Response to Dr Jordan B Cooper on Eastern Orthodoxy

แชร์
ฝัง
  • เผยแพร่เมื่อ 20 ม.ค. 2025

ความคิดเห็น • 50

  • @jonathanhill2737
    @jonathanhill2737  4 ปีที่แล้ว +8

    I misquoted the Gospel of John. I said John 17:21, when I meant to say John 17:22

  • @scygnius
    @scygnius 3 ปีที่แล้ว +6

    Whew. Great response, great channel. Funny you bemoan your ELCA roots, as I'm also an ELCA boy turning to Orthodoxy. Must be a pattern, how many Lutherans, Anglicans, etc. I've seen who are leaving for both Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy.

  • @RyanGalazka
    @RyanGalazka 4 ปีที่แล้ว +3

    Very awesome quote from st. Caesarius of arles.

  • @jonathanhill2737
    @jonathanhill2737  4 ปีที่แล้ว +14

    Emil's comment on Justification
    Neo-Platonic," the catch-all phrase when you have no argument against Orthodoxy. The forensic terminology is not itself problematic. Christ did indeed pay our debt and He is our advocate. No one disputes this. The problem arises when Protestants reduce grace from a divine energy of God to that of a juridical proclamation (merely a decision made by the Lord). For Protestants, grace is not a thing. It has no ontological status. It merely reflects God's divine judgment. Everything is reduced to the courtroom (Christ no longer our healer, savior, role model, champion, etc. He is reduced to simply our attorney). In other words, it's binary in the Protestant framework. You either have grace (are saved) or you do not. This forensic, binary proclamation is rejected in Orthodoxy. There are varying degrees of grace based on one's participation (Mary is full of grace). This is closely related to the essence/energy distinction that you don't seem to have a great grasp of. Now, some Protestants will try to push grace into the sanctification category, but the NT clearly says that we are saved by grace and it does not divide sanctification from justification and that of glorification. These are merely different aspects of the same salvific process (and yes it clearly is a process, which is why NT imagery is saturated with agricultural references).

  • @fett716
    @fett716 4 ปีที่แล้ว +2

    Dr. Cooper mentioned the procession of the Holy Spirit at some point and I'm not sure if you commented on it. Have you written or filmed anything related to the filioque in the past? I'm curious to hear your thoughts on it

    • @jonathanhill2737
      @jonathanhill2737  4 ปีที่แล้ว

      Yeah I could only address so many things in one video. I could have gone down that direction, but since Dr Cooper frontloaded that it was a larger topic to unpack and didn't really say much more than that, I decided to not address it.

    • @fett716
      @fett716 4 ปีที่แล้ว +1

      @@jonathanhill2737 Gotcha. Have you thought about addressing it at some point in the future? I've been trying to decide between Catholicism and Orthodoxy for a while now and the doctrine of the procession has proven hard to really figure out.

    • @prometheusjones6580
      @prometheusjones6580 4 ปีที่แล้ว +1

      @@fett716 I found this video on the filioque helpful -- th-cam.com/video/09Sl5K-pgzE/w-d-xo.html

  • @duanehensley8835
    @duanehensley8835 2 ปีที่แล้ว +3

    It appears to me that you're accusing Dr. Cooper of the same thing you are doing to him. You seem to be assuming he is saying certain things or more than what he said. I suggest you go back and listen to his comments a little more carefully because I don't think your assessment was accurate or fair to what Dr. Cooper said in that video.

  • @duanehensley8835
    @duanehensley8835 2 ปีที่แล้ว +3

    Your comments aren't very helpful to a non-Eastern Orthodox person. It seems you are speaking as if you are speaking to only eastern orthodox people that would understand most of what you're saying.

  • @cononiconium5059
    @cononiconium5059 4 ปีที่แล้ว +3

    Good response!

  • @morphingindisguise
    @morphingindisguise 4 ปีที่แล้ว +2

    Interesting point about Hyperabundance is how St Bede mentions that this is shown metaphorically in the book of Exodus via the conditions caused by the appareance of the Angel of the Lord in the hebrew camps culminating in the 40 day period of Revelation in Mt Sinai to Moses.

    • @jonathanhill2737
      @jonathanhill2737  4 ปีที่แล้ว +3

      Hyperabundance is often overlooked when discussing apophaticism. On top of this, negation doesn't mean lack. God is beyond every affirmation & negation.

