Is Eastern Orthodoxy the One True Church? Apostolic Succession, Unity, and Schism

In this episode, I sit down with Ilia from Byzantine Reformation to examine Eastern Orthodoxy’s claim to be the one true Church. We focus on apostolic succession, the relationship between bishops and presbyters, visible unity, schism, Protestant fragmentation, and the claim that there is no salvation outside the Orthodox Church.

We begin by asking what apostolic succession actually establishes. Does continuity in episcopal ordination prove continuity with the apostles, or must ministerial succession itself be tested by fidelity to the apostolic gospel and apostolic doctrine? We consider Acts 1, Acts 15, Paul’s instructions to Timothy and Titus, and the New Testament’s use of the terms bishop and presbyter.

From there, we examine the claim that Protestantism is uniquely fragmented while Eastern Orthodoxy possesses visible institutional unity. The conversation distinguishes historic confessional Protestantism from the broader American religious landscape and considers Orthodox splinter groups, overlapping jurisdictions, disputed canons, contested authority, and conflicts surrounding Moscow, Constantinople, and Ukraine.

We also ask whether schism is always committed by those who formally leave an institution—or whether an institution can itself foment schism by departing from apostolic truth.

Finally, we address the ancient formula “outside the Church there is no salvation.” Reformed Christians can affirm that there is no salvation outside Christ and His body without identifying the catholic Church exclusively with a single visible institutional communion.

This is not an exercise in caricaturing Eastern Orthodoxy. It is a serious examination of whether its strongest ecclesiological claims can be established from Scripture, history, and careful theological definition.

Transcript

Welcome And Guest Background

Zechariah Eshack 0:25

For today's episode of The Restless Theologian, I have a special guest on with me named Ilya with Byzantine Reformation, and we're going to be discussing uh the one true church and some of Eastern Orthodoxy's claim to be the one true church. So, with that being said, you know, welcome to the show, Ilya. I appreciate you coming on. And uh, if you wouldn't mind just telling us a little bit about yourself and your channel.

Ilia 0:50

Yeah, thanks for having me, Zech. Um, so my name is Ilia, and I'm from Byzantine Reformation. Um, I always explain that at the start of the video that it's the channel where we talk about reformed theology, particularly in dialogue with the East. And so I guess I'm packing that a little bit because maybe some people have been a little bit confused by it. Um, it's a Reformed theology channel. So I'm a Presbyterian, I'm a seminarian, I'm looking to join the pastorate, so it's it's unapologetically about Reformed theology and defending a reformed view. Um but what I've noticed over years is that there's almost no engagement, with very few exceptions, but almost no engagement from the Reformed perspective with Eastern Orthodoxy. And to the extent that there is anything, it's usually Lutherans or Anglicans, mostly Lutherans. And I think there's just this assumption that the Reformed have nothing to add to the conversation. Uh, we don't have bishops, so obviously we don't know what we're talking about, and you know, on and on it goes. And I felt strongly against that. I I felt that there's a lot that we can actually add to the conversation. Um, there's a there's a lot of misunderstanding of the reformed tradition, and there's also a lot of ignorance of Eastern Orthodoxy, I think, that causes people to jump headlong into it. And I think another core reason why I felt strongly to start this channel is because I felt like as a reformed guy, I also occupied a unique uh space because I'm Russian, ethnic Russian, I'm an immigrant. Um, I you know, Russian's my first language. So while I wasn't raised Orthodox, you're still always in that milieu. Um, and so I've always perceived, especially after becoming uh reformed, I've always perceived Eastern Orthodoxy slightly differently. You know, it's not as exotic to me. Um and so I feel like that's a perspective that's seldom heard and needed to be out

Why Orthodoxy Claims True Continuity

Ilia 2:42

there.

Zechariah Eshack 2:42

Yeah, yeah, that's great. Um, I agree with you. I feel like with being a Western Christian, um it is funny because it's like growing up, my dad would always watch debates, and um, you know, it's usually Protestantism versus another denomination within Protestantism or Protestants uh debating Roman Catholics, but uh Eastern Orthodoxy is a little bit uh foreign to us and we don't really know a lot about it, their views of original sin, predestination, if they even believe in it. Um so what would you say is like how would you fairly summarize the Eastern Orthodox position of being the one true continuation of the like holy Catholic and Apostolic Church?

Ilia 3:26

Yeah, so in terms of Orthodoxy's claim to that, I think they would claim that on basically two grounds. One would be that we have clearly preserved correct office, which has then also clearly preserved correct teaching. Um, and so for example, they would they would rely pretty heavily on their apostolic succession going all the way back to the apostles, the idea that our bishops, you know, were ordained by bishops who were ordained by bishops going all the way back to the apostles themselves, and that therefore, unsurprisingly, at every step of the turn, uh at every step of the way, we have obviously been right on every major theological controversy. Um we were correct against the Meophysites, and you know, orthodoxy prevailed there because we had uh you know, we had all these other things like scripture and tradition, but we also had that continuity of office to ensure um that our teaching and our sacraments were valid and correct going forward. Uh we were right on the filioque issue, and you know, orthodoxy triumphed over the filioque and the uh the the barbaric insertion of the filioque into the Nicene Creed. Um we were right about papal uh authority, that um there there is a pentarchy, and while the Roman papacy may be the first among equals, he is absolutely not the infallible head over the whole church. Uh we were right about iconed, um, and we did you know successfully defeated the uh the heresy of iconoclasm. Uh we have been correct about our doctrine of God, not just in terms of the filioque, but in our essence energies distinction, and we uh avoid some of those problems or excesses of Western theology. Um all forms of Augustinian monarchism are uh fundamentally incompatible with scripture, apparently, you know, uh allegedly, um, and based off of a Latin misunderstanding by theologians like Augustine who couldn't even speak Greek. So obviously we have superior teaching, that's obviously uh a purer synthesis of the patristic witness. Um, and even if that were a debate of sorts, which, you know, from an Orthodox perspective, it's not, it's quite clear in their mind. Uh, we also, on top of that, have this continuity of office that makes that all of these things were uh obviously preserved together. So I think that's a pretty uh that's a pretty fair summary of of how they would explain themselves to be the one true church.

Zechariah Eshack 5:55

Yeah, and uh I do think that um it does make sense why they when they attacked like Reformed theology and Reformed theologians in particular, it does make sense to me why they have a little bit of animosity, at least from my perception, towards the Reformed tradition. And the Reformed tradition is highly Augustinian. Like Phoebe Warfield talks about, you know, the Reformation was nothing other than Augustinian Augustinianism come to its rights. Um so like with a little bit of Luther, then obviously, you know, John Calvin for sure. Um it like what what would you say is like one of the biggest things

What Protestants Miss About Succession

Zechariah Eshack 6:35

that like Protestants in particular like misunderstand about like the Apostolic Succession claim? Because it's not really a a claim Protestants make quite as much. Um it maybe with you know Anglicanism a little bit, but it's how they understand it is quite different. Um so can you maybe speak to that a little bit?

Ilia 6:56

What what do Protestants misunderstand about apostolic succession?

Zechariah Eshack 6:59

Yeah, especially if coming from like an Eastern tradition, like it when they hear it in their minds, like what do you see kind of common trends of what Protestants frequently misunderstand about it?

