Featured Love wins -- an Orthodox view of salvation

Since there is no link in your OP I assume "this fellow" is a reference to yourself. The doctrine of salvation is quite orthodox. But you capitalized the word, so obviously you have something else in mind.

 

Typically I do not watch YouTube videos in lieu of a poster putting forth his own argument, but I made an exception this time.

The most interesting part to me was at the end when the gentleman said, "So, there in a nutshell is the Orthodox view of salvation. It's not perfect". It's kind of like the saying, "It's close enough for government work." The Bible is more precise than that when it comes to defining and explaining the sin problem, Christ's atonement, and man's responsibility in response to Christ's sacrifice.

In the video the gentleman makes no mention of faith and/or repentance as part of the Orthodox schema. In fact, he clearly omits any reference to them. He does, however, introduce a form of Universalism; where God's love follows man to the grave without requiring repentance/faith on the part of man. The picture of salvation the gentleman in the video paints is the ability to live life as I see fit and I'll still be saved in the end. His one brief comment that "God's love is a consuming fire" comes across as a throw-in and is unconvincing in light of his entire illustration.

 

I listened the video and do not believe I misrepresented him. Words mean things. When talking about the atonement every word deserves be weighed and scrutinized. After all life and death are in the balance. When the gentlemen in the video omits repentance and faith from the salvific equation, he omits everything.

 

Hey, you started a thread citing this one priest, so don't be so quick to distance yourself from what he said.

I have some knowledge of Eastern Orthodoxy. EO's view of theosis dominates their understanding of soteriology. While EO claims that salvation is by grace alone, it does not believe it is by faith alone. According to EO, salvation is found through the church, sacraments, and personal piety. This a distinctly different view than Baptist soteriology. In fact it is not Baptist soteriology, and anyone who holds to the EO view of soteriology is decidedly not Baptist.

 

Not that it is your intention, but you are not doing a good job of acquitting yourself as a Baptist; as Anabaptists are not Baptists. If you agree with EO and Anabaptist soteriology you are outside both Reformed and mainstream Baptist beliefs.

 

I know you are glad you are not Reformed. I did not mean that as a criticism, just an observation. My mention of mainline Baptists (like most non-Calvinistic Southern Baptists) was to make the point that Anabaptist theology is outside even their distinctives. I have spent a lot of time and energy refuting the contention by some Presbyterians that all Baptists trace their origin to the Anabaptists, which is not true.

 

Both Mennonites & Presbyterinas get much of their doctrines from Roman Catholics.

 

Real simple observation, from having attended both churches.....& Menno was a Catholic Priest at one time.

 

You must be kidding! ... Dream on!

Heads Up ... some Orthodox priests and monks are not saved.

I speak from personal experience from many months spent in an Orthodox country.
E.G. I met a man who had been a monk in a Bulgarian monastery for 8 years.
One day in prayer (in the monastery), he was radically saved and Spirit-filled.
He told me that his fellow monks (some? or all?) were not even saved.

Again, I say ... Welcome to the real world of real Christianity!
.

 

The "celestial flesh" controversy, which is a form of incipient Gnosticism; full blown Pelagianism (with its denial of original sin); denial of the substitutionary atonement (which is the purpose of this thread); rejection of salvation by faith alone et. al.