Just and Sinner: www.justandsinn... Patreon: / justandsinner This video is a conversation that I had recently with Jonathan Pageau. We discussed Eastern Orthodoxy, aesthetics, art, symbolic worldview, theosis, and other topics.
EAST MEETS WEST! As a Missouri Synod pastor, I have to say, this is the most promising theological encounter i can imagine. An Orthodox symbologist westerner with deep scriptural insight dialogues with a scholastic evangelical catholic who wrote a book on how theosis underlies our tradition. The evil one tried to make this conversation a nonstarter. You are both great communicators in your respective traditions… Please give it another go!
In particular, I’d urge you to explore the disconnect that Matthieu Pageau identifies in “Language of Creation”. Lutheran’s love scripture, but are stuck with scholastic and other modern methods of interpretation. If we’re serious about scripture, we need felicity with that underlying cosmology.
@@stevennewberg9993 from what I've been told, we already have the key (context as the throne of the text which is king). It's a matter of a greater understanding of the context of our forefathers through to Adam as well as our context today (not 'instead of'). I've listened to an EO podcast called Lord of Spirits and functionally they affirm 'sola scriptura' as it has been explained to me.
Hey, you guys are two of my favorite Christian RU-vid Intellectuals, so this was a real treat, and honestly I think Jonathan’s approach was (for me) more clearly and accessibly expressed here than in any other video of his that I’ve watched, which is a credit to both of you
This was a wonderful example of dialogue across traditions. Recognizing the complexities of categories and language, yet both Pageau and Cooper understand enough of the other's tradition to get past the stereotypes and caricatures. There is much more in common than there are differences. This conversation brought this out.
God be praised for the systematic theology of the West. Mr. Pageau reflects in his difficulty with Justification what the experience is with much of the East. Formerly Lutheran here, now Orthodox. But when converting, our wise priest made it clear that we’re not to renounce the foundational and meaningful truths and experiences. Many a bridge could be built with not just head understanding but a lot of loving and heart felt prayer. Glory to God.
Okay. I just now finished the entire conversation. This was actually very excellent. Great format. Good work here, gentlemen. God bless the whole Christian Church. ✝️
I think there was agreement on many parts but using different language and different perspectives that made it difficult to see how similar yalls views were. I think one could phrase justification by faith toward an eastern orthodox in a more accessible way as: "we are created into something new and begin acting and participating in that new creation. That new creation being a part of the body of Christ, which is only possible by Christ taking the the imperfectness of the new creation upon himself. And the new creation is only born from the perfect life of Christ that is given to the Church to allow us to walk in Him." Or something like that. I prefer the heavy categorized and systematic way that Luther would say it lol. Much love to both of yall. Big fan of both and both have been very helpful for me in growing in knowledge and faith.
Please do this again! I’ve listened a lot to the conversations between pageau and Paul vanderklay, and although I love Paul (and pageau for that matter), I’ve always wanted to hear dialogue with pageau and a partner who is speaking more out of his tradition. Paul is fantastic, but he rarely challenges pageau from his own tradition. Hope pageau is interested, and sees the value. It’s so strange to me, that he finds justification in the real world such a flabbergasting notion.
Words are not the fundamental mode of analysis, awareness/ consciousness is the fundamental mode (& participation in “communal” awareness is one step up from that mode). The “religious christian West” doesn’t yet seem to get that fully, while Eastern religions (Hinduism, Buddhism) are very much rooted in that ontological supremacy of awareness. Christian Orthodoxy seems to be in the middle, helping to bridge the gap (I hope, so far so good) ❤️
Regarding Pageau's inability in understanding justification; from what I heard him say, he understands it just not in Lutheran terms (for instance he mistakenly thinks that forensic justification is only Calvinist). We point to Christ (crucified) in all things, understand the wonderful exchange, and trust God's Pronouncements. Pageau said that we are made righteous by participating in Christ, we say It's based on God's Declaration that we are in Christ, that He receives our failure and death, us His Righteousness and Life by trust not rejection of God's Word, in with and under Christ. Functionally I don't really hear a difference between the two; both say justified/made righteous by God in Christ; both emphasis remaining/participating in Him; both trust God's Word and Work. It seems to me a semantic difference, yet perhaps I understand neither
@@j.g.4942 such language of justification as penal substitution is certainly present in great Eastern fathers such as St. John Chrysostom. The Assyrian church of the East (so-called Nestorian church) also explicitly teaches penal substitution
Jonathan understands reformed theology he just doesn't agree with it. I belive him and I stand in a very similar place, we both spent alot of time studying reformed tradition but found it to not align with the bible. Where I disagree with him is I have studyed alot about the orthodox church and agree in alot of areas, but some very areas I disagree on like Saints, Communion, and the Virgin Marry. What most reformed people so not understand is that there are plenty of belifs that are orthodox, historical, and disagree with the reformation. The reformation was a very western movement, a very intellectual movement, and a very western law focused movement. But the bible is a collection of eastern texts, mostly written to a Easton audience and also a Greek audience. To understand it you must understand eastern and Greek symbolism and myths.
