Truth Unites - Eastern Orthodox Critics: My Question For You

Episode Date: October 30, 2024

Gavin Ortlund poses a question for Eastern Orthodox Christians: how *could* the damnation of the non-Orthodox be stated? See my previous video here: https://youtu.be/q7eih3Bqgv0 Truth Unites exists to promote gospel assurance through theological depth. Gavin Ortlund (PhD, Fuller Theological Seminary) is President of Truth Unites and Theologian-in-Residence at Immanuel Nashville. SUPPORT: Tax Deductible Support: https://truthunites.org/donate/ Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/truthunites FOLLOW: Twitter: https://twitter.com/gavinortlund Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/TruthUnitesPage/ Website: https://truthunites.org/

But we have language like this. What hope do they have for salvation? They're forsaken by the Holy Spirit. Neither church nor Christian can be spoken of. How necessary to come back in order to attain salvation. To have part in Christ's salvation, we must necessarily be members of his body, that is, of the Catholic Church. Those affirming the filiocque are like the Arians, and they've trodden the gospel underfoot and their apostate.

All who innovate, either by heresy or schism, have voluntarily clothe themselves with anathema. Like I was trying to think of English grammatical sentences I could construct that would be clearer than this. If I were to say, like, you have to be Eastern Orthodox to be saved, comma, and the Protestants and the Roman Catholics are not saved. That's a basically tantamount kind of sentiment to what I'm documenting here. In other words, I wouldn't know how to say that make this any stronger unless you just add exclamation points to the sentences. What is the historic Eastern Orthodox view of non-Orthodox Christians by non-unon uppercase O? So the Roman Catholics, the Protestants, other Eastern traditions outside of Eastern Orthodoxy, and so forth. Well, historically, my best effort to understand is that they are cut off from salvation.

And I've argued for this a couple of places. Earlier this year, I put out a video called Does Eastern Orthodoxy have the fullness of the faith? And I argued that basically pulling from a lot of different councils and saints and so forth between the 9th and 19th centuries, trying to document that. More recently, a few days ago from recording this, I put out a video called Before You Become Eastern Orthodox, in which I argued for the same thing, trying to document it from one particular 19th century Orthodox theologian theophan, the recluse. And because when I do a survey approach going through a lot of texts, I'll have people criticize me for quote mining, but when I just systematically walk through one text, start to finish lots of quotes, put it all up on the screen, just basically,

you know, then you have people criticizing you for, well, we don't just go by one person, we have to look at the whole tradition. So I try to do it. to do both, right? Now, these videos generate a lot of responses, lots of comments, reactions, and I'm grateful for the engagement. I really am. I have people saying in the comments, like, you know, lots of speculative comments, like I'm, I have something against Eastern Orthodoxy or something. I really don't. I admire a lot of these people, you know, to the point where Protestants get at me for saying how much I admire it, but I just do. A lot of these people I really admire. So it's not like a personal issue for me. I'm just interested in

these topics and do these videos, try to help people. And some, some respond appreciatively, but a lot of people get upset. I think it's fair to say people are not pleased. Eastern Orthodox Christians especially are not pleased with these videos, and I get it. So I listen to all these responses. Now, the approach that I take is that when people are mad at you, that is not a reason to just back off in and of itself. You know, if we did that, nothing would ever change. We have to hold to the truth, even if it has a negative reaction from other people. But it is a reason to slow down and work at the conversation a bit. And to listen and understand, you know, I'm not perfect, see what I can learn, maybe I'm making mistakes and so forth, and also try to conduct the

disagreement in a way that's productive, honors Christ, serves people, brings clarity, if possible, you know, as much as we can do that. So this video is my follow-up trying to do that, working through some responses and sort of a good faith effort on my part to slow down, and just basically I thought I would just try to explain why I take this view, okay, and kind of like lay my thought process on the table in hopes that others looking on could kind of say, okay, so that's where he's getting this, and then we can try to make progress. Now, I'm not going to go responding to every particular comment. There's lots of different reactions. All of those conversations are important. They need to be happening. But, you know, I'm not going to get too

in the weeds here. I'm not going to get into this paragraph in Theophan. How do you exeget it? how are the canons of an ecumenical council received by the church? Lots of these little particular points. We need to talk about all that, let those conversations go on. Here in this video, I just want to hit the main issue, okay, and just explain. Why do I think the historic and official Eastern Orthodox view is that those outside of orthodoxy, including people like Roman Catholics and Protestants, are cut off from salvation? Because I think that is very clear.