    • @duanehensley8835
      @duanehensley8835 2 ปีที่แล้ว

      @@jonathanhill2737 I was wondering, if you haven't already, would you critique this persons assessment of Eastern Orthodoxy? Hers' the title and the link...
      Eastern Orthodoxy: An Evangelical Assessment - Michael Reeves --- th-cam.com/video/Nk1IVl1N8VI/w-d-xo.html

  • @St.MartinofToursPrayToGodForUs
    @St.MartinofToursPrayToGodForUs 2 ปีที่แล้ว +1

    This was an informative video. I had just watched the Doctor's video, so TH-cam probably used its magic to send this video my way.
    I had noticed the same thing about his use of the term "neo-platonism" as a bogeyman. It seems a lot of people who have beef with Orthodoxy have read a lot, but do not really understand the heart of Orthodoxy. Like you said, attend a service, and you'll see that he's absolutely wrong!
    Are you clergy? Or have you attended seminary? Or do you read a lot? Anyway, great video!

    • @jonathanhill2737
      @jonathanhill2737  2 ปีที่แล้ว

      Thanks for the feedback! I'm just a lowly layman. But around 2010 I came in contact with a ROCOR monastery on Long Island. I've since stayed every year, sometimes for months at a time. What I've learned has been from studying under the brotherhood, attending services there, talking about the hymnography and what it means, etc.
      While my study isn't official like an accredited school, it isn't just me reading books by myself either.
      Again thank you for your feedback. Feel free to check out the other videos on my channel. I just recently started a new series on definitions of theological terms.
      God bless!

  • @RyanGalazka
    @RyanGalazka 4 ปีที่แล้ว +4

    Haha bro, this is already.....disturbing 🙄 4:05

  • @TheRedFox1995
    @TheRedFox1995 4 ปีที่แล้ว +4

    Thank you for your video, Jonathan, I think that we need a more thorough dialogue between Orthodox and Evangelicals.
    You seem a bit taken aback by Cooper’s apparent misunderstandings, which I don’t think I am able to make any judgements on, but I would like to address some misunderstandings in your response, or at least ask for your clarifications.
    You say you come from a Lutheran background which struck me as quite odd, because it seems like your replies didn’t address the actual points of dispute. Have you read the Book of Concord or any of the great Lutheran theologians like Chemnitz, Gerhard, Hütter or Brochmand? Or browsed through Heinrich Schmid’s dogmatics? It isn’t too long and it’s free online and quite standard reference.
    You seem to confuse conversion/justification and sanctification a bit together. Lutherans draw a distinction between these. Conversion is monergistic and an act of God. Justification is an objective declaration of God which we receive by faith apart from any and all works. Sanctification on the other hand is a real, tangible and ontological transformation of the sinner through cooperation with the graces of God. There is therefore very much so synergy in sanctification, as is clearly taught in Concord art. IV, and many other places too, e.g. paragraph 48, nr. 5 in Schmid’s dogmatics, and other places. Therefore, it isn’t really addressing the point to say that man can cooperate with God and do good works. We agree.
    Our theologians also talk about infused grace in that regard. We not restrict grace to a go God’s gracious good will alone, that would be reductionistic, but we need to be careful in respect to how we speak about our holy Lord’s working in us, and what He does in what respect.
    The central question is, is the natural man able by his own powers to add something conversion, to work, help or procure it or is it on the other hand a work by God alone which man receives?
    Also concerning justification, we need to be clear on the central aspect of whether the righteousness of God is imputed, logizomai, to us, or whether we, though through the cooperation with God, make ourselves righteousness and that it is by this righteousness that we stand just or unjust before God. That is central. We both agree that God transforms and sanctifies the believer. The question is whether our justice by which we are acquitted before God is one we can work on, increase and add to by our works (as Rome’s council of Trent teach) or if it is the holy, whole and perfect righteousness of God received by faith?
    Also, how are am I to judge this? When I engage with Rome I can go to their decrees, e.g. Trent’s 6th session, if I want the Orthodox understanding and doctrine of justification where am I to go? The fathers maybe, but they disagree amongst themselves, so what am I to judge them by? Modern theologians, some reject them, and they have no authority. I’ve bought Fileret’s, patriarch of Moscow 1821-67, catechism, which many Russian Orthodox say are authoritative, but others reject.
    God's bless and kind regards,
    Michael