Now I'm one of the BIGGEST Jordan Cooper fans but this whole "Reformed don't like beauty" myth is just as silly as the more general "Protestants don't like beauty" myth, which Dr. Cooper as a Lutheran knows isn't true. EVERY mainline Presbyterian Church, whether PCUSA or Church of Scotland, is absolutely beautiful. PCUSA churches almost all have great music ministries. Some of the more EVANGELICAL Presbyterian denominations, like PCA or OPC, do lack beauty, but it's due to a combination of Baptist/Evangelical influence on them and a lack of resources due to splitting off from the mainline.
Jordan you might be interested in a conversation with Seraphim Hamilton (Eastern Orthodox) on Orthodox Biblical theology, Philosophy, Symbolism etcc.. James Jordan and Peter leithart had a big impact on him. Check out his Channel its just “Seraphim Hamilton”
This is one of the best videos/discussions I’ve seen from either of you. I’m studying Church Music at a Lutheran University and I’m taking multiple classes on Worship Theology starting next Spring. I will definitely use this as a reference going into those classes, especially since this seems to strongly make a case against what I see to be a watered down generic Protestant worship occurring in lots of the church. I’ll also see if I can convince my Greek professor to study one of the Fathers mentioned like Maximus the Confessor in a readings class later on.
Dr. Cooper, have you by chance read Dr. Bradshaw’s Aristotle East and West? I think it might help you understand the reception of philosophical categories in the Eastern tradition.
Jonathan became noticeably uncomfortable when the topic of “justification” came up. He seems to have fallen into a way of thinking that doesn’t allow for him to understand God’s Word according to it’s own categories. A sinner can be justified and declared holy while still being a sinner and sinning; they’re being “conformed to the Image of His Son”; this is the focal point of the Gospel: the Good News.
@@tookie36if you are justified, you will be glorified. But upon belief, you are inwardly transformed by being given a heart of flesh. This is the beginning of new life in Christ. It’s almost as if you didn’t even read my previous comment. “Conformed” is being transformed into the Image of Christ.
@@chance_peterikthe problem here is when people sin, do horrible things, etc Christians say “he wasn’t really saved. This idea that we are going to be punished and god is saving us from punishment is extremely detrimental and keeps people from the actual salvation which is theosis.
Loved the honesty of Pageau's response to how Lutherans and Reformed might think. It's so helpful to see how easily we talk past each other. What seems obviously true to one can be shockingly unthinkable to another.
Brilliant interview with Jonathan Pageau: there is a quality quite profound to the conversation. Interesting is his heartfelt praise of the Christians he knew growing up in a Baptist church. Eucharist as a coming together of heaven and earth,
Good job! The matchup may have been a bit awkward to navigate for both of you, but in the end each tradition got covered well in the broad sense. Pageau is somewhat unique, even within Eastern Orthodoxy. It would be interesting to see you have a theological dialogue with another Eastern Orthodox personality who frequents RU-vid, but I’m not sure who that should be.
Jonathan Pageau is introducing symbolic thinking, in other words, how to perceive using a fractal pattern that lines up with the biblical stories, iconography, a mountain, and lived experience. Simple and deep thinker is a thinker who joins the microcosm and macrocosm. In my opinion, if this worldview ever became mainstream, then Western civilization can avoid reverting back to polytheism.
As an Orthodox Christian I can sympathize with Jonathan's struggle to understand justification from the protestant point of view. I have never been able to understand it either.
When you hire a podcast producer, can you have a show notes page with links to things that are mentioned in the episode - like St. John of Damascene’s On the Incarnation and the Renewal of Creation?
The Didache instructs the Gentile Churches to "Appoint for yourselves therefore bishops and deacons worthy of the Lord, men who are meek and not lovers of money, and true and approved; for unto you they also perform the service of the prophets and teachers." Which kind of leads credence to the idea, that in the early Church, congregations could choose their own Elders/Priests without needing Bishops or Apostles from other Churches to come and elect them. Thoughts?
"The writings of the Apostle do not agree entirely with the hierarchy which is now in the Church, because they were written at the very beginning. He even calls Timothy, whom he himself made a presbyter, the bishop, because first presbyters were being called bishops becuase when a bishop passed away, a presbyter succeeded him. In Egypt, presbyters even do confirm if the bishop is absent." --Ambrosiaster commenting on Ephesians 4:11-12 St. Willehad the presbyter built churches and ordained presbyters in Lower Saxony starting in 781. He was not made bishop until 787. Nobody thought he was acting wrongly or reconsecrated his presbyters. Paphnutius the presbyter ordained his own successor, Daniel, according to Cassian. There's also the famous Letter 146 of Jerome. The Assyrian Church of the East did not change from a presbyterial to an episcopal structure until the 300s. These examples have led several Papist scholars to conclude that Presbyterial ordination is not entirely invalid. Fr. George Tavard concluded that presbyterial successions are a matter of history, and said: "I would be prepared to go further, and to admit that episcopal succession is not absolutely required for valid ordination…. The main problem, in our ecumenical context, does not lie in evaluating historical lines of succession, but in appreciating the catholicity of Protestantism today." Fr. Harry McSorley concluded, after a thorough study of the Council of Trent: "We can say without qualification that there is nothing whatever in the Tridentine doctrine on sacrament of order concerning the reality of the eucharist celebrated by Christians of the Reformation churches. Catholic theologians who have maintained that there is no sacrament of the body and blood of Christ in Protestant churches because Protestant ministers are radically incapable of consecrating the eucharist are incorrect if they think this opinion is necessitated by the teaching of Trent." ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE--0w1TtfTIlU.html
While even Papist eclessiologists have recognized that the relation of presbyters to bishops remains an open question within their communion, this is far from a purely democratic model wherein the office is conferred bottom-up and ordination is accidental to the making of priests. People in the LCMS have often jumped from one to the other without even realizing it in their arguments. Priests can ordain (when there are no bishops) =/= ordination is unnecessary or that the ministry is a democratic function of the congregation.
