A Conversation Between Jordan B Cooper and Jonathan Pageau
Вставка
- Опубліковано 5 жов 2024
- 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.
Evangelical catholic? That's an oxymoron
It's like saying bald haircut
@@st.mephisto8564 It is not, there are plenty of evangelical Catholics
@@st.mephisto8564 Oh dang, I guess I don't exist
@@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.
The crossover, we didn't expect, but the one we needed the most. Looking forward to watching this Dr. Cooper!
Lol😂😂
As a Lutheran who really appreciates Pageau, I’ve been waiting for this conversation!
Me too! I can’t believe I missed it when it came 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.
As a Lutheran who is attending orthodox services due to… geographical issues this is a talk I always wanted but never thought would happen! 😂
Hey, it’s my sensei! 😃
@@CScott-wh5yk wow! Now THIS is the crossover I never expected to see! Haha
They have Orthodox services in Japan? I lived there 10 years and this is blowing my mind
@@ThatsMyChad It’s always fun to run across a UA-camr in a random comment section. I think this shows we both have great taste 🤣
@@chrisc7265 You should google St Nicolas of Japan…
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.
Hey, you guys are two of my favorite Christian UA-cam 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
I really admire the way Dr. Cooper interacts with people he disagrees with. He really demonstrates how to be both smart and kind.
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. ✝️
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.
Love your vids
I KNEW YOU WERE IN THE COMMENTS.
Converted to E. Orthodoxy in 2001 from Judaism, never looked back. Excellent interview
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,
This was a beautiful, good, and true conversation. I really enjoyed it.
A surprise to be sure, but a welcome one.
Getting into the sense-making community, you need to reach out to Paul Vanderklay next lol
Second that. "Paul VK" eas the first thing that came to my mind once I saw this video
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.
Curious how it's going?
Man what Jonathan said about forgiveness starting at 1:10min rearranged my brain and it was awesome!
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.
Paul Vanderklay watched this convo (not made a video of it - yet ^^), said was VERY impressed with this convo & I agree ❤️
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.
A very excellent interview. Pageau brings such a unique perspective to the table, would love to see another collaboration with him at some point.
I love the insights from Jonathan Pageau. He is a simple & deep thinker.
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.
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.
Yes! Been rooting for this for a long time now.
20 mins in...this might become a favorite of your vids. Great discussion.
Can't wait to listen to this. Great to have wonderful Christian thinkers having a conversation.
WOOHOOO IT FINALLY HAPPENED IVE BEEN ASKING FOR THIS FOR MONTHS
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 UA-cam, but I’m not sure who that should be.
Fr Stephen de young would be interesting
@@sergio63114 I second that
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.
WOAH! Did not see this coming. Well done, Dr. Cooper!
You could record a video on Pageau's take on Luther at the beginning. I would be interested in this discussion.
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.
Innovations come from innovators. The church calls these heresies and…
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?
_"we recognise that they lived a life worthy of imitation, pointing us to Christ"_ Nice way of putting it. I need to remember that.
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.
@@andrewternet8370 very well put answer, but it's hard for my western protestant mind to really understand it.
@@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.
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!
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.
Thank you for this very edifying conversation!
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!
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.
And what is justification without transformation? A club ?
@@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.
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.
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”
Wow! Got here from PVK, but this is Great !
Pageau and Peterson had done it again! 😅
Thank you gentelmen, and God bless.
Oh my it's happening, just stay calm!
Thank you for doing this Dr. Cooper, I've been feeling very drawn to Orthodoxy over the past year almost entirely because of Pageau
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.
Good book. I am Lutheran, but I would easily go to Orthodoxy if there were no orthodox Lutheran churches around.
I need to get my hands on that book, preferably in audio formate.
This is some high.quality discourse. I enjoyed it greatly.
The conversation I have wanted for years 🙏💫
Wonderful conversation. Big fan of both of you. Do it again!
Yyeessss!!!!! 2 of my favorite channels, highlight of my week right here.
This is the most significant conversation on your channel. Wow. Maybe give it another go?
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?
I'd love to but I'd imagine that such a thing would be difficult to do. He's pretty darn busy and I'm sure he gets these kinds of requests constantly.
@@DrJordanBCooper Always worth a shot! I’m not sure if you’ve reached out or not but it would be a very worthwhile conversation I’m sure.
Do another one please we want to hear a more focused discussion.
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
Καλή Ανάσταση. Δόξα τω Θεω. Welcome
@@BarbaPamino Thank you!
Pacha? You mean Easter?
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?
Awesome! Had no idea this happened. Gonna watch it now.
Lol... Love your work bro! Praying for your speedy recovery.
Thanks!
Great discussion.
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."
ua-cam.com/video/-0w1TtfTIlU/v-deo.html
@@Mygoalwogel Great Comment! Thanks so much for the reply!!
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.
More than a few people in recent years have noted the slow convergence of Confessional Lutheran thought and Orthodoxy.