Ilia 7:10

Well, uh it depends. I mean, if if by Protestant you mean just anything that's you know, even down to uh the most baseline non-denominationalism, um, at that point you're gonna have a misunderstanding of what it even is and why it's even important or necessary. Um, and some people will have a very, very loose grasp on the continuity of office and the necessity of that. So that's perhaps one misunderstanding. Um, but you know, how much do we want to consider that as part of pro Protestantism proper is a whole discussion. So, you know, that's that's one area of misunderstanding. But I think a different area of misunderstanding uh amongst more confessional Protestants is that it's uh it's an untenable position for a number of reasons. And I remember uh realizing that there used to be uh a website called the The Calvinist International, which um they're gone for some reason. I don't know why. Um it was a fantastic website. Um, you know, I I I've had to archive their articles. Um but there was one written by, and it was mostly Anglicans for some reason, but there was one written by an Anglican, um I think he was a deacon at the time, and he introduced an argument that I'd never heard of. And I remember for me at that time, this was I actually didn't even didn't even understand it. I had to write to him and ask him, like, can you walk me through like a like I'm an idiot? What are you what are you trying to say? And now I've heard that argument a thousand times and I've realized that that's become more of, and I'll get to the argument in a second, I I've understood that that's become more widely talked about because it's so poorly understood. And that is that whereas apostolic succession sounds very compelling and very convincing, uh scripturally and historically it's actually pretty difficult to tie down uh very clearly, because while there is a continuity of office and there would be what we would call a presbyterial succession, surely, scripture does obviously teach a laying on of hands with a laying on of hands with a laying on of hands, with some debate about, you know, can laymen perform the sacraments and things like that? Generally speaking, that is something that has always been understood in Christianity and across all confessional traditions is also maintained. The real distinction, the real problem or the rub becomes, is there an ontological difference between a bishop and a presbyter? Is that something that is simply for the ben essay of the church, so just for the well-being of the church, or for the essay, for the essence of the church? You know, wherever you don't have a bishop, you don't have a church, or a bishop, you know, in that particular uh apostolic lineage. I think a lot of Protestants they get very overwhelmed and they just assume that, well, they've done their homework and we haven't, so they must be right. The reality is far more complex than that. Um when you go through the New Testament, you do see a near interchangeability between the office of Episcopas and Presbyteras, of bishop and presbyter. They are essentially the same office. Um that becomes very pro and this was the argument that I had read in that original article that I had never heard before. Um and that becomes problematic because it makes it at the at the very least less obvious that then you could even have an apostolic succession. Right? Because if the whole idea is that it's the apostles who laid hands on bishops and then those bishops carry that lineage forward, that's an assertion that needs to be proven, and I think seldom is. Um also one of the core elements of that claim is that not only is there this apostolic succession, but that there's also uh a pentarchy that grounds the whole church in five holy sees, because it's the those cities where the apostles specifically were bishops themselves and started that that apostolic office going forward. Well, that has also been challenged in the uh in the literature. So for example, I always for I always forget if it's Dvorak or Dvorkin, but um there was a Catholic priest in the fifties um who wrote a book on that, and of the five holy seas, Constantinople's one of them. Obviously, most people have heard of the ecumenical patriarch. And he proposes a thesis that has been debated, uh, but I I think is a compelling thesis, that uh this idea of the apostolic origins of the Constantinople and see is uh kind of an anachronistic thing that's back into history, most more so for political reasons. It's not necessarily something that is just obvious from the historical record that there was that lineage of apostolic succession there. Uh and funny enough, even if you don't want to believe me as a Protestant, I've I've heard some Coptic Christians make that similar argument because they want to defend the exclusivity of the Alexandrian See, but uh challenge the Constantinoplean See. Other books like that have been written about the Roman See, uh Peter Lamp's book from uh the title escapes me from Valentinius to something. Uh but anyway, these these are things that I think Protestants generally don't know. They just sort of assume that other people know better. Um they don't know where to look. But um the I I would say the biggest misunderstanding is that this this is a robust area of discussion that has been thoroughly studied from a Protestant perspective as well. And I think we could all agree on a presbyterial succession, but it is too um presumptuous to just concede the point on apostolic succession.

Zechariah Eshack 12:37

Yeah, I think the role of bishop, um I mean you don't really quite from and going off of what you had said and from what I've kind of looked into, I mean, it seems like it's you're hard pressed to find uh the role of like a three-tier role in the church of bishop. Um, you know, like you said it's presbyter, and then you said the other one was deacon, correct? Yeah. Like I don't necessarily think it's uh inappropriate to have a three-tier system. But I also think too, like, from what you're saying is that like I mean you can't it's hard to have apostolic succession in a line of bishops when the role of bishop didn't even exist in the apostolic age, right? And kind of going back to what you said about like with Eastern Orthodoxy with their perception of Roman Catholicism, I know William Webster's I've read some of his works about like um the Roman See, and you know, from my understanding it was a little bit more of that they had that the Bishop of Rome had a primacy of honor, not of jurisdiction. And I do understand the Eastern position on that. And um you know, that kind of like the first among equals, I think that that's the way Anglicanism would probably see the Archbishop of Canterbury. Not really sure how they would view that now, since um, you know, just how radical the Archbishop of Canterbury and, you know, some of them have become at kind of top-down. Um but so I wanted to touch on a point that you had brought up about like with apostolic success succession, because you say that Eastern Orthodoxy basically presents it that not only are they preserving the office, but they're also preserving the doctrine. Do you come to find that just because they have that I don't want to use the term magic line, but like just because they have that line that that isn't automatic that the their doctrine is going to be true? Or do you feel like they're actually saying, oh no, some of our bishops, some of our priests they can make mistakes to the point where they become almost no longer apostolic because the doctrine is no longer apostolic, if that makes sense.

Ilia 14:48

I've not seen a lot of that. I I've seen an enormous amount of um I've I've seen a tremendous amount of explaining away any deficiencies that you may find in a bishop or a patriarch. Um and a relentless desire to safeguard, you know, any criticism f from their bishops or from their patriarchs or other historical figures. Now, that's not to say that they believe that they're like infallible, and you know, it's it's it's always a constant moving goalpost as well. You know, you you could find some quote and say, well, you know, that was a local council, that wasn't an ecumenical council, or well, that was just a private opinion, that wasn't you know public teaching or anything like that. Um, but I would say that ultimately, yeah, it's two sides of the same coin, right? We have correct teaching because we have correct office, we have correct office because we have correct teaching. You know, those those things are distinguishable, but they're not ultimately separate in their mind.

Zechariah Eshack 15:43

Okay. Yeah, and I think that that's where someone who has more of an episcopal structure and say Protestantism, Anglicanism would be would say that, you know, the apostolic succession is only as good as the apostolic doctrine and right administration of the sacraments is maintained. Um so the other question I wanted to ask like, do you find that there's particular passages that Eastern Orthodox people will use to substantiate the claims of the episcopacy and the apostolic succession argument? Um I mean, I've seen I've watched several videos by Eastern Orthodox, um, you know, from Father Josiah Trenham to I think it's Moses Moses McPherson, and I haven't really seen too much of um, at least when it comes to scriptural evidence, to substantiate the claims. And I was curious, and that's not to say that they don't use scripture. I'm just curious as to what those might be.

