Habit or something. But no, he's not one to one Atomas. But
he yeah, right, Schoore says he's anomalous. Right, he upholds William
ol Bachman's position that there's only a simply lawgical distinction between them. Right.
No, I believe I agree with Bradshaw's argument that, for example, kada
anoia, it can be an only a conceptual distinction, or a conceptual distinction
that's also in the object or in the thing, So it can be both,
it could be either one, right, Okay, So you would think
that generally speaking, a real distinction is simply improper terminoledge. Again, I
said at the very beginning, like Bradshaw says, it's confusing and not helpful
to use the terminology of late Scholasticism for people that are writing way before that.
And so the easiest way to solve this problem with like a Scotis or
something like that would be to say, well, what are we participating in?
If it's not the essence of God, then it has to be some
real uncreated energy, right right? But okay, okay, so why are
you even arguing with me like what's the right because the thing is you've already
conceived that the terminology itself is wrong. When you talked with doctor David not
Bashel what was his name, Bo Branson has my bed, you said that
the essence and energies are really distinct and any persons. Yeah, and when
I explain what, when I explain what's real, I give the meaning of
that, right, And then I asked you before, what was your meaning
of it? And I said again for the third time, the level of
distinction between essence and energy is the same level of distinction between the persons.
So let's talk about termism as an example. So that's that's not a definition,
that's an example. There is no definition that if we don't use that
terminology for the distinction you apply with to things. I don't have to have
a definition because I'm not a scholastic. Scholastics have to define everything. Lastly,
is to have definitions of distinctions. Would you say Schalorous was wrong then
in his sixth tone, No, I don't have any problem with him trying
to work out these distinctions. But I don't think what he's arguing disagrees because
when you laid out what it was, he meant a distinction that entails composition
or to bit and you know, at the very beginning of this discussion,
I said that distinction does not entail composition or division, and it's the analogy
that even Palamos uses is between the persons. Sure right, However, were
right the problems terminology which you conceded is incorrect, which you conceded you have
no definition for. And then when Scoloris, our saint by the way,
outright defines these terms for us so that we can apply them in our contry,
Yeah, about what you defined was then arbitrarily, No, it's not
arbitrary, But it's not arbitrary. You're just because you don't even have a
definition for the term that you're using, because I don't necessarily will have to
use that terminology, like Bradshaw says, why do I have to? Okay,
why does Bradshaw the scholar have more precedent Overscalorius's definition was a saint and
at dogmatic tomes Well, again, what you said from scolarious is not a
problem for what I argued, Right, So if we understand who are saints
who define the term as this and that, why then you equivocate the term
into something completely arbitrary which you have no definition for. It's not arbitrary.
It's it's not arbitrary. It is the distinction between the person's mean I'm saying
there is there is no scholastic definition of what a difference between the person and
another person is other than say that they're really distinct, like that they're relatively
opposed, right, because scholastics will tell you they have numerous So wait a
minute, are you so now you're a scholastic. No, I'm telling the
scholastic position to you because you appeal to the scholastic position when you said,
well, there's no proper definition for why would we expect that the cap so
do the cop of doitions use scholastic definitions? Okay, so why do?
I could wait? So, could we understand those those dogmatic teachings before the
scholastic definitions? Sure? Right, But then when we come to modern day
language, they never spoken English, then why are we speaking English? We
can use that's an irrelevant argument to what we're talking about. Well, we
can use linguistics in terminology later on that's developed. Yeah, I don't have
a problem with that and not and nothing that was nothing, that was nothing
that was stated. If you agree with the position that we really participate in
uncreated energies. I don't even understand what your problem is with what I'm working.
Saying that saying it's a real distinction is improper term, which we're rejected
by our saints, and even Fino says it's simply a notional distinction. Is
an entire chapter on that. Well, he argues that the terminology is ambiguous.
Right, Yeah, we're regarding conceptual. But if you also read his
analysis on the tomes, he simply says that it's been softened, the distinction.
It's softened, right, and that there's a basis in the object or
the thing itself, but that we can't say it's a real distinction. And
this is what he says later on what are divine energies? Right? So
you said, so you so wait, you think that that you think the
energies aren't really distinct from the essence. I wouldn't say they're not really distinct,
No, when I haven't seen a single proper citation of that, especially
with cool the Palm. I sooner i'd say that, I would say,
by the way, that the problem might send a Trump's uh scolaris you know
he had a tone schoolers had his dogmatics in on as will. Yeah,
but let's talk. Let's let me just prove it to you, just from
straight up theological argumentation. How's that? No? No, because if I'm
gonna prove it, I'm gonna prove it. It uses the word lokismo,
which means by reason alone. How do you understand that? Yeah, because
in that discussion, I know what you're talking about in the penos section.
So let me show you that you. Let me show you the argument the
problem with that. No, I'm just asking how do you understand. I'm
going to show you that the problem with that? Sure so is uncreated glory
only conceptually distinguished from the action of creating. Oh, we can say that
sure so, it's not really distinct. So there's not a real distinction between
God. Okay, then creation is in reality eternal. Oh, that wouldn't
follow because creation is an effect, right, and causing effects the action of
creating. Not creation has an effect the action. Right. But then if
we retake Confino's second book, right, he simply says that God is eternally
active as an inward operation. Right, he doesn't need it. No,
I'm talking about that creation is not creation, the act of creating is not
an inward action. Yes, it is, if you retake Confino's book on
it. He says that exact same thing. I can quote, I can
quote you right now. Well I don't. I mean, maybe Peter,
I don't have a problem saying he might be wrong. So you think that
the action of creating is so would you did God? Did God rest?
And yeah? The principal hold on the Confessor says God is an eternally active
creator. I agree with that, But that doesn't mean no, no,
no, that's the distinction. That's the distinction between first and second actuality.
Would you say God is first sexuality and then he moves on a second actuality.
No, the action of creating is not. That's a power that he
has that he doesn't have to actualize. So he's eternally creator in the sense
of having that power. That does not mean that does not mean to actualization.
It's in first act. What in relation to it being actually actualized?
It's in first act. So you're saying God has always actualized creation. Oh,
not outwardly, no, but it's simply an inward manifestation of his being.
So so, so God has always creations. God has always created within
his being. Yeah, sure, as an inward expression of his being created
within his being. Sure, just as a priest is not need to be
serving divine liturgy to be a priest. So that's a power that's not yet
actualized. That's the point. Did he rest from creating? Right? But
just because it's not outwardly expressed doesn't mean he's eternally not eternally acting agreed,
but he's not eternally active in the power of creating. Sure, because the
power of creating is external, and that's act exactly, So did he did
he? So? Then did he rest from creating? Sure? As in
the manifestation is the manifestation of self eternal? I wouldn't say so. No,
it begins exactly, you know. Yeah, So there's a distinction between
eternal glory and the action of creating. Sure, we can say there's a
virtual distinction between the No, it's a real distinction. It's not virtual because
if it's only virtual being the energies themselves. We can say there's a virtual
distinction. So the action of divine knowledge is equated to eternal glory. Sure,
you can say that they're virtually distinct and reality. Sure you can equate
them together. Well, the peallem I sin, I'd say they're different realities.
Reality is the improper term, right, How could it's the terminology that
they are. How could how could? How could there be an equating between
say, divine providence and eternal glory. Well, there's not an equating here
because you said they're only conceptual. But you said they're only conceptually distinct.
Right. Conception of this think destroys formal identity. So when you're saying equating
here, you're you're misinterpreting that because equating here refers to formal identity. They're
different formal identities. But we can say they're the same material reality. So
it doesn't get us anywhere because it's the same thing. Sure in reality is
the same thing. Would you say you have numerous the is the is in
Leviticus nine? Is that an eternal manifestation Reveticus nine? Would you just read
the entire verse from here? Moses and Aaron went into the tabernacle at the
meeting, and they came out blessed the people. The glory of the Lord
appeared to all the people, and fire came down from before the Lord and
consumed the burnt offering. And the fat on the altar. When the people
saw it, they shouted and fell in their faces. Does this theophany come
and go? Sure, we can say theophanies come and go? Was the
manifestation of that theophany itself God himself? Sure we can say that. So
it was an energy in space and time? Sure, because it's manifested.
Right, But the energy and power itself is not beginning. Yeah, But
here's the problem. Here's the problem with here's a problem in here's the problem
in Pino's point here, which is that it kicks the can down the road
and moves the problem back and stuff. Is the manifest itself fully God?
Oh? Sure? Yes? So did God come and go in time and
space? No? Right, because the manifestation itself you just said, the
manifestation itself is God is divine? Yes, because it's relation to that,
because it's related to God. Oh, it's related to God. Is it
really? Fully God? Sure? Did it come and go in time and
space? No? Because it's so it didn't come and go? So yeah,
exactly. So here's the problem the appearance that came in time. But
the appearance is God, as you just said, not really, Now,
it's not God. So the glory of God. So the glory of God
appeared, but it's not really God fully God. But the appearance of that
energy, the appearance is the energy. It's that they often, it's that
they So you would say it's that the often, isn't it? But you
could? Would you see the energy physically? What does it say in the
text that I just read to you, all of Israel saw the glory of
the Lord and they fell down, right, But that I can simply say
that's the creative man If there is no creative manifestation of the Theophanes, no,
there's not. Theophanies are not creatures. Theophanies are not creatures. You
just got exposed. Theophanies are not creatures. No, they're not. This
is not this is the glory cloud. It's not a creature. You can
see. You can say the glory cloud isn't a creature. But you need
to justify that all patristics, right, because it's called the glory of God.
It is the glory of God a creature. So now you're a Muslim,
right, But I can simply say that the appearance, the manifestation you
already said is God. You just contradicted yourself. The appearance is the manifestation.
You just contradicted yourself. I can say the appearance of the energy is
a creator. No it's not. It's a theophany. Now you're a Roman
Catholic. No, everybody knows it is. That's the author. So you're
not actually Orthodox, are you? So he's not Orthodox? See that?
