Cool Protestant here agree 100 percent with you guys

This channel gets better and better. These are the topics that are so important for Christians and so often are stumbling blocks for faith. These discussions are the antidote to nihilistic modernity.

A lot of doubts cleared on this one👍 Of course it had to be seraphim

incredible stuff as always. to me the connection between the accusation of the serpent and how by christ raising from the dead he overcame the accusation of the evil one is super important to make. i think also a good point to make is that the accusation of the devil against man is “are you the sons of god?”. with roman 1 we also see how jesus was “declared to be the son of god through the resurrection”. we are also declared to be his sons through our resurrection😎

I was glad to hear the reference to Peter Leithart.

Just two jesus lovers lovin jesus

This was great video. Answers a lot of questions I had about atonement in relation to orthodox theology

Very Good so far 👏

This channel is great, just subbed

Transcript 8:51-11:47 "So, the idea of legal language in the gospel of John--I think we want to connect that everywhere and always to the notion of the Logos, of course, which is a major focus of John's gospel. But, It's also a major focus of the whole bible...that legal language, fundamentally, is meant to capture a "things" correspondence to it's archetype. So what does it mean when God declares something to be good or evil in a forensic or legal sense? Well, if you just look at this in Genesis chapter 6, it says, "...and God saw the world and behold, it was very corrupt." And what you have here is a forensic decree, but, it is spoken in a way that alludes back to Genesis chapter 1, where God saw the world and behold, it was very good. And if you look at the language of God seeing things or of anybody seeing things, you find that it's very closely tied to a courtroom setting. That is, when you're looking at something, you are evaluating it and having evaluated it, you made a particular declaration about its nature. *The question is, by what standard are we making that declaration?* Well, if God saw something, and declared that it is good, the standard by which He is measuring that thing, is goodness itself. Well what is goodness itself? Well, goodness itself, is that which is intrinsic to God [in which?] He speaks out in His Name or the Word, as the Logos. So, when Moses asends mount Sinai, it says "God says, I will make My name known to you, I will proclaim My name and make all My *goodness* pass before you." And remember, this is the same mountain [indistinguishable] which God has just revealed to Moses, the architecture of the tabernacle. The tabernacle, which is a representation of the architecture of *creation* [indistinguishable] large. Creation is miniaturized in "tabernacle form". So the goodness, which is inherent to God, is thee paradigm and archetype for creation...and that goodness is intrinsic to the second Person of the Trinity, the Divine Logos Who is the Word, Who is the One *through* Whom, God creates the world in the beginning. So, when the Word enters into that world, it is thee Archetype taking on "the stuff"-the 'type', naturally then, this is the context in which we to conceive a legal or forensic setting. What's going on is the very goodness, by which goodness is measured in the first place has entered into the world. And that is why the goodness coming into the world-as John says, 'coming into the world' is the One who brings judgement. Because merely by taking on the 'stuff' of the world... He measures things in relation to their correspondence to His nature. And, when the Jewish leadership renders an accusation against Him, they are actually rendering an accusation against the very one, against whom they are measuring good or evil...So He is the One who is revealed in the Torah...the theological context for His saying in John's gospel, 'Moses wrote about Me.' And the torah-the law-is thee measuring rod of goodness or evil and as the Logos is the measuring stick for goodness or evil. The torah is the expression of the nature and life of the Second Person of the Trinity. And so, legal language is never an end in itself, and this isn't just true in a theological sense, this is really true in legal language period."

This is such a beautiful and edifying discussion. How can I thank you both Sarah from? Thank you for your efforts and thank you I don't know your name sorry

The recent trend of downplaying "legal" language regarding the Atonement among some EOs has been of great concern among us Oriental Orthodox. HG Bishop Rafael's new book "The Economy of Salvation according to the Early Church" shows unequivocally the reality of "legal" language in Biblical, Patristic, and--for us in the Coptic tradition--Liturgical sources.

Good stuff. Nothing wrong with shorter videos 😉.

One question in regards to righteous deception. Is this something that holds a place in orthodox doctrine or is this something that is up for personal understanding, etc.? I have heard others (its been a while, but i believe it was an EO priest)use that as a point of refuting Islam. They refute the passage saying that Allah is the greatest of deceivers by stating that deception is a trait and tactic of the devil rather than of God. Obviously that is not the only point that can be refuted as there is more to expound on, but it seems like here the two would be saying the same thing (although I do not know the context of the passage in the Quran)

Does the Orthodox Church believe every human inherits the guilt of Adam? I’m orthodox as well, and see no problems unless you are saying we inherit the guilt of Adam.