I'm actually surprised that people attempt so much pushback as though, you know, this were at stake in this little detail in theophan or something like that. And so it's like getting really trying to make a counter argument from these little details when the big picture is so clear. And I think we can document this very clearly from official Eastern Orthodox councils and saints. So basically what I'm going to do in this video is just walk through and give five examples. And here's my question. So the title of this video will have something to do with a question for Eastern Orthodox critics, those who criticize me from that tradition. My question is, and I really mean this as a question, like actually do this. Write in the comments, say maybe first three words of your comment if it's, here's my answer, colon, and then I'll know your answer to the question.

I'm inviting you to do that. And that is, how could such a view be articulated? Suppose, that the church at a council or something wanted to say that the Protestants and the Roman Catholics are cut off from salvation. What could they say that would yield that theology? And, you know, because if, in other words, if these five examples I'm going to give aren't clear enough, what could be stronger? Because I think I don't, and the reason I asked that question is, I don't know how it could be clearer than this, you know? And I'll just to work through these real quick, these are expanded from the first of the two videos I mentioned earlier. There I actually started off with this one as well.

It's from Paezias Velichikovsky. His discussion of the uni at churches, these are churches that have an Eastern liturgy, but they're in communion with the Church of Rome and so they accept the filioquois clause, which is his concern in the context of writing this. He's like 18th century, I think. Eastern Orthodox saint. And Velichkovsky, Velichkovsky, calls. calls the filiocque the most important of all heresies. And then he says, if the Uniates think exactly

like the Romans in such a serious heresy, what hope do they have for salvation unless they openly renounce this spirit-fighting heresy become united again to Holy Orthodox Eastern Church? So, you know, I don't think I'm crazy to take the words, what hope do they have for salvation as meaning what hope do they have for salvation? It seems like that question has as its implied answer, they don't have a hope for salvation unless they openly renounce this spirit fighting heresy and become Eastern Orthodox, because right after he gives this warning on this basis, depart and flee from the Unia as speedily as possible, less death overtake you in it, and you be numbered among the heretics and not among the Christians. So it seems like he's saying

the danger that is at stake, if you remain over there with the Uniates, and you do not become Eastern Orthodox and reject openly the filiocque. The filiocque is a Western doctrine that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, perceived as heresy by the Eastern Orthodox historically. And it seems like he's saying what's at stake is death, because if you stay over there, you'll be numbered among the heretics and not among the Christians. So put it up again, what hope do they have for salvation unless they renounce this and become Eastern Orthodox? My question is, how could you say it more clearly than that? You know, if you wanted to try to that the people over there in the Roman Catholic Church who affirm the filiocque are not saved,

is there a better way to do it? I'm trying to read sentences here and take them at face value, and it seems like that's as clear as day. I don't know how else you could say that more clearly and say, how could they be saved, you know, depart lest you die over there and you're not a Christian and so and so forth. And there's a lot of cope in the comments saying things like, well, all these evasive tactics is what it feels like to me, just getting around what seems like a plain reading of these passages. And, you know, because people get into all these details, well, you just don't understand the system.