I would love to see a update conversation between you two
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.
Great discussion and balanced view on Luther.
Thanks Jonathan and Jordan!
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.
What do you mean exactly?
I really enjoyed this conversation. Too often we talk past each other, I would like a reformed theologian to one day also participate in this discussion. Maybe the pastor from truth unites.
The fact there were so-called "Protestants before Protestantism" like Jan Hus shows how Luther was just reacting to preexisting problems in medieval Catholicism.
Well the fact is Luther never intended a schism, Luther was a Catholic monk and priest and wanted a purification
The Papacy kicked us out.
you agree on teleology.
quoting The Last Samurai:
"dis was a berry good conversation."
I dictate thus for phonetic authenticity,
Not in Jest.
I'm so looking forward to listening to this crossover episode 😃
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.
Have y’all read “you are what you love” by James k a smith, or any of his other works in his cultural liturgies series? It goes over what’s being discussed throughout this video about how we all have rituals and liturgies that we do, secular ones largely, and how they affect us and how we can bring in new rituals and liturgies for God through practice which turns to habit which turns to virtue. It’s a really great book and the series I haven’t finished but it all looks really good.
Great conversation!
'Jumala ompi linnamme
ja vahva turva aivan,
on miekkamme ja kilpemme
ajalla vaaran, vaivan.'
This finish?
@@tballs7619
Yep
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.
You should have a chat with either The Byzantine Scotist or Jeremiah Bannister "The Paleocrat".
God bless you two brothers 🖒📿
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.
Great video!
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
I hope you can talk again. I thought the conversation was really good!
Interesting. Even though it I can hear how you two have to adjust to each other's language, there is a good synergy in thought.
But I do think Jonathan got the church history wrong or looks at it in a peculiar way. The reason Luther appointed pastors is because he was excommunicated and tried to basically rebuild the church without bishops. And this might be what Jonathan is critiquing, but what else should he have done?
The talks with the church in the east were unfruitful, the Roman church uncooperative, so instead of continuing the apostolic succession through dogma and authority, he had to base it on dogma alone.
@@GermanFreakvb21 "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."
ua-cam.com/video/-0w1TtfTIlU/v-deo.html
@@Mygoalwogel So functionally we lutherans have apostolic succession through the presbyterate?
This would then only condemn those traditions of whom the laity elect and ordain ministers from themselves?
@@j.g.4942 I'm a lay person, but I'd say yes. The UA-cam video I pasted was what finally put my mind to rest about the succession question.
@@GermanFreakvb21 As Pageau mentioned Luther might have been a saint if he wouldn’t have become the very thing he fought against. He didn’t have to make new pastors and he didn’t have the authority to do so. This led to the massive fragmentation of the west. Every Lutheran or Protestant always makes the statement “well that wasn’t his intention” So what? His actions were heretical to Orthodoxy and his view on free will led to narcissism and an arbitrary view on salvation.
NICE I'll skip work to watch this
Pretty please can we have a part 2?
Super thankful for this interview! Dr. Cooper, even though I know you probably don't want to hear this, your explanation of the young restless and reformed movement was one of the first dominos in me converting from the Reformed faith back to my childhood faith (Catholicism). I am thankful to you for this, mainly because you put into words all of the concerns I had. I had become a traditional Reformed Presbyterian, and found myself full of hatred and selfishness, and I honestly believe that if I had stayed there I would have become much worse. My journey to Catholicism has opened my eyes to what happened to my soul, but I don't think Catholicism is entirely the reason. I just think that something in the reformed water I was drinking was poison to my particular soul.
:(
6:24 No. Even in Luther's time there were Patristic documents indicating that Apostolic Succession was originally Presbyterial, not exclusively Episcopal. Piepkorn expanded Luther's original defense with both earlier and later documentary evidence in the mid 20th Century.
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.
Substitutionary language is also in St. John of Kronstadt as well as the recently martyred Fr. Daniel Sysoev. It's also in St. Innocent of Alaska.
@@mistertrumpet5856 Interesting to know. It is in St. Athanasius and, of course, in the Holy Scripture.
@@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.
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.
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."
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?
Lmao for real tho
4:57 Pageau’s comments about Luther
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.
Thanks
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.
"In order for the world to be allowed to exist, forgiveness is essential"
Why didn't Christ simply forgive the moneychangers in the temple?
Correction doesn’t preclude forgiveness. Also, “essential” doesn’t mean, “only thing needed,” here.
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.
"I don't even know what that means" 😆
Is Pageau familiar with the reality of a court of law? Judges? Witnesses? Veridicts? How would the forensic element not be involved in the story of salvation and justification? Together with mercy is how we solve issues everyday. He also seems to equate justification and salvation, as synonyms, and I don't think it's helpful in that stage of the conversation. I know he doesn't like to talk about it all that much, but it'd be helpful to hear the other side without immediately discarding it as arbitrary. Specially since he wants to understand credit and debt on a deeper and symbolical level.