So this is what Roman Catholics do. They mind the Orthodox stuff to come
and try to argue Scodism. And then when we go to the actual passages,
you heard him melt down. Look at all that. So that was
all a bunch of sophistry, Just like with the Thomas earlier, here's a
bunch of fancy citations. What about the formal distinctions? What did he just
say about the theophany? There he went from saying it's really God, it's
really a manifestation, but it's a creature. The glory cloud is not a
creature. You can't worship creatures. They fall down and worship the theophany.
So what is scholasticism? Sophistry? So notice his whole journey there was to
try to trap me, and he admits all the things that sound correct,
and then when the rubber meets the road with the theophany. Theophanies are creatures.
You notice he said it's God, and then he said it's a creature.
And he doesn't even know that the glory cloud is the Chicaina. It's
not an angel, it's not a creature. It's called the glory of God.
God says he does not give his glory to creatures or to anyone else.
So what a bunch of scumbags? Mark? So yeah, that's that
was a uniate trying to trap us so anything. What I'm noticing is that
the same way to refute all of these goobers is the same way that you
refute a Muslim. Mark. I think you have a great argument too.
It cuts through all the sophistry to ask what do we participating in it?
Yeah, that's what Palomus does, and that's why he didn't want to go
there. And also Scolaris has to submit to the pew of my synods,
So I don't know why we'd put Yeah, I mean they don't like arguments
from Bradshaw, and then they'll be like, well Pino says against Bradshaw,
and I'm like, well, I mean all these people are fallible and you
notice when he gave the definition from scolarios, it was if you mean distinction
entailing composition or division. Yeah. So, and you notice the push for
the schotis and stuff that keys you off that he's a Uni eight. So
this is all the same circles of you know who. And by the way
you were talking about you don't have to provide a scholastic definition. Again,
there's many different types of definitions that you can go go with, genus,
species, essential definitions. Some of the things are defined ostensibly or as we
see in The Fathers too, that it is there's a real distinction, doesn't
imply that you have to provide a scholastic definition of what that is to know
that that Christ is truly present and I don't have to bring in substance and
accidents and stuff to define that. And so I think something similar is going
here. Why are we being pushed into having to provide a later form way
of thinking of scholastic definitions on something that's been revealed and is binding through synods.
That's why they don't want to go to the text, just like the
other guy didn't want to go to the text. And by the way,
people in the chat are saying, well, isn't it true that the Theophanes
are create creatures? No, they're not. There's no creation involved in the
Theophanes, because you can't worship creatures. God says, he doesn't give his
glory to another. I did a whole three hour talk on all of the
Theophanes in the Torah, and the root of all this I'm now seeing is
that these people are actually divorced from divine revelation. That's why they want to
argue the philosophical presuppositions and not what's actually in divine revelation. That's why he
says, Oh, the Theophanes are full of God, but they're creatures.
You can't worship creatures, and God's glory is not a creature. The Theophanes
are identified as God's glory, not just in this passage. I did three
hours of talks on Theophanes, but they don't know the scriptures Nectarios. When
Moses goes up on the mountain and it's said that the goodnesses of God,
it's plural. The goodness of God will pass by Moses, right, It's
a real plurality of energies. And that event comes and goes. There's no
creature involved in that theophany. That's why they're called Theophanes and not angel aphelies
angelophones. Right. The Augustinian position is that they're creatures. The Tomistic position
is that they need to be creatures, and the divine texts themselves argue that
they're energetic manifestations, so the manifestation itself is not a creature nectarios. Hey,
Jay, can you hear me? Yeah? Is God's energy a creature?
Well? I had a question for you though it might be a little
bit off topic for for tonight. Wow, what's your question? It's it's
kind of I mean, so, my first experience with Orthodoxy. I am
an Orthodox Christian by the way, but my first experience with Orthodoxy was in
a so called genuine Orthodox church, right. I attended liturgies and services there
for one or two months I think, before figuring out they weren't technically in
communion with the church, and I had a It just kind of led to
a rabbit hole, I guess, and doing I guess research about them,
and there's I see, I see a lot of like inconsistencies with a lot
of people's opinions in regards to certain saints. That we have and well,
so it's not an old calendar discussion day. So yeah, have any topics
related I'm not being mean or rude, either related to tomism or papacy we're
sticking to that right now, or Islam, Protestantism logos. What's up?
Hello? Yep? Hey, So I was wondering. So, in terms
of how these tomas talk about theophanies being created effects, would you argue that
they argue themselves out of essential Christian doctrine? Yes, yes, absolutely.
And also regarding like the Eucharist, in terms of them only seeing or experiencing
creative effects, would you say they only give lip service to the real presence?
Yes, I mean all we have to do is ask them what are
your what are you partaking of? Because nobody believes you eat the essence of
God? And Roman Catholic dogmatics A Lili got right at says that what you're
what you're, the grace you're getting is a created accident in the soul.
It's a supernatural creation in the soul. So the grace itself, not the
effects, but the grace itself is said to be a supernatural creation. And
how could any Orthodox person accept that? When we believe in a real participation
in uncreated energy. And that's why that uniate. By the way, I
didn't want to go there. M would you also argue they kind of like
the tons, especially the guy I heard earlier all the difficult what he was
called, the guy you were making fun of, They kind of argue like
Muslims, they're just like us. Yeah, like they they how can all
creation? You know? Like that, that's why we call we call it.
We call him Abu Aquinas all the time. How could I be in
creation? One one one one, yeah, exactly. Yeah. Anyway,
I just want to say thanks Jay for everything receives the church. So yeah,
good miss your man, thank you. I mean, everybody should go
back and maybe read, you know, the the early Bradshaw arguments for the
energies, right, because he just goes to Moses on Mount Sinai and he
says, look, Moses on Mount Sinai is a real energetic theophony in time
and space. And so the problem is that a lot of people in Scholasticism
once again have these metaphysical assumptions that the theod Let's take let's take phaser,
right, So a phaser says in uh five proofs. Just as an example,
he says, an absolutely simple essence cannot be in time and space.
If God is an absolutely simple essence and we sort of identify him as that,
that would undercut the incarnation itself, because it's not an absolute It's not
an essence that became incarnate. It's the second person of the Godhead that stepped
into time and space. It's not the Father, not the Spirit that entered
into the mode of becoming incarnate. So you need, really you need a
real triad for one person to enter into a mode of being that the other
two don't. And these reducings to pure actuality or saying that God is identical
to his existence is identical to his essence, thus cancels out the possibility clearly
of incarnation. But they don't think about any of this as theology centering primarily
on the incarnation. Trinity and incarnation is where we start our theology. Not
for them, their theology starts with Aristotle and first principles and a bunch of
metaphysical assumptions of what can and can't be the case. Then it builds and
tax on trinity down the road. Right when the sympago how does sum a
contragenila start an entire volume with the absolutely super simple essence of God, and
then after you do all this argumentation on what's supposed to be common ground,
then it moves over into trinity and incarnation. We'll tack on Jesus and all
that stuff later. But that's why we don't argue for natural theology, self
evident principles, brute factuality, epistemic bootstrapping, and the idea that things aren't
theory relating. But they don't believe that. They don't think that way because
as they are wedded to a medieval system. Maximos, it was a I
mean, the question I have is kind of in line too with at least
I think so. But so is it true that first same Maximus, I
think it's an aig abigua attend It can be said that he didn't believe that
the particulars well, rather that the if the particulars is are in a sense
where to be destroyed or something like that, that alongside that would be the
universals, like in the same sense that for example, where's thought to my
understanding, Yes, so universals in Saint Maximus are created realities because he says
that universals can perish and that in the Torstein, Tolos and dissertation he repeats
that and says the universals com parish. So how would that work in terms
of perceiving reality itself? Though? Like, for example, if all humans
cease to exist, how I mean, wouldn't that follow that? I mean,
the universals would cease to exist as well, Like there wouldn't be like
the subjective sense to universals. I'm not understanding how what would it mean that
if all humans disappear? I don't understand, Like, for example, like
is in application that universals exist whether I exist? Right? Would you say
that that that's true? Yeah, They're not strictly dependent upon human perception.
I think they're part of the created order that God established. Sure, right,
So so if there's no humans to I guess perceive or like, wouldn't
it follow that then I mean there would be no universals. No, because
the grounding of the grounding of universals is the LOGI in the divine mind,
not not the human mind. So humans existing is not what establishes universes.
They're they're grounded in their divine mind. According to Yes so Maximus says that
universals are based on the logie of universals and everything else in the divine mind.
Okay, and would this be akin to like the logos logie like the
archetypes. What do you say that these archetypes are the universals and they're like
saying no universals have an archetype in the divine mind. That's the logie of
the universal. So nothing that's God can perish. God's thoughts don't perish,
right, So we couldn't equate a universal to the logie there is a logi
four universals. That's the key distinction that Maximus makes. That's what distinguishes us
from Platonism. The Platon's position is that the forms the universals are the patterns
of the Principal's archetypes. And mac makes this important distinction between saying that universals
can perish, but they're premised on the patterns and the archetypes in the divine
mind that ground them. Okay, So would this be like a type of
divine conceptualism? Yes, okay, all right, that's it. Yeah,
great question, that's a great question. All right, So we're gonna keep
going we've got a nice audience here. We'll probably continue on for a little
bit for those that are interested in UH an overview essay on the some of
this issue of the Energies. There's that essay. This, by the way,
was the quote earlier from Irenas about recapitulation. It's section one here,
so you can go read this. I forgot that I was gonna read it,
but we got distracted with people calling in. Well, before we do
that, I gotta remind you that we do have a show sponsor. Show
sponsor is the one, the only, the amazing chalk dot com and so
on. To reminds you to he don are there to use a promo,
go J forty four life. That's Jay four four l I f E.
And contrary to Congo Kuinas who said that I'm a fat man, I'm working
on not being anything but a based, toxic masculine man. Certainly don't think
I'm fat. I might have been a little chubby ten years ago. But
UH, use a promo code J forty four life to get access and let
me play you this. I'll be right back. I'm gonna put you on
something crazy real quick. Most of these zoomer Jimbros are consuming macro guzzling synthetic
dies and synthetic sweeteners on the daily. They don't even know it. Goofy
af. There's nothing great about that. Do not listen any further unless you
are an Alpha or Sigma male. This is important and there could be consequences.
