It's over two hours long. But I find it interesting.

I watched the whole thing several days ago and found it very helpful. I guess it's gaining in popularity. You can break it up by chapter.

"The Failure of Eastern Orthodoxy"
Ch. 1 (2:45): Ecumenical councils can and have erred, by their own admission.
Ch. 2 (16:48): Take my eyes, but not my icons.
Ch. 3 (40:16): Mary
Ch. 4 (1:05:11): Asceticism
Ch. 5 (1:33:55): Monks
Ch. 6 (1:15:57): Rewriting church history
Ch. 7 (2:02:08): You can believe anything you want, just don't take away our icons.

The Banned said:

---

Serious question: are you M1? You're on the same posting arc, just with double predestination rather than universalism.

---

Who is M1?

When one does systematic theology as a whole, one has to use proof texts. For the word of God contains such apparent paradoxes. But nothing contradicts and where scripture is
obscure in one place, it is made clearer in other places.

TheGreatEscape said:

---

When one does systematic theology as a whole, one has to use proof texts. For the word of God contains such apparent paradoxes. But nothing contradicts and where scripture is
obscure in one place, it is made clearer in other places.

---

Clear to who is the question that you keep missing.

Klaus Schwab said:

---

TheGreatEscape said:

---

When one does systematic theology as a whole, one has to use proof texts. For the word of God contains such apparent paradoxes. But nothing contradicts and where scripture is
obscure in one place, it is made clearer in other places.

---

Clear to who is the question that you keep missing.

---

For instance, theee are the three forms of unity (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Forms_of_Unity), the Westminster Confession of Faith, and the 2nd London Baptist Confession of Faith.

The Lutherans have the Book of Concord.

Lol. We all come from different Christian traditions.

Klaus Schwab said:

---

TheGreatEscape said:

---

Klaus Schwab said:

---

TheGreatEscape said:

---

When one does systematic theology as a whole, one has to use proof texts. For the word of God contains such apparent paradoxes. But nothing contradicts and where scripture is
obscure in one place, it is made clearer in other places.

---

Clear to who is the question that you keep missing.

---

For instance, theee are the three forms of unity (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Forms_of_Unity), the Westminster Confession of Faith, and the 2nd London Baptist Confession of Faith.

The Lutherans have the Book of Concord.

---

I thought scripture was clear? Why do these groups need further clarification and why do they disagree? Which one is correct? Who has the authority to determine correct scripture? How do you even know your current canon is correct?

---

You're either an atheist or didn't watch the video.

At the very least, the video's illustration and documentation of church history clearly shows there has been a longstanding dissent against newly created church dogma and doctrine birthed through the notion of "tradition" that is not supported in Scripture.

TheGreatEscape said:

---

When one does systematic theology as a whole, one has to use proof texts. For the word of God contains such apparent paradoxes. But nothing contradicts and where scripture is
obscure in one place, it is made clearer in other places.

---

Well this certainly isn't an answer. Proof texting is using scripture to argue a point without including the context of the scriptures around it and including other scriptures that are relevant.
Its like Romans 10:9 "If you declare with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved". If you just stated that to mean that's all it takes to enter into Heaven...thats prooftexting.

Do you believe in the perspicuity of scripture so that anyone reading on their own would understand exactly what the text means and needs no outside guidance to interpret?

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

Klaus Schwab said:

---

TheGreatEscape said:

---

Klaus Schwab said:

---

TheGreatEscape said:

---

When one does systematic theology as a whole, one has to use proof texts. For the word of God contains such apparent paradoxes. But nothing contradicts and where scripture is
obscure in one place, it is made clearer in other places.

---

Clear to who is the question that you keep missing.

---

For instance, theee are the three forms of unity (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Forms_of_Unity), the Westminster Confession of Faith, and the 2nd London Baptist Confession of Faith.

The Lutherans have the Book of Concord.

---

I thought scripture was clear? Why do these groups need further clarification and why do they disagree? Which one is correct? Who has the authority to determine correct scripture? How do you even know your current canon is correct?

---

You're either an atheist or didn't watch the video.

