A Lutheran Response to Eastern Orthodox Theology 

Please keep doing those in-depth, scholarly series (Intro to Christology etc.). It's one reason I love your channel: you never do click bait, you never try to please the crowd at the expense of substance. That makes your channel a rare gold mine.

I was raised pentecostal but call myself a non-believer...I had a nice talk with a lutheran pastor today, it was just 20 minutes but the first genuine, respectful, non-vulgar conversation I had in years, I felt like I drank from an oasis in the desert We talked about god, I always felt insecure about being pentecostal (no Tolkien or moody poets) and he warmly explained how the holy spirit is vital and missing in secular society. When told me he was a pastor, it clicked, he got my interest and I suddenly asked if I could attend service tmrw and I am.

As an Orthodox Christian I really didn't find the language about substitution and satisfaction to be objectionable. I think we really just recoil at the use of the punitive language towards Christ's sacrifice. Our focus is on Christ's willing offering of Himself for sin being the key factor rather than the satisfaction of divine wrath.

To the Orthodox people in the comments: thank you for being so charitable and thoughtful in your responses. Online theology discussions rarely go beyond dunking on one’s opponents, and it’s a nice change of pace to see this.

I’ve really benefited a lot from your Christology series, and it’s one of the most useful things I’ve found on RU-vid. Thank you.

Hey Dr. Cooper! Just wanted to say that I enjoy this type of videos as well as your deeper Christology videos! Thank you for what you do!

As a former Evangelical, Lutheran, and Reformed believer who became Eastern Orthodox, my advice to inquirers would be (1) do not waste 30-years (like I did) comparing and picking one that makes sense to you-your perspective will change and you will jump from one path to the other and never really know the truth; (2) traditions did not all develop side-by-side, they have different starting points, so look at which ones have been consistently the same for the longest because the truth does not change; and (3) Christ Himself says “And this is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent,” John 17:3. Only in Orthodoxy have I begun to understanding that “knowing God” is more than head knowledge and trying to be a good Christian; God opens Himself to us only when we love Him with all our hearts and love our neighbors as ourselves. I fall way short (Lord have mercy), but have been blessed with glimpses of our true calling in our Liturgies and my life as an Orthodox Christian.

Orthodox have historically had no issues with Anselm of Canterbury's satisfaction theory of atonement. It is in fact affirmed by post-schism Orthodox Fathers such as St. Nicholas Cabasilas (d. 1392) in his famous work The Life in Christ, St. Philaret of Chernigov's (d.1866) Dogmatic Theology, and St. Nektarios of Aegina's (d. 1920) Catechism. This is from St. Nektarios on the Atonement: "In His capacity as the great High Priest, the Savior offered Himself up as a spotless sacrifice to His God and Father, an atoning sacrifice; He was both the officiator and the sacrifice, propitiating and satisfying the justice of God which threatened humanity because of transgressing the divine law; He paid the whole penalty as a sinless representative of the human race before God the Father; the punishment that sinful man deserved He bore on the cross, shedding His precious blood for our salvation and sealing the New Covenant, which He made with the Father, and which offers salvation to everyone who believes in Him, confessing that His death on the cross made atonement."

Great video. Look forward to hearing more on the Filioque. I will share this. - Erick Ybarra

Coming from an Orthodox point of view, I found this video really frustrating, primarily because I thought the Orthodox essay being responded to was so bad. It's unfortunate that in the anglophone world there's an unbalanced, largely reactionary (ie. defined negatively by the Western confessions it opposes) variant of Orthodoxy that doesn't really properly represent what the Orthodox church really is. It means that a video like this never really comes to grips with the Orthodox church as it is, but it's hard to fault people for responding to what are (unfortunately) the popular Orthodox polemics in the anglophone world. It is true that the Orthodox approach soteriology in a way that de-emphasizes the legal aspect, and I think that's appropriate and faithful to Scripture. But it throws everything out if perspective when this turns into just ignoring legal categories altogether. It's worth noting that Patriarch Jeremias never did this in his correspondence with the Lutheran theologians.

St Athanasius does say in the letter to Marcillanius from a Psalter for prayer: He suffered for us, and bore in Himself the wrath that was the penalty of our transgression.

