The the the the the the the the the the the the the the the
the the how should we say the status of the evangelical? Sorry for these
people genuinely do, but they also are primed for I mean, they're prime
comedy content and they don't even realize it. I want to show you the
comments of the guy because it was a funny exchange. I gotta say if
I can find it, because all of the comments to their comments were making
fun of them, and in total delusion land, they thought that they had
like demolished me. They thought that they got like the I mean all of
the comments literally like ninety five percent of the comments are making fun of them,
talking about how their video was dumb, and uh they're like just like,
oh, we own him. Dude owned the auto bros. Bro let
me, you gotta see this video, so let me find it first,
because now I can't even find Method Method ministries? Are you Methodist? Dude?
Is your is your pastor? Mom gonna marry y'all two boys at your
Methodist church? Method ministries? They look like like evangelical kind of Now I
can't find their damn video. Where's it that? I just can't stand this
whole like, imagine just talk here it is. I found it talking a
bunch of smack. And then when people just simply asked you if you want
to come to bait and then you play this whole You play this piety game
of like you're not a Christian and I I would never talk to you because
you are full of mean spirits. You've got little tiny mean demons. There's
mean demons whispering over your shoulder and you listen to them. All right,
I might have to switch to the other We're not going anywhere. Don't worry.
Okay, I'm gonna pull this up. You're gonna have fun when we
see this here. I'm gonna play it for you, and then we're gonna
look at the comments. And I'm going to respond to some Rouslan videos people
sent me Ruslan and they these guys thought that it would be an own because
I did a video making fun of Protestant con Men preachers and because in my
video I was acting like the Bible was an idol and I licked it.
And these guys said, I don't even think I really did. It just
looks like I did. But this was their opportunity to expose me all right,
you gotta see these guys here. I think this is it. Yeah,
this is it. Can we see this on the screen here? Okay,
so this is there. They're gonna expose me, by the way,
it's nothing gayer than like expose videos exposed, and they're always out of context.
It's always, I mean, do they not know that I do silly
stuff all the time, Like I make jokes, and you might hate my
jokes and think that they're not good jokes, but they're at least pale attempts
at jokes. So not everything we do as serious over here. But these
people they can't take a joke. They don't, they can't. They take
themselves super seriously. So here's their video, and we're gonna read the comments
because the comments were all like calling them out. So the dude on the
left there, he's I don't know, his head got stretched out coming out
of his mama's portal canal there, so he's he's got a long, thin,
stretched out head, got a nice quafft hair, though I give him
props for that hair. The other dude looks like he need to get need
to take a nap, so I don't know why he even he even stayed
up all night for this podcast. This podcast put me to sleep. So,
bro, if you need if you have in trouble sleeping there, dude
on the right, just just listen to y'all's podcast and it will help,
I promise. Because you got some bags, it looks like you need to
you need a nap, bro, you didn't have nap time today. Method
ministries. That's not an argument telling me you need to go read a book.
It's an answer, right. So the only thing I ever do is
tell people go read a book. I've never made any arguments against any Protestants.
All I've ever said is go read a book, dude. Books,
check them out. Books, check them out. You could read about stars
that electric guitars of books. Check them out, right. I'm just sir,
mix a lot level over here. No arguments ever, Never had a
single argument against a Protestant, even though we did a three hour debate with
doctor Branson and dy olda Protestant and not too long ago, where all we
did was focus on arguments. But no, I don't do any arguments,
never never made one. Just all I've ever said is read a book.
And if somebody's coming to me and you know, they say it was you
know, read The Church Fathers. Right, That's all I've ever said to
when people say how do I get saved? I say, you have to
go read Gregornissa's eight hundred page against you Unumbia's literally that's the only way to
be saved. And that's all I've ever said. If you don't get a
PhD in Cappadocian metaphysics, you're hell down, bro. You're right, you're
heading down to I don't know the ice level of Dante's Inferno, because if
you know, if you haven't read it, there's levels. It's like a
video game, and the last level is where the devil is and it's frozen.
So you might think, oh, that's gonna be hot down there.
No, it's it's ice cold. It's like when you go to the gas
station and they got the beer chest, right, world's cold as beer.
You walk into the ice chest at the quickie mart. That's what the last
level of hell is in Dante's Inferno. And if you don't get your PhD
in The Church father that's and that's all that we've always made that. Have
these dudes ever watched anything from my channel ever? Like? What are they
talking about none of this is true. None of this is the case.