The Key Bible Texts Orthodoxy Cites

Ilia 16:54

But then what whatever else scripture says about continuity of other offices, it clearly delineates a continuity of the apostolic office as superior and separate. That's kind of the main claim that's made. What what would they appeal to for that? One place, for example, would be Acts chapter one, uh, verse 15 to 26. And I'm not going to read the whole thing, but basically if you recall, this is uh Judas has killed himself, and now they need to replace him. And I will actually maybe read part of it, uh, I have it pulled up here. So beginning in verse 15 of Acts chapter one, and I'll offer some of my own commentary as we go. At this time Peter stood up in the midst of the brethren, a gathering of about one hundred and twenty persons was there together, and said, Brethren, the scripture had to be fulfilled, which the Holy Spirit foretold by the mouth of David concerning Judas, who became a guide to those who arrested Jesus. For he was counted among us and received his share in the ministry. Now this man acquired a field of the price of his wickedness, etcetera, etcetera. Um then verse 20 for it is written in the book of Psalms, let him so let his homestead be made desolate, and let no one dwell in it, and let another man take his office. And so they would say that Judas as an apostle, he died, he needs to be replaced as an apostle, therefore this gives us an understanding that uh Matthias is that first scriptural uh example of apostolic succession, and that argument is uh further buttressed by the fact that in verse 20, when it says, and let another man take his office, the word for office there is episcopane, episcopacy, and that is a uh um a a f uh a quotation of Psalm 109. Another thing that they will uh that they could use to try to make a scriptural case for it, and then I'll offer some of my own thoughts. One would be Acts 15, that the apostles obviously have uh a preeminence of authority there, so they are there alongside other elders, but it's the apostles and the elders. And then when they speak, they say it seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us, but the us again, there's a distinction within within the us. And then also when Paul instructs Timothy and Titus to appoint elders in every city, he's kind of placing them above the elders. So you appoint elders in every city, so clearly you are above the elders in some sense. So they would see a distinction there between presbyter and bishop, and then obviously there are some bishops that uh there are bishops that are connected to the apostles in the same way that Matthias replaces Judas as an apostle. Um so that's that's the basic argument. Um I find that argument problematic for a few reasons, though. So, first of all, when you read in Acts chapter one, and this is kind of why I wanted to read that extended portion, um Peter is saying in verse 16 uh the that sorry, is it verse 16? Let me just find it here. Um But the the wider context of Acts chapter 1 is not necessarily that they're setting up an office structure, right? It's not a prescription about how things are supposed to go going forward. The idea is that they need somebody who was also an eyewitness to Jesus and his ministry to pick up the slack basically of Judas who obviously forfeited his office, right? Um and so this becomes important because that's you know that that's then how he uh that's then why he uses scripture to buttress his argument because he says verse 21, sorry, I just uh found it here. Therefore it is necessary that of the men who have accompanied us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, beginning with the baptism of John, etc., he's saying for our specific purposes, it is necessary that we replace Judas's position. Not that this he's not saying anything more than that. You you you you have to extrapolate that, and it's not obvious. Yeah. As for the differences between the apostles and the rest of the elders in Acts 15, well, okay, sure, right? But find me a Christian that doesn't understand that the apostles had some kind of preeminent authority over even other elders. You know, whether or not you take a a bishop presbyter distinction or not, obviously the uh the apostles had a s a significant authority. But Paul in Ephesians tells us, number one, that the apostles are the foundation of the church, and you only raise a found you only lay a foundation once. But then also he says later on, I believe in First Corinthians, you know, are not all apostles, are they? Right? The scripture also tells us that the apostolic office had a particular use that uh Was to establish the authority of Christ's ministry and teaching, which was why it was so important that these be people that witnessed and essentially partook of Jesus' ministry while he was still alive, something that obviously can't be true after a certain point in history. And as for uh the as for the fact that Titus and Timothy are uh helping to appoint elders in every city, again, I think can simply be seen as an extension of that work of the apost of what Paul is doing in his apostolic office to ensure that these things get going. Once they've gotten going, there are other passages in scripture that take over. Um, like for example, the interchangeability of the term episcopas and presbuteras. Um, once you've gotten that that idea going, now going forward, there are other passages that are prescriptive. Whereas I think they take descriptive passages and they make them prescriptive. And so that's their argument, but that's ultimately why I think it's uh not a compelling one.

Apostles End And Doctrine Remains

Zechariah Eshack 23:02

Yeah, and the replacement of Judas, I think, when it comes to I mean, the importance of the number 12, right? Like, cause in the Old Testament, because of the 12 tribes of Israel, and then I also believe in the book of Revelation, aren't there um twelve elders, or is no, is it 24 elders around the throne? Um so you know, 12 and 12. Um not only that, but uh this is one of the things I'd have difficulty trying to understand where um so since I'm more of a cessationist, uh you know, I uh not only think that the sign gifts have ceased, not that the Holy Spirit stopped working, but that the distinguishable sign gifts that the apostles had to verify their office, that those have ceased along with the apostolic office. And going back to what you were saying about um sorry, I lost my train of thought. Um well yeah, so not only have the sign gifts uh ceased, but also the apostolic role has ceased, right? So this is why when you have um like if apostolic succession in the sense of, hey, we're we need to replace this twelfth guy, well, wouldn't you think that in present day, whether it's Roman Catholicism or Eastern Orthodoxy, that you would have twelve patriarchs that carry on those roles? Because here you have in Rome, you have the Bishop of Rome being, you know, uh the successor of Peter. I'm wondering why don't we see a successor of John? You know what I mean? So logically I think that there seems to be variations on how that can be understood about with apostolic succession, because how much authority do they have, right? Because if we're supposed to appeal to the apostolic witness, because as Protestants, I think that I think we start with doctrine first, and they obviously seem like they start with the apostolic succession line and then move their way to doctrine. We have the correct doctrine because we have the right apostolic succession. Where it's like, I think as Protestants, our mind goes to we look at the doctrine first, and for us that would validate whether or not they're in line with the apostles. Um not that there's this um perfect line that's never been broken, as some might say. Um I think that this is why Protestantism, from my mind, is set up very fairly well for missionary work, right? Because a missionary that's Baptist, that's uh Anglican, that's Presbyterian, they can go to a foreign place. And uh recently I was watching on um trying to think which podcast it was. Um I'll think of it. But basically, these two young guys, their father was a missionary, and he went to this foreign land where they had not had any interaction with basically the outside world. Um, they practiced like minor forms of like cannibalism, and but basically over time he familiarized himself with them, familiarized himself and learned the language, and then translated the Bible into English, or not English, I'm sorry, from his language to theirs. I think that Protestantism is set up very well to take an account for these things because once the people learn about the gospel, come to Christ, are drawn by the Holy Spirit, and then uh become converted, and then obviously the preaching of the word and the administration of the sacraments, we as Protestants can sit there and say that, oh yeah, that's a valid church over there. I mean, they do things differently, they have their own culture. Um, and obviously, you know, you have the particular uh uh things that you have to be careful of, like say in South America, you know, when Roman Catholicism started making converts, that's uh some of the paganism that was already prevalent in South America found its way into Roman Catholicism. And it's kind of like a balancing act because uh from I know we're not talking about Roman Catholicism, but like from Rome's perspective, it's like how much do you want to be nitpicky about certain things and how how much do you allow from the present culture to influence the church that's there that you've established, right? Um, but basically my whole point was that I think um Protestantism is set up very well to be ecumenical. Um so one of the things I had was um so like when Paul himself, like can you give examples maybe in scripture for us that like when Paul is warning about um false teachers, does he generally try to point people to an apostolic line or apostolic succession in any way, or does he point people to uh apostolic doctrine?

