Orthodox Priest Who Left Orthodoxy: A Response to Dr. Gavin Ortlund and Joshua Schooping

Two Protestants can sound airtight when they critique Eastern Orthodoxy together, until you ask a simple question: do they even agree on what a church is? Jeremy Jeremiah of Cloud of Witnesses pulls apart a popular interview between Dr. Gavin Ortlund and Joshua Schooping, author of Disillusioned, a former Orthodox priest who is now a Lutheran pastor, and we respond point by point from an Orthodox perspective with church history, theology, and plain logic.

We spend real time on the practical consequences of Protestant ecclesiology, not just the slogans. If a Lutheran pastor shaped by the Augsburg Confession would refuse communion to a Reformed Baptist who follows the 1689 London Baptist Confession, what does that say about claims of easy unity in the “invisible church”? We talk Eucharist theology, baptism debates, and how sacramental disagreement turns into competing definitions of a “true church.”

Then we tackle the biggest claims head-on: Has the Eastern Orthodox Church truly remained unchanged? What counts as doctrine versus liturgical development? How should Christians read Nicaea II and the language around icons and veneration? And when Marian prayers are quoted as proof that Mary replaces Jesus, we slow down and read them in context as devotional, poetic language about intercession, while keeping Christ’s saving work central.

We respond to a now Protestant discussion critiquing and frankly attacking Eastern Orthodoxy and explain why its framing collapses when you examine Protestant disagreements on the sacraments, the church, and salvation. We also defend Orthodox claims about continuity by separating minor liturgical development from core doctrinal stability across church history.

• framing the interview as a strictly Protestant critique of Orthodoxy
• contrasting Lutheran and Reformed Baptist ecclesiology on communion, baptism, and sacraments
• challenging the idea that Protestantism offers a unified “invisible church” solution
• addressing “one true church” anxiety and how mercy and salvation are discussed
• separating liturgical variation from doctrinal continuity over 2,000 years
• defending icons with early church evidence and the witness of ancient apostolic churches
• responding to Nicaea II claims about forced icon veneration
• interpreting Marian prayers as poetic intercession language rather than replacement of Christ
• pushing back on claims that the gospel is absent from Orthodox worship

If you care about Eastern Orthodoxy, Protestant apologetics, apostolic succession, icons, Mariology, and what it means to belong to the historic visible church, this conversation is for you. Subscribe, share this with a friend who’s debating Orthodoxy, and leave a review telling us where you agree or disagree.

Two Protestants critique Orthodoxy, but can they even agree on baptism or communion? We break down the hidden contradiction and what it means for “the true church” claims. 

Questions about Orthodoxy? Please check out our friends at Ghost of Byzantium Discord server: https://discord.gg/JDJDQw6tdh

Please prayerfully consider supporting Cloud of Witnesses: https://www.patreon.com/c/CloudofWitnesses

Find Cloud of Witnesses on Instagram, X.com, Facebook, and TikTok.

Audio: https://cloudofwitnessesradio.buzzsprout.com

Please leave a comment with your thoughts!

Transcript

A Message For My Dad

SPEAKER_02 0:00

All right, so this video comes to you today because I wanted to make this for my father. Um, my father sent me this video the other day um to give some quick background. Um I absolutely love my father. Uh I owe my life to my father. Um he is a wonderful man, and I have nothing but respect, honor, um, gratitude uh towards my father, and I love him dearly. Um and this is meant in love, and I hope that he takes it that way. Um, but he sent me this video uh a day or two ago and said, Jeremy, I pray that you watch this. It's a video I've seen before. Um, but I thought, you know what, this, I think my dad thinks he has found the linchpin against orthodoxy, right? I think my dad, when he watched this video, I think it was the nail in the coffin, right? I think he was already questioning uh the sanity uh of orthodoxy. I think he was questioning whether orthodoxy was a cult. I think he was questioning whether orthodoxy even preached the gospel. Um, and I think this video probably to his mind uh makes him think that, yep, he was right all along. Um, orthodoxy is a a cult of Mariology, man-made traditions uh that has distorted the gospel because that is absolutely the intention um of these two individuals that you see here before you. Uh the one on the left, you probably know, Gavin Orland, is a very well-known um Protestant apologist who speaks often against Orthodoxy. Um and the his guest, which I'll add in here because I'm sorry, I don't know his name right off the top of my head. Um, he is a Lutheran pastor. He was a former Orthodox priest, um, was a uh you know, a priest in good standing in the in in Orthodoxy, and he left Orthodoxy. He wrote a book called Being Disillusioned. Um, and it's clear from this video that he is absolutely disillusioned with Orthodoxy, um, and he's made it his goal here to um, I think, in many ways, to attack orthodoxy. Um so that's what's going on in this video. Um, if you want to understand their motivations, these are two Protestants critiquing Eastern Orthodoxy from a clearly and strictly Protestant perspective. And that's important to understand. Even though this gentleman, um, you know, who I'm sure is a is a wonderful Christian man, um, even though he um w is a former Orthodox priest, this interview, you would never know it. Uh, in other words, he's not in any stage, this entire video is an hour long. My critique, of course, is not gonna cover the whole thing because this would be a three or four hour long video, and I just can't do that. So I apologize. Um, but I've taken the major points that he makes in this video, and I'm gonna respond to each and every single one of them, um, and some. Um, but this individual's um perspective is in no way charitable to orthodoxy whatsoever. It's very interesting. Um, it's almost as if he has an axe to grind against orthodoxy. Um, you I was expecting when going through this video um to hear him remark uh at times, you know, about this or this other, you know, positive thing about orthodoxy, um, one of the beauties of orthodoxy, one of the richnesses, one of the consistencies, et cetera, et cetera. But instead, it's all orthodoxy, you know, uh left the path, um, distorts the gospel, uh, is exclusivist to its detriment, is, you know, forcing people into iconidulia, um, and you know, Mariology has gone off the rails. Um, and you know, quite frankly, he questions whether the gospel is even preached right in in a sense in the orthodoxy. So I think he he labeled his book well, right? Disillusioned. This is you're hearing a man who's disillusioned with orthodoxy. Um, and I think that that perspective is not unimportant when you're listening to their critique of orthodoxy. With that