Thanks for making this video! I've been waiting for it!

This was quite an interesting discussion. Definitely helped me to understand our Lutheran friends. -An Orthodox cousin in Christ

Ex Orthodox here. I didn't get it either, and I suspect most of the folks in my former congregation did either. I don't say this in a disparaging way- they were kind and decent people, but the emphasis was absolutely more on doing the right stuff that we were very proud had always been done that way and everyone else was different. Once I started feeling like I was boasting in my works, I sought out a Lutheran Pastor and I've been in the LCMS since. That's a few years now anyway.

I appreciate that you gently point out how many Orthodox Writers can write an 800+ Page commentary on one verse. As a Latin, that is one of my critiques of the EO Church.

Thanks Dr. Cooper. Enjoyed the presentation, very well done. It was helpful listening to you work through St. Athanasius. Hope you’re having a blessed Holy Saturday.

I’ve very much enjoyed your series on the Augsburg Confession, Christology, and Chemnitz. Keep ‘em coming.

Wow Dr. Cooper, I really enjoyed this episode of Just and Sinner as I think there is a need to hear about Eastern Orthodoxy from a historically rooted Protestant point of view. Every time I watch your channel I learn so much about church history and the Fathers from a Protestant perspective. Prayers and blessings from a Wesleyan Pentecostal fan!

Great video as usual, Dr. Cooper. I'd love a video walk-through of your theological library. A glimpse at what you study to prepare for videos like this would be great to see.

I’m Orthodox and I would NEVER reject the forensic and substitutionary aspect of Christs work on the cross. I’d agree that there are many many many orthodox who reject the forensic nature of Christs work because they want to separate themselves from the west. I’d say this usually comes from western converts who are trying to run away from legalism. However, it’s not Orthodox to reject the forensic nature of Christs work.

Great video, very helpful for me. I didn't see how the two ideas could fit together but it all clicked for me with your explanation. Thank you!

I'm a former nondenom evangelical, and your videos helped me decide to become Lutheran instead of Eastern Orthodox, and I'm soon to be confirmed into the LCMS. Thanks for your videos! PS: Love your Christology series too lol

I appreciate you doing this, covering in a fairly systematic fashion, and more articulately than I, points that I have been making in my various discussions over the years with Eastern Orthodox persons.

These theology videos are very interesting. I appreciate them a lot.

Please continue to produce more detailed content like this. Your videos are a blessing! Thank you, Pastor. Also, could you please continue your series about Sola Fide in the Church Fathers?

Awesome helpful video! Thank you!

Hope you have a wonderful Easter celebration, Doctor :)

I am not a Lutheran but Dr. Jordon's explanation of the atonement is right on. The legal implications that existed between God and man had to be satisfied before we could ever experience God in Christ on a personal level. Thank you for this wonderful exposition.

Please Dr. Copper, i deeply appreciate your work on christology. Please consider those of us who really love them and keep going your great work. Thank you !

Dear Jordan, I watch/listen to most of your videos. I absolutely love the in-depth video on tough theological topics that you make. While it is tempting to give in to people's short attention spans, you do something good for all of us when you engage with deep thinking. I like the format of you simply taking through things like you do. That said, I think you can make some of your videos a bit more accessible. One small thing: I notice that when you speak, you end a lot of your sentences before you get to the final period. It kinda sounds like you keep getting new thoughts that you want to interject. Sometimes this is fine. Sometimes it all ends up getting convoluted. Your video here is one hour long. But there are no timestamps or outline given. One idea might simple be to give people some kind of handout with an outline of what you will be talking about. Then refer back to that as you start a new point. This can also help with summarizing your main points. So, if people get lost 20 min into the video, they can reconnect when you summarize and "reset". Some of this may require more editing than you have time for. I hope this makes a bit of sense.

Thank you. Just what I needed.

Here We Stand!✝️❤️🌺

Great episode, and I concur with the others here regarding the Christology series

Happy (almost) Easter to all! The Lord is risen!