---

Orthodox and quit watching when I realized it's just quote mining. In all reality the Protestant worldview is just layers of quote mining. That's the only way to temporarily defend personal traditions outside of the Church, of course this never holds up in a debate or even during a historical examination and discussion but to the average person it can be enough. It can be very hard to examine reality outside of your own worldview.

Bob_Ag said:

---

At the very least, the video's illustration and documentation of church history clearly shows there has been a longstanding dissent against newly created church dogma and doctrine birthed through the notion of "tradition" that is not supported in Scripture.

---

The New Testament speaks of the Church, not your individual post reformation groups. You can't pick and choose from early church fathers then jump centuries down the line to Pastor Billy from Dallas Seminary. There's endless amounts of tradition even within scripture that you don't adhere to. Your spiritual ancestors (the early reformers) made personal decisions based on what was going on around them at the time and their general education/understanding of Rome and Holy Scripture. This was totally divorced from apostolic tradition and mainly prelest.

"So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by our spoken word or by our letter." 2 Thessalonians 2:15

"but in case I am delayed, I write so that you will know how one ought to conduct himself in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and support of the truth." 1 Timothy 3:15

Even if we only examine 1 Timothy, you will probably default to an invisible church. Of course this isn't in scripture but it's a product of your post reformation worldview. It's a default setting and a necessary one to make sense of your belief. The issue of course is that you will (possibly correctly) disagree with another Protestant church. This happens all the time. This is a fractal pattern that repeats over time and gives birth to thousands of denominations with varying belief and ZERO normative authority to decide who is correct. The reason for this is that you don't have apostolic succession and therefore you are divorced from the historical realities that Christ setup and gave to the apostles to be handed down.

TheGreatEscape said:

---

Lol. We all come from different Christian traditions.

---

How do you decide which traditions are correct?

Klaus Schwab said:

---

TheGreatEscape said:

---

Lol. We all come from different Christian traditions.

---

How do you decide which traditions are correct?

---

How do you? A succession of wildly immoral and corrupt (and now, apparently infallible) popes is not exactly the spiritual bedrock authority I would consider trustworthy.

BluHorseShu said:

---

TheGreatEscape said:

---

When one does systematic theology as a whole, one has to use proof texts. For the word of God contains such apparent paradoxes. But nothing contradicts and where scripture is
obscure in one place, it is made clearer in other places.

---

Well this certainly isn't an answer. Proof texting is using scripture to argue a point without including the context of the scriptures around it and including other scriptures that are relevant.
Its like Romans 10:9 "If you declare with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved". If you just stated that to mean that's all it takes to enter into Heaven...thats prooftexting.

Do you believe in the perspicuity of scripture so that anyone reading on their own would understand exactly what the text means and needs no outside guidance to interpret?

---

All are important so long as the proof texts do not contradict the context.

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

Klaus Schwab said:

---

TheGreatEscape said:

---

Lol. We all come from different Christian traditions.

---

How do you decide which traditions are correct?

---

The video convincingly showed the Eastern Orthodox picks and chooses which ecumenical councils to acknowledge. If it doesn't agree with our teachings, we'll just declare it didn't happen.

And have changed their opinions on whether a church father is anathema or a saint.

And that bishops today vary widely on a variety of issues from "everyone is going to heaven" to "everyone save a few are going to hell". The only thing they can agree on is how important icons are. Which an above ecumenical council banned.

And that they operate very much like Pastor Billy from Dallas Seminary with their asceticism.

---

Someone was paying attention really well…

UTExan said:

---

Klaus Schwab said:

---

TheGreatEscape said:

---

Lol. We all come from different Christian traditions.

---

How do you decide which traditions are correct?

---

How do you? A succession of wildly immoral and corrupt (and now, apparently infallible) popes is not exactly the spiritual bedrock authority I would consider trustworthy.

---

Bishops, saints, councils, church fathers, etc. all nested within an unbroken historical Church. The Orthodox Church never propped up infallible leaders. Unfortunately for you, Protestants come from Rome and that's clearly seen with the millions of popes around the globe that indirectly claim infallibility.

