Truth Unites - Salvation Outside Orthodoxy? Jonathan Pageau and Gavin Ortlund Dialogue

Episode Date: June 13, 2026

Gavin Ortlund and Jonathan Pageau discuss the nature Orthodox exclusivity, the synod of Jerusalem, and the definition of salvation. Truth Unites (https://truthunites.org) exists to promote gospel assurance through theological depth. Gavin Ortlund (PhD, Fuller Theological Seminary) is President of Truth Unites, Visiting Professor of Historical Theology at Phoenix Seminary, and Theologian-in-Residence at Immanuel Nashville.SUPPORT:Tax Deductible Support: https://truthunites.org/donate/Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/truthunitesFOLLOW:Website: https://truthunites.org/Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/truth.unites/X: https://x.com/gavinortlundFacebook: https://www.facebook.com/TruthUnitesPage/

Hello, Gavin. Hey, Jonathan, we are here. Here we are. Here we are. And so, you know, this is in some ways a kind of long, long story, I guess. The first time I saw your video was I went on Ruslan inviting me to come to his place and to talk about orthodoxy. And as you know, I'm not a big apologetics person. I don't kind of like that world.

But he kind of drew me into that. And then you made a reaction video. and that was a while ago, like two years ago, I guess. Yeah, a couple years ago, and then we got to meet last year, which was great, had a good time. I enjoyed getting to know you, and it was at a conference with lots of Eastern Orthodox Christians, which I loved being there. That's part of been my heart and a little bit of my sadness over the last few weeks

is I'd love to keep a positive relationship however we can, even while we disagree, so then people can get all the backstory. but basically we've been having some back and forth videos about salvation outside the church and what does that mean and what is salvation and your views on that, Protestant views on that. And then yesterday I got an email from you following up on my invitation to talk it through in person. I was so grateful for that. I think, and I actually have several other dialogues with other Orthodox Christians lined up for the next couple months because I feel like this is one of those moments where it just helps to slow down and just talk and just try to get clarity. So I'm thankful that you're willing to chat now. Yeah, I actually, you know, this is a little bit of a confession.

I talked to my bishop on Sunday about this, and he said, you know, you should probably, I said, should I do apologetics? And he said, you know, you probably shouldn't. You should probably avoid it. First of all, he said, there are people that are much better at it than you are, which is very kind of him to say. And then he said, but he said, if you have to defend your faith, you know, the Holy Spirit will be there. and you'll be able to defend it. And then when I got back home, I obviously prayed about this.

And I realized that because all of this started with this thing between us and because my last video, you know, I kind of went after you to some extent. And I think you said, you know, I feel like you're imputing my character. And so I thought, well, let's talk it out. Like, let's just do this. And that way, it'll be me bowing out from the apologetics world at the same time, you know. Well, there we go. Well, I'm not super fond of apologetics culture either. So I'm kind of with you to some extent.

I mean, I do apologetics, but especially on the internet. And I've, even over the last few years, kind of felt increasingly hesitant about how it can pull you in places. And so I've been, it's an ongoing process for me. But I think for our viewers, I think I'm safe to say, correct me, if this feels off base to you, that this conversation is not going to be very apologetic-y. Maybe a little, and it's fine if it does. I mean, I'm open either way. But I don't think we're trying to go for the gotchas here.

I think this is like, let's slow down and just really talk it through for the benefit of people who are just seeking the truth about these things. Yeah, hopefully. And so what I thought we could do, and this isn't so much a kind of model maybe, hopefully even for others, is to start by steel manning the other person's position to kind of give, to make sure that the other person, agrees with what it is that they think because I think that that's obviously one of the problems that happens in these these debate spaces is that we're talking past each other and and for that

reason it's like it's actually even isn't a discussion and so I don't know if you're willing to do that oh yeah yeah you know I think that's I think that's a great idea in fact I almost I feel like every engagement like this can benefit from that so yeah I could try to steal man your view first if that is a good story point yeah go ahead yeah go ahead um I mean, just briefly within the context of this conversation we're having. Yeah, and we should also try to keep it on the question of salvation, you know, and not, because we could talk about a million things, icons and all these things. Right, right, right, right.

It's not that they're not important, but let's try to keep it on the context of this, of this particular discussion. Yeah. Exactly. Yeah. So I think what I hear you to be saying is Eastern Orthodoxy is where we know salvation happens, but we're not passing judgment on those outside of the church. We leave that to God. And these statements that I am drawing attention to from synods and encyclicals and other contexts,

I am taking them out of context, and I'm reading them through a Protestant lens, and in particular I'm misunderstanding, as Protestants often do, what salvation is, by putting the focus too much on just getting to heaven when we die. Is that a good starting off? Yeah, that is definitely a good starting off. And so maybe, do you have a sense of what we mean when we talk about salvation in the Orthodox Church? Yeah, I think the biggest, well, one of the points of contrast,

so even as a foil to what was just said, they're getting to heaven when we die, there's more of an emphasis upon a process, more of an emphasis upon the organic nature of it, and then in particular union with God, Theosis, this is the climactic ultimate expression of it. So one of the points of contrast there will be kind of when does it happen, and I'm going to later make the, well, maybe, you know what,

let's just stick with the steel man. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Yeah, and so that's right. I think that the idea is that we understand salvation as a healing, and as a process of the transformation of the person into the, you know, we could say into the image of God, into the fullness of Christ. And then obviously that becomes an image of theosis. And so we don't separate the aspects of salvation the way that Western thinkers do. And obviously the way Protestants end up doing, which is the idea of justification as a moment. And then, you know, sanctification as this other process, you know, et cetera, et cetera.

we kind of see it as this entire process going together, right? That God is transforming us into his image and making us, bringing us into his life. And that, in fact, is indefinite process, right? That it's from glory to glory, you know. Right. Okay. So is that a fair steelman of your view then? I would say, yeah, I would say that that's right. I would say that's right.

And so, oh, the last part may be important. that's really important is the idea that the Orthodox Christians understand that there are non-normative ways by which God brings people to him, you know, and that he establishes a normative way, which is everything you find in the testimony of Scripture and in the early tradition, you know, about obviously faith and baptism and, you know, and manifestation in good works and just this like this living life in the church. and living life in the body of Christ, but that we also know and we see that God has non-normative ways

of bringing people into communion with him. Right. And also maybe one thing that I could specify just because I know that sometimes this is hard, like hard even because I can make the mistake, is that, you know, ultimately, even if we believe there are non-normative ways that God does that, that it doesn't mean that there's salvation outside the church, right?

It's like in the sense that the non-normative ways that God brings people to him, he's bringing them into the body of Christ. Like, obviously, he has, that has to happen. Like, the people who are saved or brought into the life of God through non-normative ways, they have to, they have to be part of the church in a way that is non-normative and weird, and we don't totally understand it because it is, it is kind of, it's outside of our capacity to peer into that. Does that make sense?

Yeah, yeah. I think I've got your view, but if at any point, as we're talking, you want to reiterate any of that, feel free. All right. Okay. And so I will try to steal a man, at least what I saw from the video. I tried to rewatch the video that you put out there. And so my understanding of you use that that salvation in the Orthodox Church from the 9th century to the 19th century,

which is about a thousand years that you kind of frame is understood mostly as the arc image. That is, you have to be inside. That if you have to be inside the church, and that means you have to be ecclesiastically connected through the sacraments, you know, through, you know, have a bishop, have a priest be like in the church in that way. And that if you are outside of that of that ecclesial structure, then you are damned. And my understanding is when you say damned, you really mean like that, like eternal hell. and that you are willing to admit that this was that in the early centuries, before the 9th century, there are testimonies of a kind of different vision. I think you mentioned Justin Martyr, you know, and his idea of the Christians before Christ,

you know, in terms of the philosophers. I think that you've accepted the image of St. Gregory the Great, kind of praying for Trajan so that he is released from Hades. I mentioned in my video also another kind of surprising story of a monk who encounters Plato, and Plato tells him that when Christ came into Hades that he saw, he saw the Son of God and kind of move towards him. And you said, there are these images before the 9th century, but from the 9th century to the 19th century, this is the arcs of salvation image. And that after the 19th century, and you said there are a few exceptions to the 19th century,

into the 19th century, but it's mostly in the 20th century, you see that this seems to open up again and that there's a kind of more ecumenical or more open vision. And obviously, you know, that's why we have these kinds of thoughts today. If you look at the modern saints, you know, they mostly have that position. If you look at obviously Metropolitan Calistos and all the English-speaking Orthodox, whether it's Anthony Bloom or all the English, you know, they have a more open vision of what of who let's say ultimately will end up in the in the life of god but that really you you focus on this like 9th and 19th century as like a thousand years of the orthodox believing that anybody who's not in in ecclesial connection to them is going to hell okay i think that's a

great start maybe i could just push dominoes a few more dominoes too a little bit um at the beginning of your steel man there you mentioned the adverb mostly and that's really important to me because i I looked back in my book to make sure I had that qualifying adverb, which I did, is generally, after the great schism, each side is looking at each other saying, you're off the Ark of Noah and you're cut off from salvation. So I'm not claiming to know what every single person said about every single Eastern Orthodox, about every single non-Eastern Orthodox. I don't have access to that, and I've not read everything.

Of course. But the general classification of these groups, one thing I could maybe say that's not at all, contrary to your steel man, but just a clarification for viewers is I'm not, I get the sense that there's so much, and this is where I regret the escalations of the internet. There's a lot of cynicism or suspicion in how things are going, so I'll just clarify for people who might feel this way. I'm not trying to pluck out the 9th century to the 19th of some arbitrary random set of time. It's because that's the time period in which we have the prior classifications of the divisions that separate us today for the most part.