EO convert here. I’ll admit that when I first saw this, I was a little annoyed by the timing-holy week just started for us, since our Easter is a week behind yours this year. But that’s because I didn’t expect you to start defending a doctrine that I already believe in. St. Athanasius is merely describing the doctrine of justification that St. Paul lays out in Romans-that the penalty of the law (death) is suffered by Christ, thus by being in Christ, the penalty is already taken and we don’t have to die. I was kind of shocked to hear an Orthodox person say that “even the term justification is problematic for the Orthodox,” given that the word “justification” appears in the prayers of our baptismal rite. Although, I thought that legal and forensic weren’t the same thing. I though that “forensic” justification is particular kind of “legal” justification that entails a reclassification which is not based upon an actual change in the human subject. But in this video, you at least seem to use “forensic” and “legal” interchangeably. If you make a follow-up to this, could you clarify your usage of the terms? It is true that the East places more emphasis on theosis than on justification, but I think that’s mostly because the East aims to be very practical in its theology-any doctrine that doesn’t have some kind of application tends to be regarded as merely speculative or even useless. Since, in our theology, theosis, or participation in the life of Christ, is the means by which one partakes of his death and resurrection (and, by extension, Christ’s justification, see 1 Timothy 3:16), it is also the means by which legal justification is delivered. That makes theosis more actionable than justification, so that’s where the emphasis gets placed, but it doesn’t mean that justification is absent from our theology. It’s similar to how you can drive your car without knowing how the engine works. If you know how to drive, then your car will get you from point A to point B even if you know nothing about the engine. In this analogy, justification is analogous to the car engine-you could be justified by theosis even if you didn’t know how legal justification works. It’s also true that a lot of converts to EO refuse to admit any kind of legal aspect to justification, but from what I’ve heard this is a very recent development in Orthodoxy. I am told that a Greek priest, Father John Romanides, was the first to popularize this, as well as the common excoriation of St. Augustine that one often sees in EO these days. But don’t take my word for that, since I’ve not read Fr. Romanides myself. But supposedly, Fr. Romanides was very popular with a lot of evangelical converts to EO, and some of his opinions are now basically taken for granted by a lot of Orthodox in America. If any of you reading would like to know more about legal justification in Orthodox theology, I’d recommend checking out Seraphim Hamilton. Watch this short video ( ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-ra8wgXvCMtw.html ) and his debates with Matt Slick and Anthony Rogers to hear the Orthodox doctrine. To me, the main difference between Orthodox and Lutheran thought seems to be the role that sanctification plays in justification. While the Orthodox view is something like faith -> increasing sanctification -> increasing justification the Lutheran view is more like faith -> full immediate justification -> increasing sanctification I hope that this comment is useful to someone; thanks for reading if you actually made it to the end.

For what it's worth, I've very much enjoyed the Christology deep dive. It's a very enriching series.

I am Protestant Christian, I married a Greek Orthodox woman. I actually knew very little about Eastern Orthodox before meeting and dating her (and even after marrying, I only then began delving into its history and doctrines). What I learned, at least from my own investigations and from spending time with her Greek family and reading numerous books on the subject by Greek Orthodox theologians), is that while the RCC (Roman Catholic Church) became ever more political and worldly after (and a bit before) the 1054 AD Schism, the EOC (Eastern Orthodox Church) became cemented in its cultural distinctions. In fact, I would say that's its greatest strength as well as its greatest weakness, its rigid cultural distinctions. It is its greatest strength because for those who belong to or ingratiate themselves into that religious culture, it is extremely tight and unwavering; both the RCC and EOC exhibit a culture of "us vs all others" but the EOC tends to take this a bit further than any Catholic I've ever met. Because the RCC has had to contend with the Reformers and modern Protestant doctrinal issues, today's RCC is much more... "open" to debate, so to say. For their own survival, they are forced to be, or they risk losing more adherents to their doctrinal challengers. But because the EOC has been largely cloistered and isolated away from the Reformers and modern Protestant denominations, it has not developed as much openness to debate and dialogue (or a culture that welcomes it) or been challenged in such a way. Today, as of 2023, I see the EOC getting much more limelight and the time is coming (or perhaps has already arrived) that they will, as a distinct religious culture, be forced to contend with the challenges and challengers from contrasting Christian denominations and not just dismiss all others as "all others". All this to say, I find it all fascinating.