@@vngelicath1580 There is that abuse in some cases but I think you're strawmanning our position a tad. Not only are presbyterial ordinations valid, but even having a distinction between presbyter and bishop is neither essential nor of Apostolic origin. It *has* been a helpful point of economia, and if we could have the slightest confidence that Papal and Nikonite apologists wouldn't immediately "AHAH!" we might consider it. But if it's impossible to get them to stop worshipping that bronze serpent, we'll just have to chop it up. It wasn't even cast by Moses/Christ in the first place.
Thank you for the conversation! Very interesting and I rejoice to see folks across denominations magnifying the beauty of the liturgy. Question for my Orthodox brothers: when we Lutherans discuss the saints of old (the ones we honour), we are implying that they are saints just as we are, but we recognise that they lived a life worthy of imitation, pointing us to Christ; but their "saintliness" is the same holiness given by grace to all believers. How the does Eastern Orthodoxy understand sainthood?
Saints are participators of the divine glory, they are reflections of the uncreated light. And this is not withheld from any man- the saints witness it that we may be edified as well. Perhaps it's less of a "pointing to Christ" and more of a "call to theosis". But theosis entails a participation with the Holy Spirit, through Christ, so it's the same difference.
@@kyledawson4535”The glory of God is man fully alive.” . The Saints are the ones who become fully alive in God, and in so doing they manifest particular aspects of God Himself.
In the same way that the Orthodox Church can say were the Holy Spirit is, but cannot say were it is not; we can say who are saints but we cannot say who are not (although one would be tempted to discard the «worst» among us, it is soley for God to judge). So: «normal» people can be Saints whitout us knowing it, it is just that those which are declared saints made it clear beyond any doubt (hence God wanted us to know, or it would not be clear) that they were saints through their actions and most notably through their incorrupt and myrrh smelling body after death.
That was a beautiful conversation. It was interesting to see two people in good faith talk about differences and recognize where they actually disagree and where words and intellectual fetishes we're just getting in the way.
This is one of the best videos/discussions I’ve seen from either of you. I’m studying Church Music at a Lutheran University and I’m taking multiple classes on Worship Theology starting next Spring. I will definitely use this as a reference going into those classes, especially since this seems to strongly make a case against what I see to be a watered down generic Protestant worship occurring in lots of the church. I’ll also see if I can convince my Greek professor to study one of the Fathers mentioned like Maximus the Confessor in a readings class later on.
The fact there were so-called "Protestants before Protestantism" like Jan Hus shows how Luther was just reacting to preexisting problems in medieval Catholicism.
Absolutely fascinating dialogue! Jonathan Pageau conveyed some really intriguing thoughts and ideas about art being incarnational expression and participation. But when the conversation became more theological, I can’t help but think that his understanding of being a Christian lacks that anchor of the doctrine of forensic justification through faith in Christ’s atonement. It is the Holy Spirit’s enlightenment of this doctrine that really gives Christians such confidence in God’s mercy and love toward us and empowers us to live lives that are becoming more just and good in subjective reality until we reach that telos - glorification at the resurrection.
Hello, Dr Cooper! I pray you feel better soon. That was a wonderful exchange between two of my favorite youtubers. My wish is that it is the first of many between you.
This was beautiful! Watching you two come from your different worlds and bring them into this gorgeous dance in search of how to unite theology with experience was a rewarding experience for me. I too came across Jonathan through JP and I thought he was too loose (not morally but in terms of his non-technical approach) but after this conversation I feel he may have something that I have been looking for. Keen to get into it more! Thank you so much!
This was a really good chat. Im really thankful Jonathan questioned Jordan in love about some of his Lutheran presuppositions in regards to imputed righteousness etc. and its lack of historical context, despite Jordan trying to use St Athanasius as proof text. We need to speak truth in love and not sacrifice it in the sake of unity. That's why I really respect Jordan for chatting with Dr Ortlund about the truth of baptismal regeneration etc.