Klaus Schwab said:

---

UTExan said:

---

Klaus Schwab said:

---

TheGreatEscape said:

---

Lol. We all come from different Christian traditions.

---

How do you decide which traditions are correct?

---

How do you? A succession of wildly immoral and corrupt (and now, apparently infallible) popes is not exactly the spiritual bedrock authority I would consider trustworthy.

---

Bishops, saints, councils, church fathers, etc. all nested within an unbroken historical Church.

---

I've lost count how many churches claim this. So the question remains, how do you decide which traditions are correct?

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

Klaus Schwab said:

---

UTExan said:

---

Klaus Schwab said:

---

TheGreatEscape said:

---

Lol. We all come from different Christian traditions.

---

How do you decide which traditions are correct?

---

How do you? A succession of wildly immoral and corrupt (and now, apparently infallible) popes is not exactly the spiritual bedrock authority I would consider trustworthy.

---

Bishops, saints, councils, church fathers, etc. all nested within an unbroken historical Church.

---

I've lost count how many churches claim this. So the question remains, how do you decide which traditions are correct?

---

Name other churches outside of Rome that claim Apostolic succession and can back it up with historical facts. Church of Christ can't defend it, they are a Protestant group that believes in blackout theology. They are no different than Mormons and Muslims when it comes to lacking basic historical facts.

The Church is the pillar and ground for truth since Christ is the head. Pastor Billy Bob's Southern Baptist church founded circa 1995 is not the pillar and ground for truth. How could it be? What is Pastor Billy Bob's connection to Pentecost? Nothing at all. Zero historical connection to any of that world. He, like all other westerners, believe texts just stand on their own. Basically just ignoring worldviews and many times ignorant of how many of their beliefs came to be. This is why they believe they can make their own church and be justified in their own traditions. The reason they feel justified is the development of the western individual as the sole source of authority. No connection to Antioch, Jerusalem, Alexandria, Rome pre schism, Constantinople. No connection to anything in the New Testament.

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

Klaus Schwab said:

---

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

Klaus Schwab said:

---

UTExan said:

---

Klaus Schwab said:

---

TheGreatEscape said:

---

Lol. We all come from different Christian traditions.

---

How do you decide which traditions are correct?

---

How do you? A succession of wildly immoral and corrupt (and now, apparently infallible) popes is not exactly the spiritual bedrock authority I would consider trustworthy.

---

Bishops, saints, councils, church fathers, etc. all nested within an unbroken historical Church.

---

I've lost count how many churches claim this. So the question remains, how do you decide which traditions are correct?

---

Name other churches outside of Rome that claim Apostolic succession and can back it up with historical facts.

---

According to wikipedia: Anglican, Church of the East, Eastern Orthodox, Hussite, Moravian, Old Catholic, Oriental Orthodox, Catholic and Scandinavian Lutheran.

I'm guessing only "Eastern Orthodox" has their facts in order, right?

---

Yes we are the only Church that has everything in order. For starters you get the canon of scripture from us. That's a big deal for Protestants. Christianity is not relative. That's another modern western tradition. If Christianity is relative then it's subjective and useless. Half of the churches you listed, which isn't many, are easily dismissed with simple dating. Anglicans? 1534. Orientals split for heretical Christology in the 5th century.

Klaus Schwab said:

---

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

Klaus Schwab said:

---

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

Klaus Schwab said:

---

UTExan said:

---

Klaus Schwab said:

---

TheGreatEscape said:

---

Lol. We all come from different Christian traditions.

---

How do you decide which traditions are correct?

---

How do you? A succession of wildly immoral and corrupt (and now, apparently infallible) popes is not exactly the spiritual bedrock authority I would consider trustworthy.

---

Bishops, saints, councils, church fathers, etc. all nested within an unbroken historical Church.

---

I've lost count how many churches claim this. So the question remains, how do you decide which traditions are correct?

---

Name other churches outside of Rome that claim Apostolic succession and can back it up with historical facts.