Ilia 27:51

Well, he definitely points people to apostolic doctrine. Um, you know, he says, for example, um, I'm gonna try to find the the language, but in 1 Corinthians 13, like if if if even I, right, or or uh uh if uh let me pull it up here one second, I want to quote it correctly. Um but he he does give uh he does place the preeminence on the on the teaching and scriptures witness. Um this is not working here for me. Uh but um well, I guess he's speaking in terms of love, but nevertheless, um the the I think the point sticks. So uh talking about if I speak with the tongues of men and angels but do not have love, if I have the gift of prophecy and know all mysteries and all knowledge and have all faith, right, but I have not not love, if I if I do all these things, but I don't have love, right? Uh or Galatians, sorry, I had in my mind uh mixed up mixed up that with Galatians, but they're ultimately making the same point. Um if I have all of these things but I don't have love, it values nothing, right? Um and you can you can replace some of that I think with if I have the correct office, if I you know, if I if I have the right bishopric, but I don't have love. Um and I think that's why they they Eastern Orthodox can get very defensive at times about um about their their patriarchs and about their their bishops um and try to defend them from all any and all scandal, right? Because the words of scripture would seem to be very clear that none of these things are good for anything ultimately, if uh if it's not an office or a ministry that's rooted in love. Um but in Galatians, right, even if I were an angel were to come to you and and to give you another gospel, let him let him be anathema. Um we see in Revelation that you know your your lampstand can be taken out. Um and these were old churches that we would consider apostolic, but they're not around anymore. In fact, those cities are not around anymore in uh modern-day Turkey. So I think it's pretty clear what what is preeminent for Paul. Um, and that's why I said that, you know, making that distinction earlier. I I don't know where you're at in your journey with respect to Anglicanism, but that is a pretty common uh distinction that they make, and I think it's a very good one, the difference between the essay and the ben essay of the church. Right? The essay of the church, what what makes the church the church is that it is in obedience to Christ. And Christ taught us how to live, and Christ taught us the way of salvation, and you know, Christ taught us our fundamental need as humans and what the solution to that is. And so when you're preaching the true gospel, um that is enough for salvation, right? Whoever calls upon the name of the Lord shall be saved. But then there are these other questions of the ben essay of the church, of the well-being of the church. And so it's not a dichotomy, like as Protestants, we don't say it's an either or but we say that one of them one of them uh leads the other, right? So if I have the right office, let's say, but I obviously have a ministry that's devoid of love, or is introducing things that are obviously so contrary to scripture, I don't use the my understanding of the authority of the office, which by the way, where you're gonna where you're gonna get that understanding of the of the authority of that office, that becomes a whole separate discussion. To then massage scripture into saying something that perhaps it just obviously isn't. Either scripture speaks clearly against it or it has nothing to say on that matter in the way that you're proposing it. Um that's that's ultimately backwards, right? Um now again, like I said, they would probably see that as two sides of the same coin, whereas we would see that as uh a fundamental inversion. And so um that that's that's a a far more interesting conversation, I think, than uh is often had.

Zechariah Eshack 31:48

Yeah, yeah. Well, real quick too, I wanted to touch on something you had said, made me think of this. So with Judas actually uh being you know son of perdition from the beginning, um, it's not that he was elect, you know, he was saved and then un you know not saved, as some might claim, which I've heard you know, people make arguments that way. Um so just by the mere fact that he had an apostolic role, and then when you have ab apostolic succession, if you have someone in his role, you know, if it if it translates down throughout history, then it would logically make sense that someone who is down the line, and if we take their word about the apostolic succession line, then it w I think it would logically follow that, oh, so he defected, you know, he wasn't a true um Christ follower. You know, he appeared, you know, what does Paul say? You know, they they went out from us because they were not of us. Had they been of us, they would have remained with us. I believe that that was Paul. Um but one of the things uh that I wanted to bring up that I thought was that I had not thought about before until I watched one of your videos was about schism.

Schism As A Two Way Sin

Zechariah Eshack 33:02

So and uh with schism, it's really interesting because we always view it in our minds that uh since we're always letting the institution be the one who um makes the bold claims, right? And then we're the ones that have to counteract those claims. So if an institution, can an institution itself be schismatic? That's that's the question. What are you what are your thoughts? Because we always in our mind we always have it that oh no, the ones that leave are the schismatics.

Ilia 33:31

Well, um it it's uh it's not an either or. Um now I I'm not gonna resolve the the the final word on the operation of reformation here. Um you know what I what I'm trying to do is to give an answer that completely bypasses that debate, not because I don't have an opinion on it, but just because I don't want one half of that conversation to just exclude everything I'm saying. Um But I think the video that you're referring to, I was making a point that, like I said, is a point that you could make regardless of where where you land on this, and that is that schism is a two-way street. So what I'm saying is that there there are people that leave that are schismatics. That's certainly the case. Um whether or not they were forced out. But even when they're forced out, uh or even if they were not necessarily, that doesn't mean that the all that the alternative side was not also fomenting schism. Right. So I think of something like for our purposes talking about Eastern Orthodoxy, something like the Russian Orthodox Church. Um this is perhaps something that we can get into later when we talk about the the whole you know unity argument for Eastern Orthodoxy. But what happened in the 1920s was with the arrival of communism in Russia, there was the perception, rightly or wrongly, again, uh right, it's not that that even matters for the purposes of this discussion, that the Russian Orthodox Church had fallen under the sway of a god-hating government. And that came to be known as the heresy of Sergianism. And by mere virtue of that fact, there were those who felt like they had to flee, you know, for their life and for the purity of the church, and they ultimately ended up in the US and formally started something called Rokor, the Russian Orthodox Church outside of Russia. Right? So if you want to be a purist about it, you could say, Well, worse things have happened, which by the way, the Bolsheviks killed more Christians than the Roman Empire, so I don't know if that's even true, but you know, that notwithstanding. But you could say, Well, worse things have happened. So the only correct thing to do would be to stay there and to suffer for the gospel and to die and to uh deal with the Russian patriarch no matter how compromised he may have been, no matter no matter you know, there's nothing that could possibly explain this. You had to stay there. And what I'm saying is that that might be an art that could be true, but you also have to factor in that the uh that whatever you want to say about the side that left, like Rokor, right, you do have to factor in also that there was a foment a fomenting of schism from the more institutional side as well. Right? I think in that video I gave the example of like an abusive father. Right? Um you cannot just, you know, renege your uh uh responsibilities as a son and run away from home. But if you were to try to counsel that situation, you would have to speak to the son and you would have to say, look, like you ran away from home, you can't do that, you know, you have to that there are other things you can do before you do that. But you would also have to speak to the father if you're a good counselor and say, look, scripture teaches you not to exasperate your children, etc. etc. Like it's a two-way street. And so my point wasn't to do wasn't to say that, and still isn't to say that schism is very clear, either these people are schismatics or these people are schismatics. It can be the it can be the case that both are schismatics. Like that can happen. Um, and in fact, routinely does. Um you know uh introducing things that bring disunity into the church can happen under a million possible different circumstances, and we don't actually need to, I think, uh, have uh you know this very clear line on um who's 100% at fault and who isn't. That's that's almost never the case, even even in personal um discord. You know, it's it's very rarely the case that a situation is just 100% the fault of one person. And for our purposes, I mean I brought up the Russian Orthodox Church, but an even more interesting case could be something like the Great Schism of 1054. You know, in the Eastern Orthodox mind, it's just a given that the Roman Catholics were completely like the Western Church was just obviously at fault for everything. That's an assertion, that's not a fact. And it also doesn't factor in these other schisms that had happened prior in church history, like with what is now known as the Oriental Church or what you know came to be known as the Assyrian Church of the East. I mean, those are very complex, interesting histories where there is a very good argument to be made that much of that was based off of a misunderstanding of uh across cultural differences, across languages, across personal uh approaches to tradition and whatnot. And so I just don't think that it makes sense, logically or historically, to locate schism exclusively that it's always a binary. It's either these or it's either those. It's usually both, or you know, both and. And yeah, you know what? Also, honestly, there are instances throughout church history and in recent history where there just are rabble rousers, and it doesn't matter how uh it doesn't matter how much you try to work with them, people just leave in a in a huff. I'm thinking of a very specific example of a denomination that formed recently on on that point, and I'm not gonna name them. You know, but there yeah, there was just absolutely there's there's just no defending them existing. You know, that they are a schismatic sect. That can happen as well. Um but I don't think everything has to be I don't think that has to be projected on every schism that's ever happened.