Why David Bentley Hart won't talk to Jordan Peterson or even to Jonathan just because he keeps in touch with Peterson? Did Jordan Peterson killed Bentley's dog or something?
havent watched this yet but looking forward. I enjoy a lot of Jonathan's stuff but he often makes really uninformaed statements about protestantism and acts like protestantism doesnt have as much depth as EO or RC so itll be nice to see that addressed
The term "faith" means different things, so of course by "faith" we are united to Christ works, but what do you mean by faith, our faith is shown in out actions, if we act like Christ then the faith shows to be a true and living one, if we don't act like him and if we embody his rightgeousness just a little or not at all then that shows our true faith or lack thereof, I think that what Jonathan is trying to point out when he talks about arbitrary is about the fact that simply stating out loud that you accept the Lord is just accidental and partial and not necesarelly substantial in your whole personhood, because you can say I accept the Lord with your mouth, yet say with everything else something different, then the phrase "I accept the Lord Jesus Christ as my Savior" means nothing more than simply pattern sounds coming out of a mouth, and that is arbitrary. Jesus saves all humanity yet we are to personally accept or reject that in every way possible with all our being, (we call that conversion, and it is an ongoing process) so in that manner we are transformed in his image and likeness, we arr healed through this process of constant conversion, and that transformation becomes an actual reality in our whole personhood and not just a statement or a theological concept accepted intelectually, you become a living Saint, you embody God's will on earth, if you down help make thy kingdom come and thy will be done then you have no faith and you are not saved no matter how many times you say that you are out loud.
I think the difference is the fear on the Protestant side of implying that works (fruits) are the efficient cause of our union with Christ (the tree of our salvation); for us, works have to remain evidentiary, and thus in their absence true faith / union with Christ is also absent.. but they cannot be understood to _cause_ our salvation, nor _cause_ our fellowship with Christ (participated in through the sacraments of the Church), they flow from both. I think there is essential agreement between Jonathan and Jordan, as Jonathan himself acknowledged later on. Our salvation is rooted in our union to Christ's person and work, and not based in our own striving, YET neither is union with Christ to be had without the subsequent fruits of faith; love, obedience and friendship. (Or as Luther puts it: Faith Alone saves apart from our works, but the Faith that saves is never without works)
@@vngelicath1580 Again I think the problem lies in the meaning of the word faith, words signify/signal to a concept and that concept points to a specific aspect of reality itself. So what is faith signifying for Luther or the reformed Christians? is it simply making an intellectual assertion of the works of Jesus Christ as described in the Scriptures? like Jordan Peterson asks, what do you mean by "believe"? and if you say that it is simply to accept as "true" what is revealed in scripture then how do you know you are using the authoritative hermeneutic to interpret what is in the scriptures? lets say for example in John chapter 6 interpreted through Catholic or Orthodox lenses points to the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist thus having "faith" will mean that you will participate in the eucharist in that manner because it is revealed in scriptures, yet if you have another hermeneutic of interpretation then you will see anything in chapter 6 to simply be some type of metaphor and you will consider that having "faith" since that's what is perceived by other denominations as revealed... It always comes down to authority, who has the authority to interpret and teach Scriptures, who has the authority to give the proper hermeneutic of interpretation of the Scriptures and Church Fathers. Then if we understand that we will see that the word Faith means different things essentially even though they sound and read similarly. The very background (context) determines how to read the content.
@@AprendeMovimiento Perhaps this might help: For a Lutheran, faith = trust. And the opposite of trusting God's Word is calling God a liar (or blasphemy against the Holy Spirit). So when we say we have faith in God's Word it means we trust the Baptismal promises and trust the commands of God (in other words, we mean to live according to the promise of participation in Christ and obey the commands of God). A few short examples: In Baptism God says He washes us clean from sin, drowns our Old Adam, and raises us to a New Way the Life of Christ; so we trust that and seek to daily die to sin and rise with Christ. In the Absolution God says your sin is divorced from you; so we trust that and return to our Baptismal Life. In the Eucharist God says of the bread, "This is My Body", of the wine, "This is My Blood"; so we trust that and revere Christ come to us in a foretaste of the feast to come (His Body and Blood consuming/converting our flesh into His spiritual flesh, bringing again forgiveness and everlasting life). From what I've heard the EO believe the same.
I have a question for you. Do you have book recommendations to learn more detailed in on Lutheran faith. I did get the previous books from your 5 book recommendations video I feel like I've been lead to become a leader in the church for several years but I'm 42 and not going to go back to school for it but I want to be more knowledgeable without a degree.
❤❤The Christian encompasses the African Asian and European mind and culture. From Protestant Roman Catholic too Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox. So yes intellect, music, poetry, dance, are all valid means of expression as well as art and sculpture. Nice conversation but remember folks the church is international.
Fr. Andrew Stephen Damick “Orthodoxy and Heterodoxy” outlines differences between various church theologies. And I had the hardest time wrapping my head around Lutheran theology!
don't worry, we're a bit of a mystery and we're happy with that. After all the Holy Trinity and the Two Natures in Christ are the simple mysteries our theology is founded on, and Baptism and Holy Communion the simple mysteries our Faith is founded in.
