Kings 13:20-21, Exodus 25:18-19, Numbers 21:8-9, especially 1 Kings 6:23-29, 1 Kings 7:25-45

[MrOphachew]

Of course it is.

[brendos444]

As someone studying about Orthodoxy with an open mind, I do find iconography a little bit strange. I still don't really feel right with the use of icons. But I am at least open to the fact that I might be wrong. I do think idolatry goes deeper than simply bowing down to things. Idolatry goes to worshipping false gods. And I don't think the Orthodox can be accused of this. And you do have instances in the Bible where objects were used religious symbols such as in the temple

[greglee20]

@brendos444 Orthodoxy is sooooo different than almost anything in the western/protestant world that it is very common that certain things are strange to those first seeking out the church. I felt the same as well, but now i have come to appricate the icons and their veneration. Keep in mind the concepts of bowing and kissing is very eastern in actions, so they come across strange in western culture. Blessings on your study. Check out ancient faith radio for more info

[CatholicCreed]

Well my Orthodox friend i hope we will be back together soon, if not in this life then the next! ~ Your Catholic Cousin

[usmc1088]

What a dork!



[onewhocomesdown]

I was Traditional Non-Denom, Wesleyan, Atheist, agnostic, back to evangelical and Young Life looking at the Reformed and Baptist and even non Christian J W and learning of LDS. But here is what I found when God guided me to Orthodoxy. The Orthodox Church is Evangelical, but not Protestant. Orthodox but not Jewish. Catholic but not Roman. It isnt non-denom it is pre denominational. It has taught believed preserved and died for the Faith of the Apostles since Pentecost 2000 years ago! Praise God!

[onewhocomesdown]

What words do for the literate Icons do for the Illiterate! They are windows into heaven NOT just pictures but other world images that reveal thousands of Holy men women and martyrs from the beginning of the Church. Look at the self proclaimed "reformed" Churches. They began after 1517 and most of them hold beliefs contrary to the Classical Reformation! Most follow the Radical views of the modern age! False teaches that took the protestants further from the Truth unfortunately. Lord have mercy!

[onewhocomesdown]

Perhaps this man needs to study the actually history of the Church! He also needs to study the history of Icons. I bet he prays for his wife and kisses pictures of her I bet he asks his wife to pray for him and other Christians. God is not a God of the dead but of the living and Saints are the cloud of witness that surround us and intercede on our behalf! Look at Hebrews! Also there were images in the Old Testament! Icons are Scripture in color. They are NOT worshiped ONLY God alone is worshiped

[DallPro95]

@onewhocomesdown

Keep telling yourself that. I think you've pulled out every EO canned answer in your comments to this video. Can't let those EO talking points go to waste.

[onewhocomesdown]

@DallPro95 Well it is the Truth I am sorry you dont like this.

[dimic]

Doug Wilson barely understands Orthodox doctrine, history and the Bible in context of the Orthodoxy. Before you engage the Orthodox Church I suggest you study the doctrine, Doug. For you are merely engaging straw man renditions of the Orthodox position.

[KabaneTheChristian]

@zadogren

(Galatians 5:6) For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision counts for anything, but only faith working through love.

(1 Corinthians 7:19) For neither circumcision counts for anything nor uncircumcision, but keeping the commandments of God.

[KabaneTheChristian]

@zadogren

Rather, salvation is a lifelong process, according to the Holy Bible and the Fathers of the Church. Oh, and btw. Faith is at the very center of Orthodox doctrine. Salvation is attained by complete and lifelong faith in God. And, what is this faith? Simply compare:

[KabaneTheChristian]

@zadogren

That is nonsense. The Scripture almost NEVER speaks of salvation in the past tense. Rather, it is used mostly in the present tense (1 Cor 1:18, 15:2, 2 Cor 2:15) in that one continues to be saved and grow more conformed to the image of Christ throughout life. This is the whole purpose of the Christian life according to 2 Peter 1:4 which teaches that we are to be "partakers of the divine nature." NEVER does the Scripture teach some sort of one and done salvation event.

[onewhocomesdown]

@KabaneTheChristian Saint Paul says work out your salvation with fear and trembling! WORK OUT! He calls himself the least of the Apostles! How many Protestants do this? Please... look around. Christ said this IS my body this IS my blood. How many Protestants believe this? I am asking honestly. I was Protestant. Christ says in John 6 if you DO NOT EAT my flesh and DRINK MY BLOOD you have NO part in me! How many Protestants believe this? It is a Great Mystery in Holy Orthodoxy. Come and see.

[grovania]

@onewhocomesdown Just on the "real presence" question. Lutherans (who are protestant) would affirm that the bread/wine is the true body/blood of Jesus. The rest of protestant-land (if you're not counting Anglicans, Episcopal, and *maybe* some Methodists) would reject that view.