There's a new certified Sigma male pre workout powder for sigmas only. It
is guaranteed to empower you to dominate your co workers, fire your boss,
aggressively, gamble, or invade a small village. Chad Mode stands out from
the crowd by excluding artificial flavors, preservatives, sweeteners, and dyes. We've
even avoided so called natural flavors which are actually not natural at all, ensuring
a clean and effective formula. Experience the pure goodness of chad Mode. Colored
with organic blue spirolina extract, organic lemon cherry, and organic maple crystals.
Forget synthetic caffeine made in a sketchy Chinese lab. Embrace the natural power of
organic green coffee bean extract, which will get your mind going and pump you
up to the max. Chad Mode is made in America with all clean ingredients.
The first clean pre workout of its kind. Why are these people adding
synthetic sweeteners to every single pre work out when there are many studied downsides to
consuming nasty fake sucralose. Each dose of chad Mode contains the kick of a
cup and a half of coffee, delivering a surge of energy alongside essential vitamins,
minerals, amino acids, and herbal extracts. Chad Mode will allow you
to fire your boss and dominate anyone who opposes you. Chad Mode will make
you more dominant in your daily life, so proceed with caution. It's as
simple as mixing one or two scoops of our fine powder into water or juice,
providing you with a delicious, energizing beverage featuring a burst of sweet organic
fruit flavor. Chad Mode will give you the extra edge you desperately crave.
Don't miss out. Secure your supply of chad Mode on TikTok shop with a
limited time massive discount. Elevate your workouts and supercharge your days. Chad Mode
not for your average gym brozoomer who consumes synthetic blue dyes on the daily.
Buy on the TikTok shop now with a massive discount provided by TikTok for a
very limited time. It was confused because the analogy seemed to be a weak
analogy because and unless you presuppose maybe you do maybe it kind of leads you
into, well, there's an eternal creation, there's stuff outside and it's distinct
from God, and so it doesn't manage it. I don't know. I
have to be honest. I'm trying to do my best to work through this,
pretending to be a Thomas, and I'm confused. If God's attributes are
identical to his essence, If God's glory is an attribute, and God's glory
is manifested in time and space, then God's essence is manifested in time and
space exactly. Oh, I see what he's saying. Yeah, no,
I mean he's saying that, Like, how do they not understand this?
It's a very simple, clear argument. Yeah, Now, this is perfectly
illustrative because this is what the thomass and the Roman Catholics and even that Uni
eight guy had to do to make this work. Was so then turn around
and say so, ultimately, what's happening in these Theophanes is there's some created
veil over them they're not real created, they're not a real theophony. But
how does the debate with the barleymite end up going? It ends up being
about the uncreated light, and the uncreated light is no different than the uncreated
fire or the uncreated chicana glory cloud. I mean, imagine thinking that the
energetic manifestation of the Holy Spirit is a creature or about the incarnation. Well,
yeah, that would be like saying that, Well, they're just going
to say that the humanity of Christ is the created aspect. Yeah, but
it's a divine person, not the Father, not the Spirit. It's the
sun in time and space. And so the principle of the Theophanes is as
if you've seen you've seen the Father. Yeah, I mean so, I
mean, I guess you could be led into the Storianism, to be honest,
which is some of the issues with by the way the iconoclass is you're
not seeing the divine nature because it's so it's not present. So it basically
ended up taking in the stories position on Christ it's incarnation. What other questions
we are? All Right, let's see to the dude with the Greek name,
you're why don't you call in and like I don't like people love to
come to the chat and like fuss, there's the link if you want to
call in there. I disagree with you on the likes of with the likes
of you on the Essen Syenterti distinction. Okay, well then come defend what
you're trying to argue. Like I think one of the most powerful arguments that
Bradshaw made for me to convince me of all this it was not anything to
do with like tonism or critiquing it. I mean, there was some of
that was very powerful, but once I really looked at the Theophanes, like,
you have to have the Essen Senterty distinction, and they have to be
they're miraculous events where God does things outside of the antonomies of time and space.
There's no reason why God can't not any his essence because his essence is
impassable and unchangeable. Why God can't come into time and space and move from
one place to another. Just think about this. So, for example,
for a lot of these people, movement would imply that God is deficient,
imperfect, and subject to change. Now they have a metaphysical boots, like
a dogmatic metaphysical position. But let's just think about did Jesus, as a
divine person walk from one city to another? Was he really in one city
in a mode that was not identical to is omnipresence and then move from one
city to another? Okay, so in some sense God can in time and
space do different things and move about. Why would we think this is impossible
for him? Why would we want to put metaphysical limitations on what divine revelation
tells us about the Lord coming down in time and space to talk to and
rustle with the Jews, to talk to Abraham, to eat with Abraham.
Do you think it was a created angel that came and ate with Abraham or
was it the logos himself? I mean, if you want to get really
slil with this, how does God eat? So every problem with a theophany
really being an energetic manifestation of God in time and space, not a creature,
not some creaturely veil, but a real theophany ends up also by extension
being a problem for the incarnation itself. I mean, is Jesus eternally walking
on water or was that a specific event in time and space that God did?
And it's no longer the case. Mark you got to immute, are
either Kristin one hundred dollars. Thank you for that fat super chest. She
says, you are fat reasses. I am not fat. I got wrecked
because I'm a fat reasses. So much for Bay's tradcats relying on the social
justice war. Your complaint of you Bay's paper twenty five dollars. Uh.
Thomas Bob Marley was doing a sophistic reggae. Uh. And that was discussion.
That was That was a hilarious discussion. Thank you, Martin. Did
you want to talk? I can't hear you. I understand why these people
come and they can't the don't have their mics on. Charles, Are you
there, Caleb? I am you? Hello? Hey? So what are
how are sorry? How are the Theophanes of Christ different than the Theophanes of
the Holy Spirit? Because, uh, this gets discovers eventually by the time
of the Moscow Icon Synods, and they talk about how it's never the hypostasis
of the Father or the Holy Spirit that's in time and space particularly, but
it's their energetic manifestation. So the tongues of Fire and the dove, they
can't be the actual hypostasis of the Spirit because the Holy Spirit is not a
dove, and he's not a tongue of fire. Likewise, the Father is
not an old man, right, So you can't ever say that it's the
hypostasis of the Father or the Spirit that's incarnate, or that's in time and
space. In a hypostatic manifestation, it is the hypostasis of the Sun that
is incarnate. And so the Son is kind of the foundation of all Theophanes
and that's why in the Old Testament he's identified as that angel of the Lord
that is always present. Now, the Trinity is always present in every manifestation,
but in a unique mode. So for example, sometimes it's the glory
Cloud, which is the uncreated energetic manif festation of the person of the Holy
Spirit. Sometimes it's the voice of the Father, which is the energy proper
to the Father to say, this is my beloved Son. But it's never
the person of the Father as his hypostasis in time and space. And that's
why Jesus says you you have never no one has seen the Father at any
time, but the Son has revealed and the Son has declared him. So
the explanation of the Orthodox is that when you see Pentecost the tongues of fire.
That's the energetic manifestation of the Holy Spirit. Okay, very cool,
great question. Also, as Father Deacon pointed out, the Seventh Ecumentical Council,
when it talks about the theology of the Icons, it points out that
it's the divine person of the Son that is circumscribed. So the circumscription is
not picking out the divine nature in the icons. When we look at Christ,
it's picking out the hypostasis of the Son because the Son became incornate.
Tanji, what's up? I had a couple of questions, but I wanted
to ask, I guess this kind of related to the Last Beast question.
Are the Theophanes always the sun or what? How do we distinguish between which
person it is when there was a Theophany? Yeah, well, like the
again, like the tongue. I think it's the canonical interpretation of the text
as a whole tell us that the glory cloud and the Holy Spirit. All
right, So the Holy Spirit hovering above the waters is the Holy Spirit hovering
above the arc and the tabernacle. The cloud. That's the same Holy Spirit
hovering above Mary. It's the Chicina glory cloud as it's called the Chicana.
Glory cloud is not a creature, it's the glory of God. So it's
identified in other texts as the person or excuse me, as the energetic mefestation
of the Holy Spirit. And then with like in Genesis, when God is
walking through the garden yep okay, Jesus identifies himself as the one meeting with
Abraham, eating him the meal with him, et cetera. Jesus is Jesus,
Jesus ident huh. I was asked if that was in John five.
Well, it's five through nine is where he has this debate with the Pharisees
over this topic and that Abraham believed in him and so forth. But it's
in John two that he identifies himself as the one wrestling with Jacob. I
also want to talk about Islamic epistemology. I was wondering if you think we
can critique Muslims like we do Protestants and their understanding of the Bible, But
can we do that to Muslims and their ability to understand the Quran since they
have no infallible interpretive body. I wouldn't go that route as an epistemological critique.
I mean, it might, you might make a practical critique of you
know, what exactly is Islam. It kind of sells this idea that they
just have a simple view of God as one. But then you have all
this fighting and squabbling over all these different schools about what it means for God
to be one or for talheed. Right. So, but I wouldn't say
that it's necessarily a defeater just because they don't have an infallible body or a
belief and infallible body, because that doesn't really solve anybody's epistemic problem, but
just moves the problem back and stuff. How does orthodoxy escape that circle of
interpretation? There is no circle of interpretation because everybody's in the same boat that
some claimed infallible interpreter doesn't do anything for anybody. So at the end of
the day, everybody's relying on the whole spirit to give them certitude about what's
correct. But where we differ with the Protestant or Roman Catholic would be the
means that God uses. For the Protestant, it's them in the Bible for
the most part. For the Roman Catholic it's them and the people decrees.
