Where Is the True Church? (Fr. Stephen De Young & Gavin Ortlund)

I genuinely don't understand why someone would believe that only the Eastern Orthodox Church is the one true church when the fruits of Christianity and everything I know Christianity to be is so beautifully abundant in other contexts as well.

If the Orthodox Church is right, if we are Christ Church on this earth and the body of Christ and you make videos dissuading people from joining Christ Church, you could see why from our perspective that would be a very bad thing to do.

This is another thing that's been lurking in the background of our discussion is at some point we got to be honest that we at least have a somewhat different definition of the gospel. Honestly, let's talk about that.

Let me ask one last question and don't take offense at this. No. Do you think it's possible to make an idol out of the church?

Um, hey everyone. Welcome or welcome back to Truth Unites. I am here with Father Steven D. Young and we are going to have a conversation about issues related to salvation and especially uh salvation outside of Eastern Orthodoxy and how that is viewed. Many of you will know we've been having some discussions about these things and I'll say more about kind of to set us up uh for this conversation in just a moment. But I'm grateful, Father Steven. Thanks thanks so much for taking the time. It means a lot to me.

Yeah, it's my pleasure to be here and hopefully this will be helpful.

Absolutely. Yeah, I we were just talking about, you know, in these uh conversations, the need for patience and the desire to have uh light, not just heat and these kinds of things. And so maybe I can just say a few words about that to set us up and then I'll let you weigh in too on anything you want to say of an introductory nature. And then right after this, I'll give kind of a table of contents of where we're going to go.

But just to explain, so I people may have watched me and Jonathan Pou have a dialogue that came out on both our channels a little bit ago. I'd actually emailed you prior to hearing back from Jonathan and uh so so I'm happy we can have both conversations. But um the reason I reached out to you is I feel like this is one of those moments where we want to be talking to one another. And I think you know the I people talk a lot about talking past one another. That's probably inevitable to some degree, but we can reduce that if we just get together and and have conversations. And so um I I I think you are a great person for me to interact with. Um I know for me my academic work and my pastoral work are both two pillars behind me that sort of inform how I approach conversations like this. And you are a priest in the Orthodox church. You are also an academic. So you have qualifications and credentials. And those are things that I look for in dialogues that I often will incline toward people like that that I feel like can really represent their tradition well. So it's an honor for me to talk with you.

And we've also had a discussion in the past that I think was good and and we were able to just work through things and like we're we're going to say for this dialogue too, we don't have to agree. We're going to disagree, but at least we want to have a disagreement that's productive and clarifying and viewers can see. And so the only other thing I'll say is just what I constantly try to beat this drum is that the I I I really regret the way the internet can escalate hostilities. And I would like to try to keep really positive relationships with Eastern Orthodox Christians. And so, um, that's partly why I'm grateful to be talking with you because I feel like we can have a a a good interaction where we're not shying away from the issues, but we're just kind of patiently plotting along, disentangling, working at things, and so forth. So, all that is set up to say thanks for being willing.

Yeah. I I just wanted to say uh to start out that um when I listened to the discussion you had with uh Pasio uh something finally sort of clicked for me because um you've done some videos in the past and you've you've talked in the past about uh the exclusivism of the Orthodox Church being sort of an obstacle to your wanting to join And that had intellectually not made sense to me in the past because I was approaching it from this intellectual level of well, wouldn't you want to find out if that was true first? Because if that's true, then it doesn't matter if it's mean or something like if if if it was true, then you you'd want to join because you'd want to find salvation, right? Um and but hearing you talk about it with PJO It finally kind of clicked with me in the Orthodox Church's understanding of the scriptures. There are two sort of greatest examples of love from human beings. And it's it's Moses and St. Paul. When each of them say they would be willing to be blotted out of the book of life, they would be willing to be condemned, right? Damned, go to hell, however we want to describe that. in order for the people who many of whom hated them and were persecuting them, right, would be able to find salvation. And so it occurred to me that you can approach that from a place of love. That the question of whether I need to join the Orthodox church to be saved is can be less important to a person than I would have to condemn this person I love and that person I love and these people who have meant so much to me in my life and I would rather risk it than do that. Right? And so to me that that spoke to me because I I have come into the Orthodox Church from another tradition. And I had one of my parishioners actually who watched your conversation with Pasjo completely separately from what I thought about it reached out to me on this same point cuz he clicked with it too having come from a different background.

Um, that um, you know, I was raised like in a Dutch reformed community. I went to school and church with the same kids, all these blonde hair, blue-eyed kids with names that started with Vander and stuff, right? And went through a reformed seminary and had mentor figures and men who taught me a lot and who I deeply admire there. Um and so I I felt that coming into the church of the friction of Am I going to be am I being compelled to say something about them, right? Am I being compelled to sort of anathematize them, right, by making my allegiance with the Orthodox Church? And uh somewhat famously now when people do interviews with me and stuff, they always want to ask about how I joined the Orthodox Church. And I don't talk about that. You will not find that on the internet because and the reasons I tell them I tell them two reasons I don't talk about it. Number one, I don't want to say anything bad about where I came from. I don't want to say anything negative about those people. And number two, as I look back at my life now, I think God was working the whole time to bring me to where I am today. I don't think God was not working at all in my life and then suddenly I walked into an Orthodox church and he started right. I I think I see God working in the whole scope right across my whole life when I was outside the church and now that I'm inside the church.

Um, so I I I wanted to say to you that um I have been called upon to uh renounce a lot of ideas and opinions and theological principles, but the Orthodox Church has never required me to renounce or denounce any of my people. And I wanted to say to especially the Orthodox folks in the audience who are watching these exchanges that that kind of understanding I gained from that video, I am convinced that uh while I think you're you're probably wrong about a bunch of things or don't understand some things or whatever that you're being honest when you say that this is what you think, this is what you believe, this is what you're that you're not misrepresenting your own views or opinions in the in these exchanges.

Thanks for that. Yeah, I appreciate that because it has been a little unusual to um receive this uh cascade of um uh accusations of of dishonesty and and then you know, boy, how many people call me a snake and this kind of thing and it's it's very I don't know. I sort of chuckle at a certain point just let go. I'm just like whatever. I can't control this. I don't know what this is. I don't know where it comes from. I don't even experience that from Catholics or atheists online and I engage with them a lot.

It's something I don't quite get and part of it might be Protestants and Orthodox Christians don't have a long track record. We haven't been doing this for very long. So, it's just a tough conversation. The general cultural Eastern versus Western differences are on the table. So, thank you for that. And, uh, yeah, I I think we should try to approach things from the standpoint of assuming good faith unless we have some clear evidence. I mean, you know, it's kind of kind of odd.

I do want to say, so, you know, I think the general table of contents for viewers, and they can skip around in the time stamps, is going to be what is the Eastern Orthodox view of the nonorthodox? Second, has that view changed over time? And then third, is that view correct? And when we come to that third point, I'll want to offer some clarifications to what you just described. um you were saying something along the lines of uh Gavin's view, you know, wouldn't you want to know whether this is true and this kind of thing and that's it. That that that is it. That is it from the beginning. And I've, you know, I've been pretty clear in my argumentation that it is inconsistency with the New Testament. That is my concern. It is not an emotional appeal. It's not that it's mean. It's that I don't know how to recognize that as Christianity from the fruits and and and we can come to that. So, I guess I'm just kind of putting a stop gap there so we can kind of return to that and and work through that.

That was my old understanding of part of what you were saying. That was I was trying to say I'm kind of past that.

Yeah. I got you. Okay. So, we're getting See, that's why we got to do these conversations cuz even though they're kind of clunky at times, we actually can make progress. And oh boy, there's plenty of times where I'm talking to someone and six hours later I'm like, "Oh, now I understand what they're trying to say." Cuz you know, it happens like we said. So that's why when whenever people are saying, "Oh, so and so are talking past each other." I think, "Well, there's no way to learn how not to talk past one another than to talk." So that's what we're doing. It's like we just we got to get into the conversation and ask lots of questions and work at things.

Um, yeah. So, anything else you want to say to setting us up before we dive in and kind of start working through some of the issues here?

No, I think we could just I think we could just go in.

