The build them pot build the build the build the the build the build the
people don't don't do then the the the the the the the don the Alright,
what's up. We're doing a daytime stream. We don't usually do daytime
streams, but today it just felt right, and it just felt like,
you know, I just felt some type of way. So I felt like
we got I had to do this some some type of way. I got
my uh triadic shot of espresso over here. I got a triple shot,
a triadic shot of espresso expresso. As some might say, we got already
some generous super chatters. Thank you, guys. We'll get to you guys
in a minute. As you guys know, the way this works in open
forum, you can bring up whatever questions topics that you want. I'm always
coughing in here still because the allergy is still nuts. Man. It's like
I'm over the sickness, but pall and boy is on the attack. So
pollen Boy's got he's got spruce Boy, he's got Juniper Boy, and some
other damn holly or some other kind of tree bitch coming after me. So
that's why I'm still coughing. It's like a Level nine def Con five today
for for pollen. So I'm gonna try my best. As you know,
the way it works is you request to speak on Twitter. The link is
in the chat, it's in the show description. How do I call in?
How do I call in? How do I call? In? Twitter?
When you request to speak, you will be automatically muted. That's how
Twitter works. When you come on. However, when I say you,
that means you, and then you have to unmute yourself. So even though
I'm gonna have to say unmute dude five hundred times, if you already know
to unmute, then we could avoid that, but we all know it's never
going to be avoided. So it's just gonna be like like you know cats
phrase. You know, comedians have those cringey catchphrases. Here's your sign,
Pater's alid, Pater's alid, here's your sign. You might be right mate,
If you can't hit the unmute button, you might be a prior.
Right. Well, my catchphrase is just gonna be U mute dude, mute
dude, just unmute man. Make it easy. But look, nobody's gonna
make it easy, and nobody except one is actually going to present an argument.
Remember, arguments are not assertions and claims. That might be your position,
your position, and then you give evidences, or you give propositions,
or you give arguments that support the assertion or the claim. Just machine gunning
a bunch of your positions out isn't an argument. For example, in the
Jake debate, Jake machine guns spat out his position of what talhed was,
but never give an argument for why we should accept that. In his opening
statement that that's what God's unity is, I argue that we have two competing
systems giving competing accounts of unity and diversity within God. And I ain't talking
about a diversity quota. Okay, we ain't talking about diversit. We talking
about affirmative action inside the deity. Okay, that's not what we're talking about.
Just multiplicity, distinctions, unity and difference in God. But what we
heard was a lot of almost raping this my position. This is my position,
This is my position, No, not arguments. I want to hit
on a couple of things before we open it up, because usually I find
that a little bit of opening rant kind of helps set the tone the stage
for today's show. And of course you can call in not just on Islam,
but you can call in on the topics listed in the show description or
in the Twitter space description, and without fail, people will join and say
and be mad that it's a debate. What are you trying to beat me?
Because it's title as a debate. If you hop on a stream called
debate, don't be upset that you're engaging in a debate. It's titled that
you hopped in the very string and then played the victim. Who he's mean?
No, you just didn't read the topic star existence of God, metaphysics,
trinity, Arianism, Nestorianism, church history, councils, papacy, Vatican
one, Vatican two, Medieval Church, metaphysics in the Middle Ages, Trinity,
Tallheed, the debates, the Muslim debates. Some Muslims said, you're
you chose Jake because he's not a good Muslim. It's like the fifth Muslim,
how many muslim This is what they always do, like it doesn't matter.
You can you can debate infinite Muslims and they will always say you would
not debate the real Muslim. No real Muslim, said infinity Muslims until there's
like the the the the godfoot I gotta just debate the godfoot itself before I
actually have debated an actual, true Islamic scholar. You can talk about logos,
logik, it's about tag pre sup transcendent arguments. We can talk about
epistemology, atheism, materialism. All of those are on the table. If
you have questions, yes, you can also ask your questions. However,
we like to get people who disagree the front of the line. So if
you just have fifteen Orthodox questions about fasting and FAQ's, go ask your priest
about that. Don't ask me your FAQs about whether you can listen to songibopolygy
ds. Okay, don't ask me if you can do whatever moral thing you
don't know about. Today's stream is not about that. And I'm not your
advisor. I'm a kind of a fool character, an Internet fool character who
can demonstrate that even as a full character, the fool archetype, even the
fool can make bad arguments look as bad as are you see what I'm trying
to say. So I'm not your guru. I'm not your guru. I'm
not your spiritual daddy. I'm just your philosophical daddy. Anyway, let's get
into a little bit of what Redeem Zumer, who seems to have spiraled out
of control since our debate. For whatever reason, he posted that he was
freaking out that people in his discord were converting to Orthodoxy and he was gonna
ban talking about Orthodox stuff because so many people in his discord we're starting to
look into Orthodoxy. It doesn't seem like since our discussion he's engaged in any
attempts to better understand our positions. It seems like he in damage control mode
and flipping out constantly. And he does the thing where he'll say a bunch
of stuff about you personally and then apologize and then we'll go. So just
keep it to the issues. Okay, I never said anything about him personally,
So if you respond to this, just keep it to the issues,
because I'm not I never said anything about you as an individual. Jay is
a guru name. It does sound kind of it does sound kind of like
a Hinduish name or something. Right, Let's see what is where does Redeem
Zoomer mastering reform theology? Well, does Redeem Zuomer actually have a master's in
theology. Why would we think that he can teach us master level stuff in
theology as what is he like twenty one? As you But despite the differences
between Catholics and Protestants, they're a lot closer to each other than they are
to Eastern Orthodoxy. The biggest split in Christianity was not the Protestant Reformation,
it was the Great Schism between Protestants and romancalies are closer to each other.
I'm not sure about that. I mean, I guess it just depends on
which doctrine we pick. So I'm assuming he's gonna pick original Sin, I
mean, Western and Eastern Christianity. Here's why we reformed Protestants side with the
West. What the heck kind of music is this? I feel like I'm
at Santa's Village and I'm supposed to what do we picking up? Freaking It's
a year round Santa's Village where I'm picking up ornaments? What kind of weird
keyboard like boomer keyboard Cassio's songs is he playing? Eastern Orthodoxy is a beautiful
tradition that we can all be in fired by, But the reason we don't
agree with them is because Eastern theology denies a lot of things that the Bible
teaches. So we're going to have the old word concept fallacy that even though
we all agree that the texts have to be interpreted, I'm just going to
say that the words mean what they say, and they say what they mean.
So this is a common mistake that we see Muslims, Roman Catholics,
Protestants, and even some Orthodox engage in, which is just the basic idea
that there's a plain, simple meaning of all texts and that other traditions get
quote too philosophical and they don't stick to the plain perspicuity meaning of the text.
But our texts perspicuous, do they actually possess perspiscacity? Do they possess
viscosity? Breakdown? No, really, I mean you could say within a
book that it's possible that certain texts are clearer than other texts. Certainly within
the Bible, certain texts are clearer than other texts, but that's partly going
to depend on who's reading it and what their education level is, what their
background is, what they do, and don't know how familiar they are with
the rest of the book. So say, even admitting that certain areas of
the Bible might be clearer than other areas still doesn't itself tell us to each
individual which area will be clearer. In other words, something that an educated
person thinks is pretty obvious might not be obvious to an an educated person.
Maybe they're reading about, you know, through the eye of a needle or
something like that, right, and you don't know this rhetorical idiom or whatever.
You don't know this hyperbole. Okay, Well, if you're an uneducated
person, that might be totally ambiguous to you. An educated person might think,
well, this is obviously hyperbole. So you see that even when we
say, or even if we admit that there are quote clearer passages, it
doesn't itself tell us which passages are themselves universally clear or unclear. So a
lot of times Protestants and we notice the same thing with Muslims. It's exact
move that Jake did. Have a very naive epistemology and a naive linguistic theory
or semiotic view that the text just mean what they say, and they say
what they mean, and that typically goes along with word concept fallacy. People
who have that one dimensional view of language and texts typically fall into the mistake,
as I'm sure we're going to see with redeemed Zoomer of thinking that the
word that's used always has the same meaning in the same context and the same
reference. So, for example, logos as it's used by the this is
a common Roman Catholic word concept fallacy. Well, Marcus Aurelius says logos,
John One says logo. So they mean and refer to the exact same thing.
Maybe they do, maybe they don't just because the word is used.
We need to know the intentional context, and the lexical context, and the
entire books context, and perhaps even the entire religion's context. So you see
that individual words are situated within broader context, the sentence, the paragraph,
the chapter, the book, the book as a whole is in the case
of the Bible, because it's books within books, and then the tradition as
a whole. Perhaps, so, for example, I can't take a word
that is exterior to the Orthodox tradition or to the Biblical tradition, find that
word in say Greek philosophy or Platonism, and then interpret that word within the
Christian context as having a one to one meaning with the Greek term. This
happens a lot, for example with news. Well, the Greek philosophers use
the word news when you Orthodox use it that must mean the same thing,
So it's just purely the intellect or some higher faculty of the intellect. According
to say Greek philosophers, it's not what it means an Orthodox it corresponds to
the Hebrew idea of the heart, which is not the intellect. So you
see that with whether it's news or whether it's logos. These are just examples,
but the same type of mistake can happen when we're looking at even English
texts or English words like person, Does person mean just an individual? Nature?
Does it mean something distinct from nature? How we understand person and nature,
for example, will have tremendous implications on our view of the Trinity and
our view of Christology. So a big part of this mistake, and a
big part of this really rookie sophomore understanding, and a lot of Internet people
engage in very common amongst Protestants and Muslims, somewhat common amongst Roman Catholics as
well, but maybe less Roman Catholics. The Roman Catholics tend to be,
if they're into these topics, a little more educated than the average Muslim or
the average Protestant, so they can sometimes avoid some of this issue. But
as Saint Basil says, pretty much every heretic is making some kind of linguistic
mistake, usually right, and he's speaking in that case of Eunomius and the
Eunomian heresy kind of giving the idea of ingeneracy or ungenerate in generate, basically
identifying that with the divine essence. And so therefore anything that's not in generate
or ungenerated is therefore not God or less than God. Hence the son,
since he is not ingenerate, and he is generate or has an origin,
or he is not unoriginate, then he must not be God. That's the
Eunomian premise, or that's the version of the Eunomian argument. And so Basil
argues against this as the arrest of capitations. Do that not every word is
referring to or picking out the same thing, right. Think about how many
times we've made this argument with the phrase like doctor Branson does God g odcause
God can pick out different things. And many, many Muslims since the Jake
debate have already been saying, oh, you lost the debate when you said
you believed in little g three little g gods. And the argument there is
just missing the whole point that this is a linguistic distinction between what God can
pick out as in distinct persons, divine nature, and so the one True
God, the one God capital G typically is picking out the person of the
Father, at least in the Patristic period. That's always what it is,
and that's why the Nicene Creed is monarchical trinitarian doctrine. It says, I
believe in one God, the Father. All the capititions speak this way.
So little g God then refers to God from God. Did you notice the
Nicing Creed says God from God, light from light. Okay. So that's
a distinction within unity. That's the way that we account for distinction within unity.
Of course, Muslims, for example, whatever their position, whether they're
a Shari or Salafi, or whether they're whatever Athari, the different Muslim positions,
neo Platonist, Shia, they're all going to have different ways and attempts
of accounting for unity and distinction in God. So that's why I typically frame
the debate what the Muslims as it's not a debate between multiple who's got the
unity position and who's the polytheist. Different positions give me an account for unity
and multiplicity. And that's why the counting issue is so important there, because
both Muslims and Christians, when they're accounting for unity and distinction in God,
are going to count by division and by identity. And if you didn't notice,
when the Creed, for example, says undivided God is undivided, that's
counting by division. When al Gazali in his tenth proposition in the Moderation of
Belief book talks about being God being undivided, he's counting by division. Aristotle
in category six metaphysics, I think it's a round book ten and metaphysics counting
by division. Now, I didn't say in the ancient medieval world they only
counted by division. That was a mistake that Jake assumed that because I said
they counted by division. I said they only counted by division. No,
I said first order, second order, and position two different types of things,
even in the medieval philosophers that were counted in different ways. So it
would have actually behooved Jake to be familiar with some of the responses to the
argument that we only count by identity, because he just assumed that I was
saying, no, we only count by division, which I didn't say.
I said we count in both ways. And then he set up a false
either or, which he didn't realize would trap his own position that if he's
going to count the attributes by identity, then he's got multiple necessary attributes,
which is a makes his position polytheist. So there you go. Thousand years
ago, Christianity split in half when the Patriarch of the East got kicked out
of the church by the Pope. Now a lot of this was political,
but it was also theological, meaning it has to do with what we think
about God. Even though Catholics and Protestants disagree on a lot, they have
the exact same view of God. The Eastern view is slightly different. There's
really six main issues they disagree on, which can be abbreviated with the acronym
Frost, Frost and Well. This is an interesting, unique approach to this
question. Let's see what is What do we disagree on? Phillyoquate reason,
maybe original sin, probably simplicity. Yeah, theis sacrifice. Well, the
Roman Catholic and the Protestant view of sacrifice are not the same. So I
don't know where he's gonna I don't know if he thinks he's gonna find commonality
with Roman Catholics on quote sacrifice. All these issues are connected to each other.
For each of these issues, there's a Western view and an Eastern view,
and the Western view of all these issues is the biblical one the biggot.
Okay, yeah, good, one good argument there. Just assert that
the quote West is right on all of these issues and the East is wrong.
I'm sure he's going to give some kind of argument, but uh,
I'm not sure that you. I'm not sure that actually this is I mean
Roman Catholics on the Phillyoque, I mean, they have a lot more of
a nuanced position. But this is kind of assuming that Reformed and Protestants themselves
have a unified position. Where does he get the idea that quote Protestantism is
a unified position on any of these issues at all. There's no Protestant unity.
Maybe you could say there's unity on like a couple super generic positions,
like we follow the Bible over tradition. Okay, maybe that's one of the
quote unifying things of Protestants. Roman Catholics and Protestants don't have the same view
of sacrifice. I don't know what he thinks the Western view of theosis is
that's different from I mean, Protestants don't even teach Theoses. So I mean
this is again I'm predicting that this is going to all be a bunch of
word concept felt disagreement is the filioque. As we said in the first video,
all Christians believe in the Trinity, which is that the three persons,
the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are all God, which means they
all have everything that makes God God. So he doesn't even know what monarchical
trinitarianism is. He doesn't even know that that's the view that's established at the
Second Ecumenical Council, which is the official Church's Trinity Council. So he didn't
even know that. But if they all have the same I think I brought
all this up in our debate by loook in properties, Then what makes them
different from each other? The free person? Hey, Jamie, could you
make me a coffee? Could you put a little Manuka honey in it?
Thank you? I got a cupany here? Those are only different from each
other in their relations to each other. So what are these Yeah? And
so if they're only different by relation, then the thing that makes them distinct,
isn't anything unique. And so this is one of the critiques that Lasky
has of Western trinitarianism so called, which is that a person reduces to a
relation. But Eastern theology is premised on the idea that persona persona a relatio
is false. Person cannot be identified with a relation, person is subject or
agent. And and I brought this up in our debate, and he was
completely lost, by the way, so none of what I said apparently stuck
sunk in from our debate. And he's just sort of look at what does
all this? It looks like a freaking football team's you know, is he
like Rudy over here? He's drawing the plays of the West, you know,
Like I don't know, I mean, I hate football movies, but
the Rudy is the only one I can even think of that I've ever watched.
Right, So he's over here like Rudy, trying to trying to rally
his team, drawing, drawing the Trinity and the philioquis some confusing ass gibberish
football play. According to the West, the Son is eternally generated from the
Father, and the Holy Spirit eternally proceeds from the and the Son or philioqua
in Latin. Notice we haven't had any so far as just saying positions,
no arguments yet. But according to the East, the Holy Spirit only proceeds
from the Father and not the Son. The first question should be what does
the Bible say. The Bible very clearly says the Holy Spirit or the spirit
of the Father is also the spirit of the Sun. So level one mistakes.
He doesn't understand the difference between economia and theology proper, or the intratrinitarian
life versus the economia. So doesn't even know that, not even a level
one understanding of what the phillioquy issue is. The spirit of Christ. Many
many times it says the Holy Spirit is from the Son or of the Son.
Yeah, nobody in the Orthodox Church disagrees with that. That was never
even part of the debate that should settle it. But still the East,
I mean literally doesn't even know the issue. It is the West of adding
the philioqua to the Nicene Creed when it wasn't there before. And we don't
accuse the West of doing it. The West admits to doing it, and
pote leio iid forbade it from being added. So that's again, it doesn't
even know basic history. This is technically true, but it kind of doesn't
matter because neither of them use the original version of the Nicene Creed. Yeah,
but the argument isn't that we only follow the creed as it's produced at
Nicea. The argument is that Constantinapolitan creed, the Niceno concept of Politan creed
is forbidden at Ephesus from being added to. So the clause that you and
then Chalcidon, right, So Ephysis and Chalcedon are the ones that say that
you can't alter the creed. It's not Nicea one that says the creed can't
be changed. So this is misunderstanding. This is an old, a stupid
old argument. Abara made that he didn't even realize that it's not Nicea that
forbids the change. The change is forbidden after it's already been changed, which
didn't have the paragraph about the Holy Spirit. All of this is like level
literally level one oh one mistakes. So both of them use an updated version.
It's just that the Western version is slightly more updated. And just because
the original creed didn't have the philiokwa doesn't mean people didn't believe in the Philioquay
back then. Actually it does because number one, he doesn't even understand what
the issue is. It's about the hyposthetic properties and whether the father is the
sole cause hence monarchical trinitarianism as taught by the Cappadocians, and whether or not
the hypoesechic property the father can be shared, given to or in any way
participated in by the son. That's the issue, especially because so many of
the most important people that we talked about in the previous videos did believe in
it. Some of the greatest defenders of true teaching, like Saint Athanasius sant
Anthonasia doesn't believe in the Philioquay. This is easily debunked in Sishensky's book.
Really the only there's one quote in Ambrose that could be read as Philioquay and
then Saint Augustine. So for the West, that's it. We did a
whole livestream with doctor Branson who did his dissertation on the Cappadocians, and there's
one phrase in Nissa's against you Oomias that's used as a proof text. But
as doctor Brentson points out, that one phrase in against Eunomius goes against the
rest of the thrust of the text, and because it's an ambiguous passage,
it makes more sense to interpret the one phrase in Nissa's text in harmony with
the rest of the text that are a lot clearer, where he specifies that
there's there's only one sole cause and that is the hypostasis of the Father.
It's not the divine nature. So you can refer back to the three hour
livestream that we did going through the entire Skyshensky book on the phillyoquay, which
is the most up to date academic text on it from a person who was
rom Macalol became Orthodox. And you can also go watch the recent Doctor Branson
stream that we did where we dove deep into these topics as well, leaving
essentially no argumentation for the Philly equality other than Augustine. That's it. The
spirit is from the Sun. Oh wait, we don't go by one guy.
So for perfectly a Protestant mindset that I get my canon, I'll pick
Jerome one guy. Where do I get my Trinity doctrine? All Augustine?
One guy? Yeah, it's the Constantinopolitan council. The second echemical Council.
That trumps any single dude the way the son is from the Father or Saint
Cyril of Alexandria explicitly saying the Holy Spirit. Yeah, if you read the
rest of Cyril, and if you read the treatment that Sashynski says, this
is not what he's talking about. The procession is what he's talking about.
Just because the word proceeds is used, that just means come forth, So
it's not always in the English translation identical to hypostatic origin. So we agree
that the manifestation of the spirit and the energies is through the son. Right,
and that's taught by Gregor Cyprus. That's at the later Palomide Synods.
You could read Crisis and Byzantium by Papadoccus on that. But just because you
see the word proceeds, you notice that he did the same thing with biblical
texts. Right, comes from the son, Yeah, but in what sense
comes from the son in terms of manifestation, proceeding forth through manifestation or proceeding
forth as hyposthetic origin. You see, those are two different things. Aids
from the Father and the son. Or Pope Leo also saying the spirit proceeds
from the Father, and he's saying the Holy Spirit. By the way,
if you notice that text right there, the Holy Spirit when he is in
us right comes from father and son. That's economia. So even the text
that he's got right there is an economic relation and not a eternal hyposthetic origin.
Relation proceeds from the Father and the son. Or Pope Leo also saying
the spirit proceeds from the Father and the son. Yeah, this is also
dealt with in the Sashensky books. So this is why it doesn't work to
do quote minds to prove this kind of stuff. It's basically just ignoring all
of the scholarship that explains to you the difference between hyposthetic origin and manifestation,
which is necessary to have a coherent doctrine of eternity. By the way,
Romeancholics typically don't even know this or understand this unless they happen to be kind
of brainiac uniates. Really, braini ac uniates are the only ones that are
even kind of aware of this. But it's actually brought up by the way
in the Vatican clarification opilioqui. Both sides recognize these people as the heroes of
the early Church. Now the East response to this by saying, the Bible
and the Church fathers are only talking about energetic procession, not hypostatic procession.
No. Actually, you already confused economia with intratrinitarian life and origin, so
we don't just say that it's that. So you misunderstood that partly because they
think there's a difference between God's essence and God's energies. But that creates a
whole Yeah, that actually comes from the Bible. Right, So Paul makes
this distinction when he talks about the energies of the spirit. Right, we
have this when we talk when we read about the seven spirits of God.
Okay, do you think God's knowledge, God wisdom, et cetera. Are
they creatures or are they really distinct things. I'm pretty sure foreign knowledge is
different from the divine essence. I'm pretty sure the act of creating is different
from the act of destroying the world. New set of problems that we're going
to talk about later. Also, in the Eastern view, you can't really
tell what the difference between the son and the spirit is because they're both just
from the Father. Yeah, maybe you should read the Cappadocians, who actually
address that Youuno me an argument directly because Unumius again he was talking about reducing
hypocided properties to essence. And Basil's response is that that there is a distinction
between procession and generation. We know what the distinction is, we do not
know. That's a Cappadocian quote. Those are the guys who gave us the
doction of the Trinity at the second Acimunical Council. So this guy's no knowledge
of any of this. They'll say, the difference is because the sun is
from them, not even aware of the basics, rather by begetting in the
spirit by procession. And if you ask what the difference between those two things
are, they'll say, we know there is a difference, but it's a
mistery. That's Basil's quote. There is the guy who's like the daddy of
the Trinity, next Sathanasius and the other Capitotion's so he doesn't even know.
He's like. What he's arguing against is what Basil says of mystery. Another
thing they disagree on is reason the Bible calls Christ the logos or the wisdom
of God. Both sides agree on that. Both sides also agree that all
Christians have the Holy Spirit. But because the West believes the Holy Spirit proceeds
from Christ, therefore proceeds from the wisdom of God. That implies that Christians
have access to the wisdom of God and therefore can gain knowledge of God.
This is why Western Christianity is more intellc cat That makes no sense. So
he thinks that because Christ is the logos, that this somehow translates to the
huge He doesn't even know what faculties are like. He doesn't know that reason
can be spoken of as a faculty that we possess as part of our human
nature, and that the Divine mind possesses reason as well. The church fathers
argue he's equivocating on reason, as if this is somehow necessary and connected to
Philly Oquey literally no idea. What this is a ridiculous Sorry, I've never
heard. This makes no sense. It's just equivocating on terms that implies that
Christians have access to the wisdom of God and therefore can gain knowledge of God.
This is why Western Christianity is more intellectual and Eastern Christianity is more No.
But it's not though, And if you read Singeria Palomas, the point
of intellect and concepts is fine as far as it goes. But God is
not in your intellect, and God is not your concept. God is beyond
all intellect and concepts, and so the direct experience of God transcends the creaturely
things. That doesn't mean the creature early things are bad. It just means
that they're limited. In the West, you get this idealization and idolatry of
intellect and ideas because they actually identify the soul with the intellect. So again
I don't even think I don't think he really understands what he doesn't know the
difference between reasoning as a faculty, reasoning as an action or a function,
and what it even means to call reason a property or a faculty of nature
mystical because they have different views of reason. This is not an insult.