[KabaneTheChristian]

@zadogren

Indeed, the Apostle Paul tells the heretics in Galatia that they have "fallen from grace." This means that they once had grace, but they lost it. (Galatians 5:4). And the book of Hebrews says that if one commits serious sin in full knowledge, then there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins! (Hebrews 10:26). No, friend. What is unbiblical is not the Holy Orthodox Church, but your Protestant traditions of men.

[KabaneTheChristian]

@zadogren

Receving salvation after death when one was not in grace on Earth? HUH? That's not Orthodox at all. Study before you make such asinine claims.

Of course one can lose salvation. The book of Hebrews, which emphasizes Christ's total power as High Priest, contains more warnings against apostasy than every other biblical book! The Apostle Paul himself says he could become an "adokimos", the Greek word for "apostate", though most Protestant translations will mask that.

[KabaneTheChristian]

@zadogren

Furthermore, immediately after St. Peter commands the crowds to repent and be baptized, he says "This promise is for you and your children!" (Acts 2:39). Of course children may be baptized! They are responsible, as they grow older, to keep the faith and hold fast to Our Lord Jesus Christ. They aren't guaranteed Heaven just because they were baptized as an infant.

[KabaneTheChristian]

@zadogren

Prayer for the dead is recorded in Jewish writings long before Christianity ever existed. The practice continued, seamlessly, into early Christianity without any condemnation from the Apostles or the Lord Jesus Christ Himself. By the second century AD, we have very clear references to prayers offered for those reposed in the Lord. The Scripture records that entire households were baptized at once (1 Corinthians 1:16)

[KabaneTheChristian]

@zadogren

Yet, it is the Scripture that says that we are to hold to oral apostolic tradition just as we hold to written apostolic tradition (2 Thess 2:15). It is the Scripture which records the correct words of the Ethiopian eunuch, "How can I [know what the Scripture says] unless someone guides me?" (Acts 8:31). It is the Scripture which records Jesus handing authority of His Mother to the Holy Apostle John (John 19:27, an impossibility if He had blood brothers.

[KabaneTheChristian]

@zadogren

Au contraire, the Orthodox Church is the only Church that correctly teaches the biblical gospel of Christ. For example, virtually all Western Christians emphasize some form of the "satisfaction" model of atonement, which was first created by Anselm of Canterbury 1100 years after Jesus lived, and further developed by the Reformers. It is not, in any way, founded in Scripture.

[KabaneTheChristian]

@zadogren

...the correct doctrine? It's completely inconsistent. The Holy Spirit guided the Church to recognize the correct canon, and the correct interpretation of said canon. To accept the product of years of Patristic debate, dialogue, and Council while completely rejecting the Patristic theology that emerged from the same debate, dialogue, and Council is self contradictory.

[KabaneTheChristian]

@zadogren

That's a false dichotomy. It's like saying that God didn't write the Bible, men did. Of course men wrote the Bible. But men wrote it under the inspiration of God. Likewise, it was men in Councils of the Church (following the example of Acts 15) that determined the canon UNDER THE INSPIRATION of the Holy Spirit. If you believe that the Spirit inspired the Church to recognize the correct canon, why do you believe that the Spirit completely failed in inspiring them to recognize...

[aznmessenjah]

You know, I really try to like these new "Reformed catholic" types like pastor Doug Wilson. But one minute, they're emphasizing the unity of all Christians in trinitarian baptism, the next minute, they're calling Orthodox Christians and Catholics idolaters for venerating images. So if we're idolaters, why would you even want to be in communion with us? .... perplexing.

[crafters1]

Hmmm having been a protestant pastor and now Orthodox I'd have to say that Doug is trying to understand Eastern Orthodoxy from his own paradigm which will never work. If you start with the assumption that your understanding of the bible is correct then it should be no surprise that any other paradigm seems wrong.  The trick is to back up and find out what is the right paradigm to interpret the scripture by. You can't get that from the scripture. You have to get it from the church 1Tim 3:15

[JogaHenryBonito]

@crafters1 Hello friend, could you please expand on your point?

[crafters1]

@JogaHenryBonito Well if you want to understand any system of belief or even a mathematical or scientific theorem you have to view it using the fundamental beliefs, assumptions or axioms that the system uses. If you use the assumptions of a different system then it will make no sense. Then you can see if it fits with reality, or at least your experience. If you begin by assuming that your beliefs are the truth then that automatically precludes any other belief structure from being true.

[JogaHenryBonito]

@crafters1 I get what your saying. I don't know too much about the Orthodox church, but it seems to be pretty solid and based in Scripture. For me I don't just wander with the wind, but I choose to stand for what the Bible says. I'm a discerning person, and I always listen to a rebuke that is according to Scripture. I just believe in bearing fruit with repentance. My works don't give me any power, but are a product of my faith. Basically, I hope to practice what I preach :)

[JogaHenryBonito]

@crafters1 But I also think that although some people may sit in the same church and call themselves Orthodox and even do all the practices, but their hearts may not be all one and united. You will know a true believer by their fruit. There are lukewarms in every denomination including Orthodox and Catholics. Some Protestants are a joke. My friend's priest at his Catholic church believes in the Big Bang. I choose to let the Scriptures speak for itself.