Two Protestants Frame The Debate

SPEAKER_02 4:26

being said, let me make a couple opening comments here that I think is very important. One thing these two gentlemen are gonna do, dad, is make orthodoxy sound like um a total circus. And Protestants, wouldn't you know it, have it right dang. They got it figured out. And, you know, maybe Protestants aren't totally perfect, but they have the right ecclesiology because they're just all very, we can all get along, right? Um, and because of that, they have this superior approach to not only ecclesiology, but they would argue they have the superior view of the gospel. That view is poppycock. The view here, espoused by these two guys. I'm sorry, it's a fiction. Because even in the very context of this conversation, and please understand this, this is crucial for you to understand. The author, the gentleman on the right, Joseph, he's a Lutheran pastor. Okay, he's now a Lutheran pastor, so he abides by the Augsburg Confession. His uh very idea of what saving uh grace is, his idea of ecclesiology, his idea of the sacraments of the church contradict and are inconsistent with Gavin Ortland's uh ecclesiology and and view of the sacraments and how salvation is attained. They don't even agree with each other. Joseph, the author, would not allow Gavin Ortland to come take communion at his church. They can't even agree on who to baptize. Joseph, as a Lutheran uh pastor, they are baptizing babies, and uh, Gavin Ortland is saying, nah, you can't do it. You have to baptize people who believe, right? Believers' baptism. So on two fundamental views within the church and within the I the understanding of what Christianity is, what the sacraments are, what salvation and sanctification and the role of the church is, they can't even agree. And quite frankly, the one would lock the other out. Would he allow them in the church? Sure. But could he come take communion? Absolutely not. Think about that for a second. These two guys who in this video, if you watch it, and I encourage you to go watch it, it's as if they're holding hands, singing kumbaya. Isn't it wonderful, brother? We're all Christians here and we believe in the invisible Christian church, and so we can just get along. When in actuality, if for example, Dr. Gavin Ortland, who is a Reformed Baptist, abides by the 1689 London Baptist Confession, what do they say about Lutheran view of the Eucharist? They say it is repugnant, but listen, they're even more poignant than that. Here's what Gavin Ortland's theology says about Joshua. The doctrine which maintains a change of substance of bread and wine into the substance of Christ's body and blood, in other words, the Lutheran view that the bread and wine is the body and blood of Christ, commonly called transubstantiation by consecration of a priest, which happens in Lutheranism, or by any other way. In other words, Lutherans included, listen to this, is repugnant not to scripture alone, but even to common sense and reason. So Dr. Gavin Ortland's theology calls Joseph's view of the Eucharist repugnant, not according to Scripture alone, is not commonsensical, it's even defies reason, it overthrows the nature of the ordinance and has been and is the cause of manifold superstitions, yea, of gross idolatries. That is the Protestant reality. That's the reality between these two gentlemen you see right here before you decrying orthodoxy and attacking orthodoxy for in ways which you're gonna see are so inconsistent and flattering to themselves in their own position. Meanwhile, they commit many of the same inconsistencies that they claim the Orthodox commit. So do not be confused or fooled by some notion that oh Protestants have it right, right? Protestants got it together, and man, those Orthodox, you know, those weird mystical Orthodox Orthodoxy around the world. And I don't care who you want to go talk to. The Ethiopians, the Copts, the Assyrians, the Orientals, the Eastern Orthodox, any of them, all of them are consistent on the Eucharist, on baptism, on what the sacraments are, on the nature and ecclesiology of the church, on salvation by grace through faith worked out in love, on prayer and the use of icons, which goes back all the way to the beginning. All of this is consistent and maintained in the ancient apostolic Orthodox churches. These gentlemen cannot claim the same thing, they can attack orthodoxy all they want to, and they can claim. These guys don't even know. They cannot agree. And yet all Orthodox bodies on earth are crystal clear when it comes to these foundational core views of the church. The body and blood of Christ, the fulfillment of the Great Commission, baptism, what it means, how it's to be done, where it's to be done, and to whom. The Orthodox Church has been unified in all these things for 2,000 years. And these two Protestant individuals, I'm sorry, couldn't even hold it together for 50 years. Let alone 500. With that background, let's see how this goes.

SPEAKER_01 12:26

Everyone,

The Interview Clip And First Pushback

SPEAKER_01 12:27

welcome or welcome back to Truth Unites. Truth Unites is a place for theology and apologetics done in an irenic way. And this is my second interview with Josh Schuping, who is the pastor of Alliance Church in Russellville, Arkansas, and the author of this book that we're going to talk about today called Disillusioned: Why I Left the Eastern Orthodox Priesthood and Church. So the last interview that we did talked a little bit more about your story. And there's a link to that one in the video description. In this one, we'll talk a little bit more about your theology and the theological concerns you have that you work through in this book. So I'm really excited to get into this. Uh thanks for doing this, Josh. How are you doing today?

SPEAKER_00 13:08

Thank God. Uh I'm alive, I'm well, uh, God is good. One of these fruits is the proper confession of Christ.

SPEAKER_01 13:17

Yes. That well said. And you know, with the test of 1 Corinthians 12, 3, that no one can say Jesus is Lord except speaking by the Holy Spirit, there we also have a doctrinal test that a a Buddhist or a Mormon wouldn't pass. They wouldn't say Jesus is Lord in the sense that Paul understands that.

SPEAKER_02 13:34

So and he says that Mormons don't do this or can't do this. That's simply not true, right? Mormons claim that Jesus is their Lord, right? Mormons claim Jehovah's Witnesses claim that Jesus is Lord. There's these are views that are taught uh and believed by many sectarian, schismatic, and heretical groups, they call Jesus Lord. It's not a indication in and of itself of the church or of even someone who is actually even a Christian.