You don't understand how salvation works. It is to an orthodoxy. You think of it as a past thing, and it's like, okay, whatever tense salvation occurs in, because Protestants, we think it's past, present future as well. But whenever it happens, it seems like saying, what hope do they have for it is kind of a problem, you know, for whatever it would be, or whatever its nature is, if you don't have any hope for it. Now, the other thing is

Veletschkovsky is a saint, but he doesn't speak for everyone. And so there's different views. I'll get different reactions from Orthodox Christians about what's the relative level of authority that a particular saint can speak with. And so in the video, I stated what I was arguing is that this is one representative example of what I see is basically just everywhere from the 9th century when you're getting around there, you're getting the debate about the filialque heating up as tensions between the east and the west are rising up to the 19th, so that I'm just about a millennium there. I'm saying this way of thinking articulated in the passage I just read is representative. It's what you see everywhere so far as I am aware. If something comes to my

awareness where there's a clear and definitive teaching from the 13th century or something where there's a statement of, oh, you know, those in submission to the Pope over there in Spain or something like that, they are fellow Christians. I'll, of course, receive that and incorporate that, but despite my work on this, I'm not seeing counter-examples. Okay, so, and it's not just, you know, here or there that you find this idea. Again, this quote from Velichikovsky is representative of what you see everywhere, including in councils. And I'll give councils as well. So the idea, the way of thinking historically, again, I'm trying to summarize what I'm seeing is I'm just trying to give a good faith reading of texts. And what I'm seeing is, the thinking is, and some Eastern

Orthodox agree with me on this. And I've had two dialogues now where someone will say, I'm not a Christian, I'm headed for hell, because I'm not Eastern Orthodox, from Eastern Orthodox Christians. But of course, most don't think that way today. But that's why I'm trying to just bring awareness to this for Protestants to know the history before they become Eastern Orthodox. The basic way of thinking seems to be like this. The filialque is heresy. Heresy puts you outside the canonical boundaries of the church. If you're outside the church, you're cut off from the grace of the Holy Spirit given in the

sacraments, and therefore you're cut off from salvation. The metaphor is Noah's Ark. The church is Noah's Ark. You can't be half on Noah's Ark. You can't be invisibly on Noah's Ark. You're either on or you're off. You're either on the ark or you're in the floodwaters of sin. You're either in the church or you're out.

others will speak of the structure of bishops and priests in the Eastern Orthodox Church as a grace-giving hierarchy. This is the clergy of the Eastern Orthodox Church. And the Oriental Orthodox and the Roman Catholics will be spoken of as Christian societies that are outside the church. Okay. Let me give some more examples. Here's the second example I've discussed in the past. The 1672 Synod of Jerusalem, which produced the Confession of DeSithius, Patriarch of Jerusalem,

This is an official articulation of Eastern Orthodox belief. The Encyclopedia Britannica calls the confession of the Synod of Jerusalem the most vital statement of faith made in the Greek church during the past thousand years. Philip Schaff said that what the Council of Trent is for the Catholics, the Synod of Jerusalem of 1672, was for the Eastern Orthodox. Both are sort of codifying and making official their reaction to the Reformation. because this synod is responding to a previous patriarch of Constantinople who had Protestant leanings and even some seeming Calvinist leanings, and so it's taking the occasion to denounce those.

So you get a view of the Eastern Orthodox position on Protestants, just like in the next few examples we'll get their position on Roman Catholics, and it's calling them wicked heretics and their beliefs as wicked heresies. This is all throughout decrees two and three, and in the context of opposing one of their particular heres, namely the idea that priest and bishop are the same office, it says the dignity of the bishop is so necessary in the church that without him, neither church nor Christian could either be or be spoken of. For he, as a successor of the apostles, having received in continued succession by the imposition of hands, is a fountain of all the mysteries, that's the sacraments, of the Catholic Church,

through which we obtain salvation, and he is, we suppose, as necessary to the church as breath is to man or the sun to the world. Now, by the way, clarification, when it talks about the Catholic Church, that doesn't mean Roman Catholic in this context. And so also for some of the later quotes, this is talking about the Eastern Orthodox Church. Historically, the Eastern Orthodox Church has called itself Catholic as well. And the bishops here are Eastern Orthodox bishops, the true successors of the apostles. So in other words, it's not just saying, oh, you don't have a church or a Christian without a bishop, so as long as you have Episcopal church government, you're fine, like the Anglicans or something. It's talking about those bishops who are