Prominent Orthodox priests will agree with this right after the fact. That reasoning can
lead us away from God does not mean that reasoning is bad or that we're
anti intellectual. So this is another straw man, as if because Father Josiah
Trendum is talking about rationalism, that he doesn't redeem him or not know the
difference between reason as a faculty or a function and rationalism as an intellectual movement
of the Enlightenment. No, he doesn't even know that the split, the
West started doing scholasticism, which is where they study theology academically and try to
learn the mysteries about God. Saint Anselm was one of the most important Western
saints right after the split, and he started medieval scholasticism. He said that
theology he's not actually started by Anselm, it's actually Augustine and boetheis. But
the problem is, so there's another word, concept fallacy. The problem is
not being scholastic. The problem is scholasticism, which is built on a bunch
of faulty presuppositions. So another word concept fallacy. That he doesn't know the
difference, doesn't know the difference between reason and rationalism. He doesn't know the
difference between being scholastic and scholasticism, because if he were to read the medieval
Byzantine theologians, they were super scholastic. His faith seeking understanding, and he
started to find out new ways to prove that God exists. The medieval scholastics
spent centuries trying to figure out everything like how do we define what God is?
And some says God is the thing. You can't think of anything greater
than Thomas Aquinas says God is pure being. Dun Scotis says God is the
infinite. And these ideas don't necessarily contradict each other, and Reform theology was
greatly. I don't understand why he's apt to point out people that he thinks
are actually heretics. I mean, these are people that number one and reject
him until I think he's heretical. He thinks these people are heretical, but
leave it to the Reform to be inconsistent and roll these people out when they
think they're useful for optics reasons. Influenced by these theologians, All these people
thought the philioque is necessary for understanding God. So what we also don't think
that those people are saints in our church. So what would this have to
do with disproving the Orthodox position unless you're just trying to score points on the
ideas that there's a generic Western theology of God that's correct. Do you think
that John Calvin's theology is anywhere close to Thomas Aquinas? Do you think that
Anselm's theology is anywhere close to I don't know. Zwingli. I mean,
give me a break, right, So this is all optics and like ignoring
the big issues that these people killed each other. They're not in agreement.
Literally, Protestants killed themselves amongst other Protestants over baptism. Roman Catholics killed Protestants
obviously, So this idea that there's a generic commonality between them that he could
somehow utilize against Orthodoxiology is just like super low deer in studying God led to
studying God's creation by doing science. That's why it was the Western Church that
created modern science, modern universities, classical music, and actually university has come
out of Byzantium. Okay, it's not a creation of the West, so
ignorant of Byzantium modern science, I don't mean modern scientism. I mean that
seems like a double edged sword there, so I'm not sure. But to
attribute this to I mean, is this admitting then that Roman Catholicism is the
real source. I mean, if he's gonna argue that Western that all this
Western stuff comes out of the Middle Ages, then this is actually undercutting his
dumb reform position. So oh, it looks like modern science, universities come
out of Rome and not the Protestant world. So that's actually an own against
himself. And by the way, University has come out of Byzantium, not
whatever he thinks to come out of Western civilization itself, the most successful civilization
to ever exist. Well, how do you measure success, right? I
mean the success of Western civilization quote unquote measured by bodily comforts? Is it
measured by nuclear weapons? Is it measured by how apostate and atheist it is?
Now, so you see how arbitrary and ridiculous this kind of argumentation is.
And we're back. So this video is not very long, and we'll
be done with this in a second, and then I'll have one little clip
and then we'll open it up to you guys. Now again, today's topics
are whatever you want to talk about in terms of the things listed, So
don't start talking about Middle Eastern politics. But that's not the topic today.
If you start talking about tiny mustache man, I'm immediately going to boot you.
So I'm talking about weird conspiracy crap, You're gonna get booted immediately because
none of those things are the topic. Also, today we're talking to people
who disagree, so those go to the head of the line, if you
got twenty questions for me about what you're supposed to do in your fasting rules,
that's not for me. I'm not going to answer your fasting question.
This is a it's a debate, okay, that means actual debate. So
if you hop on here and whine and cry because you hopped on a debate
stream, it's not gonna work. Nobody's going to buy into that, and
they're not going to believe you're a victim and you're oppressed because you came on
a stream that you didn't actually read. The title for Western theology is whether
they like Augustin, who was one of the most important church fathers, and
it shouldn't surprise you that he very strongly believed in the philioque. Also,
yeah, but nobody, not even you as a Protestant, follows one dude,
right, I mean, nobody consistently follows one dude. Now, the
Romancaloic Church supposedly follows one dude aka Francis, but they don't consistently do that.
As we'll see here in a second. You don't follow one dude.
So when you try to find evidence for your positions in the church fathers,
it's completely arbitrary. Oh, I want the canon that Jerome has. Oh
I want the theology of Jesus that Athanasius has. And then you think the
rest of his beliefs are heretical. By the way, no Roman Catholic person
would ever accept your belief that Augustine is a Protestant. Have you read Augustine.
I don't just mean your quote minds. I mean I've read thousands of
pages of Augustine. He was a Catholic bishop. Now, for us,
we think that individual theologians can make mistakes. Gregor Nissa made mistakes, Saint
Maximus made mistakes, Augustine made mistakes. Tertullian made mistakes. Some mistakes can
be so severe that eventually the church determines that you're outside the church. Like
in the case of Turtullian, he left the church. Right. You could
argue that Justin Marty made a mistas take in the way he phrased things here
and there. Sure, but he could also be read in an Orthodox way.
Now I want to remind everybody too that IP is inspiring, philosophy is
doing a stream. Later, addressing one of Jake's claims about Tertullian being not
a trinitarian. Sam Schmun also addressed this. It's a dumb argument, it's
actually missing the whole point. But anyway, let's get back to this believed
in original sin, which says that because of the fall, all of us
are dead in sin from the moment of conception O, our default state is
guilty before God. That mean, now, I guess redeem Zuomer is not
even aware of the Roman Catholic position, is not the Augustinian position? Does
he not know this? And you could go read the for example, well,
you'd read the Catholic Catechism where it makes a distinction between original guilt and
actual guilt. Roman Catholics no longer affirm original guilt. Infants are not guilty
because of adam sin. So that's actually something that we agree with in terms
of Rome in the Orthodox. Now, at the time of Augustine, up
until Gregory the Great, the West did believe that infants were guilty and that
all men were guilty in Adam as in an archetype. And that's the argumentation
that Augustin uses in the City of God, for example, in one place
where he makes this argument. And so he has a neoplatonic idea that everyone
is guilty because we're all in potentia in Adam as in an archetype, and
so we are all already guilty because we exist in potentia in Him. Eventually,
when the Roman Catholic Church defines and explains the doctrine of infant limbo,
this is precisely to get around the fact that infants are not guilty of Adam's
sin itself. So actually Rome eventually softens their position and moves away from original
guilt. Now you could argue that Romancalolic Church is inconsistent, which I do
argue that in my essay against Taylor Marshall on this position. But the modern
day Roman Catholic Church does not agree with the reformed Calvinist position that infants are
automatically damned merely by being children about him. So the only people today that
still hold to the Augustinian position are Calvinists. So if he wants to claim
Augustine, he could claim him just in that specific area and maybe on absolute
predestination. But he doesn't even know that the Roman Catholic position is not his
position on inherited guilt. It's from the moment we were conceived we deserve to
go to hell. It's not a pretty truth, but it's what the Bible
teaches. He doesn't teach that. That's your misinterpretation and Meandorff has a good
essay pointing out where because Augustine didn't know the Greek, he misunderstood Romans five.
It's very important to recognize how serious sick. By the way, if
you want to go deeper into that, I have an entire three hour discussion
from Augustine proving all these points. Okay, so I'm sure a lot of
people are gonna be like, ooh, ooh, look, I will walk
you through Augustine's errors and his texts in great detail in this open Q and
A that we did right here. It's called Augustine Calvin Original Sin Orthodox Theology.
So you can go watch this stream. I'll put it in the chat
right here. And this addresses in detail the basic mistakes and fundamental errors that
reform Zoomer is not even aware of, and that he's engaging in. And
it is so we recognize how much we depend on God. We must get
past this part to the next point. Well Eastern Orthodox, he tends to
lean a bit more in the direction of Pelagius, which is why the West
has not even Plagianism. It's like, so if he understood the Roman Calolky
position, he would call it Pelagian or semi pelagius. That he doesn't.
He doesn't even know what he thinks. That. The only position that's not
semi Palagian is if you believe in inherited guilt the sinner. But the East
doesn't really believe that. Here's another word. The East and West disagree on
God. The West has a more strict monotheism because it believes that what God
is is one thing. Yes, God is three persons, but here we're
talking about God's essence absolute divine. Simplicity means God's essence or what God is
is the same as God's attributes or the things about God, and simplicity just
means that God is not made of parts. So God's power, in God's
mind and God's love are not parts of God. They are the same as
God. So when the Bible says God is love, we take that literally,
meaning that God is the same as infinite love. The Eastern view is
completely different. The East believes that the things about God, like love and
power and justice are just energies that come from God, and God could refer
to of course, I'm not going to rehearse that. We probably respond to
this five hundred times. So I've been making videos about the energies for over
ten years. And here is the doctor bo Branson's lectures right here. If
you want to learn what monarchical trinitarianism is from doctor Branson, who we just
had on discussing this not too long ago. Here's a great link right there
for his lectures. So doctor Branson gives you one, two, three,
four, five, five lectures on what monarchical trinitarianism is, and then it's
the only real consistent way to rebut the Islamic argument of monotheism, especially when
we look at the text where Jesus is referring to the Father is greater than
I. Of course it doesn't mean ontologically greater, it means greater in role.
So there is doctor avail yourself of doctor Branson's lectures. I highly recommend
it. And again he should have he should have looked at some of this
stuff before making this video, because it really just comes out looking like a
shoddy, corny like level one attempt to explain the differences without even understanding really
what the other positions are. So there's brand doctor Branson's talks. Did I
put my talk on Augustine in there? I can't remember if I did.
Here it is if I didn't. So, because we've refuted and because we've
answered the energies stuff probably literally five hundred times, I'm not gonna repeat all
of that. Let's see what he says about theosis of God's energies. And
because God's energies are also called God, in some sense, we become God
in the end. Now, the West also believes in theosis. The West
also believes that we receive love and immortality from God when we have eternal life.
The difference is the West knows that these are gifts that God created for
us, but the Yeah, so as Paloma says, if we just get
another creature, then we are no different than the Arians. So here he's
admitting that his position of created grace is where it is created grace, and
so therefore the arguments of Athenasius. He claims to really like Athenasius. But
Athenasius said that if we're getting in salvation just another creature, then the Arians
are correct. So he doesn't even understand that he should go read a dialogue
between Orthodox and a barling mine to to understand from God. Whereas the East
thinks of salvation is a gift of God's grace, he thinks that's Augustinianism.
Actually, Augustine teaches a cooperative grace. So even Augustine believes that the will
is still present in the human being, and the will is still cooperating.
Augusta believes in merits. Right, if you read his books, he actually
writes about merit. Okay, he has works on grace and merit, and
he doesn't deny merit. He wouldn't be a Roman Caolic saint if he completely
denied all merit. And he says, well, the merits are still gifts
of God's grace. Okay, Well I can agree with that. My mouse
just died. So again it's word concept fallacies because it depends on what you
mean, right, I mean, I can I can believe that my own,
my own human energy and will that I have by nature, that i'd
cooperate with grace in is also a gift. Sure, So again it's a
lot of equivocating that he's in God. So according to the West, all
you have to do to be saved is accept God's grace even though different Westnes
So he just refuted his own position here. By the way, he didn't
even understand that this would be a creator. This would be a crystallogical heresy
too, because of Christ in assuming human nature didn't do anything but make another
created human nature, or that the grace that He gave to his human nature
and the incarnation a lah the Sixth Council. If it's just another creature,
then again he's back at Arianism. So he doesn't even understands might disagree on
how to receive God's grace, but in the East, there's no way to
know if you're united enough to God have assurance of salvation. We can know
that we are in Christ. Okay, so you can pause it that there
is theoretically an assurance of salvation like once Saved always said or whatever. But
the funny thing about all that is that none of that actually because even in
his position as a Calvinist, right, if there's self deception and Calvinists believe
that you're self deceiving yourself all the time because the no edic effects of sin
are affecting you at all times, then there's no way for him as an
individual to know that he's not being self deceived into thinking that he's wanted the
elect. This alone refutes the notion of assurance of salvation amongst Calvinists. But
the East prefers to say things, our iniquities, the punishment that brought us
peace was on him. Yeah, this is all again word concept fallacy,
assuming that post Enlightenment ideas about nominalism and legal standing and divorcing ontology from legality
and from propositions, which is a post Enlightenment development, that that's all read
back into Isaiah and ancient text. Now, the ancient world and the medieval
world never separated ontology from nominalism from naming. Okay, so there's no such
thing as a purely legal status that doesn't affect your ontology. But that if
that goes away, then all Reformation theology goes away, because that's what PSA
is built on. Penal substitution or tone is built on the post Enlightenment nomalist
idea that you can divorce metaphysics from naming and legal status. So he's just
reading in post Enlightenment presubpositions, post Reformation and presubsisitions back into Isaiah and by
his wounds, we are healed. We all, like sheep, have gone
astray. Jesus's sacrifice takes away our legal penalty. So again, what does
that mean? Okay, it's not a question of can you find a quote,
because this is the same goofy debate that every reform person, for example,
engages when engaged them when they say, for example, oh, well,
the church fathers talk about the importance of scripture, therefore solo scriptura.
Oh Athanasia is talking about sacrifice, so therefore he means the post Enlightenment ideas
of nominalism and pure legal status. No, he doesn't, and if you
were to read Athenasius, you would actually know that. By the way,
Protestant scholar has already written books on this Ustecia Day by Alisterroir McGrath points out
that nobody prior to Luthor had Luther's ideal of justification by faith alone. So
even your own Protestant scholars admit this. But he's what twenty one twenty two,
He doesn't even know the East Reject's original guilt. The Reform tradition is
very intellectual, so we're not. I guess what. Let's just cut this
out right away. We could just really emphasize, let's use philosophy to make
this really simple. If total depravity is true, and if the noetic effects
of sin are affecting you at all times, and that includes in your rational
theological discourse and your urn portation of scripture, then you're also in every case
denying the possibility of having the certitude that you claim to have. So every
time you're reading the Bible, every time you're reading the text, reading the
Church Fathers, the noedic effects of sin are distorting what you're doing. And
every act you're actually engaging in some degree of sin. On your own view,
right, every act is in some way affected by noetically in total depravity,
the effects of sin. So that would actually undercut and cancel out the
possibility for him to have the certitude that he has, not just on his
supposed doctrine of assurance of salvation, but also on every text that he reads.
Every time he tries to go to the Bible, the noetic effects of
sin are messing with his interpretation, and so he could never get to the
true meaning of the text itself, which is what his whole religion is based
on. Solar scripture, that alone is enough to cut out all of this
word concept felsy give you position so as we expect that I had not seen
this video before were playing it with you guys, it was actually worse than
I expected. Super low tier multiple word concept fallacies. Lack of familiarity with
basic distinctions between the intratrinitarian life and economia when it came to Phillyoquay. Lack
of basic understanding of the actual debate of the history of Philioquay. Lack of
familiarity with the basic academic sources on the Philly Oquay A La Sashchensky and others.
Lack of basic understanding of what the disputes were between Roman Catholics and Protestants,
assuming that Augustine is somehow a useful person for Protestants, which is preposterous,
assuming that Roman Catholics and Protestants have the same doctrine of original guilt.
They don't. So again, multiple fundamental mistakes. And you know, Redeemed
Zuomer got really upset over our debate for whatever reason, and so looks like
he's just spiraling and doing damage control. Now I wanted to play this video,
not because I have, And then we're going to go to open for
him any disputes or dislike of Kennedy Hall. We've chatted kind of briefly on
Twitter in cordial ways, so I'm not putting this up here to be sassy
in any way to him. I don't have any disagreement with him on a
personal level. Obviously we disagree because he's I think he attends the SSPX.
But I thought there was some interesting admissions that we have here from Kennedy here
in this clip, in this video just a few minutes here just to kind
of catch up with some of the Roman Catholics see what they're saying, and
Kennedy admits that things are getting pretty wild. I just have the language that
he uses, not just I'm not trying to start smoke. I mean again,
I don't have anything. We've had cordial interaction. I think he's a
nice guy, but the language that he uses here I thought was pretty wild
standing. We have people defending that as if it's going to be okay,
and then those same people will condemn traditionalists as being against the truth of the
faith. We had a men's conference over the weekend. It was amazing.
You can check out my talk that's on my channel. It's called Lived not
by lies. I'm working on getting the other talks uploaded. It takes a
lot of work to get them medaed and the audio video alls kind of things.
I'm an amateur of those things, so I just sort of do it.
We can't point being It was an amazing weekend and my talk was about
we just have to stop living by lies, and we can't just we can't
just say, well, I don't accept the lies and I won't say them.
We have to say I will always tell the truth. And it's so
refreshing. There was over two hundred men there, the only traditional cat of
men's conference in North America. We're going to have to figure out maybe a
bigger venue or something. You get who were hooting and hollering and cheering on
the idea that we should just simply tell the truth. And that's why we're
in the mess that we're in is because people have swallowed these lies and I
have truths for so many decades and they're afraid to speak the truth. We're
now at the point where we are so riddled with insanity in the church on
behalf of those who run the church, that these absolute crazy people are having
these ceremonies which are a mockery to God and calling the people who preside over
them as heroes. And we have the pope defending egregious, sacrilegious blasphemis or
ratical notions of blessing things that God cannot bless and if you stand up to
that, you're canceled. I'm blacklisted in my diocese. I can't speak in
my diocese. I can't get a letter of pastoral approval or whatever because I
don't go to a parish run by the diocese. Because I can't go to
a parish run by the diocese. I go to an SSBX chapel, and
I can't go to a perish from by the diocese. Because there's not a
single parish in my entire diocese where I will not have to submit myself or
my children to some of this liberal insanity that has imbibed every single aspect of
the Catholic faith. Well, now, wait a minute. If liberalism and
apostacy have imbibed every single as inpect an avenue of the Roman Catholic Faith,
then how is Vatican One still true that the See of Rome is the unfailing
source of unity, preservation and truth when it comes to morals and theology.
That is the Vatican one dogmatic position. And you notice that apart from all
of the nuances of the specifics of canon law, because anytime you talk to
an SSPX person, they're going to go all, we got to go look
at this canon law, and there's an extreme mess in the in emergency cases
and blah blah blah. Setting aside the pursu stry of canon law. The
very terminology that all the trads and the SSPX use it self betrays that they
don't believe Vatican One. They will speak of the Novasorto Church as a false
church, an anti church, an apostate church. But that's Rome you see.
And he admits in the video that Vatican two does teach actual heresy.
Now I think it teaches heresy in multiple places. But one of those places
which I agree with Kennedy, is the doctrine of religious liberty, which is
an absolute, clear contradiction from all the previous papal dogmatic statements against religious liberty,
condemned as a Protestant Masonic doctrine. So Kennedy admits that in the position.
And again, remember it's not that we're trying to highlight the differences amongst
the trad Cats just to be arbitrary. Yeah, you could find differences amongst
Orthodox, but the difference is that for the trad Cats, remember, and
for the regular Novisordo and all the Roman Catholics, the office of the papacy
itself is the solution and the answer to all the things that they criticize Orthodox
and Protestants about. And yet when they explain the papacy the last seventy years,
it is a pasta evil, demonic, source of evil, source of
division, source of confusion. Wait a minute, so the thing that is
the source of unity and certitude and preservation is also the source of division,
confusion, and apostasy. Okay, that's a contradiction. So notice the way
he speaks. Just a fact, and this is the totalitarianism. This is
a totalitarianism. They must reject those who stand for the truth, and they
must castigate them to the exterior darkness, whereas there's the weeping and gnashing of
teeth, and they must submit them to humiliation and castigation and ridicule because they
have no way of combating the arguments of those individuals. Because the individuals who
are ridiculed unfairly by the church officials are simply telling the truth. They did
it with Archbishop Lefev and they do with every person who even stands in a
way like he did. Look, they did the Bishop Sneider, Bishop Schneider,
and I mean, and he would say this. He's not even a
traditionalist. He just had the audacity to say, you know, some of
this stuff coming out of Rome, this is insane. And he's gone.
A bunch of other bishops in Latin America this has happened to them as well.
The church is run by crazy people, my friends, So what are
you gonna do? Wait a minute. The church is run, according to
Vatican One, by the infallible successor to Peter, who has the keys,
universal jurisdiction and quote never failing faith. So how do we have then seventy
years of the church is quote run by crazy people. If you go read
the fifteen pages of Vatican One, if you were to print it out.
And then Kennedy Hall goes on to talk about very and I would agree with
him. Obviously, the things going on in the Romancolic Church are driving the
Tracats and Romancholics insane, and it is run by crazy people. Because that's
the self evident. I'm joking that it's self evident. They believe in self
evidence, right, So isn't it self evident that Francis is insane? Let's
just go look at the evidence. Let's just go look. The evidence is
self evident. The evidence means what it says, and it says what it
means. And Francis is an absolute louone. The rest of the goon cardinals
in Rome the goblins. So Kennedy's absolutely one percent right. However, Vatican
one say that about the papacy, and I'm going to remind the Roman Catholics,
who ninety eight percent of them have not read Vatican One. We're just
gonna remind them again to go print out the decrees of Vatican One from papal
and cyclicals not net comes out to about ten fifteen pages. It's not that
hard, it's not that long. If you're serious about your religion, you
should at least be familiar with what Vatican one actually says. And for people
that are considering Roman Catholicism, maybe you need to know what the dogmas of
Vatican one are because it's supposed to be clear, right, I mean,
at least The argumentation of Vatican One is that, look, it's obvious the
papacy has a magisterial role. It is the essence of the magisterium. It's
infallible not just in its extraordinary pronouncements, but also in its universal ordinary pronouncements.
So therefore it cannot err and it cannot air to the extent that it
would lose any of its essential fundamental constituents. Right, So, for example,
it can never fail to be the case that the c of Peter has
successors until the end of the world. Vatican One says, so that counsels
out seventy years of vacant sea, all set of a concious quacks and loans.
It says that can never use that lose that visible unity. That visible
unity is summed up in its head in Rome. So there can never be
a loss of unity in the Roman Calolic Church. Uh oh uh oh.
There can never be a loss of the magisterial office in jurisdiction, which is
only had in communion with the Pope of Rome. So if there's been no
Pope of Rome, for example, or if the papacy has been thwarted or
whatever, then now that would throw into question jurisdiction for the rest of the
bishops of the world, Well, the rest of the bishops in the world
have a questionable jurisdiction. Then we've now lost the public witness of the unity
and continuity of the Roman Calolic Church throughout history. You see, you see
how the constituent elements of the papacy are undermined. The more a person becomes
tradcat because the more you become tradcat, the more that you're admitting Roman i
mean, Orthodox positions. And that's why the Alexandria Document is so excellent because
it essentially it admits all of this for us, and we did a whole
livestream on it. Romancolics haven't even addressed it. They've been super quiet about
it. Oh I just don't even care. I'm sure you don't care because
it admits all of ours. Oh well, it's not infallible. So where
is the idea that something has to be quote infallible for the pope to be
in error or heresy? See, this is just another thing they make up.