That's so Yeah, I think so. Maybe. So, in case someone's not been following along, one of the things I've what we're basically getting into here is I've raised concerns about the exclusiv I'm going to call it institutional exclusivity of Eastern Orthodoxy and and one of the questions comes up is so hopefully in this video we'll get to some of these things come up is what about Calvinism? That's people are saying that's way more exclusivistic and so forth. We'll talk about that. Um, isn't Christianity exclusivistic? And we can talk about, you know, what why why I have this concern about EO institutional exclusivity specifically. We could talk through this, but just to explain a little bit what one of the things I said with Jonathan is I do hear different perspectives from Eastern Orthodox Christians today. And so one of the many things I hear that is really hard to make sense of when people say, "Well, we already told our view and he he doesn't accept it or something like that." It's like, I've heard so many different views. On the one hand, I've sat down with priests and been told, "You are a Christian without qualification." On the other hand, I've done debates with priests and apologists from the Eastern Orthodox community, and it's been pretty absolute. No, you're not. You're you're you're you're headed for hell. And then I've got what is most common is something in the middle of that where it'll be whether it's about CS Lewis or Tolken or me it'll be something along the lines of you know like even in my discussion with Jonathan it kind of came out you know Protestants are kind of like Buddhists in some way or another. Um you may be a Christian in the colloquial sense of the term and then today you hear a lot of language about Eastern Orthodoxy is the fullness of the church. It's where we know salvation happens, but we're not passing judgment elsewhere and so forth in this kind of language. And so when I hear these different perspectives, my approach has been, let's go back historically to look at these conversations and and figure out which of these multiple views is most historically authentic. And so that's where I think something like the Senate of Jerusalem, uh, specifically responding to Protestant beliefs is a fair place to look.

Um I go we go back on the filioquay. So the filioquay clause is one of our disagreements. And so I think it's fair to go back to the 9th century where uh you have pretty explicit classification of this as uh heresy. You know Fosius himself is calling it a blasphemy. You've obviously got the fourth council of Constantinople. There's this categorization of this particular doctrine as damnable heresy. And that's pretty consistent there from at least the 860s onward, I would say. I mean, it's it's pretty pretty bracing. All the rhetoric is applied to the Filioquay just as uh the previous heresies of the seven ecumenical councils as perceived were also addressed. So, it's like Filioquay is the new Aryanism and the new Sebellianism and this kind of rhetoric. So I'm looking back historically and I'm saying and then you find you know as I've I've gone through in my videos I won't repeat all this the statements about just the very absolute language about specifically Protestants and Catholics as cut off. Now one clarification cut off from salvation. One clarification is I I do understand and I've always said this in my book and in videos that doesn't mean omniscience about every individual. So I understand you're going to find lots of people who say well we're not making the final judgment. Maybe there are exceptions. But I think the basic idea here is and the con and the concern and it is a concern about what is true not just what is mean is the classification of cath of Christians outside of Eastern Orthodoxy such as Catholics and Protestants uh Roman Catholics let's say to be clear and the classification of these groups seems very clear historically I mean from the Felio disputes prior to the great schism up through the early modern era it seems like a pretty absolute. Uh they are cut off. They are off the ark of Noah. Even if you'd allow for some maybe exceptions in individual cases or even if you say we're not going to absolutely claim omniscience about individuals, the classification of these groups is clear. And I as I've said, I don't think the language could be stronger. I wouldn't know how to make it stronger. And so today then you hear a little bit more. My my perception is when I read like the contemporary Eastern Orthodox theologians, it seems like there's been a real softening and a real loosening and a real opening up more in an ecumenical direction. Though the older hardline view persists and so I'm seeing multiple things today and even in the reaction of Orthodox Christians to my dialogue with Jonathan, I hear these different responses. So I'm I'm looking at it and my my my position and my concern is there there is a softening there is a change and that we need to be we need to really face squarely the language that we find in history for the helioquay and for protestant doctrines and for these classes of people over here in the west. So that's a little bit of background of just kind of my essential position. Let me pause so I'm not talking too long and say do do you want to start here interacting with this? Um what do you want to say in terms of your position here?

Yeah. Well, there's Yeah, there's a there's a whole sort of web of things there, right, that are all interrelated. Um, I think on on a broad level, I think it's important that you use the word rhetoric because I think part of the issue in some cases, so you are very validly seeing in those centuries an escalation of rhetoric for sure. Right. For sure. No doubt. Right. Um and I would even add this is much less well known in the west but if you you look at the rhetoric surrounding the council of calcine and uh all the way up through St. Justinian the whole issue with the the uh schism of the what are now called the oriental orthodox churches you find similar kind of rhetoric there right back and forth. So you could even add that right to right if you wanted to. So agreed about the rhetoric. The question then is how much of a change in substance is there to the view accompanying that change in rhetoric. Right? So, is it substantially the same view, but due to historical circumstances, the rhetoric gets cranked up to 11, or is the rhetoric reflecting changes in views as the rhetoric changes? And to what degree? And there's a lot of room in the middle there between zero and 100, right?

Um, so it's important to disamiguate that. And I mean I I with my background I can even come up with some examples of reformed confessions, right? So I grew up with the three forms of unity. The Belgic confession says the pope is the antichrist. The highleberg catechism says that the papal mass is a damnable idolatry. Right? Um, but I also know enough from my background to know that, you know, Ersinus wrote a commentary on the H Highleberg Catechism that there are a bunch of important distinctions like the Pope being the antichrist is about the office, not the person. And right, so there are all of these distinctions, but those distinctions aren't put into writing in the doctrinal standard that get signed off on by officers, right? Um, they're understood. They're part of the context. but it's not spelled out. The Belgian confession doesn't spell out we're talking about the office of the pope, not the right person. Um, and so I think in the same way surrounding a lot of the orthodox doctrinal statements, there is this context in terms of how they they were being interpreted and applied and the context they came out of. The Belgic Confession emerges pretty directly out of violent persecution of Protestants by the Roman Catholic Church, right? And so you would expect the rhetoric toward Roman Catholicism to be turned up higher, right, than than normal, right? That's a normal thing. Um, and so some of these orthodox statements emerge from anti-missionary contexts, right, where there were people there actively trying to convert, right, to get people to leave the Orthodox church and join another church. Um, and those kind of context. So all those things kind of have to be taken into account. But I I think it's important to start with maybe I should just spell out what I understand substantially the view to be.

That sounds good. I have two thoughts in the back of my mind that I want to come to at some point, but I also don't want to interrupt your train of thought. So maybe do you want to finish off and then I'll and then I'll I'm just I'll write them down here so I don't forget.

Yeah. So substantially so the question of so it is very clear is the Orthodox teaching. The Orthodox Church is the church of Christ. It is the Christ the church that Christ founded on this earth. It is the body of Christ. uh the the borders of the church are co-terminus with of the orthodox church are co-terminus with the church right um that's very clearly the the orthodox teaching uh and and that is that is the the place where God is working salvation we understand this very much in parallel to the way Israel functioned in the old testament Israel had borders, right? It was a visible physical institution that they had received the scriptures, right? That's the all see all of St. Paul's in Romans talking about Romans 2 talking about the advantages that the Jewish people had received, right? Um that's the place where he was working. But all through the Old Testament, there's also this idea that through Israel, God is working salvation for the nations and for the whole creation, right? That Israel is the vehicle through which he is doing that. And so, and all kinds of examples of that, the 70 bowls for the 70 nations that get offered on the feast of tabernacles. And and so you see all along there are people who are not technically speaking Israelites. some of whom become Israelites, some of whom don't like non, but nonetheless are experiencing a form of what we would call salvation. And so, uh, for us, this the statement extra ecclesium nullis is kind of outside the church there is no salvation is kind of parallel to Christ's statement to the Samaritan woman who later tradition would call St. Fotini when he says salvation is of the Jews and I would say the genative there should be from right salvation is from from the Jews he's not excluding her as a Samaritan right but in the question regarding he's in he's in part answering the question should we worship in Jerusalem or on Mount Garism and he says well Jerusalem because salvation is from the Jews but a time is coming when this is going to change Right. But up until that point, yes, it was Jerusalem where she should have been worshiping, not Mount Garism. Right. Um, and that salvation is from the Jews, but then comes to the rest of the world. This is reflected in our liturgy that we offer, we offer the Eucharist for the life of the world and for its salvation. We pray for the whole world, including non-orthodox people, right? Um, and uh, I can keep going.