Zechariah Eshack 39:34

Yeah, I think with the schism between the East and the West, I mean tensions were rising for a while, I think, between leavened versus unleavened bread used in the sacrament. Um obviously, um You know, I know eventually, I'm not sure at what uh time frame this was, but you know, even there are differences on statues versus icons, you know, like that's there's there's all these similarities, not similarities, but there's all these um things that kind of factor into it, right? Like like you said, um because I mean the old saying, you know, it takes two to tango, because there's uh you know, sometimes it's not always one person or one group that's being schismatic. Sometimes it's uh I don't know, Christian charity and kind of knowing what are secondary and tertiary issues. I know Gavin Ortland, you know, he talks about this a lot. I think he does have uh some very solid points on this, and I know he deals with a lot with the Eastern Orthodox, at least as of recently, definitely for sure, probably within the past couple years. Um but it but it is kind of interesting because some things are cultural, right? And some things like I think from the Eastern Orthodox perspective, they probably would view it that the Protestants we don't we don't have tradition, we throw out tradition, tradition's unimportant. And I mean, what do we do, you know, at my church, your church? Um a lot of times it's very similar. It's just our theological understanding of those things are different, right? You know, whether it's the the Lord's Supper, whether it's hymns, um prayer, the reading of scripture. You know, it's like we all do these things. And and um but so uh one of the common critiques that you get um, especially from the groups that hold apostolic succession in the way the which the the Eastern Orthodox do, because that's the thing, right? Like you brought up the Oriental Orthodox. So you have Roman Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy, and uh Oriental Orthodox all kind of making the same claims to some degree about being the one true church. Everyone else broke off from us. Um but I think as Protestant, as Protestants, we don't really see it that way. Our understanding of the true church is it is different. Not that there's not a visible element to it, but I think I think sometimes um at least orthodoxy seems to downplay the doctrine of election about there being an elect group that's preserved by by God. Um but so when Orthodoxy criticizes Protestantism for being fragmented, um, and I know you brought up in one of your videos about uh I mean this is a common claim, right? Like there's 45,000, there's 45 million. I mean, you just hear outlandish numbers about how there's two billion denominations, yeah, yeah. Yeah, it grows like every day. And uh I well, and I think with the Pew Research Center, for example, I think that they might have like Roman Catholicism, for example, might have like 24 quote unquote denominations. But like we would understand, right, as Protestants, it's like, well, that's a little bit a mischaracterization because it's like, well, they're all in communion with the See of Rome. Like we wouldn't see that they're like you could be Byzantine Catholic and be, you know, and obviously be in communion with Rome. You're not Roman Catholic, but you're still part of the the Catholic Church, quote unquote. Um so what would you say and how would you respond to the Orthodox claim? And like, do you think that the Orthodox are as united as they claim, or do you think that there is fragmentation like you see in Protestantism?

The Denominations Claim Put On Trial

Ilia 43:18

There's definitely fragmentation. Um and the 45,000 denominations claim is, you know, I I'm not somebody that is um particularly confrontational and you know speaks very boldly in that way, but I think here we just have to call this patent absurdity. Um it is just, you know, it it's either it's either completely willful ignorance or um malevolent lying. There's really kind of no third option here. Um that there could not be 45,000 denominations if you tried of Protestantism. And this is where terms matter, right? So let me first sort of sketch out what the Protestant reality is, and then uh get into the Orthodox uh disunity. That they're not as united as people claim. And on that latter point, actually, this is something that I have always been frustrated with Protestant interlocutors, that they just state that, but they don't demonstrate it. So I'm going to try to demonstrate that uh for your listeners today. But in terms of Protestantism, one of the big misunderstandings that unfortunately even a lot of confessional Protestants have is that we're anti-institutional. We are not. And in fact, like I said, whereas we make a distinction between the essay and the ben essay of the church, it's still the ben essay. It's still for the well-being of the church. And ultimately, at that point, the like the fundamental rub really between the Reformed and the Anglican is going to be which one is better? So we're going to say that presbyterial succession is better and it's more scriptural for these reasons. The Anglicans are going to say, well, no, episcopal succession is better for these reasons. And, you know, in England, that became a very sticky issue at the time of the Reformation, uh, particularly in places like Scotland. Uh, can we impose the episcopacy and whatnot? But it was understood that having a state church was a good thing. Um, you find that in every in every you know, major Protestant thinker who speaks on politics, uh, the role that the government has to uphold the church in the land. Um, they they parse that out differently, but the idea is still the same. Inherent in Presbyterianism is this idea, and this is why I'm a little I'm a little grieved with the recent d decisions that have been made, not because I'm a Christian nationalist, but because this this was a resolved problem in the 17th century, the establishment principle inherent in the Westminster Standards. That you have the church and the state on they are two equal magisteria uh, you know, dealing with different issues, both ordained by God. It is the church's role to be a prophetic voice to the state. It is the state's role to help establish true religion in in the land. Um that's why there were you know Sabbath laws and adultery laws and and uh and uh uh idolatry laws and things like that. So sorry.

Zechariah Eshack 46:09

No, no, it's okay. I didn't mean to cut you off. I was just what you had said made me think of um uh I was watching uh Kirk Cameron with his son on one of his their podcasts, and uh that was one of the things he had brought up was about how America used to have adultery laws, which I mean I think would be a good thing. I mean, I think that that would help marriages, help families.

Ilia 46:28

Um so it would drastically improve the lives of women, yes.

Zechariah Eshack 46:32

Yes, yeah. But go go ahead. I I'll I'll um I'll hold hold my peace for now and let you let you finish. I'm sorry.

Ilia 46:38

Yeah, and and I don't mean to go on this whole tangent, but the point is that the institutionality of Protestantism is baked into the system um for a number of reasons. And you and you see that like from the beginning, right? Luther is expelled out. So, you know, say it say what you want, but Roman Catholicism um that at least formally is it is excommunicated and anathematized by Eastern Orthodoxy, Eastern Orthodoxy anathematizes anything Western, so what are the Protestants supposed to do? We've been, you know, we've been anathematized twice for, we would argue, illegitimate reasons. We can trace our teaching patristically, um, and and rather than go the way of the chaos of the Anabaptists, we establish state churches um where there is a clear understanding of jurisdiction. Here are the Lutheran churches, here are the Reformed churches, here are the Anglican churches, and that becomes somewhat of a historical necessity, but also I think a practical benefit. So a historical necessity because there just was no separation of church and state at that time, then um then to actually go against the church like Roman Catholicism, you either had to raise an army, like the early Anabaptists did, and become violent, which the reformers did not, or you have to basically you know reform the whole state around Protestantism, which is essentially what they did. And so that leads to the former the formal writing of confessions that can agree and do agree on all the major essentials, like let's say the five solas, um and that all have the same canon and that all recognize each other's jurisdiction, um, and it's something that held within Europe for quite a long time. And whereas there were at times genuine schisms and genuine problems, um A they often had to do with political problems that arose in those countries, and B have historically been resolved. So um a lot of people will say that, you know, well, Protestantism splits all the time. Well, it i sort of it does, but it also reunites all the time as well. Right? You can find that especially in in Scottish history. So that's why I'm sort of laboring the point to say this this is what Protestantism is. You know, you have the formation of three distinct streams, Lutheran, Anglican, Reformed, that also try to work very hard to have one church, but when they can't, they set up national churches that respect each other and still agree, you know, and have fellowship with one another and still agree on all the essentials. So at that point, what we're talking about basically is a series of autocephalous churches, if that language sounds familiar.

Zechariah Eshack 49:34

Yeah, because orthodoxy is kind of like that, right? Autocephist structure. Yeah, okay.

Ilia 49:39

Where yes, we do have differences in opinion, but we respect each other and we know what we believe, and we all basically believe the same thing at its core. We disagree on these various matters that don't have to be a problem between jurisdictions. The reality with orthodoxy, however, has been very different.