---

According to wikipedia: Anglican, Church of the East, Eastern Orthodox, Hussite, Moravian, Old Catholic, Oriental Orthodox, Catholic and Scandinavian Lutheran.

I'm guessing only "Eastern Orthodox" has their facts in order, right?

---

Yes we are the only Church that has everything in order. For starters you get the canon of scripture from us. That's a big deal for Protestants. Christianity is not relative. That's another modern western tradition. If Christianity is relative then it's subjective and useless. Half of the churches you listed, which isn't many, are easily dismissed with simple dating. Anglicans? 1534. Orientals split for heretical Christology in the 5th century.

---

I guess that makes you one of the million popes that determines which church has everything in order.

Klaus Schwab said:

---

Bob_Ag said:

---

At the very least, the video's illustration and documentation of church history clearly shows there has been a longstanding dissent against newly created church dogma and doctrine birthed through the notion of "tradition" that is not supported in Scripture.

---

The New Testament speaks of the Church, not your individual post reformation groups. You can't pick and choose from early church fathers then jump centuries down the line to Pastor Billy from Dallas Seminary. There's endless amounts of tradition even within scripture that you don't adhere to. Your spiritual ancestors (the early reformers) made personal decisions based on what was going on around them at the time and their general education/understanding of Rome and Holy Scripture. This was totally divorced from apostolic tradition and mainly prelest.

"So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by our spoken word or by our letter." 2 Thessalonians 2:15

"but in case I am delayed, I write so that you will know how one ought to conduct himself in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and support of the truth." 1 Timothy 3:15

---

1. Nothing in what you're saying refutes anything I said. It is a fact that there was dissention in the church against newly created doctrines that were only supported by tradition and not affirmed by scripture. This was well prior to the Reformation and as the video points out clearly, some of these people are venerated saints in the Orthodox and RCC.

2. Those verse are also clearly referenced in the video which it appears you didn't watch. The context of those verses is not referencing the worship of icons, Mariological dogma that was officially declared doctrine 1800 years later (Immac Conc, Assumption of Mary), etc..

Quote:

---

Even if we only examine 1 Timothy, you will probably default to an invisible church. Of course this isn't in scripture but it's a product of your post reformation worldview. It's a default setting and a necessary one to make sense of your belief. The issue of course is that you will (possibly correctly) disagree with another Protestant church. This happens all the time. This is a fractal pattern that repeats over time and gives birth to thousands of denominations with varying belief and ZERO normative authority to decide who is correct. The reason for this is that you don't have apostolic succession and therefore you are divorced from the historical realities that Christ setup and gave to the apostles to be handed down.

---

As is clearly shown in the video over and over again, there was never universal agreement even amongst saints. Your argument is just as easily used against you. The problem you have is you believe the Reformation was some new genesis of theology. Its not. The concepts behind the Reformation are as old as church beginnings as man began to tamper and twist scripture with created doctrine.

Klaus Schwab said:

---

UTExan said:

---

Klaus Schwab said:

---

TheGreatEscape said:

---

Lol. We all come from different Christian traditions.

---

How do you decide which traditions are correct?

---

How do you? A succession of wildly immoral and corrupt (and now, apparently infallible) popes is not exactly the spiritual bedrock authority I would consider trustworthy.

---

Bishops, saints, councils, church fathers, etc. all nested within an unbroken historical Church. The Orthodox Church never propped up infallible leaders. Unfortunately for you, Protestants come from Rome and that's clearly seen with the millions of popes around the globe that indirectly claim infallibility.

---

Do you not notice how all of your refutations are an attack on Protestantism when the topic of the thread is about the Orthodox Church. Instead of supporting your position, you're just repeating over and over "Protestants are bad". No one is sitting here propping up all the Protestant churches and denominations. We can all agree there is some bad theology in several denominations. However, that's not remotely the topic of this thread. The video makes several clear arguments with empirical data in regards to the Orthodox Church and their doctrines.

How about you defend your position since you are Orthodox with an educated and supported response?

I'm not going to watch a two hour video. Mind summarizing one of the clear arguments with empirical data? Just pick one - I'm curious.