Obviously, they have seeds that go back earlier. But it's really in, and in the ninth century, that's flexible a little bit, but it's during that late, let's say, early high Middle Ages period, as the temperatures rising between the east and the west, you're starting to get more explicit categorization of the filiocque, which is obviously a point of division that concerns us still today.

and then pushing forward, especially in the 17th century, with the Senate of Jerusalem, 1672, which is responding in large measure to Protestant theology. And then I quote these 19th century encyclicals that are describing Roman Catholic theology and ecclesial status. So I'm not just, in other words, today we have these disagreements. We've got, among other groups, Protestants, Eastern Orthodox,

and Roman Catholics. I'm trying to look at the genesis of those disagreements and how they've been classified in earlier times. So I'm not just picking a random time period. I'm trying to say, you know, the conversation you and I are having today, how did that play out 400 years ago? How did it play out 300 years ago and so forth? So I guess I'm just giving an additional clarification

for why I'm thinking of that time period. One other point, if I were to try to steal man my own view, I would try to say, also just to be clear, I do think there's caricatures of Protestant views of salvation because I think what I'm trying to say is, and we can talk, get into this, is I think Protestants uniformly in every Protestant tradition, think of salvation as past, present future. We have been saved. We are being saved. We will be saved. I think so I'm distinguishing the process of salvation and the subjects. And so part of my initial appeal was to say, I think I understand. I'll listen very carefully in our discussion to see for additional. information, but I think I understand the point about the nature of salvation within orthodoxy, but in my mind, that doesn't settle the question of the subjects. Saying it's theosis doesn't necessarily settle who gets it, and who's it for. And so I'm making a conceptual distinction between the nature of salvation, where undoubtedly we

do have some disagreements, and then the subjects or the recipients of salvation. And final sentence, because I don't want to drone on too long, but the last thing I'd say is my essential concern to put my heart on the table is I think that there's basically been consistent categorization of the entities today we call Protestants and Roman Catholics as outside of salvation, as whatever terms. We could use a lot of terms here to describe this, even if we wanted to take the term salvation off the table,

we could say not Christians in the soteriological, sense. We could say outside the church, we could say cut off from, from possibility of heaven. I mean, I'm open to different terms, but I think that's been a consistent categorization of Roman Catholics and Protestants. And I, um, so today when people say something less than that, like, well, we're just not passing judgment. We know, we're saying, we know salvation is over here, but we're just not passing judgment on those groups. It's up to God. I do regard that as a change. In some ways, I'm thankful for it.

And I'm not even necessarily saying it's a defeater for Eastern Orthodoxy, if that were correct. But I do see that as a change. And it may be a defeater for some of the popular rhetoric about the unchanging church. It's not necessarily a defeater. But so I guess I'm wanting to say, hey, let's be honest about this historical teaching. And I know one of your concerns has been, I'm reading that teaching like a Protestant, looking at texts through a certain lens. And so I know we'll hopefully work through that and where some of your concerns are in that way. But that's the essential concern is it looks to me like there's

been a change in the contemporary expressions like, here's where we know salvation is, but we're not passing judgment over there. I don't know anybody who said that about the Protestants in the 17th century when they're being evaluated. I don't know anybody who said that about the fili-oque. the language is as harsh as it can be imagined and without qualification at that time. So that's my position. Okay, so maybe I'll ask one more question to you in terms of this is because the video that you made, you formulated it as here's, if you're considering orthodoxy, here is something that you should consider. And so if you see that, for example, that in the 20th century, according to your estimation, that there is a difference in the way that the Orthodox are speaking, and that in some ways that difference is similar to certain pronouncements that were there before the 9th century, like, why don't you see that as maybe like a return to form? And why do you see it as a problem?

I think it's fair to look at those historical statements that are specifically about Protestants and specifically about the filiocque. If we're wrangling today about those specific topics, I also think the burden of proof is on an entity that claims to be consistent in its teaching to show that consistency. So I'm, I totally agree with you that the patristic data is, is diverse and more fluid. And in my video, I'm not sure which video you were just referencing a moment ago that was framed to Protestants, but in my video discussing Roman Catholic. One last thing you have to think about something like, one last thing you have to consider before you become Orthodox? That was one, a separate video on Theophan, the recluse.

So yeah, there's another one. but in my video on Roman Catholic views of No Salvation Outside the Church, I talk about the patristic data, and I kind of go through some of that material. So we're in total agreement about the patristic era. But maybe here's a question I could, is now an okay time to throw out a question out of the table? Sure, yeah, go ahead. So. I mean, we're going to go, I'm going to go through some of the text with you, if you're willing.

But, I mean, go ahead and ask a question if you want. That sounds good. And so that this question could be a good first step, and then we can move toward that. One of the things that has come up is Gavin, we've told Gavin our view and he's not accepting it. And so this is where I felt a little grieved in watching your video because there was the statement that I don't just misunderstand. There's something more going on here, maybe because of an agenda. And one thing I wanted to sort of protest in my defense here is that I definitely, being told different things by different Eastern Orthodox Christians.

I would schematize them along a spectrum of about four different views. I mentioned Father Patrick Ramsey in my video. Now, one of the reaction videos played a clip of that. I get flooded with these comments saying, oh, you're lying, you know, for all kinds of things. So people were doing this thing. Father Patrick didn't say that. I was like, did I misremember?

I went back and I watched it. What happened was this reaction video. It only played the first little portion of our discussion. I have three or four clarifying follow-ups, terminating in a question about the potential damnation of C.S. Lewis, to which the reason was given, yeah. And the rationale is salvation is physical. There's a union of body and soul. And so that was a very bracing answer. I've also been told by Craig Truglia in our dialogue. My specific question was, are me, Tolkien, and Lewis all damned? answer absolutely. So that's one end of the spectrum of answers you will hear. I've also done dialogue. I don't know who that man is, but that is definitely something he never should have answered in that way, depending on what he meant, that he is splitting himself in the place of God and pronouncing damnation on you. So this is what I mean. That's your opinion, but that's not Craig Trugly as opinion,

and that's not what Father Patrick said. Well, Father Patrick is far more reasonable in the sense that in the sense that he because c s louis is not in the one true church we can't if you ask me you know what what is i can say well i don't see that he participated in the fullness of what christ revealed to us and therefore you know i can rely on god's mercy and i can and i can pray for his soul and i can and i can and i can hope and hope that god is the loving god that we believe that he is and he will gather him into his arms. But I can't, if you ask me what's going with C.S. Louis, I'm like, well, you know, he was in a difficult situation because he didn't have this fullness that Christ gave us.

And I think that that's really the thing that you'll mostly encounter is something like that. So just to clarify, because I think what Father Patrick was saying about C.S. Lewis was not. Well, we know that salvation is in Eastern Orthodoxy, but we just aren't passing judgment on C.S. Lewis. He was giving a particular theological rationale given the physicality of salvation. That he has to participate. That yes, it has to happen in his life. Like it has to manifest in him, you know. And so I'm hearing multiple different answers from Eastern Orthodox representatives.

I've even heard far more ecumenical. I've done dialogues where I met, you know, two summers ago in Greece. I ask a priest, who am I to you? Immediate answer without qualification, my Christian brother, no qualifies. qualification whatsoever. So I feel as though I am hearing multiple different views, and I think it's totally fair for me to say which of these competing perspectives from Eastern Orthodox Christians is most historically authentic, and in attempting to answer that question, go to those contexts where Eastern Orthodox Christians in universally received synods at length expostulated the answer to that

question. And so I'm not, in other words, the statement, well, Gavin, we've told you our view and you're not accepting it, I think it's very unfair to me. And for that to be used as though I'm misrepresenting you, what I'm trying to do is understand which is the correct of these multiple views being articulated. Does that make sense? Yeah, but there are obviously, in the Orthodox tradition, there also will be different opinions that will be expressed that, you know, we obviously have very clear theological markers on the things that we have clear theological markers on. And then you'll find, you'll find, will also find more and less rigor depending on things that aren't that aren't as important. I mean, to be honest with you, you could say that the final destination of those that are not

inside the communion of the church is not something that the church spends a lot of time on because we had to work out our own salvation. because our purpose here in life is to be united with Christ. And no matter what, that is the thing that we need to do the most. And that is actually the thing that will heal the world the most and will participate in other salvation as well. Right. As you know, St. Serafen of Sarov, who said,

Acquire the Spirit of Peace, you know, and thousands around you will be saved, you know, because it is actually through your own transformation. So that's why you won't find, first of all, actual declarations in councils about what happens to every single human person in the world. And you also won't find people talking about it a lot, but we will. Like there are hints and there are places where you will found pronouncements on this. And I think that those give are more actually to give us hope about the fact that God loves all men and God wants to save all of us. And so if you're okay, I mean, I'm kind of happy with some of the things you said because

I'll be honest with you. When I heard your first video, I didn't make a reaction to it. I mean, obviously, I made a reaction to it years later because that's the first time that I had the impression that you were talking not to the Orthodox, that you were kind of talking to the Protestants. Because in the video, you said from the 9th of the 19th century, you know, this is the position. of the Orthodox Church, and then you go to quote several sources. And then all the sources that you quote are in the 17th, 18th, and 19th century. And so this is very difficult because you're quoting synod. There was Mark of Ephesus in there. He's a little earlier.