SPEAKER_01 14:12

To

One True Church And Anxiety Claims

SPEAKER_01 14:13

me, just obeying these scriptures is, as you put it, just what we're required to do. Um but let me let me ask you a question about the anxiety that that these exclusivistic claims put people in, because I want to read a great quote from your book on page 30, and again, encourage people to pick the book up uh uh by the link in the description. You you talk about how these exclusivistic claims are represented by multiple churches. So, for example, the same claim uh that the Eastern Orthodox make is made by Roman Catholics and Oriental Orthodox in broad form. We're the one true church. And you say uh this sends credulous inquirers and would-be defenders of the faith on a man-centered hunt to find out which one true church is really the one true church, according, of course, to the investigators, gasp private judgment.

SPEAKER_02 15:06

They're making the argument sound as if all choices are equal. In other words, to choose between Calvary Chapel down the road or New Horizon Church or you know, Greg Olstein's church, or the Lutheran Church down the road, or the Roman Catholic Church, or Eastern Orthodoxy, or an Oriental Orthodox Church, it's all the same. It's all the same claim. They are you just have to kind of you know figure it out on your own when we know that it's simply not the case. The only true church is the historic Apostolic Orthodox Church. How do you know that? You know that because it's a simple uh historical line that is broken in 1054. And from there comes the uh Protestant Reformation, all of which are you know guilty of the fruit from which they they fall and or the fruit of the tree from which they fall, and that tree is the Roman Catholic Church. So you don't have to have this, oh, I need to figure it out. No. The church that was established by Jesus Christ is a historic visible church through his disciples, through the apostles, and then those who followed thereafter, the bishops through the laying on of hands, the visible church through that administrative function, in part, and then followed up, of course, by doctrinal uh lineage, doctrinal consistency from that time. That's found only in one place, and that is the historic ancient apostolic Orthodox Church. Now, if you want to say that's Eastern Orthodox, that's the Oriental to Ethiopian, great, fine. All of that, they have the same teachings, they have the same practice. It doesn't matter where you fall when you fall into an ancient apostolic Orthodox Church. Period. Neither of these gentlemen can make that same claim. Neither of these gentlemen can make the claim about the other person's church either. Only ancient apostolic Orthodox churches are able to make that claim. Only ancient Apostolic Orthodox churches have doctrinal consistency all the way back to the beginning that have consisted to this very day unchanged. Now we're going to talk about unchanged a bit in this video. But do not be fooled. For them to say that this exclusivistic claim is some somehow equal to the Protestant claim of an invisible church, and really it's kind of just pick your flavor, is simply and utterly false.

SPEAKER_01 17:58

Now it requires a PhD in church history and theology, together with mastery of multiple languages, not to mention access to all the relevant resources to find out whether one is even in the church and therefore saved. And you quote Romans 10 and say, No, it's you know, you know you're saved if you have Christ. And I just thought that was helpful because so often we're Protestants are criticized for over-relying upon private judgment. But one of the things you're pointing out here is it's unavoidable to use our judgment to make a decision of which church we will be in. And it really does put people in anxiety to try to figure out uh, you know, and I know so many people like this, they're thinking, they're worried about getting damned by making the wrong ecclesial decision. Do you see people feeling that anxiety at all?

SPEAKER_00 18:46

Yes. Um, I've had many long conversations with people who really did struggle and suffer uh with that very anxiety.

SPEAKER_02 18:55

So there's no anxiety needed. We understand and we believe in a merciful God who has told us again and again that his mercy is forever, right? As far as the East is from the West, right? This is the God that we serve. And for them to talk about this anxiety that you have to be, you know, in the right church or your or your salvation is at issue, I'm sorry. That's a Protestant problem. I remember very clearly when I was a Reformed Calvinist, we spent half our time attacking the Armenians down the road, right? Our Wesleyan uh brothers and sisters of the non-denominational evangelical church, the Calvinists love picking on them and questioning constantly if the gospel is even preached there at all. And you're gonna hear that referred to here. The gospel is proclaimed every liturgy, the gospel is proclaimed every time Orthodox Christians come together. Orthodoxy is the repository of the Christian faith, and that faith is founded on the core understanding of Christ's death and resurrection and ascension into heaven, that he has conquered death, and that because he so loved the world that he gave himself not only for us, but for the whole world. You see, orthodoxy has preserved the very Christianity that these two gentlemen are arguing about. It is a the faith, it is the church, it is the body of Christ, and Christ we know is the way, the truth, and the life. There is life in the church. It's espoused even in the Nicene Creed that both of these gentlemen, although with an added filioque, ironically, recite or believe in.

Has Orthodoxy Really Changed

SPEAKER_00 20:58

Yeah, well, one of the concerns, one of the primary concerns I have is kind of a popular claim as well from the Orthodox Church where they say we're the we're unchanged, we've never changed, it's the Church of the Fathers, every, you know, everything's been maintained the same. And it's a really rude awakening for people when this sort of pietistic kind of uh nonsense really gets absorbed. It can be very, very painful. Um I remember in seminary, like I feel sick to my stomach when I'm in a liturgical theology class and they're going through the history, and it's like this has changed, this has changed, this has changed, this has changed, this has changed, this has changed, this has changed. And I'm like, wow. People say, Oh, well, if you got into a time machine and you were worshiping with Justin Martyr, and then you got into a time machine and went and worshiped with Cyril of Alexandria, and you got into a time machine and worshiped with John of Damascus, and then it would always be the same. This is the sort of popular image. People call me a fool for for having believed what even the local priests had told me about these sorts of of Romantic legends of orthodoxy. But you know, kind of bracketing that aside, like and just sort of taking it very seriously where they say, because they really do, on some level, say it's never changed. And when it comes to icons, they say, well, we've always venerated icons. It's just how we've always been. But when you go back and you look at the first several centuries of the church, it was a trope for them, just a constant repeated thing. Like every apologist had a chapter or some sort of section that that dealt with we don't do images.

