Truth Unites - Orthodox-Protestant Dialogue (Demetrios Bathrellos & Gavin Ortlund)

Episode Date: June 24, 2024

Father Demetrios Bathrellos and Gavin Ortlund discuss Protestant and Eastern Orthodox theology, exploring both points of agreement and points of disagreement. Thanks to First Greek Evangelical Church in Athens, Greece, for hosting. Truth Unites exists to promote gospel assurance through theological depth. Gavin Ortlund (PhD, Fuller Theological Seminary) is President of Truth Unites and Theologian-in-Residence at Immanuel Nashville. SUPPORT: Tax Deductible Support: https://truthunites.org/donate/ Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/truthunites FOLLOW: Twitter: https://twitter.com/gavinortlund Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/TruthUnitesPage/ Website: https://truthunites.org/

Hey everybody, this video is a dialogue that I was very honored to have with Father Demetrius Batrelos, who's an Eastern Orthodox priest, and he's a very good academic as well. He's a lecturer in theology at St. Andrew's Greek Orthodox Theological College in Athens, Greece. This was hosted by a wonderful church there called First Greek Evangelical Church. Right, historic building really cool, right near the Parthenon in the heart of Athens there. You'll see Pastor Eotis guiding this dialogue, and they invited me to address basically where Protestants and Eastern Orthodox agree and then where we disagree, and then for Father Demetrius to respond, and then for us to interact just a little bit. It didn't get real in-depth. I hope your expectations for this aren't hours and hours. But it was a wonderful

conversation. Father Demetrius is a wonderful man who was grateful to meet him and his wife, great people. And it was very refreshing to have dialogue in person as opposed to what so often happens, which is in the online dynamics. Things get skee. So just being in Athens and learning about orthodoxy there was a great experience for me. I was speaking in Rome for something else. And so this was able to come about while I was already over there. And I was just so what a privilege. You know, it's so awesome to be able to do that.

I was just filled with gratitude. And it was, you know, dialoguing like this is important and helpful. And basically, hopefully it just clarifies the differences, really. I mean, I think that's a big part. We just got to talk a lot. The video quality is the best that I can make it. And my voice was failing. You'll hear that because I was sick.

when I was over there, actually, so hopefully that won't be too distracting. Thanks for watching. I always forget to say, but it does help when you like the video, share, subscribe. A lot of people watch my videos, but never subscribe. I get that, but if you're willing to subscribe, that's helpful, helps the channel grow. If you would like to support Truth Unites, if that would be joyful for you to support what I'm doing, I appreciate it. You can do that at Patreon or at the Truthunites.org website. If you get, everyone who gives monthly gets to be part of the community, you get early access to some videos, you get, invited to support or only Zoom meetings. You get a chance to give me feedback. I try to build

good community and so forth there. So that's a lot of fun. All right. Without further ado, we'll dive right in. Well, good evening, everyone. It's wonderful to be here. Thank you for coming. And may the Lord bless you tonight. I have been praying that our time would be honoring to Christ. Even in the simple ways that we talk to one another, we have an opportunity to honor Christ and to live out what he has done for us in the gospel. So I'm excited for tonight. I'm very honored. to be here. Thank you to everyone at First Greek Evangelical Church, especially Pastor Yotis, for welcoming us and being so hospitable. And I'm very honored to speak with Father Demetrius. Thank you for the opportunity. So we're going to talk about the Protestant and Eastern Orthodox

relationship. There was a missionary once who was sharing the gospel with people who had no concept of God as a father. They understood fathers and they understood God. but they had no category for a divine father. And as this news was sinking in upon them, one of them said, well, if God is our father and God is your father, then you and I are brothers. And I think of that story many times when we're having dialogue and conversation within the body of Christ,

even amidst very serious differences. This is something I believe with all of my heart. The New Testament teaches us. that the great reality of what Jesus Christ has done for us in reconciling us to God makes us reconciled to all other Christians at the same time. And that's a beautiful thing. And so the prayer of John 17 for unity is something that all of us should not just give lip service to, but sincerely in our hearts, we should ache for that and have a burden

for that. At the same time, unity must never be pursued at the expense of truth. The differences that exist between different Christian bodies are real and significant, as we'll talk about tonight. And if we gloss over them in a search for unity, then we don't really have a real unity. Unity must be premised in the truth. Jay Gresham-Machin was a Protestant theologian who was commenting on the 1529 Marlborough colloquy, where the Lutheran and the reformed branches of Protestantism failed to unite, and he faulted Luther for that.

But he praised his willingness to contend for the truth. And I don't know if we have this slide or not, I will see. You can read along with some of these quotes, since it's warm, I'll do my best to keep your attention, the best that I can, and keep it moving here. And we'll have time for questions as well. He said Luther was wrong about the supper, but not nearly so wrong as he would have been if being wrong, he had said to his opponents, brethren, this matter is a trifle. It makes really very little difference what a man thinks about the table of the Lord.

Such indifferentism would have been far more deadly than all the divisions between the branches of the church. Many times it will be better for us to be wrong than indifferent, because the truth. because the truth matters. It matters to the Lord, and it matters for how we live. So I just open like this to say that all that I will offer tonight is in the spirit of those two values, seeking unity sincerely where we can and honoring the truth without compromise to the best of our ability, and to try to do both of those things I find takes the Holy Spirit's help. We cannot do it in our own strength and in our own wisdom.

So that's why I've been praying that the Holy Spirit would help us as we discuss tonight. So what I'd like to do is work through four areas of agreement between Protestants and Eastern Orthodox Christians and then four areas of disagreement. And whether or not we make any progress in resolving things, it's still wonderful to discuss and have friendship as we do and to try to discuss these things in a Christ-honoring way. And I hope I'm getting over a cold, so I hope that's not a distraction for me as we go. I'll try to speak clearly despite that. Okay, neither of these lists is exhaustive, but we'll just demarcate some of the central issues. Okay? So first, four areas where, and I'm not assuming that

any of you or Father Demetrius need agree with me. This is my best effort. But here are four areas where I think we agree. Agreement number one, I call. mere Christianity, and I'm using that very broad label borrowing from C.S. Lewis. This might seem very modest, but it's important not to assume anything and to start here, recognizing that historically, Protestants have regarded Eastern Orthodoxy as a Christian tradition that is a part of the Christian Church. Both Calvin and Luther rejected the Roman Catholic claim in their day that what they called the Greek Church, that's Eastern Orthodoxy, had lapsed from the Christian faith. Calvin complained about this position.

