The the the the the the the the the the the the the the the
the the the the the the the the the the the the the don the
the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the
the do the budding to the bodd All right, what's up? Welcome to
a discussion that I think is timely given a lot of the Internet drama and
debates and discussions which you might think would be about theology, history, geopolitics,
a relationship between church and state. But unfortunately it turns out no,
most of the discussion really has nothing to do with that, and so I
thought it would be very timely to delve into this subject and get into the
history of the question of the role of church and state, how they relate
to one another. Is there a superior relationship between one to the other,
is one above the other? Does authority derive from one to the other,
Or perhaps they are completely unrelated, independent spheres. Perhaps the state is some
sort of Satanic entity in itself, as some believe. In what sense is
Jesus quote unquote the king when people refer to Christ the king, and what
about the historic confessions between Protestant, Catholic and Orthodox, how would they treated
this question? Is there commonality between anybody Orthodox and Catholics? Is there commonality
between Protestants and Orthodox at all? What about cesero Papism or Erascianism. So
tonight we're gonna get into that. It's just too ripe of a topic not
to discuss, given that everyone's talking about it. And the thing that surprised
me I tried to get into Lauren Chen's space. She did a space where
she was inviting people to come discuss the topic. I assumed this meant the
theological, historical, biblical history view of this church fathers patristic view. No,
had nothing to do with that. It was only about whether or not
this phrase can be said and is it anti anti Shemitic? Right, So
I didn't really have anything to do with the question of what is the correct
teaching, but rather censorship and the phrase. And I don't fault anybody for
pointing out the freedom of speech and the ability to say this and to fight
against people that want this kind of speech shut down. But it's like you
know so much of what happens in today's Twitter sphere, public sphere, debate
debates sphere, there's never any context. People don't know what the history of
the topics are, they don't know the debates, they don't know the correct
view theologically speaking, and so it just ends up being these sort of scream
squabbles where people want to say names back and forth and don't have any theological
grounding or historical background to understand what Protestants have believed, Have they evolved?
What Roman Catholics I believe have they evolved? And what's the classic Orthodox teaching,
which as we know, is ossified set in stone. It's so boring.
They don't change, they don't evolve. It's like they're so so just
ossified. They don't even evolve or whatever are They just stay, which is
precisely what we want. Coffee with Sister j which is the opposite of other
coffees with people who want to evolve the doctrines. Now tonight we're gonna be
talking about some topics that are gonna be really difficult for a lot of people.
Protestants are gonna have a hard time tonight. Uh. People said,
I haven't looked at your channel in a while. Now you look like Curtis
Jarvin. That's funny because there might be a little overlap with Curtis Yarvin type
of views tonight. As everybody always points out, it's going to be at
a little difficult for Protestants and even perhaps for some Roman Catholics. However,
I will say this from the outset, most traditional minded Roman Catholics and traditional
minded Orthodox and a few scant groups amongst classical Protestants do have kind of common
ground here. We do typically agree that there is a social teaching of the
church and a teaching of the state. Does the church have any official teaching
on the role of the state, its limits, its boundaries, its domains,
its rights. Or perhaps we're supposed to be libertarian, Maybe we're supposed
to be against the state. Maybe we're supposed to be anarcho pacifist hippie.
Jesus followers being Jesus was like cool dude or whatever. Men. He always
he always says, he'll take take a stone out of your own eye before
you throw it at the other people or whatever, and like, you know,
just love people and be cool, man. That's like what he said.
He was like a homeless hippie or whatever, really homeless hippie. So
these are the people, of course, that have no idea that Jesus is
the second person of the God, had no idea of all the Messianic prophecies
all throughout the Old Testament about the conversion of nations and states. Yes you
heard me right, nation states, nations and states kingdoms in the Messianic era.
Why oh oh, you hadn't thought about that, had you? Even
though it's central to everybody's apologetic who has any kind of Christianity to argue that
Jesus fulfills all these Messianic prophecies and that the Church is the fulfillment of all
the prophecies of the gentiles converting in the Psalms, in Genesis and Isaiah and
Ezekiel and Amayah. And what about all those multitudes of passages which describe kings
and queens coming and submitting to the Messiah. How do we know when to
allegorize? How do we know when it's figurative? How do we know when
it might be saying there really really will be kings and queens converting? What
about Daniel seven nine, Revelation five there's a lot of parallels in those passages.
Well, it turns out the way that we interpret a lot of the
historical contexts of these passages, whether we're partial preterists or not, will also
play a role in how we understand the application of these passages and this doctrine
to the history of the Church. Because, as you can probably figure out,
many evangelicals, many premillennialists, many dispensationalists, will take so many of
the things that are actually applicable to here and now in the Church era,
the kingdom era, and postponent delay it throw it off into the end times
in some judaizing heresy of a thousand year kingdom on Earth where there's a new
temple. So we want to have to we're gonna we're gonna have to tie
in some of that, and we're gonna talk about somebody's asking me about so
I'm sorry, I can't tell if that's a trolling joke there and the guy
that asked the question there super chat so hard. I'm sorry to tell you
this the but I'm I'll have to deal with this. I can't find the
tweet because I'm logged out of Twitter right now. On on the computer.
But Michael says, for five dollars, did you hear about Putin opening the
old vaults? So fourteen hundreds is not the oldest vaults. Okay, maybe
in Russia. But the biblical figures in that cast cavalcade of images that a
lot of brothers on Twitter are sharing, Okay, first of all, they're
not all black. Some of them are old and old icons turned black.
It doesn't mean that people were black. Jesus was not black. He's a
Hebrew. And the other pictures, about half of them are Saint Moses the
Black. Totally different, dude, and everybody knows this, so I'm not
sure to be mean to you, Michael, but this is just total nonsense,
total low iq idiocy, and people just need to have no historical back
of grounding or foundation at all. And there's literally like tens of thousands,
maybe millions of people sharing this stupid tweet, and these stupid tiktoks that literally
think that Jesus is Moses the Black and that this is some sort of stupid
cover up, just literal I mean, this is what now, you guys
understand why it's so annoying when I go on TikTok to debate, and people
want more of it because just because they find it entertaining. But I mean,
it's really difficult to deal with super hard headed, totally arrogant, delusional
people. And this is the kind of stuff that feeds into the Hebrew Israelite
heresy. So you're absolutely right that the insanity of these Hebrew Israelite people.
They use this kind of nonsense as if Moses the Black is Jesus. And
what's funny is that the examples that they're putting up up there's literally Greek lettering
on the icon that tells you who it is. But they don't even know
that the Greek lettering it says Moses the Black, it says Athenacious. Okay,
it's not Jesus. So I hate to be a ball buster bearer of
bad news for all of the We was Kying's TikTok Bros. But shout out
to Yakub. Michael says, for a dollar, I was just copy and
pasting the tweet of my brain dead friend. Yeah, I thought you were
joking there. I figured that was a joke. But yeah, no,
Moses the Black is not Jesus, and Jesus was not actually from Ethiopia.
I don't even know what the We're going to have to do an investigation into
the Hebrew visualized because just like it's just being promoted everywhere, it's probably got
some kind of fed promotion and it's probably gonna lead to all kinds of madness
and it's completely insane. I mean, it's just like the most ridiculous stuff
all right now. As you can imagine, every Orthodox person knows that Christ
is king because we have calltless icons showing him as the king. This of
course is the prophet, Priest and King icon. And this is my favorite
icon. We have it downstairs here at this house, the icon wall,
because it shows us that threefold office as a fulfillment of all the things that
the Old test says the Messiah would be so one of the common Three of
the common themes throughout the multitudes of Messianic prophecies in the Old Testament include the
idea that Jesus would be a prophet. He would be the greatest of the
prophets. The Messiah will be the greatest of the prophets. He will preach
to the nations, preach righteousness, preach against idolatry, preach against all of
the degeneracy of the pagan nations. He will also predict the future, which
is part of the office of a prophet. Prophets don't just predict the future,
they also are preachers. He would also be a priest in that he
would fulfill the role of Milkisa Dek because, of course, the original type
of Christ's priesthood is not the levitical priesthood or the ironic priesthood. It's the
Melchizedekian priesthood. That does not mean that the levitical ironic priesthood is not also
a type of Christ, but as Paul argues in Hebrews seven, it's actually
pre eminent above the levitical because it comes before and Abraham, from whom the
levitical priesthood derives its lineage. As Paul says, Aaron was in the loins
of his father, Abraham paid tribute by that to very fact, by default
to the greater when Abraham tithed to Melchizedek early on in Genesis. And so
Malkisa Dek is an actual historical figure. He's not an unknown semi divine person.
As a lot of idiotic people come out with these weird theories has nothing
to do with the Mormon idea of the Melchizedekian priesthood. No, christ priesthood
is according to Psalm one ten, he is forever eternally a priest after the
order of Malkisa deck and that refers to his second person of the Godhead status
as well as the intention to become man and to be this high priestly high
priest role. And so it is Christ that is the Melchizidekian priest and the
ironic levitical priesthood also is a type of and is fulfilled in Christ, as
Hebrews seven itself argues. So you see, Hebrews actually argues that both are
have their reference point in their telos in Christ. Both are fulfilled in Christ,
but the Milkizidekian is superior. And so in that sense we could say
that how could there be gentile priests as the prophecies of the Old Testament predict
the end of Isaiah, how is that even possible? How could there be
an altar in Egypt? As we read where do we read that recently in
one of the livestreams that we did as Isaiah nineteen, How's there an alter
in Egypt? Can only be a priest in Jerusalem and at the Temple.
How could there be gentile priests are going to be alter in It's not possible.
Well, it's possible because of the Messianic prophecies about the Covenant being opened
up to the Gentiles and the superseding of the Ira priesthood by the Melchizedekian priesthood,
which is the type of Christ. So christ priesthood, which is the
Orthodox Church, is the priesthood spread throughout all the nations, the one true,
Holy, Catholic and Apisolic Church. Everybody can go and see and learn
and verify that. That is the Church of the first thousand years. So
that's the church that's spread throughout the Roman Empire, converted the nations. The
Orthodox Church today is the only church that continues to believe the same identical dogmatic
teachings of the Church of the first thousand years. Therefore, the Orthodox Church
is the identically same Church of the first millennium. And thus the fulfillment of
all of those Messianic prophecies and the prophecies about the gentile nations converting and coming
into the Church. And I would add to that as I will argue throughout
this discussion tonight, only the Orthodox Church still retains the classic teaching of symphonia,
or that Christ is also king in the civil sphere. And this is
the whole history of Byzantium history of the idea of the monarch as the icon
of God in the sense of ruling on earth through divine justice. We see
this in Romans thirteen, where even a pagan emperor, according to Paul and
Romas thirteen, even Nero, who was completely wicked, can still in a
sense be an image of divine providence and divine justice. Paul accords to the
Roman Empire, to the Roman imperium, to Caesar the ability to exercise the
sword, and that's nothing new. In fact, the same principle had been
seen in the Book of Daniel when providentially Nevchaneezer is recognized as the existing authority.
So even though he's pagan, he can still have a recognized providential authority.
Now he has limits. He's not able to tell you to worship the
statues of him, nor can Caesar tell you to stop worshiping Christ and worship
him, and yet he still has the state authority. That's the attitude of
Romans thirteen. Remember it's not in either or of total statism, nor is
an attitude of no state at all. You see how Roman's thirteen has a
balanced view that also has to be read in light of the rest of scripture.
We see again an example of Daniel, a providential role for Nebuchaneezer,
where God does allow him to rule and his empire is even spoken of in
the early chapters of Daniel in that way that God's providence brought it about.
We see the similar situation with Darius, well Cyrus, and Darius actually Cyrus
has called the Great Shepherd. He becomes a type of Christ in the latter
chapters of Isaiah, and he allows the temple to be rebuilt as well.
I think that's right. Yeah, the decree goes forth, I think from
Cyrus. Ezras says so. So the point here is that prophet, priest,
and king are a triplicity, a trifled office that Christ fulfills, and
they all go together. So there's no Christ is King without the other two.
So I don't at all disagree with the correct phraseology of Christ is King.
No, I just have two concerns. One concern is that a lot
of the twitter spamming of it really has nothing to do with Christ in the
sense in the Orthodox view. In other words, it needs to be the
Orthodox view first, and that means that Christ first hass to reign in here,
and we're all failing at that. And what happens a lot of times
is a lot of people want to replace the inner repentance side of this with
well, I'll just do a bunch of external tweeting, projecting, a bunch
of external owning, owning the libs with it. I'm gonna tweet it out
to make everybody mad, and it has no reference to your actual life.
And so they turn it into a performative act and that's not what it is.
It's not a performative act. It's not a performance. It's not a
thing to own the libs. And so a lot of the piety signalers there
are correct in this point. Who we're saying this quite all? So everything
on Twitter is so ridiculous. Can you either get these either ores right?
So you get a bunch of people saying Christ is king, we should be
able to say it, and we're gonna own everybody with it. That's annoying
because okay, but are you applying this in reality, do you actually believe
in the threefold office of Christ or do you actually think that this is just
a base political thing. And that's the super annoying part of this which is
wrong. Okay, you can't isolate one of these threefold offices to the exclusion
of the other two and make this some sort of performative act where Christ is
king to own the Libs. Because if you don't have the right theology go
with this, I mean, it's all going to fail anyways, gonna be
ridiculous. So we need the right theology. And the other thing too,
is that the political application of it is really the lowest tier of importance.
So it has to start with you. Then it moves to your local relationships,
and then it moves out from that to the family, to you know,
state, nation, et cetera. That's the model of permeation, the
model of permeation. That's the way it's supposed to happen. Even if there
have been situations in history where king converted and then his whole nation state converted,
that's not the norm, especially not nowadays. That's not how it's going
to happen now. So the way it's gonna happen nowadays because we don't really
live in a Christian society. We don't live certainly don't live in Orthodox society.
We live in pretty much a pagan society. And how was Rome converted?
Was it converted because they for three that the church for three centuries kept
trying to get the emperor or convert and then enforce it top down. No,
No, it took many, many centuries of martyrs. That's what converted
the Roman Empire. So it began with the zealand devotion in an individual sense
to the Orthodox faith, by the way, not to some crazy Protestant thing
or some online e faith which doesn't exist. It's not a real thing.
And then it spills out to people around you. And so if you can't,
as our friend Father Moses often makes the point like, if you don't
get along with your family, if you don't love your family and your friends,
and you don't, you know, live a moral Christian life, you
have no business fussing and everybody on the internet and projecting and sassin everybody about
Christ as king, because it's just you're just being a hypocrite, right,
And it's also not a thing for these annoying media pundas to chime in on.