Thanks for doing this, it is valuable to have a Lutheran view of other traditions. I also enjoyed the Scholastic Lutherans channel doing a review of the debate between Seraphim Hamilton (EO) and Anthony Rogers (Reformed). Seraphim had to get creative with scripture, but ultimately his theosis argument isn't something Lutherans would necessarily disagree with or that would refute PSA.

I greatly appreciate this video, I have been inquiring into the Orthodox church off and on for a few years now. After attending Divine Liturgy I was blown away by the beauty of it all and wanted to begin catechism but have been met with barriers due to the distance of the churches being an hour away and the long process of confirmation. But lately I've been interested in Lutheranism. Now I am attending a local lcms Lutheran church and find myself at a cross roads.

I have the same struggle... making the content I want to make, creating content that will get views, and responding to the needs & wants of the subscribers. I've got an idea for you about the latter two. Keep up the good work!

The next time you are in Colorado I’d love to hear you do a conversation with a western rite orthodox priest or monk! They have several there. But also I believe there’s plenty of them in the northeast. I think you could have a good conversation about the idea of not needing to leave the west to be orthodox:)

People who leave Lutheran Churches do so because they are no longer Lutheran. We still follow our old pastor on RU-vid. We live in a foreign country and there are no Lutheran churches. When in the US we did toy with the idea of joining an Eastern Orthodox Church. I do like the Vespers and the ornate interiors and the Reverence of their worship services I found the sermons were very Christ centered. But when I looked tnto joining I had a conversation on theology with a Bishop. We didn't get beyond Baptism. In the end he called me a Protestant, in a nice way. But clearly there are a lot of differences.

The in depth christology videos were very very helpful.

Have you read "The place of blessed Augustine in the Orthodox Church" by Fr Seraphim Rose?

It has grown very tiring in these inter-denominational / tradition dialogues to hear from one side or the other “this is the only way to understand” X, Y, or Z. As Dr. Cooper notes, there can be more than one valid way to understand many such matters. More than one thing can be true in the understanding. I am reminded of a line by CS Lewis from Mere Christianity: “The central Christian belief is that Christ’s death has somehow put us right with God and given us a fresh start.” In this example, it is the “somehow” that is the point of contention, but there can be more than one right answer, more than one effect. God is infinite, and much of His work is not really comprehensible to us. Why we think we can put His work in such tidy, humanly comprehensible, boxes is beyond me. As a second matter, “we have the Church fathers…” Here again, almost every denomination / tradition can make such a claim - there is not any Church with a continuous connection to ALL church fathers, and most traditions can find evidence in at least some of the Church fathers for their views. I appreciate the context from Athanasius.

Awesome, this was fantastic

excellent. thank you so much.

15:44 I just read Augustine talking about exactly that in "On Rebuke and Grace"

I attended a Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod for many years and I enjoyed it. Eventually I felt the Call to rejoin the Faith of my birth, Eastern Orthodoxy and have been a member for almost 2 decades. IMO, some of the more conservative Protestant denominations do a great job bringing the Word to their members. But, the embracing of abominations by other Protestant denominations has been instrumental is decreasing their membership and encouraging members to seek alternatives who abide by The Word. If it feels wrong to people, it probably is. The Missouri Synod Lutheran Church has done an admirable job fighting these 'trends', but other Lutheran denominations not so much. Protestantism in general is decreasing in membership by the direction some of their leadership are taking, people seek the rock-solid and Biblical values to build their personal foundation on. All are welcome in Orthodoxy, if they are seeking a Biblical answer!

Literally doing a Masters paper on the communicatio idiomatum and my Thesis is on Orthodoxy’s icons… You spying on me? These are all super helpful for me. I’m now a Lutheranist because of you… Lutheran in Christology and Calvinist in Soteriology. Thanks for all your work, Dr Cooper!

Please write a book on this! Lutheran evaluation of Eastern Orthodoxy.

Thank you, Dr. Cooper, wonderful in-depth look. And I'm glad you balance popular topics with important topics. If oil painters allowed themselves to be influenced by online votes, as they worked on a painting, there would be no more masterpiece paintings produced. They would've told Van Gogh he used too much yellow. Sometimes we need to conform to the expert to get the good stuff.