You can read this quote, I think. They make the Greeks schismatics. The word they there refers to the Roman Catholic hierarchy in the 16th century. With what right? Because in withdrawing from the apostolic see, they lost their privilege. What? Would not they who fall away from Christ deserve to lose it much more? In his editing on this passage, John McNeil, who's edited an edition of Calvin's institutes,

notes that Luther held the same position, responding to a Catholic claim in 1519 from one of his Catholic opponents, saying, essentially, nothing more detestable than this blasphemy could be spoken. Typically colorful Martin Luther. Now, the point that I'm making here is not that the reformers were in agreement with orthodoxy or vice versa, simply that they rejected Rome's condemnation of Orthodoxy as outside the church, which was the prevailing view in the 16th century. If you did not know that, we'll discuss that more later. And they saw it as a church.

Later in the 16th century, a group of Lutheran theologians wrote to Jeremiah the second, ecumenical patriarch of Constantinople, to send him a copy of the Augsburg confession and to engage in a theological correspondence. you can buy a book that has all of these letters, three letters, each direction, between the Lutherans and the Orthodox ecumenical patriarch. Fascinating to read. The Lutherans opened up the whole dialogue with an assertion that orthodoxy possessed a common salvation in Christ, and they expressed their earnest desire for a closer unity

with the Orthodox Church. Their subsequent interaction over the course of these six letters in total reflected significant agreement on matters such as the truth and inspiration of Scripture, the doctrine of God, the Trinity, the two natures of Christ, the nature of evil, the saving office of Christ in his death and resurrection, the future second coming of Christ, and much more. They also shared many other points of doctrine over and against their Roman Catholic opponents. for example, communion in both kinds, a rejection of indulgences and the papacy and purgatory, even other matters.

Toward the end of his second reply, Jeremiah noted, quote, we have agreed on almost all of the main subjects, end quote, but I'm not trying to be misleading because they did disagree. And he noted the areas of disagreement and enjoined the Lutherans to enter the Orthodox Church. The dialogue was not successful in the sense. of resolving the disagreements. Nonetheless, what emerged from that is a significant body of agreement

and from that that the Lutherans regarded Jeremiah as a Christian person in the Christian church to whom Christian love was due. In the Anglican tradition, John Jewell argued that if the Protestants were schismatic, you can see this quote, for leaving Roman Catholicism, then Roman Catholicism was schismatic

for leaving Eastern Orthodox. If we can put this one up, it should be next. What's interesting about that noteback one, that was correct, is the clear preference that Jewel has for Eastern Orthodoxy on historical grounds, and in the second quote that I have there, which I'll read for the sake of those watching on YouTube, thanks for those joining us on YouTube as well, he identified several matters, private masses, mangled sacraments,

purgatories and pardons that he was grateful for the Orthodox criticism of. of. In general, we can say that historic Protestants recognized the Eastern Orthodox Church as a Christian tradition. They were seeking to reform the church, not recreate the church. For them, that required a separation from the papacy because they regarded the papacy as not having apostolic origins. That didn't mean they rejected everything else outside of Protestantism. That was not their mentality. They distinguished between the substance. of the faith and errors and accretions that had come into the church.

What we might call the substance of the faith, on the next slide you can see some examples of this which I won't take the time to read, what William Perkins called the heads of religion, what Francis Turriton called the substance of the faith, what I've used a more colloquial phrase for mere Christianity. And they said we have that in common with many of these traditions not only Eastern Orthodoxy, the Oriental Orthodox as well and others. So let's develop that a bit. Moving more quickly now, what specifically did the early Protestants think that they had in common with the Eastern Orthodox? Point of agreement number two,

the doctrine of God generally, and specifically the Trinity. Now I want to flag that I'm aware that the issue of the filiocque, or whether the spirit proceeds from the son as well as the father. If you're not familiar with that, we can talk about that a bit later. I just want to flag that is a point of disagreement, more on that, but the early Protestants held the same general understanding of God's nature, attributes, and triune relations. Article 1 of the 39 Anglican articles reads, in unity of this godhead, there must be three persons of one substance, power, and eternity, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. The Belgian Confession from the reform tradition, similarly maintained there are three persons in the one and only divine essence,

the doctrine of the Trinity has always been maintained in the true church from the time of the apostles until the present. So with other Protestants as well. Now, when they articulated the doctrine of the Trinity, the early Protestants were self-consciously following in the tradition of the first several ecumenical councils and early creeds, such as the apostles, Nicene and Athanasian creeds. Article 1 of the Augsburg Confession in the Lutheran tradition explicitly references the Council of Nicaa. I don't remember if I put that up as a slide or not. And it says this is true and to be believed without any doubting. The Apostles, Nicene, and Athanasian creeds were appended to many editions of the Lutheran Book of Concord

and the Anglican 39 articles, and they are explicitly endorsed in the Belgian Confession as well. So this means something very significant. I mean, if we're tempted to just brush that aside, we should appreciate what we have. While the early Protestants believed that reform was needed within the church because of pastoral abuse and other doctrinal innovations, they did not regard that reform to touch the doctrine of God. when it came to the relationship, or today, when it comes to the relationship between Protestants, at least confessional Protestants, and Eastern Orthodox Christians, we have a common creedal heritage

in at least the first four ecumenical councils and the early creeds like the three that I have mentioned. Both of our traditions are anchored in this creedal foundation. That's worth recognizing. That's significant. Now, where we likely differ is the dispute concerning the filioque that I have mentioned. Protestants have generally followed the Western position in affirming that the spirit proceeds from the son as well as the father, but we have not typically attached the same level of importance to that doctrine as happened before the Reformation. Francis Turriton, for example, argued for the filiochwe, but then argued that dispute about it does not result in a deadly heresy.

From a Protestant perspective, the filioque is one component or aspect of the doctrine of the Trinity, and disagreement about that does not sweep away our broader agreement. We can discuss that more if you'd like. I'm going to keep it moving, okay? Agreement number three. The doctrine of Christology, or the person and work of Christ, the early Protestants self-consciously and steadfastly affirmed the Christology reflected in the four Ecumenical Council, the Council of Chalcedon.

Article 2 of the Anglican 39 articles reads thus, I won't read the entire quote, but what you will note if you read carefully is that the language here is explicitly derived from Chalcedon, two natures and one person in Christ. And then you can see heretical views in the early church being excluded by this language, never to be divided, for example. And that is thoroughly representative of all of the historic Protestant confessions. On the next slide, you can see three examples from the Augsburg confession, that's Lutheran, the Westminster Confession of Faith in the Reformed Tradition and the Methodist Confession of Faith. And we could give many others as well.