the valid successors of the apostles. The Roman Catholics don't have that. The Oriental Orthodox don't have that. The Assyrian Church of the East doesn't have that. This is just the Eastern Orthodox. That's why it goes on to say, you only have a valid Eucharist if it is performed by an Eastern Orthodox bishop properly ordained. So the confession of Dosithius is saying there is no church or Christian outside the bishop. And the bishop is the Eastern Orthodox bishop. And therefore draws the following consequence when these, that's the heretics, the Protestant heretics, forsake the church. They are forsaken by the Holy Spirit. And there remains in them neither understanding nor light but only darkness and blindness. What I'm trying to do here is read sentences.

and read words. And it's like, you know, when it says neither church nor Christian can be spoken of outside of the bishop, we're trying to say, okay, neither church nor Christian can be spoken of outside the bishop. When it says, forsaken by the Holy Spirit, we're trying to say, okay, that means forsaken by the Holy Spirit. And sometimes it feels like people are trying to do a maneuver around the words so that forsaken by the Holy Spirit doesn't really mean that or no Christian or church outside of the bishop doesn't really mean that. And I'm like, I'm trying to explain why I've come to this view because I think this is just what you see in these passages. And again, so in the spirit of trying to meet the criticisms, I'm saying, what could be said

that would be stronger than this? If we have language like, what hope do they have for salvation? forsaken by the Holy Spirit, neither church nor Christian can be spoken of. How could you say it stronger than that? If that's not good enough, what could be said to make this idea clear, that the Protestants and the Catholics are not saved? And, you know, I would just invite you to consider, I know a lot of people are probably watching this in a spirit of resistance, and I'm the enemy, right? I get it. These conversations are hard. I would invite you to consider, what if this is just the truth? I think it is.

I think very clearly it is. And I'll give some more examples to show that. Here's a third example, the patriarchal and cyclical of 1895. This is the official Eastern Orthodox response to Pope Leo the 13th. So this is more going to give you their view of the Catholics than the Protestants. And in what I'm going to read here, it's very clearly self-consciously operating in a tradition of thought that precedes it about the Catholics. quote, but as has been said before, the Western Church from the 10th century downwards has privily brought into herself through the papacy various and strange heretical doctrines and

innovations, and so she has been torn away and removed far from the true and orthodox Church of Christ. Here it is. How necessary then it is for you to come back and return to the ancient and unadulterated doctrines of the church in order to attain the salvation in Christ after which you press. So again, it's like, how do you say it more clearly than that? Why are we not allowed to interpret the words? It's necessary to come back to the church to attain salvation as meaning it's necessary to come back to the church to attain salvation. You see? It's like, I wouldn't know, I mean, I know what the word necessary means. I know what the word attain means. I know what salvation means. I wouldn't know how to take the sentence. I'm trying to explain why I'm getting this view and

why I think this just is the historic teaching. Here's another example. The longer catechism of St. Philaret, a 19th century metropolitan of Moscow. He's using the same imagery of Noah's Ark to make the same point about no salvation outside the church. He says, to have a part in Christ's salvation, we must necessarily be members of his body that is of the Catholic Church. Again, Catholic Church here doesn't mean Roman Catholic. This means the Eastern Orthodox Church. So again, it's like, I don't know how to say it more clear than that. To have a part in salvation, we must necessarily be members of the Catholic Church, why can't we take that to mean,

to have a part in salvation, we must necessarily be members of the Catholic Church. I mean, I'm not trying to be impervious to nuance here. If someone wants to say, I understand there are times where, you know, context can give you a different flavor and change how the language is used and so forth. But so far as I've been doing this and making this argument,

I don't see any context that would change it like that. I'm not seeing any counter-testimonies. So it seems like it's a fair conclusion to draw. I'm not trying to beat a dead horse too much here. I'll just keep moving. Fair conclusion to draw, it's necessary to come back to the church to attain salvation. You have to be Eastern Orthodox to be saved. I wouldn't know how else that could be said.