Well, this might be a good place to pause and

Yeah. Yeah. So, I in a second, let me come back to where my mind was going earlier.

Yeah.

Uh remind me if I forget about the Belgic confession and cuz I think there's some differences between Protestant exclusivity that you see in calling like the papacy the antichrist and Eastern Orthodox exclusivity. So, I want to come back to that, but just to clarify. So, I mean, what does that all cash out to? Give it to me straight. Am I a heretic? Am I a schismatic? Am I a Christian? Am I a separated brethren? Am I I mean, you know,

Right. Right. right right.

Where does the rubber meet the road here?

Okay. So, you you are from our perspective at least a schismatic,

right? Someone Okay.

Someone who agreed with the all of the Orthodox Church's doctrine but was not part of the Orthodox Church would be a schismatic.

Right.

Right. Um, now I I I don't know all of your beliefs on everything, but I know that at least some of them are not the beliefs of the Orthodox Church on those particular issues, which technically puts you in the category of heretic.

Okay?

Now, that is not worse than schismatic, by the way. People tend to think that schismatic is actually worse according to St. Augustine because he says heresy is a sin against reason whereas schism is a sin against love. So if it's a question for St. Augustine about well this person is wrong about this point of theology and so they won't join the church that's actually less of a sin than someone who fully agrees but refuses to submit to the church. And and let me clarify why I'm asking it to because I've had people say, "Why does Gavin want Eastern Orthodox approval so much?" And you know, it's like so many things people are projecting motives onto me. I ask about myself cuz I'm the one sitting here. We could make CS Lewis the the person to be asked about too. I'm just asking for clarity. I mean, in my own conscience, I actually don't have any doubt. I stand before Christ. I know I'm a Christian because I stand before Christ and because of the Holy Spirit's testimony in my life. But I'm asking from the Eastern Orthodox standpoint, how am I classified? Heretic, yes. Schismatic, yes. Am I a Christian from an Eastern Orthodox perspective?

Technically heretic, but not schismatic.

Right. If you came to agree with us, then you would be a schismatic.

So it's heretic because there are particular things that we have condemned as heresy that you believe.

Right. Right. Okay.

Like seventh ecumenical council. Yeah. Right. Things were the council of Jerusalem. Right. Um, so and and like I said, from our perspective, that's not as bad as being a schismatic.

From a from an Eastern Orthodox point of view, am I a Christian?

So there is not a standard Eastern Orthodox definition of the word Christian. So if by Christian you mean member of the church, then the answer is no. Right? uh if by Christian you mean uh and that that's what people are trying to get at when they say to you colloquially right because there's a way that word is used there's a very devalued way that word is used now in American culture which is anybody who identifies as a Christian is a Christian sort of you can't I don't think you would even agree with that right there would be people who you would want to say aren't Christians right

for from my standpoint what makes someone a Christian would be the doctrinal and spiritual reality ities not whether they themselves just say that

but and also not just are they in one particular institution but let's skip over the terms then and say from an Eastern Orthodox perspective are my sins forgiven

uh so a lot of these things are things that just we can't say with confidence

okay

right in that god is free

sure do you Do you think I mean would you say that from an Eastern Orthodox perspective am I do you currently regard me as a fellow uh you know indwelt by the same Holy Spirit as you um expecting to be together on the new earth one day Lord willing. Do you current do do the Eastern Orthodox currently relate to Protestants such as myself as sort of fellow Christians in the Holy Spirit indwelt sense?

I I could not affirm that with confidence.

Okay. Could not affirm it.

I could I would not exclude that possibility,

right? I could not exclude that. But but I could not say with confidence and and here's part here's part of why. Here's here's part of why for us this is a thing that comes ultimately out of love again right so if I look at you I say well he has these beliefs that are wrong right and he has these things that I believe our Lord Jesus Christ would have him do that he is not doing and I say anything to you to imply that no you're okay you don't have to worry about those things. You don't have to do those things. That to me would be both kind of a betrayal of what I believe to be true and ultimately not loving toward you if I think you really need to do those things.

Thousand%. And I appreciate you being candid and I and letting me ask you these questions. And again, it's not it's not to make it weirdly intense. It's just to get at clarity because again, you hear different things said about this today.

So, um, and the same I'm the same as you. If someone asks me if they're a Christian and I don't think they are, the loving thing to do is to say no. But but also you you you put it as you can't say with confidence I am. But but

that really leaves it open. I mean your answer there could be anywhere from 1% probability to 99% probability.

I mean I again my whole position has not been about certainty over individual souls but the classification of the group.

Right.

So let's not make it about Gavin Nortland so much. Are Protestants regarded as Christians in anything more than a colloquial sense by the Eastern Orthodox in your estimation?

Yeah. Not questant? No. Not just de facto by being part of a given Protestant group or holding to a given set of Protestant doctrines. No. So part of the the zero to 1% would be, you know, I'm just starting to get to know you, right? Like I may I may if I came to get to know you very well and I saw certain things in your life and I saw fruits and evidence of God working in your life that would raise my confidence level even though you're not in the Orthodox church. Right.

Interesting.

It would never get to a hundred with you not doing those things. But it it would raise it. And just like you can get to know someone and see how they live and that can lower your confidence level and be like, "No, these issues are very severe. I have good reason to doubt that. Right. Um but just qua Protestant just if you say to me hypothetical member of a Presbyterian church I I can express no degree of confidence in in just the hypothetical unknown person.

Right. Well the that's still about the individual the group. So just you know Protestants as a class of people are they

right? That's what I'm saying. So the what makes them Protestant, right, as pro as Protestants, what makes them Protestant is precisely believing things that I think are false,

right?

Well, not all false. I mean, Protestants have some things you believe in. They're theists,

right? Right. But but what makes them Protestants as opposed to something else, right? Like as opposed to Roman Catholics

is they believe and what makes someone a Roman Catholic is right. So it would be the same thing. And so it's similar to the expression I hear a lot of times for Protestants about Roman Catholics, right? Which is well, if they're finding salvation, it's in spite of the Roman Catholic Church, not because of it.

Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. I I get you that that that is clarifying. So I think I've got a a rough sense at least of of your perspective within the various Eastern Orthodox perspectives that I hear of where you you fall in that u spectrum of views. Maybe I could share. Now, I'll say two things about it. One is I appreciate the more responsive element to that to say like when you just said, "Oh, if you see more fruits in someone's life, that changes the judgment." That is very, in my opinion, a Protestant instinct is to say you're looking at the individual uh uh fruits and not just where they stand. But so, I appreciate that. I think the question that is still on the table for me is to what extent that really is historically authentic and how much you'd find anybody, you know, 500 years ago talking like that. So, this is maybe where I can come back to the point about the Belgic confession and rhetoric and maybe I could just point out two areas where I see a difference uh between Protestant exclusivity and Eastern Orthodox exclusivity to try to help you understand why I don't agree with that point of view. And then I want to hear you know how that strikes you and you can you can interact with it as much as you like. So one one basic point is of course Protestants one of our hallmark emphasis is we don't believe that postappostolic church functions are infallible. And so you know contemporary reformed Christians are not obligated to see the Belgic confession as an infallible uh statement that they must adhere to. Uh, in fact, even ministers will sometimes take exceptions to certain clauses. And for my part, as a broadly reformed Christian, I don't actually think the reformers were right in calling the papacy the antichrist. I understand why there was such an intensity and the bloodshed of that time z, you know, I don't I get it, but I don't think that's the right exeetical judgment about the term antichrist in the New Testament and so forth. And so I think that is a point of difference because I want to come back to this too and see but I I actually think the Senate of Jerusalem is going to be more binding for the Orthodox than the Belgic confession is going to be for the Protestant. And I see that as a difference but that's a small point. The main point is this. I when the Protestants call the papacy the antichrist, as you said, they're talking about an institution and they are what they are not saying there is that all the Catholics are non-Christians and they're not saved and they're off the ark of Noah. And we know that because we have such clear counterveiling evidence of that. Calvin and Luther speaking very clearly of true churches and true Christians under Rome among the Oriental Orthodox and in the among the Eastern Orthodox. the 1570s first dialogue between the Lutheran and the Orthodox. The Lutherans are very I have a whole video on that showing the Lutheran are very clear in their recognition of a genuine Christian ecclesial status to Jeremiah II and the church he presided over. Um and then Richard Hooker and so many others going forward. You this has always been there that Protestants have recognized the church is not in just here. Uh there are valid Christians and valid churches over there. But the the statement the papacies the antichrist is a judgment about the hierarchy and the leadership. And it's not a statement that they're all not Christians. By contrast, the Senate of Jerusalem says, "Apart from the bishop, and the bishop is the canonical Eastern Orthodox bishop, neither church nor Christian can be or be spoken of." And so, I would say we have two different kinds of exclusivity here. The Protestant exclusivity is there. I mean, it's there's boundaries. And I we're not universalists. We're not relativists. We think there's definite boundaries around the church, but we don't prescribe them around one institution. And we see genuine Christians outside of Protestantism. And we always have. We always have from Luther and Meenthan forward always. And I've I've documented that. And and so the papacy as an antichrist or even the mass as idolatry don't really take away from that because those can be true while you still got Christians within that institution. By contrast, the Eastern Orthodox are saying the Protestants are, you know, they're pretty clear. You can't speak of or have a Christian or a church apart from the bishop. And so, do you see what I'm saying here that it it it looks like these are different kinds of exclusivity.