Concerning the work of Christ, Protestants generally positioned themselves in continuity with the early church as well, even including an affirmation of Christ's descent into hell, which is also present in the Lutheran, Anglican, and Reformed traditions. And while there may be differences of emphasis in terms of how we construe Christ's atoning work, the differences are not absolute, and they concern the same basic shell or narrative events. virgin birth, his sinless life, his atoning death, his burial, resurrection, ascension, and future second coming. That is significant. Agreement number four would concern areas of social witness. Now, we don't really have the time to unpack this at length, but this is an

interesting point. This is one area where we live in a different world than pre-modern Christians. Peter Craft has said, when there is a lunatic at the door, quarreling brothers reconcile. I like that quote. He's speaking of the Protestant Roman Catholic relationship there, but I think that applies to other relationships as well. We face an increasingly hostile and complicated world in the 21st century, especially in the West with the rise of secularism. insofar as basic Christian morality is under fire, say the dignity of the human person or the goodness and sanctity of marriage or the objectivity of morality. Protestants and Eastern Orthodox Christians can and should come together to work together

for societal good and we can go a long way in that direction together. Though for the sake of time I won't develop that now. Okay, so hopefully you're all still with me. That's not an exhaustive list. We have many other points of agreement we could mention as well. But now let's identify four areas of disagreement. And in what follows here, I will attempt to be descriptive rather than to adjudicate these disagreements,

though at times I'll gesture towards the Protestant rationale. Now, disagreement number one, ecclesiology or the doctrine of the church. And I'll just pause to get a drink, hoping my voice isn't distracting you too much. Now here there are many areas of disagreement under this general domain of ecclesiology that we could discuss, such as the sacraments, their nature and number, or the offices in the church in many cases. But perhaps the most poignant one and the one that is deepest within my heart is the the question of whether the church is best conceived as a singular institution under a singular hierarchy

and most specifically whether it should be restricted to that institution. Historically, the Eastern Orthodox Church has claimed to be the one true church, outside of which there is no salvation. Perceived Western innovations like the Filiocque have been regarded as heresy, placing a person outside of the canonical boundaries of the church and thus cut off from the grace of the Holy Spirit given in the sacraments, therefore cut off from Christ and from salvation. Now I've demarcated this more in videos. Here's a few representative examples, and I want to acknowledge this is not universal in the early church.

I'm especially thinking of the 9th through the 19th centuries. I acknowledge diversity before and after that time. But the medieval and early modern view seems to be basically the Catholics and the Protestants are both off of Noah's Ark, drowning in the water. The 18th century Orthodox monk and theologian Paezius Felichkovsky wrote, What hope do they have for salvation? Speaking of those who affirm the filiocque, unless they openly renounce this spirit-fighting heresy

and become again united with the Holy Orthodox Eastern Church. that seems to reflect that's representative of the ethos and mindset. The 1672 Synod of Jerusalem produced the confession of De Scythius, who is the patriarch of Jerusalem, which repeatedly referred to Protestants as heretics, and stipulated that the dignity of the bishop is so necessary in the church that without him, neither church nor Christian could either be spoken of. he is, we affirm as necessary to the church as breath is to man or the sun to the world. And, quote, for that reason, he regarded those outside the church as forsaken by the Holy Spirit. Quote, when these forsake the Church, they are forsaken by the Holy Spirit, and there remains in them,

neither understanding nor light, but only darkness and blindness. Now, it's painful to talk about these areas of difference, isn't it? But I think it's important enough that it's good to just try to be objective and thorough about it. This does seem to be representative of the Eastern Orthodox position up until recent times. You could see the 1848 encyclical of the Eastern Patriarchs and the patriarchal encyclical of 1895, referencing both the Catholics and the Protestants, they're heretics. They're off the Ark of Salvation. Many more examples can be given.

And even today, though there will be an acknowledgement of salvation more broadly at times, the denial of valid sacraments among Protestants generally remains. Essentially, from an Eastern Orthodox position, as I have studied it, Protestant churches are not churches. Now, the Reformation also affirmed the doctrine that there is no salvation outside the church. The difference is that the reformers denied that even, Eastern Orthodoxy or Roman Catholicism or any other singular institution could claim to exhaust the fullness of the church.

You can see how Calvin put it. The church is the society of all the saints, a society which spread over the whole world and existing in all ages, yet bound together by the one doctrine and one spirit of Christ, cultivates and observes unity of faith and brotherly concord. With this church, we deny that we have any disagreement, nay, rather as we revere her as our mother. So we desire to remain in her bosom. Let me clarify a point that comes up again and again. This does not mean Protestants are universalists, that we have no boundaries to the church.

It simply means we reject an institutional exclusivism. The boundaries are not set around one institution. In Mark 9, when Jesus said the one who is not against, us is for us, he was not advocating for universalism because the one he spoke of was doing exorcisms in the name of Christ. That exorcist was not a member of a different religion. We feel bound to this aspect of Christ's teaching as Protestants that the good fruit reveals a good tree, as Jesus teaches in Matthew 7, so that when we observe a community in a remote village, that experiences the gospel through the advance of the internet.

And the community is baptized into the name of Christ, the witch doctors lose their power, the demons are cast out, the sorcerers burn their magic books, the community is reciting the Apostles' Creed, they have tears of joy while they celebrate the Eucharist. We say that is a church, period. If they lack formal institutional incorporation

into a broader mechanism, so what? They have Jesus Christ and his gospel. Where Christ is with his gospel, there is the potential for a valid church, where Christ is present in word and sacrament. Okay, a second area of disagreement, and these last three will be very brief. I'll just flag them, because the first one was the one that is deepest in my heart. Number two is our views of the roles of scripture, tradition, and the church. Historically, Protestants and Eastern Orthodox Christians agree that scripture is infallible, meaning incapable of error. But Protestants insist that scripture is our only infallible rule. That is to say, the church is not infallible. And the church must continually measure herself by scripture. By contrast,

the confession of De Scythias described the Eastern Orthodox. view in saying that the church, like the divine scriptures, is infallible. Now, it is not the Protestant position that tradition is to be rejected wholesale, nor that functions of the church like councils have no authority. We simply maintain that they are fallible. All post-apostolic organs of the church are fallible, and therefore subordinate under scripture and reformable in light of it. This is rooted in the in our conviction of what Scripture is as the inspired word of God, or God breathed, as Paul calls it. So that just as Jesus corrected the traditions of the Pharisees with Scripture in Mark

7, so also the Church must measure herself and her tradition by the superior standard of the inspired speech of God given to us in Holy Scripture. I've made that case more fully elsewhere, but suffice to say, this is the deepest methodological disagreement that we have, and it trickles down to the very roots of how we conceptualize the basic question. What is Christianity? To answer that question, you must take a position functionally on the debate between scripture and tradition. Disagreement number three.