You mentioned Mark of Ephesus in the 15th century. So this is 15th century. And so you mentioned him. You mentioned a few others, but those things that you actually quoted were all from the 17th, 18th, and 19th century. Why is that a problem? Well, it's a problem because to take something that was written in the 17th century and apply it to a reality of the 9th century and declaring that the people in the 9th century that they were sending everybody to hell,

I mean, we're talking about 800 years. We're talking about 7, 800, 900, 900 years. years. Well, I'll put out a video on the 9th century, too, then. I mean, I'm happy to give additional. I just didn't want to have this massively long video. I wanted to give five representative examples. If I'd given from the 9th, then you could say, oh, you didn't give from the 17th. I'll put out another video, because I'm reading a book right now about the 9th century in particular. So I'll put out another video with additional documentation for that. I'm not saying, you know, I can only give so much documentation in one video. I'm happy to give more quotes

from the 9th as well. But just to, you know, you mentioned a moment ago, you had an impression I'm only talking. Because in the ninth century, the search was in communion. Right. I know. And so, so who would they, who would they be saying that about? I'm not sure. It's like, who would they, the, the, the, who would they be saying that about in the ninth century? I think I've gone into this. In the ninth century, the foshan controversy escalates the stakes. And I'm not alone in this view. There's other scholars who have argued for this of this, of this of the temperature that is rising in the east-west tensions. The, the 1054, split doesn't come out of nowhere. It's starting to build prior to that time. But look,

I don't think this point of the exact cutoff is all that consequential. I think it's very important because also one of the issues that one of the issues that we see is that so let's take the phodean schism, right? And so there was a schism during the time of St. Photius. And most of the reason for the schism was actually ecclesi ecclesiastical like a conflict over who was allowed to send missionaries to Bulgaria and there was all of these and then the fact that the pope didn't recognize st. Photius as the as the patriarch of Constantinople and therefore excommunicated him the photius answers with deposing the pope you know it's like tit for tat type of thing and then ultimately that schism was resolved it was resolved in the pope

accepted St. Fodios as the patriarch of Constantinople, and it lasted about 10 years. And so this is, again, this is one of the issues is that when we talk about excommunication and when we talk about these types of issues, these are not universal statements about everybody who exist in that place. And so, for example, like even in the 1054 schism, this is really important to know, that the patriarch of Constantinople didn't even excommunicate the Pope. He excommunicated the Pope's legates. And so he excommunicated them because he argued with them and because they excommunicated him.

So we have this major problem, which is that now the Patriarch has been excommunicated by the Pope and the Patriarch has excommunicated the Pope's legates. Now the question is, what does that mean? it doesn't mean that everybody that has everybody that is in the church of the west is going to hell that is insane like that's an insane i would agree with what you're saying right now that's not a of disagreement because so one of the things that happens is for example like even after the after the excommunications up into the 13th century you know when the crusader states are

are in Jerusalem and when the Greeks are coming to Constantinople and there's exchanges. Like you find canonists in Constantinople that constantly complain that people are still receiving communion. And they're saying, we're supposed to be in the schism. Like, you know, we've excommunicated the patriarchs. But why are these bishops? Why are these priests still giving communion to each other in in these churches? Why are the Latins giving communion to the Greeks? Why are the Greeks giving communion to the Latin. So they're angry, as canonists, obviously, they're the, they're the rigorous. They're angry that people are still receiving communion in each of the churches. You're right. It's messy in terms of, but it's very important. Like, even when the Pope

excommunicates the patriarch of Constantinople, he didn't excommunicate all the other patriarchs. I agree with all of that. Hold on. You've been talking for a while. If I could just interact. First of all, two or three comments. Number one, a moment ago, you said, some kind of impression about how I'm talking to Protestants, not to Orthodox. I can make an appeal to Protestants in a particular context while also having concern for Orthodox and also onlookers. I just want to clarify that as a statement about my motives and my state of mind. It is not true.

I'm talking to both Protestants and Orthodox in my concerns. I would love to persuade Orthodox. I'd love to talk to Orthodox. That's why I have this several other dialogue set up. So that's one thing. Second thing, you mentioned I didn't bring up data from that time. The reason is I only gave five examples. I could give examples right now, like Theophilact, who talks about the filiocque is dragging you to the trap of hell who's close to that time.

I'm happy to give more examples. But I think that all of that is actually circumstantial under the deeper concern here, which is how do the Eastern Orthodox classify Roman Catholics and Protestants? and we can go right to that by just saying, I mean, maybe it would help us on that to take the question of salvation off the table. Do you currently regard me as a Christian brother? But I think it's really important because one of the arguments that it's because it's very convincing

when you say for a thousand years from the 9th to the 19th century, the Orthodox official doctrine is that those that aren't in communion with them ecclesially are going to be damned eternally in hell. And so the first thing I actually want to do is I want to claim some of those centuries from you before we actually look at the data, because I'm trying to help you understand that until St. Mark of Ephesus,

there were efforts to try to heal this wound, because as you know, there is a form of orthodox filiocque. There is a form of the filioka, which is completely orthodox, which you find in St. Basel, which you find in St. Cyril, which you find, and it is the notion that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son. And so that's why the idea that they were just damning everybody to hell is crazy because they were like, we need to talk. Obviously, we have a problem. And so we need to talk this out. And so there are efforts, many efforts.

And there are actually councils where there are councils even before we reach St. Mark, where communion is restored between the East and the West because we think that we found a solution in terms of the question of the filiocque, but then it keeps getting back. And by the time we get to St. Mark of Ephesus, St. Mark, you know, says, first of all, they really do believe that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the father and the son. You see that in some of the images after Trent. Obviously, you see it, like, there's the son, the Father and the Son, and there's the Holy Spirit, like, coming down from both. So they really do have a radical vision, but also now it's not just the Trinity. Their doctrine of purgatory is wrong, you know, all of these other problems.

And so we just cannot be in communion with that. But that is in the 15th century, Gavin. Could I respond to that without being interrupted? Yeah. I agree with you that there are on the ground ecclesiastical complications and there are attempts to get reunion. and that insofar as it's not yet clear whether someone is off the Ark of Noah, then that those censures would not apply. Even during that time, to the extent that someone is rejecting the filiocque,

you have people, and I'm happy to put out more documentation about this, like Theopal Act, who says that the filiocque makes one fall into the trap of hell. That's around that time. So the classification is there, even if the on-the-ground ecclesiastical fallout is still taking form. And yes, of course there are attempts at reunion. However, the reason actually I think it's even better and more appropriate to focus on these 17th, 18th, 19th century documents is because here's where you see the clarity. Once the fallout, the dust is settled, we see the divide. now we can give a certain classification about the stakes of this.

And so I would like to ask my question again, which I think is a fair question, taking the issue of everlasting salvation off the table. Because we Protestants, of course, agree. We don't know for sure who's going to be saved. That's God's judgment. Do you currently relate to me as a Christian brother? I, hmm. How can I say this?

I would say that colloquially, yes, but that my prayer for you would be that you come to participate in the fullness of the life in Christ. And I think that Protestants have damaged that fullness, you know. But let me just, let me, let me, I just want, because I do want to finish this argument, because I think it's important for people watch, because it's very impressive. Okay, but then we got to come back to what you just said. We will, 100% we will come back to that. It's very impressive to hear.

to hear that for a thousand years the Orthodox are sending everybody who's not in the ecclesial communion to hell. It's very impressive. Not everybody. Remember I said mostly? Remember, that's why I gave that qualification up front. I'm not claiming, as I said, very clearly,

I am not claiming knowledge of what every Orthodox Christian said about every non-Orthodox, but rather the general categorization of those outside the church, including the Catholics and the Protestants. And so, like I said, until the St. Markov Ephesus until the synod of the synod of Constantinople, where now it's the very first time,

since the beginning of all of this, where the church, if you want to come into communion in an Orthodox church, you have to receive Christmation. This is like the first clear gesture to say, oh no, there is an irrefutable difference between us, because until then, that wasn't the case. Until then, if you came to an Orthodox church and you said, you know, I agree with you, you know, I think the filialue is a mistake, then they would commune you. They would simply commune you. But now, for the very first time in the 15th century, is when the difference happens. So that's very important because we just kind of did say 600 years, like 600 years of the Orthodox sending other people to hell because they're not in ecclesial communion with them. I don't think it does because even during that period of time and from the beginning of it, the filiocque is still classified as explicitly. It's classified as a heresy. Yeah.

And heresy is a very dangerous thing. All heresy is a very dangerous thing that can pull you into hell. Of course it is. Don't you think that? Of course. But I don't think the filiokwe is heresy, and I don't think that that issue, the issue here is an institutional exclusivism. And what you're drawing attention to is on the ground complexities in the application of that for those first several hundred years. Hold on, you're interrupting again.

If I could just finish this sentence, then you can jump in. Not the classification as such. I think the fact that clarity emerges once the dust has settled furthers my point, that that is how that position. My concern is not, oh, there was some exceptional complexity in the fallout of this on the street level. My concern is, right now, as of this moment, you hesitate and say, colloquially, I can call you my brother in Christ. I'm trying to look at the genealogy of that where that came from. I think when that comes clearest for the Orthodox Protestant relationship and the Senate of Jerusalem, is fair to look back to and say, okay, that's the concern. Because I don't think anybody at the Senate of Jerusalem would have recognized your answer that colloquially, I am a Christian, but there's some concern about,

fullness, I think their language, and I do agree we should look at the text, was more absolute than that. Yeah. All right. So I'm happy that we're at least in the 17th century because then that gives us, you know, 300 years of supposedly of us sending everybody who's not orthodox into hell. But so let's look at, I mean, I think it's a good idea to do to look at the Synod of Jerusalem. And so let me, I'm going to do something because, and you can tell me after it.

I want to read something that you wrote before we get into the sin of Jerusalem. Right. And we'll just leave it as a respectful disagreement about how to categorize that earlier time period. We don't have to solve that now. I will, because I'm reading a book about it right now, at some point I will put out a video just on the 9th century and say more about that in another context. Yeah. All right. So let's read.