I understand the appeal of EO to a point. They are historical, yet maintain a separate identity from Rome. I have a friend who currently attends an Assyrian church (though not Assyrian himself) and he has expressed interest in EO. My issues with EO come from the following areas: 1.) the gospel. While I am glad (as quoted below) that EO as a rule accepts the forensic/penal substitution facet of the atonement, sometimes they seem to be a bit hostile toward it just because Protestants accept it (In one sense it's like an Independent Fundamentalist Baptist snubbing the Apostles' Creed just because Roman Catholics use it). I fully acknowledge that there are other facets to the atonement (including theosis, although I'm not sure specifically what EO means by it), but Scripture is also very clear concerning the substitutionary aspect of the atonement in several places. 2.) Prayers to Saints/Icons-this still smacks too much of idolatry, especially some of their prayers to Mary, which almost deify her. I remember Pastor Will Weedon of the LC-MS reading off one of the Marian prayers, and you very easily could have substituted "God" for the references to Mary in that prayer without skipping a beat. That's very troubling, to say the least. And the impression given with icons is that they almost have a magic quality to them (yes, I realize that EOs may disagree with that description, but that's how it comes across at times). 3.) Toll houses. They sound too much like a substitute for purgatory, and the mere idea of them clashes with Scripture in more than one way. 4.) Overemphasis on mystery. I believe there are mysteries, but the EO seems to categorize as mystery items where Scripture is clear 5.) Equating tradition with Scripture (like Rome)

Your book on Union with Christ is an excellent treatment on theosis. Loved the book!

Heretical prayer: O Mother of Perpetual Help, thou art the dispenser of all the gifts which God grants to us miserable sinners; and for this end He has made thee so powerful, so rich, and so bountiful, in order that thou mayest help us in our misery. Thou art the advocate of the most wretched and abandoned sinners who have recourse to thee: come to my aid, for I recommend myself to thee. In thy hands I place my eternal salvation, and to thee I entrust my soul. Count me among thy most devoted servants; take me under thy protection, and it is enough for me. For, if thou protect me, I fear nothing; not from my sins, because thou wilt obtain for me the pardon of them; nor from the devils, because thou art more powerful than all hell together; nor even from Jesus, my judge, because by one prayer from thee He will be appeased. But one thing I fear: that in the hour of temptation I may through negligence fail to have recourse to thee and thus perish miserably. Obtain for me, therefore, the pardon of my sins, love for Jesus, final perseverance, and the grace ever to have recourse to thee, O Mother of Perpetual Help. This is a legit Catholic prayer, look up "O Mother of Perpetual Help" if you want to know if it’s legit. This is super heretical. This doctrine of invoking departed saints doesn’t seem just like "hey it’s like praying to a friend.". : ) :)

I've seen MANY people be Orthodox for 3, 5, or even 7+ years, and then leave it. But oh no, they have no right to criticize, because they're Apostates...

The characterization of the Church by the Apostle Paul as The characterization of the Church by the Apostle Paul as the "Body of Christ" and Christ as Her "Head" (Coloss.1, 24:18) brought the Church into a direct association with Christ. Being joined to the eternal Logos of God, the Church is likewise eternal and pre-existent before the ages, within Christ. Her beginning, therefore, and Her origin are not located in mankind, but in God. The Church "is not of this world" (John 18:36); it is a mystery "withheld from the ages, in God" (Ephes. 3:9). ICXC NIKA Dr Paisios

Thank you for these excellent videos and discussions. My TBR keeps getting bigger. 😂

I confess that I don’t watch the Christology videos (I don’t really need to), but I am glad that you are doing them.

I’m orthodox and I also like your videos

Thank you, Dr. Cooper. What are your thoughts (if any) on the Assyrian Church of the East? I'd be interested to hear what you'd have to say about that church body.

Hello, Orthodox Chrisitan here. I already knew that they were more bridges accross your theology and the russian orthodox one than some orthodox youtubers might say. Your video is really interesting. However, regarding Athanasius, in 35:46, you say that "there has to be a payment" I think you are unintentionally forcing your vision on the text, the word "debt" doesn't seem present in the text. In the waiting of more resources from you.