How salvation is conceptualized, especially justification. Now, here we Protestants have much to learn from our Eastern Orthodox friends, and the disagreement need not be conceptualized as wider than it is. For example, the notion of deification is particularly emphasized in the Orthodox tradition, and this is something that one can find, contrary to popular opinion, in the Protestant traditions as well and in the West more generally. Part of my research has concerned the role of the transfiguration in salvation, and the Eastern Orthodox have led the way on this matter. However, a remaining area of disagreement is the nature and centrality of justification.

This difference has especially been chiseled out in our dialogue with our Roman Catholic friends, but it comes up in this context as well. Protestants conceive of the formal cause of justification, that is, the intrinsic component of our justification, that it essentially is. This must be identified as the imputed righteousness of Christ. Our legal standing before God is not based on anything within us, but on the external, alien, perfect righteousness of Jesus Christ. For Protestants, this account is manifestly what Paul taught in Romans for and elsewhere.

And it is necessary for assurance of salvation, because any righteousness within us, can never be a sound basis for our standing before a holy God. A fourth area of disagreement is practices of worship and devotion. Protestants and Eastern Orthodox differ concerning what practices of worship and devotion should look like. For example, Protestants have concerned with the practice of invoking the intercession of the saints, as well as venerating icons and to a lesser extent relics. Those are some of the unresolved points in the Lutheran Orthodox exchange from the 1580s. And we could conceptualize it like this, and I'm almost done.

But if you think of the five solas of the Reformation, the second disagreement I've noted concerns Sola Scriptura. Scripture is our only infallible rule. The third concerns Sola Fide and to some extent Sola Grata. by faith alone, by grace alone, this area of disagreement concerns the final two solas, solas Christus and sola dao gloria,

glory to God alone, and Christ alone is our mediator. Now, I don't have time to thoroughly sketch this out, but the core of it is a concern that practices like praying to saints or venerating icons simply don't go back to the apostles. They are post-apostolic innovations, in the church. And if someone would like to see a case for that from a Protestant perspective,

they can look at some of my YouTube videos if they're interested in seeing that. Now, this list is not exhaustive, but these are some of the most important differences. Hopefully that just charts out and sets the table for us as we do the really important work now of talking with each other. And let me sum up with this final paragraph to say this. What do we do? with all of that as we talk? Well, I'll say three things. Number one, three basic, these are very modest, very basic conclusions. Number one, from the Protestant perspective, we can and should regard each other as Christians and appreciate our areas of common ground. Number two, the disagreements we have are serious and substantial. They should not be trivialized. They represent

a real ecclesial divide. And number three, therefore, we should continue to dialogue with each other in the midst of both agreement and disagreement. And here is my final comment. This is all the more the case, because historically, we have just barely begun to talk. When I started engaging these issues, I thought, what could I possibly add? These disagreements concern hundreds of millions of people over hundreds and hundreds of years. Surely it's all been talked to death.

We've barely begun to talk. And modern technology makes it all the more possible. We've not exhausted dialogue. We have often misunderstood one another. The conversation is just beginning. May the third millennium of Christian history, if the second millennium has been an era of division, be an area of reconciliation by the power of the Holy Spirit. And may the Lord give us a spirit of love for one another and for his truth in the process.

In the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, Amen. Thank you. Am I audible? Okay, can you hear me? Okay, thank you very much. It is with great joy that I take part in this brotherly conversation about convergences and divergences between the Evangelicals and the Orthodox. I have great respect for the evangelicals.

I have evangelical friends not only in this country but also abroad. And some of my theological heroes, notably William Lane Craig in the area of Apollogical are evangelicals. In addition, I'm involved in the official dialogue between the World Lutheran Federation and the Orthodox Church, which I always find an enriching experience. Incidentally, I have just returned from a visit to a theological college in Finland, where Lutherans and Orthodox cooperate in a mutually beneficial way. Let me express. at this point my gratitude to the pastor of this church, Yotis Katarjeez, in spite of revealing you that story. So I will have to be more careful when talking to you.

Well, not only for his long-standing friendship, but also for the invitation to take part in this event. I'm also grateful to Dr. Gavin Oatland for his wonderful and stimulating talk. I think the best way to respond to this talk is by going through it point by point and making some brief and hopefully helpful comments. So agreement number one, Mia Christianity. Mia Christianity, this phrase, the title of a well-known book by probably the most influential and successful Christian apologist of the 20th century, should I think remind us that Christian faith can and must be proclaimed and defended by all Christians, especially in the

face of challenges such as secularism and atheism, which work for Christianity's marginalization and even elimination. The luxury of being constantly and exclusively preoccupied without doctrinal differences, and in In a polemical way at that, belongs to a bygone era when we were all Christians and there was in fact almost no alternative to Christian faith. This is of course no longer the case. As an Orthodox Christian, I'm grateful to Luther, Calvin and the Protestant tradition for their ecumenical generosity in acknowledging and recognizing the Christian and ecclesial identity

of the Orthodox Church. Although it somehow served also their own cause against Rome, the letters of the Lutheran theologians to Patriarch Jeremiah II were a very important, albeit eventually unsuccessful early ecumenical initiative. I find the aforementioned analogy of substance and accidents. very important. We are often tempted to think that we differ in the substance of the faith

and agree only on the accidents. It's probably the other way around. Although our differences should not be trivialized, we must not forget our much larger common ground. With regard to point two of the agreements between the two traditions, that is to say the doctrine of the Trinity, This is certainly an area in which we converge. We share the same faith in the Triune God, and this is of the utmost importance. There are some differences between the two traditions, such as the essence, energies, distinction, or the fact that the East generally tends to start with the divine persons and move to the divine essence, whereas the West tends to start from the essence and then move to the divine persons,

but in most basics we agree. In fact, the filiocque is probably our most important difference. But I think that on this point, important ecumenical progress has been already made. Just a week ago, the Lutherans and the Orthodox produced a common statement on the filiocque, according to which the father is the cause of the procession of the Holy Spirit, and the Nicene-Constantin-Nobolitan Creed must be resized. in its original form, that is to say without the filiocque. At the same time, it is recognized that the Greek patristic formula

of the spirit's procession through the sun must be further explored as a possible bridge between the Western and the Eastern traditions. Now, with regard to Christology, point three, of our agreement. In this area, there is also substantial agreement between the evangelicals and the Orthodox. We both subscribe to the definition of faith of the Council of Calcedon.

We both believe and proclaim that Christ is one person, fully God and fully man, who came to the world, lived, taught, died, and rose from the dead for our salvation. There are differences in the way we understand his atoning work, and this is something that requires further exploration. exploration. In addition, the Orthodox accept as binding the Christological teaching of three additional ecumenical councils after Calcedon. As to point

number four, social witness, I think we all agree that the need for social witness and work is something on which evangelicals and Orthodox are in agreement. The The dignity and inviolability of human life, as well as respect for marriage and the family, are very important. Let me add here that in the area of social work and witness, the evangelicals are far better than the Orthodox. And I think that we have a great lot to learn from you in this area. Now let us move on quickly to our disagreements.