SPEAKER_02 22:37

So if you've read the fathers from the first few centuries as he's describing, what are they combating? They're combating Roman paganism, which used idols. So, yes, you see in the apologists and in the fathers of the early church a decrying of the use of idols to false gods. Nowhere do you see any sort of attack on the use of images just generally. We know with modern scholarship that the use of images goes back to the very, very beginning. Some of the earliest uh things we have found go back to the early uh second century, if not earlier. This idea that this is some sort of um, you know, um growth or evolution within the church is hogwash. And I can tell you very strongly, one reason why you know this is actually something that they're not going to want to concede. And that is the very uh existence of the Ethiopian Orthodox, the Copts, the Coptics, right, the um Oriental Orthodox is evidence that the history of the church, the ancient apostolic Orthodox churches have always used icons. Why? Because the argument is that, well, you know, by the time you get the church and Constantine and the influence, you know, the Roman influence, and uh, you know, they bring in these images and it just kind of grew from there. That hogwash is wiped away when you realize that churches with independent evolution, i.e., the Ethiopian uh church, for example, um, the Oriental Orthodox churches that were not under the influence and sway of Rome, have icons going back to the earliest of times, and they continue the use of icons to this very day. You see, this is what these guys are missing. He talks about in this very clip that I just played, right? They say they talk about, well, um, you know, how do you find, you know, the right church? You know, how can you um know that you're in the true church? The practice is exactly the same. Let's go back a little bit. I want to hear what he said.

SPEAKER_00 25:14

And they're going through the history, and it's like this has changed, this has changed, this is right.

SPEAKER_02 25:18

He's saying this has changed, this has changed, this has changed. What he's describing are very understandable, slight modifications which happen from you know, this geographic region to this one, this this time period to this time period, variations in the liturgy, etc. But what hasn't changed? Doctrine. For 2,000 years, and this again is something that he simply cannot claim for himself or for Gavin Ortland, for 2,000 years, the church has maintained a consistent practice related to who God is, as dec as declared in the Nicene Creed, has not altered. The practice and the view of baptism as laid out in the D decay, which again has not, you know, been argued or changed. The idea and understanding of the nature of the church, this has not changed for 2,000 years. The changes he wants to talk about, oh, you know, priests used to say this prayer aloud, but now they say it, you know, pray it quietly, or now a deacon's doing that prayer over here in the corner. These types of things, or this hymn used to be sung at this time, but now it's not, etc. It is absolute malarchy. Otherwise, he'd bring it out here, that there are some sort of sweeping changes in orthodoxy, changing the fabric of the faith when he knows himself that is simply not true. Can we, as adults and as people who have studied church history, understand that, of course, it's not this carbon copy from the first century or even the third century or fourth century to 2026? It's not. But would a Christian from that time period, would Augustine recognize the divine liturgy? Absolutely. We know for a fact why, because Augustine was practicing the liturgy of the church. He was wearing vestments, he was using incense, there were uh, you know, lectionary, the prayers, etc., etc. It was the practice of the Eucharist, there was confession, you had holy unction. The sacraments of the church were there and they were practiced in the same way, and in that sense, that it is unchanged to this very day. So it's disingenuous, and I would argue intellectually dishonest for them to nitpick at these quote-unquote changes when the fact of the matter is the consistency in the Orthodox belief and practice for 2,000 years makes their squabbles between each other related to the Eucharist and baptism and ecclesiology utterly laughable. These two gentlemen right here can't even agree on what a true church is. According to their own reformed standards, what is a true church where the word is preached rightly and the sacraments are rightly administered? Neither of them agree on the sacraments. So the other one is looking at the other one saying, You don't rightly administer the sacraments. They can't agree. So therefore, it's not an actual church, but they don't want to talk about that. And they very, very conveniently do not talk about that in this video. In this video, it's as if they're going to the same church. They talk as if they are both Lutheran pastors, they talk as if they are both Reformed Baptist pastors. It's it's wild. And they want to attack orthodoxy for changing over 2,000 years in a religion that covers the globe over that same time period. Of course, there is slight modification for demographics, geographic, you know, geographies, et cetera, et cetera, times, places. But we believe that Christ established a real church and he set up an administrative body through the apostles and the the first uh deacons and priests and bishops, so that why? So that they could actually through economia they can make allowances to adapt the faith as needed. Why? For the salvation of the world. Is that for me to decide? Absolutely not. It's for neither of them to decide either. Who is it for to decide? God is given that responsibility, and what a responsibility that is to those bishops leading the church today. It is between them and God and their responsibility before God to guide the church. But they're not doing so alone. Why? We believe the Holy Spirit is preserving truth through through men sinful and you know sometimes astray, even when men are of that nature, which of course we know is happens, even with sinful, deceived men, the church remains the pillar and foundation of truth by the power of the Holy Spirit, not because men just get it right, but because of that, we can believe as Orthodox Christians, as ancient apostolic Orthodox people of faith, we can believe that the church has been preserved and has preserved truth, even when there are these minor modifications in practice from this geography, this time, this era to another.

Icons, History, And Early Christianity

SPEAKER_02 31:34

And we can still say that there's been no change. Why? Because the core of our faith has not changed. Thanks be to God.

SPEAKER_00 31:48

And when it comes to icons, they say, well, we've always venerated icons.