So this is a text you wrote in 2009. I mean, 2009? Got it from your blog. Dude, I was like a 23-year-old. Well, I don't know. It was funny because I was looking for some tech, and it was the first thing that Google gave me, and I didn't even ask for you.

So I thought, this is a nice sign that I should read this. And so in it, you say, Luther, like Calvin, believed in a strong and unflinching doctrine of double predestination. God has eternally decreed some to everlasting life and others to everlasting death. to the praise of his glorious grace and justice. He calls this doctrine, strong wine, and solid food for the strong.

Then you go through how this is to the glory of God, and at the end, you say... Or for Luther. Yeah, and then you say, finally Luther's pastoral advice to those struggling with doubts about their election is telling. To weaker Christian, he says, thank God for your torments. There are evidence that God's grace is at work in your heart. And to stronger Christians, Luther encourages them to. to resign themselves to hell if God wills this.

In other words, to so love the glory of God as to be content to be damned, if only it would further the glory of God. Wow, I find this emphasis on the radical centrality of the glory of God gripping. I do not claim to have it mastered, but I want to see more of it. This is strong wine indeed. And so this, what you describe, this is what you describe. this is what a lot of the Synod of Jerusalem is reacting to. And in fact, the Synod of Jerusalem repeats several times in the city very strongly

that God loves all men, that God desires the salvation of all men, and that when they criticize and when they anathomize this type of doctrine, they do it repeating in the council several times, that it is because God wills the salvation of all. So let me read from the Senate of Jerusalem. Okay, go ahead and then I'll respond to the point about my old blog. But then to affirm that the divine will is thus solely and without cause the author of their condemnation, what greater calumny can be fixed upon God,

and what greater injury and blasphemy can be offered to the most high. For that the deity is not tempted with evils, and that he equally wills the salvation of all. Since there is no respect of persons with him, we do know. And that for those who, through their own wicked choice and their impenanted heart have become vessels of dishonor, there is, as is just, decreed condemnation. We do confess. But of eternal punishment, of cruelty, of pitilessness, of inhumanity, we never, never say God is the author who tells us that there's joy in heaven for every one sinner that repents.

far be it from us while we have our senses thus to believe or to think and we do subject to an eternal anathema those who say and think such things and esteem them to be worse than any infidels. And so they do anathomize. And I'll be honest. And I just want to say one last thing, Gavin, is that that God that you described, a God whose glory increases through the decree of, conscious eternal punishment of the creatures that he made in his image, that is the God that I fled

when I left the Baptist Church. And the God that loves all men, and the God that wants all men to be saved and does everything he can to join them to his love and his glory, that is the God that I found in the Eastern Orthodox Church. And so when I hear you talk about how we're, exclusivists and how, and I read the fathers and I see that, yes, they say this is how you're saved, this is the normative way you're saved. And if you have heresy, you are in danger of damnation. You are in danger of hell. But they do it always to preserve that God wants all men to be saved and not just Christians and not just he wants all of creation to be part of his life. And so that's that that that is why I think that the Senate of Jerusalem has such strong language.

Okay. Well, I gave you a chance there to unfold your thoughts. Could I respond in kind? Sure. Okay. So first of all, I find it a little strange to go back to that old blog summary. I was in my 20s in seminary and I was just summarizing a passage about Luther. I wasn't stating my views.

I was saying, wow, this is really interesting. I was, it was an expostulation of Luther's thought. So I don't know, and actually Calvinism. Is it inappropriate expatulation of Luther's thought? You think that it's, that, because even though either whether you believe it or not, I think so, there are people that do believe that, right? You know that there are people believe that. Oh, yeah, no, I think it is, and I want to go back just to be sure, again, it's been 20 years

or almost 20, but just to finish, because the reason I asked if I could respond in kind is because I want to get a couple things out here. I think you just said something that touched my heart a moment ago and you said this is the God you left and the God you found in orthodoxy. I think you and I might find some common ground in what you're getting into there. I also don't want a God who's a monster. But here's the thing. I could agree with everything you said about Calvinism for the sake of argument because I don't think the Senate of Jerusalem, although it's occasioned by that issue among others,

Cyril Lucaris had a lot in his confession that was not just about that. The Senate of Jerusalem is lengthy. It targets like 25 different Protestant beliefs. And my concerns, my interest in it are specifically on how it categorizes Protestants as people. So I could concede everything you're saying about Calvinism, and that wouldn't really address my worry, which is, What is this, which is a universally received synod, I've argued this is dogmatically binding for Orthodox. One person who's ever pushed back on that, and I've gone to John Meyndorf and others who categorized this in the same way,

this is a significant testimony. I think it's fair for me when I'm hearing different opinions from contemporary Orthodox Christians to go to the universally received synod that's explicitly dealing with Protestant theology. And I would like to point to the passages that I'm actually talking about. They have nothing to do with Calvinism. They have to do with Protestants as a class of people, many of whom, of course, are not Calvinists. So I'd like to work to those passages and explain why I find this so grievous and see if you, since you've raised a concern that I'm, you know, giving this sort of Protestant text-based approach to these things, I think at the least you can do is be willing to give an alternative approach to them

and say how you read this synod and these particular sentences I'd like to work through. Yeah, go ahead. So the categorization of Protestants in the Senate of Jerusalem is as wicked heretics. They are said to be forsaken by the Holy Spirit. They have only darkness and blindness. They are not Christians and not churches, according to Decree 10, because they are outside of the bishop, and the bishop is a canonical Eastern Orthodox bishop. and the whole, that language is not eccentric or a high note in it, it's recurrent.

And the whole concluding appeal to the final few sentences is that is a warning that these who stay outside of the church and do not enter the church will be overtaken by the pains of the heathens and publicans. Now that's from Matthew 18. That language also recurs earlier in the synod, which is in reference to, I believe, hell. Now, when I talk about hell, let me say a word about this. I understand the doctrine of hell can be stated in a ways that make God seem like a monster, but we all have to deal, I think it can be defended against that too. Hell is a part of Christian theology. Hell is spoken of by our Lord.

It's got to be understood in some kind of way. And when I'm reading these texts in the Senate of Jerusalem about the Protestants, and it is speaking in this way, not Christian, be overtaken by the pains of the heathens and the publicans, that, as I say, Matthew 18, I don't see any qualifications to this or anywhere else at that time. And so what I don't see the Senate of Jerusalem saying is, well, Eastern Orthodoxy is just where we know salvation happens,

but we're not passing judgment on the Protestants. I see this as different. That's why I'm pointing the change out. and I will say there is a frustration and being told I'm being disingenuous or misunderstanding deliberately when no one is coming along and saying well actually let me give an alternative

gloss to the pains of the heathens and the publicans or let me and I suspect what we'll come down to is you'll probably just want to say well this is for normative language but doesn't deny that Protestants can be saved or something like this and what I would say is can you show me

anything at the Senate itself can you document that that that's actually a distinction they could have recognized because they themselves do not qualify this absolute language. Go ahead. Yeah, well, that's because it's a synod. The purpose of the synod is to declare that which is true and that which is false. The purpose of a synod is not to talk about the individuals that would make up a group

or the individual virtue or values there are there to deal with teachings and to give warnings about those teachings and to give warnings about if you follow those teaching, if you attach yourself to those errors, if you believe in a God that decrees for people to, let's say, burn eternally in hell for his own glory, that this will lead you into death. This is a dangerous belief that has consequences and will have consequences in your life and will be an obstacle to your transformation, like it will have an effect on you. And that's what the synod is saying.

It's saying that if you hold on to these heretical beliefs and these heretical practices, then you are in danger. And that is absolutely true. And that is absolutely true that people. But that, again, that is the function of a synod. But that doesn't mean that, again, And so a good example would be that in exactly in the 17th century, 18th century, there are all these practices.

There is still this idea. You know, you mentioned, for example, St. Mark, you know, when I talked about how the, in the early church, there's this idea of that St. Gregory, the great prayed for the emperor Trajan and that he was released from hell. And I remember in your video, you said, you can't use that because it's before the ninth century, right? It just doesn't disrupt the particular thesis about the 9th or 19th. So what's interesting is that like St. Mark of Ephesus, who you mentioned as being one of the people that has that art language, he uses that example. Yes. When he's arguing against the idea of purgatory, he says, you know, when we pray, we can, that there are even examples of saints that pray for the heathen and that they are released from hell. and he says in the way that Christ prayed for his enemies,

which is a beautiful image, because obviously Christ when he's asked God to, how Christ prayed for those that crucified him. Because when Christ prays for those that crucified him, obviously he knew that these people wouldn't necessarily believe in him, but that he's nonetheless praying for that God forgives them, even though he knows that they won't probably repent. So in that same way, and it's mysterious, and it's non-canonical.

But we still pray, we still have this idea that, it's even possible for saints to pray for the heathen so that God will release them from hell. And this now is in the 15th century. This is the same mark of Ephesus that you use and it as an example of the people who construe the ark as this closed thing that no one can be outside of. And you're right that I don't, I won't find in the synod, but I will find, though, even in some of the people that you talked about later. So you have, you've made this whole video on St. Theophan the recluse where,

you go through his... Hold on. You're going on. I'd like to what you're currently saying, and then we can come to Theophon. I agree with you, because I want to concede, Mark, that there is a statement of Mark. I can find two wrinkles in this. One is these statements, medieval statements interpreting these patristic examples of an exceptional case like this.

Now, even those, sometimes you'll find warnings that, in some of the renditions of this story, warnings that Gregory shouldn't pray like that again. So this is very much cast. as an irregular, abnormal thing. The other thing would be catechumans who are not yet baptized. There's explicit language about them. Parters, the martyrs that have died.