Now, with regard to ecclesiology, which is perhaps the most contentious point, with regard to the question of the limits of the church, I and many other Orthodox theologians and in general Orthodox people embrace the view of the greatest Orthodox theologian of the 20th century, Father George Florowski, who distinguished between the canonical and the charismatic limits of the church. Although the canonical limits of the church, in this case of the Orthodox Church, are significant, they do not exhaust its charismatic limits which extend far beyond this. The grace of the Holy Spirit is undeniably present outside the boundaries of the Orthodox Church.

Needless to say, we believe that many non-Orthodox Christians will indeed be saved, and of course many Orthodox will not. It is true that in the past, Christian churches often used exclusivist language. When a certain teaching was condemned, those who accepted it were unathematized or even burned at the stake. This was due to a justified but misconceived

and exaggerated, perhaps, sensitivity to the importance of truth. None of us is an exception in this respect. Let me only remind Luther's characterization of the Pope as the Antichrist and of Spigli as a perverted man who had no part in Christ or of Calvin's role in the burning of Servetus. The Orthodox Church in the second millennium often felt threatened by either Roman Catholic unionism, namely the subjection of the Orthodox Church to the Roman Catholic Church, along with the allowance to use our liturgical customs, but also by Protestant missionary work

in traditionally Orthodox territories, especially when the Orthodox Church was weak and under Islam or slightly after that. Now the Orthodox Church's exclusivist claims were probably addressed mainly to the Orthodox flock as a warning against abandoning the church and converting to another Christian church. Let me finally dispel a potential misunderstanding here. Our Orthodox confessions, the confession of those Scythos of Kirillus, Lucarius, etc. do not have the same doctrinal significance as the Protestant ones. The mere fact that we have such confessions is largely due to Protestant influence. For example, the confession of Cyril Lucalis, 1629, is a largely

Calvinist confession which the Church has condemned. At any rate, most of us today take it for granted that non-Orthodox Christians are indeed Christians. And when they convert to our church, they are normally received by chrismation, not by baptism. The recent, Holy and Great Council of Crete, 2016, referred explicitly to Christian churches. Now, what about Scripture, Tradition and the Church? I may be wrong, but I see substantial agreement between evangelicals and Orthodox on this topic. We also believe that Scripture is God-breathed and infallible. But the point is this.

In the words of St. Hilary of Pua'Hé, Scripura is known in a gentles and in intelligento scripture is not in what we read, but in what we understand. So the church secures the correct understanding of Scripture, because scripture can be very easily misunderstood and has often been misunderstood and is being misunderstood. Scripture is not always clear. If it were, Protestants should agree with one another on everything, but alas they don't.

The claim that the church is infallible does not mean, of course, that mistakes are never made. Of course they are. There are countless church councils that got it wrong. What it does mean, however, is that in its fundamental doctrines, such as the Trinity, Christology, the church cannot be led astray because in this case the gates of Hades would have prevailed over it. Now with regard to point number three, the doctrine of justification. Well, as you may know in the Orthodox Church, we are not particularly happy with legal concepts. We mainly operate with the language of ontology, what we are, how, what we are is affected by the

presence of God and so on. For example, we believe that righteousness is not forensically imputed, but ontologically imparted. We become righteous. We are not just deemed righteous. We become members of the church through the gift of baptism, to which we contribute nothing apart from our faith and willingness to be baptized. But after, after we have to be baptized. But after, baptism, we must produce good works in order to be saved. In this area, we may be close to the so-called new perspective on Paul, an interesting Protestant kind of movement of interpreting Paul's theology. And finally, disagreement number four practices of worship and devotion. And I think that this is a very important area of some disagreement between evangelicals and

Orthodox. It is not only about icons which constitute a most powerful witness to the reality of the incarnation. And I see here a big and impressive gospel, which is also a witness to the reality of our embodied faith. The icons are also a very effective way of communion with Christ through the icon. Also about the saints, they are members of the body of Christ. of TOTUS Christus, the whole Christ, to use Augustine's famous expression, their honor is Christ's and their glory is Christ's. The whole Christ, the head and the body, Christ and the church belong together. So as we ask from our fellow Christians to pray for us, we ask it also from the saints.

Another major difference here has to do with the Orthodox ascetic and liturgical life. Long periods of fasting. Long services rooted in the liturgical experience and practice of the early and the Byzantine Church. Vigils. Study of the works of the Desert Fathers and of monastic spirituality. Frequent recitation of the Jesus' prayer. And most importantly, our divine liturgy are some of the most powerful and transformative components of Orthodox identity. Doctrine derives from Doxa, a Greek word, which means both dogma and doxology, doctrine and worship.

This belong together. Protestants are certainly great preachers. but when it comes to ascetic life and the liturgy the Orthodox Church is in my opinion more advanced I have a profound admiration for all those who are and remain Christians, good Christians without the support of this ascetic and liturgical practices how can they manage I really don't know finally I'm fully in support of our common effort

to get to know each other more deeply in the light of Christ. I'm pretty sure that it will be an enriching experience for both evangelicals and Orthodox. Thank you. As we come to the third part of this event, I will give the opportunity, Gavin, and then Father Demetros, if you want to continue the conversation, perhaps you have some things to respond,

and then we can also respond to that. And let me again ask you if you have questions. There are three questions that came through Slydo. There must be a piece of paper like this in every pew. So find it, take the QR or just get into the app and send the, you know, a question, all right? So we'll ask that after the end of this conversation. So, Gavin. I think it's on.

Okay, there we go. I was muted there, thank you. Thank you very much for your comments. Since I went first in the presentation, I'll give you the opportunity if there's anything you would like to pursue here. I wrote down three questions to get to, we don't have to get to any of them, but there are possible questions if that helps steer the conversation,

but if you'd like to begin with anything, I want to give you that opportunity. Sorry, I think I missed that too. Can anyone hear what I'm saying? It's my third. road is leaving, it's my fault, yours. I was just expressing that I'm happy for, if there's anything pressing that you would like to start with. No, no, that's fine, yeah. Okay. Okay. Well, I suppose I can start with my gratitude for your spirit and the content of your comments on the first point of disagreement about

whether or not salvation is possible outside of the Orthodox. Church. I've been in a number of dialogues with Eastern Orthodox Christians. Thus far, I've been told that I am not a Christian in those dialogues. And, you know, I don't take that personally, but I think it's a significant theological point. And it speaks to the nature of the conversation that we're having. Is this conversation a dialogue among Christians, separate Christians who are both within the umbrella of the church. Questions about valid sacraments, of course, will come up as well. Or is it a different sort of dialogue that really isn't among Christians?