Zobel said:

---

I'm not going to watch a two hour video. Mind summarizing one of the clear arguments with empirical data? Just pick one - I'm curious.

---

Sure thing, I'll get back to you.

Klaus Schwab said:

---

UTExan said:

---

Klaus Schwab said:

---

TheGreatEscape said:

---

Lol. We all come from different Christian traditions.

---

How do you decide which traditions are correct?

---

How do you? A succession of wildly immoral and corrupt (and now, apparently infallible) popes is not exactly the spiritual bedrock authority I would consider trustworthy.

---

Bishops, saints, councils, church fathers, etc. all nested within an unbroken historical Church. The Orthodox Church never propped up infallible leaders. Unfortunately for you, Protestants come from Rome and that's clearly seen with the millions of popes around the globe that indirectly claim infallibility.

---

You should be celebrating the bravery of Protestant martyrs (and Savonarola) for their attempts to reform what they saw was spiritual abuse of power. I am sure that abuse never happens in Orthodoxy, especially Russia.

Zobel said:

---

I'm not going to watch a two hour video. Mind summarizing one of the clear arguments with empirical data? Just pick one - I'm curious.

---

Don't do it man. You can't fix these people.

Some of yalls animosity towards other denominations and churches borders on derangement.

Zobel said:

---

I'm not going to watch a two hour video. Mind summarizing one of the clear arguments with empirical data? Just pick one - I'm curious.

---

The first item the author of the video refutes is the standard by which the traditions of the Orthodox and by default, the RCC use for ascribing authority to traditionally created doctrine.

BTW, the video segments the different topics with timestamps. This one is timestamped at 2:45 and is less than 15 minutes long. I'll generally paraphrase here, but I suggest watching the segment for full clarity.

He points out that the Pharisees had similar practices of creating doctrines that emanated from man, not God. He quotes Mark 7:5-7 as an example of Jesus' rebuke of the Pharisees.

Quote:

---

5 And the Pharisees and the scribes asked him, "Why do your disciples not walk according to the tradition of the elders, but eat with defiled hands?" 6 And he said to them, "Well did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written,
" 'This people honors me with their lips,
but their heart is far from me;
7 in vain do they worship me,
teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.' [url=https://d.docs.live.net/1856ba02a4f9af57/Document%2095.docx#_ftn1][1][/url]

---

Next he quotes an early church father, Irenaeus, in Against Heresies 3.1., 3.2 circa 180 AD (my emphasis added)

Quote:

---

"WE have learned from none others the plan of our salvation, than from those through whom the Gospel has come down to us, which they did at one time proclaim in public, and, at a later period, by the will of God, handed down to us in the Scriptures, to be the ground and pillar of our faith… When, however, they are confuted from the Scriptures, they turn round and accuse these same Scriptures, as if they were not correct, nor of authority, and [assert] that they are ambiguous, and that the truth cannot be extracted from them by those who are ignorant of tradition. For [they allege] that the truth was not delivered by means of written documents, but viv voce"

---

A video snippet of an interview of archpriest Dr. Josiah Trenham plays where he outlines his perceived greatest heresy of the Reformation. Again paraphrasing, he asserts that Luther et al jumped from concluding that post schism Latin councils had erred to ecumenical councils had erred, he and all reformers made themselves popes and judges of ecumenical councils and if so, who is now going to judge them?

Later another video snippet of the same interview of Dr. Trenham is played where he makes an analogy. He imagines Luther going back to the very first council in Jerusalem of the Apostles and telling them I disagree with you and the Apostles telling Luther you don't have that right due to their divinely appointed and Holy Spirit led authority to disseminate their teachings. He states that "the faith of the church is this, corporately, when she needs to, we can come together and that her decisions are guided by the Holy Spirit". He states Martin Luther doesn't have that same conviction and more or less does not have the authority to state what is right or wrong.

My Commentary: Dr. Trenham is making a jump from the divine authority of the Apostles and their teachings and decision making and now prescribing that to subsequent councils.