This is not a refutation of the point that the categorization of the Protestants and the Catholics is cut off from salvation. Now, you're saying, with respect, I need to say, I think your summary of the synod and the senate itself, your summary language is so much softer. you're saying this is an obstacle to you and so forth. I mean, listen to this. The dignity of the bishop is so necessary in the church that without him, that's an Eastern Orthodox bishop, neither church nor Christian can either be or be spoken of when these, that is the Protestants,

forsake the church. They are forsaken by the Holy Spirit and there remains in them, neither understanding nor light, but only darkness and blindness. Final warning, there will overtake those that have separated from the church the pains that reserved for the heathens and publicans. This is not just giving a generic warning. What you don't find the synod saying is how you categorized me, saying, well, yeah, in a qualified sense, but I'm hoping you come into the fullness of the faith.

The synod gives more absolute language without qualification. Now, if you're saying, well, that's the purpose of a synod. I can very easily understand a synod could very easily give a qualification, like you get like a Vatican II. that's perfectly permissible for a synod to say, oh, actually, the Synod of Jerusalem could have said, if it wanted, we are saying, we are teaching this. Within Eastern Orthodoxy, this is where we know salvation is, and we simply don't pass judgment on those outside.

Because that is not the, that is the non-normative place. And so you will find those statements in non-normative places. Even in the 18th, 19th century, this is where you will find the place. places where the softness and the mercy and the kind of, let's say you would say that this appeal to God as also working outside the bounds of what the rules and what the standard of the church are. So you use the word non-normative there. Let me understand that. Are you claiming that because this is an abnormal method of salvation, then you shouldn't expect to find it, to find it in the binding universal synod?

in a normative text. A normative text is there to give the normative. I think you're equivocating on the word normative there. One is being used in the sense of how salvation happens normatively. The other is being used in the sense of how a particular ecclesial gathering functions. Normative in that sense, let's call the Senate of Jerusalem a dogmatically binding citad. That's how Meyendorf speaks of it in others because it is universally received. I think, I guess I, well, let's leave it as a disagreement, but I'll state my position and give you the last word on this particular topic. I mean, I think that, sorry, go ahead, go ahead, sorry.

Yeah, I finished my sentence and then I'll give you the last word. My sentence is, summary is, I think it's fair to note differences in the absence of qualification and then the presence of qualification and the absolute language. the adjective normative is nowhere used in this Senate. The language is absolutely unqualified and bracing. So when I asked you a moment ago, do you regard me as a Christian, you gave an answer that seems different from what is said here. Now look, maybe you're right. Maybe you could try to find a way to square that.

It certainly doesn't mean the Protestant is being disingenuous by trying to interpret these sentences at face value. Tell me what you think, the pains reserved for the heathens and people. Republicans are. That's exactly what it is. They're saying that if you hold on to these beliefs and you hold on to this, and if you hold on to this forever in you, then you will be in danger. Because it will lead you, yeah, in danger of hellfire. Yeah, it doesn't say you'll be in danger of hellfire. It says you will be overtaken by those pains for the heathens and the publicans. So again, each time you summarize the synod, you change the

language from what it actually says to just more kind of will see. No, I don't because I keep repeating to you that the reason why they're so harsh is because they want to preserve that God wants to save all men, that God desires to save all men. That's the reason why they're so harsh on these, on these statements. And they repeat it several times in the synod that God is the savior of all, that God wishes and desires the savior of all. We agree on that. Absolutely. God wants to save all. The question is who does he actually save? And I do think it is the position of the most official Eastern Orthodox expressions of theology. And we can go to the 19th century encyclicals about the Catholics, too, if that will help for both the Catholics and the Protestants,

that they are basically cut off from salvation. Maybe there could be an occasional exception, though honestly the only exceptions I find during this entire span of time would concern those that aren't Catholic or Protestant. So that's not true. You, you, you, well, one of the, you made an entire video. Where do Protestants say that Protestants can be saved in the Senate of Jerusalem or any time around? Not in the Senate, Jerusalem, but you made an entire video on St. Theophan de Reclos, where you, you went through his, his warning of a, of a, of a, to a man in which, in a, in a village in Russia where a Protestant missionary was coming to evangelize. I know, but now we're in the 18th century. So I agree with you that you find a soft.

there. But what I'm talking, what I'm... But you used him as an example. You made an entire video about it. You made an entire video about San Theophan the recluse of how this is the language of the arc and how anything outside the arc is not saved. Why should we take Theophan, who I agree has, I cannot find, I don't, I'm actually uncertain whether that's an authentic quote where he does give a qualification. But let's suppose he did. Why should he overturn a universally... He's not overturning it. He is showing you, he is showing you how the synod declares what is normative. But we will still continue to hope that God saves everyone who will still continue to pray that God will bring everyone into his bosom.

So what, okay. And another example you give is St. Philaret of Moscow. You give him as an example as well. You say in his great, in his great catechism, you find this type of language where it's like absolute, this is the art, this is where it is. But if you read some of his other texts, you will find again him saying, you know, that we don't know. You jumped in before, I just one sentence, if what you're saying is these figures 200 years after the Senate of Jerusalem are the ones who are qualifying it, I think it's a fair question to ask, how do you know that's just not a later view that actually isn't represented at the synod. Why doesn't the synod itself ever qualify the language? So now you want to reduce all of orthodoxy to the Synod of Constantin, the Synod of Jerusalem.

That's what you're doing now. Because we've moved from the 9th century, I'm brought you to Mark of Ephesus and now you're like, no, not Mark of Ephesus later. Synod of Jerusalem. You come to the Synod of Jerusalem and then you say, this is orthodoxy. And then I give you examples before and after of all of these ways in which saints, the people who wrote the catechism of the church, St. Mark himself, show you that there are also non-normative ways and that God continues to want to desire. And I even show you that in the Senate itself,

it says that the reason why they go after this is because they believe that God wants to save all men. And then you say, this now is orthodoxy. The Synod of Jerusalem, this is Orthodox. So we went from a thousand years of Orthodox people casting everybody they don't agree with into hell. And now we've reduced it to the Synod of Jerusalem. Okay, hold on. Let's pause for a second.

We're getting a little more elevated. Let's just slow down. Okay. I'm not reducing it to the Synod. And again, this is not the third time I will offer this clarification against your language of all people are damn. No, I'm not saying this is the general. classification. I don't agree that we've gotten any examples of Protestants being safe. The reason the Senate of Jerusalem is a legitimate point to point to is because of its high stature as

universally received and because it's specifically occasioned to address this very point. But I'm not conceding that other Orthodox authorities have an alternative one until the 19th century, but we can go to those voices if you want. I just want to say it feels. feels like it's not a good argument if you're saying what the synod really means is, and then you give something that's not in the text, if the, what it really means is, is only able to be documented hundreds of years later. Why should anyone read these sentences that have words like necessity, forsaken, impossible, and impossible? not take them as meaning what they say. If you want to say, oh, you're reading it wrong, what it really means is, and then you give a qualified version,

we need some reason to accept that that's a reasonable way to gloss what the synod meant, not what someone else hundreds of years later meant. And even, because even the earlier ones like Mark of Ephesus, he's not talking about separated Christians like Protestants or Catholics. He's glossing that one exceptional case in the patristic era. No, what I'm saying is that in the Orthodox position, that the declarations of heresy and the declaration that these heretical beliefs and these heretical practices lead you to damnation, do not, are not there to cast every individual in those churches into hell. Agreed. That is not what the churches ever believe.

I'm clarifying this. I'm not saying every individual. That's my fourth time making that clarification. It's the general classification. I acknowledge you could have some very strange case out there. That's why I use the adverb generally or mostly in my book and at the beginning. So please don't keep characterizing my view as every person. This is how the Protestants as such are categorized.

And I'm simply saying if you want to give a qualification to the language, there needs to be not just an assertion, but on documentation, that that qualification would be authentic to that time, to the people who wrote these words. Otherwise, I don't know why anyone should accept that that's the case, that they actually meant it in that more qualified way. I'll give you the last word on this,

and then maybe we can move on. No, I mean, the last word is to say that the counsel that you cite is quite strict, but that many of the other people that you've yourself quoted as having the language of exclusivity outside of their dogmatic pronunciations. So if you, in the text of St. Philaret of Moscow, in his catechism, then he'll be dogmatic. And I'll say, this is it.

This is the rule. If you believe this, if you don't believe this, et cetera, et cetera. But as soon as someone asked him personally, you know, he said, he says this beautiful thing that St. Philaret says, and he says, according to the ecclesiastical laws themselves, I leave the Western Church as a particular church to the judgment of the universal church. and Christian souls to the judgment or rather to the mercy of God. And so he's saying exactly what I'm saying. He's saying we need to condemn error and we need to say clearly that this error leads to death.

But we also need to understand that God is transcendent, that God is beyond all, that God wants to save all people and that we continue to pray for them and we hope for them. And even in the time of the 17th, 18, 19th century, you have this whole practice in Russia of the prayer to St. Varus who was a saint who had interceded for Cleopatra's relatives after they died. And people who had non-Orthodox friends or who had children that had died outside of baptism would ask St. Virus to pray for their souls, knowing that God wants to save all people and that there is a normative thing. but that it doesn't exclude that God wants to save us all. Yeah. I hear you and I agree that that is what you will hear in more recent times. And I think we just need to leave it as a disagreement as to whether that's historically authentic.