They make up these new criteria that oh well, Francis didn't infallibly define
the Alexandria Document, so it doesn't count even though it emits ninety percent of
the Orthodox arguments. Yeah, but in your own position, can I be
a Roman Catholic and reject multiple dogmas? No, you can't. You cease
being a Roman Catholic when you deny at least even one dogma. That's what
Pius the twelfth in lee of the thirteenth State, and they're encyclicals. You
can't deny one dogma and remain a Roman Catholic. You can call yourself a
Roman Catholic, but you're not in fact a Roman Catholic, because by denying
the dogmas you now become something else, Protestant, Orthodox, heretic, sectarian,
whatever, Old Catholic, Anglican. And if if making something quote infallible
was a prerequisite to being a heretic, then no one could be a heretic
but the Pope. That's how stupid this argument is when they say, yeah,
it doesn't count though, because Francis didn't make it infallible. Infallibility has
nothing to do with whether what he says is heretical or not. For example,
when the six Secumentical Council condemned Pope Honorius, did they all sit around
and say, well, but did he say it infallibly. No, they
don't even care, literally nothing to do with no concern at all. First
of all, because they didn't think that the bishop room was infallible anyway,
because they condemned Pope Honoria's right. So this is a total red hearing when
they start talking about it doesn't matter. By the way, Vatican two is
infallible. So you're in an even worse position if you try to go that
route. If you guys would hit like and share, we're going to open
it up. Now we covered two of the areas. I'd have one last
little gem here which was going around, which is the Chicken Novasorto. The
chicken novas Orto. And I don't even know what this is, but it
is a thing. I mean, just look at the church. It doesn't
even look like I mean, it's not even recognizable as anything other than a
ridiculous Protestant church, right, I mean the Novsorto churches, like ninety percent
of them that are built look like Protestant lecture halls. So I mean that
alone tells you that this is not the same religion of the first thousand years
of Christianity. And to act like this is the same as Orthodox or something
that's ridiculous. I mean, and this is this is this is the the
Novsorto is the normative Roman Catholic world. Okay, all of these Roman Catholic
pap apologists that are all Uniates, they don't even go to the normal Novasorto
Roman Catholic churches because they know it's a joke. And Kennedy Hall is at
least on us enough to say this is preposterous, it's apostasy. Yeah,
but the posteses coming from the infallible head himself. So therefore Romantholicism is not
true about a hint, one's false. Now you'll notice in Kennedy Hall's video,
by the way, and I'll give you the I've already exit it out.
He says that the Roman Catholic has the advantage of conforming his intellect to
reality, and by conforming to reality, you have a basis to reject the
woke mob because reality can't be redefined by your system. Well guess what,
Kennedy, that same critique applies to your track Catholicism, because your track Catholicism
has to combat the reality of Vatican One, which says that you can't have
seventy plus years of apostate papacy. So conform your reality, your intellect to
the reality of the facts. That this is what the nova sorto and normal
Roman Catholicism actually is. You understand this, This is what Francis has absolutely
no problem with. But Francis wants to ban the Latin Mass, which shows
that Francis doesn't even care about even loosely maintaining the Roman Catholic tradition. So
why do you even have a problem with the chicken Mass. What's the problem
with the chicken novasorto? When the Chiady document admits the Orthodox positions, and
the Alexandria document, built on the Chiady document mits ten times more Orthodox positions,
So this just means that Vatican one is not true, and the Vatican
one is not true, then the Roman Catholic system falls because it's a system
wherein you can't have dogmas canceled out and being wrong. Well, actually,
in the Roman Catholic system you can because it evolves, and so the dogmas
can be revised and restated to be whatever you want. But you get my
point, though, is that if you've adopted that, then you've adopted a
evolving, absolutely contradictory position, and now everything evolves, including the laws of
logic, and you can never even say anything's false. So if you want
to go this route of ever evolving, never fixed, static propositions and truths,
then Rome is where you want to be, because it'll evolve tomorrow to
be not just blessings for skittles, but blessings for everything you can think of.
That's the next phase. All right, We're gonna open it up to
the forum. When I give you the microphone. That means you unmute yourself
and you can bring your arguments, bring your challenges. What are my comments
on the debate with Jake? I already talked about the debate with Jake beginning
of this. Let's see who's up first. Demetrios, Hello, yes,
sir, all right, speaking of static instagnation, one of the common arguments
you'll get recently, within the past, let's say thirty years, from Catholic
and Calvinist types is the Orthodox Church is in stagnation. We're trapped in the
ninth century. Even our art work is trapped in the ninth century. Like
Pep'll say, like, yeah, you're true to the faith. But speaking
of and I'm touching base on the evolving static kind of topic you're addressing just
now recently, what would your answer to be if I was a you know,
reform Calvinist type and or Catholic and came up, Yeah, you guys
are true of the faith. You know your your trinitarianism is hardcore more than
most. But you know, you guys are static, You're stuck in the
ninth century. What's the what's the answer to someone like that? Absolutely,
and we're proud of it. And I would say that if the faith was
once for all delivered to the saints, as the New Testament says, the
Book of Jude says, then why do we want to evolve and have some
other thing? So explication of doctrine is different from the development or evolution of
doctrine. So Roman believe in the evolution of doctrine to some degree to explain
new doctrines or things that evolve over time. Like they think that icons are
something that is some sort of weird evolution that occurs. Can you mute when
you're not talking? It's a loud background. I have a lot background,
right, okay, right? Yeah, So we don't want to evolve,
right, And if you read the councils. For example, when the canons
begin of the councils, they they always stress holding the same faith as our
forebearers and our forefathers, holding the same ideas and canons that came before.
Okay, that's maintaining the same truths, right, that's presupposing and maintaining the
same truth without the idea that they evolve. Go ahead, gotcha, gotcha,
gotcha. I was just interested in your respond to. The second thing
is more of like an observation. You know, Calvinists at their best probably
represent five percent of Christianity at the most. You know, they're a small
portion even of Protestants. Do you think I don't think it's a coincidence when
you know, mainstream media, whether it's in the nineties, Larry King having
John MacArthur on for interviews or Christopher Hitching deciding he's going to do a book
tour in a movie with Doug Wilson, do you think these you know,
atheistic types onbelievers specifically pick Calvinists on purpose just to make Christians look crazy.
That could be a motivation there. That's a good a good idea. I
never thought about that, Like, why wouldn't they choose you know, really
educated people from other traditions. But also because around that time and even up
till now, you'll find that what people that are really active on the Internet
are people like Calvinists, right, So reform Zoomer for example, even though
his sect is a tiny fraction of American you know, religious believers, you
know, he's getting massive amounts of views, and so you know he needs
to be addressed. But in actual fact, you know, Calvinists are like
minuscule, right when it comes to the religious beliefs of the West and of
America. So yeah, I wouldn't be surprised that there wasn't some ulterior motivation
to pick some kook or some quack or some you know loon to be the
representative. Makes perfect sense. I mean that, for example, atheists loved
to do this with remember Fed Phelps, right, I mean they love that
guy, right, He's like a wet dream to the left. Yeah.
Yeah, And the last observation we had touched about touched on this a bit
angelic. Sin. Now I want to come back to this as it pertains
to Calvinism, because you know, these you know, deterministic types are always
saying that you know, we have free will, but we only can choose
evil. We're guilty from birth. And if you think about it, if
you think about it, Calvinists they don't even believe what they preach. I
mean, show me the first Calvinist mother and father that deliver their baby in
the hospital and they hold it in their hands and they look at the baby
and they say, this thing is damnable. I mean, get serious.
I mean, like, so getting back to angelic sin. You know,
angels did not you know, they didn't sit in the Garden of Eden.
Yet they willed evil. They chose and they were immediately you know. You
know, even Christ said, you know, I saw Satan fall like a
bolt of lightning in the timeless, in the timeless an. So I mean
just that alone, the fact of the judgment of the angels and their will,
uh, free will to send and immediately judge because they're the timeless an.
Uh. I think in some way we need to write an article on
this or something, because I think in some way this shows that this original
guilt. And you know, uh, fine, we all believe that we
have free will, but we're not autonomous. You know, God's in charge,
He's sovereign, but this thing like yeah, okay, yeah, I'm
not I'm not trying to Yeah, I agree with you. I agree with
you. That's a great point. And uh, for those that are watching
the live stream, yeah, this is the Mayandorf critique of Augustine, and
he makes a really good point about Augustine misunderstanding the passage in Romans five about
willing, and that he misunderstood and read everybody in Adam as in an archetype,
which was his platonic presupposition there. So actually they have a kind of
a platonic presupposition the Calvinists do without even knowing it. And this is a
great article. It goes into the mistaking confusing natural will with no mc will.
I mean, imagine if we started asking Calvinists like does Christ have a
fallen will? Right? I think that would be totally lost on that It
would be really easy to refute them on that point. But you can read
that Mindorf article right there which I referenced earlier about refuting Augustina's mistake on Romans
five, and that right there would actually clear up probably seventy percent of Redeemed
Zoomer's mistake. Sapphire Gotta, I'm mute, I'm mute. Hello, Hey,
what's up man? Yeah, I didn't really come here to debate you
because you probably destroy me. But I just had a few questions. Okay,
let's me get quick because we're given disagreeers the floria go ahead. Yeah,
yeah, of course, of course, can non Orthodox people be saved?
I'm very ignorant about Orthodox theology. Well, God has the means by
which he can unite people to Christ outside of what we know, but no
non Orthodox person can be saved apart from being united to the mystical body.
So if Christ has I mean, if you look at the thief on the
cross, right, we see that it is possible for God to do that.
But yeah, so as long as someone accepts the Christ as their savior,
are they saved? No, we don't make that judgment. So I
can't say that they are that they aren't. We're not told that. I
say, so, only God knows in totality who is and isn't saved.
Correct. But also just quote accepting Jesus as kind of ambiguous, because even
in the New Testament, there's no idea that you just like, you know,
say a sinner's prayer or something like that. That's a Protestant idea.
No, I get that, because like Matthew seven twenty three, there's the
people who worked iniquity but claim to be followers like Jesus himself. Worn't about
that, well, I mean there's also the command to be baptized, to
repent, to enter the church, to the liturgy. So you have all
kinds of things that we're asked to do. Yeah, I'm not trying to
like expose myself. I'm currently a Methodist, but I'm thinking of changing my
faith to Catholicism or Orthodoxy. I recently went to a Catholic church and it
was a really nice experience. So I'm trying to get more to the roots
of a Christ actually teached. You know. Yeah, well was it the
was it at a Chick fil A? No? No, it was uh
yeah, no, it wasn't like that German church. Dude, Well,
you can go to the Chicken Mass in Germany and basically just be like going
to Chick fil A for church. So but but look, it's not liberal.
It's the traditional Chick fil A liturgy. So it's a traditional chicken liturgy.
Don't listen to the liberals, don't listen to the liberals out there that
lib tards saying that this is some sort of new modernist Chicken liturgy. It's
absolute the traditional Chicken rite. Before we head off, and let you know,
I just met a friend who's from Germany, and although he's an atheist,
like he straight have told me that a Baptist church, like an American
Baptist church in Germany, felt more authentic to him than the Catholic Church.
Yeah, that's where we're at. Yeah, I mean, like even when
I was, even when I was a Roman Catholic, when I was a
trad cat, even back then in two thousand and like four, the typical
Episcopal and Anglican churches even then were more reverent and more quote traditional in terms
of the out exterior than a lot of the novasorto. It's exactly, I
mean, because it's there's an agenda being pushed here and it's so obvious.
Yeah. Absolutely. Yeah. But here's the thing, though, is that
that agenda is not being pushed by liberals. It's not being pushed by random
weirdos. It's being pushed by the people that run the church aka the Roman
see. And if you just read vatic in one, you don't have the
right to disagree with the liturgical rights promulgated upon the entire Church by Rome.
That's in Noctorum fe Dae, which is repeated not verbatim the Vatican One,
but the principles of Vatican One. Repeat the idea that's expressed in Octorum Feede
against the Jansenists that you can call into question the liturgical rights that the Roman
See has promulgated for the entire Church. So if you disagree with the Novis
Ordo, you're in the exact same position as the Jansenists that are condemned in
Doctorum fide. That's fascinating talking. Thank you so much, good questions.
Let's see you. Next up is a new v anov ain aov Hey,
all right, so when we talk about tag right and universals proving or presupposing
the existence of God, I'm kind of confused as to how you would show
that logic proves the exist things so good, Well, the way I like
that. That's precisely why I like to make the argument the way I do,
which is to argue that tag is really pre logical. Okay, So,
and yeah, I recognize that you're still using logic, but that's a
category error, because that's why we say that you can never escape the circularity
of the metalogical question of asking how does logic even work? How do we
know logic works? So the logic element of the argument is saying that prior
to the actual doing of like first order argumentation that we normally do in logic,
we're actually saying that this is a prelogical question about how is logic even
possible at all? So that's all that's all metalogic means is how do we
know logic itself works? How do we know logic is logical? And there's
nothing wrong with asking that question. It's a whole branch of philosophy. It's
called meta loogic. You could say it's part of metaphysics even right, So
that the idea that I make this up is just ignorance, right, It's
not made up. So I'm just taking a discipline meta logic or a domain
of epistemology metaphysics, and I'm saying that this is relevant for how we do
tag because we're saying that, prior to the doing of any argumentation at all,
there are preconditions for the possibility of logic, right, And that would
be in my argument, God himself, God and the specific theology that we
have in our tradition is the grounding for the possibility of logic. Now,
I'm not arguing that it's true because I said that. I'm arguing that it
actually does the work of explaining how the transcendental categories are possible. So that's
that's It may sound fancy and obscure whatever, it's not actually pretty simple if
you just understand that it's an argument about anything prior to argumentation. So I
guess the argument I've come into contact with this is why can't these universals just
blinket exist? Like why can't nature just be consistent? For number one,
that it's arbitrary. So to say something just is is to be arbitrary.
Just is what? And if you can posit it in a debate that something
just is, so can I? So? God just is? So just
saying something is doesn't do the grounding work. It's arbitrary. And also where
are they? What are they? Just? To say a universal is is
to say absolutely nothing, and it doesn't actually do any grounding work. I
mean, universals can exist in a vacuum. Okay, in my view,
they are grounded in the divine mind. And because I have an omniscient being
who is all knowing and is ever you know, all provident, et cetera,
that works to do the grounding. I mean, it's a consistent,
coherent position. I'm not saying it's true because I say that, I'm saying
that that makes sense. That's coherent. The position where there are no there
is no location or grounding or explanation of what universals are. They're just asserting
that it is doesn't do any grounding work. So like, let me look
at I think you answer the question already, but I wrote it down anyway,
I'm gonna ask. So we don't need God to know that the sun's
gonna rise tomorrow. That's just a fact about nature. Right. How would
you respond to an atheists where they say why do you need God anyway?
Well, again, it's arguing that you do ultimately need God to know that
because knowing knowing mundane facts is resting on transcenal categories, and so what's the
grounding for the transcenal categories? So the preconditions of knowledge, right, So
you're that's a knowledge claim. I know the sum will rise tomorrow. Okay,
but how do you know knowledge is possible at all? So that's a
prior claim to any empirical claim or any knowledge claim. So when we're arguing
about preconditions of knowledge, it's gonna be more fundamental and prior, more prior
to anything that's a knowledge claim. So, yes, you do, you
do need God? Let me let me and let's be more. Let's be
clear what we mean by do I need quote God to know the sum will
rise tomorrow? For epistemic justification, you need the theology and the belief in
God. It doesn't mean that atheists don't have propositional knowledge about you know,
or beliefs about the sun rising tomorrow. It means justifying the knowledge, not
do they have that belief for that knowledge. It means they can't justify the
knowledge. So then okay, so I guess, and let me explain the
difference there, because uh, do I do I know that my car runs
on computer chips? Yes? Do? I Can I explain to you how
they work? No? Right, so I don't. I can't explain the
how or I don't know what's going on. But I can still drive my
car and have a knowledge of the car running without knowing about the computer chips
that run the car or the computer. Right, So, in the same
way, can an atheist believe that the sun will rise tomorrow? Yes,
but as David Hume says, as a more consistent atheist, he cannot justify
that belief. So he can't justify his own knowledge because correct, if X,
then hy so, then why would be the knowledge and actually be the
God? Right? Well, it's even more basic than that. If you're
using David Hume's argument. David Hume just simply says that the self, identity,
over time, induction, none of those laws of logic, none of
those sayings can be justified. You just have to You don't have a basic
that I thought you were going the route was saying, because logic is objective,
right then for there to be any objectivity, Well, what I would
think is big, you need that, you need to have God. But
that's like I mean, ultimately, ultimately you can get to that. It's
kind of a long way around, but it's just it's even more simple than
that, just simply saying that an atheist can't justify or give an account for
how knowledge is possible. That's David Humes argument. M all right, so
I'll look into that. Do you do this often, like to ask a
question next time? Yeah? Like five years of it? Okay, Yeah,
good questions, man, I appreciate it. Yeah, yeah, really
good questions. Let's see Hannibal hustle. Hannibal hustle. Thank you guys for
the super chats. We'll read. Some of those are in the second.
We've got a nice nine hundred. I guess days streams are pretty good.
We get get more people than I'm used to on a day stream. Yeah,
I'm mute, bra I'm mute, dude. All right, he dropped
off. Next up is uh now again we're giving precedents to people who disagree.
Yeah, so if you'll see he's back. Yeah, sorry about that.
What's on your mind? Want to ask a couple of questions about Orthodox
theology? That's all, okay, let's make it quick. So, like,
do you guys affirm that if someone does more good deeds to get like
more stuff and having like more rewards, greater rewards like and more wicked people
get like you know, more punishment and hell for example. Uh, I
mean it's a little crass, like you know, you're not We're not like
stacking. We're not stacking stats in heaven, like stacking up my bigcoins in
heaven. I mean, but I mean Jesus does say greater rewards greater punishment.
So yeah, Paul says it too. One star will shine brighter than
another star. Yeah. Yeah. So I have a question, Like let's
say we have like three people, right, three brothers or something like that,
and I have one brother who's really pious, right, and another brother
who dies as a baby, and another brother who's like wicked and like goes
to Hell or something like that because he's wicked, right, Okay, And
I mean everybody agrees that, like baby's dying is like an evil right,
Like it's an evil thing. And you know, like I guess we're like
the Day of Judgment or something like God is talking to the baby and like
the baby says, hey God, you know, like this was evil?
What occurred to me? Like if I grew up, I would have been
like good, like my big brother who grew up and he went to heaven
and got all these good stuff and I did it. Yeah. I mean,
we don't typically like out of hand, uh you know, damn infants.
That's more of like a Protestant August any of you. I'm not trying
to be reminant. I got to move on though, because this is Look,
the answer your question is that only crypto billionaires make it into Heaven.
Uh let's see Orthon Nerd. What's up, dude? Got uh you?
Hey? I had a question. I'm Orthodox cetic human and my aunt she's
like a big Joe MacArthur Presbyterian. Yeah, how do I respond to like
predestination because that's her whole argument for like the Bible canon, why it was
changed and everything. How do we refute any of that? You don't you
just uh do you know how to do you know how to do uh like
really hard umping like this, like like like clicking. So you just wait
to wait till your mom's over there doing the dishes, walk up behind and
go just just just do a big thump. Try todd some sense into her.
No, just just do it, not even for any reason. Just
do it. I'm just joking, man, what's the question. I have
a bunch of videos on predestination, so are on Calvinism and all that.
So uh yeah, my buddy, Uh, what's his book called? Just
type in Orthodox comma Calvinist comma predestination, And one of my buddies wrote a
book and I can't remember the toddle of the book now, but it should
come up. I think his name is uh Jeremy, uh Kitif Kitiff Kitif.
That's a joke. By the way, don't thump your mom. Don't
get into flick battles with your mom. Tell your mom to hold out her
fist and tell her if she can't stand twenty of your thumps, then predestination's
falls. That's how you prove it. What's up doing? U? Mute?
So remember a request to speak? You unmute? Kai Tiff? Do
you want to speak? You gotta unmute? Are you there? Hello?
You gotta turn your mic on. Man, I don't know. I can't
hear you no sound. Try to turn your mic on. Come back,
come back out and come back in. Next. Up is from a point
of view? What's up from a point of view? Thank you guys for
the super Chat's having fun today? Nine hundred in the middle of the day.
Interesting. So I guess more people are on the internet at freaking two
o'clock and then they are at ten o'clock. So Hi, can you hear
me? Yes? Sir, I don't hey, what's up? Say?
It's nice talking to you again. I didn't want to take up too much
of your time because I know that you want to get two more people who
actually disagree with you. But could you have a few minutes to answer my
question? Okay? Well, I don't want to be like starting this sell
from a down or note. But see, my grandmother she passed away this
week on a few days ago, and we just had her funeral on Wednesday,
and I'm sorry, just launched it, thank you, and I just
want to know. I don't know if this is an important but what would
be the Orthodox Christian if one on euthanasia? For example? And to give
context, because my grandmother, she's self a fun severe case of dementia for
many years, so she was slowly starting to forget who she was, who
a lot of the people around who were and yeah, and slowly was developing
many of the diseases like not being able to move, not being able to
eat or speak, and in her final few weeks being alive, she was
I mean, you can pretty much categorize her as the vegetables. So it
was yeah, I think I think that the typical answer is that's a great
question, and sorry for your loss. I think typically we were pretty much
against euthanasia at all in all forms, except you know, there might be
a situation which not necessarily euthanasia, where somebody makes the decision to you know,
no longer continue, I don't know, life support or something. That's
a decision that people who are bioethicists, and there are Orthodox bioethicists. Tristram
Inglehart, for example, was a famous Orthodox bioethicist for many years. He
passed away. I forget what you're not too long ago. But so there's
there's other people who have that role, and so that would be somebody that
you would ask that kind of question to you, because it's not I don't
have any training in bioethics, but I would say that generally speaking, Orthodoxy
definitely as opposed to euthanasia. Partique, what's up? We're gonna party like
it's nineteen ninety nine. You know, I'm mute, bro? Yeah?
Hi, Hey, what's something here? Yeah? Yeah. So first of
all, I'm a big fan of Rachel and Andrew. Hey Rachel. So
my Christian is then, as you guys must know that the Church in Russia
is still pretty pretty good, and when we compare that to America, but
it's still separate from the state. So what do you think Russia did right
in terms of preserving or saving the church from feminism and things like that?
Good question. I guess that it's probably just, you know, the Slavic
peoples maybe have a more innate antipathy towards that. I think a lot of
Western social engineering and toxic culture hasn't fully penetrated Russia yet, So there's probably
a lot of different reasons why Russia isn't as bad. But you know,
what's being unleashed is being unleashed globally, so you know, even places like
China are trying to figure out how to you know, stave off the unleashing
of all this toxicity. Jenna, what's up? Jenna? You gotta mute?
Are you there? Okay? I thought you was a check. What's
up? Janna? Janna the manna. So it was recently debating one of
my friends, what's that I was recently debating one of my Protestant friends really
reputed well, he didn't refute. I phoned his arguments of the week,
but he didn't even accept that the apostles had any oo, did he rejected
the Stolic succession, He rejected even the apostles themselves, And I didn't know
how to argue against that point. Well, yeah, I mean I would
just look up, you know, Orthodox arguments for apostolic succession. I mean,
you have the apostles being told by g says he who hears you hears
me. And if you read the Book of Timothy, Paul lays his hands
on Timothy and says you are the successor to me in Ephesus. I mean
he doesn't say those words, but he's saying that I appointed you in Ephesus,
right, you then lay hands on men after you. So really,
first and second Timothy, with the statements that Jesus says to the apostles is
really kind of like the most clear, in my view argument for apisode of
succession. But then we can get into the church fathers of the first and
second century already arguing for being successors to the apostles. The bishop says,
successors to the apostles ignacious, iran as They all really argue and speak this
way. So that would be where I would say you could start your argumentation.
If you're responding to a Protestant. Let's see punished, what's up punished?