Orthodox Splinters And Canon Disputes

Ilia 49:56

Um and so you can say whatever you want about Protestantism, but it's not that the situation improves drastically with Orthodoxy. If we take them, for example, uh, first of all, they do have lots of splinter factions. They do have lots of groups that split off from them and declare themselves to be the true Orthodox Church. And you could say, well, they're obviously wrong. Well, why obviously? Right? So if you're talking about the Russian Church, for example, you have the whole Nikonian reforms of the 17th century under uh Patriarch Nikan, where basically the Russian Church wanted to update its liturgy to match the Greeks, because the Greeks are our older brothers in the faith, and so therefore our liturgy obviously has to match theirs. But there were people in the Russian church at the time that said that, well, no, that the our liturgy is older. It's more apostolic. And so that became a whole problem that led to a split which formed the old believers. Now the irony is that, and you know, modern Russian scholars have acknowledged this, that the old believers were right. It was actually the Greeks that had innovated, and the Russian church was about to adopt innovations in an ironic attempt to become more apostolic, right? That caused a real schism that never healed. Uh, and there is a a lot of people don't know this, there is a basically, I don't know their exact uh term their exact name, but it's it's essentially the the free Russian Orthodox Church in Russia uh under Metropolitan Cornelius. And he's not an entirely fringe figure either. There are famous old believers in Russia, and uh he has an audience with Putin. Like he, you know, this is not an entirely marginalized like cult or anything like that. Um that never got healed, and I don't think ever will be. With uh when I talked about the formation of Rokor. Um Rokor did, this is the maybe the one major exception, did ultimately uh reunite with the Russian Orthodox Church. But when that happened, not everybody within Rokor felt like they were reuniting under the best circumstances or that those heresies had been resolved. So that led into further splits. So now you have the genuine Orthodox Church of America, you have the true Orthodox churches across various different countries in Serbia, in Romania, in in uh you know, elsewhere, in Greece, you have the old calendarists that did not accept the reforms. Um none of these things are obvious, and they have led to all kinds of splinters and schisms. And uh those schisms and splinters are almost impossible to resolve because one side is basically gonna have to completely capitulate and say, we were wrong, right? Uh we were not the one true church. So they're just sort of waiting each other out about who's going to you know completely concede and come back in. Um so they do have lots of splinter factions. They also have different canons of scripture, and this is explained a way differently that you know it doesn't matter or it's not true or it's blown out of proportion, but the the Russian, the Greek, and the Georgian church all have different canons. Um, depending on how you count it. The Georgian and the Greek Church have a 74 book canon, but different books. The Russian Church has a 76-book canon. And then the Russian Church becomes even more interesting because all of these had been somewhat dogmatically defined. Yes, there was never an ecumenical council that did that defined a council, that defined the canon, but the point still remains that uh this became an official position within these various churches. The 1672 Jerusalem Council, for example, delineates a Greek canon. And the Russian church did have a clear canon in the Ostrog and Elizabethan Bibles that was clearly delineated. Well, in the 19th century, when they were translating the Bible from old church Slavonic into modern Russian, Philorette of Moscow insists on a 66 book canon and clearly distinguishing the other books as Judero canonical. Sounds fairly which created a whole flame war, right? So not only do you have different canons across the different jurisdictions, but you also have different canons depending on what point in history you're talking about within a jurisdiction. Right? And I've made the case, and you know, the Orthodox, I think, just don't take it seriously, but if you don't have one Bible, you don't have one church. If you don't have a unified understanding of what the boundaries are of Thus Says the Lord, then how can you speak of one faith? Right? Um That's different from having different liturgies, that's different from having different, you know, uh authority structures. Like if we can't agree on what God really said, you know, that that that becomes highly problematic. And that's a problem. This is why I set up Protestantism so strongly in the beginning, that Protestantism doesn't have you also have a wide range of understandings within Orthodoxy of what are actual valid jurisdictions, right? Why are Moscow and Constantinople arguing right now? It's because they can't agree on what is the true Ukrainian church. And that becomes even more complex because at least the previous Albanian uh patriarch Anastasios, he recently reposed, uh, he agreed with the Russians. I mean, he he basically said, look, it's not that I agree with Russia because they're Russians, it's just that they have a point that you know this new Ukrainian church does not have valid apostolic succession. Well, Constantinople disagrees. Well, another patriarch disagrees, and then there's a geopolitical element to all this and all the rest of these things. We can't even agree on what jurisdictions are are valid or proper. Um the OCA was a controversial, the Orthodox Church in America was a controversial uh canonical issue, right? Of can we actually grant them autocephaly in the United States? And what does that mean for these other Orthodox churches that are in the United States? Because there's a bunch of them. And though, and by the way, those jurisdictions completely overlap with one another. The whole issue of uh doctrine developing. The the Russian church underwent something called the Western captivity, as it's been called by some, where you can you can really see very markedly over the course of a couple centuries a very obvious Western and Protestant influence in what they're writing and what they're saying.

Zechariah Eshack 56:12

Lutheranism, right? Like a little bit of Lutheran influence, I think is what you said in one of your videos.

Ilia 56:17

Lutheran and Jesuit, yeah. Um and the more that I study, the more I see it. I mean, it's just everywhere. Um, Western captivity, I think, is a apt term. Um and there's just kind of no way of reconciling these things. I mean, people try, but but there is a shift that happens uh to a Western forensic model, to a 66-book canon, to all kinds of these other things that um again is a shift that was not what the Russian church had taught previously and not what the Russian church has taught since, because there's been this very marked correction, and I obviously think over correction, um, the whole issue of ecumenicity. The Greek church, by and large, tends to be more ecumenical and tends to want to build more bridges than the Russian Church does. Right? And there's a disagreement even there on what are the bounds of the church, what is the Ark of God, um, the Ark of Salvation, rather. So my point is that when you really put it down, and I'll just name them off uh uh very quickly in summary, we're not talking about a unified church. We're talking about a church where almost every jurisdiction has splinter factions, based off of issues that are not easy to identify and delineate clearly, different jurisdictions that have different canons and have different canons within the same jurisdiction depending on which time period you're talking about, marked changes in theology over different eras, um, and very different understandings on the uh place of non-Orthodox in the grand scheme of God's arc of salvation, um, and very fierce battles over the authority to establish new jurisdictions like in Ukraine or elsewhere, where it is not merely a problem between Moscow and uh Constantinople, but has also drawn in other jurisdictions like the Serbians, the Albanians, uh the Romanians, the Bulgarians, etc. So when you put all that together and then you compare that to Protestantism, uh three major streams that agree on virtually all the essentials, um, that can, I think, make a pretty good continuous and patristic argument for all of their core doctrines, that have the same canon, that respect each other's uh place in the in the wider Protestant world. I think you actually end up coming with a Protestantism that is far more united and clearly delineated, um, and based off of a of a continuous confession that has remained virtually unchanged for 500 years and is a I think a much better model of unity than Eastern Orthodoxy is, you know, by by far.

Historic Protestantism Versus Pop Protestantism

Zechariah Eshack 58:55

Yeah, yeah, there was that, you know, there was a lot there, so I'm gonna try to try to uh like I had questions and I had uh comments on a lot of it. Um yeah, no, I I I think you're right when it comes to um some of the unity, like I feel like some of the fragmentation or some of the um disunity that's lodged at Protestantism, some of it's founded, some of it's unfounded. And I and the reason why I say that is because, like going back to what you said, there definitely is an agreement on the 66 book uh Old Testament canon. Um, you know, some will try to argue, oh, it's just Martin Luther took books out of the Bible. It's like that's a not really accurate representation of what happened. I mean, they were still in his Bible, they were in the back of the Bible, part of the Deutero canon, which follows an older tradition, right? Because I think it was Athanasius and his might be his festal letter. Um I think I remember.

Ilia 59:51

Crazy letter 39.