For us, it's a holistic thing. What do you think the biggest epistemic
critique for Islam would be or would you make Yeah, I would because they
tend to pretty much except for maybe doctor Khalil or something like that. Like
they almost all are just basic bitch empiricists, so the same way, Yeah,
you can make a metaphysical critique of occasionalism. But if we're just talking
to pistemology, I mean, they're empiricists. I mean, go back to
the Asra Rashid debate. He's just arguing. Literally, his book is basic
Empiricism, questioning Safer Darren. By the way, we've had so many theological
debates in the last week. It's kind of getting old. I mean,
I'm gonna have to kind of like how many times we have the same debate
over and over, you know what I mean. So I'm looking forward to
kind of moving back to talking about a lot of geopolitical and funny streams.
So look in the next upcoming week for a lot more of that kind of
stuff. I got to take a break from all this stuff. It's very
boring and dry and just but it's just a bunch of weird nerds who obsess
over stuff that really has nothing to do with the actual practice of the Roman
Caolic Church. So let's keep in mind that the Romancolic Church is not a
medieval scriptorium. It is not a medieval crusade against the heresies and the you
know, Saracens. Roman Catholicism nowadays is a geopolitical power, a soft power
attached to the global elite, and they don't care anything about Tomism and all
this stuff that these nerds are role playing about online. Hello. Yeah,
hi, I am new to the Twitter space. Who remember the familiar how
this works? Also, I'm kind of new to j Dyer, but I
just wanted to float. I recently had some arguments with a friend of mine
who Polas and solar scriptur. Is that like within the purview of tonight's or
like today's discussion discussions? Yeah, I put Protestanism in there. We get
talk about that, okay. So one thing I noticed I was listening to
the debate between Redeem Zumer and Luigi is that I don't know, there seems
to be like, uh, it's not that there was anything wrong with the
content, but I was just wondering if there there was another possible avenue of
critique of something like solo solo scripture just based on like it's a it's phenomenological
and anthropological incoherency that everybody begins with an oral tradition. Language is a social
phenomenon, and so like the idea of it that you can somehow like have
a vision or an understanding of a text that is primarily based on the like
the content of the text itself without any reference to something outside of it,
is like it's it's not even human. And this is the exact same pattern
that we're noticing with the Thomas, with the Protestant, with the Mausleum.
They all treat this stuff in the exact same way that there's this brute factuality
of self evidence in all of these things. Yeah. Yeah, And one
thing I was wondering about is this is an argument that I've posted quite a
few people, is just that before the Masoretic Text, the Old Testament scriptures,
the hebrewscriptures were impossible to read silently because they didn't have any notations,
they didn't have viol valel notations. So you relied upon an oral tradition,
i e. A rabbi in order to even be able to read the text.
In the first place, you also have like references to Ambrose being weird
because he read texts silently, and so it was just like it was assumed
that texts were reference to communal understandings rather than vice versa in the ancient world.
Absolutely. Yeah, that's a great point. It's really like probably a
post Enlightenment, post Reformation idea that the text well, actually, if we
could probably go back to Muslims, because in some of the Sunni literature that
I was reading, the Muslims are actually even ahead of time, ahead of
Aquinas in people like that, in some of the empiricist argumentation that they were
utilizing. So their approach to the texts pre dates a lot of these sort
of empiricist approaches that you get in people like Aquinas a tournament. So there's
a there's a section in the uh oh yeah, yeah, it's there's a
there's an essay in the Oxford Companion to Islam which is about I can't remember
if it's about Ibn Tamia or Henbalism in general, but basically it was going
through the fact that a bunch of these figures actually quote are historical progenitors to
John Locke and the Enlightenment empiricists. I just remember that. I wonder I
wonder as well, it's just this guy came to mind, just I wonder
if it possibly has to do with the shifts in the understanding of authority in
the Western world generally, like with Catholicism, shifting it to like from the
fronema of the community, like the Apostolic succession being something that has to do
with the passing on of the personality Yes of God in the community. Yeah,
and keep in mind too, to address this very point against Protestants when
we did the debate with Dale, doctor bel Branson had about a thirty minute
sort of extemporaneous lecture that he gave and in that debate where he noted that
the Jewish attitude prior to you know, the time of Christ was this sort
of communal structure and you don't like there's no idea of like the every average,
every day duke getting to like just interpret the text of the way that
they want. So he was making the point that that wasn't even true in
the Old Testament. So when Protestants try to say, well, you didn't
have an infallible interpreter of the Church and the Old Testament so it was every
man for himself private interpretation. That's totally not true. You had a synagogue
system that was set up by Ezra, and they had authority in that structure
that trumps some private interpretation of the average Israelite. And also like to go
along with that, I mean, thinking of the text itself, a private
person could not read it exactly, great point, Great point, Rabbi,
because there's no vowels and so like, and so like if you if you
just look at the you know, the the Hebrew letters, different words can
mean different things depending on nunciation, and so the text is literally like a
shittle with It's like you cannot read it without the without the oral tradition,
and so like, I guess that that that just feels like a nail in
the coffin for me, for for a solo scriptura, because if this is,
if this is uh, if this is how like it's I mean,
I think the phenomenological anthropological point stands no matter what I think. This is
part of why, like a seminary is called cemetery for most Evangelical Protestants because
they go there with all of these oral traditions based on the preaching of their
pastor and things, the reference they've they've they've gathered then counter higher criticism,
which is a completely different oral tradition, right that basically kills the text and
then like separates out all the parts and then like laughs at it. Yeah,
Like that's that's the oral tradition that they move into. And they but
they can't appeal to oral tradition as something authoritative, right, and so they
end up losing their faith or just becoming higher critic themselves. I think that's
a really strong argument, that's really perceptive insight to what happens to a lot
of Protestants. Yeah, well that was my name question. Yeah, and
to again piggyback that the debate is not with Dale Tuggy, it's just with
Dale the Protestant. I don't know who he is, but we did this
debate eight months ago over here on Faith Unfiltered Channel, Protestant Debate versus Orthodox
Jay versus Dale the Protestant. But probably in about the first hour, doctor
Branson gives a really excellent breakdown of how it actually worked like amongst Jews,
which is basically they had little synods, so the structure of Jewish interpretation,
rulings and halaka and all that kind of stuff was kind of like small sinodal
systems. And that's the basis for why, for example, in Acts fifteen
they have a council. Right, so like when Ax fifteen, when the
Jerusalem Council happens, it's not like the apostle just said, let's make up
this new way of doing things, counsel. Now this actually is again from
the Jewish tradition. Sean, But thank you for that, good, good
point, sir, Sean. What's up? Hey? What's going on?
Sir? How are you great? What's up? Hey? So? I'm
new to to faith in general general but Protestant and uh, I've been asking
questions you know about Solo fe day and was was directed to, you know,
Romans four, and obviously I gave the rebuttal of what that's referring to.
After Abraham, Marty, does you know a couple of chapters of good
work? The response that I'm looking for is they always go then too Romans
five regarding you know whoever does not work, but trust God who justifies them
godly. The faith is credited as righteousness. Yeah, but Jesus says faith
is the word. So been on their position like having faith is something that
you have to actually do. Even if we believe that faith itself is also
a gift, it's still something that you have to do. So there's even
faith it presupposes synergy. Yeah, and that's that's why sole scripture is bothering
me. I've always had this, ask questions about by faith alone and never
really never really got a good answer for it. So that's why I've started
listening to more orthodoxy things like like Andrew Wilson and yourself, and it's just
you know, it's helping me kind of, yeah, navigate my way here.
So yeah, I would say go check out, like I've got several
talks kind of critiquing justification by faith, faith alone and imputation. We got
a lot of podcasts, so I said check those out to start with,
and then you're always welcome to come back and ask questions on that. No,
what's up, No, let me read a couple of super tests before
we go to know sm of the cat ten dollars. Have you ever seen
the movie The Endless? Yes, I did see that movie. I liked
it. It's about a group of people in the woods and they're sort of
like a UFO cult and a death cult, except not really a UFO cult,
but it's kind of that sort of thing. Yeah, I think it
has a sequel too. I watched both of those. I like them.
I think I just forgot about ever doing like a movie analysis of it.
DC Custom ten dollars much love, my brother. I hope you and Jamie
are well. Thank you appreciate that stuff. You know, we did stuff
on Netfection sixteen dollars twenty four cents thanks to your debate debates. I've converted
to Orthodoxy recently at Saint Gregor Palma's Generation Day. What would you recommend for
new converts besides good Catechism, going to liturgy. We need your content in
I don't know what you mean, we need your content in. Well,
what I recommend for I mean, I wouldn't worry about this sort of abstract
theological stuff if you're a new convert too much focus on the basics. I
mean it might sound quote Protestant, but I mean Saint John Chrystolsom says that
as the laity, you have more need of reading the Bible than the monks
do. So I would say, as laity we should actually be biblically literate.
Many people are not so, and the more I think about it,
the more I notice with all of these. So when we talk to the
Muslims and we, for example, present the argument that the new revelation quote
unquote of the Quran is inconsistent with the previous revelation of the Bible, what
we always find is that Muslims don't know what's in the Bible. So the
hinge of this argument will also, unfortunately, partly be contingent on knowing that
the teachings of the Bible contradict the Quran. But you're not going to know
that until you actually read and try to understand the Bible. So unfortunately,
for that argument, which is devastating, it has a learning that probably most
Muslims are not going to concern themselves with trying to understand what's in the Bible
and seeing if it's actually a contradiction to the crown. Likewise, with today's
Thomass and the people that popped up the first Thomas said I don't want to
go to the Bible. Stop quoting the Bible at me. That was literally
what he said, maybe even twice. And then with the Uni eight who
comes on he doesn't as soon as we go to Leviticus, he says that
Theophanes are created, and then he contradicts themselves and says they're God, but
they're created, have some sort of creative veil or whatever nonsense he said.
I mean, he he's not grappling with the text. And then he said,
you'd have to show that the glory cloud is is actually God himself.