Now, if we're debating the top topic of the canon of scripture, then
yes, we're going to not be appealing to the scriptures because the scriptures don't
answer the question of the canon, unless you're a very low tier Protestant who
thinks that somehow appealing to the thing in question answers the question, which maybe
these dudes think this. I don't know, So this is not a very
long quip. We're gonna equip. We're gonna move on to the We're gonna
look at some of the comments because they're acting like this with some own right,
and then we're gonna see that all the comments are basically calling them out.
Then we're gonna move on to Ruslan's videos, which I'm not familiar with
Ruslwan. Somebody said the other day, hey, will you reply to these
couple of videos of this guy, and that'll be a good springboard to then
open it up to Protestants in the chat who would like to ask questions,
offer challenges, make a argument, et cetera, et cetera. In the
words of Bernardo et cetera, et like that is just the stupidest thing you
really want to beat. Yeah, so does he think I'm a Roman Catholic.
You have to read the Church Fathers in the original Latin, and most
of the Church Fathers, unless they're Latin fathers, are writing in the Greek.
I've never told anyone that you have to read the Latin church Fathers in
the Latin. And I guess that was supposed to be a joke. Is
it funny? I don't. I don't think that's This doesn't seem funny to
me. But he thought that was like this, like like you know,
genius level quip there. Yes, go read this five hundred single states page
book and then get back to me, and then we'll make you a catechuman
of our church. And then you go on Twitter start you know, and
start fan pointing out out from my east or yeah, our greatest argument is
read a five hundred page book. We will then make you a catechuman,
and then you fan buoying. Then you fan He didn't even say it,
right, you fan boying out on Twitter's church. Yeah. So now let's
look at the comments of this of these two. By the way, they're
about they're going to be married in their their mom I think is the pastor
who's going to be marrying them in their Methodist church? So can we not
see the comments on this? Where's the comments? I asked him if they
were going to invite me to the to the wedding comments, log in.
I don't want to log in to see the comments. Crap. Uh So
I guess we get You can go read the comments and you'll see that all
the comments are like calling these dudes out, like this was domb your clip
was low in low energy, surely so so I don't I don't know where
they think that this was some great own, But we're in the era of
like everything is just stupid now. I mean, nothing is scholarly, nothing
is academic, nothing is actually based in real solid refutation. Like I imagine
a lot of people think this was some great own like this, and then
somebody was like, you got all but heart over this, dude. The
comments are literally ninety percent calling them out. All right, Next, we're
gonna move on to Ruse Lawn why he's not Orthodox and why we should be
Protestant, and then we're gonna open it up. He's got two videos,
let's start with Let's start with a shorter one and this guy has a pretty
large channel, large enough that many people have said, hey, when are
you gonna respond to his videos? And shout out to everybody in the chat
welcome everybody. I didn't realize jim Bob was streaming. I'm not trying to
stream over him. I apologize to Jimbob. Thank you to the mods.
Jub you need to be a mod because we had no mods last time.
I'm not fussing at you, guys. I don't expect mods to be present
in every live stream, although typically you guys are you guys? Are you
guys are the best? I'm the best to use Toadstool's terminology, real reason
I'm not Catholic or Orthodox by ruseln this question. You seem like you know
church history. You seem like you know things about the amazing Apostolic succession.
You think you seem to know things about the amazing Apostolic succession things were in
the first five hundred years as the church firste und years. Is that you
do a lot of Protestants know about the amazing apistoltis. I don't think they
actually do. But that's not that's not usually what Protestants are known for.
But why are you not. Why are you not Catholic? Why are you
not Orthodox? Why are you not coming back to your Oriental Orthodox routs?
I have individual answers for all of those different reasons, but the most one
is because there's a doctrine that I still hold to and that I'm not convinced
is wrong. And there's other doctrines they hold to that I am not convinced.
So let's just start with the doctrine I hold to and why I am
convinced that this doctrine is correct. This is truth, you knights, my
man, Here we go. So he's relying on Gavin Ortland. Every time
I see Blessed God, he's got a he's got a hoodie on this says
Blessed God. His channel is called Blessed God. All I can think of
is Kenneth Copeland, because that was Kenneth Copeland's hold. Did he choose the
name of his channel from Kenneth Copeland? I've been We're gonna have him on
the channel. The thing that the Singh was is Protestant, which is what
I am. But I are Oriental Orthodox, Anal Protestant, Oriental or from
all the other faith traditions. What what ethnicity named Ruse Lawn would be Oriental
Orthodox. That's confusing, But anyway, is the doctrine of sola scripture.