Because here's the phenomenon I face. And more recent times, except for the 17th century. Just to finish this sentence, when I hear different competing claims from contemporary Orthodox Christians about how to categorize, C.S. Lewis or myself, Protestant Christians. I think it's fair to look back historically. And the Senate of Jerusalem is not the only place, but this is one example of where you find, I can't imagine a better place to go to answer that question. It's, again, universally received and specifically cast to address this question. So I agree with you, but that's not countervailing evidence for the historically authentic and in a synod teaching on how Protestants are

to be regarded, and that is as wicked heretics. That is the language. I'm not making up the language of wicked heretics, the Noah's Ark metaphor, the forsaken by the Holy Spirit only in the dark. No Christian or church can be or be spoken of. I'm not making up that language. I'm reading it here. I agree with you that there are some qualifications to that in more recent times. I agree with you that there are qualifications to how that will play out for exceptional cases among pagans. You know, Gregory, who is an example of that. But my concern is that in the time period where what we today call Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, and Protestant distinctives and differences come into view,

they are generally regarded as this makes you outside the church, and therefore cut off from salvation, however you define salvation. And so that... I do. I also believe that if someone holds on to the view of a God that decrees salvation and damnation, I also think that that person is cut off from the body of Christ for sure. Like there's no way that if you hold on to that belief, if you make it a core part of who you are and you worship this cruel God,

then I don't see how I don't see and I and I and I think like St. Filorette says St. Phileet also says that he's like I have no way of knowing how strongly people hold on to this belief like how can I judge individuals but I can say as a category that if someone holds on to that belief and holds on to it until the end of themselves like until they reach their fullness of them that they won't recognize the God of scripture when they encounter him. They won't recognize the God of Scripture when he opens his arms and hopes to bring everybody into his love.

We might agree on that. How about this? We're a good way in. What? Good conversation? Good robust. I mean, you know, this is what I think we need to do is just talk and work it through. What do you think is most helpful?

going forward, what else haven't we reviewed here? I mean, we've talked about some of the things, but I think I've like one or two other things that we could talk through. I don't know that we have to go on and on, but I'm just trying to think of what, for the remaining portion of time we have, what do you think is going to be most helpful

for us to focus on here? Well, I mean, I think that it's okay to stay on the subject to some extent. I mean, because if we want to look at, like, if we want to look at, how it played out in practice, because you have the synod and then you have the practice. One of the things that you see, and this is, of course, one of the issues that St. that St. Theophon is dealing with is that you don't have examples of Orthodox people trying to convert Protestants maybe until the last 20 years. But you have many, many examples of Protestants

going into Orthodox lands and trying to pull them out of the Orthodox Church and trying to convince them that they're not Christians. I grew up a Baptist. And so I'm used to that. I grew up in churches that were desperately trying to convert Catholics because they believed the Catholics were not Christians, that were desperately trying to convert Orthodox because they said that Orthodox were not Christians. And so, the me, like, that's why I find all of this so weirdly reversed is that the Protestants acted very intently to the in the notion that the people they were evangelizing were not Christians and that they had to be saved and they had to be brought into the truth of Christ. And that's why you have people going to Ukraine to Russia, to Serbia, starting Baptist

churches or Methodist churches or whatever types of churches. Because the type of accusation that you have against the Orthodox is one that has been extremely rampant in the Protestant church. So it's, to me, it's like, I don't know, it's mind-bending to me. Yeah. So for the remainder of this time, what hopefully we can try to do is each give a chance to unfold a few thoughts. So I just let you unfold a few thoughts. I'll just respond in kind if I could.

That is one area where I think you're evaluating Protestantism on the basis of what you have seen and what you observe anecdotally, that may be true here and there, but it is not necessarily representative of Protestant confessional theology. Let me give a few examples. What is the largest Protestant confessions? I just, I started off by comment. I could unfold a few things because I want to give some few examples. And then I'll let you respond. Both Luther and Calvin were crystal clear. The Eastern churches, both Oriental Orthodox and Eastern Orthodox are Christian churches. In the 1570s, the Lutherans had an extended dialogue with Jeremiah the second ecumenical patriarch of Constantinople. They repeatedly refer to him as a Christian presiding over

a Christian church, not necessarily presiding over. They use different terms than that. Now, so it is absolutely false that Protestants have the same kind of exclusivism. We do not have one institution that we think of as where you're going to get a valid Eucharist. We think valid Eucharist happen wherever there is the true gospel. This is the fundamental concern that I have. I think people misunderstand sometimes and they think like, but what's wrong with exclusivism? The issue is institutional exclusivism. Christ and his gospel is where there is a valid church. Wherever he is on the throne pouring out his Holy Spirit

and the true gospel is being received and you've got word and sacrament, that's the nature of the exclusivism. Now, those, to defend those Protestant missionaries, they are going into countries and contexts where in some cases, with all love and respect, there's tremendous nominalism. And many people who've never heard the gospel messaging

couldn't articulate it and don't know John 316 in some cases. And I know that from a number of my anecdotal observations and stories. And I've even heard about persecution against them for not necessarily saying you can't be Eastern Orthodox, but we want to share the content of our faith. And we want you to know how your sins are forgiven. So I don't want to defend those missionaries to some extent. But, okay, I'll pause. Thanks for letting me finish time.

I mean, I guess I don't, I don't know what to say. you know, the largest Protestant domination in the world is what, Southern Baptist, I think? It's the largest Protestant dominant. It's hard because the thing with Protestant, too, it's like punching jello, right? You can say something. It's like, well, Protestants don't believe this. Some do this. Some believe this.

Some believe different things. And so if I say that the largest Protestant denomination in the world, which are the Southern Baptists, send missionaries all over the world to convert people who are not Baptist to become Baptist. And they convert Catholics and they try to convert Catholics. And they started to start alternative churches. Instead of trying to reform the churches in which they are, they try to start alternative churches. And they do that.

They've been doing that for a very long time. Then you'll say, well, that's not Protestant because Protestants believe all kinds of different things. It's a fair concern about Protestantism is an umbrella category. It doesn't claim to be one church. So it's true that there's a lot of variation. But the way you can categorize Protestant theology is instead of looking at anecdotes of what you see, look at their confessions. Southern Baptist churches that send missionaries all over the world

aren't necessarily saying you have to be Baptist to be a Christian, though, of course, if you believe that theology, you're going to want to persuade people of that. But of course, it's a good thing for the gospel message to be made clear. I don't understand. Look, if I had people in my church who didn't ever know how do you get your sins forgiven and know God, what is the basic gospel message?

And an Eastern Orthodox or a Lutheran or whoever came and told them that message, I would rejoice. Because for me, it's not about my institution. It's about the gospel message itself and this living communion with the Lord Jesus Christ. And this is my deepest concern with Eastern Orthodoxy is the institutional parameters are what sets the dials for where you're going to get a valid Eucharist, and I think historically, where you're going to say, generally these are the Christians, even if you might allow exceptional, very rare, some cases, but exceptional cases. I want to make the parameters

Jesus himself and his gospel. That is not universalism. I don't think that's relativism. To me, that's just a faithful reading of the New Testament and what it holds forth for what we are to discern Christianity to be. And I see exorcisms, and I see spiritual fruit, and I see speaking in tongues,

and I see marriage is healed and alcoholism recovered from and tremendous, all the fruits of the kingdom of God, gushing forth in so many different institutions. And I would feel utterly grieved in my conscience if I were to say, well, you know, they don't actually have a valid Eucharist over there because they're not Eastern Orthodox. I, that is the issue we are debating here. I don't think. Protestants don't have a valid Eucharist because they don't believe it's a valid Eucharist.

I grew up my entire life. Baptist is telling me that this is nothing. this is simple, that this is just an image, that the body is not there, the blood is not there. And so, I mean, we just let people have what they want. Like, if that's what they want, that they can have it, I'm very joyful now to be able to participate in the fullness of the blood and body of Christ. I'm very happy to participate in the baptism that is seen as regeneration in the way that Christ himself taught. I'm very happy to participate in a communion of people that have kept. the fullness of the faith, you know.

So what you referenced here about what you grew up and you saw in Baptist is a fair point, but it's an example of what I'm drawing attention to of measuring by anecdotal experiences rather than historic Protestant articulations. Now, that's still a fair criticism of those observations and those contexts, but it's not, it's not right to say Protestants don't believe in the Eucharist or something like that, because even among the Baptists, you've got a lot who do believe in real presence, but even if Protestants agreed entirely with your theology of the Eucharist by not being Eastern Orthodox churches, they still wouldn't have it.

It was not. Not being Eastern Orthodox churches by not being in communion. If they want to enter into communion, they can. We will definitely receive them. Very happy to. There's open arms, but there's still the classification until you become Eastern Orthodox, even if you believe this theology, you don't have a valid Eucharist. Until you enter into communion with the true church, yeah, for sure.

Right. So that is one example of the institutional exclusivism where we just have an honest disagreement, because I would look at that and I would say there needs to be some solid basis for that restriction. Well, why wouldn't you want to be in communion with us? Okay. That's a fair question. I admire much about your tradition, and I'm not just saying that. I genuinely find tremendous richness. I mean, I have Protestants who get after me for being too ecumenical. than they think I should be, but I genuinely feel that in my heart. It's not, I don't want any Eastern Orthodox Christian listening to me to feel contempt or disdain or anything. I want them to feel love. I want them to feel genuine deep respect. It is this exclusivism that is one of the main issues. I don't, look, I grew up in the West. Okay. All my Christian experience is in churches that are evangelical Protestant, and then I visited, of course, other churches as well, but in terms of being a member,

that is everything that I have known of Christ and His gospel has come in those contexts. So when you ask, why wouldn't I want to be Eastern Orthodox? There are a couple of reasons, but one of them is what that would entail for my vision of where is the church, where is the Eucharist, and where is generally speaking Christianity? I would have to, I would feel as though I was spitting in the face of Christ himself to say, oh, actually, that wonderful church there that shared the gospel with me, first prayers Augusta, where I became a Christian, Cross Life, Libertyville, you actually, guys, you don't have a valid Eucharist, and you actually aren't true churches in the full sense of the term, and maybe

actually the way you're going to get to heaven and be saved is a sort of exceptional, extra normative case, and that'll kind of depend on which person you're talking to and so forth. To say that is so problematic, both in terms of how compelling it is, but also in terms of the concern of honestly blaspheming the Holy Spirit. The blasphemy of the Holy Spirit concern comes up in not recognizing an exorcism as a valid exorcism and attributing it, and Jesus does bring the tree and fruit metaphor there. The good tree produces good fruit. I see good fruit in Protestantism.