Zechariah Eshack 59:53

Oh, okay, nice. Yeah, it it seems to follow fairly closely to the exact Protestant canon. And then Jerome had very similar viewpoint on this. So it's not that um Protestants invented invented this out of thin air, that the 66 book canon is just the intertestamental period, there's obviously no prophets. Um, some of them even claim to not be a part of uh holy scripture, I believe. Um but uh so you have that common common canon, which I think is important. You have the common understanding of justification by faith alone. Um and if you look at historic Anglicanism, um Lutheranism, I think with an Augsburg Confession, and then um uh I do think it's funny because it's like across countries, um whether it's the Belgic Confession and um like you see like across countries and across Protestant traditions, a lot of them when you read them, you're like, wow, these are all a lot of them are saying the same thing um in regards to the doctrine of election. Um some of them maybe get more specific than others in regards to like let's say the doctrine of election. Um I think to play devil's advocate, I I think what they might say to you when it comes to, you know, we agree on the essentials, and then they would be then they would ask is like, well, is baptism essential? Because then they would be like, well, you have different interpretations of what uh is you know, is there baptism or regeneration? Like Lutheranism would probably say yes from my memory, if serves me correctly. Um Anglicans, yes, but it's a qualified yes. Um, where it's like, I think they they still acknowledge that, and rightfully so, right? Because uh in the New Testament you can see clearly that people have been regenerated and received the Holy Spirit before baptism. And then you have someone like Simon Magus, who I believe was baptized, but then showed no evidence of salvation and offered to buy the Holy Spirit from Peter. And Peter says, you know, let your money perish with you. So um I think all that's like really important to say out loud because I feel like it gets um it doesn't get a lot of airtime. Um I feel like a lot of people don't understand that when they look at Protestantism today, they see megachurches, they see smoke machines, that like that's their perception of what Protestantism is. And I don't think they rightfully or I don't think they correctly look at the historic professions of faith that um historic Protestantism has claimed. Um, because they're very insightful, and like I like I said, I think there's a lot of unity. Uh but the other thing was I was reading an Orthodox guy the other day, and he was trying to claim that uh within a certain jurisdiction there should only be, I think, one bishop. But the issue run you run into an issue with the fact that, well, Orthodoxy is very divided when it even along cultural lines, because in Canton, North Canton area, we have you know, you have Greek Orthodox, you have um uh I mean you might even have Russian Orthodox. I'm trying to think of the one I saw the other day. It looked like it was maybe I'm trying to I'm trying to think. But there you do run into different Orthodox churches along cultural lines, right? Um I'm trying to think of the uh the other one I just recently saw.

Ilia 1:03:17

Yeah, that's what I that's what I meant by overlapping jurisdictions.

Zechariah Eshack 1:03:20

Yeah, so I I'm guessing I'm curious as how they view that because from his perspective, and he was an Orthodox priest, he was like, there should only be one bishop basically running this entire jurisdiction, not different bishops split along cultural lines. So it's like I think that that even runs into you know issues, uh even according to them, I I would say, um, they would see that as being a problem, some of them.

Ilia 1:03:48

Yeah, and and that's that's kind of my point here is that when when you're talking about the US, the US is a complete anomaly in world history, or at least in Christian history. That's fair. Because with the spread of Christianity, and it goes very deep. I mean, early Christianity goes far into Asia, you know, deep into Africa, you know, it well before it goes up north into Europe. So that you know, that notwithstanding, that's a more contained uh situation because you are still talking about more or less one one land mass, even if you're not talking about the same continent. What the United States was supposed to be, and I feel like as a Canadian I shouldn't have to remind people of this, but it's the United States of America. So in theory, it's supposed to be different, basically, countries that are federated together in terms of one center of power, right? That's why Washington, DC is not really a state and all that sort of thing. By the way, not for nothing, um, that's that's what Russia is. The the official title of the country, it's the Russian Federation, because Russia within it has different nations that are subsumed into it. Um, like, you know, I I don't know which is a republic and which is a whatever, but you know, for example, Chechnya or Ingushetia or Boshkaristan or these other, you know, we would think of them as like states, but actually in the Constitution they f they function more like countries. And so when the United States was founded along similar lines, there was the idea that it was supposed to be like that, right? New York was supposed to be a Dutch reformed state, and that's the church that has jurisdiction there, you know, and so on and so forth. Obviously, that doesn't pan out. And so the fact is that at the end of the day, that's an anomaly, and nobody can really throw stones at that point. Um, you know, we can't say, well, you guys have completely overlapping jurisdictions because they could say exactly the same thing. And all of us, I think, would have to take a step back and say, well, yeah, that's because this country is a complete anomaly in uh in Christian history. It's a it's a nation that conscientiously tried not to have a state church, and then initially. Had an establishmentarian principle and then abandoned it. And so at that point, like, okay, whatever you say about us, we could say about you, and vice versa. So let's just abandon that altogether. What are we even talking about at this point? However, the difference though is that we could say that A, for us that's not an ontological problem, because we place what is the church on a higher plane. And therefore we actually can work s we we actually can work through some of those differences, but you can't. But um Ah yeah, the other point that I had to that was another way in which American Christianity is this complete anomaly is because a lot of what gets believed to be Protestantism are Great Awakening m issues with a deep Anabaptist root. And just because those things affirm the five solas, at least on paper, and even then, you know, do they, right? Like does Pentecostalism affirm solo scriptura? Well, that's that's a question, you know. Um, then it's just sort of assumed that that's obviously Protestantism. But I think we have but I think we have to be pretty clear that no, that's a that's a different thing. Those are different values, and it grew out of a different set of historical circumstances.

Zechariah Eshack 1:07:31

Yeah. So I think when you say historic Protestant churches, it would make sense that it would be the ones directly that came from the Protestant Reformation, Anglicanism, uh, Presbyterianism, and Lutheranism. And obviously a little bit further down the line was you know the Baptist movement. Um, and I I was raised Baptist and I um have attended recently like a Presbyterian church for over a year, and um uh recently, um, you know, because of my own reasons, um, you know, started checking out a little bit of Anglicanism just to get an understanding of what they believe, because obviously they're the the world's uh largest Protestant denomination.

Ilia 1:08:12

I I had the same journey as you, by the way.

Zechariah Eshack 1:08:14

Yeah, and and a lot of it for me, it's a little bit more of um so the church the PC or the Presbyterian church I was going to is PCA church. It's a you know really nice church, I really like it. Um so me with my theology, I'm definitely Presbyterian. Um because of me and my wife having grown up in um uh different um Christian traditions, that's what leads me to you know start checking out Anglicanism um just for you know understanding it. And I I also feel like it's a little bit more of like it's more liturgical, which is what she's used to, and the reform theology is a little bit more of what I'm used to. So that's what makes Anglicanism kind of interesting to me. Um but um to go off of what you were saying earlier about the um uh some of the churches popping up, some of them out of the Great Awakening, and uh I think I think it does seem to be that the perception is that a lot of the Protestant churches that non-denominational, you know, we could argue about whether or not they're quote unquote Protestant. If you want to say historic Protestant, then then no. Excuse me, this same argument could be had about Baptists, whether or not they're included within. Because I mean, you know, how one defines Protestant could vary among who you're talking to. But I think the bigger issue is is the reason why it looks so fragmented is because um Protestantism for Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism, it's basically the other category, right? Because it's like if they don't fit neatly in our bucket, that's what they are. So that's why I think that like Mormonism and Jehovah's Witness have been placed under the Protestant, you know, fold, which I don't which I believe is inaccurate, right? Because it's madness. Yeah, because you can't deny the as historic Protestants, we would say, you know, you can't be non-Trinitarian and be a Protestant. That like that just doesn't make sense to us. That doesn't logically follow. You're not following after the historic Nicene tradition tradition. Um, so and then you obviously have the other one that believes that you know you can have more than one God and people can become gods, I believe. Um I'm less familiar with Mormonism, but um basically, and obviously that was kind of a thing recently where I think the US government uh took off Mormonism under the Protestant umbrella, which I thought was the right move.