SPEAKER_02 31:54

Because the church has. Now, have they venerated icons in the, you know, immediately starting in the first century? Did it take some time for the church again through the power of the Holy Spirit, through the offices of those Christians who died, and it was they were tasked with preserving the faith and passing on the faith? Did those Christians very quickly go to the use of images? And those images were revered. Why? Because the people that they were images of died for the faith and were sometimes in many ways martyred in very violent ways? Absolutely. And did the prayers to these people who they knew and walked the streets with, and then they saw, died for their faith? So they know they're in heaven. And we know from John's testimony himself and revelation that those saints, those very saints who they knew were in heaven around the throne of Christ, were praying on our behalf. It is absolutely and completely obvious that this practice came very, very, very, very early. And it was a natural outgrowth of what? Of ancient apostolic orthodox practice. It is Christianity. See, I think these Protestants, deep down, they have a problem with Christianity being a historic faith rooted even in the ugliness, right? The difficulties of the church, because it has spanned 2,000 years. We're going to talk later. Joshua talks about how some people, they, you know, get some notion of uh the Orthodox Church and they idealize it, but they want to attack Protestantism. These guys do the same thing. They've idealized Protestantism. Like I said, they've made it sound as if Protestantism is just this, you know, big, happy group that everyone gets along and they all realize that they're all the church, you know, because they're all part of the invisible church, because they have faith in Christ. It's absolute hogwash. Are there problems in the church? Absolutely. There's problems in every single church on earth, including his Lutheran church. Lord have mercy, female prat pastors and priests, etc., etc., which you don't see in Orthodoxy. And then on the Baptist side of things, it's even worse. It is wild to me that people who watch this video, unless and only because they are so completely convinced already of their Protestantism that they hear what they want to hear in the words of this one individual. I want to comment on something quickly here as well.

Why Leaving Orthodoxy Proves Little

SPEAKER_02 34:54

My dad sent me this video, as I mentioned, he I you know believes, I'm sure, that this is the um the death nail to orthodoxy, right? This is it, right? He's gonna be just convinced. Why? Well, because this one Orthodox priest left the church and became a Lutheran pastor. Well, I'm sorry, but my father is a Reformed Calvinist Presbyterian. Why didn't this guy become a Reformed Calvinist Presbyterian? Why didn't he become a Reformed Baptist? Gavin Ortland would ask him. No, he didn't. He became a Lutheran. Why? Why did he choose that if Calvinism is the right way? If Calvinism is the best interpretation of the gospel, if Calvinism presents the truth as to how the gospel is to be presented to the world, this guy became a Lutheran, not a Calvinist. Why is that okay? And how can you explain that? This one individual. I'm sorry, it's an anomaly. Thanks be to God. For every one Joshua leaving the Orthodox Church to become a Lutheran, I can point you to scores of Reformed Calvinists, Presbyterians, Lutherans, Anglicans, non-denominationals who are coming to Orthodoxy every single day. And guess what? They stay in Orthodoxy. A case in point. Father Josiah Trenham. He was a Reformed Presbyterian. He graduated from uh Reformed Theological Seminary and Westminster Theological Seminary. He was a he was a Reformed Christian Presbyterian of Presbyterians. He left Presbyterianism, just as I did, and he came to Holy Orthodoxy. He wrote a book called Rock and Sand. And it's an Orthodox critique of the Protestant Reformation. And it's an introduction to Holy Orthodoxy. I would encourage you to read that book. Listen to Father Josiah Trenham's interviews. If you think it's so interesting that this one single guy, this one Orthodox priest who became a Protestant, if that story is so fascinating, why not read the scores of stories and testimonies of former Presbyterians who have become Orthodox? Why not? You think they don't know what this guy's saying right here? You think they missed this one? You see, the reality is that there's a fear because I know it because I lived it. I was a Calvinist for many years. There's a fear that I think is very unique to the reformed Christians because they think they've got it all figured out. They talk about, you know, systematic theologies later in this video. Reformed are classic, notorious for believing they have it right. It's all about doctrine. We have the best doctrine, we have the best soteriology, we have the best ecclesiology, we have the five solas, right? All these things, they're petrified that they got it wrong because they've placed such an importance on theology, they've placed such an importance on intellectual ascent to the truth, to what they believe is the truth. They're terrified that they might have actually made a mistake, that they got it wrong. And it's why they're not even willing to look at orthodox critiques of Reformed Presbyterianism or Lutheranism, etc. And yet I want you to see here clearly, I am not afraid to confront these issues whatsoever. Thanks be to God. Why? Because the Orthodox Church has a claim that no other body can make, no Roman Catholics can't make it, and all Protestant bodies cannot make it, and all, of course, you know, all the heretical Muslims and all the other groups, they cannot make it. It is only within the ancient apostolic Orthodox Church that you have any claim to be the visible church on earth. Now, does that mean that there's no hope for salvation outside of the church? Of course not. Orthodox are very clear from the top to the bottom. God can do anything, God is merciful. We see time and time again examples of where people outside of you would say the visible body of the church are saved and are used powerfully by God. So this is not a matter of salvation, even though they want to try to draw that distinction. This is a matter of the practice of the faith, the fullness of the faith, of being part of the visible body on earth, part of that same protective, Holy Spirit-led, visible administrative function and role of preserving the scriptures and the interpretation of those scriptures for 2,000 years. Gavin Ortland and this gentleman, the author of this book, Joshua, cannot make the same claim, period.

SPEAKER_00 40:46

The problem I see is getting people to take it seriously.

Nicaea II And The Force Claim

SPEAKER_00 40:50

Um, they don't understand that they're blood earnest about these canons when they make them. And people will say, oh, well, it was contextualized. This has to do, you know, I mean, you have to understand how it was back then. And it's like the statements still stand to say what they say and mean what they say. So they either mean it or they don't. And the other escape hatch that people have is this I would distinguish between free iconolia and forced iconolia. Um, usually when you go into an Orthodox church and the priest talks to you, oh, hey, I'm curious, I'm inquiring, I'd like to know more about it. And then the local priest um who probably hasn't studied, they see it too carefully, um, and has probably heard, oh, the iconoclasts were very mean and very cruel people, and they did awful things, which is probably true. Um, and then they'll frame it as we get to, it's it's a free veneration. We we're free to do it. But that's not what the actual council says, it's forced, it's actually a forcing of the affections. And so the fact uh to me that so deeply betrays the spirit of the gospel.