[crafters1]

@JogaHenryBonito One of the big stumbling blocks for Protestants is Sola Scriptura (scripture alone) coined by Luther. However the Church gave us both the canon and writings of scripture and chose those books according to it's knowledge of God. Sola Scriptura implies that the bible gave us the church. If you start with the Scripture without the interpretation of it you wind up fulfilling II Peter 3:15& 16 and twisting the scriptures. Sola Scriptura isn't even scriptural. It's sandy ground.

[Reazzurro90]

The funny thing is that Luther in his 'glorious cleansing' did not condemn iconography or statues.

And the claim that the early Christians did not use icons is plainly stupid. Not wrong. Not misinformed. STUPID. Because they so obviously did.

[Mkvine]

KabaneTheChristian has responded to all the claims in this video. Check out his video :)

[kenndl]

My advise: Do not ask the Ford dealer about Chevys and vice-versa.

[aznmessenjah]

Some rejected images in the early church. So what? There was once a time when Arianism was the dominant form of Christianity. But the councils established Christian orthodoxy.

It makes no sense to accept Nicea and reject Nicea II. It makes no sense to accept the New Testament canon and reject the mechanism of councils and bishops which produced the canon. It makes no sense to reject the papacy (as is meet) and accept the Filioque. Protestantism is filled with inconsistencies.

[Reazzurro90]

@aznmessenjah

Should also be noted that the original Reformation group, the Lutherans, accept the II Council of Nicaea as valid ;).

[ssvr]

@aznmessenjah

You mean the councils where fists were flying and violence condoned all in the name of Orthodoxy? Yes, you are right that Protestantism is full of inconsistencies. But you fail to see the log in your own eye. What about the death of Archbishop Flavian, at the hands of Eutyches and Dioscorus at Ephesus? Or the antisemitism of Chrysostom? Or the fact that there is absolutely no evidence of the veneration of icons in either the New Testament or 1st cent christianity?

[StJames37]

@ssvr There is no evidence that Christians didn't venerate icons, but every reason to think that they did - especially since 1st & 2nd Temple Judaism used many sacred cherubic icons in the Temple. Such images were commanded by God in the Torah. So the making of sacred icons far predates the early Church. The Dura-Europos Synagogue in Syria from the early 3rd century, as one example, has many icons of angles, prophets, and Biblical stories covering the walls and ceilings.

[ssvr]

@StJames37

Then the burden of proof is upon you to show that icon veneration took place. Yet what is presented as 'evidence' if carefully and thoughtfully considered, is hardly conclusive. The existence of frescoes at Dura-Europos does not necessarily presuuppose veneration of such. They could have purely been used for didactic purposes, especially given the illiteracy of the time. Where is the evidence that veneration actually took place before these?

[crafters1]

@ssvr Well If you have the One, Holy and Apostolic Church as a foundation then I'm not sure that we need to prove anything. The Orthodox Church is contiguous with the apostles and therefore since you are the innovationist I think the burden is upon you to disprove it. Not believing in icons smacks of neoPlatonistic dualism and denies the full meaning of the incarnation. God joining Himself to creation. It might help to know that pre Christian synagogues were plastered with icons of OT events

[ssvr]

@crafters1 The pharisees said as much to Jesus about foundations. Simply claiming it will not suffice. Further, John the Damascene's argument, which you parrot, is weak and rejecting it does not necessarily imply dualism. Consider this: Jesus said to His disciples and Thomas, you believe because you have seen, but blessed are those who do not see and still believe! Rejecting icons does not necessitate a rejection of the incarnation, a most preposterous non sequitur if there ever was one.

[mishakol129]

@ssvr That quote of Iranaeus doesn't make sense because the Gnostics deny that Jesus even came in the flesh, so its impossible that they would have an icon of him.

[StJames37]

@ssvr There are many 'dogmas', which the Church later clarified, that were not necessarily fleshed out in the 1st century - though they certainly have their roots in 1st century Apostolic Christianity. The veneration of icons is strongly evident in the Roman Catacombs by the early 2nd century. Many of these 2nd century icons - although of poorer material 'quality' than later icons by Byzantines iconographers, nevertheless, look very similar stylistically and express the exact same Faith.

[ssvr]

@StJames37 No. Again the existence of icons in the catacombs does not de facto presuppose veneration! Yes, they may look the same but to infer from that that people bowed down before them or kissed them is reading into the evidence. That is basic, sound and prudent logic. Real evidence would be constituted of a written witness to the act of veneration of an icon, but such is nowhere to be found in the 1st century.

[StJames37]

@ssvr The idea of God as Trinity, the Hypo-static union, etc. are not spelled out in the New Testament, yet these 'dogmas' came a few centuries later to safeguard the true meaning of the Gospel. It is the same with icons, they proclaim the Incarnation. Icons are nothing more than the Bible translated into another 'language' (i.e pictogram) and correctly interpreted. They are teaching tools, which make profound theological statements.