Barabbas!
I think your comment is a bit uncharitable. I think from the historical view of the Church, "justification" is fractal/multifaceted. But Justification as discussed in the time of Luther and the reformers, did begin to take on a more materialist and "arbitrary" tone, a tone that reflected the feudal, judicial system of their day back into the language of "debt" etc found in the scripture. It may have been a bit clumsy, but I think this is what Pageau was trying to be careful to push back against. "justification" for many protestant denominations begins and ends with our names being moved from one side of the ledger to the other; which is a very medieval sense of "justice/justification". And since when has justification NOT been simply one part of our salvation? I don't think he's trying to equate the two here, but simply trying to make it bigger in scope and is hesitant to accept the "merely" forensic/materialist interpretation of what Christ accomplishes and continues to do among his people.
@@faithfulandfoolish sorry if it sounded that way, not my intention. I get the multifaceted understanding of justification, and there is a lot to learn on that for protestants. But the way Jonathan put it, he totally denies the existence of a forensic view on justification. Which is something I saw other orthodox christians do, and usually is to reject the unavoidable consequences of that view, even if it is one of the views in the fractal understanding.
@@andreyconsalter "Which is something I saw other orthodox christians do, and usually is to reject the unavoidable consequences of that view,"
Forgive me Andrew, but there is so much presumed in just that statement, that this forum does not allow a proper unpacking/dialogue to clarify for either of us. I would just encourage you to look into the development of the "forensic" view of justification and the reality of it being a newer way to describe a part of salvation. "forensic" is a historically modern mindset and I believe Pageau is simply guarding against assumptions people bring to the table by asking him to commit to using or agreeing with that term. He's not being shifty here, but yes, trying to avoid assumptions foreign to the mind of the early church. you would have a hard time convincing any scholar that the Jews thought they were enacting "forensic" change on the day of atonement or the passover. It simply wasn't a category then or during the time of the early church; not in the way it's just assumed now. Dr. Cooper naturally asked the question given his presuppositions as a Lutheran scholar, and Pageau naturally dodged answering it to his satisfaction given his understanding. Once Dr. Cooper clarified what he specifically meant, Pageau assented to those particularities. But please stop feigning offense or crying foul when he didn't say a simple "yes" or "no" at first. This modern desire for a "yes" or "no" rationalist response to something the historical church felt more inclined to keep cosmic and broader in scope does NOT diminish what Christ did, does or continues to do in the ongoing work of salvation.
Reformed tradition has a distinction between Salvation and Justice, which comes from in part classical humanism and European legal theories.
Orthodox do not have that distinctions and that distinction is not essentially in the bible. It is a matter of hermetically interpretation.
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.
Keep doing discussions no more debates
7 minutes in, and it's already over practically. :D Jonathan's ecclesiological opposition to Luther is quite hard to debate.
And indeed, the response is a bit of silence, and then "Hm. Interesting...".
Not hard to debate at all. Watch Dr. Cooper's very next video. He very wisely chose not to go for the bait because that wasn't the topic that made him want to talk with Pageau in the first place.
Hi Jordan. Happy to have discovered your channel today!
I'm wondering if you have ever looked at the work of John Deely or Brian Kemple concerning a "revival" of Scholasticism by way of Peircean semiotics, or Semiotic Realism.
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.
Isn’t “metaphysical dept” Have something to do with the presence of absence?
Dr Cooper is an amazing dialogue partner. Pageau put forth a totally incorrect view on Luther, and Cooper just says, interesting take.
I didn't want the conversation to start with a debate about the validity of Lutheran orders. A video is coming addressing the question though.
@@DrJordanBCooper And absolutely the right decision on your part! Thanks so much for not letting the cheap jabs shut down the conversation.
The problem with the forensic declaration idea is if fails to see "salvation" as a process....not a moment in linear time
Not at all. It does both. But Christ coming to live in someone has a starting point.
That's where it would seem sanctification comes in. Regardless, we merit nothing of ourselvee.
@@dave1370 Theosis is cooler
Abe, yes. But in Lutheranism, I could not make yet sense about, baptismal regeneration, new creature and sacraments. Considering the "forensic declaration".
@@brentmccalmon7534 Regeneration, the “new creation” and remissions of sins is Gods work and Gods alone. Man can not regenerate himself, or wash his sins away. The pretext to James was “….and I will show you my faith by my works.” Thus, good works are the evidence of faith. Anyone truly saved or converted, with Christ living in them, should be full of good works. Hence, it will not be a dead faith.
“It is no longer I that live, but Christ lives in me.” Gal 2:20 If Christ truly lives in you, then who really gets the glory? I say, it’s Christ in me, that does all the work. His Spirit living in us persuades, and controls, and directs, and overcomes, and empowers. So Christ saves me, and is empowering me to do the good works too. After all, if I am dead and no longer live, then who is doing the work? All the glory goes to Jesus! If you want to believe that you are doing the good works, and not Christ in you, go ahead…..