And I was I wasn't so much trying to parallel the the exclusivity claim as just to say here are very strong rhetorical claims.

Okay?

Right? that someone someone who knew nothing about the history of the reformed faith could come to you and point at that catechism and say it says here a damnable idolatry you're saying every Catholic who goes to mass goes to hell right and and you would then say as you just did well there's all this other context you're not taking into account right of when this rhetoric was used and the other the way other people spoke concerning these things right and that condition that Right. And that's not what we're saying. Even though

the rhetoric is strong and by itself out of context, you could take it that way. Right.

Yeah. Yeah. Okay.

Yeah. But that then leaves it to me to demonstrate that there is this other stuff surrounding the orthodox statements.

And and

that would be parallel, right? Yeah.

Because I'm and I'm, you know, I watched Luther Manard's video, great video that he got from another Orthodox Christian named Newman, I think. I really But two great people. I've been interacting privately with both of them going back over his data points and I kind of worked through and I wrote a whole response to Newman kind of explaining all these different things it it um you know how my my response to them but I think yeah that that is the issue there is is there that broader contextual data do you find people saying well yeah the filio is damnable heresy but um there's lots of Christians over there those people who affirm the filioquay a lot of them are still saved

or is that lacking and then also So I would say we need to look at the specific kind of rhetoric because outside the bishop neither church nor Christian can be or be spoken of is a particular sentence. It's it's particular rhetoric and there's nothing comparable to that sentence in any Protestant confession that I know of. Um so you know we got to work get into the details there. So I don't know if you want to comment on any any of that and then we can keep rolling here.

Yeah. Well, yeah. So, um the uh in terms of some of that context, right, you're not going to find like, oh yeah, they're all great. They're all fine, right? Um but I would point at things. For example, there's there's a really interesting book published years ago now because I'm getting old. Um that was uh called Early Orthodox Interactions with Aquinas because famously after a certain point really after St. Augustine, there wasn't a lot of Greek literacy in the west. But for at least as long as the Byzantine Empire existed, right, the eastern half of the empire, uh, most of the educated churchmen in in in the east still knew Latin, right, because they're interacting with Western Europe all the time, right? Um, and so it's a collection of people commenting on Thomas Aquinas's works in theology at the time. And you know, in the period we're talking about, you don't get a more paradigmatic representative of Roman Catholic theology than Thomas Aquinas. And what you don't find in those early reactions, uh, which certain 20th century Orthodox theologians would be very mad about, you don't find a condemnation of scholasticism as a method. Uh, you definitely do not find any condemnation of Thomas Aquinas as a person. what you find and and at one point a patriarch of Constantinople literally says if only he had been born here in the east so he wasn't burdened with things like the Felioquay and right these things they were treated as oh well he it's sort of not his fault right that he believed those things because of where he lived and where he was raised right and his thinking was so good otherwise right like um and so there's this appreciation there Right. Um I can and and right up to uh St. uh now saint he's recently canonized saint in the Orthodox church uh uh Dumatru who was a uh Romanian uh theologian and professor who spent a lot of his life in prison imprisoned by the communists >> um and uh is now a saint and his he wrote a what is in Romanian a three volume orthodox dogmatics that's been translated into six paperback volumes in English called the experience of God, Orthodox Christian dogmatic theology. He actually borrows John Calvin's treatment of Christ as prophet, priest, and king. So he literally draws on now he repurposes them, right? He's using them in an orthodox way. He's not doing an ecu ecumenical thing, but using that paradigm, right, reflects sort of an appreciation there. uh and and there's lots of other you know sort of individual examples right when we're dealing with individual people from the other tradition. I I I think the tension you're seeing and people talking to you now where you're seeing one kind of rhetoric toward institutions and another kind of rhetoric toward individual people a lot of the time I think that goes back a long way in orthodoxy. That there's sort of no mercy and kind of ruthlessness when it comes to talking about an institution that's foreign to the church or a doctrinal system or a theological point of view. But when it comes to an individual person and and the church's assessment of them, I think a lot more is taken into account.

Could you So, I hear you. Um I guess I'm a little underwhelmed by these examples though, cuz it sounds like, you know, okay, some people are speaking appreciatively of Thomas in certain respects, but I'm not really hearing any clear statement of Thomas is a Christian or Thomas is saved or anything like this. It sounds like more like, okay, you know, we wish he'd been born over here. The use of Calvin's construct. Okay. I mean, that that doesn't to me that's doesn't move the needle very much. I mean, they're not even saying Calvin is a Christian, as an individual. They're just using this theological construct he used. I mean, I don't know. I I guess um I I have found one or two examples where you can find medieval Orthodox praying for like a pagan and this kind of thing. So I'm again that's consistent with my thesis for there to be some exceptions but it still looks to me like the general classification of all this western Christianity where you've got the filioquay both Catholic and Protestant is basically just across the board kind of they're off the ark and then when it comes to individuals that then sets up the norm from which there could be exceptions though when the I did a whole video on Theophon and I know Theophon you know he's closer to the modern times and he'll have some statements like I'm saying where he'll say you know uh we can't make a final judgment. We leave judgment to God. But still, when the Anglican missionary visits, that's an individual that occasions his his comments. And that individual Anglican missionary is spoken of, even though he's an individual, you know, like he he's he's very clearly preaching another gospel. He's not of us. He's, you know, and and it's the Galatians one type language for him. So I guess I'm I I await further >> data that shows show me the Filioquay holders are Christians, you know.

Well, yeah. And so that Well, so that's that's there there's a couple of things there to to pull apart,

right?

Um but one one of those is clarifying. I mean, if you're looking for they are a Christian in some sense parallel to the way an Orthodox Christian is a Christian, you're you're not going to find that. Okay. Okay.

Um what you're g what what you will find is I was saying the kind of appreciation and I mean you could even find church fathers who talk about even having this appreciation for Plato Aristotle and this idea that somehow salvation extended to them them in the sense of like Christ hering of Hades when they encountered Christ in Hades they accepted him or that kind of thing right um extended toward them and I think that continues toward people who we would colloially say are Christians. Christians as opposed to Muslims or atheists or right what um who are outside the Orthodox church, you will find that kind of language, right, extended toward them, which includes the possibility of um esqueatological salvation, but it's always a possibility. It's never going to be a oh this person for sure, right?