All right, final example. Earlier in the 19th century, you have the 1848 encyclical of the Eastern Patriarchs. This is a letter sent out to all the other bishops. from the four Eastern Patriarchs in response to Pope Pius the Ninth's epistle of the Easterners earlier that year. And basically what you're going to get here is a very clear demarcation of their view of the Roman Catholic Church. And you can go online to read this. I'll just give you representative examples. I mean, it's just, I couldn't quote the whole thing. It's just on and on and on. It's going on and on and on that the Roman Catholic Church is apostate and schismatic and heretical.

I'll give some examples. The one Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, living in the footsteps of the Holy Fathers, both Eastern and Western, proclaimed of old to our progenitors, and again teaches today sonatically, that the said novel doctrine of the Holy Ghost, proceeding from the Father and the Son, is essentially heresy, and its maintainers, whoever they be, are heretics, according to the sentence of Pope St. Damascis, and that the congregations of such are also heretical, and that all spiritual communion and worship of the Orthodox sons of the Catholic Church with such is unlawful. Okay, so again, Catholic is meaning orthodoxy here. I know that's kind of confusing. And the sentence is that

maintainers of the filiocque are heretics. If you maintain the filiocque, no matter who you are, you are a heretic. And there's no spiritual communion allowed. Okay. Now, so remember that category of heresy, and it's going to go out and just flesh out very clearly what it means by that. Throughout this document, there is absolutely no difference made between Aryanism and the filiocque, or the papacy. So they're all papacy. It's like what Aryanism was back then, the papacy is today. What Athanasius was doing then, we are doing now. That's very clear.

It uses the same kind of categories that Theophan uses for the Western Christians. You know, false prophets, Galatians 1, preaching another Christ. It's the same kind of categories. that I put out of my last video that are at play here. They quote Jeremiah 12-1. Why does the way of the wicked prosper? So in this way of thinking, those under the papacy are the wicked and the Eastern Orthodox are the righteous, the ungodly and heretical men here, that would apply equally to the Aryans and to the Roman Catholics. The Roman Catholics are said to have reprobate minds. They have trodden the gospel underfoot. Their efforts to convince the

other patriarchs of their beliefs, such as papal supremacy, are cast as enticing them into apostasy. They end up quoting the words of the Cappadocian fathers, Basel and Gregory and so forth, against them. What those fathers said against the Aryans, they say against those under the Pope. Quote, they neither know the truth nor endure to learn it, striving against those who tell them the truth and strengthening themselves in their heresy. war is better than peace apart from God. This is what said to Gregory about the Aryans.

They're quoting these kinds of polemical statements against the Aryans as applying to the Roman Catholics. Now, these are the four great patriarchs of Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem, saying the Church of Rome is apostate. And she's introduced these heretical novelties, the papacy and the filiocque. These are just like Aryanism, these new innovations coming in. They're the enemies of the faith. apostate, their heretics, and we have kept the faith on change. We have preserved the apostolic

deposit, whereas they have introduced new doctrines, and therefore they are under anathema, and here's what we mean by anathema. Listen to their language. But that faith has long ago been sealed in completeness, not to admit of diminution or increase, or any change, whatever. And he who dares to do or advise or think of such a thing has already denied the faith of Christ, has already of his own accord been struck with an eternal anathema for blaspheming the Holy Ghost as not having spoken fully in the scriptures and through the ecumenical councils. Okay, so it's saying very clearly, if you try to change the faith, that's blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, and that means eternal anathema.

It continues, this fearful anathema, brethren and sons, beloved in Christ, we do not pronounce today, but our Savior first pronounced it, and then it quotes from the passage of Matthew, He goes from Galatians 1 and Paul's anathema there. It says the same anathema, the seven ecumenical councils and the whole choir of God-serving fathers pronounced, all there, all therefore innovating. Here's a key sentence, either by heresy or schism have voluntarily clothe themselves according to Psalm 10918 with a curse as with a garment, whether they be popes or patriarchs or clergy or laity.