Yeah, hello, hear uh hey Jay. Also, hey Rachel,
nicely actually speaking spiking with you for the first time. So my question is
obviously I'm I'm a cate of Cuman, Orthodox cate of Cuman, but I
have had a bit of an issue regarding people in the Orthodox faith. I'm
not sure if it's a common thing, but it's something that's giving me a
bit of like like crisis in terms of like denomination, where it feels a
lot like a lot of the Orthodox that I communicate with are very they're very
isolated in their in their churches, and they're very isolated in their in their
in their faith. They don't like like people from outside of their faith coming
in. Uh. You, I know you experienced that when when you went
to a Greek Orthodox church in the US. And I experienced the same thing
when I went to a Orthodox church here in my country, and I wanted
to ask, like, why why do you think there is this sort of
like almost like no no attempt to like reach the outside from from a lot
of Orthodox churches compared to like a lot of Protestants, compared to Mormons,
and and and Baptists and stuff like that. What do you think that is?
I mean, you know, Orthodox nations out there other than America do
tend to be uh by their very nature of being kind of national churches still
somewhat ethnic. But I mean this exists in Protestantism and Roman Catholicism as well,
So it's not I mean, I'm not saying that it's everywhere in Rome,
but it's not everywhere in Orthodoxy either, So you know, I don't
know what country and I can't speak to that, but you know, check
out. Do you have other options you have, like other Orthodox options you
could check out? And if you're you know, if you find the people
to be cold at first, can just continue to go there and try to
warm up to the priest because if you warm up to the priest, then
eventually that people will warm up to you as well, I think, because
you know, maybe they think that you're just kind of an outsider or something
like that. But today we're and I'm not trying to dismiss your question,
it's just I don't really know what the I mean, that's definitely one problem
that can arise in Orthodox churches. It's not solely an Orthodox problem. It
does exist in other churches as well, but I haven't been to Orthodox churches
in other countries, so I don't really know what that's like. I take
that back. I've been to Orthodox churches in Italy, and you know,
one of the Orthodox churches we visited in Italy, they were having to meet
at a Roman Catholic church because they were doing the liturgy where the relics were
and there was a lot of a lot of Russian babushka is there that were
acting kind of wild. So, I mean, I can understand where you're
coming from, but I would say just try to befriend and get closer to
the priest if you can. Let's see, we're taking topics and questions for
people who disagree or one of the debate typically today not dissing you punished.
I'm just saying, if you go, if you disagree, go to the
head of the line. Cartif you want to try again, you tried earlier,
Let's see if we can get you back on. Go ahead, Cartif
got it? Unmute? Can you hear me? Now? Hey? Got
me? Yeah? All right? Quick question for you? It was,
how can I reason about language that is open to such interpretation that it can
mean whatever you wanted to mean. If language can mean anything, then it
means nothing. As a Christian apologist, I have to ask, why should
I listen to you if what you're saying is indistinguish from gibberish, and how
are you any better than astrology or other wu wu. Well, first of
all, I didn't never argue that words and language can mean anything you wanted
to mean. So no idea where you got to No, I'm sorry,
I'm sorry I didn't When I say you, I just mean like the general
Christian, like the general religious person, as an atheist Christian apologist, I
don't mean to you specifically. Sorry. Well, but if that's not my
position, what do you want me to address everyone else's position? I don't
understand. Well, I'm just curious. Like, obviously I'm not an atheist,
and even even as a non religious person, I can understand that you
know, they, you know, religious people have a definition for their language.
I don't exactly understand it. So well, okay, So is the
objection that all theological and metaphysical terms or gibberish well sub a abstract scientific definition?
I you know, I'm okay, not sure Okay, so this is
like, are you familiar with any critiques of like basic level scientism and like
empiricism, because that's what it amounts to. I would be happy if you
have any authors to recommend to me or something. Well, I mean we
could just make the argument right here, like how do you know or what
does it even mean to think that there's a quote basic scientific definition of what
exists? Well, I guess i'd start with like Descartes soulism. I can't
prove anything outside of my existence, so I need to have multiple people verify
my results and then you have, you know, developed some sort of consensus
over time. And Okay, let's let's get more basic than that, though,
like how do we know? So all knowledge comes through sense data?
I mean, that's essentially scientism. Is that? Is that your view?
Sure? Okay. So the problem with that, though, is that that
proposition itself is not in sense. So it's a self refuting first proposition,
first starting point. So it's a self destructive argument. Correct, Okay,
I'll have to consider that. That's a very interesting point. Well, that's
where the epistemology starts, and it can't get off the ground. Then every
sentence from that point on says nothing. So it's actually your position that makes
no coherent statement. Okay, So I'm sorry, I could you just repeat
that. So if if it's if it is the case that your if it
is the case that your epistemic starting point is self refuting, then any other
assertion or proposition you make would also be nonsense and self refuting. So basically
sentences are impossible. Okay, but so so I I in order to have
in order to use language, I have to not use it, not consider
sense data. If i'm I'm not maybe I'm not literally literally not at all
what I said said, absolutely not. I'm sorry, I'm trying to understand.
So your starting point, your first, the place you want to jump
off, the place you want to hinge your epistemology on. Okay, it's
not a language problem, it's a pistemology problem. Is itself a self refuting
starting point, and so therefore any other propositions or sentences you try to make
also fail because the epistemic starting point fails. You see, So epistemology is
more fundamental in what we're talking about than your theory of languages, the theory
of language and signs. Okay, so the premise, my premise is false
because our lived experience transcends our ability to describe it with language or something along
those lines. Well, I could just simply say that the universal claim that
all knowledge comes through sense data is a contradiction because knowledge that proposition isn't found
in sense data, and so you're subject to all the problems with David Hume,
who's a more consistent atheist empiricist than any other atheist comparacist, which means
that the result is Skepticisms of Hume's arguments say basically that there's no way to
give an account for the self, identity over time, laws of logic,
induction, predication, meaning all those things fail. And if all those things
failed, and then sentences and knowledge are impossible, and human is fine with
that, saying that our knowledge is not justifiable. So if knowledge is not
justifiable, if you want to be a consistent atheist, then you can't argue
against Christianity, and you don't know science, Science is impossible. I think
that's a fantastic argument, and I really appreciate you you sharing that with me.
I will read into hum. Yeah, go read David Hume, because
yeah, he's the consistent atheist, and he's my favorite atheist because he's the
one that's consistent where the rest of the atheists aren't. Let's see Mars monkey.
What's up? Do you remember to get today? It's a people who
disagree? Hey, what's up? Can you hear me? Yes? Sir
uh. I don't know if you caught the James White debate with Trent Horn.
It was pretty interesting. I did see it. Yeah, I thought
it was good. My brief thoughts are that on the topic, I think
Trent won on the topic. However, I do think James White brought up
great points about the papacy contradicting on moral issues and issues like the death penalty,
but that wasn't the topic of the debate. However, those were good
singers by White against Trent. Yeah. He said something interesting, and this
is the question I have to use. How would you like comment on this
or respond to this? He said that the silent period between Malachi and the
New Testament. He said that that's sort of the way you got to view
the paradigm of Protestantism is that there's this silent years between the early Church and
then you know, the Reformation. How would you comment on something like that.
Yeah, then he's already admitted that the scriptures alone are not the sole
rule of faith in those silent years, and that undercuts sol scripture. Cool
cool, Yeah, So I mean right there, he lost the debate and
that he that's an admission. I don't have to go into disproving all of
the Protestant positions if James White admits that, even even for a time period,
there's another, uh something else beyond solo scripture that is a rule of
faith. Cool man, that's all I God appreciate it. Let's see.
Nope, what's up? Nope, Nope, Yeah, I understand Everett,
Like, there's there's other art ways we could respond to to White. We
could point out that the way he understands the Inner Testamental period actually isn't the
way he thinks it is. And the idea that the Old Testament sole scripture
also isn't true. They had judges, they had you know, interpreters of
the law. He made a decision with authority, the synagogue system and the
elders and all that. If you look at the way that was set up,
it's not the way James White thinks. So yeah, we can address
all of that, but just in terms of the proposition in the debate.
When White made those admissions, in my view, he lost the debate that
specific debate. That doesn't mean that we have to that addresses every claim of
Trent or James White. It means that the specific proposition they were debating.
I think that's the point which James White lost that debate. And I would
add if you want a fuller treatment of how the Old Testament actually functioned in
terms of text and authority with the priest and the Levites then, and the
debate that we did with who's that Protestant guy Dale? Yeah, so doctor
Branson did a good thirty minute exposition on how to understand the relationship of text
and levit and priest. Here it is this one in this debate, So
watch this two hour, forty minute debate if you want a fuller treatment of
more specifically, how James White wasn't even really technically correct about James White's acting
like, oh, well, in the Old Testament they were solo scripturists.
No, it actually says to the law and to the testimony in Isaiah right,
and Israelites weren't running around quoting solo scriptura scroll texts to one another to
try to prove you know, sol the scripture of Old Testament protestantsm and that's
silly, but uh, if you want a fuller treatment and watch the Bo
Branson talk right there, all right, what's up? Nope? Hey,
I had heard about these saints that have dealt with demonic possession and I was
interested because you know, the Orthodox Christians. So is this related to the
I'm not trying to be rude. Is the topic? The topic is debating
God's existence and so forth? Is that is that part of that God's existence?
No? Not necessarily? Okay, well so that's what I'm not trying
to be rude, but that's what that's that's the that's the topic today.
So I'm not trying to be rude too. But the topic is we're debating
God's existence Islam with all says of atheism Protestantism. Uh and if you disagree,
go ahead a line. Let's see he's been waiting on. Gurdell has
been waiting a while. What's up, Gurdell? Orthodox? You gotta I'm
mute, Girdell? Is this Kurt Girdell himself? Are we channeling? So
it looks like he's got a bad connection. Gardell, you want to pop
out, pop back in. I'll bring you to the front of the line
because it's not connecting you. Let's try. Let's see you's next, Patrick,
Masonic nonsense. What's up, you gotta I'm mute, man, it's
me mm hmm, it is you. What's up? Yeah? Yeah,
okay, yeah. So I have two questions, A couple of quick questions
about Protestantism and then a existence. So my first question is just your opinion
on this, like Protestants who do deliverance or not people, because I I've
seen a lot of people on the internet who have their like these deliverance ministries
and stuff, and it seems really like convincing. But then again, I
was thought that there is no grace outside the Orthodox Church, at least regarding
to these things. Well I don't. I mean, you've got TV preachers
who you know, have being busted being con men. You know that's possible.
You've got people who could genuinely be delivered by God's mercy. You know,
the guy casting out demons in Mark is outside the church, and Jesus
has let him alone because anyone who's apart from us will not forever be apart
from us, so soon be amongst us. So yeah, I mean anything's
possible, But those things don't prove or disprove any of the religions because any
of those manifestations that are claimed to be miracles could always potentially be deceptions.
So miracles will attest to what's the true faith, but they can't be proofs
of the true faith miracles themselves miracles alone. So what's the next question.
Let's move on. The next question is if nothing is created, or if
nothing created is inherently evil, and all creation comes from God, then why
do for example, nuclear bombs exist. Well, even an explosion is just
fire. It's just heat. Like fire and heat aren't bad or wrong,
So why would fire and heater themselves be wrong? But it's just like anything
else when it's misused, it's the misuse that's the error or the wrong,
it's not the thing itself. So just like a gun, right, the
atoms and the molecules in the gun and the bullet are not inherently evil,
but to misuse them against another human being is the misuse. Yeah. Well,
let's say that you have like straight up like technology that was meant to
like harm the mankind, like, yeah, but the intentionality doesn't make the
material itself evil, so that would be gnostic or romantickan. We're gonna move
on. Thanks for those questions. Let's see. Let's see who was next
in line logos Hello, Hey, hey Jay. First, first thing I
want to say is thank you all the stuff that you do. Let me
to a little church. Thank you good. Yeah, And I wanted to
ask you recently. That was a hilarious debate Twitter debate with Bryce and Great
talking about he's not a sinner and that because he's been baptized. Yeah,
because because he's big baptized, he's a new creation. Therefore he's not a
sinner. And I find that argument to be so that I wouldn't even know
how to respond to it if someone said that to me in real life.
Well, I mean, John says that we say we have no sin,
we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us. So right, some
some things like that like extremely no, no, no, first John said
right, So first John, Right, if we say we have no sin,
we lie and the truth is not in us. So I'm saying that
refutes Bryson perfect Great, And I think if you if you watch our debate,
I mean Bryson has like out to launch, no clue what he's talking
about. Yeah, And another thing I wanted to ask is like, when
people like this come about, is it best to just leave it alone?
Sometimes? Yeah? Absolutely? Yeah, Yeah, I think you have to
have a case by case basis, Right, you learn. I think over
time, who's worth interacting with and who's not. Now I'm not saying that
it was not worth interacting with Bryson because we never had an interaction other than
like a five minute exchange live debate. Right, So he came to that
live debate in Nashville and was in the audience, and we had about a
five minute exchange back and forth. And so at that point I thought,
well, it's worth having a protracted, you know, long discussion with Bryson.
And so that's why we did that debate. But like, would I
do another debate with Bryson? I don't really think there'd be much point in
it. I think it's just going to be the same types of stuff over
and over. So I think over time you realize, like a lot of
people say, why don't you debate so and so? Why don't debate so
and so, well, most of these people, I've already kind of seen
them in multiple debates. I know what they're going to be arguing. Typically,
when people are doing that, it's almost always really low tier people,
right, like people who've never had a philosophy class, never written a paper,
don't know anything about fallacies, and it's just like their menuons saying when
you're going to debate so and so, it's like, well, I mean
he's already done like ten debates and performed terribly. Why do I have to
debate this person who is just going to be the exact same thing, and
a lot of the load Tier eighty It's like I'm not going to eight T
jump again because it's like we already saw you know, so there's no point.
So I think you just learn over time who's worth engaging with and who's
not. Makes sense. Yeah, thanks, thanks for questions, and thank
you. Logos appreciate that. Good questions. So guys, it's open for
them. We got almost upwards up, not almost one hundred. We've got
eighty four listening live over on Twitter. The way it works is, if
you're listening on Twitter, you ask to speak, request to speak, I
give the microphone and then you come on, you can make whatever arguments you
want. Make sure they're arguments, please. Arguments is not arguing. Argument
is a proposition with supporting evidences and claims. So let's see Sapphire scribe.
What's up? Hey, yeah, Hey, how's it going? Jay?
Yes, Sir, I had a one serious question and one kind of quick
question after that, if I can. I was in a discord group chat
and there were a few Muslims in there, and I mentioned how all things
proceed from the Father and they said, oh, we believe that too,
So can you kind of outline for me. I'm not like super familiar with
like the Islamic like outlook on that. I know it's not the same as
this is just illustrating what we said earlier about the word proceed being vague.
I mean, that can mean a lot of different things. I mean they
mean that. I think they just mean that, Yeah, creation comes from
Allah. Okay, we believe that creation comes from God too, but we
also believe that the Son and the Spirit come from God. So coming from
God does not equate to being a creature. And they're arguing that anything coming
from God is a creature. Gotcha. Yeah, See that's something that I
I knew it was distinct because it was in and and my red flag was
already up because they were being inordinately nice. Uh, and I was mentioning
about you know, I was talking in a roundabout way about like the Trinity.
So it was kind of weird how they were coming at me a little
bit, you know, like, oh, this is what we believe,
this is similar to what we believe. So I just want that's just word
concept fallacies, Like Mormons do the same thing. You're like, oh,
we believe Jesus is God. I was like, yeah, you believe in
multiple gods. So uh yeah, it's a lot of a lot of cults
and groups just basically hinge everything on ambiguity in words and terminology. So that's
a huge part of I mean again, Basil says this. He says heretics
always make like grammar and word concept mistakes. So thank you for that question.
There. We're going to move on to uh open forum with Jack and
then he dropped off. Jack. If you want to come back on,
just request to speak Philip. What's up, Philip? Yeah, Hey,
what's up? Jay? Hey, Hey, I had a question about tag.
I don't know if that's technically on topic for it, and then we've
had like, yeah, we got like five tag questions. Go ahead,
Okay, cool. So I was watching your debate with dil on Tea recently
just to sort of like just because I'm very new to the philosophical side of
Christianity, and so I was trying to sort of buff up on that at
least a little bit. But it seems and excuse me, sorry, it
seems and correct me if I'm wrong, But like, it's not so much
that because logic exists, therefore we can apply to God. But it's like
logic, identity, over time, knowledge, like all of these things correspond
to one another and such a way that it's like, sure atheists can point
to them and say, oh, look there's knowledge, or there's logic,
or there's identity over time, but the fact that they correspond to each other
as well would imply that there is something that connect. Is that sort of
on the right, Yeah, Yeah, I wouldn't say the word correspond.
I mean they interrelate. I mean they absolutely go together. You know,
universals relates to laws of logic, Laws of logic relates to can you mute
brow? It's loud in the background. Ye okay, universals relates to numbers
in mathematics. I'm not saying they're identical, and they relate to one another
in an intricate way. Right. And so the external world, right,
is a necessary precondition for knowledge, the self, the eye, having the
knowledge right, the knowledge presupposes a knower. Right. So all of these
things kind of go into and a presupposed by the act of knowing or whatever.
And they all require a certain kind of world. Basically, for example,
we couldn't have a world where everything was one. Right. Let's say
we were monas or pantheus. Right, Oh, everything's one and we're all
God. Dude. Well, that would really destroy the possibility of knowledge because
now we're not actually knowing facts. We're just simply knowing ourselves or we are
God, or everything is all is one. So distinctions are illusory. Right.
There's a lot of different traps that something like a monus position might fall
into, and they're falling into those traps because they're not recognizing that for knowledge
to be possible, we need a certain kind of world. A certain kind
of world means certain types of metaphysical truths and principles and structure. So that's
what the transfient argument is, arguing that there's a certain type of world it's
necessary to make knowledge possible, certain type of metaphysics, certain type of pismology,
and when we have that type of world, we can then posit the
possibility of knowledge. So the argument is not about first order reasoning. The
argument is about higher metalogical possibility of reasoning at all. Every atheist when they
hear this argument misunderstands this and they think that the argument is just me asserting
that God exists. Therefore God exists. Now it's saying that the transcendental categories
necessitate and relate to one another in an interlocking, interrelated way, and that
any act of knowledge presupposes those transcendal categories. And so therefore, how do
we make sense of the categories since they're prior to any knowledge claim or they're
prior to the doing of logic. It's a meta logical, meta knowledge question,
gotcha. And so so yeah, it seems like the atheists would just
be able to point to like logic and knowledge and identity over time as just
like disparate things. Well, but they're not desperate things. It doesn't make
any sense to talk about knowledge over time without a knower. How could they
be? Yeah, but that's that's what I'm saying, is from their position,
like they don't have an account for how they correlate or how they well,
they don't have that. Well, they don't, they they don't.
It's not that they don't have an account for how they interrelate. They also
don't have an account for the things themselves individually. I mean, that's that's
David Hume's point is that an atheist, an empiricist cannot give an account for
any of the individual things identity over time, the self, the external world,
you know, induction, laws of logic. Okay, cool, Yeah,
that was it. Thanks, Yeah, good questions. Let's see,
I don't know if father Diggan, if you want to comment on that,
you can while I go t T to the little girls room. Are you
there? Sorry? Did you ask a question? I said, if you
want to comment on the tag points there, the the the idea of you
know, maybe what you're going to argue in your paper, or if you
want to comment on any of that, since you requested to speak, you
can. I do have to go to the little girl's room. Yeah,
so, I mean often one confusion is because it's called a transcendental argument,
that it's solely restricted to accounting for transcendentals. But that's not the case,
somebody, if we go back to just a manual clant, transcendental deduction is
neither a deductive nor an inductive argument, but it is an argument kind of
prior to arguments that what is the necessary condition, what would make this possible?
Now, of course we can ask that about the transcendental categories because there's
many things that are prior to other things. There's things that we presuppose and
the level goes up. Well. One of those things, of course,
is logic, identity, over time, knowledge and different things that could possibly
put into transcendental category, all of which must be assumed in order to make
legitimate inferences deductions and various epistemic or even sensory actions, semantics, et cetera.
But really, the transit the transcendental argument is is even prior to that.
So what is And you know, there's many different things that you can
focus on within a transcendental argument. They all, you know, In other
words, there's many different types of transcendental arguments with existence of God that you
can give all of them have in common. What is the ultimate necessary conditions
that make and plug in any of this possible. I tend to focus on
the epistemic questions, so I may not focus on transcendents. I may just
focus on well, we use logic. We think it's legitimate, and I
say that to distinguish from valid, because somebody might get confused or their valid
forms. But by legitimate, we believe that if we follow certain kind of
rules, logical rules, we get what we want in terms of getting knowledge.
And most people never kind of ask more kind of meta pistemological questions,
well why is that? What actually makes that possible? And what would make
that impossible? Now, keep in mind there's no one who's presuppositionless. When
we read text, when we do various actions, we come with various presuppositions.
Some of those presuppositions make the things that we want in namely knowledge that
there. It's not just that somebody's paradigm might have inconsistencies, because anybody's paradigm
could have you know, well I was wrong about this, this inconsistent There's
more kind of fundamental issues that certain presuppositions that one could have would literally make
knowledge impossible, and so it ends up being self defeating versus just maybe a
smaller kind of epistemic problem. Yeah, so that's something that we point out,
and that again, when you start thinking through this, it boils down
to only two positions, presuppositions, and those presuppositions, we all want to
give an account for the world. What does that count mean? There's a
presupposition, the story that explains stuff, and everybody has one, and some
fit better than others, and some make storytelling and accounts and knowledge completely impossible,
and ultimately it's going to boil down to you. Either you have a
story about a creator who creates all of these things and grounds knowledge, experience,
identity over time, physical laws and laws of identity, logical laws,
and so there's a purpose behind, there's an intention behind, or the only
other presupposition is there isn't it's an accident, in which case that makes there
is no meaningful story that could be told, because why it's what's the opposite
of meaning accident, the opposit a knowledge accident. Ultimately that's the story that
the person tells. So again, the question is the most fundamental sort of
question with a transcendental argument for the existence of God is what possibly could be
prior epistemically than God. And what we'll find is in any attempt to explain
that is self defeating. I can't accomplish what it does. So by impossibility
of the contrary, God must be. There's no arguments that strictly that are
behind God that you prove God by. He is the first epistemic principle by
which anything could be known or proven. Does that make sense? Yeah?
Yeah, great points. Let's see. Next up is waiting Luken's got it
on your bro he hear me, yes, sir, Hey, what's up?
Jet uh yo? So I'm I'm currently Presbyterian, but I've been like
kind of exploring Orthodoxy more very intrigued by very intrigued by it. I have
a few questions related to eschatology. If that's cool. Uh, Well,
today's discussion is about disagreements and particularly Islam rogus and so it's not it's not
the topics today. What what's your I'll answer the basics. What's the basic
question? So the basic question is like, is kind of is it within
a valid Orthodox interpretation? Like if for all that discourse, like that's entirely
about Jerusalem and the Temple, or is that like, does it apply to
both then or also to the very end of the Yeah, I think it's
it's both and okay, that's yeah. It's typically typically the way like uh,
you know Saint John Chris System when he interprets it, he says,
it's seventy eighty and it's the end of the world. Let's see a good
question of vlad, what's up? Lad? Y'all going to the chicken mask
later the chicken divesorta. Do you hearing? What's up? Yeah? Hello
Jay? As an Orthodox Christian myself, I want to ask about orthodox issue,
what does a proper view of the rights? Do they exist? Rights
like I have a right to do something, or we have rights to I
don't know to do that. I mean, it depends on what you mean
by rights. I mean, if you mean like the natural law or something
moral law or something like that, then then that's what it means. If
you're like an Enlightenment atheist libertarian and no rights, rights don't exist, they
don't make any sense. There's no reason to believe in them. So it
really just means on what we mean by those words. But good question,
Daniel, what's up Daniel today? Guys, Remember it's people that disagree debate.