Um that that that would seem consistent with my case then because you know what I'm saying is it sounds like the non Eastern Orthodox Christians are basically in the same camp as the Buddhists and the Muslims in that God could make an exception. We're not pronouncing a final judgment, but they are outside of the ark of Noah and they are cut off from salvation. And uh the the scales of rhetoric may go up and down a little. I mean, you spoke more gently o of today, of me, of kind of well, you know, but but it's pretty bracing back then. It's I I don't find any any real reduction of that rhetoric for so I guess the the the it seems like to me and and and correct me if you think this is wrong. It seems like to me the Eastern Orthodox basically sets the bars around the Eastern Orthodox Church, but then says, "Well, yeah, maybe there could be some exceptions." How many exceptions does feel like it's changed over time to me, but that but what I'm as a Protestant setting it around is what I want to do is set it around Christ and the gospel and say that's where

The boundaries are. And so therefore, I would never put an Eastern Orthodox Christian in the same category as a Buddhist. Uh, because Christ is what makes the difference, not the institution. Am I is that unfair?

>> Well, there's there's three things I want to pull apart there. I'll try not to filibuster, and I can take a break between the three if you want to interact more.

Um, so one of them is in terms of that latter rhetoric, especially regarding Protestants, right? Like the Anglican missionary and that kind of thing. Um, there is a lot of fierce rhetoric, uh, from the Orthodox Church and Orthodox Christians and Orthodox saints, um, directed in a counter-missionary way. Um, when someone comes into an Orthodox country and tries to set up a parallel church, um, even if they identify as Christian but they're teaching different doctrine, and they're getting people who were baptized Orthodox as children to go and join the other church instead, which from our perspective is them leaving the Orthodox church, then there is very fierce rhetoric against that because we believe that this is the place where salvation takes place, right? And so from our perspective, if you are in the Orthodox Church and you leave, you are rejecting, you are turning your back on at least some of, if not all of the, the means of salvation. You're disobeying certain commands of Christ from our perspective. Um, and so the rhetoric against that is very fierce. And against someone who's trying to do that, right? I mean, so I've got to be honest with you, and this is, you know, I'm not trying to be mean. Maybe I'm just being Dutch. I don't know. But, um, my my concern with you in particular would be that like I said, I have no idea what Christ is going to say to you on the day of judgment. It may go much better for you than for me, right? In fact, it probably will. But if the Orthodox Church is right, if we are Christ's Church on this earth and the body of Christ, and you make videos dissuading people from joining Christ's Church, you could see why from our perspective that would be a very bad thing to do.

>> Oh, yeah. Yeah. I mean, that's why our, yeah, just to jump in on that. I mean, that's why we have to have these conversations to chip away at, is the Eastern Orthodox Church the one true church, which is our third topic here, is to to wrestle with that. And, um, of course, the Catholics say the same thing to me, the Oriental Orthodox say the same thing. There's all these churches that claim to be the church. Um, but I, I guess, I mean, maybe maybe that's a good topic to focus on because I think where I'm basically coming from is we have two different paradigms here, and and my position is that Christ and his gospel is that exclusivistic boundary marker. I'll have people sometimes in the comments or in reactions kind of saying, you know, but but Protestants can be so exclusive too, right? Like I grew up at this one Protestant church and they were so mean to the Orthodox and this kind of thing. And the difference is that I want to say we should measure each tradition by its official theology, not necessarily by just anecdotally what we perceived there. Um, because I could go to an Orthodox country and just talk to some random Orthodox Christians and come up with a terribly erroneous understanding of Orthodox theology if it was just what someone was poorly catechized and they shared something, or, you know, individual parishes can sometimes go off the rails and so forth. So when we look at historic Protestant theology, the one of the things I value and why I'm just persuaded it's true is that it's focused on Christ and the gospel, not one particular institutional set of boundaries. And the reason that's compelling to me is because of the fruits of Christianity. It was really interesting and encouraging to me and heartening to me earlier when you were saying, you know, your confidence goes up when you see more fruits in someone's life. That tells me we've got some overlap here. We've got some common ground in terms of valuing that. Um, my argument is, uh, that maybe I could lay out my thought on this real quick, and then and then I'll let you respond to it. You know, Eastern Orthodoxy currently comprises about 12% of global Christendom. So about 88% of Christianity is outside of the Eastern Orthodox Church. And my basic argument is not an appeal to emotion or or nostalgia or anything like that. It's just an appeal to the fruits. I just would, it's not even an option for me. I, I, you know, I just as soon have to cease believing in Christ altogether as to deny the the fruits of this 88% which, uh, the doctrinal fruits, the spiritual fruits. Uh, this is so much of Christianity that, uh, manifests Christ himself. Um, and so in my case for this, I appeal to New Testament passages about how we are to measure the tree by the fruits. And so where I see in this 88% of Christendom, the evident fruits of the kingdom of God, glory unto the Trinity, the demons cast out, miracles, you know, everything you'd expect the kingdom of God to look like. I, I appreciate what you're saying about kind of like how's it going to go for Gavin on the day of judgment if he's wrong, but I don't think I am wrong. I mean, I, I, I, I can't even imagine turning my mind to say, "Oh, we're just going to go down to this one institution as the only true church." It would be like, I grew up in the '90s, so think of the Chicago Bulls. It'd be like if the Chicago Bulls came out to play one night, and they just put out Ron Harper and Tony Kukoč onto the court, and everybody else is not on the bench, and somebody says, "Wait a second, you got to play with five people on the court. You need a bench. Why are you only putting two players on the court? What about Michael Jordan? What about Scotty Pippen?" And somebody says, "Well, they're not they're not valid basketball players." And it would be the same thing of what, you know, why are we only accepting these two players? And so, it's the same feeling for me. I, I genuinely don't understand why someone would believe that only the Eastern Orthodox Church is the one true church when the fruits of Christianity and everything I know Christianity to be is so beautifully abundant in other contexts as well. So, that's where I'm coming from. Let me see what you think about that.

>> Yeah. And that, that's a, that's a little bit what what I was trying to address in my introductory comments, right? That clicked with me when you were you were talking to PJO that you're looking at with love at this other context that it's not about right, um, and as I said, I've never been called upon to denounce, right, to say that anyone who was a mentor to me was is like lost because they were a Presbyterian, right? Like, um, but so part of this, I think, is, uh, and I'm going to dovetail this into into something else that I keep keep slipping past me, but, uh, we need to get to. Um, so if if we take the parallel again with Israel in the Old Testament, um, Israel of course, very small, right, compared to the rest of the world, right, a very small percentage of humanity were Israelites. Um, and when we say that the the borders of God's people, for example, were synonymous with the borders of Israel, um, in the Old Testament, right, we're we're not saying everyone outside is completely lost, but we're also not saying everybody inside is in.

>> Right. Like that's important, too. Right. Right.

>> Um, and and that's in response to your thing about the gospel being the limit, right? Well, yeah. Right. So, there's, there's two different, right? Um,

>> qualifiers there. So, um, and I've thrown out as an open challenge in Orthodox circles for a long time. I've said, I've said, "Show me somewhere where any of the church fathers say everyone who's a Christian goes to heaven and everyone who's not goes to hell," and you can't find any. Right? They're very more often they're they're threatening people who are Christians where they're listening to them preach with, "Hey, if you don't commit yourself to following Christ, you're in danger of hell." Right? They're not talking about the people, you know, outside, right? Um, so, but, so another piece of this, and I, and this is the piece I kept, something I wanted to come back to, um, and that's, uh, that I, I, I think PJO meant the example of St. Gregory, the bishop of Rome, praying for the the pagan emperor, um, differently than how you took it. Okay.

>> I think you took it as an, and and based on what you just said, I think you took it as an example of an exception, right? And I think what he was trying to communicate is something very important about how the Orthodox Church views the prayers of the church, um, in that if someone finds salvation through the prayers of the church, even though they are outside the church, they are being saved through the church. So that's part of, in our understanding, all salvation coming through the Orthodox church. So if I, in the liturgy, I pray for you, right? Even though you're not Orthodox, right, I pray for you and God chooses to use my prayers to work in your life. That, from an Orthodox perspective, is God working in your life and therefore, in some sense, a kind of salvation through the church.