Nay, if anyone, though an angel from heaven, preach any other God. gospel unto you, then that ye have received, let him be a cursed. That quote is from Psalm 109, which speaks of being clothed with a curse. So it's very clear, I think, what they're saying here. I wouldn't know how else you could say this. You know, you're quoting Galatians 1. You're talking about blasphemy of the Holy Spirit and eternal anathema. You're saying anybody's innovating, that it's setting the stakes very clearly for the heretics that they have been denouncing and identifying as the Roman Catholics. So you just, say, you know, how could it be clearer? Like, I was trying to think of English grammatical sentences

I could construct that would be clearer than this. If I were to say, like, you have to be Eastern Orthodox to be saved, comma, and the Protestants and the Roman Catholics are not saved. Well, that's a basically tantamount kind of sentiment to what I'm documenting here. In other words, I wouldn't know how to say this any stronger unless you just add exclamation points to the sentences. Or unless it was anticipating later responses and warding them off. That's a way maybe you could make it stronger. But we have language like this. What hope do they have for salvation? They're forsaken by the Holy Spirit. Neither church nor Christian can be spoken of. How necessary to come back in order to attain salvation.

To have part in Christ's salvation, we must necessarily be members of his body, that is of the Catholic Church. Those affirming the filial o'kway are like the Arians, and they've trotted, trodden the gospel underfoot in their apostate, all who innovate, either by heresy or schism, have voluntarily clothe themselves with anathema. How else can you say it? I, you know, if I'm to be accosted like I'm putting words in their mouth or misrepresenting Eastern Orthodoxy, tell me how it could be clear. I think, I think I'm just trying to fairly exegete historic texts. That's my good faith putting my thought process on the table. These are the text. that lead me to that conclusion. All right. So that's my question. Give me a way it could have been

said more clearly. Two final comments. Then I'll sign off. Lots of people in the comments are saying this is an emotional appeal. Okay. Man, people really are not understanding this. Yes, it's emotional, but it's not an appeal to emotion. Of course, any charitable person will remember Romans 9, 1 through 5 and say, we should care, we should have emotions involved in the damnation of any person. Certainly 2 billion Christians in the West and others in the East. Yes, that's emotional, of course, but it's not an appeal to emotion. And the argument I've made in chapter 2 of my book, what it means to be Protestant in various videos is an argument about obeying Jesus. In Matthew 12, Jesus makes an argument, okay? The Pharisees are saying, Satan gave you the power to do this

miracle, and Jesus is saying, no, a kingdom divided against itself cannot stand. Satan doesn't cast out demons. Jesus holds them accountable for recognizing the kingdom of God has come upon them on the basis of an exorcism. Now, and this is the kind of appeal I'm making. I'm saying, look, you can see spiritual fruit outside of Eastern Orthodoxy, so that restrictiveness just is not consonant with the principles of Jesus for how we recognize his work. That's the argument. It's not an appeal to an emotion. It's emotional, but it's not appealing to emotion. It's appealing to Jesus's logic in passages like Matthew 12 and Mark 9 and Matthew 7 and 1st Corinthians, 12, 3. And it doesn't open the door. The other thing is people are saying so, this means Mormons and Muslims

and Buddhists and everybody's saved. No, it doesn't open the door to non-Christian religions that have nothing to do with Jesus. In Mark 9, it's a Christian exorcist. It's someone casting out demons in the name of Jesus. So we're not just... being sentimental, we're not being pluralists, we're just trying to interpret the word fruit as Jesus meant it. Jesus taught us to use this principle of discernment for false prophets. He said, basically, the tree is known by the fruit. So we're trying to basically put that principle into practice. That's not an appeal to emotion, though it is emotional. Second final comment is, let me just be clear about the gospel. How do people get saved? I do think people are worried about salvation.