So I understand a lot of people have questions, and that's okay,
but we want to get preference to the people who disagree. Today, Gott,
I'm mute, Danny, do you want to talk? You know,
I'm mute, man, Jay, I have I have a few questions.
I have one question. Actually, sorry that I'm delaying the people that are
Okay, what's the question. We'll do it quick. So, you know
the I was watching a video by brother nothing else and he was refeuding Ben
Shapiro. I was just wondering. Ben Shapiro said that anyone can be the
well Jewish Messiah, even though there has already been a Messiah, And how
will that Messiah prove that he's there Jewish Messiah, like the false Messiah without
the genealogies of David, you know, and jud In Rabbinic Judaism, there's
probably as many different theories on the Messiah as there are Rabbinic Jews. So
so shout out to your boy there. Yeah, that's a great question.
I don't know. I don't know what the Messiah would even mean if it's
no longer divedic dissent. But I'm sure there's a million different rabbinic ideas.
I mean, there's Jews that think that Rabbi Schneerson was the Messiah, So
you know, to me, that's all just all over the place. So
but how would the like, how would I fake Messiah? Well, I
mean, Schneerson wasn't the Messiah, and I think people believe he was and
then he'll come back or something. So I mean, I guess it depends
on which group he convences, like what they think their criteria would be.
So if you, you know, believe that Messiah will be a Davidic warlord,
it seems like you would have to have the Davidic uh, you know,
genealogy. So yeah, it seems like it's all over the place,
Jamie, I don't think this coffee is right, Tamara. Hey, Jamie,
you guys would hit like in share go ahead, I'm mute. All
right, Well you're not gonna talk, then we'll move on. Uh pissar
cataclysm since ten dollars and says I loved your debate Orthodoxy wins. Could you
address uh joke the Maccockway magician quote minding father Staniloy. Yeah, I think
he was trying to get the idea that there's three minds because there's three centers
of consciousness or persons or agents. But of course we don't reduce mind to
trait of nature. It's one mind in the triad that exists in the mode
of the three hypostases that have it. So Jake was confusing natural property with
hypostatic property and confusing person with mode or tropos. So bisarre, what's up?
How's it going? How do you reconcile Catholic saints with like Orthodoxia,
they if the Catholic Church has fallen from grace or what have you. We
don't. We don't accept Roman Catholic saints. So what do you mean?
So how do you explain them in their lives? And they're supposed a long
line of miracles? Well, I mean, do you think miracles prove or
disprove a position? That's the problem. I mean, I can bring on
a bunch of Muslims that tell you that Churanic miracles prove the Quran. So
miracle claims don't do anything except a test to the true position. They don't
prove the true position. Okay, So we just take them as sort of
regular Catholic believers as orthodox. I don't know what that means. What do
you mean so we don't like there's no reason to really look further into them,
like authox. I mean, I guess you do what you want,
But I'm saying that that's not going to determine which religion is true. Is
miracle claims because every religion the world claims miracles. Evangelicals will claim miracles and
say that that disproves rom Catholicism. I mean, miracles will attest to the
true faith. They literally cannot quote prove the true faith. It's just it's
not going to do that work. It's a fallacy. Okay, it's that
same Thanks, Yeah, good question. Yeah, we get that question a
lot. It's a fair question. Uh, let's see Tamara mm hm.
Okay. So I gave you the mic, but we can't hear you.
Tavastanag what's up to Aston? I? Hey, Jamie, you gotta unmute
man icono Matt ten dollars, Jay, what's up? I was wondering if
you plan through debunk Lofton's book. Probably not. I can't imagine that anything
that's in his book isn't already in a bunch of his boring live streams.
I was the one that made with Michael Lofton joke when you were debating with
Jake. Well, that's funny because I actually made the joke to Kai and
Lewis in our chat, So I was I was calling. I was saying
that Jake was the Muslim Michael Lofton to Kaile Lewis, So we had the
same vibe there. Travis five dollars. This is my first time catching a
live stream. I'm a longtime viewer. Thank you, Travis, appreciate that.
So guys, remember the way it works is you request to speak.
If you request to speak, you come on. Today's topic is not for
people who to agree. It's for disagreements, and that's why it's listed as
a debate stream. It says the top debate about God Islam, Catholicism,
Atheism, Protestantism. I don't understand how like Sam schmun gets like a million
Muslims that want to debate him, and maybe there's just not a lot of
Muslims on to it, Like where are the Muslims that like that? None
of the Muslims I don't remember last time we had. It's been probably eight
months since a Muslim came in here. But they love to debate with Uh.
I guess because I guess because Sam will debate the Quurnic tax like he's
like a master at you know, flipping the script on the Muslim of other
chronic texts. And not that Sam can't argue the Trinity, is just that
Like I think the Muslims don't want to come over here because they think,
oh, it's just going to be a philosophy or something. I don't know,
but uh, let's see, we got on unproletario. What's up?
Unproletary? Hey, Jamie, could you make me a coffee? This one
was really weak. Yeah, this one was like, t I'm you all
right? You dropped off? So Kevin, what's up? Kevin? Hello?
Hello, sir, Yes, sir, thank you, thank you for
hosting the space today. I'm wanted to come in represent the Catholic position.
Okay, So I guess first off, I want to hear what is the
defense of the Council of Florence And how do you, from the Orthodox side
of things, determined if an ecumenical council is authoritative or not. Yeah,
so I mean, it's pretty well known if you read the Austro mob book
on Florence, that the fact that we had, you know, a handful
of patriarchs and bishops there that did accept it certainly doesn't mean that the entire
Orthodox Church accepts it. Sat Mark of Ephicus famously didn't accept it, and
the Orthodox world unanimously rejected the bishops that did accept Florence. So for us,
there's no like one size fits all easy answer anymore than for you there's
a one size fits all easy answer. Because Roman Catholics, even with the
doctrine of the papacy, still don't have a very clear list or idea of
what the ecumenical councils are and are, namely the inconsistency that you have with
for example, later in six forty nine. Clue me in on later in
six nine, and then what nuanced there are specifically referring to. So,
at the time of the dispute over the Monothelite controversy, a Rome called a
council which intended to be a independent from the emperor council. So the Pope
of Rome called a council. Maximus went, I've been to the lateran a
few months ago where this council has had and they condemned monothelitism, and that's
a great thing, and we're happy for that. But that council meets all
of the Roman Catholic later criteria for what should count as an ecumenical council.
However, when the sixth Secumenical Council met, they did not simply state,
oh, well, we already have the convenient definition from latter in six forty
nine, from the Pope and Pope Martin, so we don't even have to
have an ecumenical council. If they had the Vatican One mindset, they would
have simply said, latter in six forty nine has already solved the issue.
But in fact, what they do is they investigate the teachings of the Monothelites,
the Monothelite patriarch. They investigate the teachings of the Pope of Rome and
previous theologians and Saint Maximus. And it is not the papacy that is the
chief arguer of that council. It is Saint Maximus who is the chief theologian
of the sixth Secumenical Council. So the six Ecumenical Council's lack of citing latter
in six forty nine as a papal decision, it's elf proves that Roman Catholics
don't have a clear, coherent and rather an involving idea of what counts as
ecumenical councils. And plus the Fifth Ecumenical Council, the Emperor basically made the
Pope submit to it. So once again you have many examples of this kind
of thing, which shows that you guys don't have it either. And by
the way, Vatican two is hotly disputed and very ambiguous when it comes to
more and more Roman Catholics themselves now telling me thank you that you know they
don't believe in in Vatican two. So what's your epistemic criteria for a universal
ecumenical council? Yeah, it's a good question. I mean, as I
would traditionally say, as a standard is you know what the Pope says is
what goes okay? And then why wasn't latter in six forty nine and latter
in six forty nine is still not listed by your church as an ecumenical council?
Why not? I wouldn't know. I'd have to look into that specifically.
So that's definitely a good insight I should look into. Yeah, well,
there's a lot of famous examples like this, so it's not like this
is the only one. I mean, there's a whole case of Pope Vigilius.
You could watch the debate between UBI and uh. Is it John?
I can't remeber if it's John Kolarafi Or who's the other uniate The old hiccup
guy that wouldn't debate me because he has hiccups, The UNI eight Roman Catholic
apologist, the boomer guy forget his name, but he and UBI have a
debate over the Fifth Council on Pope Vigilius, and you can see that he
didn't fare very well in that debate with UBI either, gotcha? Okay,
well, no it, I'll definitely check those out. I guess. So
if to simplify, then we don't on the orthodox side of things, Getting
back to my original question, we don't really have like a finite point where
the buck stops when it comes to authoritatively understanding You know what makes the Act
Medical Council authority? If I guess I heard from you was, well,
so now you're equivocating because authoritatively pronouncing a council is different from understanding the council.
So if you're talking about normative authority, that's a different question from an
individual having certitude about what's true or false, or what councils are true or
false. So those are two different They're related, but there are two different
questions. So, for example, we might agree you and I as Orthodox
and Catholic against a Protestant, for example, that the Church in history has
normative authority. That means that you and I both agree that there is a
historic body of people post apostles, who have the ability to make decisions that
bind the consciences of believers to some proposition. So we agree there against Protestants,
right, and that would be called normative authority. However, there's a
separate topic in epistemology which relates to individual certitude, and that's where me,
you, and Protestants all disagree because we have different accounts of how that comes
about. We all agree that in the final analysis, me, you,
and the Protestants, we all agree that ultimately it's the Holy Spirit that grants
and convinces the individual of certitude, but how that comes about we differ.
So for the Roman Catholic, it comes about ultimately through papal fiat and decision.
For the Orthodox, it comes about through a combination of means. That
would be the liturgy, the lives of the saints, the life of the
church. It would be the church fathers, the councils, the scriptures.
For us, all of those things work together, so there's no like,
there's no one element that we say, oh, this is the thing that
is like the ultimate thing. So we think all of those things go together
because divine revelation and the one true faith has really expressed unanimously in all of
those areas, So there's not it really makes no sense to pick one of
them out as like the thing, right because for example, for us,
an ecumenical council is not some like magical thing that just had one easy way
to identify. Ecumenical councils were part and parcel of the Oicumenae or the So
when there's no longer an empire, it really doesn't make sense to say that
there's an acumen a council anymore. But there are. You could say,
pan Orthodox synods, you could say that the Palament for us, the Palomite
synods have the same status and authority because they've been received basically through the entire
Orthodox world by all the patriarchates, et cetera. So a lot of those
kinds of we think there's a multiple tiered thing that you could look at.
For example, the councils refer to previous councils, the councils are in some
way referential to the patriarchates and all the patriarchates accepting it, and the rest
of the church. And also you have the idea of the theology itself actually
being true. So you know we have the robber council mephesis. Well,
so do we only know what's the true faith until when the Pope says,
oh, the robber Council's false? Or could we identify the robber Council's false
prior to it? Well, I can prove this to you easily, because
do you think that a Christian in the year three hundred had access to what
the true faith was if he didn't live in Rome? Okay, Well,
how would a Christian in three hundred and say Ephesus know what the true faith
was? Well, I don't know if I would go so far to say
he would completely understand the nuance of his faith, but he had no just
knowing the true faith? Right. So let's say I walk into Ephesus,
it's the year three hundred. There's a bunch of different sects like ieron Aus
lists all the different Gnostics. Everybody's claiming to be the one true followers of
Jesus. Uh. There is the Orthodox Catholic Church uh. And then there's
other groups and splits and whatever's out there. How how do I, as
a year three hundred person, come to know what the true faith is?
Because I don't know what's going on in Rome. It's the ancient world.
I can't send scroll emails to Rome to get Pope whoever to answer me really
quick to tell me what the truth is. There's no ecumenical council yet,
right, We've had what two hundred plus years of Christianity, no ecumenical council.
How do I know what the true faith is? If I'm a Vatican
One papist, I can't know. I don't know. I have to literally
everybody have to go to Rome or write letters to Rome to know what the
true faith was. You see how silly this position leads, what at leadst
to? I mean, I get, I get what you're getting at I
mean back then, I think how you would know if you were in a
true church? Are not, like you're an answer ignacious? Imply would be
you know if you are if your church is connected to a bishop that has
a possible succession. Okay, but there's plenty of sex and there's plenty of
heretics and schismatics like the Novationists at that time that had Avaslar succession. Right,
But that's exactly why we begin to have counsels. I mean, dogmas
only seemed to rise when there's dispute, when there's confusion, right, Okay,
So but you said earlier that knowing knowing related to ecumenical councils. But
now in the year three hundred, knowing the faith doesn't relate to an ecumenical
council. Well, correct, because the church is organic, right and like
I just said, dogmas rise with disputation obviously, you know, so ecumenical
councils. So right, So knowing the faith is not then tied to having
an ecumenical council. Well, it's all about context. Is about the life
of the church. The church isn't some like, how does that answer my
how does that answer the objection. Uh, the objective safe the objection real
quick, would' mind? So this contradicts what you said a minute ago that
ecumenical councils tell us and give us knowledge of the faith. You said,
uh, infallibly knowing. I forget what phrase you use something like that.
So which is it? Is it that the councils give us the certitude and
knowledge of the faith or they don't. For sure they do, Okay,
So how would I know in the year three hundred what the true faith was?
No council? I mean there's local counties, we we I mean we
had the Council of Jerusalem. I mean the Book of Acts. So again
I would say, here a yeah, but that's in scripture. I don't
Yeah, But but you're you're a Roman Catholic and you're talking about so now
you're a Protestant in the year three hundred, I go to scripture to figure
out whether true councils are well. I think it would be a Protestant response
to say, we knew Florence was rung because all the laymen disagreed. So
did I say that? I said, I said, the rest of the
Orthodox world, including the rest of the bishops in the Orthodox world. I
didn't say all the laymen disagreed. Sorry, that's why I heard. I
heard the Orthodox people disagree, and that's why. And yeah, the Orthodox
people is made up of bishops and laity, so you right, But but
the highest degrees of of the bishoprics of the Orthodox world, we don't even
understand. There's not so mark of Ephesus, right, did not go along
with it, And there's no like it's not like the you're not listening,
so you don't understand our position. The bishops are all equal, they have
canonical privileges. There's no super bishops in the Orthodox Church there, okay,
So that means there's no higher authority correct within every bishop is the same,
and that's correct, right, So where does the buck stop with authority?
I mean, that's that seems to be right. Understanding that that's not a
problem. That's a problem everybody has. That's my point. And I illustrated
this with how do I know the true faith in the year three hundred?
Is that a problem everybody has? How do I know the true faith in
the yearth three hundred? Can you answer this or not? I feel like
I have What was the answer? I didn't hear an answer. I heard
a bunch of talking around it. What's the answer? All right, let
me let me answer. Let me answer, and I'll tell you what I've
answered, and then please respond, well, isn't this going to be the
answer? Why would you have to tell me when you answered? I just
want to get the full, the full thought out there. And I'm not
you know, I'm not as given to debate or as gifted as debate with
you. So it takes me a little longer do myation across. Okay,
so my so I guess my answer to that would be is fundamentally I see
the church as something organic, as something alive. Uh. I agree with
that. I agree with that amazing uh. You know, as a very
simple example. And I'll come around at the full point here, a very
simple example, you know, justin Martyr obviously saying obviously knew the true faith?
Was he completely you know, as perfectly nuanced as we would like to
see in the year twenty twenty four when it comes to Christology and Trinitarian theology.
No, right, But as the years went by, we had disputations
about the trinity. Therefore are ago what ended up happening? As we had
a council begin to solve these things, and that's when you saw this pattern
happen. Yeah. I agree with that pattern totally. Yeah, but that
doesn't how does that answer the question of the year three hundred knowing what the
true faith is? Well, simply because the true faith continuously extrapolates and becomes
clear as disputation arises. Okay, so we don't know the trinity until people
disagree with it. That's a terrible argument. I wouldn't say the average layman
would have a as nuanced and as clear of an understanding of a theology pre
Cappadocian fathers or anything like that. Yeah, absolutely not. But did they
not have a saving faith that you know they weren't. Yeah, But none
of this addresses the objection that knowing and asking what the Christian faith is in
the year three hundred without access to Rome, without any ecumenical councils, disproves
your later argument that we need the papacy to know the faith. Well,
I mean, I feel like that would be getting into another conversation. No,
it's not. It's a perfect way to illustrate the fallacy that you're relying
on. Let me give you another examp up of this same position at the
time of constantin Noble One. You mentioned the Cappadocians and constantin Noble One's the
Second Documenical Council, which gives the Church the doctrine of the Trinity. At
the time of the council being held and at its close, Saint Melidias of
Antioch was outside of communion with Rome, so he died in schism. The
Council of the Trinity was had outside of communion with Rome, and yet the
council was still true. It correctly taught the doctrine of the Trinity that the
Church accepted, and a couple hundred years later Rome retroactively accepts that council.
So how does your position reconcile with that fact? Well, simply because I
mean Rome still ended up accepting that. Obviously did the council. You don't
even understand the objection. Did the council correctly teach the Trinity outside of Rome?
Yes? Okay? And your church accepts Saint Melidios as a saint even
though he died out of community Rome, correct yep. Which is inconsistent because
when I'm signed them and Florence can taught the Domino. What you just referenced.
Arrant says that anyone who dies outside of communion with the realman bishop is
damned. So heretics and schismatics do a council that correctly teaches the doctrine of
the Trinity, and so therefore that alone, if you admit that it correctly,
that proves us that we prove that we don't need the papacy to know
the true doctrin of the Attorney. Well, the thing is is that we
that we still do. I mean, did you not hear what I just
said? You don't understand? No? No, no, Can you restate
to me what the argument is before you move on? Sure? Okay,
the argument is, and I'll put it very simply. You have these counsels
that correctly define theology, such as the Attorney such as you know same Leadios,
who in fact was in excommunications from Rome and died. So yet despite
Rome not acknowledging said council or set Saint during the lifetime of these events,
they accepted them retroactively. Did the council correctly teach about the Trinity? Yes?
And that was had outside of Rome, right, So do we need
Rome to know truth theology. Yes, okay, you just contradicted yourself because
you just admitted that they were outside of commune with Rome, they correctly taught
and knew the Trinity, And now you're saying that, No, so that's
a contradiction. But here here's the difference in the perspective jet and feel free
to critique this as well as if you find this erroneous. Yeah, did
the human who occupy the office of the papacy and the magisterium itself not recognize
the truth as it was right under their noses right then and there? Yes,
for sure. No, No, that has nothing to do It's not
about the pope. It's about the people at Constantinople one. Did they know
and recognize the true faith and the true doctrine of the Trinity? Outside of
anything to do with the Bishop of Rome. Have you read Basils letters how
he bitches about Rome being useless and worthless at that time? So I'm serious,
what letter is this? I have a whole lecture on all of Besils
letters, and I give the lecture. I give the letter in that lecture.
I can pull it out if you really want me to. But the
point is that if you can, I will give it to you. Yeah,
since you asked. But the point is that the point is that the
people at the Council and the Cappadocians and Militios correctly new and stated and defined
with nothing to do with Rome. That proves that we don't need the Bishop
of Rome to know the true faith, and that disproves all of what you're
arguing. And Rome acknowledges that I retroact basically what Jay's argument is. Rome
retrospectively acknowledges you don't need Rome by accepting constant exactly right. I understand,
I understand the position for sure. But I guess what I would say is
that the office itself didn't recognize that as the truth, and it was that
often. That's irrelevant to what the point is. You just admitted that it
doesn't matter that it recognized the two new years later because the people at that
time didn't need Rome. That's the point. You don't see this. This
is obvious that those people did not need Rome, but that truth needed Rome
to be its preserver and it's guarantor throughout the agency. No, I didn't,
that's in fact, in fact, Pope, in fact, Pope Benedict
says that the Orthodox Church has maintained the Christian faith for the last thousand years,
So yeah, thank you exactly. Therefore, we don't need Rome to
have the faith. So this is Basil's letter eighty starts on uh, let's
see six to Athanasius of Alexandria. That's where he starts complaining about Rome.
And it goes all the way up to letter sixty nine, seven to seven
the title what was the title of that letter? Again, letter sixty six
to Athanasius of Alexandria, and it continues all the way to letter seventy.
So look at Basil's letter letters, and you'll notice that everything sat Basil says
about Rome is absolutely preposterous when viewed in light of what Vatican One says about
Rome. Roger, okay, and I have a whole lecture on all of
Basil's letters, by the way, on your YouTube. Yes, okay,
very good. I'll look for those. So I just want to say this,
then, I understand that you see a contradiction because certain people had a
council, they discovered a truth room, didn't recognize it during the lifetime.
No, it's not just certain people. It's what the East called an ecumenical
council, and they didn't care if Rome accepted it or not, and then
Rome retroactively accepted it. So I guess again, I'll just ask what it's
It's the Cappa Docians, the very people that you appeal to a minute ago.
It's not just anybody. It's Basil Cappadocians, and particularly Gregor of Nissa,
who was the You realize that after consun that won, the Emperor said
that if you don't just if you don't agree with Nissa's theology, you're wrong,
particularly in the Trinity. You're right, I understand that. But if
we get back to my original question, my question was, how does the
Orthodox understand, you know, what is the common common golden thread throughout ecumenical
councils that that give them the same normative authority. How do we what's that?
What's the criteria which they're all commonly judged by. Yeah, there's not
there's not. There's not a single thing like let Western people think of and
want to identify quote ecumenical councils. And that's my point that I brought up
early, that you don't have that in Rome either. So this is really
a bugaboo that Roman Catholics like to pull out which they don't even have.
That's my point. So, but we can give you the criteria what we
think identifies authoritative councils. Okay, but but yeah, so what but what
is the process then? Because I would say to you it would ultimately be
Rome. Rome would be the ultimate. So yeah, just so starting your
so a contrary to all the stuff that I say, you just assert the
position again. And I already gave the examples to where just saying Rome it
doesn't even work. No no, no, no, no, no,
okay, okay, So why is it latter in six forty nine and ecumenical
council? I do I would have to look into that one specifically, I'm
not I'm not equipped to answer that. Particularly all as per Vatican ones definitions,
it meets all the criteria to be an ecumenical council, and yet it's
not. And do you understand that Roman Catholics themselves have numbered the ecumenical councils
differently in history? Well, I know the Orthodox also have disagreement particular counsel.
Yeah, so this exactly so, So this is why this argument doesn't
get us anywhere. It's a bugaboo. Well it doesn't. But the reason
it does is because in the Catholic Church we do we do have one head,
we do have one decider, the magisterium. Yeah, but you're yeah,
but it doesn't actually do the work. That's my point. So is
Vatican to an authoritative counsel or not? Well, I'm not. I'm not
in the magisterium, so I can't speak on that one as well. Wait
a minute, I thought the prone the magisterium is to make the laity know
the true faith, and so you don't know. No, I don't know
about that one day. I don't know about that one. So okay,
So the magisterium doesn't do the work to actually identify for you what's the true
faith and what's not. Well, I would say Vatican too clearly. I
mean I don't a week, I don't know. If I want to get
it to be the weeds of a Vatican two, why not. I mean,
if the principle is that the papacy gives epistemic certitude, then that's precisely
where we should go, because that's the most controversial thing in the Roman Catholic
world in the hundred years. So we've had seventy years of the papacy teaching
Vatican two, so obviously it's authoritative from the papacy's perspective. So you know,
do you believe in do you okay? So do you believe in religious
liberty? Do you believe that? Do you believe that Muslims worship God like
you do? Absolutely not? Absolutely not, okay? So you don't follow
the magisterial teachings of Rome. I don't know what it would be in Vatican
two. I facilily don't follow. But what I would say NOWT says that
Muslims and Jews worship the same God as the Christians. Muslims and Hindus approach
God in love and faith in love. Yeah, and love is love,
as we all know. So I understand. I understand where you're getting at,
and I know you're not amiss. You know, the trad traditional Catholic
position or anything like that. I was a trad for many years. I
know all about it. I lived that world. I went to Latin Massa
for eight years, right, beautiful, beautiful. Yeah. I currently attend
very traditional glordinary church. So yeah, that's that's awesome. I don't you
know, I could re litigate this with you, but I think it'd be
familiar territory. You know. Again, I'm just curious with these councils from
the Orthodox position, what is the way to determine, like, what is
that single soul criteria? I would there's not a single soul criteria. That's
my whole point. That's what I just said. There's nothing about this idea
that there's a there's a magical thing that tells you what the ecumenical councils are.