>> Yeah. That, that I, I get that. And that would that would resonate more if in the Synod of Jerusalem, the statement was, "All salvation comes through the Eastern Orthodox Church," rather than, "Apart from the bishop, neither Christian nor church can be spoken of." Um, which I would say at best makes the person outside a little more of an exceptional case, but but certainly is just giving a a general classification of these entities like Protestant. And so it's making a very strong claim there. It's not just saying, you know, well, through the church you get saved. It's saying outside of the church, neither Christian nor church can be spoken of. Maybe there could be an exceptional case, but it's a strong statement. I don't think those two statements contradict each other, though.

>> Sure. Yeah. No, I pray for it doesn't say the first of them, and you're finding salvation. I'm saying that doesn't make you part of the church. You're still not part of the church.

>> Right. Right. Right. Yeah.

>> And and we can even technically say if your definition of Christian is member of the church, you're still not a Christian. Right. But,

>> yeah,

>> but you could be finding salvation through the prayers of the church. So I don't, I don't think that contradicts what Jerusalem is saying.

>> Agreed. Agreed. Yeah. I, I agree.

>> Yeah.

>> It's not a contradiction. But but I'm just saying what you don't find at Jerusalem is this language that I'm hearing today. You don't find the the the center of Jerusalem saying, "Well, we're just not passing judgment. You know, here's where we know salvation is. We're not passing judgment over there." You find rather a very hard classification that I don't think is comparable to to Protestant confessions at at the institutional level, um, of this is the church, those out there are cut off from salvation. If there are exceptions or qualifications, here's the thing. I mean, you know, I understand that sometimes the synods will give you the more general categories, right? And they're not going to give you all the particular test cases. But the Synod of Jerusalem is capable of qualification, and it, it is capable of nuance and of recognizing cases of reduced culpability. You've got decree 15, which talks about valid baptisms among the heretics, and it's very nuanced and qualified. So it's capable of using that language when it wants to. If it wanted to say, you know, but but but some of those over there can be saved, some of those Protestants over there, some of those filioque holders over there, some of those who believe in justification by faith alone, who who believe the the presbyter and the bishop are the same office, or who are opposed to the veneration of icons, and all these issues that come up in the synod there. If it wanted to to leave some some wiggle room, it could have, and it doesn't. And so I'm, I guess I'm just saying, you know, it looks like the, uh, language is more absolute. And I think it's fair to say there should be some contextual evidence from that time period, if not in the synod itself, some from from around that time, if otherwise we we get to a point where we say, how could they have given such a a classification if not with those terms? You know, if they wanted to say that the Protestants are not not saved, they're out of the church. They're off the ark of Noah. They're going for the pains of the heathens and the publicans. What could they have said to make that point if not as they did say? You see what I see the dilemma, hermeneutically? It it makes the position sort of unfalsifiable.

>> Right. Well, so no, I do understand, I understand what you're saying, I believe. But so there's there's two factors here. One is a factor of rhetorical function and context, right? So if I am issuing a statement because I am concerned that people are leaving the Orthodox church to join Protestant groups, I think it would be counterintuitive for me to say in that statement, well, I mean, it is possible in some cases for people to find salvation in, right? Like that's not how I'm going to address it. I'm going to make a very like, look, you know, there's nothing for you there, right? You need to right stay here. And then maybe on an interpersonal level, if if I'm a pastor, there's some individual case and it's like, yeah, well, there's no Orthodox church where this person lives and da da da da da da da, right? You know, you address that there. You don't put that in the, the strong statement you're trying to make, right? Um, so there's there's sort of that element, uh, of it. But there's so there's another principle here, and I think I think PEO tried to get at this at one point. I, I don't, I don't think he he got it across. Um, and that's in terms of how so broadly known are sort of the big decisions made by the ecumenical councils, right? You know, Arianism condemned, right? This and that. Also, of course, the councils, uh, issue a whole ton of canons, right, on all kinds of issues, right, resolving all kinds of sometimes very pragmatic, detailed issues, you know, sometimes broader issues. And so in in the Orthodox church, canon law functions a little differently than it does in the West, in that it's not even really canon law for us. So what you get is a very strong statement, a very direct statement. But then it is the job of the bishops in the Orthodox church to apply that rule to particular cases. And so that rule is applied in in Orthodox circles. We talk about you can, and in general, a rule being applied with *acra*, which means accuracy, sort of very literally, right, directly what it says. And then also *oikonomia* in at in various levels, where you look at a particular situation and say, well, okay, in this situation, we're not going to be a slave to the rule, right? Because the person in the situation is more important than the rule. The most common example of this is is marriage. And when Roman Catholics talk about the Orthodox view of marriage, it's very skewed. Right? So we have a rule, just like they do, that divorce is not allowed. Right? That divorce is a sin, and if you are divorced, you're not allowed to be remarried. Those are the rules if if you go to the canons. Now, uh, that said, you will encounter people in the Orthodox church who are divorced and remarried, and who got remarried in the church, right, by a priest. And that's because when that situation happens, when a divorce happens, we penance it, meaning we set up a process for them to be reconciled to the church and be healed and repent of everything involved in the divorce, right? And then after that, if there's a situation where it's better for someone to be remarried, the pastor writes to the bishop and says, "Okay, here's the situation. Here's what's going on. Here are these people. Here's what I know about them. I think in this case, we should make an exception and allow for a second marriage." And the bishop can say yes or no. The bishop can just enforce the rule and say no. Or he can say, in this particular situation, I'll allow it, right? Because it seems to be the best thing. And then we have a service for second marriage that's different that actually quotes St. Paul talking about it's better to be married than to burn with lust, and to say what we're doing here is not the ideal, but that we think it's the best thing in this particular situation for your salvation of the people.

>> Right.

>> Right. And so that's true across the board with how the statements of councils are applied in the Orthodox Church. So the idea that we would have very strong statements against Roman Catholicism and Protestantism as isms, right, and as institutions and as bodies, and even as categories of people. But then when you get into the historical nitty-gritty of particulars and particular people, there would be this *oikonomia*. There would be this sort of flexing of the rule of, well, in this case, we see something different going on here, that's not weird from an Orthodox perspective.

>> Yeah. I guess I guess ju to jump in, what I'm not seeing is that nitty-gritty for the, you know, I'm not seeing the 17th century, uh, Eastern Orthodox, uh, clergy, um, you know, in other contexts outside of a synod, um, bending and flexing and and relating and and maybe sharing the Lord's supper, you know, acknowledging, oh well, that that over there is a valid Eucharist, even though we said no valid Eucharist here. And oh, you know, that, and even the examples given of of Thomas and Calvin seemed to fall short, if I understood you accurately, in them of any sort of actually recognition of Christian status in them as opposed to appreciation of certain aspects of their thought. So the the nitty-gritty there needs to be worked through. I think Newman, and forgive me, Newman, I'm forgetting his last name off the top of my head, but he's a wonderful guy. He, he, he, he's done more than anybody to to from my vantage point really put out some of those particulars. And then he and I have had a back and forth and and and a lot of them are like, um, they're just talking about, well, I won't try to work through all of that. But I guess the nitty-gritty needs to be documented, right? It needs to be shown that there was this sort of, or or it can just be remained that, you know, the the classification of these groups that affirm the filioque is as harsh as it is. And, you know, I guess then the question becomes, well, do do we have any actual clear examples in like the 1700s or the 1600s or going back where people are saying Eastern Orthodox Christians are saying, you know what, we have Christian unity with that, uh, we, you know, or or they're quoting an Aquinas saying, this is our fellow Christian, or they're quoting, um, Thomas Aquinas and saying, you know, we, we look forward to salvation with him, or anything that is actually the nitty-gritty particulars that would be countervailing data. I've not really seen that, to be honest. And I've no, I don't think that exists.

>> I, I think this is important. I think we've arrived at an important point here, right? Um, you, you are not going to find that you are not going to find this person is a Christian in the same way that an Orthodox Christian is a Christian. Right.

>> In the same sense, you're you're not you're not going to find that a paralleling of that. Will

>> Will you find what you've said? Sorry.

>> What I'm arguing for is that there's a bunch of room between damned to hell for eternity and Christian equal to, right, an Orthodox Christian. And I'm saying you find a lot of room in between there when addressing specific people. That's what I'm arguing for. You're not going to get their Eucharist is as good as ours. You're not going to get we're going to give them the Orthodox Eucharist when they're not part of the church. You're not, that. I'm I'm not arguing that you find that.