And my motive in asking that is not to put you on the spot at all, but just because many will watch this. And I think it's also good for us to model a good discussion about that historically contested point. So I guess it's, you know, how do you see me? As a fellow Christian. Okay. That's wonderful to hear and refreshingly. Yes. There is no doubt about this and the Orthodox Church has been involved in the communal movement from its inception.

And this is clearly a conversation between Christians and the hope is union. We know that this is very difficult, but the more we work together, the more we come closer. But certainly that's a dialogue between Christians, no doubt about this. And of course, as I said, also in my short presentation, when somebody is from the Catholic Church or a Protestant church or whatever is received to the Orthodox Church, the reception does not take place through baptism. Whereas if somebody who is a Jew or a Muslim or a Buddhist or whatever is received, of course he has to be baptized. So there is a clear distinction there between somebody who is a Christian but does not belong to our church and somebody who is not a Christian. And of course, I mean, for God's sake, we can't say that Catholics and Protestants are not Christians.

No, of course, of course they are. I mean, this is taken for granted. I would say by most orthodox, not by all, because we have our fundamentalists, as we probably do as well. But by and large, I think this is taken for granted, I would say. Okay. I suppose then the two areas that we may not get to fully resolve tonight, but I could sort of flag as areas to work through would be one. I struggle to see that as a historically consistent view, looking back in time. So I'm not saying we have to resolve that, but I'd like to articulate that as an area of further work. And the other would be going beyond Christian status.

What would that then entail for valid sacraments such as the Eucharist? Have I ever partaken of the Eucharist from an Orthodox perspective, as you understand it? Well, historically speaking, I mean, okay, the church, let's take the church in the first millennium. I mean, always the practice was to emphasize the fact that the church is one. So whenever there is a disruption, this causes a problem. Okay. And second, the point you made about the importance of the truth, truth matters. we should not trivialize doctrinal differences.

Therefore, again, another question is, when two Christian churches disagree on something? How does this relate to their ecclesial identity, to the validity of their sacraments, and so on so forth? So I think the church in the first millennium was exclusivist. And this was inherited by, the Orthodox Church and the Roman Catholic Church in the second millennium. And the other thing is that, of course, as I said, often Orthodox felt threatened

by missionary work on Orthodox soil. And we can see if we study carefully, for instance, how Catholics were treated in particular. For example, in the first two centuries of the Ottoman occupation of Greece, Roman Catholic priests were invited to preach and hear confessions of Orthodox people by Orthodox bishops. But then the Orthodox Church felt threatened and they started just to be too critical of Roman Catholicism.

So this is kind of part and parcel of the historical kind of processes. Now with regard to the sacraments, it's a difficult question because it has to do. with apostolic succession, with the question of the bishop which is important for us. Sometimes it is too important perhaps. But certainly what I can say is that the grace of God is present in the Protestant world. Baptism, as I said, is somehow accepted because a Protestant is received by Christmation. This is an implicit acknowledgement of baptism. So I think there is a positive way to look at this and work from that point on.

Can I intrude a little bit here? Can I ask two questions really relevant to what you just said, Father Demetres? First of all, our experience, unfortunately, has been that many people who are going to get married to an Orthodox husband or wife. They're required by... many priests and sometimes even bishops to be rebaptized as orthodox. So that, and also if I may add, I mean, it's a very interesting point that, okay, exclusivism has been explained as a defensive mechanism. But what about Greece, for example?

I mean, it's orthodox church is a state. Church really protected, privileged. I mean, it's not under threat of, you know, it's not like in the former USSR or whatever. so why, I mean, there's so many people who would be really exclusivist in terms of their understanding. Okay, good point, but I think we should make a differentiation between the official teaching of the church and what individual Christians believe. This distinction, of course, goes back to Augustine. And a Protestant friend of mine told me that perhaps most Protestants, well, he may be wrong,

but he told me that most Protestants are Pelagians, in fact. Okay. So, but the official practice of the church, both of the communal patriarchate and of the Church of Greece, is that non-Orthodox Christians who have a valid baptism, that is to say a baptism in the name of the Holy Trinity, yes, are received by Christmation.

And when I was in London, serving in London, this is always the practice. we received quite a few converts, basically through marriages, this is the practice that we always followed with no exception whatsoever. But of course, as I said, we have people who are more conservative, and we have to listen to them and take their view into account. And I think that the reason behind this is sensitivity to the significance of truth. Perhaps, as I said, it is exaggerated, it is misconceived, it is unbalanced, but that's really the reason behind it. And I think it's a valid reason as it is shown in your story about Luther and, you know,

being faulted for not agreeing with the reformed but praised for insisting on the significance of truth. I think it's this dialectics at work there. If I could just a comment on that, I didn't say this earlier, but I meant to say from my vantage point, I certainly regard to the dialectics. you as a Christian and I'm honored and enriched to know you in that relationship, I think if I could summarize my historical interpretation is that these two different traditions, Eastern Orthodoxy on the one side and the Protestants on the other, if we pick up from the distinction that you

just made between what people might believe at the street level and the official teaching, it looks to me like it's not mere fundamentalism to regard a distinction here. because I've combed through, I know that Orthodox confessions may not function in the same way as a Protestant confession. Nonetheless, they are representative of certain teachings within the life of the Orthodox Church. And the language seems, I see a fundamental asymmetry here, because the official teaching of Lutheran Anglican reformed, by extension Baptist and Methodist, is they're Christians, they have. have valid sacraments, they're part of the church. But it looks to me universal, that the official teaching in the other direction is the forsaken by the Holy Spirit in the darkness and blind. What hope

do they have for salvation? Those don't look to me like merely warnings. They look to me like assertions about people already separate from the Orthodox Church. We may not resolve this, of course, but I would just like to offer that as my historical interpretation. Can I add something, Father Demetres, before you can respond to that? What exactly is the Panorthodox Synod decided on the way that the Orthodox regards us? I mean, do they regard us protest as a valid church? I mean, is that the expression?

Well, as well, the Holy and Great Council that was. was convened in Crete in 2016 had produced some kind of formal statements, one of which is on the church. I don't remember all the details. It's not a very long statement. It's perhaps a couple of pages long or something. But certainly there is reference to Christian churches and Christian communities. Well, there has been some criticism by some That's why I'm asking, I can push a little bit more. Regarding the word churches, not regarding the characterization of Christian churches. Yeah, I'm talking about churches, yes.