It doesn't exist. It wouldn't be like a magic it wouldn't be a
magic, no, but it's treated that. What I'm saying is is treated
that way in the romancality position, because you think that just saying the papacy
tells you that I just asked you about the most controversial council the last hundred
years, and you say, I can't tell you, so it doesn't even
do the work for you. Well, I'm I'm sure you've heard this in
traditional Catholic circles. But when you take a perspective on councils and theology and
stuff, and I know this is in a mis Orthodox as well. We
don't look at this, we don't look at span of decades with the span
of centuries, it's not millennium, right, Okay, Well, I mean
so Vatican two is almost a century old, it's like seventy years from ongoing,
correct, and there's superior factors behind it. So we only know Vatican
we'll only we'll only know Vatican. It won't matter how many centuries go by,
though, because it's already confirmed by the papacy. And according to Vatican
one, whatever's confirmed by the papacy is dogma, right, Okay? But
was Vatican two declared infallible? Absolutely? Did it make any anathemas? I
mean, well, there's nothing, there's nothing that says that something has to
happen anathema attached to it to be infallible. In fact, I've listed four
papal statements about Vatican two being infallible, which I have a whole list.
Would you like that list? Sure? But those are all going to be
post Vatican two. Correct. What does that? I mean the principle in
your church that you just identified as the papacy, So it doesn't matter when
he says it your post Vatican two if no, totally, it totally matters.
No, it doesn't think well, during the Airyan controversy. You just
argue that, oh, you just argue that the papacy just one second,
you argue that the papacy retroactively two hundred years later could affirm Constantinople one.
And you said that was okay. But if Francis and company retroact or post
Vatican two, say Vatican two is dogmatic, now you don't have to listen
to it. No. I mean, I see on the face how that
seems like a contradiction. But let me, let me explain myself. Let
me explain myself. So the Pope at the time of affinacious of Alexandria,
during the Aery controversy, he excommunicated him rw We we came to learn later
that And I'm not saying this is exactly what's happening now, but I'm I'm
saying that there are nuances behind the scenes that maybe we're not pretty to as
the people were living immediately in those things. But this won't matter. This
won't matter, because what does Vatican one say about what the Pope confirms for
all of the church and for all times? Now? I can I could
see, maybe you could say, I see where you're going. You're saying,
well, maybe like Vigilius, there was a compelling that the pope didn't
have, you know, free exercises as will right, maybe the pope was
under duress from I don't know. Let's say the CIA went in and said,
hey, you're going to confirm Vatican two because we want it all right,
so theoretically right, so yeah, I could say, I could see,
maybe you could have some argument that Poe, that John twyn third or
Paul the six did this out of duress. However, the problem is that
you can't have seventy years of duress because Vatican One says that the See of
Peter will never cease to have an authoritative magisterial successor and to the end of
the world. And so that constituent element of the papacy upholding not just dogma
but also the unity and also the preservation can never go away. If it
does and it loses one of its constituent elements, and if and if you
haven't read, you know, the fifteen or so pages of Vatican One,
I highly recommend reading it. Yeah, I definitely need to reread it,
that's for sure. It's been a while, but I mean the right so
just to finish my point. I think you were aty you already understood under
duress. Uh. He released it later seeing Anthonisius never blamed itfore it Yes,
it's been seven years. Uh. Is there dress on the Vatican now?
Absolutely? And I know you you wouldn't disagree with that either. What
will we know about these events in one hundred, two hundred years? You
know I knows a hold on. So let's say that theoretically in your model
there was duress for the last Uh. Uh I don't know seventy years of
papacy, and therefore we can retroactively cancel all that out. Why does that
not open up the possibility of every ecumenical Council on people teaching being subject to
duress and therefore pious the Ninth Vatican One was also under duress, and therefore
all of it it's placed into a doubt. Well, that's almost an impossible
question to answer, right, because then we're getting into the specifics. Well,
but we're out the point now where you're arguing that we will never know
what the true teaching Aboutican two was until two three hundred years into the future.
So really, now we're at the point where Magisterium isn't doing us any
good at all? Do you think that in the Orthodox world, and this
is a response to what you just said, do you think in the Orthodox
world your respective bishops still have questions that need to be answered for the faithful,
or there's still important disagreements within Orthodoxy. Sure, but I don't place
the epistemic principle being a guy in Rome. Well where, But that's exactly
my question. Where is that principle? Right? So the normative authority question
is different from the epistemic question. That's what you seem to be confusing.
Right, So we both agree that there is a body of people within history.
For us, it's the local Orthodox bishop or Orthodox synods. You understand
the church is normally governed by local synods, right, it's not That's why
for three hundred years there is no ecumenical council. You know, at the
time of three hundred we don't know what Nicia will teach because Nicia hasn't happened
yet. And yet can we still know the faith? We still know what
the doctrines and dogmas are because it's not hinging on what's going on in Rome.
But listen are But so what Alexandria Alexandra document. Alexandria document admits that
the appleist structure of the Sartican you know, canons or whatever, it's not
Vatican one. So what you got to demonstrate is that Vatican one is taught
in the first thousand years. And that's what no Roman Catholic can do,
because even the Vatican now admits that the Vatican one view is not taught in
the first thousan years. Have you read Alexandria document. No, I am
not, okay. So now Rome is admitting about ninety percent of our arguments
allat the Alexandria document. So what does that mean? Sounds like he sounds
like he's bounding. Okay, So now it's Francis and I can we handwave
it because I don't believe. I don't care what francis. Yeah, but
see, that's the thing is that if you, uh, if you look
at Vatican one, like you don't have the the the ability as a Catholic
layperson to hand way Francis. No, I don't. But an immediate pope
could I mean Pope pious? He was condemned, heretic at a council by
his immediate successor and and all the other bishops. Yeah, and did that
and did that. Yeah, but you didn't seem no, you just you
just you missed everything that I again, that's why latter in six forty nine
is so important, because the Council didn't just restate latter in six forty nine,
which had already condemned monothelitism, which if they were papal, that's what
they would have done. Rather they investigate the writings and condemned the pope.
So it's not a papal council like you guys want to make it by the
mere fact that they didn't just cite letter in six forty nine. I mean,
if Vatican one was true, then the sixth Secumentical Council wasn't necessary.
I feel like what you're saying is, you know, like if we just
brought this down to like a very simple judicial system, right, So in
other words, let's ignore all the arguments and let's just bring it down to
something simple. But that's a false analogy because you can't make you hear Can
you just hear me? Your breadth of knowledge and you know, logic and
all that far greater than mine. Obviously, if anything just helped me cash
up to you and tell me what you think about this simple analogy. So,
uh, in a basic let's say two people go to court, they
hash out something about we're in America, they hash out about something about the
Constitution, and uh, you know that court rules in favor of the defendant,
It gets appeal, that goes to the Supreme Court, and then the
Supreme Court confirms what that lower course position was. We would understand that is,
Yeah, that's exactly how an app appellate structure works. Do they discover
the truth in that original court hearing at the lower local level? Do you
think that there? Okay, But this analogy doesn't work because, as has
already admitted in Roman Catholicty alone, the appellate court structure of the Canons of
Sartica is not Vatican one. So if you're trying to make an analogy,
the actual history of the Church and the Canons of Sartica don't work, right.
Yeah, I guess I can't really answer that. So Canons of Sartica,
if you read the if Yeah, there's a good book that discusses this
in a whole chapter by Edward Denny. It's called Papalism by Denny, and
there's a great chapter on Sartka in there. UBI also has debates where Sartika
comes up. Sartaka calls for another local synod. Oops. Uh, oh,
that's not papalism, because if it was papalism, the Appleate structure would
not call for another council. It would call for the decision of the Bishop
of Rome. I don't know how that necessarily falls though, I mean,
why would we have another council if the whole point is that the Bishop of
Rome can solve it? Well, the Bishop of Rome is in some sort
of ora called by it I comes out. Okay, Well, then Vatican
one is not true because Vatican one that this room is an oracle who's solved.
You're arguing that he solves the problems. That's the whole point. What
do you mean? All right, well, hey, you got you got
me on it. Okay, But yeah, I think you get what I
mean, you know, regardless of agreement. Yeah, I just think that
the appellate structure analogy, uh, has already happened. And it's the Canons
of Sartica in in the early Church and the Canons of Sartica again, I
think they're even discussed in the Alexandria document if I remember. Let me see,
I think it even points out that, like it doesn't actually do anything
to prove the Vatican One view. And I know, I know you've handled
this one many a time, but refresh me if you would. What what
do you make about the obviously the dispute between Carill and Bartholomew, because they're
both trying to appeal to a universal authority by by trying to decide, throwing
diosis in limits outside of the mutually agreed Yeah, I mean we've had these
kinds of problems in the first thousand years of the Church, where patriarchs were
in schism and disagreeing with one another. So like, how does that,
Well, what does that have to do with proving whether the papacy is true
or not? Well, it would have to do with it, because how
can either of them claim a universality and their decisions if none of them had
a universal claim to begin Well, the whole functioning of Orthodox canon law and
synods is different than the way that things function in the Roman Catholic world,
right, So I mean there's a whole process, for example, as to
how this goes about. Like so For example, in our canon law,
there's stages of canonical discipline. The first stage is removal of communion, so
we're still at the stage where there is no longer communion between Kirill and Bartholomew.
And then the next stages that follow would be like actually communication and so
yeah, it's true that you could have a lot of people who, let's
say, let's say that let's say the orth the doc Church gets split down
the middle. You could have a lot of people who say, well,
I'm going to side with you know, the the EP or whatever. And
then yeah, definitely it would it would probably be a situation where time eventually
tells like who's the you know, the true true faith and who's the false
faith. But if you go to the first thousand years of Christianity, you'll
find many examples of where we had schisms like this, and in many of
those cases, as referenced by the Malician schism, and what I talked about
with Basil, Rome didn't do anything to solve the problem. In fact,
Basil complains that Rome is part of the problem, right, Yeah, and
I I would need to read the context. Well, it's just again,
it's only like it's only like four or five pages of letters. Like I
said, sixty six to seventy, I think I'll definitely read it. I'll
definitely read it for sure. And that was the letter to Alexandria by Basil.
The first of the series of letters on this issue is letter excuse me,
I think it's seventy one. I might have missed. It's his letter
to Athenacious. You know who Athenasius is. I'm sure Letter to Athenais eight
sixty Oh, is this through an arian controversy? No, it's posted the
year three seventy one. It's letters. Hold on, it's letter sixty six,
Alesandrew, he's writing too correct interesting the letter sixty six, sixty seven,
sixty eight, sixty nine and seventy. It's not that long. It's
about I don't know, maybe seven or eight pages printed out, and he
talks about uh. By the way, you'll notice that he calls Antioch the
head church there, which Antioch is not. The Head's just flowery terminology the
church fathers use all the time. He says, I've asked for help from
Rome, from the West. They've done nothing. He says that anti is
the head of the whole body. Again, could we take that out of
context and make it say that the Bishop of Antioch is the head of the
whole church. He says that when I've asked rom to correct the unreally they've
failed. They've failed in the Orthodox faith. They're worthless, They've given no
help. Rome has failed to condemn heresies. Rome is ignorant, on and
on on. All he does is talk about how much of a failure Rome
is and uh, yeah, where's Vatican won in any of that? Right?
I mean I would echo those sentiments as well currently, Okay, but
you don't have the liberty of that. If Vatican one is part of your
dogma, you don't have that liberty. Okay. So if you want to
agree with Saint Basol, then you're on our side, because that's not a
Vatican one attitude. That's a battitude. That's a that's a vatitude. That's
not that's not a ratitude. All right, So let's go to decrees of
Vatican one and we read that and we find out what you actually have to
believe in regard to papal supremacy. So you don't have the liberty of doing
that. You can't be Orthodox. And Romancallo at the same time, Are
there like a few key lines with Vatican one that you find is most problematic
that you could sign right now? Or does it? Just go go to
papalincyclicals dot net and print out the ten or fifteen pages and you'll see that
you don't have the liberty of degree disagreeing with the papal ordinary magisterial teaching.
And in fact, even when it's not magisterial ordinary teaching, even when it's
just ordinary, you have to submit with docility to it, even if you
disagree. So how do you submit to docility if you go to the SSPX
right, Well, yeah, and that's a p that's canonically irregular. I
don't cur I don't presently go there. Okay, So then you do submit
with docility? Then you do have Then you do submit, you recognize Francis,
and you do submit with facility to his ordinary fallible teaching. Correct.
Yes, Well, it didn't sound like in this discussion you were submitting to
his ordinary fallible teaching. Sound like you dismissed a lot of it. I'm
not happy, Yeah, I'm not happy. I'm not happy with me.
Okay, So then now you do accept Vatican two? Uh? I mean
I'm not really in the position to accept or not accept. Well, if
you accept Francis. Now see, if you accept Francis, you have to
accept his teachings with docility, so you do have to accept. So you
can't play agnostic on Vatican two. Well well wait, hold on, I
have to accept what's infallibly defined by Francis. And yeah, ecumenical councils are
Remember this whole this whole discussion was ecumenical councils. So that's that's an documentary.
Any novisort of church that I go to where Francis is recognized tells me
I have to believe in Vatican two for sure. Yeah, and I would.
I would certainly say that there's confusion in the church. But uh all
right, well look look we're gonta move on. We got some other people.
I'm not trying to be rude to you, but do you have any
last I'll give you the last comments or statements anything you want to leave us
with. Uh, well, I will tell you that. Uh. You
know, I very much appreciate your work, and you know you've helped lead
me to a possibly Christianity. I started to listening to you when I was
a Protestant. Uh. And I did explore Orthodoxy and was going to an
Orthodox church for a good eight months. But as as it currently stands,
I'm more persuaded by the Catholic position. But I will be familiarizing myself with
Vatican One, okay, And I hope to come on it again and chat
about it. I guess if I could just throw one mass question and you
don't have to give me another, can so something that I find persuasive as
a providential argument? Uh? And I just want to understand your take on
it is. I understand that you know from the the position we see florence
As you had the highest, you had the Emperor of Byzantium, you had
the Pope, you had the all the representatives of the pentarchy sign yes.
No, same Markoapatist didn't sign it. Would did he represent a patriarch or
was he just just a bishop? Well, I mean there's nothing, there's
nothing about patriarch as that makes them magically like, oh, well, it's
infallible when all the patriarchs accept it. I listed various criteria which helps us
to identify the councils that we accept. But in theory, because the patriarchic
system aris as post nicia. I mean it's theoretically possible for all the patriarchs
and Orthodoxy to become heretical, right, I mean I find that problematic because
that I mean, that's the Protestant you, right, Only only if you're
a Roman Catholic would you think that's problematic because you're attributing to the Orthodoxy your
Roman Catholic sub positions. So no, there's no there's no five headed infallible
monster that runs the Orthodox ris. They just represent big seas. Look,
so a patriarchy, it represents a big sea, a big that's a big
jurisdiction. And the only thing that patriarchts have that regular bishops don't have is
privileges within their their canonical jurisdictions. And for example, in the Council's Rome
might be considered first, and you'll notice that Rome is considered first and then
the other patriarch its are movable, right, So it's movable in the history
of the first thousand years of Christianity because eventually, even though it's controversial at
Constantinople, one constant Theinople is considered to be second. And that move is
challenged by Pope Leo, not on the basis of anything to do with papism,
but Pope Leo says it's not fair to Alexandria a law the Canons of
Nicea because Nicea put Alexandria second, But eventually the Bishop of Constantinople is accepted
as second to Rome. So you understand that these positions are movable canonical positions.
And I don't have the view. I've never seen any argument as to
how, like I mean, is it possible for all for all the patriarchists
to become heretical. Well, if we didn't have the patriarchates in the year
three hundred, you know, all five of them, I don't understand why
it would be essential to the Orthodox Church that we have quote five patriarchis.
It's just a canonical development that is fine and good and helpful for certain times.
But even the Patriarch Constantinople, for example, like he only has underneath
them nowadays, like a few thousand people right in his actual like local juriss
Like it's minuscule compared to you know, hundreds of millions of people a la
Russian Orthodox Church or something like that. So it's like a lot of the
patriarchates stuff in the Orthodox Church. I'm not saying it doesn't matter. I'm
just saying that canonical stuff, so noodal stuff, that's what it's about.
It's not a five headed it's not like five little popes versus one big pope.
Right, Yeah, I understand. I understand what you're saying. Just
to finish the whole picture, and you know, challenge any of my presuppositions
with them this as you may. Yeah, as the Catholic see Florence.
Yeah, we see the Emperor, we see these higher bishops, And I
understand what you just said. Just to finish the point signing on, you
understand the rest of the Orthodox world rejected it though, yes, so,
And also let me give you one exit. There's something there's something you missing
hold on before you go on. You can say whatever you want, but
before you go on, there's an important mistake you're making, which is you
took issue with, for example, laity having anything to do with this in
terms of reception. So when I said the rest of the Orthodox world,
I meant the rest of the Orthodox world's bishops and lady. So the Orthodox
Church is a big difference. But between us and you, which is that
lady have a very important role in also receiving and accepting doctrines and dogmas from
synods, councils, or bishops or patriarchs. And this is very different because
you think, well, that doesn't make any sense because you know what,
lady don't know anything. They shouldn't. No, they have an absolutely important
role. And we need only look to the examples that you also have to
accept in your own church of the Seventh Ecumenical Council and the icons. So
you may not be aware of this, but in the Seventh Ecumenical Council there
were many many patriarchs. There are several patriarchs and bishops who believed in iconoclasm,
and there were other handfuls that did not believe in iconoclasm. They were
iconoduals. So the but the locus of the church's defense of iconodualism was not
from the patriarch its it's not even necessarily from the bishop room, although initially
he did sign off correctly on the right position just of image as itself.
In fact, it was the laity and the monastics that saved the day in
the iconoclasm controversy. So there's actually key examples of where corrupt bishops in iconoclasm,
same as an arianism too, by the way, where corrupt bishops try
to force the church to accept iconoclasm. And it was the lady that played
a very key role with the monastics in rejecting that. So that's an example
that's applicable to your church because that's first thousand years. You think that's Roman
Catholic, then you have the same thing going on in the iconic clasm controversy
that you're faulting me for pointing out in Florence. Right, okay, so
thank you for that, really, I do appreciate that. Now taking all
ads are so again just to finish the point. Yeah, so what we're
taking issue with, like you see in many ecumenical councils you always have the
sanking bishops and other orgy. You always have a small remnant. And this
is me quoting I believe his name, Bishop Timothy Ware. He himself said,
Florence seemingly has all the marks of an ecumenical council And you had cool
Can I can I quote James Martin too or you what do you think?
So? Like, so what do you accept James Martin? No, No,
I don't accept James Martin. Okay, so a bad argument in Timothy
ware, what does that mean? Well, it's just a bishop, so
that whatever that means to anybody, I don't know what it means to your
orthodox position. That's what I'm still confused on. It's oh, come on,
you you know that because a bishop says something bad, that's not a
good argument against. I can I give find a thousand Rumman Cathol bishops saying
ridiculous things every day? So what is that that doesn't that doesn't do anything?
That's a two Do you want a two quote way? Is you know
a two quote way? Is uh? Two quote way like rules for be
not for me? Yeah? Okay, yeah, yeah, I hear what
you're saying. I don't want to get into the weeds of another little argument.
I just want to try to get all this out. So the providential
argument I'm coming to is, uh, what you end up happened have happening
is, yes, you had a small minority dissenter dissenting from Florence, which
we would find, you know, arbitrary, and I know you wouldn't know.
Again, you're misunderstanding. So you understand that there's it's not a minority.
It's just that's not that's false. You understand that the rest of the
Orthodox world is the majority, and they rejected this. So it's a minority
that's at Florence. So you're totally wrong. Sure, okay, sure,
majority in the wider Orthodox world. Minority as far as the Orthodox representatives.
That's true, that's correct. Okay, Yes, we're in agreement. We're
in a total agreement there. Okay. So uh and you have yeah,
okay, So anyways, uh, and they were I think in a official
union for what a generation fifty seventy years or something like that before the Muslims
came in killed? Correct, right, So Busantiem fell when it was UNI
it correct, Yes, it fell. I's altering then when the people write,
okay, you would see that as a punishment for being union. Well,
I mean, I don't make dumb providential arguments because they're they're stupid.
They don't prove anything. Well, come on, come on, now,
Providence is totally biblical. No, the Providence is biblical. But reading into
providence punishments and judgments. Have you read City of God? You understand Augustine
makes fun of this whole idea because the Roman Pagans were arguing that Rome fell
because they accepted Christianity, and Augustine says that this is a dumb argument.
So I'm just simply saying that I agree with Augustin, this is a dumb
argument. Hey, Augustine also is propilioquay. So what does that have to
do with the point that I just made about his argument against providential quote unquote
arguments that Rome fell because of Christianity. You understand that is it can be
interpreted in any different way, right, I mean you could argue that,
I mean, why can't I argue then that it fell because it was union?
You see how arbitrary this is? Is silly? I mean highest,
So let me argue that highest the Ninth was highest. The Ninth was imprisoned
in the he was imprisoned in the Vatican. Therefore, therefore that was a
punishment providentially and Vatican one is false. Do you see how silly these arguments
are? That is such a that's Napoleon right when the Bonaparte put them off.
Well, the Masons took over in Italy and the pote was imprisoned in
the Vatican. So is that a punishment that disproves Roman Catholicism of Vatican one.
Do you see how arbitrary these interpretations of history can be. I think
the difference is a scale. Would this, dude, you understand how you
understand how philosophically absurd that is? So now it's arbitrarily a quote scale?
Where do you get the scale from? Where? Hold on? Where do
I get this scale from? You had you had the majority of the lady
and the lower clergy reject Florence, and they rejected the council, and what
you had happened was every single patriarchate fell under domination of Muslim rules. So
why can't I argue that Florence, that Florence fell because it was Union Apostolic
originated. This is a here's here's here's my kay, Here's why k because
the Orthodox world has continued to be Orthodox, not Uniate, and they still
are under this burden. Yeah. But and Pope Benedict says that that proof.
They says that the Orthodox had maintained the faith for the last thousand years,
okay, which is which is totally kosher as far as Catholic theology.
Because no, that means that we don't need that means that being under the
That means that being under the papacy doesn't improve excuse me. That means that
being out of the papacy doesn't give us the knowledge of the true faith.