>> I got you. So, so, so we're not that far then. So, so is the,

>> is this the wiggle room equal for a Roman Catholic as for a Buddhist?

>> Okay, good. I'm glad we came back here because this is one of this is the other thing I wanted to I wanted to clarify here. So when the Orthodox Church has addressed those outside the church, it has not primarily been in the context of, and I think this is an important distinction too, people who know about the Orthodox Church, have an Orthodox church near them, know about it, and choose to reject it versus someone who lived their life in Papua New Guinea, you know, 700 years ago, right? Like those are two different categories, right, for the Orthodox Church. And most of the time when we address people outside the church, it's been in that context. People who have no idea what Christianity is, have never seen a Bible, right, have never heard the word Jesus, right? And that kind of thing. And so the the Orthodox view regarding that has been that at the last judgment, Christ is going to hold us accountable for what we did with what we received, right? From those who have been given much, much will be required, right? Those who have been given less, right, less will be required. And St. Paul kind of does this in Romans chapters 1 and 2 when he's contrasting the Gentiles and then how the Jewish people who had all of these things are even more accountable.

>> Yeah.

>> Right. For,

>> we're in agreement on all that.

>> Yeah. Yeah. And so for us, there is then this scope of what you have, right? And so a Protestant or a Roman Catholic has a lot more than a Buddhist, assuming that we're talking about a Buddhist who grew up and lived their life in a Buddhist country, right? Not a Buddhist living in, not Richard Gere, right? But like someone, you know, that's in China, right? Or or in Japan, um, who doesn't know about the church. And so we would say, right, that you have been given more. Now, part of this is we would say, for example, the reason the Protestant Reformation had a Greek New Testament is because of refugees from the fall of Constantinople, right? That the Greek text of the New Testament was preserved in the Orthodox church, right? So even that is sort of coming out of the church, the life of the church from our perspective, but that is something you have. And so you are, just as St. Paul says, you know, what's the advantage then of being a Jew? It's like, well, everything. You have the Torah, you have the prophets, you have the, right? So I, I could say, you know, what is the advantage of being a Protestant? Well, you've got the scriptures, right? You've got, uh, you, you, you've got the doctrine of the Trinity. You've got, right, you have all of these things, right? And so when when it comes to the day of judgment, God is going to hold you accountable for what you for what you do with those, right, with what you have. The way Archbishop of, who was a very famous, may end up being recognized as a saint, uh, archbishop in Russia in the early to mid-20th century, so through the communist period, um, it was very faithful to Orthodoxy in spite of persecution, uh, said he was asked if Protestants could find salvation, and he said, well, even in the most sort of remote and weird Protestant sect that he could think of, and who knows what that was, right, but, uh, that's he said, there are all of these things from the early church, which of course for him is the Orthodox church, right, that they had, they still have. And that he believed if people clung to those, if if the people who received those, even though they're receiving these other errors and these other things, those things that were authentically Christian, through receiving those and living their life based on those, they had a hope of of salvation. Right. And then the flip side of that is there would be a greater condemnation for a Protestant than a Buddhist who

>> Yeah, that's what I was going to say. That's what you're outlining there almost would, in the majority of cases of conscientious Protestants, as opposed to a Protestant who's just never heard of Eastern Orthodoxy, would seem to make it worse for Protestants because if someone knows of Eastern Orthodoxy and is yet, as I am, conscientiously persuaded of Protestantism, that would seem to make things worse for that person, which is an interesting state of affairs to be in. I think what I would say in response is I do, and this we can leave this as a disagreement to keep probing. Hopefully, this won't be our last conversation. So, just, you know, all this, we'll keep working on. But I do think there has been a softening because, like what you just recounted there, that's just not what the Synod of Jerusalem is saying. And if you don't like, a moment ago, you you were agreeing with me that we're not going to find statements like, well, maybe Thomas Aquinas is saved, or maybe the Anglicans get a valid Eucharist. We're not going to find that. And yet today, you actually do. You do. You can find Eastern Orthodox people talking like that. You can find language about separated brethren, and you can language that is a little more. So I do think there has been a change. I really do. Now, here's what I would say though. Even if that more flexible *oikonomia* were, uh, the historically consistent one, even there. And this is the final, final thing, maybe to talk through, is I still think the issue we need to work at is, is that in fact true? Is it just is it just the factual truth that Thomas Aquinas is not saved, and the Ang, and the Anglicans don't have a valid Eucharist, etc., etc., etc.? Is it the case that this 12% of Christendom is the one true church? And that is that is, I guess, maybe the the core issue, right? Because, um, I suspect that some of the reason there's such, um, I need to say, unfortunately, hostility at times at at me from Eastern Orthodox Christians is because, and I know Protestants can do the same, but is because of this sense of, Gavin's attacking the one true church, right? That's that's probably putting a, putting a good construal on it. That's probably the motive. They're saying they see me as the enemy. They see me as, well, he, you know, there's the one true church, and he's persuading people to leave it. From my standpoint, I just have a different, I just do not think that that is the case. I don't think the Eastern Orthodox Church is the one true church. And I think that the the case for that, you know, it's not as though the Eastern Orthodox Church looks very similar to some other churches like the Oriental Orthodox, and yet there is this institutional boundary that is set there. And I, I think something we need to keep, keep working at is help me understand why you think that's plausible because I look at it and I say, why should I? And this is my point earlier, which I'm going to reiterate in case you want to interact with it, is when the fruits of Christianity are so evident in the 88%, I mean, that that 88% is a, is a massive amount of the kingdom of God from my standpoint, point, in just the basics of again, the glory to the Trinity, the casting out of the demons, the speaking in tongues, the, uh, positive inculcation of virtues and Christian, uh, character, the translation of the Bible and spread of the knowledge of the Bible. So much of Christianity in its positive impact on the world is in that 88%. I, I dare say, uh, these Western Christians, and I dare say many of the many of these lowly Protestant missionaries, they've done so much to advance the kingdom of God. So I think where our conversation ultimately is going to get to, and maybe where it needs to continue to work at, is just help me understand why you think it is plausible to reduce the church to that 12% when the fruits are so evident in the 88%. Does that make sense?

>> Yeah. Yeah. Part of the fruits thing, I, I suspect, and this isn't just me speculating, right? This is, you, this is a thread that you find a lot in in 19th century Russian, uh, writers. Um, so I, in the Old Testament, most of Israel, right, gets destroyed by the Assyrians and gets scattered among the nations. And and there's the whole thing with that being prophesied in Genesis 48, where Jacob tells, uh, Ephraim, you know, your your descendants will become the fullness of the Gentiles.

>> And St. Paul picks up on that in Romans 11 to talk about the the Gentiles then coming into the church, like its seed was scattered and now it's coming back. Um, you find in 19th, a lot of 19th century Russian writers, including Dostoevsky, even alludes to it a couple times, uh, in sort of monologues in his novels. Um, this idea that what happened with Rome and with the Protestant Reformation was a similar kind of thing in that pattern, and that they actually had a hope. They almost sound postmillennial sometimes when they talk about it, that sort of all of those folks were going to end up coming back into the Orthodox church and bringing with them sort of the various gifts from the nations, right, like they had received. So there is a thread there, right, in Orthodox thinking of that, in terms of the fruit that you're talking about, right? That there's sort of not that we would look out and say, okay, well, all of those are equivalent churches, right? That that there are all these different churches that are all equally valid, but in the sense that God has a purpose behind this, right? And that that ultimately this is going to be to the benefit of the one church, which is, which is the Orthodox Church, the benefit of Israel, right? To the a sort of reunited larger greater Israel, right? Um, but so I mean, central to the claim to us, I think, is just that when when Christ speaks about establishing his church, it's in the singular. The church is the bride of Christ. He's not a polygamist. Um, that the, when he, when he establishes the church on the the foundation of the the apostles and the prophets, right? That that this is all speaking of an institution and a visible institution. This is a thing you can point to. Um, and this is another thing that's been lurking in the background of our discussion is at some point, we got to be honest that we at least have a somewhat different definition of the gospel. Honestly.