At 21:51-22:10 Seraphim said:,,God’s Love is intrinsic to His nature because God exists as a Trinity of Persons but wrath is not intrinsic to His nature because God’s nature does not require the existence of creation. Creation is a contingent reality and because by definition wrath requires creatures who have sinned, that can’t be intrinsic to God’s nature unless sin is somehow necessary for God to be God. So how are we saved by Christ from the wrath of God? Well, the concise way of putting it is to say that we are saved from the wrath of God by being transfigured into that which is no longer an object of wrath.“ Yes, it is true that His wrath is not intrinsic to His nature and God’s nature does not require an existence of creation. But that does not mean that His wrath requires the existence of a creation because although His wrath is not intrinsic to His nature, His wrath is an aspect of one of His attributes which are uncreated energies. That eternal and uncreated attribute is His justice and His wrath means the punishment that God bestows - for example, Blessed Theodoret says regarding Romans 5:9 the following:,,…for that future (eternal) punishment is what he here calls wrath…“ (Commentary on Romans). The bestowal of a punishment is one of the aspects of God's justice and the other is bestowing rewards. But God's justice is one of the attributes of God which are uncreated energies. For example, St.Basil the Great explains in his letter 234.1 that when we mention God’s many attributes, we refer to His operations and not His simple essence: ,,…For he who denies that he knows the essence does not confess himself to be ignorant of God, because our idea of God is gathered from all the attributes which I have enumerated. But God, he (Eunomius) says, is simple, and whatever attribute of Him you have reckoned as knowable is of His essence. … When all these high attributes have been enumerated, are they all names of one essence? And is there the same mutual force in His awfulness and His loving-kindness, *His* *justice* and His creative power, His providence and His foreknowledge, and *His* *bestowal* *of* *rewards* *and* *punishments* , His majesty and His providence? In mentioning any one of these do we declare His essence? …If they say that essence is something distinct, let them not put us in the wrong on the score of simplicity. For they confess themselves that there is a distinction between the essence and each one of the attributes enumerated. The operations are various, and the essence is simple, but we say that we know God from His operations, but do not undertake ot approach near His essence. His operations come down to us but His essence remains beyond our reach.“ (Letter 234.1). (www.newadvent.org/fathers/3202234.htm). The issue is that a rejection of God’s wrath (and so the need of its appease through Christ’s Sacrifice) resembles the false teaching of of Marcion (2nd century). Marcionism is mentioned in Canon 95 of the Ecumenical Council of Trullo (692):,,...And the Manicheans, and Valentinians and Marcionites and all of similar heresies must give certificates and anathematize each his own heresy, and also Nestorius, Eutyches, Dioscorus, Severus, and the other chiefs of such heresies, and those who think with them, and all the aforesaid heresies; and so they become partakers of the Holy Communion.'' St. Irenaeus of Lyon refutes Marcionism in Against Heresies, Book III, Chapter 25: … 2. Again, that they might remove the rebuking and judicial power from the Father, reckoning that as unworthy of God, and thinking that they had found out a God both without anger and [merely] good, they have alleged that one [God] judges, but that another saves, unconsciously taking away the intelligence and justice of both deities… 3. Marcion, therefore, himself, by dividing God into two, maintaining one to be good and the other judicial, does in fact, on both sides, put an end to deity. For he that is the judicial one, if he be not good, is not God, because he from whom goodness is absent is no God at all; and again, he who is good, if he has no judicial power, suffers the same [loss] as the former, by being deprived of his character of deity…“

There is an essential assumption being made here (which is rarely, if ever duscussed) upon which the entire theology of the incarnation and atonement depends - that man (and the entire cosmos) is ontologically separate from God. Because of this assumption, it becomes a theological necessity for Christ to reunite God and man (and all that is). However, once it's seen that this assumption is in fact false, then the entire incarnation and atonement theology falls apart. Christ becomes an example, not the exception.

❤esti Român?

Imagine god doesent exist and this people waste there lifes over such unimportent things. This is in soooo many ways sad.