❤❤Glad for discussing,,there is also the Oriental churches that maybe you could discuss.

Can you make some videos on the writings of the Proto-Protestants and the similarities/differences with the modern magisterial Protestant traditions? I love your historical and theological work and would love to see how you analyze some of these theologians in light of 500 years of the Reformation. E.g. Savonarola, Wycliffe, Hus, Waldo

What I think you would find interesting in a discussion on lutherism vs orthadoxcy is their stance on sola scriptural.. I would love to see how you answer their polemics

Solid and accurate explanation. This is why I'm Lutheran among many other reasons.

not sure if you've read it, but Stephen Holmes' "Quest for the Trinity" does a pretty good job of refuting that "east and west have different trinitarian theologies" idea, and critiques Zizioulas specifically. Its worth a read!

Hello, I am new here. I wanted to ask if there is a possibility of making a video on Kierkegaard's theology

I am a Protestant convert to Orthodox Christianity. However, I have a long-term respect for Lutheranism and have read writings and have attended a Lutheran church recently. Reconsidering my earlier conversion. But I have a question. What do you feel about the statement "In some way, Lutheranism may be closer to Orthodoxy or Catholicism than certain Protestant groups such as Independent Baptist or Reformed Baptist or Pentecostal. But Lutheranism is really its own entity?" Thanks, in advance.

Thank you, Dr. Cooper, for your fine discussion. I find it interesting that the recent Orthodox convert cites as the main text to justify their transition one from a book of the NT (2 Peter) that did not have the undivided approval of the Ancient Church as to its apostolic authorship. See Eusebius and Jerome. At the same time, there is crickets on a major theme--forensic justification--in a major NT epistle (Romans) that is recognized as apostolic by all. (Also, the divine wrath is certainly a major theme in both OT and NT.) Of course, nothing wrong with what's taught in Second Peter about participating in the divine nature--if understood correctly, i.e. the partaking happens by faith in the gospel, not by silent meditational techniques (e.g.). In fact, it is a beautiful verse. Certainly, not just Walther but also Luther had highly positive things to say based on this verse. But again, if that's the primary reference for one's theology, something seems off--especially if, as Dr. Cooper's nice discussion of Athanasius showed, the testimony of the Ancient Church was so much richer. What I find interesting is that there is, at least since the 19th century, a movement afoot in Protestantism to discount the "Anselmian" view of the atonement. The angry God who is out to restore his honor by slaying his Son--many seem embarrased or even disgusted by it these days. Liberal theology builds on that, arguing that God didn't need Christ's death and claiming that Jesus was just a victim of Roman injustice, not of God's justice. It seems that some kind of belief in a non-bloody way to salvation by means of the incarnation and participation would be attractive given the current climate in the West.

I really appreciate the point about the false dichotomy between forensic justification and participation. It just does not hold if you read the New Testament carefully.

Time-stamp 12:40 - western view of perfection in the Garden

Maybe some Lutherans convert to Orthodoxy bc they came from an anemic expression of Lutheranism, but my experience from talking to former Lutheran pastors and laity is that vastly more of them had a long and thorough study of the Lutheran confessions that leads them out of Bronze Age or cowo Lutheranism to a confessional congregation before the depth of their study leads them to Orthodoxy over time. So most of the Lutheran converts I know have done quite a bit of homework and make a fairly informed decision about why they’re leaving Lutheranism totally rather than shopping among the various Lutheran groups in the US.

Whould You make a series on the Patriarch of Constantinople response on the letter sent by lutherans theologians in XVI century? After Luther's death.

Please speak on the 9th Plenary of the Lutheran-Orthodox joint commission (1998) Salvation: Grace, Justification and Synergy.

Luther quotes I love.

Thank you SIR. I have watched you for four hours today and I just have two questions: do you speak greek and hebrew? not read, but speak. thanks

Yeeey😍 Former orthodox member here I was waiting for your objections.😊

My understanding is that in the EO church, veneration of icons is commanded and that those who do not venerate are declared anathema and must be excommunicated. Requiring icon veneration for salvation? Is this not a "different gospel" as warned by Paul in his letter to the Galatians? How did Peter and Paul and others preach the gospel throughout the book of Acts, resulting in salvation for thousands with no mention of icon veneration?