It’s like one is speaking Swedish and the other Norwegian. They can get by most of the time, but every so often one uses a word that causes total breakdown of the dialogue because they do remain, in fact, different languages no matter how similar they are. I love Pageau but sometimes I got frustrated here. To be totally charitable, im sure he’s not being obtuse about anything. This is also his second language, which is incredible. But can you seriously not even understand Jordan’s point that God can do whatever He wants? I get the theological nitpicking around God only doing what is actually His will, but is it that confusing of a concept that you need to go on a multi-minute diatribe about how much you don’t get it?? <a href="#" class="seekto" data-time="3259">54:19</a>
For justification, liturgically speaking, the word is used at baptism in the Orthodox Church when someone has become a newborn in Christ, a third category from Jew or Gentile. They ontologically cease to exist as the old person when they die with Christ and are reborn ontologically as a new person, cleansed of sin and united to Christ. I think justification only makes sense within a sacrament. I don't think it holds any meaning outside of that. Help me out here, I'm thinking out loud.
I understand Johnathan is working through the idea of Justice and dept in a symbolic way and how it fits into the larger pattern. But I find it strange how he insists he doesn’t understand it. Or how the concept leaves him speechless when it’s presented to him. I’m not saying he is lying but his initial hesitation was unfruitful or not to his usual par. As I write this. yes i see how he was can’t comprehend justification as it is presented. I’m just surprised.
Enjoying art, nature and people for their own sake as opposed to focusing on what it can do for you, or how it fits in some system or plan, is a gift, and the opposite of porn. It's a recent ability of consciousness, and goes naturally with the opposite, which is to hyper focus on how the thing satisfies this or that desire, reinforces ones views, etc. It's a subtle difference. E.g. bird watching is a totally new habit. Ancient people might watch a bird, in order to learn something, but wouldn't just enjoy the bird, while modern people can, when forgetting oneslf, just look at it for what it is, which is not porn at all.
<a href="#" class="seekto" data-time="17">00:17</a>:10 " The new atheists are simply deluded they believe in truth they just pretend they don't , it's a weird position , they think that their position is inevitable and imposes itself through analysis , which is completely insane and nonsensical " . Such a ridiculous thing to say Jonathan . They believe in truth ( truth is their god btw , like you didn't know ) just not yours which you define as truth because it's important to you to pretend it is . Even the word analysis , unless you meant it in some other way , means " the detailed examination of the elements or structure of something. " and that will have an inevitable conclusion . Why is that nonsensical and completely insane ? I'm surprised that you can't see what Jordan Peterson is doing is destroying the myth of god . What he is saying is truth is at the top , the belief that all other beliefs depend .Your truth is to pretend god exists because of all that you associate with it and I'm sure you believe it . It being your truth has nothing to do with whether it's true or not . The atheist new or old have truth at top in an analytical way and see truth in logic and fact and reason . Both views are out of balance , it must be because we are drowning in porn and we need to regain a "proper " ontology for " objects " and it's probably the " protestants " fault
On turha oma voimamme vääryyden valtaa vastaan. Me turman vallat voitamme Herrassa ainoastaan. Hän, Kristus, kuningas, on voitonruhtinas, lyö joukot helvetin, ne tallaa jalkoihin ja voiton meille saattaa.
Hi Dr. Cooper! I am so happy to see you two sit down and have a conversation and hope there are further discussions now that you are quasi-familiar with each other’s perspectives. One thing I would love to hear more about is the use and creation of artwork in our daily lives and worship. As an illustrator the discussion of aesthetics and the incarnation view of art is a fascinating one. I also would love to hear more about museums as the cemetery of art. Thanks!
Exciting to see thinkers I follow in dialogue to exchange ideas in real time! As a truth seeker who's open to theology, philosophy, and science, I think both of you appeal to that kind of audience and I hope to do likewise on my own channel. Peterson next?
Jonathan says that people get lost in the technical words and the scholastic terms, but every time I listen to Jonathan, I leave feeling more confused. It seems like he beats around the bush a lot and its hard to follow what he is trying to say.
Thinking about Jonathan Pageau’s questions about forensic justification; he asks “What does it *mean*, and how does that manifest in reality (like in creation for example)”. Could debt be understood through creation, in terms of when God speaks, “Let there be light”, and then creation is indebted to God for there to be light. Therefore light comes into existence, because it is indebted to God to exist by his forensic declaration? I don’t really know what I’m saying. I just like pretending to understand big words. Let me know if any of that makes sense.
Yes, I think Anselmian logic can be understood to be rooted in the patterns of being as much as a Christus Victor / Ransom framework. Worship/Sacrifice is simply ordering our attention to the highest (or lower, i.e. idolatry) level of reality -- a participational communion with Goodness, Truth, Beauty... Sin breaks our fellowship with the Highest Reality and incurs a state of alienation (from reality, God and creation), self-inflicted condemnation and death. Christ restores the order by rightly aligning mankind to the pattern of Reality and its Creator through an act of selfless worship and asks humanity to participate in it through Him (restoring Life via resurrection). The overarching theme of fall and redemption is right worship owed God, and both East and West can agree on this.