I'm not talking about anything in particular. I'm not talking about Flints or
anybody like that. I'm talking about some of them, the more neo con
element which has to chime in on this, which are super annoying. I'm
talking about them, and they use it as this way to piety signal,
right, and they'll be like, oh, you say Christ is king,
but are you praying on Twitter? Is what they mean. Right, So
there is a political application. There is a public application of these things.
However, it's not the No, it's not like we go public political number
one and priority number two family and then number three is church and individual.
It's the other way around. Starts with the individual. And that doesn't mean
that you can't be a politician or applying these things in the realm of the
political. It means that if you're doing that, then you have to,
more than anyone else, have the hierarchy of importance there first. Does that
make sense? That's the key thing here, because remember Roman Empire doesn't convert
by a bunch of people, you know, spamming on scrolls, you know,
Christus Rex and if you put up enough Christmas scrolls and graffiti throughout the
Roman Empire. Then oh, then Caesar will convert and then he'll make everybody
be Christian. I mean some of these people have this completely idiotic views about
No, what you want is genuine conversions at the local individual level first,
and then that will permeate the rest of society. Then when there's a majority
Orthodox society, which we're way off from that, then when that happens,
then it's a lot more. It's more appropriate to speak of the possibility of
a Christian state. You can't have a Christian state without a sizable majority of
the population wanting that. So that means they also can't be adherence to some
ridiculous heterodox idea of Christ as King. And I'm not talking about Roman Catholics.
I'm talking about Protestants. So if the majority of America is Protestant and
we get say, I don't know, let's say some weird thing happened,
we're fifty percent of the Protestant this would never happen, but the Protestants agree
Christ is King. How are you actually going to organize a coherent model of
church state inter relationship symphonia with a bunch of lunatic Protestants, but never,
it's never gonna work. And as we go through the history of the relationship
between church and state in Protestant, Orthodox and Roman Catholic confessions, we'll actually
see some of that. So thank you guys for tuning in, h like
and share if you would. We got a nice seven hundred here tonight.
What is your parer life? Like? Hey, why do you feel the
need to ask me about my prayer life in a on an internet chat?
So look, if you don't, if you don't like, nobody's making you
stay here, you don't have to be here. You can get out of
here. And the point of this is not like I almost never talk about
piety issues, especially not on the internet. And as you get older,
you're gonna get annoyed with this too. You're gonna get annoyed with all the
piety stuff and all the self righteousness on Twitter and the Internet. But that
doesn't mean that there's not don't run from what child are you been talking about?
Come debate. We're not here to debate the Qur'an. Dude, I've
done. I've literally debated all of the all of the Muslims. So I'm
not gonna come debate you with However, many hundred subscribers go, So you're
just wasting our time, all right, So what's the theological teaching? What
is the theological teacher? Do we actually talk about that? Now Here?
People are questioning how come you won't talk about JQ. So I've explained this
a million times. Certain topics. Everybody knows you can't discuss those things on
YouTube, and I talk about hotter racier topics over on my rock fin So
if you'd follow my Tragy and Hope lectures, if you follow my recent lectures
that I do live, and if you followed the recent lecture that I did
on Israel and Palestine, you'll know that I got into some diceier topics.
And so the question always comes up, how come you're not fully on board
supporting every person out there pushing because you have it you guys have it backwards.
And this is what I've been trying to say for a long time.
So it's not gonna work to do this model of pressing the issue on without
the right theology. And I know you do think you think it doesn't matter.
You think you know all that matters is if you can own libs and
get the Amish question, right right, that's the only thing that matters.
But the AMI's question isn't gonna save you, The honest question isn't gonna heal
you. So well, so what's the priority? And do you even want
to hear what the actual teachings are? I mean, let me give you
an example. So let's say we're gonna let's say we're gonna push the Amish
question, and that's what we're gonna obsess over. We're gonna talk about it
all day long, and we're gonna convert people to trad Catholicism or to Francis's
Catholicism. Do you understand that Francis literally goes and worships in Amish synagogues?
And I hope you're you know what I'm saying. You're not too stupid,
right, So Francis is the solution. You see how this is silly.
It makes absolutely no sense. So if you want to call in and remember
to keep it according to TOS, so nobody gains anything by just you know,
going against TOS and getting banned. It doesn't do anything. And I've
been at this for a long time. I know, I guarantee you,
I know a lot more about all this stuff than you do. Man.
So you know, if you want to call in and have a debate or
something like that, we can do it. And you guys always say why
don't you do this? And I do it, but you guys never go
and pay attention to the stuff that I do. So so what's the point?
Why why are you even here? What's the point is this? Guy?
Jay Dyer? I am so all right? But see, you guys
don't actually care about the history of theology. You just want to shout on
Twitter. It's like nobody even cares about what the real issue is or what
the actual teachings are, So just go shout somewhere else. Man, what
what do you want from me? I mean, if you don't want the
actual history of the actual theology, I don't know what I mean because that's
what we always cover. So what do you think? So you think it's
gonna you're going to solve all this with a bunch of online shouting and well
you're going to make a common cause with a bunch of Protestants to do this.
Really you think that's going to work? Thank you guys though, for
the super chat. I appreciate that. Yeah, I mean, look,
I focus on what my wheelhouse is, and my wheelhouse is the topics that
I cover. So the one of the reasons I don't focus on the political
is that as you get older, and as you you know, when you're
in your twenties, you're very politically minded, you think you're gonna do a
lot with politics, and then as you get older, you realize how I
don't mean to be black pilled here, so don't misunderstand what I'm saying.
I think politics is very limited what you can really do in politics, and
you can do a lot at the local level, but you know, national
politics and everybody getting so wrapped up and it's just it's really doesn't do anything.
And after you get into your thirties and forties and you live through a
lot of these elections and you've seen all this nonsense, you're gonna feel the
same way. So you'll learn that what I'm saying is true as you get
older. So does that mean that you can't be a politician and apply your
classic principles. Now there's people who do this, and I support I think
it's great that people do that. I just don't think that on a national
level it's really, I mean presidential politics kind of a circus. So anyway,
a lot of people live in these sort of fantasy worlds. They want
to larp and pretend that and it's the same. By the way, I
don't have a problem critiquing Orthodox people too. They do the same thing where
they we're going to set up an Orthodox business union part of America. We're
not anywhere near that. Okay, we need like seventy eighty percent of population
converted Orthodoxy before that would even be like on the table. Okay, But
there's nothing wrong with talking about the church's teaching on the role of church and
state. And that's what we're talking about tonight. What is the theological teaching
of Orthodox Catholic and Protestant. So let's look at that, because again,
you know, as you guys know, Orthodox theology is taught by the icons.
You can always look to canonical iconography to get the basics of our theology.
But let's go with the Protestants first. Let's step over here to the
Protestant world. Even though you might think, well, why wouldn't you start
with orthox Roman Catholic, Well, in America, I think it's still the
case that where's my Protestant pictures, I'll pull them up here we go.
I think it's still the case that the majority of religious adherents in America,
I think are Protestant. I think that's right. So we'll start with that,
just because in America that's the predominant view, right. I mean,
America starts as and inment nation with a lot of Protestant influence. It's true
there are a few Catholics there. There's the Carol family that's there, so
there is a bit of a Catholic history of America. But there was also
a lot of Episcopalians, Baptists, Deists, Masons. Right, there's an
odd cavalcade of characters who kind of go into the spirit of America, the
Founding Fathers and so forth. And so there's a strong Puritan and Protestant ethos
there, especially with the Puritan work ethic, the whole idea of you know,
predestination manifesting itself in worldly blessings. Right, So if you're part of
the elect, if you're a city on a hill, as many the Puritans
said, even prior to you know, seventeen seventy six or whatever, prior
to that, you've got the idea already in some of the Puritans that the
New Israel has kind of equated to the American experiment of people like Cotton Mathers
and these characters, right, And so you get this idea of setting up
a type of theocracy through the Puritans, and the Puritans are getting that out
of a loose kind of dominion theology that Calvin had. And so I know
all about this. I used to be a pretty committed Calvinist dominionist, and
dominion theology just refers to a lot of people get obsessed over this. They
think it's something ridiculous, and at times it is ridiculous, but it just
means that the dominion mandate of Genesis still applies to be fruitful and multiply,
and it certainly it does. But of course, in the Orthodox view,
that's fulfilled in the Church. The Church is who truly has the dominion mandate.
And while it's also the case that the state should operate under Christian principles,
that's not the first priority of the Christian to convert the state. We
convert us families, cultures, tribes, and then the state follows kind of
the last you could say in that in that exercise, So the Protestants.
Though, what's interesting is that if we go back to the early reformers,
we want to talk about Luther, Calvin AND's wingli here. Uh not many
people know that when the present Reformation kicks off, this was not solely motivated
by a desire to fight the papacy. Certainly, uh there were uh,
you know, theological obsessions that Luther had over certain doctrines like solo fida.
And you know, he begins by questioning in the nine five PCs things like
purgatory and indulgences and temporal remission of sins and all this kind of stuff.
And if the pope has the power to, you know, dispense plenary indulgences,
why why does any free everybody from purgator? So Luther asked a lot
of these, uh legitimate theological questions, and it progresses into more fundamental theological
questions. Luther becomes more and more hardcore Augustinian, as you guys know,
becomes more predestinarian. He writes his book Bondage of the Will, where he
essentially denies free will. But what not many people know is that Luther had
tremendous support from the German princes and so the state, the German state,
and these princes were really tired of the pope and they were a big part
of the motivation and support behind Luther. And we can see kind of similar
things with other Protestant reformers as well. Everybody kind of knows that, you
know, the creation of the Church of England is Henry the Eighth. He
Hear the Eighth is kind of annoyed at the papal situation with divorce and not
granting him, you know, what he wants with his ladies. He wants
a male heir and he's having these issues and so Pope angers him and he
I'm going to create the church being and that becomes in part a looting exercise,
where the Church of England essentially is this new entity that then loots a
lot of the Roman Catholic areas, monasteries, and it undergoes a kind of
revolution that at times is sometimes called low Church Anglicanism, and there's also High
Church Anglicanism, so you can get something kind of a variation there where low
Church Anglican is almost perhaps even Congregationalists kind of puritan type of government, maybe
even something akin to we cann't say full on. Many of them are Calvinists,
but we can't say they're full on Presbyterian because Anglican kind of necessitates episcopal
church governance in the recognition of the king. Many Presbyterians who are strict followers
of Luther, of course, end up being Presbyterian and preferring republican government as
opposed to monarchy. And as you guys probably know, in England there's actual
battles between the Royalists and was the cavaliers versus the royalists or whatever. So
you get these religious wars over the relationship of church and state and the structure
of not just the church but also the state. For example, in the
times of the Westminster Confession, which is the sort of normative doctrine of Reformed
Presbyterian theology, that's their primo confession, there were many people there very worried
that there might be a concession to Erastianism, and Erascianism, if you don't
know, is just Cicero papism, the idea that the king, the ruler,
whoever it might be, president of the republic, even perhaps that he's
now the head of the church. And so the Westminster Confession contains within it
I think if I'm going for I haven't looked at Westminster Confession in probably fifteen
years, but you know, they have these guards against the king or the
ruler having any authority in the church, but they still have the idea that
the state has a duty to God and it's not autonomous. In the Protestant
theories, both I would say, Luther and Calvin, you could argue that
there's still even this early on a kind of loose I wouldn't say theocracy.
In other words, I would say Calvin is more of a proponent of theocracy,
maybe even than Luther. Luther's not super concerned with the state, but
he does think the state has a duty to kind of promote the basic ideas
of Christian morals, the Ten Commandments and this kind of stuff. And so
ironically, even though Luther was supported by the German princes against the Pope,
Calvin actually spends up being more of a theocrat than Luther does. And this
is where we get Puritanism. And there's a lot of inter nicene disputes that
a lot of people don't know about or even care. Nobody even cares about
this, but within the Reformed and Calvinist world, there's actually debates over to
what degree Calvin was a theonomist. Theonymist just means a person believes that the
Old Testament civil law teachings are in varying degree is still kind of applicable to
today's society, so basically just theocracy to some degree. Now, Calvin doesn't
think that the Church and the state kind of like he thinks they have spheres,
and most people, i think in Church history recognize some role of spheres
here until we get to the radical reformers, So until we get to the
Anabaptists. Whether you're Protestant, Orthodox, or Catholic, most people think,
okay, there's kind of sort of loose canonical if you're Orthodox, are Catholic
barriers between what the king or ruler canon can't do and what the bishops and
the priests cannon can't do. So there's kind of loosely defined ideas. It
is true that in the late Middle Ages and into the Middle Ages, there's
it's fuzzy at times because you have at times monks who become warrior monks.
That's unheard of and forbidden in the Orthodox world, but it exists by the
eleven twelfth century in the Latin West. There's a great chapter on that in
this book. I highly recommend the mind Or of Papadoccus book on this period
of eleven hundred to fourteen fifty three to the collapse of Byzantium. There's whole
chapter on the new element of the rise of the warrior monk, and that
was actually one of the elements of the new Gregorian papacy. So they were
big supporters of this because it now allowed for another type of we can say
army, so to speak, on the behalf of the pope. So there
have been times where there's crossing the boundaries of the bishops becoming princes that fight,
and that, to be clear here is actually a violation of canon law.
We'll look at that in a minute. We don't want to go there
right now, but because we're going to stand on the Protestant stuff. But
all the way up until even Calvin and Luther, you have this loose idea
that there's limitations spheres of authority, and even though there's violations and sort of
overstepping the boundaries, most of church history has some kind of recognition of this,
at least church history in the sense of when we start to get canon
law because the first three centuries, even though there's canons that we have sat
the local synods, we don't yet have what we call a codified canon law
because the Church is still persecuted in underground, so they're not going to be
formulating, you know, really laid out theories of church and state. Now,
technically speaking, Paul, Apostles and the Old Testament already kind of have
taught about the role of ecclesia and state because even in the Old Testament there's
clear defined roles between the king and the priest. If you didn't know,
this is already in Mosaic law. Moses in the Law writes out the book
of law for kings and what their duties and boundaries are. Okay, so
those principles again they're already in the Old Testament. They come out of Mosaic
law. For those that don't know, the apostles, I believe are in
incontinuity with those basic ideas. And hence why Paul says that you know,
Caesar, he calls Caesar for those who don't know. In Romans thirteen,
a diaconos a deacon, so Caesar is seen as a servant of God to
dispense divine justice. Now he might be a terrible example of that role,
right, as many of the Roman emperors were. They became tyrants, they
became purscars of the church. But even Paul Rum's thirteen can call Nero a
kind of Diacinos, even though he's a wicked degenerate. And I believe that
Nero is the Antichrist of the Book of Revelation because in Gematria and yes,
John in the Book of Revelation uses Gematria as a code to speak for who
he's talking about, because he couldn't outright say I am talking about Nero as
Antichrist. Nero's name in Hebrew comes out to neuron cusar, which is sixt'
six' six, So it's a key indicator. And I believe John was writing
in the Day's Nero that Nero is the immediate historical beast doesn't mean that Nero
is the final Antichrist. There will be some final Antichrist figure at some point.