>> Let's talk about that. Would you mind sharing, and as we're nearing the end here, yeah, would you mind sharing what is your definition of the gospel, and then I can also share mine?

>> So, for us in Orthodoxy, we're reluctant to try and do sort of a real short summary of the gospel, right? Because we would say we've got four, and the shortest one is 16 chapters, right, by St. Mark. So if any amount you shorten it, you're going to leave things out. But for us, the the probably the best summary of the gospel would honestly be the Nicene Creed, and that then once you've heard the Nicene Creed, right, we would hope you would that would provoke the response of, "What must I do to be saved?" Right? "What must I do to be saved?" is a response in Acts to having heard the gospel. It's not the gospel itself. Right? So, so soteriology sort of comes second. Right? So, the gospel is about what Christ did, as it's summarized in the Nicene Creed. Who God is, what Christ has done for us, right? Um, and that includes in it the church, that includes baptism, right? That includes that are in the Nicene Creed. And then someone says, "What must I do to be saved?" And we tell them, you need to believe, you need to be baptized, you need to. And then by being baptized, you're coming into the church, right? And becoming part of the body of Christ. And then we, like Matthew's Matthew 28, we teach you all that Christ has commanded us, right? And and we follow that that way of life.

>> Okay. So, um, this is a helpful. I did not plan on us finishing on this note, but I'm glad you brought up this question of what is the gospel because I think it's a helpful thing to to never assume we have, you know, a agreeing, uh, definitions there. Um, let's see. Uh, I, it's interesting you just referenced, "What must I do to be saved?" The answer to that in Acts 16:31 is quite simple: "Believe in the Lord Jesus and you will be saved, you and your household." That's verse 31. And so I would say the gospel is, I think some, I've had even some Protestants want to say the gospels are the gospel and this kind of thing. I would say we, it's not wrong to look at the New Testament as a whole and offer a synthesis, a brief summary, because we even have those in the New Testament, like 1 Corinthians 15:3 and following. Um, I often will summarize the gospel in personal evangelism in four steps to basically talk about God, sin, Jesus, and response. And it sounds kind of corny, but it helps me if I've got 30 seconds on the subway to share the gospel with someone. So, I'll just say that, uh, there is a God. He made us in his image. Uh, we have sinned against him, and that has separated us from him. Christ has come and fixed that problem through his sinless life, his vicarious death, his triumphant resurrection, and he will come again. And we need to respond to the gospel with faith and repentance. And yes, baptism will be a part of that response as well, of course. So that basic message is, uh, sort of the core kernel. Of course, we can then flesh it out. I mean, you're right to say it's like you've got layers to the gospel. We can, we can, we can, um, we can develop all of that, and it's not in integrating every single thing in that brief summary. So, um, you know, uh, I, I never want to assume anyone understands that. Um, I, I meet Christians all the time. I've had, I've done many baptism interviews where I say to the person, "Tell me why you're interested in baptism." And finally, after we go on and on and on, talk about talking past one another, I finally realize they don't know the gospel message. The Holy Spirit's drawing them, but they have not actually ever had someone share the gospel with them. They don't actually know, for example, that there's nothing you can do to earn God's favor and salvation. They think being a Christian means if I just do enough good stuff. And they don't understand that it's actually Jesus who earned it for you, and you receive that with the empty hands of faith, and your, uh, good conduct then will flow out of that reality, but it is not meritorious before God for coming into a state of reconciliation with him. People don't always know that, and so I want to tell them that. So that's my definition of the gospel. Uh, what do you want to comment on there, or how do we, how do we, how do we wrap?

>> Yeah. I mean, yeah, there's there's sort of different paradigms, right? And so this is why with with Orthodox Christians, if we've got 30 seconds, we say, "What are you doing Sunday morning?" Right? "Come with me to liturgy," right? Because in the liturgy, both in in words and in the ritual actions. So that the, I mean, we don't have time to go all into this right now, right? But, uh, we literally go through and it's even reenacted the life of Christ and his his sacrifice for our sakes and these things, right? And so we're approaching in this more participatory way, right? And so like the the question that you just expressed when talking about baptismal interviews, that's very key to you as a Protestant, right? In terms of merit and stuff. Merit is not even part of our soteriological thinking like at all.

>> If someone merits of Christ or the person,

>> If someone thought they could merit salvation,

>> Oh, we would say that's wrong. Yeah. Okay. Okay. So you'd want to clarify that too.

>> Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. No one could earn their salvation. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah.

>> And similarly, we'd want to invite them into the corporate, and we Protestants do have this emphasis on like the corporate witness of the church. You know, the first Corinthians 14, someone falls on their face as an unbeliever and says, "God is among you," because they see how God is at work in the corporate gathered assembly. I think, let me ask one last question, and then

>> and and don't take offense at this.

>> No. Do you think it's possible to make an idol out of the church?

>> Um, so I, in the strict sense, no, but but metaphorically, yes, right? And what I mean by that is, for example, St. Paul says, "Covetousness is idolatry," right? It's not literally idolatry. You don't think your money is embodying a god and you're offering food to it, right? But it, so in that metaphorical sense, you, you could, someone could do that. Someone could do that. And, and it is a problem. And my bishop, Metropolitan Saba, recently even commented on this, that, uh, we need to be careful that we don't start speaking more about the church than we do about Christ as Orthodox Christians.

>> Okay.

>> When we're evangelizing. Uh, and I think that's pointing directly at that concern, right, that you're reflecting. Um, and I tell people, my catechumens, the people who are in the process of joining the Orthodox Church, I tell them, there are lots of reasons you may have shown up here, right? All kinds of crazy reasons why you walked in the door. Said the only reason for you to join the Orthodox Church, the only good reason, is that this is the place where you find Christ. That you come here and you encounter Christ here in a way that you have not encountered him before. And if that's true, you should become a member of the Orthodox Church. If it's not true, then at the very least, you're not ready to become a member of the Orthodox Church, and you need, and you need to work through it more.

>> Thanks for letting me ask that. And I think, you know, all of this has been, boy, I feel like we need more. I would love to talk again, you know, uh, at some point, and just kind of, I keep saying this to everybody, and I have a few other dialogues with Orthodox Christians set up as well, more more like in August after my July vacation, but I would love to just kind of keep open communication, um, you know, as we go. Um, I take the approach of we can disagree and still try to keep a positive relationship and and keep keep good communication open. Um, I really want to say thank you. I feel like this has been such a, I, I almost might sound too strong to to speak of it this way, but just such a corrective kind of encounter in terms of, you know, we actually are making progress and listening to each other and having an interchange that's like useful for viewers. My, and I'm not saying that over and against Jonathan, because our dialogue was great as well, but rather more over and against some of the stuff online that feels just really unhelpful right now. Just just the, uh, crazy escalations of of of, I think I need to say, hostility and hatred and motive projection and all this stuff that's that's out there. So this is, so I, I just want to say thank you. I think this has been really good. Um, there were a couple moments where my Wi-Fi might have dipped down. So if people are watching this and at any moment there's like it gets garbled, that was, I'm sorry. I don't know why that happened. Um, but I don't think it disrupted it too much. Um, I would love to talk again sometime. Is there anything else we need to to work through here? I think we've kind of hit the main topics and worked through it a little bit. Is there anything else you want to talk through before we finish off?

>> No, I, I think we can, there's things we could drill down on on future conversations, but I think I think we covered everything that I wanted to at least express and try to clarify.

>> Well, well, sounds great. And I thank, thank you again for being willing to talk. I would love to keep talking and keep conversing and try to have, you know, good faith discussions like this where we work through things. Um, we can honor Christ in how we disagree, right? You know, we can, we can do it in a, in a Christ-honoring way. So, uh, I'm, I'm really grateful. So, uh, yeah, thanks for watching everybody. Oh, and being in the comments, let's avoid comments that are kind of making it hyper competitive and and let's try to give comments that are edifying, helpful. Pray for the pray, pray for all people involved when you comment those kinds of things. I, I want my channel to be a place of of kindness and clarity in the way we interface. So, um, do that in the comments. But, uh, yeah, uh, Father Stephen, thank you so much, and I hope we can talk again soon.

>> Absolutely. Absolutely. My pleasure. Thank God.