I think it's therefore a good tree. And so I'm answering you from a very honest place. I thank you for letting me say that. You know, I want to, you can push back as much as you want. But that's honestly it is, no, there's a, I'm not saying it's the only issue. I mean, we'd talk and there'd be other doctrinal things that would come up as well. But I think salvation is the subject. We need to talk about it.

And I will repeat in the words of St. Philaret and in the words of St. Silouan and in the words of all the saints, I will repeat that God wants all men to be saved and is calling all men into his bosom. And I rejoice. And I always talk about, and myself, I tend to talk about in terms of hierarchy, every place where I see Christ in the world, every moment that I see fruit of Christ in the world, I rejoice to see it because Christ is the creator of all things. Christ is hidden in all of creation. And of course, Christ is among the Protestants. He has to be because he is the creator of all things, not in their heresies, not in their mistakes. But as people created in the image of God with Christ calling to them, but also the Buddhists and also the Muslims and also the Hindus and every single human being created in the image

of God is constantly being called by a God that loves them and wants to bring them into into his bosom. And I hope, and I pray, like, I think all the Orthodox Christians that ultimately God will, in his mercy, save as many as is possible and will bring as many as possible into his life. That's an interesting point there I could ask you about, is you mentioned the Buddhists and Muslims and others. I mean, from your vantage point, are Protestants in the same categorization as these religions in that they're out of the church, but, you know, God is at work there and he could save them, or would you say Protestants are sort of Christians, but just not- I don't think God is at work in their heresies, but God is at work in them,

obviously, every time a Protestant acquires a virtue that's God working in them, every time a Protestant helps the poor, he is watching Christ act in his life and he's becoming in the image of Christ. Well, obviously, you know, every time that he does into the littest of these, as Christ said, that is a Protestant manifest in Christ. And obviously, I will rejoice, but I will never rejoice in the heresies. But I'm asking, would you see, are you, in saying that, are you categorizing Protestants in the same way as you'd categorize, say, Buddhists? Well, in the way that, as individuals, in the way that they are made in the image of God,

yes, of course. Okay. So we're both made in the image of God. Is there a Christian difference between Protestant? and Buddhists? Sorry? Is there a Christian difference between Protestants and Buddhists?

I mean, obviously, there is definitely, they're definitely further in terms of their beliefs, you know, than Protestants. But it doesn't mean that God isn't calling them. Okay. It doesn't mean that God isn't working through them,

and it doesn't mean that the means by which it says in that Christ says by what the final judgment will be, which is that those who manifested Christ in the world will have manifested Christ. And God, we pray in his mercy that he will receive them. And we don't know. We can't say, obviously, you know, because like I said, we know where the church is. We know where the fullness of Christ's revelation, all the teaching of Christ, that is of faith, of baptism, of works, of repentance, all of these things. We know where it is.

we can see it. But obviously, Christ is the principle, is the logos of all of creation. Right, right, agree with that. I'm just trying to understand. I'm just asking questions, try to see how do you see me? I mean, if you're talking to me versus if you're talking to a Buddhist, a devout Buddhist, I mean, are we in different categories or is it you're outside the church and it's the same kind of thing. You made in the image of God. We would hope for salvation, but so forth. I'm approaching it differently. I'm approaching it that, there's a pretty clear cutoff between Christians and non-Christian religions. And I think that, you know, I could say some words to defend that distinction.

So I see you as a Christian. Now, I don't know your heart, of course. God makes the final judgment. Of course, I'm not saying I know what's going to happen on judgment day or so forth. But in terms of how I relate to you, that's my default starting point. Now, I never assume, though, because I always, there's lots of people in all churches who've never really heard the Christian message, they just got baptized because it was the thing to do.

So I never make that assumption. So whenever I'm talking to an individual, I try to draw them out and say, tell me what it means to be a Christian to you and get a particular feel for them. But I'm just saying in terms of where the possibilities of salvation are, I would place more of a demarcation around Christianity. Sounds like you're making it more around, you know,

the Orthodox Church and then sort of the Buddhists and the Protestants are sort of both out there somewhere. That's why I'm trying to probe to kind of just understand, better what you're saying. This comes back to what salvation is. Salvation is the transformation of the person into the image of Christ. It's the, it's the possibility of someone having in them love, truth, hope, all the things that Christ calls into being. That's what salvation is. And so, and that is also why we, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the Christian saw that they were Christians, before Christ, you know, this is what salvation means. It means to be healed. It means that you're

free from your sins. It means that you are, and to the extent that anyone in the world is able, through some means that, you know, like God is calling them, God is able to manifest that, then that's what they're manifesting. If someone develops a virtue, then that virtue is in them. You know, it's not going to go away when they die. Right, sure, sure. Yeah. When I, Okay, so I think we're making progress in sort of at least talking through and seeing where our views are and where we agree, where we disagree. I had something, but I completely lost my train of thought. But I mean, this comes down to the, this comes down to, in some ways, the predestination and the kind of Calvinist position, which is that that's why we find it impossible to imagine that God would decree people for eternal damnation. because we don't believe that salvation is a decree.

We believe that it is the transformation of the person. And that is what makes you want God, right? And so if you, when you see God and God, and if you have in you the fruit, if you have in you the transformation, then when you see God, you'll recognize them. And you'll want to come closer, to him. But if you are, if you are saved in parenthesis, like, but that you, but then you

haven't forgiven your mother, why would you want to be in heaven with her if you haven't forgiven her? Great point. I actually think, you know, if you and I were to, which we're not going to do, elongate this super long, but if we were to talk through kind of the concrete particulars of what does salvation look like, I think we'd actually have a lot of agreement. I do want to state respectfully to the internet in general. I think Calvinism is really, really caricatured routinely, but because it's not a Protestant versus Orthodox issue, there's tons of non-Calvinist Protestants. It's not really the nerve center of the difference, because I agree with you that salvation is healing. I agree with you that it's a process. I agree with you that it's union with

God. I went to a ETS presentation once, evangelical theological society, and I heard a presentation from Carl Mosier. Maybe he'll watch this video and know I appreciated it. He just, it was basically a stack of quotes, affirming theosis among Protestants, and I was just blown away at how many there were. But in my mind, I make a distinction between how salvation works, healing, process, et cetera, and who gets it. And so this issue is still over here on my mind of where my concerns are that are most resonant in this discussion of just who gets it. And how do we know who gets it? And how do we get it? And you only have to be concerned about yourself, Gavin. You don't have to be concerned about, this is why there's very few pronouncements in the church about that. This is, this is beautifully, you know, what St. Theophon answers to the inquirer. You know, he says, I want to read it to because it's such a great little quote. He says, you ask, will the non-Orthodox be saved? Why do you worry about them? They have a savior who desires the salvation of every human being. He will take care of them. You and I should not be burdened with such a concern. Study yourself and your own sins. That's what we have to be,

worried about. You have to be worried about our own salvation, you know? I hear that in the sense that we shouldn't think we need to make a judgment and say, I'm God and I'm going to say what's going to happen. But in the sense of wanting to have an urgency to evangelize and knowing who needs to be evangelized, I actually think we should be very concerned about other's salvation. And I think this is one of those areas where, as we're talking again, maybe we could sort of come around together and realize we're kind of coming at it from a different angle. Because surely you're not saying we shouldn't care if other people are saved. I know you don't believe that.

So when I'm saying, go ahead. The way to deal with that is to be saved. You know, this is the beautiful quote by Saint-Saire from Sarav. You know, when he says, acquire the spirit of peace and thousand around you will be saved, that actually the way to save other people is not to convince them. it's to become in the image of Christ, is to be a radiant, beautiful image of Christ in the world. That is how you save others.

And then they see Christ in you and they desire it. They say, I want that. I want that freedom. I want that light. And that is how true, that is how true salvation is transmitted. I mean, obviously we should talk about Christ to others, but it's more, way more important to you yourself be transformed than to go around convincing people. I guess we have a little difference there, because I would say both and.

I don't see it as an either-or. I would say absolutely focus on one's personal sanctification. And I would say there's an urgency to speak the message of the gospel to others because Romans 10, how beautiful are those feet that bring the good news? You think of Paul going into the synagogues, reasoning with the Jews that Jesus, that Jesus is the Messiah. This is a Protestant, you know, I'm so proud of these Protestant missionaries like William Carey. What William Carey did?

What Adonarim Judson did? But, oh, man, I could start crying if I talk about him. That's beautiful to go and share the message of the gospel of others. And if they were to say, well, you know, it's a both-hand, right? I would say we should focus on growing to be more like Jesus and do that. And actually, when I evangelize, that is one thing that helps me grow more like Jesus. it is so fun, first of all, to share the message of hope with people. But also, it is not an either-or, like, you know, just focus on your own salvation, and that'll do it in and of itself.