I would really like to know how the Hindu mudras (hand signs ended up in Iconography) haven't heard an answer yet. If anyone knows. I would appreciate it

The biggest conflict is whether or not Death is a consequence or a punishment for sin.

It's funny, the bible is not meant to be studied as a work of literature, it is not meant to be studied as a scientific paper or anything like that

Dr. Cooper, could you speak at all to Oriental Orthodoxy? Have you looked into their theology at all and could you make a response to it?

Now i kind feel bad for some content demands that i made. But still, bring more Gerhard.

Would it be fair to say Roman Catholics combine justification and sanctification, the Eastern Orthodox combine justification and glorification, and historical Protestants make harsher distinctions among these terms?

50:16 No, it doesn't. Orthodox born and raised, in the Romanian Orthodox Bible, Paul's justification term is translated as "made righteous", "corrected". So in Romanian, being a Romance language, we have the word "justificat", which can mean acquitted, declared not guilty; but they don't translate it that way.

One of the reasons i´m lutheran instead of reformed is because of the focus on vicarous atonement and not on PSA, but what i don,t get yet is how to declare PSA and vicarous at the same time, to me it is satisfaction or wrath, because if Christ satisfied the law then there is no need of that wrath since we are saved from the coming wrath. If I were to believe in PSA strongly i would probably become calvinst with limited atonement or a universalist. But this is a subject that i want to study more. I agree with you that participatory and forensic walk together, and i can´t see how can there be a dichotomy

I laughed at seeing the background -- that's obviously a Lutheran church office; it has more space for books than for people!

I thought I was getting this version, but it turns out the more modern version done by the Orthodox also includes the introduction by CS Lewis. I think it is saying the same thing, but the language is not nearly as clear. It makes use of such language as "the more so as it has assumed the threat of the Diety against them through the transgression of the commandment", "liability of all human beings to death" and "condescending to our corruption"

Here’s a passing thought; I have not considered this at any length so forgive me if it’s ignorant or stupid. If deification/theosis was the only aspect of salvation, wouldn’t that have been accomplished by the incarnation without the need for a death of suffering and separation from the Father?

Free grace!

Jesus is risen!

Just on the culture point, what about the Orthodox western rite?

Christ Jesus is risen..

Not a heavy polemical debate kind of thing? That will never sell on RU-vid and Twitter. :)

Just to be clear I have ecclesiastical anxiety being that there are things I agree with the Orthodox on and things I agree with the Protestants on. With that said one of the problems with the Western atonement is that it makes God “need” something. God being God is not in “need” of anything so He does not need his “wrath” or “honor” appeased. He lacks nothing. The crucifixion paid our debt (death) but it was out of His love and not His “need.” At least that is how I understood Orthodoxy theology. I could be wrong about it so I apologize to any Orthodox person if I got that wrong. How would Protestants respond to that charge? If there is a book or website that would be great. I’m open to learning.

Thanks for the video, doctor, I do enjoy your content. Although we broke his law, we Orthodox just dont see the "penalty", we see the consequence of death for us, in that sin. We dont see the debt owed aspect of substitutionary atonement. The punishment of death is the result of sin, not something we are paying to God. Its just a bit of a different phronima.

Agreed. EO is weak on justification. Would you agree that Paul doesn't make as clear a distinction between justification and sanctification that most Protestants do?

I've known Lutherans that say they feel more comfortable worshiping with EO or RC members than people like me (confessional 1689 Baptist). I find that strange and don't understand it...but I guess it has to do with their personal and/or denominational preference to particular views of the sacraments above other doctrines, possibly?

Well, I read Lyndal Roper`s brilliant biography on M. Luther where the man comes out as strongly immature character, both spiritually and psychologically - completely unsuitable as a religious teacher. He could have taught math or architecture without causing traumas BUT NOT ANYTHING to do with the emancipation of the soul. Naturally, his immaturity can be found in his teaching.