วีดีโอ

Go to West Virginia and go to a Snake handling church!that would be crazy!

The Anglican Church was not like this when C S Lewis wrote. They consider themselves Protestant. You are perhaps talking to Americans?

34:32 Father Joseph was spot on with this, there is never a roman courtroom typology or parable alluded too in the scriptures but rather a King making his judgement. You can actually connect that to the parable of the unforgiving servant, the parable emphasizes the mercy of the King toward the pleading for forgiveness and the necessity of acting the same toward your neighbor. The parable clearly demonstrates that, rather than the King needing his debt satisfied and paid for.

Amazing episode! Thank you 🙏🏻

Does anybody have a citation for St Cyril discussing the Father turning away His face? I’d love to read that more closely!

"Look at the west and see how the ministers don't believe..." To begin with that is not how the university began. It didn't originally begin in order to make people less certain, but originally to establish what was the true teaching of the Bible. The perversions of so called Biblical Studies is really something that has largely happened since WW2 even if some of it did begin with the ironically named enlightenment. In fact, the protestant evangelical churches are better than the Roman Catholic and Episcopalian churches. Recently we have had the Pope of the RCC more or less saying that all religions are ways to God.

Always enjoy your posts! PSA is for most American Christians, especially theological conservatives, the default understanding of the Atonement. It's kind of in the water. This makes it hard for many to view it differently.

It seems to me that many Catholics and even Protestants are saying the same thing about the atonement as said in this video. Good examples are Scott Hahn and NT Wright. They both insist that to see the Father as being angry at the Son on the cross is to see the exact opposite of reality. I think it is a wonderful thing to see the spreading of a corrected view of redemption throughout the Christian landscape.

I'm a Southern Baptist, looking into Orthodoxy, I would argue we are all part of the Church if we believe and follow Christ. Orthodoxy isn't the only path to God, if it were then God help us all, look at how far the Orthodox Church has spread. I'm sure a big fan of "come and see" is Satan; you have to go out into the world and bring people to Christ, you cannot passively and smugly sit by in your correctness while the world is so lost. I'm still looking to convert but that attitude is wrong. I'm also a former infantryman, we used to do "movement to contact" where you go on patrol until you find a fight; you go out looking to engage the enemy, you don't sit by and wait. How much more aggressive do we need to be in sharing Christ with the world? I see more of the Holy Spirit in Southern Baptist', the fire to go out into the world and risk ridicule to tell people of Christ. I see more a more active form of worship in Orthodoxy and more support for our daily struggles against sin.

This is an outstanding resource, brother! I am a Protestant who has been working hard at proclaiming the true nature of the atonement in my circles here and it's done alot of good so far. PSA is rampant and unfortunately central to the faith for many Christians today. Thank God that He is breaking down those barriers, though. The true nature of a Protestant should be to protest anything departing from the teachings of the church and God in His Word, and that means every Protestant should vehemently deny exhaustive penal substitution alongside the reformed dogmatics.

Can someone explain how we are to understand Jesus taking upon Himself our sin, when sin is just forgiven? How am I to understand it as an Orthodox? Was it a literal taking? Symbolic? It was a real death He died, so maybe His suffering death (the consequence of sin) in a way is spoken of as taking on Himself our sin?

Sola patristica is a problem among some Orthodox converts who adopt pseudo calvinist doctrines and terminology.

Call no man father what does the bible mean ?

14:45, Jay hits the nail on the head here. Rushdoony for some reason elevates the Ecumenical Councils---which completely disagree with his theology. The theology of the first 1000 years of Christianity---minority views exempted---is Christus Victor, monasticism, Monarchial Trinitarianism, and generally what Latins and Protestants would call 'Eastern' spirituality (meaning Byzantine-Egyptian). If you want hardcore scholastic blood atonement theology, then you need middle ages Catholicism, not protestantism, and even then, its still not the way the early church described themselves. In order to be a Calvinist you must reject the church as a body/tradition and lean toward blackout apostasy theory, cultism. Calvinism also makes mincemeat of the Trinity, which is impossible in the Calvinist model of God forsaking the Son completely. Also completely contradicts St Cyril in 'That Christ is One'

Does he have a TH-cam channel

Jesus Christ absolutely received the wrath of The Father on the tree ; He became a CURSE for His people, as cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree; He died under the curse of sin; He became sin on the cross and thus the earth was darkened. To deny the wrath of God is to deny the doctrine of Hell, is to deny God's hatred of sin and thus sinners, and is to deny the justice and holiness of God.