No Salvation Outside Orthodoxy?

Zechariah Eshack 1:10:44

Um but so before we close, I kind of wanted to get into uh what would be our last kind of uh topic, which was um how should Protestants kind of respond to you know the Orthodox use of like outside their church, there's no salvation? And of course, they're going to bring in uh Noah's Ark, because that's a common uh common analogy that's used. And I've done some reading about it and have my own opinions about it, but I would like to hear from you like what your thoughts are as to like how as Protestants should we respond to that claim that there's no salvation outside outside of Eastern Orthodoxy.

Ilia 1:11:28

Well, that that's a claim that needs to be uh supported. It can't just be stated. You know, why why is that? And ultimately, you know, again, there's different ways of going about it, going back to our original conversation. Um, but it's going to be uh, well, we obviously have the correct doctrine and we obviously have the correct succession. And again, those are those are statements that need to be supported. The assertions that need to be proven. They can't just be stated. Um and also there are other even if you believe those assertions, you then have to decide what you're gonna do with the obvious implications of excluding whole swathes of Christianity in that way. So, you know, first of all, Jesus told us, Come to me who are weary and heavy laden, and I will give you rest. Right? Now you could read into that and say, Well, obviously you have to come to Jesus the way he ordained, and he ordained through his church and all the rest of it, but at that point you're reading into it. When our Savior speaks to us in Scripture, he sees he speaks to us in a way that he can be found and rested upon directly. And so we would agree as Protestants that outside the church there is no salvation. But the word church has to be defined. Right? And so uh as a you know, as as a pithy answer, I would say that those are assertions that need to be proven. Um why is it that those things make make you the only church? And then what do you do with the fact that the grace of God is obviously evident outside of Eastern Orthodoxy? Right? Now, that often gets called an appeal to emotion, but it's not an appeal to emotion or experience because the fact is that when Satan works, yes, he tries to imitate God, but Satan does not perform counterfeits that genuinely bring glory to God. Right? And so as a Protestant, what I would say is that uh it is evident that outside of your church, the grace of God is working very powerfully, very mightily, and in many cases actually even more so, demonstrably more so, than it does within your church. So, what I would say as a Protestant is that the grace of God is obviously present in communions outside of Eastern Orthodoxy, and in many instances far more so. So I've often said on my channel that if you talk about the Russian Orthodox Church and I pick on them just because they're the largest communion, no other reason really, um, you're talking about best case scenario, three to seven percent of uh of people who are even remotely devout. In Protestantism, even if you take the most dim view and you're talking about just um American evangelicalism writ large, you're still talking about in the high dozens, so upwards of 50% of people who can clearly articulate the correct gospel. So, not to mention all of the actual fruit that results from that. And so we could agree that there are lots of problems within Protestantism that work against the benesse of the church. But Satan does not perform counterfeits that actually bring glory to God, that produce a life of repentance of one's sins and seeking after Christ and joining his church and s and carrying one's cross and all the rest of it. And so, where you have that, how do you actually say that therefore, no, because you don't have all of these externals in place, therefore you can't be a true Christian. Um at a certain point that becomes patently against uh logic and patently against what Scripture's teaching, because it doesn't comport with your doctrines that you need a lot of historical excavation to establish, a tremendous amount of historical excavation to establish, because the scriptural uh argument is really not that compelling. I mean, you know, we looked at apostolic succession in the New Testament. I mean, there's maybe a couple of different places you can look, but it's mostly a historical uh conversation. And so I would simply say that it's it's an inversion of which is the cart and which is the horse. Let's look at the actual realities first and see that look, you obviously have the Spirit of God moving and working outside of your church. What does that mean? And what that means is, you know, that unfortunately, as people, yes, Christ only has one bride, and yes, he only has one body, but he is bigger than our sin and our foolishness that creates divisions within that body. Right? We're not positing that Christ has multiple brides or multiple bodies, right? The Eastern Orthodox, I think, is fundamentally saying that no, no, no, when there is that case, um there's almost like a tacit denial that Christ is larger than those problems. We're saying he is, and clearly, despite our weakness and our foolishness and our hubris, that is to be found in every Christian tradition, including yours, uh, despite all that, the Spirit of God is moving and uh glorifying him in manifest ways. And so, therefore, that is all I need to say that those people are truly Christians and truly united to Jesus. Um, and the simplicity of the gospel is something that is just absolutely manifest throughout scripture, including the especially in the New Testament, but also in the old. And so I think when you lose that simplicity, I don't know what we're talking about anymore, you know?

Zechariah Eshack 1:17:26

Yeah. And um that makes me think of a passage that Ortland brought up about um the disciples had were complaining about it, this other group. I think it was they they were either baptizing or even maybe doing miracles. And um, you know, we get this perception that they were other believers, they just weren't among the disciples, and the disciples had complained about it. And Jesus basically says, let them alone.

Ilia 1:17:51

He goes, you know, whoever's not against us is for us. Yeah.

Zechariah Eshack 1:17:54

Yeah. Yeah. And I think that that is the perception that we should have as Christians. Um, because I think that we can be very ecumenical, not universalist, but we can be very ecumenical where um, because uh because the whole Nova's Ark analogy, um, because we would see it as more as as Protestants that, like, yeah, it is the church. I mean, the cross, uh, early church fathers talked about the cross kind of representing Christ or the um ark representing Christ's cross, and um obviously the waters reference referencing baptism and the dove representing um the Holy Spirit. And um, you get some really interesting um analogies and kind of typologies along among the fathers about this, um, which are important, but I think how the church is defined is also important, and that's usually from a Protestant standpoint, that would be union with with Christ, um, because we were buried with him in baptism. And um so I I think um with orthodoxy, I I do think that the appeal tradition to tradition a lot of times is what is usually happening. Um, because I had gotten into it with someone recently, and I won't I know we're probably running out of time, but um I was trying to get them to substantiate their claims, right? Because they can just appeal to tradition. So icon veneration, Saint Luke painted the first icon. There's really no historical or biblical evidence to support that, but they can just appeal to tradition, and that's supposed to trump any sort of doctrine or discernment that a Protestant has. So I I think from that percept perception, like um I feel like we're doing what the early church did, and oftentimes that was like, point to me in the scriptures where you're getting this, and then we can have a conversation about whether or not that's an accurate interpretation or not, um, which is important. But yeah, I I definitely think that um, you know, it's outside of Christ there's no salvation, and I think that that's what uh I think that that's what the New Testament clearly teaches. And by default, if you belong to Christ, um, like Augustine says, you know, no one ascends to heaven but he who has descended from heaven, Jesus Christ. And that's how we're able to ascend to heaven because we're united to Christ's body. Um, so but yeah, just with that being said, um, I mean, that's that's all I

Closing Thoughts And Next Conversations

Zechariah Eshack 1:20:24

had. I mean, I'll I'll let you have the last word and then we'll wrap up. But I definitely would love to continue these conversations with you, whether it's um you coming on um, you know, my podcast or me coming on your channel, um, I definitely would love to carry on these conversations because I think they're important conversations and ones that um I feel like Protestants might not have as much field familiarity with, and I think it's important that to be um just well-rounded and kind of understand the claims that are being made from the other side.

Ilia 1:20:53

Yeah, I mean I I I don't have much to add to that. Um, so I'm always happy to discuss these things and looking forward to doing that again in the future.

Zechariah Eshack 1:21:02

Okay, awesome. Well, I greatly appreciate you being on. Thank you, Ilya. It's been a pleasure to meet you. It's been a pleasure to have this conversation. I thoroughly enjoyed it, and I look forward to our continuing conversations. Yeah, likewise. Alright, I'll talk to you later. Bye.