    • @TheRedFox1995
      @TheRedFox1995 4 ปีที่แล้ว +3

      @Emil Suric Thanks for your reply, though I don't really find your tone too welcoming. I did watch it all. Did you? 22:45 "and the third point is justification" which is the main point I am addressing.
      I didn't address apophaticism because I haven't studied the primary sources enough.
      I didn't say that the Orthodox do not talk about Christ, his work, the salvific work of Christ's death etc., because no one denies that Orthodox Christians talk about that. That’s a strawman. Rome also talks about that, the question simply isn't whether you talk about it or not but -how you talk about it-.
      Concerning “distinctions which have no basis in scripture” then what is asserted without argumentation can be refuted without argumentation, I mean, we could have a dialogue about Romans 1-6, Galatians or the Scriptural teaching of justification in general, sure, but that is quite a bit broader than what I asked in my comment. I asked some specific question regarding justice and justification, on the nature of our justice before God, whether it can be increase or not etc., which you skipped though, why? In my eyes at least, the questions were quite concrete and to the point.
      When I read Mathætes Letter, 1. Clement, Ambrose, Augustine, Chrysostom's commentaries on Paul's epistles or Basil's homilies on humility and many other places I find and recognize the one and same doctrine, though not worked out as systematically, of justification as I find in our Lord's teachings and Paul's epistles and in Luther and in the Book of Concord.
      You accept the Council of Jerusalem, great, many Orthodox reject it. You also affirm the Filaret’s Catechism, have you read it? Filaret reject the Deuterocanon as part of the Old Testament because “they are not written in Hebrew” and thus, by implication reject the LXX. Filerat says, quoting Athanasius, that the Apocrypha is “meant as reading for those who are about to enter the Church”. Com’on man, my questions were genuine. How am I to judge on the hundreds of contradictions between church councils, church fathers, church catechism etc., when one teaches something which another denies?
      Just for reference the Council of Jerusalem, accepted by some Orthodox and rejected by others, teaches in chapter VI decree XVIII, “Apocrypha; to wit, ‘The Wisdom of Solomon,’ ‘Judith,’ ‘Tobit,’ ‘The History of the Dragon,’ ‘The History of Susanna,’ ‘The Maccabees,’ and ‘The Wisdom of Sirach.’ For we judge these also to be with the other genuine Books of Divine Scripture genuine parts of Scripture.”
      Please, Emil, can we get down our high horse and try to engage with each other honest? You call it “deceptively simply” argh, which deception is that? I’m not saying am an expert of doctor of theology, I’m just trying to learn, snark responses aren’t really helpful.
      Kind regards…

    • @jonathanhill2737
      @jonathanhill2737  4 ปีที่แล้ว

      @@TheRedFox1995 You phrase your comment in namely three ways:
      first you relate what I've said to the Book of Concord, Chemnitz, Gerhard, Hütter, Brochmand, and Heinrich Schmid. Then you ask me to clarify my understanding of the distinctions between conversion, justification, and sanctification, and to relate these to Lutheran understandings of synergy in sanctification; of infused grace; and of the relationship of natural powers to conversion. Then you ask me to explain what sort of justice is involved in justification, and to relate my account to Trent.
      In my video I no where address what Lutherans believe as that is not the point of the video.
      If you're interested in learning about EO, I'm happy to have a discussion on that. But I am not interested in getting mired up in explaining EO vs either Lutheran scholars or Trent.

    • @TheRedFox1995
      @TheRedFox1995 4 ปีที่แล้ว +2

      @@jonathanhill2737 I'm sorry if I formulated my comment badly. If you have the time/are willing to dialogue in another forum then I'd be happy to do that.
      I didn't mean to be off topic, but as I said in my reply to Emil I thought that regarding the question of justification, and especially regarding your rejection of the accusation of synergism (as well as your definition of it) I thought it was warranted to bring up the Book of Concord, since you come from a Lutheran background, and where it draws a line between monergism and synergism.
      Best regards.

    • @jonathanhill2737
      @jonathanhill2737  4 ปีที่แล้ว +4

      Neither am I that interested in getting mired up in the argument in Lutheranism between monergism or synergism. We don't understand Christian life primarily in terms of an abstract theory of justification. Another reason why Dr Cooper's accusation of EO just being a mental quasi Neoplatonic construction, i.e. "it's Dionysian", and ignoring the participatory sacramental life of the Church is so off the mark.
      And so, rather than beginning with conversion, justification, and sanctification, we begin with repentance and life in the Church. Repentance is a lived experience over our life. At certain points we are more repentant than at other points. We grow in repentance, and we can, unfortunately, fall into old sins we've previously repented of. Mere conversion is but the start of repentance, not the fulfillment.
      Rather than adherence to a strict technical document or system, say the statements in a Confessional on a technical point like justification, we live the repentant sacramental life of the Church.
      God bless

    • @TheRedFox1995
      @TheRedFox1995 4 ปีที่แล้ว +1

      @Emil Suric Would you prefer to engage on discord, telegram, email or here in the YT comment section? Thanks for your willingness :)

  • @mistertrumpet5856
    @mistertrumpet5856 4 ปีที่แล้ว +6

    In my experience, the Orthodox emphasize the person of Christ more than Protestants.

  • @morphingindisguise
    @morphingindisguise 4 ปีที่แล้ว +1

    Nice video!

  • @ThruTheUnknown
    @ThruTheUnknown 3 ปีที่แล้ว +5

    It was terrible to see how badly Jordan misrepresented orthodoxy.

  • @diadoxos
    @diadoxos 2 ปีที่แล้ว

    I’m late to the video. But did anyone else catch the accusations against st Dionysius as being too platonic then hearing the doctor say he’s a convicted Augustinian? Augustine was steeped in neo Platonism and Manichaeism? Hypocrite much?