Fr. Jonathan, do you think it's acceptable for Orthodox to say that "there's no salvation outside of the church" in that rigorist way, without sanction? I mean yes, there's a way in which it can be said, but I'm talking about those who would say "if you're not canonically Eastern Orthodox, you will roast". From my perspective this is becoming a missiological nightmare that could be gotten around if our ecclesiastical leadership would get together and articulate a working doctrine on this matter - at least for North America.

Thank you for doing this talk. I found it to be edifying. As someone who was raised Protestant and taught that false teachings such as PSA were the gospel, I find the Orthodox views to be much more consistent with what the scriptures actually say.

55:27 Can the father provide clarification with regard to his stated acceptance of substitutionary language? By substitution, doesn’t he intend to communicate the idea of “on behalf of” rather than “instead of” or “in place of”? As far as I can tell, if one uses this word in the way it is commonly used today which is consistent with its dictionary definition with regard to what Christ did for us, they would have to affirm He died and will remain dead eternally or He died and is suffering in hell eternally, depending on whether they believe in eternal death or eternal conscious torment. In case what I am trying to communicate isn’t clear, let me put it another way. Did Christ die eternally? If your answer is no then you must deny that He did that in our place. Did Christ die and is now consciously suffering eternally? If your answer is no then you must deny that He did that in our place. Do we still die in this life? If your answer is yes then you must deny Christ did that in our place. Do we still suffer in this life? If your answer is yes then you must deny Christ did that in our place.

Luther is such a Dyer fanboi and I'm here for it !

I've talked to people jumping on this ortho trend who are mad at their Protestant parents or have some bone to pick with prots. Or they're looking for something more "enchanting".. nothing masculine about that. Their whole focus becomes dismantling sola scriptura and sola fide like their masculine hero Jay Dyer did. They watch all his videos, and one day they will be as cool and traditional as Jay.

I've just been discussing this with some of our parish's catechumens.

Theosis is the most encouraging idea I never had any concept for in Reformed protestantism

Saving this for later. Apologies for not having subscribed earlier.

I was baptized into the Orthodox Church yesterday morning!

Love Jared. I deconstructed 6years ago. My husband and kids still practice in their church. I love Jared’s way to approach each visit. Great interview

When a man has fallen it is not possible for him to be raised by human power, nor can human evil be destroyed by human righteousness. The commission of sin involves injury to God Himself, for it says “you dishonour God by breaking the law (Rom. 2:23). There is need of virtue greater than is found in man to be able to cancel the indictment. For the lower it is particularly easy to commit an injury against Him who is greatest. Yet it is impossible for him to compensate for this insolence by any honor, particularly when he is in many ways indebted to He, whom he has injured, and He who is injured is so far superior that the distance between them cannot even be measured. He, then, who seeks to cancel the indictment against himself must restore the honour to Him who has been insulted and repay more than he owes, partly by way of restitution, partly by adding a compensation for the wrong which he has done. Yet how can he who is unable even to attain to the measure of his debts succeed in surpassing it? It was therefore impossible for any man to reconcile himself to God by introducing his own righteousness. Accordingly, neither could the old law overcome enmity or would the unaided efforts of those who line under the new be capable of achieving peace…Wherefore, since we by our own means and of ourselves were unable to display righteousness, Christ Himself became for us “righteousness from God and consecration and redemption (1 Cor. 1:30). He destroys the enmity in His flesh and reconciles us to God. This he accomplishes not merely by sharing our nature, nor was it only when He died for us, but at all times and for every man…He alone, then was able to render all the honour that is due to the Father and make satisfaction for that which had been taken away. The former He achieved by His life, the latter by His death. The death which He died upon the cross to the Father’s glory He brought in to outweigh the injury which we had committed; in addition, He most abundantly made amends for the debt of honour which we owed for our sins. - *St. Nicholas Cabasilas, The Life in Christ, Excursus - Christ’s atoning work*

Fr.Joseph 🙌🙌🙌🙌

Foundational episode!