SPEAKER_02 42:05

You see, he betrays the spirit of the gospel. He's already beginning to hint on the fact that he believes probably the gospel's been lost in orthodoxy. So he draws out this iconodulia and he's trying to claim you know Nicaea II in some way forces, right, uh, the veneration of icons. Because outside of Christianity, this is before, keep in mind, this is before the Great Schism. So there was one Christian church on earth that had this practice upheld. And this is a practice again affirmed by every ancient apostolic Christian church on earth, and it's been unchanged for 2,000 years. But these Protestants want to come along and say, because of the strong language in these canons, oh, you're you would force us, right? You would force us uh to uh venerate the icons. Simply and totally false. Go to any Orthodox church on earth right now, visit, be part of the services, and see if you are forced to venerate an icon or to show affection to the icon. You're not, you don't have to. I've known people who for years, as they are coming into orthodoxy, do not do so because they're not ready yet. It takes time sometimes. So this is absolute hogwash, and he knows it because even as as a when he was an Orthodox priest, he knows he wasn't forcing people uh to force their um affections for icons. What does Nicaea II claim? Now, Nicaea. Two proclaims clearly that this is an unchanging part of the Christian practice. That's what it affirms. That's why we call it the triumph of orthodoxy. That orthodoxy over schismatic teachings, which have been in the church, sometimes in large, large numbers, as we know from the first council of Nicaea and the first council of Constantinople, the church has dealt with heresies many times over. But that's the beauty of orthodoxy. He's gonna say later, oh, Orthodoxy doesn't have a mechanism to correct itself. What did you not understand Arius and that heresy? Nestorius and how the church absolutely corrects itself because of those were movements that were large and grew rapidly within the church? Lord have mercy upon us all. So this idea that he wants to take the strong language of Nicaea II and use it against Orthodox today is the same type of argument that when I pointed out earlier when I was quoting the London Baptist confession, and how it says that the Lutheran view of the Eucharist is repugnant and you know lacks common sense and good reason and leads to idolatry.

SPEAKER_00 45:45

Now she is the propitiation for the whole world.

SPEAKER_01 45:53

Yes.

Mary, Poetic Prayers, And Misreadings

SPEAKER_01 45:54

And what I'll what why don't I uh read uh one or two examples from your book of uh this is from a collection of ninth century prayers that you've drawn attention to. And I want to read these and then ask you to comment on these uh in terms of are these representative or are they exceptional or something like this? And I'll set it up like this. One of the arguments you hear to defend Mariology among Catholic or Orthodox Christians is this uh uh it's a both hand. It's not Mary displacing Jesus, Mary just leads us more into the heart of Jesus. Um it's like the sun and the moon. You know, Jesus is the sun, he's reflecting off Mary, the moon, this this way of thinking, this both hand way of thinking. And as one who wants to treat Mary with honor and respect as a great woman of God, that that's not the where this is coming from. We don't hate Mary as soon as we're accused, it's not that at all. And we want to honor uh what God did through Mary in the incarnation. I have to say that I'm convinced in my conscience that these prayers and the general role of Mary in these traditions doesn't really fly by the whole both and way of thinking. Because particular soteriological roles are given to Mary that belong exclusively to Christ. And uh in in Western prayers that you'll find, you'll find basically the prayer is Mary propitiate Jesus, propitiate your son.

SPEAKER_02 47:20

And so I want you to notice very clearly, Gavin Arlene just made a shift. He was talking about orthodoxy, but then to make the actual argument of this propitiation taking the place of he went to the West, okay? He went to Roman Catholic Mariology to attack. Even Orthodox Christians believe that Rome has taken too far, Mariology. So be careful of the subtle move going on here. We'll get back to the Orthodox stuff, and that's fine. I'm happy to talk about it, but just please understand what just took place there.

SPEAKER_01 47:59

We're saying, wait a second, that's not a bold end. That that's Mary playing the role toward Jesus that the gospel teaches us Jesus played toward the Father and has already been done at Calvary. So here's an example uh from page 76 of your book. One of the prayers says, I do not dare to draw near with boldness to your son, but instead I pray to you that I may obtain salvation through your intercessions to him.

SPEAKER_02 48:26

Listen closely to what he just read there. Okay. That is in no way saying anything that these two gentlemen are trying to make it out to be. It is a prayer of humility, right? A prayer saying, I can't even approach Christ in, you know, hopefully, prayerfully in humility. And so uh he comes to Christ's mother, right? Because Christ is God, Christ is holy, Christ is one, right? These are the this is the understanding in which this prayer is prayed. And so then he asks for her supplications, her prayers. Nothing wrong with this. To what? So that Christ may save the prayer, the prayerful person's soul. This is a prayer for the grace and mercy of Christ. Through what? Through the intercessions of the Theotokos, through the prayers of the Mother of God. But you see, they don't like the language. Let's go on.

SPEAKER_01 49:35

Do not allow the dark power to seize me and cast me into the depths of Hades. Grant that the just judge should look upon me favorably. Uh, deliver me from the eternal fire, for you are the only helper of mankind.