I think the New Testament does have an emphasis upon the urgency of this proclamation of the message of the gospel. Faith comes by hearing in Romans 10, for example. I don't know. Do you see that differently? No, I don't. Obviously, I don't have a problem with evangelizing, but I do definitely see that. that, and I think that this is, I mean, it's interesting because in some ways I'm realizing this, I'm thinking about it now, which is that it's interesting to think about how we have similar issues, you could say, that in some ways that the Orthodox really do believe that God is calling all people into salvation. That's why there's that kind of calm about maybe there isn't as much of this

like urgency to like go out and evangelize in this kind of aggressive way, but rather to foster sanctity and holiness. You know, and I guess I guess this has always been the issue, the question for me with Calvinism, because I remember also growing up in a very Calvinist world, when I was told to evangelize people, I always found it difficult to understand because I was like, why would I, if God's going to save them, no matter what? Like, God has decreed their salvation. I'm like, why would I evangelize them? I didn't really, I didn't understand it. I mean, God told, maybe they say, Jesus said, you know, like the Bible says to evangelize, therefore we evangelized, but there was like a kind

of disjunct in my mind in that, in that regards. Yeah, yeah. I will talk about Calvinism if I have to. So the thing is, like, I never talk about Calvinism. I've done one video on it, just triaging it, and another just tried to clarify one thing. I'm not really that. That's not a part of my mission to make people Calvinist or to defend Calvinism, but I could say I think that it is a caricature of Calvinism if it's the idea that, well, God decrees, and so that just settles it. I think the idea here, and if people would want to try to sympathetically understand this, I mean, look, the U of the Tulip, the God's sovereign election,

that's something that you find I've argued in Thomas Aquinas and Augustine of Hippo in the West, not Calvinism proper, but that understanding of the nature of predestination. And it's not this dumb idea. It's a both-hand. It's saying that just as there's two levels of causation for other events, so in God in the Proverbs it says the die is cast and it's every decision is from the Lord. Now, someone could say, well, if God decides the dice, then why even roll them? He's already decreed it.

But the answer to that is that it's speaking of one level of causation. and it's not denying creaturely contingent causation. And it is the exact same with salvation for Calvinists, that we, Calvinists probably bear this message out poorly at times, and maybe you've experienced that. And so, you know, that's on those who preach it poorly. But I've done a video documenting this from lots of sources that it's both-hand. People need, you know, when you say God loves everybody, amen, God loves everybody.

When you say God wants all men to be saved, amen. Amen. All men, women, children, every single human being, God loves them. God desires for their salvation. When it comes to how that happens, the way we know about is when people become a Christian, they repent of their sins and trust in Jesus. And then this Calvinism is like 11 steps down the road addressing this really complicated and tough question of, okay, when they made that decision, how does that relate to God's sovereignty? And it's saying, yeah, it's a both end. God did decree it, but he decrees through means. And the means is, one of the means is the preacher. another is the free will of the person making their own morally responsible choice. And so he also decrees the damnation of people, right? In the exact same sense, in that it does not remove the creaturely cause, which is the hard-hearted rebellion of God. And if someone says that's gobbledy gook, I would appeal to the scripture where we've got things like Pharaoh,

who's responsible and yet God's hardening his heart, and yet he's hardening his heart. And it's this very difficult question because how God's, will works, his sovereign oversight of the world works out because he's the creator, he's infinite, he's outside of time. So his will working out can be concurrent with creaturely decisions. And so we don't say it's just the divine decree. We also think that everybody gets what they want, everybody gets what they deserve. And those who curse the light and choose the dark will get that. But it's not that rather than God's sovereignty. But I honestly don't love camping out

on Calvinism just because it's not really my mission? I'm willing to talk it through with you as much as you want as it's relevant. No, I mean, it's important because, in so many, it's important because of the Council of Jerusalem, because we kind of like keep circulating back to this idea, you know, about salvation, which is that, you know, in the Council, they make it clear that the predestination is pre-knowledge, you know, and that God desires all men to be said. and that not only the desire, like really desire, that is that he does everything that he can to save all men, and that he, and that it is only our refusal. And this, you know, and as you know,

like this is led obviously to, to more recent Orthodox theology, if you probably know a little bit about the theology of the River of Fire, you know, which is this idea that, that has become very popular in Orthodox circles now, which is that, in fact, hell itself is the presence of God, right? That the fire that is burning at hell is the same fire that the river of fire that came from the feet of the son of man that come down. And that in fact it is for those who resist the love of God, then it burns, you know, and for those who embrace it, then it transforms them.

That the fire of Pentecost is the same fire of hell. I mean, it's true that this is a more recent kind of explorations. of some patristic text. But this is, this is, I would say that most Orthodox today have this understanding, right, which is that God, that in the final, in the Eschaton, God will be revealed completely to all. And that whatever sin that you hold on to, like, whatever pride, whatever arrogance, whatever, you know, that is what will be burning in you, you know. And that whatever is released will be transformed into theological.

And there's a lot of Protestants who would agree with that. I mean, C.S. Lewis is like literally has that vision. It's a beautiful vision in C.S. Lewis, too. It's not necessarily a Protestant versus Orthodox issue. I would say one thing that if I honestly feel that every single one of us has to wrestle with this difficult question of what about those who are not saved, whoever they may be, because even if you took like one of the other non-Calvinist views on this particular question of the relation of divine sovereignty and creaturely free will, God still chooses to create them full

well-knowing what is going to happen. And that's not the same problem, but we have a challenge here, and part of it is I think God honors that decision. He honors the decision of the creature, and Calvinists believe that, but this is not a Protestant versus Orthodox issue at this point. This is an intra-Protestant discussion between, because lots of Protestants would agree with everything you said, the concern with the Senate of Jerusalem, again, isn't the statements on God sovereignty or election, really? I mean, those are there. But honestly, Cyril Lucaris said a lot of stuff about justification by faith alone.

The bishop and the presbyter are the same office. The where you find the church, I mean, it was... Obviously, justification by faith alone is a heresy, Kevin, you know that. Sorry, we're going to get pulled off. We're going to get pulled off. I'm sorry. I shouldn't have said that. I apologize.

No, no, I don't apologize. Because we agreed that we wouldn't be, we went like, well, you know, I think, you know, maybe I'll leave you the last word and we could maybe finish the conversation because I think that we pretty much said what we need to and we might be in danger of, at least I'm in danger of starting to kind of go to go off key. And so I'll leave you with the last word for everyone if you want. Thanks. Okay. All right. Well, I mean, thank you for talking. I really, a couple things. First, I apologize for anything in our dispute where I've sinned. I probably was a little bit frustrated, and some of that might have been my flesh, not the spirit within me.

So after, the honest truth is, as I talk with Orthodox, here's why I get frustrated. I honestly am sincerely doing my best to have these conversations in a Christ-honoring way. That doesn't mean I know how the heck to do it. But I'm trying. I'm trying with an open heart to do this. And so when I get this deluge of comments and comments and comments saying you're a liar, you're disingenuous, you're in bad faith, including from people I know and respect like yourself. You didn't say exactly that.

It is a little grading, and so that is starting to mess with my psychology a little bit. And so I'm trying to figure out, I'm going to take a vacation, actually, for the whole month of July and not touch social media a single time. So I can get my mind and heart in a state of real peace. So that's part of this is I'm hoping that you'll not hold anything against me, personally for the tough moments of this. I certainly don't against you. Second of all, I hope we can keep talking because I think the differences are complicated enough

that we can kind of elongate this over years. And I'm not saying you have to talk to me a ton, but just let's keep open, doors open to, you know, check in now and again. And if I see, I'll say, oh, great to see Jonathan. Awesome. And like I said, for viewers to know, I'll have some other dialogues coming up.

On the issues here, I mean, I think, honestly, I feel good like we've, we've just been able to stop, slow down and pull things up and kind of say, here's what I'm seeing over here. And you're able to say, here's what I'm seeing over here. I think it's, I will say,

so we're talking about in the spirit of a last word. And I actually would love to hear any final thoughts you have if you want to, feel free too. But one thing as the last word I'll say is for viewers, don't clip things out of this discussion and use it in a gotcha, apologetic way. And for comments, make sure you pray for the person before you leave a comment.

That's not what we're about. and that doesn't help anything if we're trying to make this into some who won kind of thing. That's not what it's about. It's about, you know, and not because the differences don't matter, but because the way we make progress isn't that kind of triumphalist approach. Other than that, I'm really very content to kind of leave everything stand as it was, except just to say, I think this has been a good discussion. I genuinely do.

I think, you know, definitely there's moments where we're feeling the intensity of a disagreement, but that's normal in a disagreement. And so I don't regard that as failure. I regard that as, you know, I think we're both doing our best to understand one another and to argue in a spirit that honors Christ. I admire you personally. I hope to, you know, check in now and again and so forth. Last thing.

The Protestant Orthodox relationship is so unique. And I think we have a historic opportunity right now to talk more. We've never had this technology. Our traditions do not have the track record that either the Orthodox Catholic relationship, relationship or the Catholic Protestant relationship have. We're strangers. We don't understand each other. We have a historic opportunity to work at that. And so let's be patient and keep doing our best. That means we can make arguments, but it means we can also slow down and just not need to have a kind of fiery triumphalist conclusive stamp on it right now, I think. I think we can keep working at these

things. So anyway, those are my final thoughts. Thank you for the dialogue. Feel free to add on anything if you want. No, I want to thank you as well. Thank you for being the remaining calm and just kind of going through everything. I appreciate it. And I wish you the best on your further discussions with, I know you're talking to Father Stephen, which is great. Father Stephen is amazing. And so, so hopefully that will also be fruitful for you. And so thanks again. Also, thanks for your kindness through all this. Thank you, Jonathan. Love you. God bless you. And we'll talk again. Bye, everyone.