Check out my YouTube video: "Is Eastern Orthodoxy the New move?"
There are many Protestants moving towards EO but there are also many coming BACK to Protestantism because they found out what's behind the glam-bam, bling-blam; holy murals and cool garb!
The EO Church doesn't believe in the fallenness of man the way Protestants do.
They don't believe in Christ's atonement the same way.
Baptism and Salvation outside the EO church is not allowed... but it is, but not really. Yet, they don't believe in an "invisible" Church. It's complicated!
(This blog / video thread will keep growing so be sure to revisit for new video additions.)
==================================
=================================
What Did They Get WRONG? Orthodox VS Stuart & Cliffe Knechtle
WHAT IS "THE CHURCH"? LIVE VIDEO: 3/28/25
Premiering live Sat. 3/38/25 1pm EST.
Is it the Church physical, spiritual?
Is it a tradition or a jurisdictional hierarchy?
What did Christ leave us?
Who's the "authority"?
Is it "Sola Scriptura" or not?
Reformation Day celebrates the joyful beauty of the liberating gospel of Jesus Christ.
A single event on a single day changed the world. It was October 31, 1517. Brother Martin, a monk and a scholar, had struggled for years with his church, the church in Rome. He had been greatly disturbed by an unprecedented indulgence sale. The story has all the makings of a Hollywood blockbuster. Let’s meet the cast.
First, there is the young bishop—too young by church laws—Albert of Mainz. Not only was he bishop over two bishoprics, he desired an additional archbishopric over Mainz. This, too, was against church laws. So Albert appealed to the pope in Rome, Leo X. From the De Medici family, Leo X greedily allowed his tastes to exceed his financial resources. Enter the artists and sculptors, Raphael and Michelangelo.
When Albert of Mainz appealed for a papal dispensation, Leo X was ready to deal. Albert, with the papal blessing, would sell indulgences for past, present, and future sins. All of this sickened the monk Martin Luther. Can we buy our way into heaven? Luther had to speak out.
But why October 31? November 1 held a special place in the church calendar as All Saints’ Day. On November 1, 1517, a massive exhibit of newly acquired relics would be on display at Wittenberg, Luther’s home city. Pilgrims would come from all over, genuflect before the relics, and take hundreds, if not thousands, of years off time in purgatory. Luther’s soul grew even more vexed. None of this seemed right.
Martin Luther, a scholar, took quill in hand, dipped it in his inkwell and penned his Ninety-Five Theses on October 31, 1517. These were intended to spark a debate, to stir some soul-searching among his fellow brothers in the church. The Ninety-Five Theses sparked far more than a debate. The Ninety-Five Theses also revealed the church was far beyond rehabilitation. It needed a reformation. The church—and the world—would never be the same.
One of Luther’s Ninety-Five Theses simply declares, “The Church’s true treasure is the gospel of Jesus Christ.” That alone is the meaning of Reformation Day. The church had lost sight of the gospel because it had long ago papered over the pages of God’s Word with layer upon layer of tradition. Mere tradition often brings about systems of works, of earning your way back to God. It was true of the Pharisees, and it was true of medieval Roman Catholicism. Didn’t Christ Himself say, “My yoke is easy and My burden is light”? Reformation Day celebrates the joyful beauty of the liberating gospel of Jesus Christ.
What is Reformation Day? It is the day the light of the gospel broke forth out of darkness. It was the day that began the Protestant Reformation. It was a day that led to Martin Luther, John Calvin, John Knox, and many other Reformers helping the church find its way back to God’s Word as the only supreme authority for faith and life and leading the church back to the glorious doctrines of justification by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone. It kindled the fires of missionary endeavors, it led to hymn writing and congregational singing, and it led to the centrality of the sermon and preaching for the people of God. It is the celebration of a theological, ecclesiastical, and cultural transformation.
So we celebrate Reformation Day. This day reminds us to be thankful for our past and to the monk turned Reformer. What’s more, this day reminds us of our duty, our obligation, to keep the light of the gospel at the center of all we do.
-The Canon of scripture isn't something that was found, formulated or instituted in the early centuries of the church or by the church but instead it was what had already been devotional to the early Christians as they gathered and copied apostolic instruction from the apostles and eventually ran from area to area to escape persecution.
Early Christians already knew what they had in their possession from the beginning of the collecting of what we now know to be the Christian manuscripts. They knew what was authoritative and what came from the apostles either by their own pen or the pen of those who were instructed by the apostles.
-The Canon of scripture was not created or instituted as authoritative by a church creed or council. Instead, even early church fathers wrote concerning its self-authenticating authority of these books and differentiate them from others with regard to importance and sacredness.
-The authoritativeness of scripture is not only seen in scripture directly (2 Peter 3:16; 1 Timothy 5:18, etc.) but easily perceived by the authoritative writing accounts of the Apostles and those they instructed to write concerning their witness of Christ's commandments and the gospel.
-Long before Emperor Constantine (300's AD), there were a core of (approximately 22 out of 27 books of our NT Canon) which were mentioned among the early patristic church fathers (starting from 101AD) demonstrating their sacred relevance. Among these were the gospels and Paul's epistles.
-Why NOT the apocryphal writings in the NT and OT?
Simply because Protestants wanted to use the Bible (scriptures) that was around during the days of Christ and what He would have used in the OT.
The NT quotes an extraordinary amount of the OT and the NT never quotes from apocryphal texts.
**It was only as a counter-reformation reaction that the Roman Catholic Church decided on their own official Church Canon of scripture.
So, the idea that books at any time were "taken out" of the Canon is a gross misunderstanding of history.
The OT Canon which Jesus followed included The Law, The Prophets and the Psalms, and so these were what needed to be included within a complete Canon of scripture for Protestant Christians.
*** Note that these decisions are ones that are made with a full scope on honoring and making SCRIPTURE exclusively authoritative above and beyond outward tradition, ecclesiastic councils, etc.
Not that apostolic traditional churches have less care or concern over scripture but that nothing FALLIBLE should get in the way of scriptural INFALLIBLE teaching and authority.
DO WE NEED AN AUTHORITATIVE CHURCH TO DECIDE WHAT BOOKS ARE IN THE CANON?
-NO. When Jesus told the Jewish leaders, "Have you not read what God said to YOU.." (Concerning David, Moses, the resurrection, the prophets, etc.)
There was an already established OT Canon which was authoritative without an official COUNCIL to establish it other than God Himself.
Therefore, the same thing goes for our NT Canon:
Hebrews 1:1-2 -
"God, having spoken long ago to the fathers in the prophets in many portions and in many ways,
in these last days spoke to us in His Son, whom He appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the worlds,.."
Which Old Testament books are not quoted in the New Testament?
The books of Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon, Zephaniah, Nahum, Ezra, Nehemiah, Obadiah, and Esther are not quoted in the NT.
HOWEVER, ALL OT books in the Hebrew Canon were laid up by the Jews in their temple, and so early Protestants wanted to use the official canon which were accepted by the Jews.
*There's an argument that claims that the OT depended upon oral tradition therefore, the NT church also depends upon oral tradition of the NT. But this is not an adequate argument b/c The NT quotes the OT 283 times!
Included therein are the four books of Moses (Torah). So if the OT is inadequate because it depended upon any oral traditions, then the NT can't be reliable either because the reliability of the NT is dependent upon the reliability of the OT.
Thanks for stopping by and God bless!