SPEAKER_02 49:48

Okay, so this has been brought up many times before, for you're the only helper of mankind, as if um, you know, Orthodox believe that Mary is our only hope. We know from crystal clear orthodox teaching and practice that no man comes to the Father but through Christ, that salvation is of grace from God through faith, worked out in love, and is a beautiful understanding of God and God's relationship with his creation, of which Mary is one, the Orthodox do not believe that our only hope is Mary. We know this clearly from our actual doctrinal theological teaching and practice. So then, knowing with crystal clarity that Christ alone is God and Christ is our only hope once and for all, always and forever, what do we do with a hymn, a poetic prayer that says, Help me, you're my only hope. This is to be understood as it is, as someone would say, if I was falling off, I slipped and fell off a cliff, and I'm have a quick second, you know, help me to my wife, you're my only hope. Do I really mean that she's my only hope? No, I'm saying in this moment, help me. As Paul says in the New Testament, imitate me, Paul, as I imitate Christ. Does that mean we don't imitate Christ first? No. Paul says, imitate me. It doesn't mean he's replacing Christ. The Theotokos doesn't replace Christ. She's not our only hope in an ontological doctrinal sense. But rather, someone coming in humility can fall before on their face and on their hands and knees to pray to God, asking the mother of God, who's in the presence of Christ, who's in the presence of God for her prayers, for her intercessions, for her help. That's what these are. These are colloquial, poetic expressions of love and of honor and of hope. That the saints of the church are there before the throne of God praying on our behalf, and it's we're asking for that intercession. That's what's going on here. This is not like a doctrinal shift so that all of a sudden, oh my gosh, Orthodox believe that Mary is uh salvific. No. Have Roman Catholics maybe gone that far and gone too far? Maybe so. That's another conversation.

SPEAKER_01 52:44

Another one from page 77. Through your pure and acceptable supplications, persuade the righteous judge to have compassion upon me.

SPEAKER_02 52:52

Just hear what he said. Through your supplications, in other words, Mary, through your prayers, right? May Christ have mercy upon me.

SPEAKER_01 53:02

For you are his mother. Open up for me the compassionate heart of your merciful, merciful son, and beseech him to overlook my transgressions.

SPEAKER_02 53:13

Well again and again and again, what was said there? Beseech your son. We're asking Mary to pray for us. Pray, you know, beseech your son to have mercy upon us. This is amazing that they want to point this as being a uh problematic.

SPEAKER_01 53:32

That sure sounds like it's saying Mary has to propitiate Jesus.

SPEAKER_02 53:35

That I I did you hear his conclusion that Mary has to propitiate Jesus? From this prayer, which as I said, we're talking about a translation of a poetical uh hymn, a prayer that's intended to be um used in everyday, you know, life. In other words, it's not written as proclaiming doctrine, right? This is not uh a decree and canon of the church, right? This is not didactic in the sense of describing an ontological reality, reality in the new soteriology of orthodoxy. No. Because again, why? Because we know crystal clearly what orthodoxy teaches when it comes to salvation and soteriology. And in that beautiful, wonderful historical context, you can have prayers like this that are beautifully, artfully, colloquially using language and terms that obviously, in even in and of themselves, are speaking from a very human perspective, right? A very human standpoint. And there's nothing wrong with that.

Conversion, Idealization, And Gospel Accusations

SPEAKER_00 54:59

But when people get dissatisfied at the local level, what do they do? They go, well, I'm gonna, I'm gonna start reading, and they find Athanasius, they find Gregory of Nazianzas, they find all of these people, then they're gonna go to Dimitrius Danaloia, they're gonna look at his dogmatic theology, or they're gonna look at Michael Michael Tomazansky, they're gonna look and they're gonna find this kind of like idealized picture. And then they create this idealized picture, they get very excited, they come from a bad church. Everybody knows that there's there's tears among the wheat, so they go into this local orthodox parish with kid gloves.

SPEAKER_02 55:33

Absolutely amazing, right? They're just they're just speaking anecdotally, right? They're just speaking in a self-serving manner. Okay. It is self-serving for them to think that people that come to orthodoxy out of Protestantism, oh, we're just treating Orthodoxy with kid gloves. Are you kidding me? It took me three years to convert to Orthodoxy out of my Calvinistic Presbyterianism. I was so dyed in the wool, I was so staunchly Presbyterian, Calvinistic. I was abhorrently uh opposed to orthodoxy from my Protestant perspective. And see, that's the issue. These gentlemen right here, and I said this at the outset of this video, this is a video, and look, do not be fooled. This is a video from the perspective of two Protestants, a perspective of two Reformed Protestants to that point who still can't agree, right? But but this uh perspective here is in no way, and I don't even think they intended it to be, to be some sort of objective analysis, some fair, charitable, you know, survey of orthodoxy. No. This is a critique, this is an attack of orthodox teaching and practice by two Protestants. And so from that, this is what you get. You get statements like, yeah, sure, people leave Protestantism and then they go treat Orthodoxy with kids' gloves. In other words, they just, you know, they've been fooled, right? They they fooled themselves to thinking that orthodoxy was better. How silly, how superficial, right? These conversions are much, much deeper than this. Most Orthodox catechisms of these converts coming over, they're as long as a year or more. Many, many months of learning and and understanding what Orthodox teach and practice, being part of the community.

SPEAKER_00 57:47

And they say, oh, well, of course, nobody's perfect, but they have this idealized image that allows them to kind of work through all of those problems that every single parish has and kind of excuse them. But then they use the bad experiences that they had in their previous evangelical or Protestant parish and say, see, that's just evidence that it's all wrong. But that same process can work in both directions. Where someone can grow up in an Orthodox parish, they never heard the gospel in their life. They never, you know, this, this, this. There was bad actions here, bad actors there.