But Nero is a type of Antichrist, as were people like told of
Me, as were people like Neimrod. That's how biblical typology works. It
kind of repeats in patterns, so back to Protestants and Protestants and Protestanism.
Then early on what we call classical Protestant. Classical Protestism is the period of
Martin Luther, John Calvin's Wingley, and a couple of the other figures like
Malanchthon and uh, you know, people contemporaries of that first generation of Reformation,
and then maybe some of the people even a generation after are also kind
of classical Protestants, you could say, like Malanchthon or maybe even Turitan for
instance, Turretan to being a classical Calvinist theologian. So sometimes that becomes scholastic
Protestantism, so that the scholastic Protestants, the Puritans, the Calvinists, uh,
they develop a much more kind of fleshed out idea of what the role
of church and state is. And it's typically pretty theocratic. Right. For
example, Calvin has sermons on Deuteronomy where he pretty consistently says that this the
principles in the in the the in Deuteronomy still apply. Okay, so you
don't have to necessarily apply every single penal sanction, but the basic idea of
the application of the penal sanctions to today still applies. That's why Puritans,
for example, if you've all seen the Scarlett letter and then heard about the
Salem witch trade, that's why the idea was that the civil penalties for public
witchcraft and so forth still apply. And that was true in the Roalancatholic world
as well, because in the Middle Ages you did have oftentimes civil penalties for
things like witchcraft and so forth. Now people say, yeah, and we
should punish adultery too, and all that. Now there have been civil penalties
for adultery in canon law and so forth, and even in civil law in
the Middle Ages as well as skittles. But the other interesting distinction here is
that in Orthodox views of this, the punishment is determined by the sphere.
So for example, if someone was excommunicated from the church, it's not the
role of the church to punish people. Okay, The excommunication is itself kind
of a punishment. So the church might say to you know, a ruler
or a duke or somebody I don't know, maybe a duke becomes a heretic,
and the Orthodox Church is, okay, you're excommunicated, and then or
I don't know, some other heretic or something. It's then the state that
can then determine the penalty of that in a civil sense. So that's again
spheres of authority, and again between the Orthodox and the Roman Catholic throughout the
Middle Ages. I tend to view this as not that different. I don't
think the case it's the case that there is some difference between say the Roman
Catholic people calls for crusades. We don't see anything like that really in the
East. Per se, you do have battles with Muslims on the basis of
you know, a Serbian kings fighting Islam. So I wouldn't go so far
as to say that even all war is like wrong or bad or anything like
that. I think that there is defensive, justified war and so forth.
But there is an agreement, I would say, typically between East and West
on the basic ideas of things like the duty of the state to operate under
Christian principles because the majority of the populations are Christian. Okay, So it's
not being enforced or pushed or promulgated because of some sort of top down thing.
It's because the societies are Christian majority. So when we start to see
Protestantism come about and react against what I believe is an earlier papal revolution.
Part of the reason protestantm occurs, in my view, is precisely because of
the Gregorian Reforms. So if you're familiar with the Gregorian Reforms, you know
that in the period of the eleven hundreds you get about one hundred years where
the Germanic tribes literally appoint the pope for about one hundred years. And so
this, by the way, undercuts the toll the ridiculous idea that Roman Catholics
were never under any kind of ceso papism. No, it's just papalo crism,
where Otto and all these other kings were basically disappointing who they wanted as
the pope to control the office of the papacy. We have a similar situation
when the papacy moves to France in Avignon for seventy years, the See of
Peter in France, right, and it has become such a mess that's known
as the Great Western Schism, where you have three people claiming to be the
pope through two anti popes who knows and it takes an ecumenical council, the
Council of Constance to solve this, which is ironic because of course Roman Catholic
theology says that councils are above the pope. So when there's three rival popes,
what do they do? They turn to a council. But remember popes
are so above councils. So it's all a bunch of casoustrie and it's absurd,
but it's based around this idea that we see in Dictatus Pope of the
Gregorian Reforms, and this is Pope Gregory the seventh. Again, there's great
chapters on this, the mind or Papadocus book, and it makes essentially all
these outlandish claims which don't just apply to church and state, and actually points
out that the papacy, the pope is actually the quisa's hatterac He's the universe
is super being. All the emperors and kings in the world submit to the
Pope. They all must kiss his ring. He decides who rules in every
country in the world. His is the only name in the world. He
may oppose all emperors, he determines all bishops in the world. And again,
well, hopefully we all know how foreign this is to the canons of
the councils. Okay, we just cover this in the debate with or in
the debate review with Luigi, where we went through multiple canons, the ancient
Ken's Apostolic Canons. For example, Canon thirty four to thirty five says that
no bishop can go outside of his own sea, even the first bishop cannot
go outside of his own sea, and let him do all things in accord
with all the rest. Okay, well, that's Soynodalism. That's not Vatican
One where the pope does not need the consent of the other bishops. Okay,
Canon thirty four, as we covered the other night, thirty four slash
thirty five depending on the numberings. And you'll notice that again it's the Rouma
Church has never aired. All these things go together. This is a valid,
absolutely correct that it's papal teaching. Every scholar that you look up that
discusses dictatas pape will talk about it. As I've never seen anybody say it's
not valid. So Tishynsky talks about it, Papa, Doaca's mind or if
they all talk about it as valid as far as we can tell. But
this renation, this evolution here of the role of church and state. You
see that this is an innovation because prior to this, the pope didn't even
call the ecumenical councils. The emperor did. And if we look at the
seven Ecamenical council, it speaks of the Emperor as the God ordained Emperor,
the voice and pen of God. Right, all this flowery language that Luigi
brought up in the live stream covering his debate with Voice of Reason. Yeah,
exactly. The Pope is the queisasaderaik. He's the one who was this
my indeed, right, as Christopher Walkin says, he's the god Emperor.
But no one had ever seen anything like Dictatus Pope in the first thousand years.
And that shows that the doctor of the papacy is an evolution. And
if that's the case, then the entire premise of what for example, Voice
of Reason and Ibara argue, oh, that was always there. If this
is not always there, then it wasn't always there. You say, all,
then it evolved. Okay, well it evolved, then it wasn't always
there. So and I want to show you that just an example, The
Canons of Chalcedon, for example, limit all clergy, and you'll notice in
every one of the canons of the councils that speaks about clergy and bishops and
their roles or limitations. There's never exemptions for the Bishop of Rome. So
all the Roman Catholics who discussed this, they always say, well, it's
an argument from science, because they already all understood it. Okay. But
so they understood that the Roman sea had total supremacy and jurisdiction, but they
also enacted canons that contradict that. So the pope had to throw out the
canons that he didn't like in literally every council. But they also believed in
people supremacy as they enact canons they contradicted. So you see how these arguments
are spacious, absurd and contradictory from the Roman Catholics. And that's why Calcedon
they love to appeal to calcul Well, it says that if your clergy you
cannot be in the military or in any secular position, Well how can you
not? There's no exemption for the pope. By the way, So if
you can't be in the military or in any secular profession, state role,
then how is it that you're the quisants haiderak and the emperor of all emperors?
How is it that every emperor in the world submits to you and you
can depose them. How is it that, uh, you know, Alexander,
Pope, Alexander can have his own standing armies, standing armies? Do
you think that Chalcedon at all had in mind the possibility that the pope could
have standing armies? And by the way, they were so ridiculous in the
time of Gregory that excuse me, Alexander, the Borgia Pope, that you
would actually communicate the state the people that wouldn't fight for I mean, you
talk about corruption so like it's not just a matter of a well, they
were corrupt, okay, but it's not just a matter of corruption. It's
a matter of what the absurd claims of dictatus Pope are. And it's not
just dictatus Poppy either. Again, we've hammered this home a million times and
it just goes in one anyone air out the other. And we have to
talk about this because this is the reason why the Protestants had such a overreaction
against this stuff. They're both wrong in our view. In thirteen oh two,
Pope Boniface publishes famous statement called unim sanctum. And not only does unum
sanctam teach that you have to be in union with the Roman See to be
saved, and not just in a generic It's not like all the world religions
are somehow loosely in a union. No public communion with the Roman Sea is
what this document's talking about. Because the Vatican two people will try to say,
oh, well, everybody is in a kind of union with the Bishop
of Rome, even the Muslims. Right, that's the Vatican too, like
all the churches in every world religion is kind of loosely in union with Francis.
That's the Vatican two model of everybody being on a graded scale, concentric
circles away from Rome in the center, which is ridiculous because there's canons in
for seven councils that forbid you from going to as if you're a cleric,
to worship in the synagogue or the churches of heretics. In every post Vatican
two pope has gone and prayed in the mosque, in the synagogue and with
heretics, violating the ancient canons because they don't care what Kennon said. They
don't care that it was a unanimous teaching of the early Church that you can't
go and worship in a mosque towards Mecca. That's crazy and m you tell
us Romancologics, what's the problem. So you mean the guy that called the
office of the Pope the pope calls a crusade against Islam. But now you
can build a multi faith center and pray in mosques with Muslims towards Mecca.
You don't see that as a contradiction Roman catholicsopp nopoop oop Yeah exactly. And
that's why to answer the original guy's question, how are you going to make
a common course with telling people that Christianity is what Francis offers when I'm signed
them. Doesn't just talk about the necessity to be in community with the Romans
he to be saved. It also talks about it is necessary for the state
to submit to the Pope. So people cite this document and they think,
oh, this is one of those you know, Cantatae Domino Council Florence documents
that says that you have to be in king of the Roman to be saved
the haha, no salvation outside the church extraclaton to nolslos Okay, yeah,
but it also says that you have to be in union with the Roman see
to be a legitimate ruler, and the pope will decide who the ruler is,
and that you have to believe in the temporal supremacy of the pope to
be saved as well. You see, now the question is does that still
apply well, as we're going to see in a minute, No, the
Roman calogy Church does not anymore teach the temporal supremacy dictatis pape unamsanctam view of
the Roman Catholic papacy. Because are you familiar with the tiara? Did you
know what the triple tiara is? Triple tiara is the threefold supremacy that the
pope has, and one of those three crowns is the authority over all state
rulers. The post Vatican two popes. I think it was Paul the six
took this thing off. So it's very symbolic that Paul the six, the
real pope a Vatican too. John the twenty third calls it, and then
Paul the six finishes it. It's very significant that he took this thing off,
and to my knowledge, they've not worn it since. Right, so
you could see John the twenty third looks like was the last one that had
on. Maybe Paul the sixth War. Its some, but he's the one
that dispensed with it. Yeah, so here's John the twenty third wearing the
triple crown, and that's been dispensed with. I don't know if they auctioned
it off or so old, or if he's just sitting in the Vatican or
where it is. But this is photoshopped. That's not him actually wearing it.
You can tell it's photoshopped on there. But this has to do with
the Vatican two teaching post dignitatis humani and post nosrotte that they no longer mandate
and stress the Christian state. In fact, Benedict and others people think Benedict
was a super trapped Benedict was actually calling for the decatholicization of many European states.
Now there's a million lines of cope. Well, he was doing that
because they're not Christian anymore. It looks bad to call it Catholic. No,
no, no, that's not why they're doing this. They're doing this
because the Vatican two teaching is religious liberty, indifferentism and so forth. And
we'll see that in a minute. Because the very thing that payble encyclicals dogmatic
teaching. Murari voss Lamentabilei, Syllabus of errors. Right, these all condemn
religious liberty, freedom of thought, freedom of press, and so forth as
heresies. Vatican two, Dignatasimani says, now, this is the true spirit
of Christ is to have religious liberty. Now here's the problem, though.
Religious liberty, now that's a bit of a vague term, because does that
mean that you can do whatever you want. Well, it's always been vague.
And religious liberty and freedom of press, freedom of conscience, freedom of
worship, those were all Protestant doctrines, their protestant Ism one oh one.
The Protestant rulers and reformers made sure to stress, but they weren't consistent with
it. But they made sure to stress that we are not submitting to the
pope because we have freedom of worship, freedom of conscience, and we don't
have to believe it just because the Pope says it. We have to be
convinced of it. Now. They weren't consistent though, because Calvin had Servetus
put to death, and Michael Servitus could appeal to the same principles that Calvin
was appealing to against the pope. Right, Michael Cervita said well, I'm
not convinced of the Trinity. John Calvin says Michael Cervinas ought to be put
to death because he's denying the dogma the Trinity. Well, the Pope says
that the Calvinists that be put to death because they're denying multiple Roman Catholic dogmas.
So you see how freedom of worship, freedom of conscience, freedom of
press, etcetera. In principle. Okay, they sound good, and there
might be a sense in which we have those, but they're ambiguous, just
as phrases. What does that mean. Does freedom of worship mean that I'm
free to erect Satanic temples and worship Satan and offer human sacrifice? Some people
think so literally, right, And if you read some of the documents about
it can too. It's hard to see how that doesn't also apply. Because
one of the documents that came, if it's a didn't tas Humani or the
one there into Gracio one or one of them talks about how there should be
no restrictions on other groups, sects and cults in society. And some people
make the argument that well, this was during the Cold War and they were
saying all this so that they could help convince the Soviets to let the church
be free. And that's not why they were doing that. They weren't teaching
religious liberty because of Soviets. Okay, give me a break. If that
was the case, then they should walk it back. Now that there's no
Soviet empire anymore. Did they do that? No, No, the Pope's
still call for the de christianization of the state. They still call for religious
liberty, freedom of worship, and so forth. Now you said, well,
what's the problem, Well, as we see here, So here's dignatatist
humani. This is the Vatican two document which is about supposedly, on the
basis of the dignity of the individual or the human being, he should never
be compelled, never be in any way that the church or religious teacher should
never have any quote, violence connected to it. Now this is ambiguous as
well, because of course the church shouldn't go out and like chop people's heads
off. But the problem is that this is the very argumentation of the Protestants
as to why there should be no dogmatic connection to the state. Now,
they weren't consistent with that, But as the Protestant Reformation progresses, who are
the other reformers that many of us know about but often forget about after Luther,
Calvin's Wingley, Malanchthon, etc. The Anabaptists. The Anabaptists, even
though we don't think of them as the Reformation, they're actually a gigantic portion
of the Reformation, which arguably you could say has had now more. The
theology of Anabaptism, i would argue, is actually now more popular, maybe
inadvertently nowadays, than the actual theology of Luther and Calvin. How's that?