Is theosis the same doctrine as Divinization? Is there an appeal to Paul's words in 1 Corinthians 15? Then the end will come, when he hands over the kingdom to God the Father after he has destroyed all dominion, authority and power. For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. The last enemy to be destroyed is death. For he “has put everything under his feet.” Now when it says that “everything” has been put under him, it is clear that this does not include God himself, who put everything under Christ. When he has done this, then the Son himself will be made subject to him who put everything under him, so that God may be all in all. ~ Thanks.
Theosis and divinization are the same. I would say yes to 1 cor 15. But more broadly the entire message of the Bible to pointing to this theosis. Of course it’s made more explicit in the NT. Paul, the gospels, the other letters are not only testimonies that Christ is risin. They, with the church, hold the teachings to make the transformation.
I'm so confused by Jonathan's model of salvation. Can anyone interpret? What is it that brings the person who wants to surrender to Jesus into the Body, and what is it that keeps the hypocrite out of the body if it isn't the forensic element? Am I wrong to think that the sheep and goats are the proof of the forensic element? That one category is justified, and the other is lost?
Not sure if your familiar, but in Orthodoxy salvation is defined as theosis. It isn't a declaration of righteousness by God onto us, it's an ontological change of growing into union with Christ. Basically, salvation is justification+santification. It is becoming Christ in a sense. That's why you take communion, to encorporate Christ's body into ours, and its also why Christ became human in the first place, to unite human nature with the uncreated divinity. St Athanasius is a good place to read about this, he said "God became man so that man may become gods."
Have this conversation again. You found your topic when you broached the topic of justification. I would love for you both to revisit this tension. As a person who was raised Lutheran but left the faith early-- and came back in my late 20s because of Pageau and Peterson and people like them, I *also* don't really know what it means to be declared Just. It seems obviously not real in a sort of day-to-day sense. It seems like an arbitrary assurance to quell doubts of hell-going. But as I re-approach faithfulness and call myself a Christian, it seems obvious that like... to the extent that there are parts of me that sin and are not In Christ, those parts of me *are destined for hell.* The parts of me that are participating In Christ have eternal life. I don't know how that shakes out. I don't really think about heaven or hell, because I don't quite know how to hold those concepts in any honesty. I want to conform more and more to the Image of Christ, because, haha, I like my body and my experience and I dont want it to be entirely obliterated. But also, I hold forth in the Resurrection. I have an Icon of it right here next to me. Its the most important image in Christian thinking to me. But I still can't tell you precisely how it'll work. Who will I be? Will it be this body or a new one? Will I recognize myself? I don't know. I don't know how helpful it is to attempt a purely literal *or* purely symbolic understanding of this doctrine. For awhile I attended an Orthodox church and I couldn't get past some of the ecclessial self understanding, but I agree with the sort of Orthodox worldview in thinkers like Pageau. Now I'm contemplating finishing my confirmation in the Lutheran Church, and stuff like this very conversation are intensely relevant to the quest for finding a Church.
As a Reformed Baptist pastor, I do find this discussion very helpful. It is true that those from a puritanical tradition often overlook the importance of ritual and incarnation in a pursuit of the reality behind those rituals. At the same time, I do think the Puritan movement was necessary. Puritan tradition, and Baptist tradition specifically, pointed out that, in the times in which they were founded and I think often times today as well (Even in Baptist churches) the shadow can take precedent over the spiritual reality, even obscuring it. In the early days of the Baptist tradition, England was a place where everyone went to church. No matter who they were. Everyone was baptized, whether they're parents took the faith seriously or not. The Baptist movement began as a pushback against this, arguing that a true church cannot be made up of the entire population of a country, but rather of those whose hearts God had touched (Andrew Fuller's words). The Baptist movement has had a beneficial influence, I think, in all Christian traditions by putting the reality into focus again, albeit often at the expense of completely dismissing the shadows of tradition and ritual that are important in this life to lead us to those realities. It seems to me that a balance between the two is necessary, and I think the early Baptists and reformers in general were much better at this than we are today. For example, most if not all early baptists had a real presence view of the Lord's Table, while this is rare in Reformed Baptist circles today. I'd like to see a return to a realization of the significance of the shadow while still keeping the ultimate spiritual reality in view. That being said, I am very comfortable being a Baptist because in the New Testament we do see a transition away from shadows and types (including those expressed in art) into the spiritual reality. This is where I think the regulatory principle is biblically sound; because it agrees with the New Testament's focus on shifting to the reality. We see this, for example, in the great reduction of Sacramental rituals from all the instructions on the construction of the tabernacle, the temple, and public worship found in the Old Testament down to just two Sacraments: Baptism and the Lord's Supper. The rituals are by no means done away with, nor do they lose their significance, but an emphasis on these rituals is lessened as we move from the Old Testament into the New. We also see this in a lower emphasis on marriage in the New Testament than in the old (singleness is introduced as a legitimate and even superior way of living as a Christian than married life, although most Christians should still get married because of weakness according to 1st Corinthians 7. In the Old Testament, the idea of unmarried follower of God is almost unheard of and when marriage is mentioned, the focus is on the reality behind marriage, which is Christ in the church such as we see in Ephesians 5). Shadows are still there, but they are breaking away in the New Testament to the spiritual realities behind them. That is what I think the traditional Baptist position tries to hold on to, although recently most reformed baptists have strayed away from that balance.