SPEAKER_02 58:22

What he just described simply does not happen. One cannot be raised in the Orthodox Church and not hear the gospel. The gospel is proclaimed every divine liturgy more than once. And that's just one service throughout the week. So it is utter, excuse me, it is utter hogwash that one could be raised in the Orthodox Church and somehow not know the gospel. Give me a break. This is where Protestants, and I used to do this myself as a Protestant, they believe that they're the ones that hold on to the real gospel. They understand the real gospel, right? Why? Well, because from their, you know, Calvinistic or in this guy's case, you know, in their Lutheran view of sola fide, sola gracia, right, sola scriptura, they believe that they have it figured out. Do not be deceived. These gentlemen believe they have Christianity figured out. They believe that they understand what the real gospel is, and they're right now questioning whether the Orthodox have it at all. That is the hubris of Protestantism. Whereas Orthodox, ironically, even though we know where the one true church is, where the one visible church on earth is, as I said, the ancient Apostolic Orthodox Church, there is the faith that's preserved in its fullness, but we understand completely and totally that the gospel is and can be preached in many places all over the world, even outside the church, and how God uses that to save souls, to pull people out of schismatic churches and call them to himself, 100% happens all the time. So you see, it's within orthodoxy where you can have the full teaching preserved of Christianity, and you have room for these schismatic groups which have sadly and unfortunately broken away from the one church. And yet we can account for that because why? Because God is merciful and gracious and just to forgive. And he calls us in love, right? And he wills that no man should die, but rather should turn right from their sin and be saved. Right? This is our God. Our God is an awesome God. Our God is merciful and gracious, and he loves us, and he created each and every one of us to bring him to himself, as Paul says, right? We, as part of the church, we've been predestined before the foundations of the world to what? To be conformed to his likeness. This is the call of all of us, even these two gentlemen here who have been so um unfriendly to orthodoxy. I would call them to compassion, to understand, to have a bit more respect for this body that they so decry. But as somehow, even though this guy says they don't even have a clear ecclesiology in orthodoxy, somehow we've preserved unanimity throughout the church on all of the practices and teachings of the Christian faith. From who God is and how he's to be described to the sacraments of the church, to the means of salvation and grace.

SPEAKER_00 1:02:29

And

Ecclesiology And Sacramental Contradictions

SPEAKER_00 1:02:30

in those confessions, you have a clear statement of what their ecclesiology is.

SPEAKER_02 1:02:34

Notice he's talking about the reformed churches. Only in the reformed churches, right, do you have these confessions? Most of the other church bodies they don't have confessions. Right? When's the last evangelical church you've been to where they have a confession? When's the last non-denominational church you've been a part of that has a confession? Go show me the Methodist confession. Right? He's being very, very selective.

SPEAKER_00 1:03:01

But you don't have a clear ecclesiology unless you start ransacking Nicaea II and all of the various canons and the canon and the council of 1672. There's no clear statement of ecclesiology in the Orthodox Church.

SPEAKER_02 1:03:13

Clear statements of some of these Protestant groups that he's referring to have defined their ecclesiology such that it excludes other Protestant groups from an actual legitimate ecclesiology, including these two individuals right here. According to Joshua's ecclesiology from the Augsburg Confession, what Gavin Ortland is practicing in his church as a Reformed Baptist does not fulfill the calling of what a church is. Why? Because he does not rightly administer the sacraments, he doesn't even name the sacraments right. Reformed Baptists don't even call baptism a sacrament, right? It's an ordinance. So I'm sorry that he, Joshua, thinks that Orthodoxy don't have you know a clear, what he calls an clear ecclesiology. That's not true, but even if it was true, I'll take that over this nonsense any day.

SPEAKER_00 1:04:35

That allows us to affirm, yes, I can uh this is a uh an important enough issue that it becomes like a uh we couldn't uh share the same uh church body necessarily, but that doesn't mean I think you're outside of the church itself as the mystical body of Christ.

SPEAKER_02 1:04:52

But there it was, right? We can't share the same space, you know, but we're still buddies, right?

SPEAKER_00 1:05:00

You know, we have to we baptize infants and and you baptize um uh people upon profession of faith, and we just can't really work out the pastoral kind of issues that might become complicated through that. So you guys can work that out. It's a serious scriptural affirmation. We work it out this way, it's a serious scriptural affirmation, but at the same time we recognize that there is a basic brotherhood, even there is a basic brotherhood, right?

SPEAKER_02 1:05:27

It makes that to be utterly fallacious, it makes that to be laughable. Oh, you know, we can't go to church together, and you know, I can't take, you know, you can't take communion at my church, but but boy, oh boy, we're one in Christ. Give me a break.

Final Summary, Prayers, And Farewell

SPEAKER_02 1:05:50

Brothers and sisters, I do encourage you to watch this video. Like I said, it's an hour long, it's a lot to get through. Um, I hope that um, you know, I was faithful. And covering at least the major points that they that they make. I'm happy to respond to more. Let me know. I'd be happy to do so. Um, but the bottom line is, ladies and gentlemen, is that humans are messy. We know even from the pages of the New Testament that there were problems in the church, right? We know Paul writing 1 Corinthians to correct people who are, you know, getting things wrong, right? Sin gets in the way. And we know at the same time that a real church, an actual church was established. Why? Because Saint Ignatius, Saint Polycarp, Clement, uh, you know, Barnabas, these first century writers testify to this church. It was there, it was real. Irenaeus, Justin Martyr, they describe the church, they describe the actual practices of the church. We know from history that these things were believed. Things that these two gentlemen don't even agree on, the church proclaimed even from those earliest of times, and it does still today. And they cannot make that same claim. That is the call of orthodoxy. That is why Orthodox Christians can say generally and in a very real sense that it's unchanged. It is the faith on earth, it is the Christian church as been preserved by the grace and preservation and providential care of God through his people, sinful and wayward as we are. Lord, have mercy upon us all. My name is Jeremy Jeremiah, chief of sinners. I pray for these individuals. I've actually been in an Orthodox church with Dr. Gavin Ortland. I happen to be at a conference that he was part of and he came to the Orthodox Church. I pray that he finds holy Orthodoxy. I pray that this wayward priest who has gone into the Lutheran church, I pray that he can find some room in his mind and in his heart for the faith that he left behind. Does this mean that I question their salvation as they seem to question whether Orthodoxy teaches the gospel?

unknown 1:08:26

No.

SPEAKER_02 1:08:27

Why? Because I believe in a gracious God with whom all things or through whom all things are possible. The mercy and grace of God is way outside of my finite brain. God bless you. I love you. Thank you for being here. Until the next one. Bye bye. Christ is risen.