Well, Anabaptist taught that. As we said, this is what's called the
Radical Reformation, right, And it's very important to know about the Radical Reformation
because the Reformation, again, it's not just Lutheran, Calvin and the famous
guys. When you start to look at the Radical Reformation, you start realizing,
hey, wait a minute, these dudes they actually sound like Baptists,
Evangelicals, Charismatics, and most of American Christianity. Now, it's true that
we don't have a direct lineal descent necessarily to the Radical Reformers, right,
there are some groups that exist today that still do have historical lineage to the
Radical Reformers, the hutter Rights, the Amish, the Mennonites. They come
from the Radical Reformers. And it's true that the Amish and Mennonites and hutter
Rights are not the big group out there, right, they're small groups.
Quakers Shakers, right, I think there's like three people left of the Shakers.
Literally, there's only three Shakers left from the historic Shaker community, which
is like some lunatic split of Quakers. But even President you know, Richard
Nixon from you know, we grew up as a Quaker, the Quaker oats
guy. I think Cadbury Cadbury Chocolates in England is also a Quaker company.
So how is it then? How can I, Jay, how could you
say that the Radical Reformation is really dominant today because the theology of the Radical
Reformation. Let's look at some of the commonalities that Now, this is a
bunch of wacky groups, right, so keep that in mind. But what
are some of the commonalities amongst the wacky groups of the Radical Reformation. We'll
take a look. So the Radical Reformers were like, hey, wait a
minute, of course we don't like Rome, right, we don't like the
papacy. That's a big Antichrist institution. I can't get Oxford to pull up.
So we're just gonna use Wikipedia just for the overall view here. We
don't like the pope, but you know what, Martin Luther's got a lot
of papal baggage, doesn't he know? He's got images and he thinks there's
sacraments, there's baptismal regeneration, and there's luther like some traditions, and he
just didn't go far enough because Luther thought that there was like dogmas and tradition.
Still, Luther didn't understand that the real Christianity is the inner light and
move of the Holy Spirit. That's charismaticism. Luther didn't understand that what we
need is a communal type of living. That's Thomas Munzer and communism. And
Luther didn't understand that we don't need tradition, we need the Bible alone and
a personal relationship with Jesus. That really doesn't have much to do with the
church at all. The church is goin optional that's Baptists and Southern Baptists,
and out of Southern Baptists Campbellites, Church of Christ, non the nominational churches
megachurches. The dominant type of Christianity in America. Is this quasi gnostic and
a baptist Ish radical Reformation theology. Let's look at some more commonalities. Many
of the early forms of the Rackal Reformation were millennarian so Akilleism, pre millennialism,
even though there was a few early church fathers who might have, as
debated, might have had a pre millennial or a millennialist type of view.
Doesn't matter the cost. Anthon umble One in three eighty one excludes all forms
of millennialism. When the Creed says whose kingdom shall have no end? That
is intended to exclude the millennialists, the millennarians, the Achilleis. But most
of the Protestants and Evangelicals in America, their dispensationalists, their pre millennialists,
et cetera. So radical Reformation theology makes it comeback. What else did they
believe? Many of these groups believed in biblical literalism, others believed in quote
spiritualism, and some of those groups even said that you don't need the scriptures
at all, You need the direct move of the Holy Spirit, which might
be manifestations of shaking, It might be manifestations of gibberish, it might be
manifestations of you think God's talking to you and telling you what to do.
Wait a minute, that sounds like the majority of Evangelicalism exactly, the non
Anabaptist radical reformers. These are also very important because they relate very closely to
the topic today. Though most of the radical Reformers were Anabaptists, some of
them were not. Munzer, for example, was involved in the German Peasants
War, so even though he was a proto Communist, the Thomas Munzer Rebellion
resulted in the idea that you could fight in battles and stuff. Uh andres
Karlstaw disagreed theologically with Zwingley and Luther teaching non violence and refusing infant baptism.
So this is where we get Luther, by the way, who says Zwingley
should be put to death and that the the Baptists and ana Baptists who wouldn't
baptized children should be put to death. So keep that in mind. These
were considered death worthy disagreements at that time. And remember that because Protestants are
always saying there's a loose, lowest common denominator idea of what a Protestant is.
We all believe in the Bible, we all believe in baptism, used
to kill each other over baptism of infants. What are you talking about and
you don't there's no common It's all a bunch of lunatics. And by the
by the way, just because there's some commonalities doesn't mean there's one group.
Remember how the remember the move that Bryson did the Bryson debate where you tried
to play this trick. Any group, loosely speaking, that had a judaizing
tendency was the group that Bryson's in communion with. That's not a single group,
dude, That's a bunch of different, disconnected sex all over the place.
I'm with them, I'm with Dan, that's my group. Come on,
dude. Now here's the key point with the dissenters, the English Reformation,
rodic Co Reformation, the English dissenters, these people, Quakers and others,
George Fox, Roger Williams. What's their key point. Well, we
can understand why they might think this. They're getting persecuted by the Presbyterian theocracy
of Calvin. They get persecuted by Martin Luther and his German princes get drowned
because they won't baptize their infants, they get person by perscued by the Roman
Catholics, because Roman Catholics just say they're idiotic heretics. And it's not necessarily
the churches they are doing. It's the German state, the theocracy of Calvin,
the state, and the Catholic kings. So guess what their theology is.
The Antichrist is the state. God has nothing to do with the state,
because how could God be the state or have a role in the state
when the state keeps persecuting us And we're the true keepers of the true flame,
We're the true Christians, the true pious people. But notice what's happening
with the Christianity of these idiotic radical reformers is it's having nothing to do with
history. Remember Paul Washer literally saying, Chay, I'm coming to believe the
Radical Reformation the Anabaptist were correct all alone. It was a blackout Jay,
the church was blacked out. Give me money for hard privasions, right,
literally saying that he believes Anabaptist blackout theory. The piety signalers, of all
piety signalers, the Anabaptists persecuted by the state. And what do we get.
We get Roger Williams saying that the state is anti God, the state
is Antichrist. Interestingly, the Anabaptist theology of the state as against God and
kind of Antichrist. This is synonymous with kind of a lot of Americanist ideas,
isn't it. So for example, I have mentioned this many many times,
you guys. I won't say who, but some years ago in twenty
seventeen eighteen, I met an Oca priest and we had a long exchange,
a pretty heated argument, and he had the same ideas as Roger Williams that
God has nothing to do with the state. It's basically an Antichrist institution.
Like so you say, Roger Williams is Orthodox. This is crazy, And
how contrary to the entire history of the Orthodox Church? Is this just completely
night and day? It was like the Seventh Documentical Council, the entire Businessine
Empire. And my point is not to say that all of the Byzantine emperors
were saints, and no, no, I'm not saying that. Obviously it
fell like there was corruption, right, But the point is that how could
you think that Munzer not Muonster. I'm sorry, because Mouncher fought in the
Peasant War. But how could you think that George Fox and Roger Williams and
that that is what orthodox Christianity teaches. So what happens is a lot of
times in America, especially priests, people are trained up and their american Ism
comes first. So they're doing the same mistake, making the same move,
the same mistake in my view, that people who would say Christ is King
make by thinking that the political comes first and turning Christ into like a bays
tried political thing. That's not what it is. That's an effect of authentic
Christianity, but it's not first and foremost. That's down the road. You
see what I'm saying. If you think of it as first and foremost a
political thing, as soon as you begin to fail in the political domain,
now Jesus is well, he doesn't have anything to do with this. You
see, you would be led to the logic of Roger Williams. And neither
of these positions is correct. Neither Roger Williams nor the idea that Jesus is
like my political banner that I'm going to enact the base and trad political party
stuff with. This is the very move that the Pope made erroneously a thousand
years ago to turn the papacy into a geopolitical state organization. That's the mistake.
And saying that the mistake of the papacy to become a geopolitical power organization
is not solved by saying that Orthodox need to be Americanists and reject the Christian
state. That's the opposite error, the very error that the priests I'm talking
about made. So hopefully that's clear. Hopefully go to see that, right.
I think we got to abou almost nine hundred. So we got people
kind of popping in and out, I guess, and we're going to open
it up for people to discuss. Now there's even when I support the show,
you can do somebody super chats there. Now, there's a lot of
specifics that there's not easy, you know, direct answers to in terms of
these questions, Like somebody will always say, well, what is the limits
of the state. There's never gonna be some like one size fits all answer
to this. History is diverse. You're going to have places and times in
history when the state has less power, the state has more power. My
personal view, I would like to see the state have less power. That
does not make me a libertarian. Now we got to talk about libertarianism,
because this is the next mistake that people make in this domain, where their
assumption is that the Enlightenment was like the high point of all of civilization.
And in my view, again, I see the Enlightenment kind of like the
Reformation, where you've got a reaction against papal problems, as the Reformation was,
but the reaction is also a problem, right, And everybody's always falling
into either words. Right, Well, if the papers is bad, then
I guess the Reformers were good. Papers is bad. The Masons must be
good. Or you can have two people that are bad. You can have
two wrong sides. Okay, people can't figure this out, like most people
just default to thinking that somebody's right, somebody wrong, the guy bad guy,
black life. You can have five people arguing something and they're all wrong
obviously, right, isn't that possible? Sure? If you ever heard five
pundits on a Twitter space all being idiots, all being wrong, of course,
right. So just because there's extremes in the papacy in the Middle Ages
doesn't make the Reformation response automatically correct. Obviously, Perhaps both sides have right,
Perhaps both sides have things wrong, but maybe not. In some cases
there might be a party that has everything correct. Loosely speaking, right,
It's just not an easy either or, is what I'm trying to say now
in regard again to moving back to the papacy position. Because remember, as
the Reformation progresses, as the Radical Reformation happens, you get these mixes.
You get, you know, Europe kind of being split Protestant, you get
the years of the wars in Europe over religion, thirty years of War,
etc. You get, and I read entire books on those many years ago.
I've forgotten a lot of it in my history classes, but I read
a whole book on thirty years War, which all fascinating and ties into all
this. You've got people who reject the Anabaptist stuff and the Protestant stuff and
the Catholic stuff, and they start getting into Hermeticism. So you can start
to get the rise of Freemasonry, Rosicrucianism. So I remember, there's this
cauldron. You've got the atheist Enlightenment people. You've got a cauldron of interests
here. It's all mixing and bubbling over and battling. And so what the
Roman Church does in response, which is understandable, and I think as Orthodox
we actually agree with a lot of the basics here. So if you read
this book that I'm always recommending the popes against the modern errors. A lot
of the basic principles that they call out, critiquing the Protestant and Enlightenment presuppositions
is all covered in this document. Sixteen papal documents from about seventeen hundred up
to I think there's some Pious the eleventh in there, so it ends with
some of the Pie's eleventh. So I think I read it twice, but
I read it twice, like fifteen years ago. It used to be book
I would give out when I was a tradcat And the reason I give this
out is that it's so clear and to the point contrasted with Vatican two.
Okay, So if you want one book that really contrasts the essential contradictions between
the documents of Vatican two and the pre papal teaching, it's this book right
here from Ten Books, classic famous traditional Catholic publisher. Every Catholic knows who
ten Books is. So the sixteen documents here don't just call out the idea
of modernism, liberalism, Freemasonry, I think is included in their humani generis
or humano genus excuse me, of thee other thirteenth I think that's in there.
But by the way, there's actually like ten and then're like ten incyclicals
going back to the seventeen hundreds, Pope Clement calling out and rejecting Freemasonry.
The first, I think is from Pope Clement, and there's a whole series
of these all the way up to again famous en cyclicals like Murari Voss of
Gregory the sixteenth in eighteen thirty two, and liberalism and religious and differentism here.
This is one of the earliest call outs of the what we might call
the proto a humanist idea. So, even though Acumenism is not an organized
movement yet, in the eighteen thirties you kind of have the predecessors to it
with things like Freemasonry, things like Protestantism. Branch theory already exists, and
in the eighteen thirties the papacy was very adamant to oppose these things and call
them out. Now, this is in the minds of the popes in these
documents, fully expressing the universal Catholic tradition. So even though there's not a
statement at the beginning of these documents that says this shows an extrica, theaters
to eatement were proclaimed as for the whole church from the Tipeter. It doesn't
really have to because it's papal teaching, pressing what is the universal teaching to
condemn errors, and the errors condemned are all the things that you would expect
religious liberty, freedom of worship, total freedom of conscience, modernism and so
forth. And what's called indifferentism here, which is the idea connected the liberty
of conscience that you can be saved in all kinds of different paths and churches
and groups. Now he's not even talking about salvation and false religions. He's
talking about salvation and various branches of the church and amongst schismatic groups, so
branch theory. He talks about liberty of conscience, He talks about freedom of
the press. So you understand that the papacy in eighteen thirty two, going
back to citing Climent the thirteen about the of heterodox books, the Holy Office,
banning Masonic texts and so forth, attacking the idea that the public must
submit to submit to kings and princes. So it's a monarchical text. God
has established the monarchical rule. Now, this is just one of sixteen papal
documents that specifically condemn all the errors that we're talking about. Now as we
get down, what is the key error that he wants to highlight towards the
end of the document the separation of church and state identified by the pope here
as a heresy. What is Digna taught us humani about the separation of church
and state? The de catholicizing of Christian states. This is Vatican two document
for those who don't know, Tween sixty five Paul the six and of course
it has been reiterated by all the posts Vatican two popes that no longer needs
to be Christian and Catholic states because it's not good for pluralism. This is
why John Courtney Murray was so important at Vatican two in terms of his Jesuit
theology, was that he was a big promoter as well as I think Maritane
Jacques Manartaine of religious pluralism and that modern states and societies needed to adopt religious
pluralism. Does does it at all sound like Maurari Voss of eighteen thirty two
and Pope Benedict Or excusing Pope Gregory the sixteenth. Does this as all sound
like pluralism to you, to condemn the separation of church and state as a
heresy? Yeah, if you've never read these, if you're a Roman Catholic,
it's time to start reading some these, bro. So that's Mauri Voss
as one example. Now keep in mind this is not a one off.
Okay, Popes against the Modern Errors has sixteen papal documents just like this,
including some of the documents that are attached to Vatican One, like the Syllabus
of Errors, if I recall, so, let's look at the Syllabus of
Errors. Quantic Cura. Quantic Curra is the encyclical of Pope Pious the ninth
of the Pope a Vatican one, and the Trads will argue that this is
part of Vatican One. I'm sure Novasorto Catholics don't even care. But I
think the Trads are correct on this. I think it is intended to be
part of Vatican I mean it's the pope condemning ideas that are heterodox. So
I mean, surely the Pope knows right, shouldn't he know, I mean,
it's the popa Vatican. One wouldn't pie us the ninth. No,
let's look at some of the errors that are condemned. We're going to start
down at the bottom, because it gets really spicy towards the end, errors
concerning modern liberalism. And in every one of the errors he actually mentions other
papal documents to show that it's in concord with previous people teaching and his own
people teaching. It is no longer expedient that the Catholic religion should be held
as the religion of the state to the exclusion of all other forms of worship.