And I think, again, the problem here is how to balance the faith that the church is one and the fact that the church is divided. How are we going to resolve this kind of tension there? The other thing, of course, is that Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy are by nature more institutional churches. They have big institutional kind of structures, which is sometimes a blessing, sometimes it's not. For instance, Protestants are more effective in missionary work, partly because they are more flexible, they move more quickly. We are, it's difficult for a big mechanism to move. Well, when

it moves it makes an impact, but it takes time, perhaps, an effort. So we are two different traditions since I think these kind of statements must be seen within a wider context in order to be understood properly. We have 21 questions that came in, which of course we're not going to ask them all, but let me tell you a way to help me decide is that you can put like on the questions and you know the more likes they get they go higher up so we can you know kind of decide I mean you can decide which ones are the most popular to ask so I'm just following the likes and I'll combine two questions together do professing Greek Orthodox people need evangelizing. I ask because 95% of Greek people age 2018 to 25, we meet

a period to not know Jesus. And if I can make it more provocative, I'll add the next question. What would you have to say about conversions from Protestant to Orthodox faith? So to combine the two questions you know what about if if we think that people need to be re-evangelized they need to you know how would you feel if you know some evangelicals will evangelize them and these people will convert and you know kind of be conscious in their following of jesus okay i think that all christian churches become more sensitive in this area, namely understanding that evangelism is primarily for people who are not Christians, because if we start evangelizing people belonging to different church, then we will be in trouble, and we have been in trouble in this respect.

So the truth is that Greece is becoming secular, unfortunately, very, very rapidly, as is the case in Europe as a whole. Europe is becoming very rapidly post-Christian. I think America is better, but probably there you are moving in this direction too. And Christianity moves to the so-called global south. So there is a lot of work to be done, but I think that for the sake of Christian unity, one should focus on evangelizing its own people. So we have very many people in the Orthodox Church

who know very little about Christ to our shame and we should work with them while being open to other Christian traditions and we were talking earlier about my wife who teaches religious education at secondary school which is 100 meters from the Bible college and she takes the students there to be able to witness a different Christian tradition. And of course the students don't become Protestants but that's not the point.

The point is that we should be Christians but also open to other traditions and focus on evangelizing our own people I would think. How do even, you have a question. How do evangelicals and Orthodox Christians interpret John 3, 5 to 7, so we're supposed as Protestants to know that by heart. That's it. You know? Specifically regarding the concepts of spiritual regeneration and being born again.

Yes. We'll briefly, since we've got 19 more questions and maybe others will come. I mean, we're not going to, like vote, so, you know, we're not going to take all of them, so vote so that we can choose the right ones. This is not something there is only one view of. on among Protestants. One of the most popular commentaries on John is D.A. Carson's, and he doesn't think that this is a reference to baptism, the water there. But many other Protestants do.

So many Protestants think that it is a reference to baptism, and thus you get the doctrine of baptismal regeneration from that text. And this is often pressed against us as a point of universal consensus among the Church Fathers. So, but that's sort of an intra-Protestant issue. And I think it is very complicated because I think John is drawing that language from the book of Ezekiel and the sprinkling and washing with water imagery, which does have a relationship to baptism. So, you know, that's in view, that's in the mix there.

But I don't think it's specifically and directly a reference to baptism. I think it's a reference to what baptism then portrays and expresses as a sort of, that's my own personal view. But on the question, there's a diversity of views among Protestants. Would you like to respond to that? Well, I haven't studied this closely, but my general impression is that it's to do with baptism. It's the dialogue between Nicodemus and Christ, correct? Unless somebody is being... By what?

by water and the spirit. Yes. So I have always thought that this combination of water and the spirit is a reference to baptism, but I will probably have to look. Here's another question, which I found it really interesting. Imagine you meet a stranger on the street. I mean, it has seven likes. I mean, it's not because I like it, because people like it. Imagine you meet a stranger on the street.

he approaches you and asks, what must I do to be saved in five minutes or less less here? Provide an answer. Actually, this is an interesting question because there is a little booklet written by Callistos Ware

with that title, How Are We Being Saved? And the story goes about he was on a train and two people approached him and all of that. But I think it's a, you know, it's a good question. So who wants to start? I mean, we'd like both of you to respond.

Gavin? Sure. I'm glad to answer this because I was 50-50 on whether to chime in on the first question, but I can unfold my comments there into this. So I think one of the strengths of Protestantism that I admire, and I'm grateful for and proud of, is its emphasis upon personal faith and its desire to be a renewal movement within the church. because we all need renewal constantly, daily from the Holy Spirit, and the church needs renewal.

So in light of that, I would say that that sort of steers my answer to this for how does someone become a Christian. And it comes down to personal faith and repentance in response to the gospel. And I think we can have a broad agreement on the big umbrella here, I suspect. The gospel is the good news that although we have sinned against God and are alienated from Him, Jesus Christ has come into the world to provide reconciliation to God, forgiveness, and eternal life. To appropriate that gift, we respond with faith. That means trusting in Christ with all of our hearts, and repentance.

That means turning and changing from sin to life. And Protestants agree with our Orthodox friends that we may. must have good works if we are a true Christian. Jesus said, if you love me, you will obey what I command. Our only concern is their instrumental role in our legal standing, so we don't think they actually make us righteous. So how does someone become a Christian? You repent and you believe in the true gospel, you get baptized, you join a church, that is what makes you a Christian. Father Demetius? Well, Protestants are unbeatable in missionary activities. Be careful, be careful.

But I'll try my best. I would emphasize repentance, because repentance is change of mind, metania, change of heart, change of life. So everything is there, faith, love, works, and so on. Then of course, I would say a few things about Jesus Christ. His love, his life, his death, his resurrection, his promises. And I would encourage this person to join a good, vibrant Christian community to begin with.

But you know what often happens? People start well. It's like the Parable of the Sala, but later they give up. So that's also important, I mean, to make him realize that his new life in Christ will bear fruit in time. Thank you. This is a question that has many likes, so it's kind of interesting. What is the role of the theology of beauty in both churches?

Well, this is an area where Protestants have much to learn from our Orthodox friends. all one need do is walk into any Orthodox Church to see the value of beauty and the intentionality with which beauty is constructed. Every square inch of Orthodox church buildings are done with intentionality. Nothing is random. And Protestant churches have often lost that, but more recently, historically that didn't characterize Protestant. Some of that is a function of modernity.

And in some cases, let us not be too harsh to judge a particular church if circumstances prohibit them from having fancy structure. In some cases, in a missionary context, you do your best, right? But to value this, whether it be in church architecture or other aspects of worship, as a mechanism for conveying the grandeur of God, other specific theological truths, in the way of God, in the a way that is not incidental to our entire witness to the gospel and our entire worship of the Trinity. That is important.

Some Protestants understand that and value that, but more should, and we can learn from our Orthodox friends along the way. Father Demetius, do you have a comment? I also believe that beauty is important, and this is partly to do with the fact that we have icons. Of course we don't worship them. Although sometimes to be fair, there are excesses in practice which are condemnable. But let me tell you a brief story.