So he's biblically ignorant of the Holy Spirit manifesting over the waters, manifesting over
the Tabernacle and the Temple as the Chakaina glory cloud as it's called by everyone,
including Jews, and then the manifestation of the the same cloud above the
Arc of Mary. So this is really fundamental Biblical theology. So while I
recognize it's useful to have some of this philosophical baggage and terminology for you know,
the way that the Church fathers argue the Trinity, I more and more
and more see how we don't need all of this medieval tomistic scholastic stuff.
I mean, I've never thought we needed it since leaving Roman Catholicism a long
time ago, But more and more I see how divorced it is from what
we're supposed to be believing in terms of the actual revelation of these texts,
and whether it's Tim Gordon or whether it's these Tomists. This is where they
don't want to go. They want to I spend all day long arguing with
you over medieval scholastic manuals of what this or that level of distinction is.
Okay, the Cappadocians, they use a lot of philosophical terms. They're not
concerned with that. Saint Gary Palomus wasn't primarily concerned with that. In fact,
the majority of the argumentation and the Triads and against the Barley Mite just
simply goes to the scriptures. So I think we should just bypass all this
gibberish because, by the way, all this scholastic terminology, it just alienates
a bunch of laity. Anyway, they don't care about this. They're not
going to dive into reading technical scholastic manuals of distinguishing all these terms. And
why should they. Why would any of that be necessary when the first thousand
years of the Church, or even the first one hundred years of the Church,
the time of the Apostles, they didn't have this stuff. Why why
do we need all of that if they didn't have it and they were able
to achieve theosis and salvation. So really it just becomes a useless hindrance and
people end up worshiping their ideas. The real root of all of this is
pride and ideolotry system worship and worshiping your ideas as God and not the actual
living God of Scripture. What does Palamas say? He did not say I
am it. He says I am he. Can we read this, you
guys? So in the Triads see this paragraph here. Okay, I'm going
to read this paragraphs not real long. Will he, his opponent, claim
that the essence means that which possesses uniquely in a unified way, all of
these powers, then, first of all he should have called this reality God,
for this is the name which we have received from the Church. To
express this idea. Even when God spoke to Moses, he did not say
I am essence, but I am the existing one. This means inasmuch as
he who is does not derive from essence, but rather essence derives from he
who exists. So the emphasis here is put on the fact that I am
is a statement of divine personhood. Of the monarchia of the Father, and
by extension, yes, the Son is also present in this theophany as well
as the Angel of the Lord. But the Angel the Lord is able to
say that he also is Yahweh. But the point of Palamas in this page
is to argue against the misapplied emphasis of the Western Latin scholastic position to think
that I am that I am is a statement of I am supreme essence,
I am being, which is a Plutonian reading. And that's why, for
example, if you read Ettien Jill Sollen, the most famous tomist of like
last century, right, Jill Soon says, when God says in Exodus three,
I am, he says I am supreme essence or supreme being. And
we don't have a problem saying that in some sense God is supreme being.
But God's being is an energy for us freedom. Hello, hey, hey,
Jay, So I like a lot of the arguments you're giving for essence,
energies and the Theophanes. I think it makes a lot of sense.
And in the same way with the Roman Catholic Church, the modern Saints and
their practices just being so much different from the Church is a big thing for
me. However, there are some arguments surrounding dogmas and councils that have been
keeping me from being able to, like you know, fully put you know,
both two feet in orthodoxy. And I'm sure you've probably discussed this before,
and I've listened to some talks on it. But I was wondering if
you would be willing to take just like a minute or two to discuss Agatho's
letter and under the umbrella of Catholicism and Tonism and whatnot. Okay, well,
have you watched the videos where we cover it. I believe I have.
One of the things I understand the arguments that you make is that because
the the Third Council of Constantinople also condemns Honorious as a Monothelite heretic, it
doesn't protect every pope from defecting. However, I was wondering if you but
that's just one that's like a secondary argument. I'm talking about the other arguments
I had made in this video called does the letter of Agatho prove the PAPIs?
Have you seen that I might have? How about I go watch that
and then I'll make sure and then i'll come back if I have That's Okay,
I mean, I'm just repeating basically the arguments that are in the Denny
book Papalism by Edward Denny, And what he argues is that there's no way
to say, first of all, that this is a proof of like the
Vatican one position, because if the mindset of the church at that time was
Vatican One mindset, then all they would have done is look to latter In
six forty nine, because latter In six forty nine was the condemnation of monothelitism
several decades before six point eighty one, and constantin uple three. What they
do is they hold an ecumenical council because that's what they saw as authoritative,
not just papal fiat, right, and they investigate the letter of Agatho in
the exact same way that they investigated Leo's tone to see if it was consistent
with Cyril. Yeah. I think you might have made that argument a day
or two ago and somebody else who called them when I was watching. No,
I haven't talked about Agatha's letter in the past two days. Okay,
it must have been on your Popes channel, then my bad. But uh
yeah. So one of the things about that though is I understand that the
practice of the Church didn't operate in a Vatican One mindset. But one of
the important claims that I've seen people make is that even though the individual popes
could defect, and they'll often cite Newman doctrine of development, even though that
kind of contradicts Vatican one. Right, but you know, they'll say that
individual popes can defect, but whenever they do that, they're not exercising the
authority of the sea. So the sea itself and the Church, because Vatican
one doesn't just Vatican one says that Rome, the Roman Sea has never taught
error. So this makes it an unfalsifiable position to just simply say, oh,
well, the Roman Sea has never taught error, but when it does,
he's no longer the pope, I mean, so, so it's not
then the occupant is not indefectible. So this this destroys indefectibility, which is
taught at Vatican One. So it's not they're deflecting to a question of infallibility
when the point there is about indefectibility. So well, if if they could
just make the argument that the office can't defect, but the person who's in
the can how would you? But Vatican one doesn't argue that. So that's
a that's a ad hocs like specials moving the goalposts, alteration, because the
Roman Sea is embodied by the occupant of the Roman Sea. So if if
I read Vatican one and it tells me that the roman See cannot teach ay
and will never defect, then you can't separate it from I mean, I
know that they would say there's a distinction between the office and the occupant,
but the it's a living magisterium, it's not. It's not an office that's
a Nestorian Platonic form that you're in communie with. You're in commune with the
living Pope, who is the living image of the living magisterium. So you
see how they're it's they're united. I suppose I'll have to go back and
reread Vatican two and I'll pick up that paper. Well, no, Vatican
one, it's Vatican one, not Vatican two. But let's let's let's think
about if we adopted that position, wouldn't that destroy the whole practical point of
what Vatican one argues about the papacy. If conceivably any position from the pope
might be erroneous, and I might, as an individual Catholic, judge that
it's heretical, and I don't have to accept him. In other words,
that's moving in the direction of the set of a consisposition. But if I
take the set of a condisposition, then the Roman see and its practical argumentation
loses all of its force. I'll law Vatican one. Do you see what
I'm saying. I would agree that it loses all of its practical force,
But you could still make an argument from the dogma that you still have to
submit to it, even though you have no practical way of knowing whether it
is, you know, being exercised or not. Wait, so if the
Pope taught heresy, you're saying I would have to submit to his heresy,
Well, no one can judge the first c right exactly position right? Well
yeah, so it's basically you're just it's like a pretzel position, like you're
constantly sort of like twisted all around and back to the other problem. So
it's it's certainly you know a lot of sophistry, but I mean, I
I don't want to completely rule it out until I can, like you know,
find an exact dogmatic contradiction, because maybe it could be some complicated process
where you're just supposed to mindly submit. I mean, well, I mean
if you want to, if you want to. I mean a clear dogmatic
contradiction would be that in nineteen twenty eight it was a surrendering of the faith
to have interfaith gatherings with other so called Christians, and after Vatican two you
can pray in mosques and synagogues, okay, And how do you know that
the it's dogma to do interfaith gatherings. I thought it was just SuperOrdinary magisterium
like or not SuperOrdinary. But the status of mortalium animals won't matter because the
pope at that time was exercising the universal traditional attitude, as everyone admits,
like nobody prior to that would go and pray in synagogues or moss. So
unless you think that nobody understood the basic morality of public liturgical worship until Vatican
two, I mean, that would be an absurd position to hold. I
mean, it might be absurd, but I do think it would be fair
to challenge the idea that mortalium animals just dogma. I don't think. I
think they just claimed again. But it's an encyclical that was expressing through ordinary
teaching, what was the mindset of the church at that time and prior.
And for example, you know that the ancient canons in the first thousand years,
for example, excommunicate prelates that pray in synagogues, right, No,
I yeah, that's in the ancient canons. Yeah, so I think it's
at the Six Council. It's a canon I think from the Six Council.
So in other words, that's the traditional mindset. I think we all know
that the medieval church calls for crusades against the Muslims, right, the papal
Church calls for crusades urban the second Right. Do we agree on that?
Yes? Okay, So when Mortellian Animals is written in nineteen twenty eight,
whether it's strict universal ordinary magistrum, I would argue it does express the classic
universal attitude the church, because we can go back to the first thousand years
and see that the canons of the church say that you can't go and pray
in synagogues, and by extension, then it seems to follow that whatever the
I don't even Mortelling Animals does not have to be extraordinary magisterium because it's expressed
in the traditional mind of the Church, meaning that it's universal ordinary magisterium,
or at the least its ordinary magisterium, and so there's no way for it
to be virtuous and correct to reject those things. In nineteen twenty eight and
within a few decades, the Holy Spirit now says the exact opposite as to
what is virtuous and correct. Okay, And yeah, that's that's a very
good concrete argument. And I will all go read those epistolic and we know
that on top of that, the basis four Francis going and praying in the
mosques and Benedict and John Ball the second doing it and in synagogues is because
of the teaching of Vatican two in lumin Gentm. Sixteen and nostratate that Jews
mull of Christians all adore the same God and have the same amriamic faith.