And it also means that being under Muslims doesn't mean that we lose the true
faith. No, no, no, because it's a schismatic is different from
a heretic. And I know you you understand this is schismatic. It could
be Orthodox and all their teaching, but as schismatic is someone that doesn't that
doesn't And by the way, that's a mistake because in the teachings of the
Lee of the thirteenth and Pious the twelfth, and in your own canon law,
a schismatic is outside the body of Christ. So it doesn't matter whether
I know there's a difference between a schismatic and heretic, but both are equally
outside the church, so that that doesn't apply. That doesn't I mean that's
I don't know, it doesn't because a schismatic and a heretic are equally outside
of the church, so the argument doesn't hold. Well, I understand that,
But you can still be Orthodox in your teaching as a schismatic because the
thing that makes someone as schismatic as opposed to well, then they are Orthodox
their theology, but they reject the authority structure that we see as Christ establishing
with the Catholic Church. Right, and then so what France or what Benedict
says is that the Orthodox had maintained the faith and therefore the faith doesn't need
the papacy to be maintained. Okay, right, but there's still so none
of this proves Catholicism as the point. These are bad arguments, is the
point, right? Yeah, well, yeah, I think I think I
got the full point out there. But why why Okay, but hold on,
But if we're going to use these providential arguments, you understand that it's
arbitrary if when I point out that Byzantium fell when it was uni eate,
well I don't think that's what I would again respond to you with, is
if it had to do with it being uniate, then why is why are
those places that fell way back when on the and I forgot to mention this
piece and I know isproba bug you, But on the day of Pentecosta,
on the feast state of the Holy Spirit, after a council that was designed
the Philioque among other things. You know, these places have continued to be
under Muslim rule even though their rulers are as you would say, Orthodox and
not Uniate. So obviously, if this was okay, so by this argument,
by this argument, all of the Western European nations which are now falling
to Muslim dominance, that also now disproves the papacy. Because when I go
to Europe, it's Muslims everywhere. So now you see how silly these arguments.
These are terrible arguments. Have you been to Europe? I think,
have you been to Europe? Yes, when I've seen the shops in Berlin,
I know what you're talking about. It, I'm talking to you right,
and it's everywhere. It's not just right. So there's what gigantic hordes
of Muslims in Italy too. I was just in Italy three months ago.
Okay, so uh so there we go. That's so, so there we
go. God has punished and cursed the Roman Catholic Church because the Muslims are
winning now. And see how about these arguments are I would say, if
that's where the nuance ended, for sure, I would see how that'sppen.
Well, if we got to go into nuance that really we can't really get
into open immigration on this platform, though I wouldn't want to. Well,
you said scale, and so what's the scale of the rise of Islam in
Europe versus Catholicism? So now scale doesn't apply. I mean, okay,
Well, the heale you're talking about has got an incredibly small, it's incredibly
small timeframe. Oh so now it's scale of time, not scaled numbers.
It's correct. I mean, the more I'm the more witnesses you have attesting
to a particular reality, the more weight and gravity is given. So it
just gets more and more qualified and more and more arbitrary. Right because because
when when you're trying to flesh out why we should believe that this is the
proper way to interpret the providential punishment, you understand that the more I drilled
into it, it got more and more nuanced, qualified, and arbitrary.
And so now it's just oh well, it's only uh, the scale within
this time frame of the quantity of this kind of this many converts with and
so it's it's just arbitrary. How is this argument on arbitrary? I don't,
I don't, I don't know what the funal issue is with nuance.
I mean nuances how you. I don't have a problem with the word nuance.
It's the nuance of it becoming now a small time frame and certain numbers,
right. I mean what I'm saying to you is I find those things
peruisive. Uh well yeah, but I mean people find bad arguments persuasive all
the time. So yeah, that's possible. That's just a joke. That's
just a joke, man, that's don't I'm too much of a super fan,
so never happened over here. But well, yeah, hey listen,
I I just think this was a great cover. It was a great conversation.
I appreciate you keeping it very civil and cool. Uh you get a
great a on your DEMI. It was a lot of fun. By the
way, is that Bono? Like I say, the profile image, is
that Bono? It looks like Bono? That's just uh, that's just me,
man, that's me. Okay, just had some rose colored shit five
years ago. Put them on. Okay, that's the story. Not so
much. Well, thanks Kevin here. You're welcome to come on any time.
Bring any more questions objections that you have. I would say, specifically
on Florence. There's a good book by Ostro mov O s t r U
m o V. That's a really good book to read. Okay, well,
thank you for uh oh hey, one last question, are you still
running your philosophy course? Yeah, it's uh it's available through uh Richard Grove's
autonomy Agora marketplace. So yeah, it's still available. Okay, this is
a super random suggestion. Uh, and I don't I'm not. I don't
work with these people at all. Highly recommend checking out school dot com s
k o O L dot com. Of course on they're doing a competition right
now. Mm hmm. I think you'd be really interested in as someone who's
selling a compelling information product. Okay, so I would just recommend check it
out your program propagated. All right, y'all check that out. Thank you,
Kevin, appreciate that. Yeah, that's a great conversation there, really
good civil. It's always great to have a you know, a heated but
civil conversation with romancallics. I appreciate that. So he gets a he gets
an A plus on U interaction there. He didn't and both of us kept
it civil. I think. So it was heated but fun. Now this
guy's been sitting here waiting, jong Wa. What's up? Jong Wa?
You've been waiting a long time, So I guess I'll go to you.
What's up? Y'all? Thank you for the super chats. Non go ahead?
Are you there? Yeah, I'm there. What's up? Man?
What's on your mind? Yeah? Well, pulling, mister, the abument
leading to the to the Trinity lead into the the god of the Christian Orthodox.
Yeah. So I got a bunch of videos where I talked about how
I'm just going to re retitle those videos. How does tag lead to trinity?
Because that would be a lot easier because this question gets asked me every
day. Jose, what's up? Jose? Greetings from Germany. Uh net
infection. If somebody believes in Asian philosophy, have you ever debated? We
have one Buddhist guy we did a debate with on a live stream maybe two
years ago. You can find that. But those positions will typically debate.
People are always like, will you going to debate a Hindu? When you
go to debate a Buddhist, they don't typically debate because they're not missionary faiths.
Typically sometimes maybe Hindu's well, they're a little bit missionary. But Jews
also don't typically gauge in debates that much. I've had one or two Jews
ever come on discord to debate, so for whatever reason that they typically don't
think. We had one Jewish guy maybe two months ago, a Poplin so
also not a missionary based faith. I've been debating them, and it's hard
to debate them because they say shamanism is bad because you believe in Jesus.
Well, I mean, I think we can have a better critiques than that.
For example, most of those Far Eastern religions fall into some form of
monism or maya, and those are really positions that are destructive to the possibility
of knowledge. So if you just just critique it by you know, if
you deny basic logic, which most Far Eastern positions do, then you're not
really You're not really be able to say anything. Keishore and mad Ri ten
dollars. How's it going on over content understand or the archeology? Will you
unblock me on Instagram? I don't know. I mean, I don't know
who you are, and typically when I block you on Instagram, I have
good reason to do it. So I mean, is that your handle on
Instagram, so I don't even know. I guess I can look and see
and maybe since you sent a super chat Lilac Flower days three dollars, I
found your videos a few days ago. I'm working through them. I'm not
Orthodox, I'm looking forward to learning more. Well, thank you, Lylac,
appreciate that helpe you hope you find uh the information atifying Jeff Koms three
dollars. What was the difference between Protestant teaching of sanctification and Theosis? Are
they saying the same thing? No, I think it's a big difference between
I mean, we both might have the same ideas that we want to morally
be better and we want to acquire virtue, but we're saying very different things.
By how that's had right as you saw, Redeem Zoomer at the beginning
of this video said that it's created grace. Well, that's fundamentally absurd to
an Orthodox person. So I think it's Saint Seraphim says. SARAHV says that
the whole over the Orthodox life is the acquiring of the Holy Spirit, and
that means uncreated grace. That's what aosis means. So it's not a mere
sort of Protestant moralism where we're just trying to like engage some kind of self
help self betterment program. It's actually acquiring the virtues and the life of God.
Jose, what's up are you there? Hey? Do you have a
disagreement or a argument? No, I just wanted to ask when we could
find you on TikTok again. Yeah, somebody said in the chat you would
get a lot more interactions for this if you did TikTok. That's true.
However, Yeah, it is so so low tier dude, Like it's so
hard to I mean, people don't even understand if you really want to test
your patience. I mean, I'm serious, man, It's it's so hard.
Actually, maybe I should do it because it's like training and virtue or
whatever, Like to test your patience on TikTok is a big challenge. So
it's it's like double XP weekend on virtue training. I mean, you just
you don't understand until you do it. People hear me saying this. I
mean it's just like people screaming and just it's crazy. It's it's like it's
a madhouse, dude. So it's hard for me to to put up with
it. But it does get a lot of views, and it does get
a lot of people love that. It's almost more like blood sports, not
really a debate. So I don't know, do you have a question?
I mean you get the occasional, you know, high tier. Yeah,
there have been if like that. There's a Calvinist guy that has really good
questions about Bonson. He has Bonson as his profile and he had a lot
of good Christology questions. And you get you get a lot of Muslims.
If you want to really tap into the Muslim sphere, you definitely should do
uh TikTok. You get more upstairs. And then last thing, could you
do just a quick off the cuff, you know, one or two line
reputation to these three different philosophy real quick? I mean I can try,
but I don't know if it's sufficient to be just, you know, just
straight off the bad. Evolution. Yeah, I typically critique evolution from a
philosophical perspective. Like I'm not trained in biology or you know, geology,
so I don't I don't usually go into that domain. I'll talk about some
of those arguments, but typically when I refute philosophy, it's from evolutions from
a philosophical perspective of that there's not really sufficient evidence or any way to prove
that everything came from one thing, or that there is a transmutation of species.
Usually the arguments are, well, but you know there was adaptation in
this one instance, so therefore, over billions of years, there would be
mutation in a totally different species. Yeah, but that's the thing that's in
question, right, So that's a huge leap that I don't see is justified.
I mean, there's there's other approaches that you could do to evolution.
I mean, it just depends on how how how far they're taking their evolutionary
theory. Right. Some people might think evolution means everything is in an evolutionary
flux. Well, if everything is an evolutionary flux, then the proposition that
everything is an evolutionary flux is also an evolutionary flex and therefore self reputing.
So it just depends on what type of person we're talking to. Modism,
Well, if everything is one, then I could never know that everything is
one, because my coming to know everything is one is particular indiscreete and therefore
not and is therefore one, So it's illusory, gotcha? And then last
one, non dualism. Well, non dualism is a form of monism.
So what does that mean? Never mind? Well, I mean it depends
on what you mean by non dualism. I mean there might be a non
dualist view of epistemology, a non dualist view of the soul. I mean,
what do you mean by a non dualist view of metaphysics? Just be
more precise, what do you mean? Yeah, like metaphysics typically speaking about
like you know, Well, let's just moan it upright, Thanks, Jack,
appreciate it. Yeah, great questions. I think I want to remind
you guys too that we do have a show sponsor. We're not quitting yet.
If you guys want to pop back on, there's definitely time for more.
But I want to remind you that our sponsors, chock dot com,
the best in supplementation. Head on over to chalk dot com. Get a
hold of this tonk catale proven to boost testosterone. We got a bunch more
super chest to cover. I want tomind you guys to also head on over
to Lore Coffee. You see the Lore Coffee behind me, that's say one
hundredercent Orthodox coffee distributor. Their link is also in the show. Description,
so you can support Lore Coffee there, and let's hear a little bit about
our based sponsor. You see that right there at chalk dot com. Mm
hmmm hmm. Let's go check out what they have to say chalk dot com
and I'll be right back as I go T T Once again, I'm going
to put you on something crazy real quick. Most of these zooma Jimbros are
consuming macro guzzlings in athetic dyes 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 coworkers,
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 workout 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 map from remember to head on over to a lower coffee there.
The link is in the show description and then let's see we got l
e since five dollars, Thank you, Elli appreciate that all of our five
dollars. I don't have Twitter. So I'm going to ask you here,
can we trace the idea of post abosolic ideas of ecumenical councils being infallible?
Athanasious speaks of Nicea as the Holy Spirit speaking, So I mean that would
kind of be the equivalent of that. Uh yeah, the way Athanasia speaks
of Nicia. What about a council condemning one person? Uh Theodoric cirrus.
Yeah, there's a I mean, there's a lot to say about ecumenical councils
leaving certain questions open. For example, Calcedon is an ecmmenical council, but
Calcidon didn't satisfy and settle all the crystological disputes and debates that were going at
that time. And that's precisely why the Fifth Council happens, and so the
Fifth Council happens to distinguish to actually be more clear about what Calciton left unclear.
So that doesn't mean that ecumenical councils are wrong. It just means that
there's going to be questions that, by the nature of them being at one
space at one point in time, that they don't answer everything. And if
you read any of the literature of the academic literature on the Fifth Council,
and particularly you know the rise of in hypostat in hypostaton and how it's used
by Leontius of Jerusalem and how it's accepted of the Fifth Council, et cetera,
then we begin to see that this is the next layer of clarification that
happens Postcalcidon. So I think that helps to explain what's going on with Theodora
and the idea of a work being condemned than people individual people being excused,
and so forth ender five dollars cyber polygon happening today. I saw people talking
about internet being out, but no internet outage or cell phone outage has affected
me today, So maybe they're running some kind of test test run for something
I haven't looked at the news today, so I don't even know what's happening
today. I saw Lord Boldemort talking about the FBI warnings of whatever about Chinese
hacking or something, but I haven't even seen the news. So literally today
all have done is think about what we're talking about here. I'll have to
look and see Banjo. I wouldn't be surprised though, I mean, we
know some kind of crazy events are coming. We've been talking about this for
the last six months, right of what crazy events are coming in twenty twenty
four, we've been speculating. We've listed the various possibilities, you know,
cyber pandemic, another koof economic collapse, riots, you know, we talked
about all kinds of different possibilities, and we don't know. I don't know
what's going to Maybe they'll do like two or three of these, right,
who knows? Bajo Fields Sendah, what's the argument about, Luke, whoever's
not against you is for you? Yeah, he also says that that guy
will also whoever's not against us will also be one of us. So the
assumption is that that person would not continue to just operate. You know,
what's the word, I'm lone wolf he's not going to continue to work lone
Wolf because read the Book of Acts. You'll notice that Paul, trying to
get this to focus again goes out of focus. Thank you. When Paul
goes out and he finds people that are disciples of John or people who are
less instructed, he doesn't immediately call them heretics. He treats them as brethren
and then invites them to become under the episcopade. I think this is Acts
nine and like Acts eighteen somewhere in there. So go look at those examples,
and there's really good notes in the Orthodox Study Bible when it comes to
those chapters. So Ethan five dollars. Are you familiar with the medi old
French mystic Marguerite Poorite? I'm not. What do you think about her?
No idea. I can't imagine though, that as Orthodox we have much of
an interest in medieval French mystic women. Father Deacon Patrick, ten dollars,
could a two minute dialogue with Boomer Garcia happen in nom uh? Well,
not for ten dollars, but thank you for that, Father Deacon Patrick.
But maybe maybe le let's say we could channel oh yeah, you know men.
When I was over Nom. You know, we had a lot of
hard times, yo. There you know what I was in the in the
tunnels of the Viet Cong had dug your noise down there, and I phoned
what I thought was a couple of you know, maybe like old McDonald's reppers
or whatever, and I said, gee, how did the heck does the
does the via con get the McDonald's reppers in their tunnels? And then boom
a bomb goes off. Next thing I know, I'm waking up on a
uh on a platform, flame me out of Nom and I'm on a vision
question another dimension. And then I came back into my body and I realized
that it was just a dream. When I was leaning over there waiting for
the himis to come over the I don't know. I don't know where it's
going with that one. I don't even know what a HEMMI is the motorcycle
like a helicopter? I guess, right, is that is that a helicopter?
I don't know? How's that? That's what you get for ten bucks,
slowest boy, three dollars. I've heard you say, conraditional statement.
If Jesus rose from the dead, that proves the religion truth? No never
made that statement. You must have totally misunderstood me, because I said that
if Jesus rose from the dead, then that means some type of miraculous event
occurred, right, And many religions might claim a resurrection, or they might
claim some sort of miracle, But the miracle only has the meaning that it
has in the context of the rest of the religion, right, I mean,
Elisha his bones raised someone from the dead. So raising from the dead
itself doesn't tell us that it has the meaning of Messiah or right whatever.
Right, So it's in other words, it's part of the truths that are
part of the whole context. You need the rest of the Christian religion of
Jesus being Thesiah, the son of David, and what the meaning of resurrection
is. And that's why just resurrection arguments don't work. So I've never argued
that. I mean, I've I learned this argument was bad when I was
twenty, and I've never made this argument. So you must have Your name
is slowest boy, so you must have misunderstood as a slow boy. That's
okay, I'm not dissing you. We can help you become a fast boy.
You said miracles don't prove the truth of religion. Correct. They attest
to it, they don't prove it. So what proves the truth of Christianity?
The transional argument is the best logical proof. But I think that miracles
occur and they attest to it, they can become evidences. But evidences are
not strict proofs, because the resurrection of Jesus as an evidence only has the
meaning that it has with the rest of the Christian religion. That should be
obvious. Anonymous three dollars. You don't believe we're in the end times,
you said, I said, I don't know that. So again people just
coming out with accusing me of positions that aren't my positions. Saying that I
don't know that if we're in the end times is not equate to we are
not in the end times, So two different things. Why do you think
that? Are there saints that take a position on it? What I mean,
there's saints that take very's position on different things. So if some saint
thinks that we're in the last days, it doesn't mean it's true. Everything
points in that direction. I could be, but I mean, I think
you're getting ahead of yourself if you're assuming that you know, oh we are
in the end times maybe double one honey, one hundred dollars. Thank you
so much always dropping those fat super chats, winning the super chat contest.
Appreciate that order our soul five dollars dedicated video. Maybe too exhaustive explanation of
the distinction between epistemic certitude and normative authority. Yeah, maybe we should,
but I mean we've I mean if I've covered that like thirty times on thirty
open forums. It's like people if they really want the answers, they can
go back and kind of watch that. I mean, gub does literally a
timestamp for every live stream. I mean, like you know, he turns
it out, So thank you for that. If you guys want access to
the books, remember you can go to the website get copies of my philosophy
books, my Hollywood books, the Red Book. Remember also, you guys
got to get take us to our live event in Hollywood. I don't know
why everybody isn't just immediately jumping on this. It's going to be amazing fun
because when else are you going to be able to come and meet Jamie Kennedy
and then immediately go and have a debate with me. If you want to
come to bait me, I don't care he come to bait and then come
over here. We got five hours of talk lecture, five hours of entertainment,
five hours of bring your theology questions or geopolitical questions or whatever. Just
come get your ticket right here at the event bright You can see it right
there. And it's not just for California bros. If you live in the
Vegas area, you can come over there as well. If you live in
there's the link for the tickets right there. I will be covering geopolitics,
espionage, and orthodox metaphysics. Jamie will be covering Jamie my wife will be
covering Hollywood Witches and Bitches, Hollywood witchcraft, Hollywood witchcraft. Jamie Kennedy will
be doing stand up and he's a lot of fun. We had a great
ton. So it's not what we did at the last LA event what eight
months ago. This is a different all different material. Okay, So I
don't think that well I already saw this. No, No, this is
all different and it's gonna be like a five hour NERD party. I mean,
where are you at? Why aren't you here? Get your ticket now?
Go ahead, sign up right there, event. Right, there's a
link, and let's see. Got another super chat here, ricky five dollars?
Can you do the I'm so pious that you should be praying and not
depict I'm so pioused that I don't understand why these people would go onto the
internet and not post their prayers. Jesus says very clearly in the Sermon on
the Mount to make sure that you stand on the street corner of Twitter and
tell everybody when you're praying, and that God would lift you from heaven.
And if you're debating, then you're not as pious as me. How's that?
Is that what you wanted? Let's see somebody else wants to come on
Flame two. Get your tickets y'all March fifteenth, Friday night. That's even
better than last time. Last time was like a weeknight. We still got
one hundred people, So get your tickets right there, March fifteenth, Friday
night. Yes, sir, okay. So I have two questions. I'm
not debating you. I can't do that. But I have two questions and
they're kind of connected. So the first would you rather ask them one of
the one? I asked one question and you answer, do I do I
just put do I just ask both of them? Okay? So I'll just
say both of them. Okay. So after his resurrection, why did Jesus
need to ascend so that the Holy Spirit could descend when both were existing at
the same time. When Jesus was baptized, the Holy Spirit was present with
him. Had he stayed and started his thousand year kingdom, then the whole
world to be Christian. The Church shouldn't be divided as the authority would default.
So let's hold on. Let's answer the first one. That's okay,
So let's answer the first one. So it has nothing to do with whether
the Holy Spirit was omniscient or like he wasn't here. It has to do
with the mode of his presence. The Holy Spirit was not present in the
mode of empowering the church at Pentecosts, so that's why pentecost is something new.
So it's a new mode and new empowerments in presence that is not present
prior to that. In the same way, so we say the same thing,
for example, about Jesus. Jesus is on the present, but the
unique mode of his incarnation is different from just being omni present. So for
example, when Jesus was walking around in Jerusalem. He's present in Jerusalem in
a unique way that's not identical to his presence in the rest of the world
through his Omniscients. So both are true at the same time. But it's
a new mode of presence. So when he has said that he achieved that
new mode of presents, no, I just said that when he was incarnate,
he was in a unique mode and new mode of being in the form
of man as scripture says. So the incarnation is his entering into the canotic
state, kinosis and new mode of being. The Pentecost of descent is the
new mode of the presence of the Holy Spirit. Okay, So the whole
point of his ascension was sor the Holy Spirit. Now, there was a
multiple many points to the ascension. For example, in the Book of Hebrews
in chapters six, seven, and eight that describes the cleansing that he would
do in the typological fulfillment of the high priests entrance into the Holy of Holies,
when he would sprinkle the mercy seat that was typologically the ascent of Christ
into the Third heavens, the true Holy of Holies, to cleanse the way
in our nature for us. So his assumption of our nature to thenk go
into the presence of God. And the ascension is the ability for us to
achieve thiosis and to be sons of God. So the ascension was required in
that sense, correct, Okay, I'll have to read more into that.
So my second question would be why did Divinity bother with the Old Testament?
If it was all meant to foreshadow Jesus, why not sin Jesus assurely as
possible during the time of Adam, and then he could have taught all that
was needed, died and then was resurrected to start the New Covenant, and
then he could have assented and done all the things you said before. What
was the point of the Old Testament? Well, I think that in God's
providence and infinite knowledge, he waited until the time was right, as scripture
says, to bring the birth of the Messiah, when humanity had been led
to a certain stage, and so due to probably the effects of sin,
humanity probably couldn't bear a lot of the truth and teachings and things that were
that were brought about, for example, the time of Christ. Like you
have the example of Alexander the Great spreading Greek culture such that cooin a Greek
was everywhere, so providentially, coin a Greed was the means by which the
message of the Gospel spread throughout a lot of the Empire at that time.
And if you didn't have a language as an example, you know, if
Jesus had come at the time of Abraham, right, there's not a widespread
language that would have been useful in that way. So God usually likes to
use existing human providential things. So I think he also wanted to show and
demonstrate a fulfillment of hundreds of prophecies, as opposed to like if you'd come
the day of Abraham, there would have been like only a handful of prophecies,
but rather by waiting a few millennium you have hundreds of prophecies that are
stacked up throughout the Bible that ended up being fulfilled. So it's another attestation
to you know, the Jesus being them sized. And there might be other
reasons that as humans finite, we don't even know sure maybe but might come.
I think my question was that, so basically, if he had appeared
as early as possible during the time of Adam, that would have been that
would have been pre that would have been pre Babel, so everybody would have
been speaking the same language. So I don't think that would have been a
problem. And I feel like Jesus, Chris, why do you think everybody?
Every everybody is not speaking the same language. That's why Babel is confused
because at Babel, if they if Babel had been achieved, they would have
spoken one language. So what do you mean they spoke? I thought they
were speaking one language while they were building Babel, and then God made them
all have to fall. Well, I mean, yeah, okay, maybe
they were. But my point is, like Jesus, I see what you're
saying, right, But the first thing is Jesus actually is all over the
Old Testament. He's the person talking to Abraham. He's the one who He's
the one who scrambled the languages at at the babyl mm hmm. But wouldn't
have made more sense to enconne during the time with Adam as early as possible?