When I first visited Constantinople in my early 20s, we were going to the Monastery of Hora, which the Turkish government has just turned to a mosque. And somebody was sitting next to me in the coach and told me that if you see the icons of this monastery and you are an atheist. feast, you will become a Christian. And I thought to myself, well, actually, this was a kind of strange person anyway. I thought to myself, oh, what is this man saying? That's, anyway.

It's more like, you know, like him. But when I went there and saw them, I thought he was right. They were so beautiful and breathtaking. You couldn't believe it. It was like seeing Christ, there isn't Christ in his beauty. alive and present. So beauty is important. It must function, of course, along with other things, truth, repentance, but it can be very inspiring, music, literature, I mean, hymnography. For instance, in our liturgies, we use prayers written by Christosthom and St. Basil, and they are very

profound, theologically, but written in the most beautiful Greek. you can possibly imagine. So all that is inspiring. More for some people, less for all of us, but I think they are helpful to all. If I could just make one comment, that is a clarification for not on anything Father Demetrius has said,

but in general, and for Protestants, the Protestant concern with icons is not just mere icons. So, didactic use of images, aesthetic use, commemorative use. We see this in the early church.

It is commendable. It is edifying. It is good. And so for Protestants and others as well who sometimes misunderstand this point, the nature of the disagreement when it comes to icons is not just having icons in churches

or having icons elsewhere. The difference is their usage. And this is probably something we don't have time to fully flesh out tonight, but the concern, this gets to the issue of Sola Scriptura, because essentially we would say the practice of bowing before an icon, however that is understood, and praying through the icon, using a physical object as a means of spiritual mediation in our prayer life and devotional life, we would just say that isn't apostolic. And so this is where Sola Scriptura comes in, but also a historical case.

So that, I'm just trying to demarcate, that would be where the difference is on that point. You know, that will be the last question because, you know, we don't want to take advantage of you. You're very kind to respond all of them. So that comes next to the list, but I think it is a very essential question. Both, you know, let me elaborate. you talked about when you talk about justification, the imputation and the impartation. So the question goes,

could you too talk a little bit more about imputed versus ontological righteousness? Could this be a moment similar to trying to pit Paul versus James on Salvation? Could you repeat that poem? To be Paul versus James, like the authors like St. Paul and, you know, James. But let me, you know, because that will be kind of the closing and, you know, a statement, sort of say. So I would like to ask why just, you know, imputed righteousness is important and why, you know, imparted righteousness is important. You know, so if we can just make a comment on both of those. Yeah.

Well, it seems to me that perhaps these. central gift that from my vantage point and a Protestant vantage point, the reformation was to the broader church, especially spread out through time, was the insight into the entirely gracious way that we are made right in the sight of God. And it seems that there is a legal element to that. The legal dimension is not the whole thing. And some Protestants have maybe over-emphasis. that aspect of salvation. I think I would say the centerpiece is union with Christ. And again, there are aspects of salvation that the Eastern Orthodox tradition seems to be particularly adept at articulating and exploring. But there is this legal component of our relationship with God.

Among other roles that God is, to us, one of them is judge. And we will give an account of our lives to God as our judge. So that is one aspect of our creaturely status before our creator. And I think what Luther got right, it seems to me, is that because God is perfectly holy, we don't want to put our ultimate trust in anything within us that we produce for that righteous status that is needed before a holy God.

And it does seem to me to be what Paul teaches and even verbs that he will use to describe Abraham's justification, for example, that can be translated as credited, which is a sort of legal term. And actually legal imagery is throughout the scripture for salvation and for sin. Even in the Lord's prayer, forgive us our debts. It's a financial term. But the point is, I think what Luther got right is that our standing before God, with respect to that legal dimension must be perfection because God is perfect.

And I value that and I appreciate that because when I stand before God on judgment day and give an account of my life, I know that I need to be clothed in the perfect clothing of Jesus Christ. I know that I need to be wrapped in that which I cannot produce through my own merits. And now, today I seek to produce good works, is a grateful response to that, but not as something that actually contributes to that legal standing before God. So that is my best effort to articulate from a Protestant perspective what I am grateful for about justification particularly.

I've already forgotten the initial question, so I hope that was an answer to me. I mean, you answered it. I mean, why imputation is important. And so Father Demetrius, if you want to have your own. Well, I largely agree. I mean, first of all, no one can stand in front of God and boast for his virtue. That is sheer madness. We are all sinners and we are justified by gracious and loving God.

And of course, there is legal language in the scriptures. in the fathers of the church, that's one component of the Christian tradition, including the patristic and the Orthodox tradition. But in the Orthodox tradition, we pay more emphasis from the ontological and the medicinal. Let me again tell you a very brief story. When I was in London, I served in London for a number of years as a priest. We were producing a translation of the Lord's Prayer, Our Father. paterimón, and there is a word, count as worthy or make us worthy.

And somebody from our group, a former Protestant, said that, oh, we will translate this as count as worthy. And it sounded very strange for me, and I said, no, make us worthy. Of course, we will not be made fully worthy, but the point is not merely to be counted worthy, but to be made worthy, to change by God's grace. So we would emphasize this rather the legal element, although we agree that there is there and has to be taken seriously because none of us will ever become as good as to deserve salvation.

This will always be a gift of our gracious and loving God, but our transformation is a reality offered to us by the Spirit. So this would be. Thank you. I refrain from, you know, jumping in and making some comments because, but which is like one of the things I realized that are 33 questions that came, which means that, you know, there are questions and I think it's a good thing that what you just, you know, you ended Gavin saying that, you know, perhaps the conversation now just began. And I think that is a good thing. You know, of course, we wish Father Dimitius that the other priests that we know would be very much like you, I need to make this comment because we're not, you know, this is, we also live in another reality sometimes. But, you know, it's really refreshing that, you know, there are voices like yours and we do hope and pray that will be even more voices that, you know, can articulate those things in this way.

So I would like to thank you. So that was not an ecumenical dialogue, you realize. So it was very, but we tried to be fair. And I think that is something which is important. So we could have had only Gavin giving a talk and just celebrating, you know, what we believe. But I think it was really edifying and educational that we had Father Dimitrius to also respond. So I think that is by itself something that we need to take into account. So let's give them a round of applause to thank them for their questions.

And so again, we would like to encourage you to visit the website of the Evangelical Center for the Society of Orthodox Christianity. There are there, you know, we'll applaud this conversation there. And also you can find it at Gavin's YouTube channel. It will be uploaded there. And also you can find many other lectures that I believe there will be of interest to you. So have a good night. Thank you for coming. So thank you very much.

Fantastic. Thank you. Yes. I'm very honored to do it. May too.