Yeah, I've I've heard some of my Roman Catholic friends dismiss it with like
wording issues where they're like, oh, it doesn't actually say that. I
don't know, but the Pope is acting on what the council says, so
it absolutely says that. I mean, that's yeah, we've read Lemon Gentee
of sixteen like a million times. I'm not going to reread it, but
yeah, I understand. Okay, well, thank you for your time that
I really appreciate it. I mean, did you have any other issues,
topics or questions. I think I should just chew on the stuff he told
me for now and maybe come back another day. So there's anything else,
Okay, I'm just looking for the quote from Little God about what the grace
is in Roman Catholicism. Here it is sanctifying grace is a created, supernatural
gift, really distinct from God. This is Little God's fundamentals of Catholic dogma,
probably one of the most famous modern traditional systematic theologies of the Roman Catholic
Church. Supernatural is infused by God. Supernatural grace is a participation in the
divine nature. Well, if it's a created reality that's an accident in the
soul, and it's a supernatural creation that's really distinct from God, then you
see the problem immediately with this in the Roman Catholic Tomistic position. So the
same thing that cancels out their view of the Theophanes is exactly why they won't
say you're participating in uncreated grace, And this, by the way, is
him summarizing not just Tunism but fundamentals of Catholic dogma. So in the Roman
Catholic dogmatic position post Trent, grace is defined as a supernatural created reality that
is not God. But then he contradicts by saying in point five supernatural grace
is is a participation in the divine nature? Is the divine nature a creature?
Because he just calls it in point one a creature? So you want
another contradiction, There you go. Nikolai, Hey, Jake started doing.
You've been uh, you've been rocking at the last couple of days. You
must have got a lot of energy from Las Vegas. Yeah, that chalk
dot com. There you go, great, great plug right there. You
know, you know, having listened to you for a while now, for
a couple of years, and also just the recent last couple of debates that
are at least the Twitter spaces you've done. It seems like a lot of
the arguments have basically dried up on their side. They don't really have much
besides nitpicking and everything else. Right, But what I see as a major
issue going on, more so just for Orthodox going forward, is dealing with
the a lot of people coming in with theological baggage, and one of them
that I've noticed is the what some people are calling the Orthodox Latinizers, and
a lot of the kind of theology they're trying to like inject into Orthodoxy that
doesn't exist. Have you ever considered going doing a like a stream or a
long maybe you already have on the Confession of tothesis and like the Synod of
Jerusalem that they always point to and they try and like take out a context
and things like that. Yeah, so if you read the in fact,
father Deacon anon Ice and I were actually talking about doing a stream on Latinizers
and the Western right aberrations. Not everybody in the Western rights bad, but
the bad manifestations of it. One thing we know that is true that shows
that the mindset wasn't to be a Latinizing text is that in the Norman Russell
translation of the Palomite Synods, on page thirty four, it says that the
patriarch of Jerusalem, Docithios the second responded to the target with his tone of
love in sixteen eight ninety eight. This is a collection of Palomite texts prefaced
by introduction in an account that has to cast controversy from a Palamite perspective.
In seventeen twenty seven, as this there's the relationships worsened with a Romancolic church,
a constantinof Politan Council endorsed again the Palamite understanding, so it was clear
that they did not want to express the Latin theological baggage, even if they
were using terms like transubstantiation or something like that. And this is something that
back in twenty eighteen we actually addressed a lot of this because there was a
wave of converts back in twenty eighteen and we kind of already had this exact
same problem back then, and so we addressed it a lot. Back then.
This problem kind of died down, but now it's like resurfaced again as
you point it out, because people are coming and saying and assuming that there's
all this you know, Latin baggage that they that they need to bring into
Orthodoxy to save it, to rescue it, and so forth, and it's
just odd. I mean, you know, Prime is an obvious proponent of
this nonsense, but Prime is saus just completely ridiculous things. And I don't
think anyone should listen to him. So you know, that's what you get
if you're going to listen to like twenty four year old people spamming on the
internet all day. Yeah. The one thing that I always or maybe you
could let me know what you think of this. One of the things that
really just kept on, like they kept on hammering on was when Bishop Erine
came out with his original sin. Yeah, but Bishop was correct and everything
that he said. Yeah, absolutely, And and the thing that always like,
really I like the way the church operates isn't the way that they say
it operates theologically. For example, if what they say about baptism for infants
is true in our theology and infants, it would be a moral crime,
in my opinion, not to baptize them the moment they come out of the
womb. Instead, we have a theology that says we wait forty days.
Yeah you know, so how does their theology express itself in the church.
Well, it doesn't, you know what I mean. So that was just
some of the thoughts that I had. Well, there's also one of our
mods put up one of the liturgical readings which actually says that we don't presume
that infants are damned. I forget which day that liturgical reading is, but
the liturgy itself goes against their position exactly. Well, I appreciate your time,
Thanks Jay as always, and keep in mind to that addressing the specifics
of that issue with original sin is the link right here, Saint Augustine Calvin,
original Sin and Orthodox theology that addresses this issue. And then also there's
another one I did the one. I think it's the Roman ees one that
addresses it. Augustine Analogy of Being, et cetera also touches on that as
a separate livestream. But so yeah, I think that's a great analysis that
the opposition is really drying up. That's why they're resorting to these kind of
like outbursts and these they're grasping at, regurgitating a quitness. Which is what's
funny though, is that if you go back to twenty seventeen twenty eighteen,
it was like a mirror of now because at that time there's a lot of
debates with Thomas. At that time, it was like, you know,
we're arguing with reasoning theology people. There's a lot of people trying to promote
Tomism. Matt Fratt at that time was even kind of pushing Tomism and this
kind of stuff. There were these Thomas who would like come on Discord all
the time we were having debates back and forth. That's all kind of died
away, right, and we had a whole surge and a wave of converts
back then, fast forward to now. It's like the twenty two year old
dudes that have started reading Aquinas a couple of years ago think that none of
this has been dealt with or addressed, and like all they have to do
is kind of represent what a Quitas said here and there, not realizing that
like most of this stuff was already dealt with, like in twenty eighteen,
we responded all that. So a lot of these things kind of die away
and then they pop back up. But the you know, Francis is really
helping us out a lot. So props to put Francis because every time these
people want to deflect off into this scholastic nonsense and you've got uniates who wants
us to go into union with freaking Francis. Are you kidding me? Really?
This is just suggests to me that anyone that's still left in that communion,
And I mean, I love Tim and I have respect for Tim and
I want him to convert. But Tim's very honest about the struggles and the
problems that are going on. I mean, Francis is right now cracking down
on the Latin mass. So all these trads who want to deflect in arguing
all this medieval dungeons and dragons crap is just a disservice to I guess sometimes
it has to be addressed, which is why we're doing this, But it's
a disservice really to what this whole thing actually is. In reality, it's
not medieval dungeons and dragons and crusades. It's Francis as a geopolitical operative shutting
down the thing that all of these idiots are trying to convince us of.
You need to become a true trade cat, to be faithful to the pope.
Bro. Oh but by the way, don't submit to the pope,
bro, except if your orthodox submit to the Pope bro. This is why
acting out, This is why I think at this point, do we really
need to give the impression that Roman Catholicism is this elaborate scholastic artifice and architecture
when that's a medieval thing that doesn't even exist anymore, and all I need
to do is go to the ridiculous histrionic women saints that they actually say I
have to accept and show how preposterous this is Jesus telling Margaret Mary alacoqueit to
carve into her chest his name and then sign a pact with the blood.
So people who want to talk about tumism have to defend that. Who cares
about all this scholastic bull crap when the religion on the ground is actually female
skin carving piety. This is not an obscure saint. This is next to
Fatima as the most important thing in the last several hundred years, called sacred
Heart Margaret Mary ala Coquay. So who cares? What boring ass thing?
Thomas Aquinas wrote hundreds of years ago. The religion on the ground that you
have to accept, it's not optional, is the historyonics of women, and
no wonder these people act like histrionic women. Please any Roman Catholic makes sense
to me of Margaret Mary ala Coquay and the Sacred Heart in all of this
self harm, which is obviously a demonic delusion. Who can't see? Who
doesn't have the discernment to compare this to the profits of bail screaming and yelling
and cutting themselves in First Kings. Marshall Marshall mathers, I'm mute, yeah
you hear me. Uh yeah. So I just kind of a question.
This is pretty funny because yesterday you hadn't talked to Christian Wagner, and like
I couldn't talk to you yesterday because I was too late, But now you
did talk him. Was kind of perfect timing. So he wrote a thing
or he said something on Twitter. I think it was like a week ago,
and I just want to get your take on it. It's a it's
from Basil against you unumias already covered at the beginning of the talk. Oh,
the one where you're talking about the conceptualizations. I mean, are you
talking about the what the supposed proof for Basil teaching relations of opposition? No,
it's or maybe it's the one where he says, thank you Saint Basil
for affirming a conceptual distinction between essence and energies and these sites against so,
I guess cat upanoya. Bradshaw has a whole essay on what ca catapanoya means
in Saint Basil and Basil says that the distinction between the energies is the same
as the distinction between the persons, so it cannot be purely conceptual. So
what they don't understand is that you can have a distinction that is only in
the mind, or a distinction that is in the mind and in reality.
And Basil says that the distinction that's in the mind is also based on the
reality in the trinity, so it is not a purely conceptual seed. So
in other words, if he was consistent, then then he believes in modalism,
because Basil says it's the same for the person. Okay, yeah,
because he's I read I read what he said, and I was like,
this is how is this proving just a conceptual distinction? Because after he cites
in the bold using designations that differ there there's quote their quote mining looking for
the terminology based on word concept fallacies that that proves the Romancalty position. And
Bradshaw has a whole long essay about Catapanoya addressing all of those things. Everybody
should read that. But we can set aside all of the difficult issues or
debates with Catapanoya and conceptual and go back again to the Theophanes, because the
principle of the Theophanes is the same principle of whether whether what do we participate
in in terms of grace? So all I have to do to refute this
whole stupid position is to go back to scripture and say, in Leviticus nine,
is the glory of God hearing to the Israelites? Or is it a
created thing? Yeah? Exactly, you just go to the scripture not getting
caught in all these or or as Paloma says, or when when we talk
about what we participate in terms of grace? Am I participating in a conceptual
reality or a real uncreated grace? What will make me immortal and god like?