Condemned. There you go, right there, condemned. It has been
wisely decided by law that in Catholic countries people should be able to retain their
own particular types of worship. Condemned. These are condemned propositions. You understand
that. I mean, I know there's a lot of slow people in the
audies, but slow boys, these are condemned. Probably he's not teaching this.
This is the condemned propeetition proposition. Moreover, it is false that every
civil liberty of every form worship given all and overtly of all publicly manifesting any
opinions whatsoever. Total freedom of thought and to the propagation of indifferentism condemned.
Total freedom of pressed. The Pope should reconcile himself with progress, liberalism and
modernism condemned. Now everything that is condemned, it's the very thing that the
post vaticancvabacy has done. Let's see errors concerning natural ethics, Christian ethics.
Moral laws do not come from God, they're atheistic. Science and philosophy are
immune to the divine authority, and the Church authority condemned. So again all
these kind of relate, that kind of go together. Right, Authority is
nothing but the sum total of material forces. So authority coming from the people
up. That is not a top down thing from God. Rights just exist
in material facts. There's no rights in duties beyond material facts. So let's
see errors about marriage. This talks about divorce. But I want to get
over here to the state as the origin source of all rights is not subscribed,
ascribed by any limits condemned. So you can't have statism without the role
of the divine authority of the Church. The teaching of the Catholic Church is
hostile to social order. Condemned. The civil government, even if it's run
by an infidel, has a right to indirect negative power over the church.
Condemned. In the case of a conflicting challenge of law between the two powers
of church and state, the state prevails condemned. The state has authority to
shut down and tell the church what they do. Condemned. The state can
interfere in the administration of the sacraments condemned. State can make decisions about religious
seminaries condemned. The best theory of civil society is one which is completely open
and free from all ecclesiastical authority. In other words, a complete separation of
church and state. Condemned by the way, that's Americanism. Catholics can approve
of the system of education that is without the religious Catholic faith condemned, so
state schools condemned. The civil power may prove the bishops of the church from
speaking to and communicating with the Bishop of Rome. Condemned. Laity and state
civil people is talking about possess the right presenting the bishops condemned. Laity can
depose bishops condemned. Government can, by its own right alter the age prescribed
by the Church of the religious professional men and women. So another one about
taking vowels and when you're a Christian and stepping into the fairs of the church.
Anyways, on and on and on. Right, kings and princes are
exempted from the Church condemned. Church must be separated from the from the state,
and the state from the Church condemned. So does this sound like the
same teachings Vatican two is dignetatis himane the Declaration on total religious freedom, no
independence of church and state. So the very thing condemned is the very thing
said to be the teaching of the Church in Christ indignitatis himani. So this
is essentially a surrendering of between Murri Voss and Lamentabili and the other sixteen papal
documents up to the time of Vatican two. And here's the irony is that
nobody has mentioned quas primus except a few treads, I'm sure. So as
late as nineteen twenty five, get this, As late as nineteen twenty five,
the papacy instituted a feast called Christ the King. Every tried Catholic knows
about Christ the King Qua's primus. And this was intended to prop up the
traditional teaching that the state cannot be separate from the church, the Church can
be separated from the state, that you can't make a atheistic, independent state
separate from the Church if you're a Christian and a Catholic. So as late
as nineteen twenty five piously eleven, that was still upholding the things that we
just saw in mariarri Voss and the lamentabili Syllabus sabers. Now Feast of Christ
the King is nineteen twenty five, So it only took from nineteen twenty five
to nineteen what year is nineteen sixty five, okay, twenty five to sist
for forty years. So imagine we're supposed to believe that the Holy Spirit is
guiding the Roman Caolic Church, but between nineteen twenty five and nineteen sixty five.
In nineteen twenty five, the Holy Spirit wants Christian Catholic states. But
by nineteen sixty five that should be done away with, And that's not a
contradiction, even though the nineteen sixty five position is called a demonic delusion and
condemned. So now I know that there's a million Catholic copes for this I
made all those same copes. I tried for many, many years to make
this work. But if you're a Protestant, your senters, ah huh,
I like it, Jay, I like what you're saying. Yeah, downward
them papers, get rid of them babies. Man, Yeah, that's w
I'm done. Bat Wait a minute. As a Protestant, who are you
going to look to what's your teaching? You're not in any better position.
In fact, you're in a worse position because we at least agree with the
basic traditional Roman Catholic teaching as Orthodox traditionally, my Orthodox that aren't just worshipers
of the American Deep State or of the State Department like the EP and marching
to the tune of whatever the State Department says. I mean, they basically
are a state church. They're the state church of the State Department. So
how are you, as a Protestant in a better position, Because as a
Protestant, you don't really have any clear way to deal with this. And
if you look at the history of the Protestant nations, they were miserable failures.
I'm not talking about monetary failures, so I'm not making a Roman Catholic
argument of like we've got more money and we've got more numbers, so we
win. You know, the relationship between church and state in the Protestant nations
failed. Why because as soon as the state became the sort of arbiter and
adjudicator of the church. Because the early Protestant Reformation was Erastian or Cicero papist,
there was always going to be this struggle between the two. And ultimately
you can go back to dignititus dictatus pope. That's a struggle between church and
state, where the pope just says, I'm the state and the church.
It's a single headed eagle, and now I'm both heads and one. But
the Byzantine double headed eagle is the classic Byzantine symbol, which expresses the Orthodox
view, not saying that it's always been done right, but expresses the Orthodox
view of two spheres that operate in their own boundaries, that ideally work in
harmony and symphonia. Symphonia is the meaning of the Orthodox view. That's the
term that signifies the meaning of the Orthodox view of church and state. Ideally,
it's the idea here is that when we have a majority of Christian society,
the ruler will be operating on Christian principles in his sphere. So that
means that he will be able to determine punishments for evildoers. He will be
able to have a role like almost like a deacon. If you remember,
in the businessing Empire, the emperor could go behind the Iconostasius. He was,
he was considered a type of deacon. But he cannot tell the church
what to do. He can't change the church, and emperors that tried to
do that ended up excommunicated Aryan emperors, Iconic class emperors. If the Orthodox
Church was run by emperors, they would have turned it into all kinds of
insane heresies. Right, it would have been Rian, it would have been
Iconoclass, or even worse, who knows. So it doesn't mean that the
ruler will always be faithful to his Christianity anymore than even Caesar as a diaconos
in a sense of the pagan Caesars. Right, they still had a role,
but they were still but they were wicked, and so it was right
to defy them at times. Okay, So it's not a worship of authority
if it's a worship of authority, which by the way, is what the
papal system is the whole papal system is based around the worship of human authority
and historical authority. No, at times it is right to oppose authority when
they go against the higher authority. So that's the principle. Even Aquinas says
this right, it's wrong. It's right at times to oppose both kings and
bishops when they overstep their authority. If you're, for example, you're a
lay person. If the bishop comes and says, give me your house,
you owe me your property, well no, he's stepping over He's not the
right to do that. The bishop can't tell you to give give me give
the church your property. I own it now I'm the bishop. You must
worship my authority. No, that's overstepping the boundaries. Likewise, kings can't
tell the church I mandate that you worship me as Christ. And it's no
longer the Trinity, it's now the Emperor is God right. The emperor can't
do that. He can try to do that, but he excommunicates himself in
doing that. And it is the duty and right of every Christian to oppose
them. Now, it doesn't mean that we oppose them by like taking up
arms. It means that we don't submit to those rulings in situations where,
you know, if the state comes and trusts to, you know, make
us martyrs, we have to be martyrs. And the only time that it
might be right to engage in self defense would be in situations where that's appropriate
to do. Okay, if somebody breaks into my house. Let's say,
a religious fanatic breaks into my house and I will kill your wife and children
for allah, Okay, and he's going to go, you know, r
ape or something. My wife is I have a duty to defend my family,
and in that case, there's a good chance that I could stop him
from doing that, right because it's one on one or something. Now,
if an entire brigade of I don't know, Saudi warriors show up at my
house, like America gets abated by Saudi's or something, I don't know,
and they say come outside and confess a lot, or we chop your heads
off, Okay, Obviously that's not a situation where it would be appropriate to
try to engage in self defense. It's not gonna work. That would clearly
be a providential call to martyrdom and not a providential call to self defense.
So you see how it's not always a one size fits all, black and
white answer to these types of questions, and so likewise, the relationship between
church and state might not always be black and white either. There's going to
be canon law, there's gonna be history, there's gonna be historical precedent,
there's gonna be a biblical theology that all plays into. Hopefully, we have
wise people, wise men who can navigate these things. A wise man like
Solomon is able to apply the right law and the right medicine at the right
time. And so it's not a spergatron thing where there's some ethereal infinite list
of the right and wrong things to do in every situation that doesn't exist.
And as you get older, you're gonna learn that. You're gonna figure that
out. Stop being such a spurg. We're gonna look at a few more
texts, by the way, that also point this out. And then I'm
gonna open it up to Q and A. I forgot to turn the Q
and A on, but they're not even I wonder if my space is still
there. Let's see, I don't know what I've never known what happens if
you like, forget your space or something that is still there. Let's see,
right, we'll try it all right, So I don't know if anybody's
going to show up or not, but noah M five dollars kind of republic
or classical liberal system of government such as American produce a virtuous society. I
mean it's hard to say, Like, I think that it's possible, plausible
perhaps, but you know, we don't have a whole lot of examples of
classical liberalism. I mean, we've only got Enlightenment upwards, and that's not
a huge number of countries. So it kind of depends on what you think
the goods of a society are. So you ask me, can it produce
a virtuous society? And how is a monarchy better? Well, what we
think the goods of a society are are going to partly determine how we pick
out successful and non successful societies. If we think of society as only successful
on the basis of monetary gain, financial security, trade, and so for,
then we'll think of sort of purely temporal things. But maybe that's not
the ultimate healthy good society. Maybe a society where vices are attempted to be
punished is better than a society that holds up monetary gain as the most important
thing, or luxury is the most important thing. I mean, maybe not.
Maybe you have some argument why it's not. I'm just saying that how
we judge a society as good or bad, or virtuous or non virtuous,
or more successful or less successful is based on our presuppositions about what we think
success is. Is it something purely inporral, purely monetary, or our societies
that also include religious and spiritual values, perhaps they're more successful. Again,
there's no self evident idea of what a successful society is. You see,
how is traditional monarchy any better? Well, the entire history of the world
until the Enlightenment was typically some form of monarchy, So there's something inherent to
that type of government, the type of rule that humans gravitated. Why is
it really a vast conspiracy of devious people who want to enslave everybody? Or
is there something natural to following virtuous, noble people. Maybe human beings follow
in a hierarchy noble virtuous human beings. And a lot of the Enlightenment is
based on a lot of ungrounded, unfounded assumptions and presuppositions, such as the
idea that everybody is in some sort of proto equality situation. We're all kind
of sort of potentially equal. No we're not. Now. I don't mean
by that that all the Enlightenment philosophers believed in egalitarianism, but I'm saying that
the beginnings of nascent egalitarianism pop up at this time. You get a more
radical version of this egalitarianism with the French Revolution. Liberty equality fraternity, right,
this is essentially an anti church, anti monarchy phraseology. That's the meaning
of liberty, equality fraternity, and that's why they go against church and state.
The rituals of a lot of the free Masonic revolutionary lodges included tearing down
throne and altar, Church and state. Everything that is the double Byzantine,
the double headed Byzantine Eagle. And by the way, this is a good
book reflections of a Russian statesment on this very point. So come over here
next, I want to look at a few texts. I gotta spend a
whole lot of time on this, but we're gonna point out again circling back
to the beginning of the talk, which has to do with christ is keen.
What does that mean? Was tied to the threefold office, as we
said, and one of the earliest prophecies of the Messiah. It's not the
only one. There's tons and tons of I mean, if you include typology,
there's prophecies of the Messiah everywhere, because the typology also becomes Christological Messianic
prophecy. But in Genesis forty nine, when we have the statements to the
tribes and here Judah, so the statements to Judah and Genesis forty nine,
who's Judah here? Who's the one that comes from Judah? Jesus, Judah,
Jesus, you are the one whom your brothers will praise. Your hand
will be on the neck of your enemies. Your father's children will bow before
you. Judah is a lion's wealth, the lion of the tribe of Judah.
From the pray my son you have gone up, he bows down,
He lies down like a lion, as a lion. And who will arouse
him? The royal scepter? The scepter, you understand, a sceptor is
a royal term, will not depart from the house of Judah. Judah will
be the royal lineage. So all of you goobers who think that the Bible
is anti monarchy. Aren't even aware that in Genesis forty nine is predicting the
Royal House of David, the Davidic Covenant. And if the Bible is anti
monarchy, if the law the total anti monarchy, why does Moses right a
book of laws for kings? Now this is biblical ignorance. People just know
that. Well, there's a verse that talks about Samuel says, you want
a king. I don't know why I start talking to doctor phil But now
it's just total biblical ignorance that thinks that. I mean, have you read
the Book of Kings. I mean, like it's all about royal houses and
it's like Game of Thrones. Dude, what are you talking about? The
scepter will not depart from Judah, nor a lawgiver from between his feet.
That's talking about his descent, his descendants in the House of Judah until Shiloh
comes. Shiloh is Jesus, the most famous, super famous Messianic prophecy,
and unto him will be the obedience of the nations. So it's gentile nations
will obey Shiloh the Messiah, the descendant of David, the royal descendant of
the Royal House of David. And guess what happens when Jesus comes No more
House of David because Israel's destroyed, So the scepter departs from Judah. So
the first Messianic prophecy that identifies Shiloh as the one to whom the gentiles look
from the House of Judah tribe of Judah, specifically identifies monarchy a royal lineage.
Now, there's tons and tons of passages in Proverbs, tons of passages
in the psalms that refer to kings princes. I mean, has anybody read
Proverbs? I mean there's like tons of proverbs that tell you to listen to
the king, obey the king. The king speaks the words of God,
so it's kingly. It talks about behaving and acting in a noble way,
nobility. The Protestants, the Prosestes not read Proverbs. I mean, what
you guys think that Proverbs is made up? Like, Oh, it doesn't
matter, remore, it's old Testament. Oh really, then how come Peter
says obey the king citing the same principles and proverbs. So Peter doesn't count.
Now, well those ancient world Yeah, but so what all of this
is from the ancient world. What are you talking about? Now? Here's
a huge mistake to s smake, and even some Roman Catholic Orthodox make this
mistake. And the priest by the way, six years ago, seven years
ago that I had a heated discussion with, he also made this mistake.