The author of the video makes his larger point here:
The church is picking and choosing which councils are ecumenical based on which ones support various narratives. The Reformers (and Protestants today) never rejected the Apostle's authority in teaching, orally or written. Scripture clearly shows they were specially empowered by the Spirit. However, it is fallacy to think that subsequent councils were as equally led in divine nature based on the fact that numerous councils were declared ecumenical only to be renounced later, or then later reinstated, or the fact that Catholics and Orthodox can't agree on which are ecumenical and which are not. This hardly invokes the notion that these councils are being led by the Holy Spirit. The other larger point is that many of the rejections of the decrees by councils were rejected on the basis of Scripture (i.e. they were unbiblical). Irenaeus and Athanasius both spoke of this.

He cites several examples:

The Orthodox reject 14 of the 21 councils declared ecumenical by the RCC.

The RCC rejects six of the 13 councils some or all of the Orthodox declare ecumenical.

The council of Hirria in 754 AD was rejected as ecumenical despite being larger in attendance of the prior six ecumenical councils. He plays an excerpt from this decrees which states explicitly they agree with the decrees of the prior six ecumenical synods, and "If anyone ventures to represent, in human figures, by means of material colors, by reason of the incarnation, the substance or person of the Word, which cannot be depicted, and does not rather confess that even after the incarnation he cannot be depicted, let him be anathema!".

This council was overturned by the Second Council of Nicaea just 33 years later (787 AD) which then declared itself the seventh ecumenical council despite being half the size of Hieria.

Then in 815 AD the Council of Constantinople overturned the Council of Nicaea and reinstated the decrees of Hieria. Then later in 843 AD, this was overturned again and the Council of Nicaea was reinstated.

The council of Ferrara-Florence which attempted to unite the east and west and is ecumenical per the RCC, and was attended by all but one eastern bishop, was only rejected by the eastern bishop Mark of Ephesus. All other eastern bishops agreed and the union was proclaimed by the Pope and Emperor of Byzantine only to later to be dissolved and the Schism to continue on. The Russian Church then goes on to declare itself autonomous.

The author points out that Luther and the reformers are despised for going against the councils, yet did Mark of Ephesus not do the same of thing? Did Athanasius not oppose councils and was forced into exile?

Does Athanasisus not say this in De Synodis circa 359 AD (emphasis added):

Quote:

---

"Vainly then do they run about with the pretext that they have demanded Councils for the faith's sake; for divine Scripture is sufficient above all things; but if a Council be needed on the point, there are the proceedings of the Fathers, for the Nicene Bishops did not neglect this matter, but stated the doctrine so exactly, that persons reading their words honestly, cannot but be reminded by them of the religion towards Christ announced in divine Scripture."

---

My Commentary: The point is this, the word tradition is of broad meaning and not clearly defined and its authority clearly debatable. The Reformers are condemned for judging ecumenical councils, yet the repeated examples of dissent in councils that declared ecumenical at one point or another.
The Orthodox and RCC say their doctrines of tradition are handed down directly from the Apostles, yet we have no direct evidence for several of them from the Apostles themselves. Tradition that we do have, that even Protestants participate in, is cited in the Bible (Baptism for example). By sticking with Scripture, as Irenaeus points out, we don't run the risk of creating doctrines that are clearly heretical (Gnosticism, Arianism, Ascetism, among other more currently used doctrines).
Therefore, the Orthodox and the RCC have to use circular logic to support these unbiblical traditions by way of decrees of councils that are declared holy by men which only accomplished disunity in the actual Church body. Yet the Reformers are blamed for disunity when clearly this is an issue that goes back to the origins of the church itself. But its ok if Mark of Ephesus does it to reject the RCC notions of Papal Primacy and purgatory.

At the very least, the Orthodox and RCC, have to be honest that the dissention against certain tradition created doctrines go way beyond the 1500s as I asserted in my first reply.

And again, just for emphasis, I'm not advocating that Protestantism, and all its churches and denominations are not guilty of similar practices. But instead, that is my larger point that man will continually twist the Word of God as forewarned in several Biblical passages.




[url=https://d.docs.live.net/1856ba02a4f9af57/Document%2095.docx#_ftnref1][/url]