I do think people are sometimes converting to these traditions. I worry that sometimes, oh, I sometimes feel, and I don't think anyone, I'm not accusing anyone of intending this, but I sometimes think they feel a little browbeaten into conversion, like, you know, and I do think there's a concern of thinking, well, I have to be in, and then people have anxiety. They're like, oh, what if I made the wrong choice? You know, and they're trying to, I know people are trying to figure out, is it Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox?

And of course, there's other options, too, outside of the way. of Protestantism, but it's like they feel like they need to get that decision right to get saved. And I think a huge part of the emphasis of my ministry at Truth Unites is to try to just give gospel assurance to people having those kinds of anxieties. So let's be really clear. How do you get saved? The answer is simple. Trust in Jesus. Put all your hope in simply taking him at his word, trusting it, obeying it, following it. Jesus himself said, truly, truly, I say to you, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life, he does not come into judgment, but he has passed from death to life. Jesus is not a liar. I would invite you to literally put your

everlasting destiny on the line by trusting the words straight from the mouth of Christ. if you with all of your heart are seeking Christ, seeking to obey him, you're not going to end up in hell. If you're following Christ, you're repenting of your sins. We will sin, but when we sin, we repent of it. We turn away from it, we forsake it, we offer it up to God, we soften our heart. We don't court it in our lives. We don't, you know, protect it. We stamp it out.

We say, Christ, come and change me. We follow Christ in every way that we know. know how, and you're trusting, and then you put all your trust in him. And if you do that, no power in heaven or earth will be able to take you out of his hands. Nothing will thwart your everlasting salvation in his presence. Not Satan, not death, not even your own sins. Nothing can separate you from his love. And the way you can know that for sure is the testimony of the Holy Spirit on your heart. Because Romans 816, he will give his voice. You will learn his voice. He will whisper to you sweet assurances that are sweeter than it's like a garden of flowers,

drinking it in to your heart. That's what I want my ministry to help people know, the enchantment of simply knowing Jesus, trusting in Jesus. I believe people in these non-Protestant traditions can and do have that experience as well. But I think their theology historically is problematic, and it just needs to be, you know, I guess what we're kind of interested in here is historical accuracy. I'm grateful that there's been a softening in recent times. I think that's just an eminently reasonable response, and I'm concerned at how many people are saying, yeah, Theophon's view is correct, and Yahoo, it's kind of like, wow, what happened to Paul's attitude in Romans 9-1-5, where he's saying, I could wish myself damned for the sake of these other people.

So I'm concerned when people just champion this view, I'm grateful that there's been a softening and pulling back and saying, you know, yeah, it's not just about which institution you're in. It's about your existential relation to Christ. I'm grateful for that. But we need to know the history. And that's my concern at these videos. I'm not trying to, I'm not obsessed with this. I'm not trying to attack people. I'm just trying to make videos on things people are interested in. And I just want people to know the history. I want people to know what was decided at the 1672 Senate of Jerusalem. and to say to people, look, who gave anyone the right to change that teaching? Why are we not allowed to protest that teaching?

You know, nobody can come along and just change their church and then act like it wasn't a real change, right? And as Protestants, we just think the church needs to reform herself at times. She's fallible. Not every council that is purported to be infallible. Well, here I already go. I'm off script. I'm other videos, you can hear more about that.

All right, I hope this won't make people furious and angry. Again, believe it or not, in my heart, there's no ill will toward my Eastern Orthodox brothers and sisters in many cases. I don't always know where exactly salvation is, but I hold out that hope and think that that canon does happen. I've met some tremendous Eastern Orthodox Christians. I don't have any acts to grind here. I'm not trying to lash out.

I'm just trying to put out the truth because I want people to experience assurance in the gospel. I want people to know I'm going to heaven if I have Jesus, period. That's it. Jesus is sufficient for your everlasting salvation. So I'll stop there so I don't go into preacher mode. I hope this video will help people wrestling with these topics. I hope it'll bring clarity about history, and I hope we'll keep talking about all this. Thanks for watching everybody.