Everybody thinks. I don't know why. I think it's just kind of a
Protestant like default, because an Evangelical Protestant default people think this verse is about
the Second Coming, and perhaps some executes have thought it was. So do
we not have any mods? We got these filthy people just talking about nasty
stuff in the chat all day long. We got a spamming coomer in the
chat. So are there no mods here? Do my mods not come anymore?
I don't know. So let's see we need to make slow boylmo.
Here we go, so slow boys now a maud is in Jibb anyway.
So in the vision of the Ancient of Days famous prophecy of Daniel seven,
I watched, and thrones were put in place. The Ancient of Days was
seated. His gruma's white as noosed here was pure wool. His throne was
fiery flame wheels, burning fire fire stream issue before him and came before him.
Thousands ministered to him. Tens of thousands too before him, the court
was seated, books were open. I watched the pompous words of the beast.
Its body was destroyed and given to the burning flame. So the rest
of the beasts that are dominion taken away. I watched in the visions,
and behold, one like a son of Man, came with the clouds of
heaven to the Ancient of Days. Now everybody reads this, and they make
the mistake of thinking that, oh, well, that's Jesus in the first
part, Ancient of Days, and so this uh one in the who's ascending
in the clouds like a son of Man, that's oh Jesus. Okay.
So the orthodox understanding this passage is that the Ancient of Days is the Father.
But wait a minute, we can't image the Father, correct, So
how is the Father imaged here? The same way that John the Book of
Revelation and Ezekiel and Ezekiel one to ten images the Son. I'm talking about
Revelation like one, two and three where John talks about him being having white
hair and you know, seeing his glory and so forth. But this one
coming on the clouds of heaven. This is the ascension. This is not
the end of the world. It's the ascension because Jesus in acts one ascend
And does nobody remember in the New Testament every time Psalm one ten is cited.
When Psalm one ten is cited, Evangelicals and Americanist Orthodox and confused people,
how does Psalm one ten interpret How is it interpreted in the New Testament?
Citations sit at my right hand, and I'll make your enemies your footstool.
When was this sitting at the right hand? Is it the second Coming?
Where on earth do any of these people and you people in the audience,
where do you guys get the idea that this is the second Coming?
Patrick Ireland, if you have issues, you're welcome to come debate. You're
saying stop fighting with the papacy. The papacy you say I should fight Muslims.
The papacy is in line with the Muslims. What are you talking about?
Patrick? You want to come talk about this. Francis basically is a
Muslim. He goes in praising in the mosque with the Muslim worms mic.
What do you thay talking about? So it's the Father presented in the imagery
of the son, because you can't image the father, and it's the incarnate
one like a son of Man, ascending to him to receive what what does
he receive? I watched in the night visions, and one like the son
of Man came in the clouds of heaven to the ancient days. They were
brought near before him, and to him was given dominion, glory, kingdom,
that all people's nations and tongues should serve him. His dominions everlasting.
His kingdom is the one will not be destroyed. That's the ascension, and
I'm improve it to you. Revelation five. Now the lamb, when you
had taken the scroll, the four living creatures and the twenty four elders bowed
down before the lamb, each having a harp and golden bowls of incense,
which are the prayers of the saints. That's intercession of the saints. By
the way, Protestants, the saints in heaven are doing a liturgy where they're
offering the prayers of the saints as incense. They sang a new song worthy
of you to take the stroll to open its seals. You were slaying.
You redeemed us to go obviously talking about Jesus. Okay, Jesus being worshiped
in heaven from every tribe tongue in nation. You made us kings and priests
to God, we will reign on the earth. Then I looked and behold
the voice of many living creatures, elders, ten thousands of ten thousands up
same language as Daniel John and John five. I mean relation five is consciously
clearly pulling from Daniel seven worthy as a lamb to be worshiped. So Jesus,
by the way, is worshiped by all creation, which refutes all the
arians and toes witnesses singing he's a creature. You can't worship creatures, but
he's given authority, power and dominion. You see that now, similar situation
Revelation nineteen. So the horror, Babylon city is destroyed, it falls,
The elders say Allelujah, Praise God. There's a great sound of a voice
of multitude, a god omnipotent reins. They're wearing the fine linen, the
bright robes, which are the righteous acts of the saints. Then there's the
marriage south of the lamb. And then we see the rider on the horse,
which is not Antichrist, by the way, shows us that the rider
on the white horse is the person of Christ called faithful, true in righteousness.
He judges and makes war, eyes like a flame of fire, many
crowns on his head. He has the name that only he knows, clothing
rube dipped in blood. His name is Word of God. Okay, clearly
is Jesus. Out of his mouth goes a sharp sword with with it he
says, strike, strike the nations. Okay, this is not like evangelicals
think like lasers shooting out of the mouth of Jesus. Okay, it's if
you read the Psalms, the preaching of the Word of God is the rod
that comes in, the sword that comes out to rule the nations. So
it's the preaching of the Gospel. He treads the wine press the fierceness of
the wrath of Almighty God. And on his Robbie has a name King of
Kings and Lord of lords. So yeah, Christ is king. Obviously.
There was actually, I'm not kidding, there was an evangelical in the chat
at the beginning saying Jesus is not a king. We're Protestants. We believe
Jesus is our savior. Have you read the New Testament. I mean,
do you think that's the only phrase use of Jesus? So people are saying,
get the get the chat under control? Can you guys not Bannon?
Where's yeah? Which one's the bad guy? Where's the troll? I don't
see him. There's somebody banning. Yeah, I don't see the guy,
So I don't know how How could he be in the chat if I don't
see him? M of the live chat is slow, but I still don't
see anything. I don't see any of the trolling stuff. Where is he
at? Hmm? This is weird. Yeah, I banned the dude earlier,
so I don't know. I don't see how you could be back and
I couldn't see him. Mister gay conservative. That's so crazy. How is
it that you can't that I can't see a profile in my chat? That's
wild. Let me maybe if I refresh my control screen, I can see
it. Listen, we're going to open this up for questions. Okay,
so thank you, slow boy, appreciate that. Now. There's a lot
more passages that we could go to. But tonight, I think we've had
a good overview that you know, basically, we're at the point where to
sum this up. You know, clearly Christ does have a civil social role.
He is king of kings, he is lord of lords, he is
the king, even when he's not recognized as that. And it's not our
job first and foremost to make him politically, you know, recognized in a
completely insane pagan state. It's not going to work. That's why you have
to convert the majority of the masses of the people before you can try to
have a permeation of Christianity into the states and into the laws. And America
is already, because of its internal contradictions as an enlightenment and kind of sort
of pseudo Christian nation, it's really sort of chosen to go in the direction
of atheism and enlightenment away from the Christian elements that it had. So America
had both of these elements there, it's gone in that direction. So I
don't think anytime soon. I mean, again, it's possible we get some
sort of like massive Orthodox revival in the next twenty years and you know,
something like that. But outside of that, I just don't see the point
of thinking that you'll have a top down conversion of the state. So I
think we just need to focus on what we're doing, and if God grants
that, if we get a majority of people by some miracle. Remember the
Roman Empire took three centuries and millions of martyrs to get to that point.
So anyway, that's my take on that. Let's see or freezing. What's
up? So if you want to ask a question, pose an argument,
challenge, go ahead, Well, yes, sir, what's up? Hey?
I had two questions, if that's that's all right, okay, all
right. So you said it's not the Orthodox's job to convert the state rather
than just just to convert individuals and families. And I just wanted to know
what would be the problem with or what would be a moral about a movement
that sought to convert the state, or movement that wanted to enforce Orthodox Christian
morals on the country through political means, because it doesn't work to enforce those
things in a top down way. It's just it's not you can't do that
like the you need the will or the box. He believes in free will,
We believe in the consent of the people. It's not a uh,
you know, it's not a trad cat thing where we march in as crusaders,
uh, you know, and force these people to become Roman Catholic or
something. It's just it's just totally wrongheaded to the way that we think about
it. And the Church didn't do that in the first three centuries. Did
the Church go and try to convert Nero and Caligula? First? No,
okay, And my second question, I think earlier you kind of implied that
society some way you run by like pagans, and that the and that the
JQ as you put it, is in it's something that's not really worth talking
about. And I just want to get your take on that. Like,
yeah, I didn't say that though, So I said American society is pagan.
I didn't say any of that. I said American society as pagan.
I said that. I didn't say it was run by pagan's. I said
the people in the society are pagan. They're post Christian, and so you're
not going to get convert you know, the House and the Senate to Christianity
and then make them make everybody be moral in christian That's what I said.
And I said that I cover the more controversial topics not on YouTube. So
I said all of that, but maybe you didn't hear that, so it's
open for him. If you guys want to ask a question, come on,
you can request to speak. I'll give you the mic. It's just
interesting to me that nobody actually cares. So in this whole discussion of quote
Christ is King, no one actually cares about the theology and the history of
it. It's just a Twitter thing to talk about the Amish question. So
let's see Dmitri Dimitrios. Yeah, Patrick, that's not true. Uh would
be. Patrice has a whole video on Orthodoxy's history of mission works. Just
get rid of that guy, because if Patrick, if you're not going to
come and discuss in the the voice shot, then just why are you just
spamming all this stuff. It's waste of time. That's up. Yes,
sir, oh hypothetical question. I know you don't get many of these,
but you know, we keep on going back and forth on these papal decrees
and documents. What would it take for you to be like, let's say
the Pope tomorrow got up and had a decree and said, listen, I'm
advocating. I'm a first among equals, but I'm not unfallible. This is
the Philly way the way it should be forever more original sin and it's it's
nuances of the Orthodox Church is the correct way of looking at original thing?
Like what would it take for you to be like okay, let's let's go
union, it's time for union, Like what would it take? Just hypothetical
question, just curiosity on my part and what your thoughts would be on that.
Yeah, I mean it's we don't believe that there's like a future church
to be discovered. We think that the church always has its fundamental components of
being one holy, Catholic and Apostolic. So the only terms of union are
the Roman Sea rejoins the Orthodox Church on Orthodox terms. That's it, Okay,
just a hypotheticy. No, it's a great question. I don't mind
answering that. By the way, so people in the Chat, they're asking
sending the Orthodox don't do mission work, it's not true. Ubi Petris has
I think a three part series right here documentary that we made. First part
was the history of the Assyrian Mission. Second part is a history of Orthodox
missions for from ten thousand, from one thousand to sixteen hundred. So you
can watch these surf historical documentaries there. Thank you for those questions there,
Jim, next up is Sapphire? What's up? Man? So people that
are asking how can I call in? It's in the show description. It's
it's Twitter, It's it's calling through X. Hey, what's upping? I
have a few short questions if you don't mind hold on. I forgot to
put the link to the to the Twitter in here. I thought I put
it in the show description. I apologize I didn't put it in there,
So let me put it in here right now for you guys, I should
answer a question is yeah, go ahead? No, Wait, I can't
put it in there because I don't have not loving a little creepy, but
our demons the things we should be concerned about in our day to day life.
Yeah, but we don't have to like get superstitious about it. I
mean typically typically a good spiritual father will kind of, you know, coach
you and guide you into not going getting losing your you know, losing your
sanity or your or your peace. Uh, kind of worrying about demons too
much, I understand, But like, what are some like I mean,
I know you have videos on this topic, but what would you recommend if
someone's like concerned about the fact that is existently doing something or I'm thinking,
Well, a lot of people in the Orthodox Church even still like the Spiritual
Combat Book by Luigi's Scipoli. I think that's a book that a lot of
Orthodox people like. There's also the book it's like a three it's a if
you really want like a big long thing. There's a three part series called
Treatment of Spiritual Illnesses. Is a good book on that. Derek, what's
up? Derek? Got it? I'm mute, Derek. Hey, I'm
sorry. I know you just brought me if I just didn't. I didn't
hear anything once you brought me up, so I didn't see an introduction.
So I appreciate you bringing me up. And Jay trying to understand are you
a Catholic? Like I want to know because in order for me to answer
the question is Christ king? It requires me to understand who's asking that question.
Yeah, that's fair. I'm Orthodox, so Orthodox Christian? All right?
Well, so you follow a you know, a Catholicism, correct to
agree? I mean, we call ourselves the Orthodox Catholic Church, correct,
so, but we're not the Roman Catholic papal church, so we don't follow
the pope and we don't have, you know, a lot of those sort
of Roman Catholic trappings, but probably if you're a Protestant, you would think
we're quote Catholic. Yeah, okay. So here's what I Here's the reason
why I'm saying this is because I am first of all, the last thing
I want to do is have confrontations or arguments or anything about any religion.
Right, Because here's the one thing I know about God is he doesn't need
my defense. Right. It's not mere little me. He doesn't mean he
doesn't need me defending him, and neither is Christ. So I follow very
strictly Christ's words, specifically, not Peters, but Paul's no one. No
one else is but doesn't hold on. So doesn't Jesus say to the apostles,
he who hears you hears me. Well, that's what I'm saying.
So he who hears me, here's no No, he who hears you apostles
also hears me. Exactly, Father, all of you is in me.
All of you, Father, all of you isn't me. And the opposite,
that's the opposite of what you just said. No, but what I'm
saying is that I'm recating his high priestly parrector father. All of me is
in you and all of you. I'm not talking about high priestly prayers,
so that want him to have exactly what I have? Did he not say
that the very first thing that you said is wrong and I'm showing you how
it's wrong by the phrase he hears you he is wrong. But it's scripture,
all right, So he's not even gonna listen. So no point.
Cyril Karellian, what's up? What's up? You get on you? So
people say, oh, you're so mean. I multiple times explained what I
said. The guy didn't care what blue past. It wasn't gonna listen.
So if people don't react and interact with the point that I made after three
times, I'm not being mean by moving on. So I'm so tired of
this stuff. Piety pete five dollars. If I publicly signal all about my
prayer life, how many piety points do I get? Actually, I think
Elon is putting into place an algorithm where it will boost you the more you
post your prayers on Twitter, so a lot. So there's actually algorithmic tracking
now for your piety points unknown fifteen dollars If Israel builds a third temple and
sacrifices a red halfer in the Messiah does not come arrive. I don't know
what you mean by Massiah rise. I think you just mean they're asaicon.
Okay. Can the world evict European descendants from Palestine? Will they accept Christ?
Then? Actually, I do think there is a I think that the
Patristic teaching, in line with Romans eleven, is that there is a future
conversion of the Jews. And how that will happen or when that will happen,
I don't know, but I do think the Bible and the Church Fathers
teach that. Cyril says it, how the Nations talks about it. John
Damascus talks about the conversion of the Jews. I think Christalism too. Volunteer
two ninety four. Well, the Orthodox perspective is the reason that sexuality contains
a taboo scandal due to the fall of man. There is a connection between
the fall and how we reproduce. But I don't think that there's anything taboo
about sexuality or human sexuality itself, So that's an important distinction. Is it
connected to the shame of nakedness? Probably in some way. I don't know
exactly what I mean. There's the Church fathers dispute this and the question and
sort of speculate on this. How would the motive production happen in Eden?