A conceptual participation? Because we all agree, we all agree we don't
participate in the essence of God, right Roman Catholic Orthodox, So what do
we participate in? Well, Jesus says we participate in the glory that he
had with the Father in John seventeen. Is God's glory created? No?
But Roman Catholicism dogmatically teaches that what we participate in is a created, supernatural
gift right here, Yeah exactly, is the glory of God a creature?
You heard the Uni eight earlier say yes and no, and yes and no,
oh I just got here, oh yeah, or earlier on in this
yeah, yeah, and but one more thing like that thing he cited how
it like literally right after he does the bold thing. It says on the
basis of his different energies and his relation to the objects of his divine benefaction.
It says on the basis of his different energies right after that, to
try to prove it's justconceptual when he's just right after it says it's different energies.
Yeah. Well, I mean again, these people don't actually they just
quote mine looking for They don't care about the context. They're just quote minding,
looking for terminology that they think will help back up their position. On
the Orthodox Fate Book three, John Damascus says in section fifteen, observe that
energy capacity for energy, product of energy, and agent of energy are all
different. Yeah. So anyway, that's all I had. Yeah. So
this is precisely why in the debate that Palamas has with the barley mites and
Ecan dinos, the debate eventually goes to, well, what are we participating
in? Because if you want to say that the distinctions between God and his
grace, from between God and his righteousness or God and his attributes is not
real or not conceptual or in some way beyond just cut up anoia, Then
what is that we get in salvation? This is the clincher. This,
this destroys the uni A and the Thomas position, the Scotist and the Thomas
position, because they're not going to say that we participate in an uncreated reality
distinct from the essence of God. And yet that's the only possible position that
reconciles that theophanies and refutes the stupid position of the Roman Catholic dogmatic stance that
grace is a created, supernatural gift. Yeah, I wonder what his what
I wonder what Christian Wager's opinion on that the is, you know, I
mean, Thomas Aquinas believes that they're angels. As far as I'm I don't.
I can't imagine him doing anything other than just regurgitating Thomas Aquinas. Because
the other thing is that, like, these people have not spent enough time
and had not had enough exposure to the fact that, like there's a lot
of debates in this domain in philosophy, and just restating and regurgitating Aquinas is
something that young guys do without realizing the academic philosophical nuances and problems even in
tumism. So they're just acting like tumism is a given. Even the room
doesn't believe in tumism anymore. Father Deacon, are you there? Could you
speak to that at all? Yeah? Sorry? What was the question?
I mean, what would you say to somebody who says something like, why
should I care about the fact that modern philosophy and academia and all that is
concerned with, you know, problems of self evidence or the criterion problem or
the myth of the given, like all of that's modern. Wouldn't it just
be better to adopt and go with a system like Tomism? Well then I'd
say, well, then just pick your poison and go with whatever arbitrary.
I mean, if we're gonna be archaic, isn't it better if I just
go to I don't know, Greek mythology? I mean yeah, Like,
why would we arbitrary? Why would we say that Tomism because it's the best
system. It's the one that provides the grand, grand narrative scope. Yeah,
it gives everything I want. So it's just confirmation. In other words,
give me my position and let me argue it, and then I'll show
you that my position is true. Yeah, exactly. And again it just
all that tells us, and all that's doing is you're just simply given a
psychological report. I like that it psychologically pleasing to me, but that doesn't
tell me why we ought to why should we go? We just choose anything
that's psychologically See how it's arbitrary. I just choose whatever psychologically pleasing to me,
and that satisfies my psychological demands. That's good enough for me. And
if, well, somebody later in history comes up with a problem, I'll
look away because I don't want to hear problems. Yeah, they handwave everything
after say fifteen hundred. Let's stay the problem that way, Father Deacon,
what's the problem with somebody handwaving because they're going to argue kind of like a
rhetorical kind of argument that. Well, everything fifteen hundreds in after is like
obviously degenerate modernism. So why would we want to deal with or utilize argumentation
from anybody after fifte hund Well you need an argument for that? Well,
aren't you a Christian? Aren't you? Aren't you a Christian? Why would
you care what people after fifteen hundred said they're pretty much not Christian. Wouldn't
that be a genetic fallacy? Exactly? Absolutely? Yeah, just because and
it could also be an ad hominem maybe circumstantial. Well, Aristotle wasn't a
Catholic. Why are we supposed to care so much what Aristotle says? And
by the way, this temptation comes into Orthodoxy too. So yesterday I thought
it was really funny. But as we're learning societies devolving in whether will be
no more humor in a couple of years, nobody will laugh at anything.
But I just had to wish everybody a happy Fourth of July with the the
old classic picture Jack dack Nicholson and the shiny because that photos taking Fourth of
July and you've just seen people lose their mind. Why are you posting the
psatiotic photo or picture? So memes are Satanic, I mean memes are like
everything everything Satan, baba bashet, everything's corrupt. Do you notice this kind
of sort of thing? And and people were going, you remember some of
these kind of mentally unstable people going and trying to find occultic signs and everything
on your website or like on Patristic faith and stuff like that. So everything's
evil and it's contaminated, right, And I feel like this is part of
this kind of puritanicalism with kind of Tonism or something like that. Everything satanic
except for Auas. Why no, I think I think uh Wagner called uh
Tim Gordon and an s O D O M I T e because of something
ridiculous. I don't remember all the was something like because because Tim Gorgan said
that husbands and wifes should sleep in the same bed. And Wagner, I
don't know, maybe he was joking, but he'd called that s O D
O M Y. I mean, these people are insane and the thing too.
I mean, think about what you'd have to throw out the majority of
the great books because they're Pagans, are not Christians. I brought up in
the stream today. Uh one am I blanking on his name? What second?
Oh my god, I've this slipped a portrait of Dorian Gray. It's
Oscar Wilde. Oscar Wilde is degenerate s O D S O D. But
that's a great work. So yes, it's like those are just hominyens.
Somebody could be a degenerate and you know, well, Palama says that Plato
was demonic. So but does does that mean every argument that Plato had is
bad? Of course not. Imagine as a professor, I'm like, no,
you can't actually say anything true because you haven't acquired the virtues and you're
not baptized Orthodox, So you will not be allowed to engage in the class
or say anything that possibly could be true because obviously you're a reprobate. We
all know that. I mean, imagine how absurd if I, like,
people really carried this through. Yeah, that's actually a good point. So
I think I think with a lot of the younger guys, like guys that
are like eighteen to twenty two, Like, there is this weird tendency towards
this hyper rigid puritanism, and that's also in the mix, especially with it's
not just with the weird Orthodox, but that's also going on the tradecast fears.
And by the way, that puritanicalism and Puritanism, the New England,
the New England clam chowder of Rebecca had a really good whole thing about like
that's where modern day democrat liberal, that's what you will become. They were,
They're rooted in the Puritans, and that New England puritanicalist. Oh you're
not cada and trad for going that way. You're faking gray all right,
love the Gulf Coast. Ari, what's up? You want to try again?
Emmets? When did concept and double become UNI eight? Right before it
fell? Mind? Haack? Five dollars? Nothing? Thank you? Are
you there? Hello? Yes, sir? Hi? This is day very
four? Can you hear me? Who? What? Yep? That says
I'm a speaker. Earlier I had a little trouble with the connection. I
hope it's better now. What's up? Okay? You have so many themes.
It's Friday afternoon, and I'm recalling sitting with my old Calvinist before mentors
on Friday afternoon and Saturday, going back and forth about systematic theology over the
kitchen table. I've been a Catholic for over twenty years now, found answers
that were not there in the reformed world. The thing that really grabs me
about what you've been discussing this afternoon is the locus, if you will,
in the ontology of universals. My Calvinist mentors used to say that we get
our universals not from Plato's ideas, but directly from the ideas that are attributes
of God theological identical with the divine nature. Yeah, we don't believe that.
We would say that that's platonism. I have since learned that, Yeah,
the Catholic Orthodoxy considers that to be ontologism, which is a heresy.
I think, in the limit, it denies the incomprehensibility of God. So
from where I'm sitting now, I would advocate a return to Aquinas's view that
the universals are indeed existent in the created order, they're forward infinite. We
don't, I don't want to. I don't. We don't need any of
Aquinas because that's not going to be consistent because he says that the divine ideas
are the divine essence. So that doesn't get us anywhere. Maximus's view is
that the divine ideas are divine energies or LOGI, Well, the divine ideas
are the divine essence. There's no problem with that. No, not that
that's that's the reason that they're not is. The reason that they're not is
transcendental tomism. So I'm coming from that, okay, And let me explain
why I don't think that's the case. I don't think it's true, because
if the created things that come to be are patterned on the divine ideas that
are in the divine essence, then logically they should come to be necessarily because
the divine essence is synonymous with the divine ideas, and the divine essence is
necessary. Therefore the created patterns aren't also necessary. I'm not going to get
into the necessity of creation right now. Well that's my argument as why.
Well that's the argument why I wouldn't So you're not going to address the argument.
So you're not going to address the argument. You don't want to address
the argument, so you don't want to address the actual critique of the position.
I'm not sure what the debate is. I just stated it. Do
you want me stated again? Okay, If the divine ideas are divine ideas
of created things, and if the divine ideas are the divine essence, and
the divine essence is necessary, then the creative things are just as necessary as
a divine essence. Well, that's like the old Calvin is super lapsarian debate,
is it super or infra? You can't outside the hidden nature of God
and figure that out. It's a logical entailment from the Tomas position. No,
you can't assume that our logic maps over into the divine essence like that.
You just admitted that the divine ideas are the divine essence, right,
they're identical with the divine Exactly of the creatures is in the ivum, not
in the divine essence. But the patterns of the creatures are based on the
divine ideas and divine essence. The mapping goes to the ivum, not directly
to the essence. Otherwise we would have ontology. How do you know that
there's a distinction between the IBM and the essence because otherwise it just sounds like
it's just another violating ontologism. Well, again, maybe your position leads to
ontologism. I'm glad that you don't want it. But how do we know
that there's these other distinctions? Well, I'm certainly not insisting that Aquinas is
perfect. I mean, there are plenty of areas where I disagree with him,
especially in physical sciences. Fair enough, so, can we talk about
the epistemology of tumism, because that's where all of this has its root.