Former lutheran now orthodox catechumen here with a comment on forgiveness and forensics. Forgiveness is active and continous. One cannot be "declared" forgiven and that's that. It needs constant renewal by participation in the sacraments, becoming part of the body of Christ. Participating in Christ is to be actively forgiven, when you are not, when you leave the body, sins begin to add up and you are not taking part in the divine forgiveness. That's why the forensic declaration of justification is vacuous. It is disembodied and passive. One flick of the magic wand is not enough. There is no eternal declaration of justification to point to, not even the Bible. Jesus' words are a promise to those participating in Him. For an earthly example, your American declaration of independence needs to be uphold. Without active participation in and defense of the liberties prescribed it is just paper and ink. Psychologically, just think about how often we need to remind ourselves that we have forgiven someone who hurt us not to let resentment build up again. That's not "looking back" to that time we did forgive, it's forgiving in the present. We need to actively participate in our forgiveness of others, or for that matter, of ourselves. That we are, when we take part, forgiven in Christ, so to not succumb to hopeless despair over our own fallenness. This realization is a continous, active and embodied act. These are obviously just my own scattered (potentially heretical) thoughts on the subject and not to be seen as a general orthodox position. So, eastern brothers, please correct me if I'm out of line. :)
Luther and Lutherans teach that justification (the forgiveness of sins) is continuous. It is offered in the Word and Sacraments and must be received continually by faith alone (living - not dead). If that faith is forfeited, the forgiveness of sins is no longer received. I'm guessing you came from an evangelical protestant tradition. Luther emphatically denied that justification is a one-time event or that it couldn't be lost.
I was going to say as well that this is a very fair point. It would seem to apply more so to the reformed tradition and its offshoots than Lutheranism though. Lutherans teach that forgiveness can be lost if one detaches oneself from the body of Christ, word, and sacraments.
Yes, you are right and I'm not saying this was the case for Luther (merely stated that I was a former lutheran). It is a more relevant critique of extreme forms of protestantism. However, the seed to all that is in my opinion Sola Fide. While Luther had the right idea in terms of participation in faith I see a proper soteriology as irreconcilable with the emphasis on faith alone. Christians believe in bodily resurrection, don't we? So where is the body? With sola fide, faith becomes just a meaningless intellectual exercise. I've met far too many sanctimonious protestants confessing their absolute faith in Jesus Christ while at same time willfully engaging in the most horrendous activities. One of the most poignant examples is a Swedish pastor in a charismatic evangelical denomination working with creating commercials for online gambling companies in developing countries in Africa. Sure, one could say that this pastor obviously didn't really have true faith, if we are to see works as the fruit of faith. But with a focus on the subjective and internal experience of God, who is to say? I'm fine with the idea that works do not save in and of themselves. Luther were right to criticize letters of indulgence and such. But denying the body altogether? No. Faith is expressed through the body and that expression is liturgical. By getting rid of "unnecessary" liturgical expressions Luther et al. was throwing out the baby with the bathwater and paving the way for the extreme forms of protestantism.
@@denyszagreus8754 unfortunately that hypocrisy exists in RC and orthodoxy too. I’ve seen to many Catholics taking Eucharist and sleeping around the same week. Just the other day I was with a vocal orthodox Greek who was swearing profanity and getting drunk. So in some aspects you are right, but absolutely short sighted if you think Catholics and orthodoxy live more righteously. Most Catholics I knew growing up were down right pagan. So were the Baptists and I haven’t been impressed with orthodoxy either. So for me, your argument I just take with a grain of salt.
@@ntlearning oh, no, don't get me wrong. We are _all_ sinners. And I am definitly no Saint myself. But repentence, for me, is not just about believing the right thing, it is doing the work. Liturgy as embodied faith, if you will. Just came from a Good Friday service in the lutheran Church of Sweden and it become apparent why I left. It is all talk. Standing up during the Creed and that's as far as the body goes. That's not gonna cut it for me.
You two are awesome. As much as I like Sam Harris's scholarship and presentations, I can see why many think he looks like comedian Ben Stiller. Some of his ideas on religion become daffy because his arguments are totally blinkered. The guy appears to have never studied Western History before 1979.
What is art? Art is the purposeful joining of things together towards a telos. Brilliant! I converted from Missouri synod to Russian Orthodox. Baptized last pascha. Jonathan was a big influence on my conversion and I still listen to Dr Cooper a lot also so this was a fun conversation
Similar here. LCMS for two years now but I think I was probably catechised poorly cuz Im finding I dont really agree with monergism. I'm feeling very drawn to Orthodoxy in a large part because of Jonathan and Im feeling a bit disoriented spiritually. Dr. Cooper was huge in bringing me into Lutheranism from evangelicalism and I love him a lot so this is a great cross over.