We're not told some of the church fathers speculate about that. How will it
happen in the Escaton? I tend to think that there isn't reproduction in the
Escaton? So anyway, what's up? Man? Karellian? Thank you for
the super ship? Can you hear me? Yeah? What's up? Quick
question? I was listening to another stream. Some guy brought up a crystological
question which is actually rather interesting. I wanted to get your take on it.
Okay, so if if we believe that Christ's humanity was from Mary,
all right, this person was asking, what about the why chromosome? Where
does that come from? I'm not sure. Yeah, I thought it seems
like a very simple question, but it's actually a little bit tougher. I
don't think that, you know, someone could give a coaching to answer very
quickly on that. Presumably. I mean, I guess the Father just created
him as as male in the same way that you know he directly creates Adam
as male without you know, a prior male father. I mean, I
would I'd be clined to think that because of the fact that by the time
of John Damascus there's a dispute about the nature of christ humanity. It's I
think his name is Julian of Hollocarnassis, and there's this idea that the humanity
of Christ is like super divine and never human. Anyway, the response to
some of that is that Christ is the new Atom, and so he actually
has the same humanity that Adam has in the garden. So it's pre fallen,
it's a not a fallen humanity, and that would suggest that it's essentially
the same type of humanity that Adam had, which was a direct male creation,
would be my guess. I think that's a really good answer. Yeah,
if you have another moment, just one more quick question. Sure.
I was engaging with a few guys from the LCMS a few days ago,
and it's interesting there. I feel like, especially Lutheranism has been losing some
of their members, particularly towards Orthodoxy. I think there's some parallels that can
be drawn, but what they keep pointing to is that they're the early Church
that Orthodoxy does not have a closed canon. We never had any binding canon,
and that they are the only how do I say, denomination that also
does not have a closed cannon? And when you bring up well Hippo Carthage,
they'll say, oh, none of those were binding because those weren't in
the ecumenical councils. Right, Well, why are we supposed to accept that
Lutheran about ecumenical councils. Oh no, I agree with you completely. It's
it's very much picking and choosing. But it's like you're trying to nail jello
to the wall, you know what I mean. They bring the argument and
you're like, well, hold on, no, no, we do have
local synods and councils that are universally accepted. That's how the church worked with
number one. Right. You can't just say, okay, I picked one
to seven. We're not really so much sure on it. Where do we
go from here? It's like, well, we start with different presuppositions.
Yeah, but I think it's probably their best argument if they want to stem
the bleeding. Well, I just I mean, I would I would contend
that, you know, I mean, as a Lutheran, at least a
classical Lutheran has to say something like, you know, sola fide is the
gospel, right, So where is there a solo fide in the first three
fourth centuries of the church. If you're going to argue that the first three
fourth century of the church is like a pro to Lutheran church, Okay,
where is sola fide and where sol scripture? But I mean, didn't James
White already concede to Trent Horne that they weren't operating on sola scripture in the
first three centuries. Yeah, I even looked into it from their end,
And they start talking about things that you know, within Orthodoxy is relatively unknown,
you know, condying merits and the real discussion that was between Augustine and
Pelagius. Say, but none of that is sola fide though, that's not
justification about faith alone. Well, they start with that and then they grow
it out too. Well, of course, you know, congruent merit is
nothing right, It all has to be condine and then that means it is
really grace alone because you can't perform a condying merit. Yeah, but that's
not even like it's not even a question of merit. Justification by faith alone
is a nominalist idea that you can through notional faith or whatever kind of faith
you want to call it be put into a legal dispositional status in front of
God. Where is that in the first four centuries Nowhere? I don't even
know if Luther could give a good answer, even with you, when you
read his disputations with Joha and that condescend Yeah, I've read that. I've
read that debate. Yeah, yeah, not exactly a great answer. But
again, you know you're gonna well, so well, that's my point though,
it is like, so, wait a minute, if sola fide in
that imputational dispositional legal sense is not there, and if sol scriptura is not
there in the first four centuries, how is this first four centuries church in
any way quote proto Lutheran. It's not you said, That's what I thought
you said. That was what their argument was. Their argument is that,
I mean, that hasn't changed what they try to I think I'm just saying
that that's I'm saying that, that's what my argument. My question would be
to somebody who says that, somebody says, hey, the you know,
first fourth century church was basically Lutheran, I'd be like, Okay, where's
solid and where's the social feue. I would say, if you very selectively
take certain quotes from the fathers, I think you can sort of make it
happen, especially if you really focus on Augustine and Ambrose. But from an
academic standpoint, they are proto august I mean, sorry, okay, but
again, Augustinians, I understand that. I understand that you can be believe
in badgel, regeneration and grace alone and be Augustinian. None of that is
justification by faith alone. And that's the Lutheran lynchpin of the church right right,
or as he said, that's what the church stands correct. Yeah,
yeah, yeah, great question. Yeah, appreciate it. I really appreciate
it. Thank you. WHOA, Suddenly we got eleven people. Where all
these people come from wanting to get into it? Now? We had like
two people for like an hour, and now there's eleven people. Dan,
what's up, Dan, I'm trying to get through these quick. He can
hear me, sir. I was having a conversation with a z I'm kind
of cumuen right now. But I was having a conversation with a longtime buddy.
He's a Protestant, and I guess I'm looking for resources, I guess,
but I'll just kind of tell you where this was going. But so
obviously his view is, you know, it doesn't really matter which church you're
part of as long as you believe in you know, Christ, you know,
saving work, et cetera. I mean, just you know, the
general mere Christianity. Well, I mean, what does that mean to what
Christ? Like the Mormon Christ, Joe's Witness Christ. So if he's not
a Mormon or Joe's Witness, then he's national just kind of typical process.
Yeah, but I'm saying, like, you start asking those kinds of questions,
and he's going to start saying, well, I mean you have to
be believing the deed of Christ and Trinity. And it's like, well,
wait a minute, how do we know those are the two? Is that?
Is that all? It is? Like, cannot be a pollinarian.
But I mean, so you say that it doesn't work to just say like
lowest commonness, I would start questioning the lowest common nominator stuff. And yeah,
yeah, so my question or I mean, what the question that I
came out of that with because obviously now that I'm joining the Orthodox Church because
I believe it is you know, the one church church, and so you
have Christ the head and you have the body of Christ, right, and
so would you I mean, is woul the Orthodox Church say that the Orthodox
Church is the body of Christ? Like? Okay? So, and then
if I reject the body, is that I mean, is that the same
as rejecting the head? Like? Are those two things? Yeah? I
mean, how can you be in the body if you don't want the body
of the head. So that was the answer. But so so then my
question, I mean we say it every day in the creed or every basically
one holy calogi charge. Yeah, is there any do you have any resources
for like or any fathers that talk about the relationship between or like the myscal
union of the body and the head, or or is there anyone that sticks
out to you? Well? I mean, you know, if you were
to read Palmazansky's book on Orthodox dogmatics, like when he talks about Christology and
the doctrine of the Church, you'll notice they go together. So you can't
have ecclesiology separated from your Christology, because the way that we do Christology defines
and basically gives us our sacramatology and our ecclesiology. They go together, they're
all hinging on Christology. So I would try to get your buddy into understanding
correct Christology first, and that will kind of logically lead to correct sacramatology and
theology. Okay, thank you, Yeah, great questions. So we've got
a whole bunch of people I would ask that. I mean, it's not
a huge deal, but tonight's topic is church state. So and I'm not
mad at the guy that asked the question about before it's falling out, I
don't care. But if you have a church state question, because that's the
topic tonight, that's really what I'd like to focus on. Ginghis Khan,
what's up? You gotta unmute man? You hey, so do you think
Chris is king? Yeah? Sure, that's what we're talking about tonight.
H Yeah, he's the king, Okay, just like me. Okay,
what does that mean? Jasn is Okay, that's that's super funny. Dude.
My hole myself back from from laughing that it was so funny. Etro,
what's up dude? E t R? What's up? You gotta unmute
man? Many good, big fan. And yeah, I'm I'm thinking about
like converning but like orthodoxy. But one thing that's like kind of confusing to
me, is like are you are people outside of the church Orthodox Church,
Like are they can they still be saved? We don't make determinations on their
eternal status. All we're told is that we have to tell them to become
Orthodox. So if God has a way that he can join people to the
mystical body of the Orthodox Church, God can do that. He did that
with let thief on the cross, So I can't judge that. But what
I am told to do is to tell people who become Orthodox. Okay,
so like people outside of the Orthodox Church, like are they going to Hell
or like network? I mean, I'm not trying to be mean. It's
like I just that's exactly what I just answered. So what's up, Drew?
You got unmute man? Oh yeah, oh yes, sir, Google.
Yeah. I was just this is this is this is somewhat not really
as related per se, But you kind of got me into like like learning
more about like like the I guess you said the flaws of natural theology anyway,
And I was reading through John chapter one, verse three, and I
noticed that like because when he says, when John says all things were made
through him and without him, nothing was made that was made? Isn't that
kind of like a sort of attag like like a like a trensidental claim sort
of see at least ware he's saying like a like God essentially is like the
ground of like all reality. I think, so, I mean I've made
that, I've argued. I've argued that if you follow through the logic of
John one, then creation itself is crystal centric. So yeah, exactly.
Yeah, That's just something that I was kind of like like noticing in a
way at least, and like that that got me to asking questions about like
the previous diness you were haven't with like trent On as well, when you're
exactly where where you said at the faithful Jews who lived before Christ in coronation
worship good at least And it's like that the like isn't that kind of like
because I answer this question as will like, isn't that kind of like have
like some kind of like perennial disconclusions in a way? I think? So,
Yeah, I mean I argued that if you were consistent with your natural
theology, there's no reason why it couldn't lead you to perennialism. In fact,
if you read the Garibie paper that we covered in the in the last
trent Horne response stream, the Garibie paper argues at the beginning, citing John
Hick, John Hick, if I recall, I'm going for a memory,
John Hick was responding to Richard Swinburn, and he says, there's no reason
to think that the natural theology basic attributes would necessarily lead you to Christianity.
Why cann't it leads you to perennialism if you're arguing that it's a lowest common
denominator or list of attributes anyway? Yeah, plus like Jesus himself even like
because what was the Jews themselves even like for like saying that they believe in
one God being the Father and then Christ hilf exactly. Yeah. So like
isn't it kind of like like refuting Transon? Absolutely? Yeah? If you
read this paper right here, Uh, the best response to all the Trent
uh sort of natural theology stuff is this paper right here by doctor Garribee called
Theistic Fallacies. I highly recommend it. We've you know, we covered it
from many years to people in the chat. If you want to hear the
link to read that and it kind of goes through the many fallacies involved in
natural theologies, not just one, but there's common ones that pop up,
like quantifier shift fallacy. So yeah, yeah, good questions. Paul Ruddell,
what's up? Man? Got an unmute broy Sorry about that? So
good. I must have been just a little bit behind. Well, first
of all, thank you very much for for hosting this, and I really
like here, thank you. We're almost out one thousand. I'm like right
below hitting a thousand lives ahead. My question is you're cutting out dog,
go ahead, okay, So my my my question is, okay, my
question is could we uh, could we say that that we could base our
our well, you know, first of all at Christ is king and that
two as as as orthodox now that we acknowledge that, and that he's king
and lord overall creation, that that having a godly monarchy would simply be an
acknowledgment of this reality, that that Christ is Christ is indeed king, and
that anything less than that would be kind of an unfortunate aberration from what should
or ought to be. Yeah, I would I would agree with that because
the idea of the monarch in like Byzantium, is that he's an icon of
God. He's an icon of the rulership. You know, they often used
imagery of David for the visinitsing Emperor. So he's kind of a dividic type
of king. He doesn't have the functions of a priest, but he has
the functions of God in terms of a dispenser of justice. So I think,
So, I mean, to me, that's obvious. Like I mean,
I'm not saying that to you. I'm not saying that to you to
be a smart ass. I'm saying, like, it's obvious in the history
of Orthodox theology and you know church history and the councils that that's that's how
obviously how they viewed it. So right, no, no, no following
that, couldn't we also, uh, can we also say that, I
mean, isn't this kind of like this the to to acknowledge that reality is
a you know, obviously it's an important part of our faith and it's a
you know, we could say, like a self bific belief if you will.
If I don't know, maybe beliefs aren't selfific in that way, but
if you, uh, but it is. Couldn't we say that that this
this could save us or prevent us from from from from the defilement or the
mire of modern day Paul politics, to to to realize that, you know,
Christ is the ultimate authority and the the in the whole universe, and
that everything that we might involve is going is going to be, you know,
fairly probable matter. I can so to what extent can we or should
we even involve ourselves in that? And also as a as as a component
of that question, can we can can we bring some godly influence to bear
in the existing government? And this is a bit of a follow up question
to a to a previous speaker, but I mean, at what point are
we able to cross the rubicon two to bring a godly influence to bear in
government? If you're saying that it's not our place to do so, or
we don't want to do that by force, which is understandable because we believe
in free will. No, i'd said at the beginning. Maybe you didn't
hear the it didn't hear the very beginning, but I said that. I
mean, I don't think there's anything wrong with Christians taking action to do things
in politics. It's not what I'm interested in, but I don't think there's
anything wrong with people doing it. I support people doing it that's there,
like their providential situation where that's what you know they're led to do. They
should absolutely and I just said that they would probably be more effective on a
local level than like national politics. So so you know, I'm all for
you know, I mean, there should be people, We should be people
having people in all of the areas, Like we should be feeling the arts,
we should be feeling media, we should be feeling you know, because
if you're not entering monastic life, then it doesn't make sense to pretend you're
a monk. So a lot of people in the Orthodox world want to pretend
like they're you know, pseudo monks or they're uh, you know, they're
gonna have a family and they're going to be, you know, working in
a factory. But to think they're monks, and it's like, you're not
a monk, you're not called to that life. And if you're going to
be married, you're going to be in the world and you're gonna have to
have a job, you're gonna have to work with finances, you're gonna have
to understand how the world works. And so a lot of people nothing about
you. But a lot of people use pseudo monasticism and pretending to be a
monk as a cloak for their own laziness and their own sloth. And I
think that's silly. So you got to grow out of that, be more
mature than that. But not everybody has a call to want to be in
public life or to want to be in politics. Michael Cisco really has that
desire. He wants to do it. I'm not his spiritual father, but
you know, I told Michael, like, yeah, that's great if you
want to if that's your calling, if you feel that desire, you know,
it'd be like, hey, I'm a filmmaker, I want to be
an I want to be in making films and be Orthodox. Oh I can't
do that. That's the world. That's worldly. No, that's crazy.