Do you agree with classical foundationalists approaches to epistemology, as most Roman Catholics do
foundationalism, as in all the requirements for knowledge are met in scripture and tradition,
no epistemic foundationalism. Do you believe in first principles and self evident maxims
like Aristotle talks about, yes, yes, okay, do you believe?
Do you accept the peripatetic axiom? I don't know it by that name?
Can you state it logically? So? Aquinas affirms the parapateetic axiom in de
vertat and he says, there's nothing in the intel that's not first in the
sense data. Oh, I think there's good evidence that. For example,
to support a slightly more contient point of view, I think there's good evidence
that your very young children can sense death before having the experience of it.
So you don't accept the patch accident? Do you think they're self having a
truth? Not the peripathetic axiom? Totally not at this point, although I
think it's generally true. Okay, well yeah we would agree with that.
Well, yeah, I would use a transcendental Tomas, Yeah, he probably
would, sure that. Like appealing to lawn again, different people like that,
No, not longer again, I like actually I like Peter Geach and
some of the British analytic tradition and suits me more Russell bertrand Russell Peter Geach.
The idea is transcendental analytic Thomism. In other words, we accept the
logical ideas as necessary in creation. We don't necessarily try to map it over
in to the divine nature. The created ontology is distinct from the creator's existence.
Yeah, but I think the point is that if we are if we
believe in via negativa, and we reduce God's thoughts or his ideas to the
divine essence, and we also believe in via negativa, then we have to
assume that there's an analogia. But we never have a basis to know that
there's an analogia between the essence itself and the created things. So that's why
there is the essence iner distinction, and that's why I guess I would shift
a debate then between me and a transcendental Tomas to the Theophanes themselves. Do
you think that God can appear in time and space? Yes, However I
would qualify that I think most of the revelations in scripture are probably angels.
Then it's not God in time and space. That's the whole point. For
example, should kind of glory, you think that's a creative being. So
you think God's glory is a creature. Well, yeah, this is why
the system is wrong. It doesn't say that. It does say it.
It says, no man can see God's face and live. And yet Moses
saw God's face because God's face is Jesus. He showed his back parts.
Jesus, according to Paul and second three three is who was face to face
talking to Moses. The text in Exodus also says Moses talk to God face
to face. It says both of those things. Okay, well, you
know, so God can be in time and space, and termism of can
be the equivalent of talking to God. It's a royal thing. No,
No, that's the Jewish position. The Orthodox Catholic position, the first thousand
years of Christianity argues that it's the second person the God had in time and
space. Jesus says he was the one that was there talking to Moses,
who ate with Moses on the mountain. I'd have to look it up.
Jesus says, he's the one that ate with Moses. It's a connmental meal
who ate with Abraham justis sixteen right, Jesus did exactly. So there are
energetic manifestations or theophanes, which are not angels because you can't worship angels.
These manifestations are called God worshiped and identified as the second person that God had
in the New Testament. So thomaslm is false. Huh, Well, I
have to look up Saint Thomas more on that. But well, let me
give you an example. Have you ever have you ever debated with a Muslim?
I'm not sure Thomas would say that every theophany is angelic. I think
many of them are the ones you site seem pretty much. I'm about the
ones that call it the glory of God, right, Chicana glory. That's
a tough one. It's not tough. It's the Orthodox teaching of the essence
centeredy, distinction and real theophanies. Well, back to Muslims. I've debated
briefly with some Muslims. I would say they're difficult. They think most of
our trinitarian thinking is just rank superstition. But maybe the reason that you can't
debate them is this very point, because it's necessary to show that the Torah
teaches the Trinity. I believe that, but I think, well the Torah.
I would add the profits to the Torah. But if you say,
if you take Torah plus profits, you definitely get the Trinity. Well,
I did three hours of lectures just on the Theophanes and the Torah, so
yeah, I definitely believe in the prophits too, sure, right right,
But the point is that the Old Testament doesn't teach a Unitarian deity. It
teaches the Trinity. And the Trinity is derived from all of these Theophanies.
And so if you take the Tomistic position that the uncreated light and that Theophanes
are angels and creatures, we lose this whole line of argumentation, which destroys
Muslims. Yeah, that may be an helpful point. Well, I'm fair
enough. I appreciate the honesty. Then anything else you want to get discussed,
that's it. I'll leave the four of you guys for now, but
I'll be listening. Thanks for a time, Thank you. I appreciate the
civil discussion. Appreciate that. Okay, So we've got a couple more super
chats here. Let's see uh ortho bro two dollars and twenty cents. There
are people saying that they want to teach me things. Yeah exactly. I
mean I think a lot of these people are I don't know, it's just
a weird sort of fascination and obsession with topics that I mean. The energies
are a difficult, complex doctrine in the Orthodox Church. They're not the first
thing that people typically try to learn and talk about. But because of all
of this Tomism, and because of all the discussion that's been out here in
the public sphere since a lot of doctor Bradshaw's works were published, which kind
of revitalized the debate in a lot of the academic sphere, it's kind of
forced this into the public sphere. So I don't care what people in Wagner's
comments section thing Alexandersulz needs some ten dollars Kosovo is Serbia one eight hundred get
wrecked five dollars. I'm currently a traditional Catholic, but I'm looking at Orthodoxy.
Why does Rome Catholicism subordinate divine revelation to philosophy rather rather than the other
way around, Because I think that it's bound up with their epistemology of believing
that you have first principles you have basic axioms. It's really wedded to the
ancient and medieval approach to putting metaphysics first and then things like epistemology that's down
the road, and modern philosophy is premised on flipping that right. So after
the modern philosophers come about, they question this putting the metaphysical cart before the
epistemic horse, and say, this is actually kind of inconsistent. You're gonna
have to justify that you have knowledge first before you can assume or assert this
gigantic metaphysical system. Now we agree with a lot of the metaphysical principles that
they assert, but the question is different when it gets to the modern era
and we have skepticism and atheism, all this stuff, and we need to
be able to respond to those things. And we also need to be able
to respond to the assumptions of people who think that text just mean what they
say, and say what they mean, that there's epistemic bootstrapping, that things
are not theory laid in. We don't have to respond to the myth of
the given, we don't have to respond to the criterion problem. I mean,
the whole point of TAG is to respond to all those things. So
that's why we respond in this way. But what I'm finding is that isn't
it interesting that the same basic assumptions in Thomism are the same basic assumptions of
Islam. Soon he Islam, So they have the same epistemology, a kind
of a basic empiricist approach. And remember in the Sheikh Azar Rashid debate,
shak As Rashid made this argument. He said, a pagan on an island,
if he used his reasoning faculty correctly, would reason to an absolutely simple
essence of Islam. Now just think about that, contrasted to the natural theology
arguments of the Thomas If a pagan Aristotle setter uses his reasoning correctly, he
reasons to the first cause, the first actuality, and that's ultimately the Catholic
God. So wait a minute, as natural theology taking me to Islam,
because actually, why wouldn't I think that it takes me to Islam? And
that's why even our friend here, the Thomas guy, said, well,
they have some difficult things to argue. Now, maybe he didn't mean that
they have good arguments. Maybe it just meant that they're difficult people, which
is also true. But yeah, the root here is, and I appreciate
that that he has, you know, some of the Kantient admissions there,
I would agree with that. I just wouldn't make Kantianism any kind of solution.
I'm not saying he said that, but a trance and old Thomas I
do not believe would ever argue that there's a transcendental argument for God. Forty
did you get the message? One dollar quick question? If you have a
son, what would you name him? We do not actively try not to
have sons, but we don't know that Jamie kin. But if she did
have a son, I think we talked about this. I don't remember what
names we talked about. I mean, it would probably be something, you
know, biblical, a saint name. Jebediah, it would be it would
be Methuselah. Give me some more Amish names, just real quick. Jebediah,
Ezekiel, Obadiah. Yeah, but then that brings us to the Amish
question, right, the AQ and the almost are running everything. Or you
could do like Roman names like Quintus, Fabius, Maximus, lucretious fun.
Yeah, those are great names. Yeah, I just don't understand so many
people really have this desire to want to make Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism basically be
the same, and that we're all on the same page. And the problem
is going to be again that you've got this dogmatization of the position that Grace
is. As far as I can tell, it's dogmatized, at least in
the post Tridentine disputes that Grace is it created supernatural reality, and there's just
no way we could ever accept that. I think also what motivates it.
It's the same sort of kind of people that are no surprise, a lot
of them our Western right. They want one jurisdiction, which is motivated by
the State Department, by the way, it's nothing to do with Orthodoxy.
Yeah, and that they want this political power structure we see will be this
huge if we unite with Rome, then will do you notice it's always they're
always thinking in terms of political politics and optics and we'll just be one big
Yeah. It's like it's again the root I think of the entire problem of
Romactholsism back to the Gregorian reforms is a desire for political, geopolitical power and
control. And so it's not surprising that the justification for their arguments for why
we all need to just come back together and just go back to frank Is
because we'll be a geopolitical unified power. YEP. I don't see any more
questions over here in the discord. And let's say, if I have any
more super chets, I think that's all the superchets. Thank you for those
fat ones, especially Kristen for winning the day with one hundred dollars super chats.
Appreciate that if you would hit like and share. Also remember to heading
over to Autonomy Agora Marketplace and I have a full philosophy course lecture there that
is over at Richard Groves's website. We start with the pre Socratics, then
we work our way all the way up basically to Nietzsche and postmoderns. Father
Deacon Anius is present in one of those talks. He's there with me for
the epistemology lecture the esthetic. I'm just going to say too, I learned
all my philosophy from those courses. So if that says anything I thought you,
I thought that you basically just literally copy and paste everything from Thomas Aquinas.
That's what I've heard about you. Yeah, that's you got you got
me. I'm busted