@@Reformation1580 I was actually baptized in the Baptist Church I was raised in when I was about 8 years old. Most rocor (Russian Orthodox church outside Russia) rebaptize, but not all Orthodox do that
Don’t want to make this awkward but... I get why Netflix is pure aesthetic pleasure. But porn on the other hand, well... that is quite participatory. I get how purely watching art climaxes in something like porn. But maybe also shows art has to be engaged with.
I wonder what Jonathan would have said about certain of the sermons from Symeon the New Theologian. He says in many places that Christ offers Himself to the Father as our Replacement. It sounds quite a lot like Substitutionary Atonement/Vicarious Satisfaction.
I was a little surprised by his very clear "no" to legal language. It does seem to be recognized by quite a few EO theologians more recently that Lossky's eschewing of anything legal as Western was a bit of an overreaction.
@@DrJordanBCooper No doubt. It sounds like he is wrestling with it, though. As much as Jonathan claimed not to know how to conceptualize Forensic Justification, calling it arbitrary, I thought just the opposite. As you noted, it isn't arbitrary, in that it depends upon Christ, the Righteous One, whose righteousness can be definitely and concretely defined in what He does. As far as an inability to know what it means, it seems the trial before Pilate and the exchange of the Innocent One for Barrabas is a pretty clear image.
@@marcuswilliams7448 Yeah I forgot it's also in St. Athanasius. Specifically speaking about Christ paying our debt to death I believe. There's also the language of the "glorious exchange" in fragments of Papias. All of which Orthodoxy claims and is thus in line with its theology.
Check out the Glory to God for all things blog by Fr Stephen Freeman over on Ancient Faith. A quote by George Macdonald I found in the comments of one of the posts: "The Son of God suffered unto death, not that men might not suffer, but that their sufferings might be like His."
You can use classical philosophy or even use Thomistic Realism as a protestant, that is not what's problematic, the problem is the hermeneutic of interpretation, the lenses by which you read and understand Scriptures, the principles that organize your hermeneutic and thus your exagesis is what should be the focus. The main issue with protestantism is that their hermeneutic is invented, it came out of nowhere, it doesn't come from any tradition (so it's not given by anybody) and it claims to be an inspired hermeneutic, and that's what every false prophet does, claims that their hermeneutic of interpretation is divinely inspired and then they acomodate reality to that cosmovision and the lenses by which you should interpret anything, by doing so you can twist Aristotle or Sain Thomas Aquinas teachings, I mean if you do that with the Holy Scriptures and the words of God incarnated, you can do it with pretty much anybody, so in that sense I don't really care much about the relationship of protestantism and classical or Thomistic philosophy and theology.
Interestingly, every tradition has a starting point somewhere. It remains to be seen who has it correct. nobody can just claim "tradition" because there have been schisms throughout history between groups who have claimed tradition as their own. this is why there needs to be an objective benchmark to which everybody refers. An umpire, if you will, that is the chief rule of faith.
That's kind of silly. All the reformers were trained humanists from European universities. They read the Scriptures the way they were taught to, informed by their understanding of the ancients. They did not make anything up.
@@awachter22 Martin Luther came up with his own hermeneutic and every "reformed" person follows their own "reformed" hermeneutic of interpretation, who reformed the hermeneutic followed traditionally? by which authority? who inspired that hermeneutic? there is no established canon or magisterium that points to the right hermeneutic of interpretation, everybody invented their own.
@@dave1370 that's not the point I am making, the whole point is that you have to put your attention into hermeneutic of interpretation, people fight over the content but never contemplate the context, you have people using the same words to describe absolutely different things in reality, and that happens because there is a different type of categorization, and that's because there is a different hermeneutic a different cosmovision, thus you can use the same Scriptures to point to whatever you want (I mean the devil did that with Jesus in the dessert). And to know which hermeneutic is correct it boils down to authority, who gave you the authority and his or her authority was given by who? if at the beginning of that line is not Jesus himself then you know is BS. if at the beginning of that line is somebody saying that the Holy Spirit told him so, or if thei authority came from some worldly king or prince then you know that hermeneutic is incorrect no matter how convincing it sounds.
@@AprendeMovimiento Luther invented his own hermeneutic? Have you read Luther? You may be asserting a caricature which within 5 minutes of reading Luther is just plain false. He quotes the fathers incessantly like most Lutheran reformation writers do. Also, to pretend hermeneutics were solid and cohesive before the reformation is just revisioned history. The church fathers are all over early reformation writings and prayer books. The church fathers are used frequently even today in Lutheranism and catechism. Nothing came out of nowhere. You’re just floating a modern consequence of bad “ inspired” hermeneutics back into the reformation. Inspired hermeneutics is a modern invention. Read the early reformers they looked to the ancients. To deny so is just not reality. You’re critique would only apply to more recent modern “inspired” hermeneutic adherents. The idea of “inspired” hermeneutic is laughable and scorned in traditional liturgical Protestant churches.