I mean that's the very mindset that I think is the Protestant idea, Like
the monk is the person who decided to renounce the world, okay, and
for lay people to pretend like they're monks and act like, well, I'm
too. The playoffs for everything and I will never be involved myself into anything.
It's like to me, a lot of that's just being slimy in my
opinion. So no, I mean I think, I mean if you don't,
if we don't do this, then we're gonna be ruled over by degenerates.
So do you want to be ruled by degenerates or do you want to
act, you know, in society in a virtuous way. It's like,
you know anyway, that's my take. Appreciate those questions, Paul, you're
kind of cutting out, not trying to be rude. But so let's move
through these quick. I'm gonna I wanna try to get to the last few
people here in this on this topic. But I do have to remind you,
guys, if we do have a show sponsor, we got some more
super chests I need to get to. But look, guys, uh,
I gotta tell you this. You have to hear this. I'm gonna put
you on something crazy real quick. Most of these zuomer Jim Brooks assuming macro
guzzling synthetic 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 co workers, fire your
boss, aggressively, gamble, or invade a small village. Chad Mode stands
out from the crowd by excluding artificial flavors, preservatives, sweeteners, and dyes.
We've even avoided so called natural flavors which are actually not natural at all,
ensuring a clean and effective formula. Experience the pure goodness of chad Mode
colored with organic blue spirolina extract, organic lemon cherry, and organic maple crystals.
Forget synthetic caffeine made in a sketchy Chinese lab. Embrace the natural power
of organic green cop been 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. M pass if
do you consider these Seven day Adventists to be a cult? Mm hmm.
They're kind of on a They're kind of on a thin line there. I
don't know if i'd go so far as to say a cold, but like
kind of on the edge of it, so I'd say an evidence are almost
culled pretty close. They definitely spawned cults like Joe's Witnesses. So one more
question. I had also into a family member and their Seven Day Adventus and
we were talking about, uh, like like, how does the Bible prove
that it's the word of God? And I was referring to you would have
to extrapolate thats or you have to use you have to use something other than
the Bible to prove that, and they kept saying that the Bible does it
need to because it's a world of like it's like a circular argument, and
they said it's the only thing that you could use a circular argument for that
is there something I could get around this, like logic, I just I
don't know how to fight like they just keep they just keep screaming that I'd
be able to say to that. I mean, if maybe they're confused about
the idea that the transcendental argument is a type of circularity. But the point
of that is to say that everybody's argument at a super fundament until level is
going to ultimately be circular because there's going to be a certain point where you
can't appeal to something else to justify that thing. And so that's what we
mean by grounding it out or or it becoming quote circular. It's not saying
that you can now make circular arguments at any point, because in terms of
first order argumentation sort of normal argumentation, circular arguments are fallacy. But that's
a different category error to think that all things are proven are known in the
same way. So, but I mean there's a lot of there's a lot
of different ways that that conversation might go. I mean, I think the
best evidence for inspiration is the fulfilled messianic prophecies, So that's an evidence,
and evidences can function as types of arguments or proofs. I think the ultimate
strongest proof is a transient argument for God. But that doesn't mean that we're
like opposed to evidences. Now you have to use evidences for sure. So
for the people in the chat that missed the super chat question, the first
question was about Mary and orthodox view versus romccalthy view, and Mary and I
said, we don't leave in ecconception. I'm sending this from three thousand feet
in the air using Delta wi FI. Well, thank you, mister Anderson.
I appreciate that certainly. Three twenty four asked me, is Michael Saylor
correct about bitcoin being decentralized? I said yes. He said, is this
enough to prevent the elites from a global control agenda? I said, I
don't think bitcoin is alone enough to save us from global les trying to bring
about n WO. But it's definitely a big key thing for our side.
But you know, life is much more than just economics, right, But
that's a big economic plus for us. But I mean, you know,
life has education, life has media, entertainment. I mean, so life
isn't just economics. I don't think that bigcoin alone is enough to beat the
New World order, because the new World order is not purely and solely economic.
It's also spiritual, it's also mental, it's it's a lot of different
things. It's a full spectrum dominance approach. How does bitcoin fit into the
Biblical end times? I have no idea. And then I said BMX ninety
sixty six ten bucks, thank you so much. So that was where the
super chat said. When I came back, it was still muted. So
that selah, what's up, Let's move through these if we can to get
everybody on. You got a mute? Oh so sorry, Yeah, what's
up? Uh? Yeah? I had a question about the Trinity and the
Gold's attorney, and then I had a question. I had a debate with
a Muslim the other day and he told me it doesn't make sense in the
Orthodox you that only the father of the saiety. Could you expand on that?
Yeah, I would say the best answer to this question you should watch
the bo brantson Jake the Muslim metaphysician debate, because they have an entire debate
about this question. And the point is that because one member of a class
possesses an attribute, it doesn't follow that every member of the class must possess
that attribute to be in that class, so divinity is not reduced to a
sayity is the point? Okay? And also he made another point about the
illegitimate canonization of saints in the Orthodox Church, like, would you accept,
for example, the canonization of like say, the Russian Stars or like Nicholas
the Second or what's what's the rvvie them meant to be? I mean,
as far as I know, I would like, why would that be a
legitimate What do you mean? I haven't heard of the illegitimacy argument. I
don't know about what is this? Well, he was mostly speaking from from
an ethical perspective, but it doesn't really make sense to canonize someone like Nicholas
the Second. But I don't really I don't really know how to respond to.
Well. My understanding is that typically the Orthodox view of saints and canonization
is not did they live their entire life with the highest level of moral purity?
It's what types of actions did they do that might have led to a
supremely virtuous action such as martyrdom. So the thief on the cross did not
live a life of the highest virtue, but he did repent towards the end
of his life and so he's a saint. So I think Samson was a
saint. It's odd to me when I hear Orthodox priests famous ones argue that
Samson isn't a saint. I mean, he's a type of Christ. He
obviously was repenting at the end of his life. He's an image of Christ
pulling down the gates of Hades with the Temple of Philistine. So I don't
know. To me, it's odd that anybody would question whether Sampson is a
saint. But yeah, good questions. I'm not really familiar with why people
wouldn't think that the ours are saying. To me, that suggests like Western
people who don't like Russia would think that's probably what's going on. I'm guessing
I don't know, though. Joe Bama, what's up, Joe Bama?
Uh? There you Joe, We got Joe Bamba, my wife, Michael,
Hey, what's up? Jake? Can you hear me? All right?
Long time fan here, Thanks for letting me talk. Sure, this
is kind of an elaboration on what I think Paul was asking earlier. But
unless I like misheard what you were saying earlier, it made it sound like
you kind of oppose like top down evangelization of America. You know, whether
that's because it's not practical or because we you know, have free will to
turn the christ you a sort of bottom up with but basically I just don't
think it's realistic. So I mean, is it possible that, uh,
I don't know. Let's say Trump gets elected and then Trump gets interested in
orthodoxy, and then Trump trusts to make American orthodox I mean, I don't
think that would work, but is it possible. It's possible, it just
doesn't seem likely, right, Yeah, So that's a good point. I
guess My question is basically, like, you know, clearly we want to
live in a Christian society and we want our laws to reflect Christian ethics.
You know, even if the majority of the people in the country oppose what
you know, the Bible would say, you know, think abortion or something
like that. So my question is, like, how far can we,
you know, trust in a bottom up approach when it doesn't seem to like
be working very well well. I mean, if there is no other options,
like what are what are you supposed to do? Like, I mean,
when the appropriate time calls for it, then we have to accept martyrdom.
I mean that's that's the Christian approach. So, uh Benjamin, what's
up. I'm not trying to be ride. I'm trying to get through all
the people. There's like eight people in a row here, so trying to
move through. What's up, Benjamin? All right, Benjamin, can't connect,
so we'll move on to the next person. Are you there? Uh
yeah, what's up? Dude? Yeah, I'm a big fan, kind
of nervous Soka. Uh so, uh so trying what's your question? I'm
trying to move through some people, So what's your what's your what? I
wrote down three questions. So the first one is I remember watching through your
critiques of Jordan Peterson with you know, classical liberalism and at that time talking
about Christopher Langon. Oh yeah yeah, the High, the High IQ,
the Roadhouse, Bartender High IQ Brobo. So would that ever happen or there?
He's very precise about how an interview has to be conducted, and he
wants a lot of questions, and I just basically have free flowing conversations.
So I never really followed back up with I just like to have like imprompt
to improv conversations. So that's typically pretty much. And if you I guess
that the one would be. The second one would be, do you have
any books on like rhetoric or it's because you know, when people when I
mean, if I was going to talk to somebody and they, you know,
insulted me, it kind of short circuits my thinking. I can't really
get I can't really give a like a response to that. I think it's
I think it's kind of supposed to do that, right, And that's kind
of the point of an insult is to like get you all messed up and
confused and you know, not paying attention to the issue at hand. So
that's probably what it's meant to do. Yeah, but just like, Okay,
I guess if that's the solution, well go ahead, what's the the
one. I don't know a good book on ridd If you're asking, you
could ask, I bet Richard Grove does. I would ask Send a tweet
to Richard Grove and ask him he knows a lot of those older classical pedagogy
texts are there. And then talking like that, I can hear the insults.
Yeah, you're cutting out, man, I can't hear. I'm sorry.
Yeah, just ask Richard Grove what was a good textbook on rhetoricas ill?
But you he knows one, Maximos, what's up? Man, Let's
get through the last few people here? Hello, what's up? Oh?
Yeah? So my question. I'm an Oltle calendarist, and so my perspective
is that we basically share the faith confession of faith. We basically share the
idea that the cumunism is ecclesiological heresy, and we share that, we share
basically the idea that you should not be commute with heretics. What's a certain
line is across? And I think it just where you're cutting out, bro.
So I'm sorry that I heard you say that we're your old counteress and
where's the line? I don't know the line, but I don't think that
it makes sense to think that, Well, the line is everybody's immediately blacked
out, and every lady should immediately decide who's blacked out. It just leads
to infinite schisms, is my view. J T. Orthodox So superchat rebel
rowboll three dollars. Can you discuss Yahweh's origins? Well, I believe in
the Bible, So what do you mean it's origins? And the shift from
polytheism to monotheism in Israel. Yeah, I don't believe that. So if
you watch my debate with Daniel Hikikachu the Muslim or if you want to go
watch this video right here about the Jewish Trinity, I do not believe that
there was a shift from polytheism to unitarianism in Israel. So thank you for
that super chat. Though I've only found Protestants and Michael Heizer, I mean,
I believe in the Divine Council, but I mean the Orthodox to you
is that the Trinity is an Old Testament teaching and that was the whole lynchpin
of my argument against uh Daniel Kikachu and if your wife Sam Shimun, his
whole argument against Muslims is the same position. What's up? Yeah, Hi,
I was recently down night in London and there was a sort of famous
Apologies speaking and he usually goes for like sort of it's sort of like a
proto humanist sort of view because it's sort of it's sort of based on the
fact of like we know where the church is, but we don't know where
it is. Is that Bob yeah, the Builder? Yeah, yeah,
I know Bob, And we've done a couple of podcasts, but we had
a debate about ecumenism as well, and I've yeah, I've sort of been
confused because it sort of seems like where he draws lines for certain things,
he doesn't draw them for others. Yeah, and that's that was actually the
very argument I made the Barb. Yeah, and I feel like it's maybe
situate situational because his sort of area is sort of in speakers corner, just
sort of debating like sort of Daragandist, sort of Islamic sort of people just
coming at him all the time, right, and there's loads of Christians in
that park. So do you think that there's times where maybe we have to
be less sectarian and sort of unite even in the face of maybe some secondary
doctrines being sort of well, I don't think we have to concede that those
doctrines are secondary. I mean, but if you look at the track record
that we have here, I mean, I do podcasts and talks with Sam
Chamun, We've done it with Bob, I've done it with Tim Gordon,
and there's always the possibility of common cause. We just did a podcast not
too long ago with Inspiring Philosophy, So there's always the possibility of making common
cause without admitting to ecclesiology being secondary. So you know, we can always
know our differences and at the same time say well here we agree against,
you know, the Muslims. So I think both can be true. Yeah,
and if there's not like an Orthodox church did by what is sort of
the best thing to do? Because I've sort of lived in a place where
there's already got anger could the Church's Church of England sort of churches and there's
some maybe Catholics, right, And it's sort of a confusing miss because it's
sort of like if it is the one true church, it's sort of what
can we do if we cannot sort of reach that body. You just do
the best that you can. I mean I had a situation where I was
in that same situation for many years, so I would just get a prayer
book, get an Orthodox study Bible, and do the best that you can.
I mean, you know, God only expects you to do what you
can. So all right, I'm about I'm about We got another eight people,
so I apologize. We'll have another We do open forums all the time,
so just be ready if you want to hop on another time. But
I'm getting pretty tired, so I don't know if I can keep going anymore.
Bug Man, ten dollars, What do you think about be brother k
I think that you know, in the Orthodox world you have to be under
authority, so you can't be a non canonical just doing whatever you want in
the Orthodox world. So you know, I've never promoted people that are that
way. And the reason for that is has nothing to do with oh,
you're secretly scared you don't like that person. It's none of that. It's
just that, you know, in the Orthodox system and approach, like,
no man takes that authority on to himself. You have to have approval to
teach. Even if what you say is right or wrong or what like let's
say that test case scenario, everything you're saying is correct, like that still
doesn't mean that you have the authority of blessing to teach because for example,
and I'm not saying this about any specific person, I'm giving example, if
you go look at Patristic faith in the way that Father Deco Anaias approaches these
things, he doesn't promote or allow anybody to be promoted or to teach or
whatever. Link anybody who doesn't have a specific episcopal blessing, and you know,
maybe sometimes there's situations where people's status is foggy and I don't know,
I don't I can't judge that person individually. But there's a reason why,
as Paul says, no man takes it upon himself to teach, and I
don't want to teach, like I always feel like I kind of how can
I not teach? And then it's always kind to get drawn back in,
like Michael Corleone says, and go father two or three or whatever. Anyway,
Yeah, so you got to be under authority, and you know,
people might if people wonder, why, well, how come they don't have
the blessing because they're saying a lot of true things. Well, there might
be something that you don't know about this person that makes them not fit to
teach. So I'm not saying that specifically about any person. I'm just saying
that the wisdom of the Church's approach to approved and non approved teachers is that
just because somebody says something right, there's a lot of Protestants to say a
lot of right things, but that doesn't mean to have the blessing to teach
anyway. Thank you guys a great chat tonight. Hopefully we brought a little
bit of insight to the history and the question of the role and relationship between
church and state, and we're a little bit more enlightened about what the issues
are and we don't get caught up just in Internet stuff.