☦️☦️☦️

Thank you! Excellent stuff!

Super good 👍🏼 ! Thanks !! You are all very kind !!

Thank you great video ☦️☦️☦️

The wrath of God is absolutely throughout the scriptures. It is of course an image, a metaphor but to completely jettison the language seems to be really bad. Gods wrath being poured out on the son absolutely has to be rejected though.

Wonderful, thank you!

the first time He came as the lam the second time He is the judge

Thank you, Father Joseph, Father Jonathan, and Luther. Happy New Year!

In the atheist internet space I have seen so many comment that they became atheist due to the idea that God took out His wrath on innocent Jesus so we don’t have to go to hell. And I know that’s true because that was a big reason I turned away from Christianity as a teenager

As a Protestant who grew up with penal substitution, the key passages that have shifted my views on this are Leviticus 16 (especially verses 30, 33); Hebrews 9-10; 1 John 1:7, 9; and Psalm 51. There are more, but those have been especially important for me. Edit: And also Fr. Stephen De Young helping me to see Passover as covenantal instead of penal.

Beautifully said

How did Jesus reconcile us to God? He did something unique.

Great episode, I’d love to hear a more in depth conversation on issues the orthodox view of atonement has with PSA. I’m not orthodox but an eastern leaning Christian who has been studying the atonement. After many years believing PSA it is hard to break and hard to grasp the differences at times.

"For if when we were enemies we were reconciled through the death of His Son, much more, having been (past tense) reconciled, we shall be saved by His life."

This channel continues to edify and inspire me

I’m ex Protestant soon to be baptized into the Orthodox Church God willing+ thank you for all you do guys.

Wonderful thank you!

This was really helpful as a new Orthodox convert who is continuing to sharpen the understanding of these important theological issues.

27:01 - No notion of legal culpability in Orthodoxy vis-a-vis the cross? Orthodoxy affirms Cyril of Jerusalem and Cyril of Alexandria as teachers of Orthodoxy, right?: For God’s anger did not cease with Adam’s fall, but He was also provoked by those who after him dishonoured the Creator’s decree; and the denunciation of the Law against transgressors was extended continuously over all. We were, then, accursed and condemned, by the sentence of God, through Adam’s transgression, and through breach of the Law laid down after him; but the Savior wiped out the hand- writing against us, by nailing the title to His Cross, which very clearly pointed to the death upon the Cross which He underwent for the salvation of men, who lay under condemnation. For our sake He paid the penalty for our sins. For though He was One that suffered, yet was He far above any creature, as God, and more precious than the life of all. - St. Cyril of Alexandria, Gospel According to St John, Book XII These things the Saviour endured, and made peace through the Blood of His Cross, for things in heaven, and things in earth (Col 1:2). For we were enemies of God through sin, and God had appointed the sinner to die. There must needs therefore have happened one of two things; either that God, in His truth, should destroy all men, or that in His loving-kindness He should cancel the sentence. But behold the wisdom of God; He preserved both the truth of His sentence, and the exercise of His loving-kindness. Christ took our sins in His body on the tree, that we by His death might die to sin, and live unto righteousness (1 Peter 2:24). Of no small account was He who died for us; He was not a literal sheep; He was not a mere man; He was more than an Angel; He was God made man. The transgression of sinners was not so great as the righteousness of Him who died for them; the sin which we committed was not so great as the righteousness which He wrought who laid down His life for us - who laid it down when He pleased, and took it again when He pleased. And would you know that He laid not down His life by violence, nor yielded up the ghost against His will? He cried to the Father, saying, Father, into Your hands I commend My spirit (Luke 23:46); I commend it, that I may take it again. - St Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lecture 13:33 “Sentence of God”; “breach of the Law”; “paid the penalty” - what are these if not blatant examples of “legal culpability”? Happy to be shown a better translation of these citations, if there is one! However, we cant just a priori dismiss them because the translator is Anglican, that’s ad hoc and arbitrary; we need to *demonstrate* the faulty translation.

Great!