Well, but God wanted so. One thing that the progressive revelation does
is that it expands the call. So for example, in Genesis it's a
family, and then by the time of Abraham it's a tribe and by the
time of Moses it's a nation, and then by the time of Christ it's
an empire that is global. So there's this gradual expansion that I think shows
the Covenant is broadening and bringing more and more people into it. So for
whatever reason, God wanted to gradually expand it, all right, And my
last question would be what would be the best book on the introduction to Orthodox
philosophy. Well, John Damascus Is Fount of Knowledge is a classic book that
introduces it, but also Yarislav of Pelican's book christian the one about the Cappadocians
and Metaphysics Christianity in the class Christianity, Classical Tradition, The Metamorphosis is Natural
Theology and the capp Dotionans by yar Slav Pelican B. L I K.
Christianity and the Clastical Tradition and yar Slav Pelican P. E l I K.
Okay, because that will that will teach you the terms of the Cappadocians.
Anamascus has Found of Knowledge is really just kind of going through a bunch
of Aristotelian philosophical terminology, Okay, and will it and we will That second
book by Staff Willot teach middle of the terms as well, so things like
theosis mode and like yes, yes, yes, okay, thank you,
Yeah, good questions. I appreciate that. We'll do one or two more
here, Jason, Yeah, i'm you. Hey, Jay, I'm here.
I noticed that in a debate when someone said it was silly to think
that death entered because of the world, because of sin, because the first
salad would have been death. But and I noticed that in your answer you
didn't say, well, in Christianity, life is in the blood. And
I thought, oh, that was an easy one. We don't classify lettuce
as being alive, but can you talk about that a little bit? Well,
that's just equivocating on the word alive. And so yeah, I think
plants are alive. There's nothing wrong with saying plants are alive because plants die.
If a plant dies, then it was alive. And all death entered
as a result of the fall, including plant life. Okay, So that's
the position that you take, is that plant death occurs because of the fall.
All death occurs because of the fall. Yeah, got you? Okay,
very good, Thank you very much. And you do you don't take
that position? I well, I grew up Protestant, And when I under
my understanding of life, I thought they were eating salads in the garden of
eating and like eating fruit. And that is that now the mode of existence,
the mode of existence prior to the fall is different than after the fall.
That's why God says that he killed an animal and made them skins.
That's talking about our flesh, physical body that we have now. So the
type of bodies that they had were not identical to the bodies that we have
now. Understood, if you read, if you read, if you read
Romans eight, it says that all death, all entropy, all you know,
whatever, it's the result of the fall. Matt, what's up,
Matt being man? Two dollars? What do you think about Catholic social teaching
subsidiarity, human dignity, common good? Where does it overlap with Orthodoxy?
Well, I mean those are kind of you know, those are kind of
vague phrases. So do I believe in human dignity, Yeah, but not
in not on the same basis, hold on, not on the same basis
as the Roman Catholic uh to base it on you know, natural law would
Yeah, it's just hold on a minute, common good, I mean common
good is kind of a basic Yeah, of course we believe in the common
good, but that's also kind of a basic idea, so we'd have to
be more specific. I just don't think that the Roman Catholic idea that all
that is somehow based on self evident principles of natural law makes any sense.
But probably a lot of the basic ideas we would agree with. Sure,
go ahead, what's your what's your idea? Matt? Go ahead? Hey,
jam I'm currently Pentecostal, but I have been looking into Orthodoxy. But
I've just been struggling with I suppose that whole scripture and tradition, and I
just wanted to that the sacraments are actually outside the church as well as inside
the church. You're cutting out, man, Sorry. So in terms of
tradition, I would say, uh, you know, Paul talks about handing
on the traditions as he delivered them. In Corinthians, Paul talks about the
oral and the written traditions, and second Thessalonians. You know, tradition is
just means what's handed down, right, So there's good traditions and the bad
traditions. The Canada Scripture itself is part of the church's tradition, like what
books make it up. The Bible itself doesn't identify which books go into the
canon, so the church is necessary, tradition necessary, So Jesus is refuting
traditions that replace what God says, not all tradition. You're yell, what's
up? Can you hear me? Sir? Hey? So I'm a long
time listener, man, I was just wondering. I had a few questions.
I well, actually, let me say this. I started rereading the
Bible from the very beginning because I've been a long time believer in Christ,
but I never really read the Old Testament, so I'm kind of going through
it again fully, you know, as as an adult. And so I
just had a couple of questions to see what you you know, what you
thought? Do you have any disagreements but today specifically about disagreements? Oh no,
I apologize. What's your question? Make it quick? Okay? Well,
I was just wondering. So a lot of the truth are people who
I don't know if they read the book, they always reference the fallen angels
when they talk about the sons of God. And I was wondering, like
what your take on that was, because how I understand it is that the
sons of God would be Set's bloodline. And yeah, I don't think there's
any there's not one orthodox position on this. You can believe in angels or
Seth. I believe that if you accept the Dudero canon. There's about four
places in the Duero canon where it specifies and makes it pretty clear that it
is uh titans or giants. Uh. So I've always believed in the angel
here. Okay? Cool? And then one more thing, if you could,
who do you think that Satan has like an actual identity? And if
he does, like, what do you mean of course he's an angel?
What do you mean? Well? Okay, that's why I was wondering.
I thought he was an angel, But like, does he have another name?
And where does the name? Where does Lucifer come from? I hear
a lot of people say Lucifer, but I don't see that connection. That's
in Isaiah fourteen. But does isn't that referencing a king? It's comparing Satan
to the king and the king to Satan. Interesting? Okay, he does
this a lot. I mean, Ezekiel twenty eight does the exact same thing,
where it compares another king to Satan. So the fall of a king
is compared to the fall of the pride of Lisfer, So it's a both
and not in either war. Interesting, Okay, thanks man? Yeah,
good questions, Ryan Hard. What's up? Ryan Hard? You gotta unmute,
man, guys, you gotta umute Rein Hard. You gotta unmute if
you want to talk. Okay, don't you demonea what's up? Yeah?
Can you hear me? Yeah? What's up? Man? Yeah? Right,
so I don't I know. I heard you say that this is mostly
for disagreements. I don't know if it's a disagreements. Well, yeah,
so everybody calls in on the day of disagreements and they don't disagree. What's
up? Yeah, I'm not I'm not trying to be rude, but I
want to go back to Rhinehard because you might actually disagree. Soday is for
disagreements and nobody ever calls them disagrees. Go ahead, Ryan Hard. Although
actually we had a great conversation with a disagreeing Romancalllic for like an hour hour
and a half, So I take that back. Most people known what's yep?
Yeah, Jay, I just wanted to ask what unites in the hypostatic
union. What are the things that unite? They unite Christ? What do
you mean at the union? Right? What unites? Like when we speak
of a union, we're speaking of two things that unite. What are those
things with respect to Christ? Right? So the divine person who possesses the
divine nature unites himself to a human nature. So it's the person uniting himself
to the human nature, correct? Because yeah, because then I'm just wondering
because usually when we talk about a union, those two things become one after
the union, right, So it's like an objection by you know, the
Orientals that I'm struggling with. So if we're saying that the person unites with
the nature, what becomes one. That's why it's called the hyposthetic union.
And this is why even after the union and the two Letters to six Census,
Cyril talks about two natures. This is cleared up at the Fifth Council.
In the word in hypostatic. So the human nature exists in the mode
of the divine logos who assumed it. Yeah, I understand that the logos
assumes the human nature, right, And what is the logos? Do you
think the logos is just a divine nature or is he a person with a
nature? No, the Logos is the person of Christ. Okay, so
then you affirm what I just said. Yeah, and I'm not I'm not
taking a contrary stance. I'm just asking. I don't think that answered my
question. I think it did answer the question. But how did it not
said? Was that the logos assumed the human nature and that he exists within
that human nature? You understand. So it's in hypostatic Do you know what
that word means? In hyposthesization? Is that what you're talking about? Yeah?
Yeah, isn't that when the person assumes the nature and then the nature
subsists within the person. Well, but it also applies to the human nature,
or that it exists in the mode of the logos that assumed it.
Sure, yeah, yeah, sure. So I'm saying what became one after
the union? I know that he assumed the human nature. I'm saying what
became one? When two things unite, they become one? Yeah, but
they become one in what way? It doesn't mean they become a tertion quid
you could take numerically, I guess, yeah, but this isn't either or
right, So it's not a tertion quid. So the monophyside position is a
tertion quid. And then what happened in the death? Sorry, what happened
in the What in the death? If it's a tertiam quid? What happened
in the death? Like, I don't understand what you're asking me. So
you're not familiar with the common objections to the monophicide position, but you're trying
to arguement opthetism. I'm aware of the objections. What do you mean,
Well, then you would be aware of what I just asked you. What
happened in Christ's death? Oh? When Christ died, his human soul separated
from his body. Okay, so he maintains the human nature and it's not
a tertion quid. Yeah, yeah, the human nature doesn't go away when
he dies. Okay, then you agree with the Orthodox position. Yeah.
Like I said at the beginning, I agree with your position. That's still
not answering my question. It is answering your question because something could be one
in more than one way. So only if you have a reductionist idea of
what one means would you think that it's a tertium quid. Do you know
what I mean? Boyu? Turton quid? Okay, okay, that's fine,
that's fine. You answer my question. Okay, that's fine. Do
you know what a teri quid means? Okay, so you've been answering and
you don't even know what that means. But the concepts we're talking about I'm
familiar with. I mean, you can explain the word. I'll guarantee you
I know what it means. Well, this is a common term in monophysite
oriental disputes between Orthodoxes. But you acted like you knew about it. What
have I gotten wrong? Well, you're giggling because you're talking. That's not
English, right, So what I understand the concept? Okay, well hold
on, if you understand, if you understand the concept, what is it?
Look, I'm saying you can explain the word and I'll know the concept.
You've already been sassy, being condescending and giggling at me like this is
like I didn't answer your question because you think it's a gotcha to tell me
this like non English word, and because it shows that you don't actually know
this dispute because you said you did. Yeah, so when like an English
speaker knows what essence means, that it doesn't matter because you know what.
So you knew what in hypostaton was, but you don't know what Greek to
read. The quid is not a Greek term, it's a Latin term.
I know it's an analogy. But anyways, Jay, thanks for answering my
question. You answered it quite well. Yeah, see these people and you
definitely specified what became one? Right, So what is your position? The
question to ask? Right? So this is a newly made profile. So
what's your real position? So you made this profile to come on the debate?
Right? Yeah? Because I deleted Twitter. I don't know why you
keep giggling like this is some goatcha. Uh huh, what's your point?
So? Who are you really? Hey, here we go, here we
go. We gotta keep her pretty my name now? So this is a
mute automatic blot. I'm well, if you're irrelevant, why are you?
Why are you? Like? What is so funny? Like I don't understand
the logic of these people? Why do you keep repeating my name? Like?
Why do you do this? You guys are all the same. Your
reasoning is horrible, My reasoning is horrible. Okay, so you admitted that
you admitted I answered your question, but the reasoning is horrible, h exactly.
So this is the you see how he played this game. And I
can always immediately identify these people because they start giggling and they start getting all
sassy and they pretend like they're pious, and then they start repeating my name,
and uh yeah, it's guy's ridiculous. So he doesn't even know.
Anybody who knows that dispute would know what the word tertium quid means. It
means third thing, and he doesn't know that, so he doesn't actually know
the basics of the dispute between Orientals and Orthodox. That's a classic. It
doesn't mean you have to know the Latin. It means that you would know
this dispute. And you notice how the fake piety all spilled. It eventually
comes out. Hello, yeah, what's up man, helly day, I
get to see you. I would like to ask about the the one will
in the Roman Catholic side of do you fil do you have any objections?
How does one will? How would that prove Philou? No, no,
no, no, not because I'm new and I'm just starting to understand,
and I understand the mostly the Eastern Orthodox side, but then when it comes
to the Roman Catholic. There's an objection to you made. If I'm mistaken
of the right, we're gonna move I'm sorry, I don't know. I
don't understand. We're gonna move on. It's hard to understand what you're saying.
Uh, today is for people who disagree objections reformed. Here we go.
We spent uh good bit of time refuting reform, redeemed zoomer. I'm
mute, dude, reformed, man, I'm mute. Hello, yep,
what's up. I'm reading a little bit about the ontology of scripture. I've
never really investigated the canon, and I was just wondering if what the Orthodox
position is on the ontology of scripture and if, like cool, the canon
is the canon is different from ontology. That's a historical question. So I
don't know what you're talking about. Right, Well, there's like in the
reform to literature like that I'm reading, like Michael Kruger and stuff. They
posit an ontological canon that it's the speech of God. That's called a historianism.
Right, So there's this like ethereal thing that is the word of God,
that's the canon of scripture. But then there's this historical thing that's another
thing, right, there's no such thing as a Canada scripture that is not
the actual historical decision of the Church. So is it true that God knows
the canon of scripture? Yes, that's not an ontological canon that a reform
person has access to outside of history, right, Well, I mean they
make arguments for that. It coincides that it's a product of history. How
does that prove the Protestant canon because the whole again, it's bypassing the fact
that the reform person has no access to who God is apart from the Bible.
But the Bible is the thing in question, so it's a way for
them to try to get around the necessity of the Church in the decision of
the canon. But there is what what access does a reform person have to
the mind of God to get the canon? This is preposterous because when he
starts talking about God, his presupposition is the canon. But that's the thing
in question, right, I guess I don't. I'm new to these the
literature, so I was just I don't really understand. It's just a made
up thing the reform people to try to get as it's it's presupposing the thing
in question, Oh, I don't need to go to the historical church to
get the canon, because I have access to the God canon in the mind
of God. No you don't. Well, I think the argument that I've
come across is the the ontological canon is or the way they the way they
explain is that they're kind of I guess thing they try to say is a
defeater is that the speech of God constitutes the Church, and the Church is
a recipient of the canon, but not the doesn't give the the speech.
The speech of God is identified as the second person of the Godhead, the
Logos. So you could say that, you could say the Church is a
bearer of God's word and a manifestation of the body of the Logos. Sure,
but none of that in any way gets around the historical fact that the
Church determined the cannon within history. I mean, even James White admitted this
in his debate with Trent. Right. Well, that's the thing, That's
what I guess I'm confused about because the scholars, let's put it this way.
Let's put it this way. How does positing any of that tell you
what books go in the Bible. That's a good question. It doesn't it
doesn't do that, So it's just another way to try to assume the Protestant
can interesting, So what's the uh. Is there like a book that I
could read to help understand. Yeah, I would read two Protestant books on
this. I would read H. Lee McDonald's book The Formation of the Christian
Biblical Canon, and I would read F. F. Bruce's book The Cannon
of Scripture, and you'll see two Protestant scholars basically emitting the centrality of tradition.
So that was the thing that convinced me back in the day of this
at this point, but thank you, Reform Buzzer, appreciate that. Lewis
Lewis, hey, ja, Yeah, I just wanted to ask with regards
to the Trinity. I'm Christian, by the way, but we say that
there is one will in the Trinity. So the focus on Holy Spirit share
one will the more they have the same will. But then I'm quite new
too of those theology. Actually, So when the Father sends the Spirit,
for example, how does that work? So because it is in the Father
willing for himself to send the spirit, and so is the Spirit willing that
as well, I don't understand how it was. Yeah, the will is
a common faculty or property that exists in the mode of the persons that have
it. So there's not three wills, there's one will, but that one
will has had in the tropos or the mode of the three persons that have
it. So uh, yes, each each person individ actualizes you could say,
the one action in a unique role or in a unique mode. So
the father sends the son, for example, the father sends the son to
become a carnate. Son becomes a carnate, and then the son sends the
Holy Spirit to the church. So that one action of redemption is triadic,
but it's executed, you could say, in the mode of the three persons
that have that one action. So we have to just distinguish person nature essence
or are accuming person nature, will and energy and mode. So people oftentimes
forget mode as a very important trinitarian distinction. So what you're looking at is
the difference between the property or faculty of nature and the mode of that property,
which is in the mode of the person. So it's even though person,
even the will is not a property of nature, it exists in the
mode of the person that has the nature. I wait, I see so
did you what did you just say? Will is not a property of nature?
No, will is a property of nature, but exists in the mode
of person that has the nature. Yeah, okay, then yeah, okay,
that's fine. That answers it. Yeah, good questions? Those are
those are really Yeah, just remember that mode is just as important for trinity
ent theology as you know any of the other terms, like you know,
energy, essence, nature. Mode is just as important u k h f
F. Now this is for people that disagree. Well, have like one
person that disagreed today and that one snarky soy I'm an off site guy they
called in. Can hear it? Hey, j I was just wondering,
as far as the EP goes, do you have any disagreements or just about
Okay, that's come on, bro, Yeah, I'm not trying to be
mean to you. Don't get mad at me and saying I'm not being mean
to you specifically said many times today. Is for people who disagree. It's
not about EP and mer curious, what's unless you have a disagreement about that
topic or something that Roman Catholt guy thought that the EP was a good argument.
Go ahead, gotta umute. Uh, Jay I was launching your debates
with Matt Dilonti and whatever. But would you say that atheism is impossible,
uh, logically impossible? Like No, when we say the word impossible,
we mean like, uh, like when we say atheism is impossible. Right,
you would say that entails a contradiction. Yeah, you know we've already
addressed this like multiple times. So did you just want to repeat the argument?
It's a metallogic metalllogical argument. Go ahead and address it, right,
Well, I've addressed it many times. But your argument, your argument rests
it rests on the argument, the argument that you're going with. I've already
know this is J Mike's argument. The argument rests on the assumption that everything
is. You're not gonna let me finish, So it's a first it's not
a first right, So the argument is about the possibility of logic at all,
not a first order logic argument. Okay, that's the addressing of your
objection. What's my objection that the proposition or that the belief in atheism does
not entail a contradiction. That's where you're arguing, right, That's not what
I said. That's that's the argument that you guys make right is not the
belief in it. Okay, So now you're now you want to haggle over
words. No, it's it is you're haggling over words. And I've already
addressed this many times metalogical questions. That's fine, I understand that, okay.
But the thing is that you're also making the other claim, right,
the first order logical claim that atheism is impossible logically, which would mean that
it has to intail You didn't even know what it means in terms of justifica
contradiction, like who's out there of us thinking it doesn't entail a contradiction?
What's the contradiction. The contradiction is if the denial the denial or the non
acceptance of the necessary condition for the possibility of knowledge. What you're doing is
you're both affirming that and that condition at the same time. That's a contradiction.
Well, hold on, hold on. That would just be a contradiction
in the beliefs of the said person, which I just addressed, right,
Even if I was to take that as true, that would just mean that
one person, That would just mean that one person has contradictory beliefs. I'm
talking about the world view of atheism, and I just I just said that.
Yeah, you said that. Now he's changing the subject to an individual
atheist, as if it's not addressing the actual claim. Is like me saying,
is is impossible because Jay Dyer has some contradictory position. I know that's
that's not what we're arguing. That's exactly what you said. No it's not,
but it is. He said, this is the reason it applies to
everybody is because it's prior to argumentations, because it's a metallogical Argument's about the
possibility of logic at all. That's the point that applies to any that applies
to any position, that applies to any position. Yeah that's fine, so
anonius or whatever. Okay, So that presupposes that knowledge is even possible.
How would this go through on an epistemological nihilist? You think we haven't addressed
that? You how many times epistemological nihilists have caused and called in We have.
We've addressed it in the past. Addressed now because if we've already addressed
this isn't even is this even your position? Are you're just coming out with
other positions? This isn't your position, No, Jane, Look you try
to understand what I'm saying. Listen closely. I said, I know what
epistemic nihilism is. We've had them call in many times and say, you
don't know what it is, so maybe just try to listen. I said,
how would this go through on an epistemic nihilist. That's not to say
that I am one. You can't get through a second order statement about epistemic
nihilism. So epistemical nihilism does not accomplish what they wanted to do because there's
a second order, there's a third order that they don't get out of the
problem. Mm hmm. Yeah, but they do. And this is why,
right, you said that, The reason that it would be contradictory is
because the atheist is going to have to affirm something about the necessity or like
the necessary preconditions for the intelligibility of knowledge, right, the intelligibility of mathematics,
logic, all that stuff. But an that systemic nihilist would just deny
the existence of those things. Yeah, and so now you can't make sentences.
So now you can't make arguments. So now you can't make arguments or
sentences. We've heard that a thousand times. That's why. I don't care
that you've heard it because it's been addressed a thousand times. Yeah, so
what do you what do you do? You want to be cool like I
don't. Yeah, I don't get it. Okay, so can you just
address it instead of saying you've addressed it? Yeah. The addressing is that
if you adopt that position, you can't make arguments anymore. So, yeah,
I know, I'm talking to you now. This is my this is
my thing. I'm talking to you now, and I'm addressing it by telling
it. I'm addressing it by telling you that if you adopt that position,
you can no longer argue or make sentences at all. And if you want
to, and if you want to do that, then you can. Then
you then that's fine. Then the then you have to drop the MinC.
The thing is that thestemic nihilist could just agree to all those conditions, it's
still wouldn't right, So then so then we've won. Then we've won the
debate and they can't if they listen, if you can't make sentences, all
right, if you're gonna if you don't shut up, I'm booting you shut
up, or I'm booting you shut up. Round booting you. I know,
I know you want an excuse, Okay, Jade, Yeah, so
we've addressed this. Probably you don't get out of it because you say,
I don't accept anything. This is so dumb. There's an epistemic import in
making those second order statements about their epistemic nihilism that they're not assenting to something.
Yeah, j Mike is so low tire. He doesn't even understand that
adopting a position where you don't believe in logic doesn't get you anywhere in a
debate. I mean, that's it's so obvious, it's so crazy. What
would you say to this father deacons? Somebody says, well, but I
don't I don't believe in logic or any of your positions, and therefore you
can't prove Christianity. Well, first of all, you're making a second order
statement, right, an epistemic statement. Third point that I wanted to make,
and I just addressed this in my paper, is you get them to
admit some type of epistemic deflationary position. I'm not in a position to know.
Okay, what do they do? They immediately slip back in their epistemic
stuff that they want that they just denied to say, well, that doesn't
prove Oh wow, now you're making another epistemic statement. Notice all the epistemic
statements he was saying, Well, that doesn't include a contradiction, and that
doesn't work for this, that doesn't do well Wait a minute, I thought
you just admitted you're not in a position to make any statements epistemic statements.
So you want to see a contradiction, that's exactly a contradiction. And furthermore,
the contradictions entailed. And I'll say a couple things, because you're correct
to you to point out the contradictions entailed and not a belief that you have,
but the lack of assenting to the necessary conditions while at the same time
assuming the necessary conditions. This is why ran Till says there is no atheist,
it's just those that deny God. So that's a contradiction. But my
final point that I want to make is the point that you are making about.
So this is a metallogical, metapistemological consideration. What comes first epistemically the
necessary conditions that make contradictions normatively binding as far as leading to falsehood or the
contradiction itself. Notice what they want to do. They want to put contradiction
is the first epistemic standard, first epistemic principle, right, and then try
to reduce everything to that while we're pouring now that well, wait a minute,
what why should I think that's a justification. I've addressed this in my
paper before too. All contradiction means is at that level from their worldview,
I can't do this psychologically without this happening. It certainly doesn't say it's a
normative that you ought to or that it's binding on us, that it leads
to falsehood, or any or the rejection of a contradiction leads to knowledge and
truth. So they fail to grasp the meta loogical, metapistemological question, what
stands behind there that makes the avoidance of contradiction normatively binding on us, or
that contradiction leads to falsehood. They'll never be able to answer it. They'll
say, Oh, I don't know, I don't have to answer that.
Why slip it all back in and pretend that I've already had an answer for
it. So it's totally disingenuous and self refuting. Yeah, he just repeats
this over and over and over. It's like as if the repetition will like
make it somehow true. All right, thank you guys so much. If
you would hit like and share, it's been a lot of fun. Be
sure and head on over to uh the supporters of the show in the stream
and I will catch you guys there. Get tickets to the