So let's take a look at this video and I'll give you guys my additional
thoughts as we go. Solo scriptural means that scripture is the church's own infallible
rule. It doesn't mean that Scripture is the only authority creeds, catechisms,
confessions, and Council's function authoritatively. Okay, So the first thing that's important
to note about this video is that Protestants believe that scripture is the only infallible
rule, not the only authority. And oftentimes solar scripture will get strawman as
a you guys believe that scripture is the only authority. No, we don't
believe scripture is the only authority. Yeah, And I mean this is true,
but I mean this doesn't really have anything to do with proving solo scriptures.
So I guess it's okay to kind of clear the way. We get
the hoe the weeds out of the way, and make it clear that if
we're talking about infallibility, right, that's not the same thing as authority per
se and as Orthodox. Yeah, I think we would agree that, Yeah,
exactly, that's why bishops have authority. But they're not infallible, So
no problem here with this. But I want to I want you to take
note. I've not watched this video, so this is a live riffing and
reaction that you're seeing. So I don't know where he's going to go with
these arguments. But the first thing I would say is that while this is
all true, how do we actually know that the scriptures themselves are the only
infallible rule? When we needed an external entity, namely the historic church,
to determine which books go into that quote infallible rule. So notice that the
infallible rule here is going to include a specific list of canonical texts. This
is going to be a problem, though, addict, because we're not ever
going to get anything external to the text themselves that tells us what the texts
themselves are. We believe scripture is the only infallible authority. This is super
duper important, so it's important to just start with this asset. I believe
in other authorities. I believe in local church authority. I believe in the
authority of shake a legg the brain comes kicking off in the boardroom of the
Creeds. I believe in Church history authority. I believe in all kinds of
authorities. Now wait a minute, he believes in the authority of church history
and its creeds, which is a meaningless statement because to say that they have
authority doesn't mean anything except that this specific Protestant picks and chooses which elements of
creeds in church father's teachings he thinks is true and is according to his taste.
So while I understand that we can admit that it's a difference between infallibility
and authority, I don't think Ruslan will give us any epistemic principle to actually
adjudicate between these things. Because remember, most of the time, Protestants confuse
normative authority with existential certitude, and Protestants, to be fair to them,
do that because a lot of times Roman Catholics do the exact same thing in
their argumentation. Roman Catholics will confuse having an external office of the papacy with
something granting or somehow magically giving you individual certitude. And it doesn't achieve that
it doesn't perform that task. Actually, that's just something that they assume it
does, and they often conflate these two things. So when we talk about
normative authority, we're talking about historical entities that have the ability to enforce rulings
and interpretations of texts. Okay, so think about that's father Deacon and ice
Offen says, the Supreme Court exists to the Constitution. Right, We're not
all running around like non denominational constitutionalists interpreting the Constitution our own authoritative way.
Because the spirit of seventeen seventy six inspires and guides us. The magical powdered
wigmen of seventeen seventy six and the powdered wig powder that they sprinkled onto the
documents inspires us as individuals to be able to authoritatively interpret the Constitution. So
they often confuse having a historical book with interpreting the book. And the question
is when we get a million different interpretations from a million different goobers. And
I'm sorry to say that if you go to a strip Mall church except for
the Orthodox ones, because somewhere Orthodox churches mean striples if you go to it,
because we're strip Mall in Potentia, right, getting a temple. A
lot of Orthodox churches are in Potentia building their temple, getting out of the
strip mall because that's all we've got. But non denominationals y'all are like,
let's move from the strip mall to a giant strip mall. Right, I
am all right, but right, you got Joel Ovaltine over there talking about
we're gonna build, We're gonna move from the strip mall to a damn NFL
stadium. Right, so it's it's even worse. But I think the only
infallible authority, the only infallible rule, is scripture. Creeds, catechisms,
confessions, and councils function authoritatively, but according to solid scripture, right,
they are fallible, meaning capable of error and thus reformable. In scripture,
fallible entities can still have real authority like the umpire. All. So notice
then there's a famous dictum of varsity sproll. The canon of scripture is a
fallible list of infallible books. Now, that's obviously to anybody who can see
with basic reasoning skills a contradiction. There's an error there, because if the
compilation, if the totality of this has infallibility status, then the parts have
to have infallibility status. Right, that's not a parts whole fallacy parts sol
fallacy would be the other way around. What's true the parts has to be
true the whole. That's why the deacon says, my room is made up
of atoms. Atoms are invisible, so that room is invisible. That would
be a fallacy. But if I encompass all of this book, which is
a bunch of little books, as infallible, then obviously the individual books are
also infallible, and that would necessitate that the collection and decision of what goes
into this is infallible. This is so obvious. But notice the problem here
is that we're not talking about authority at this point. We're actually talking about
the infallibility part, which was his first part. And so as Galvin Ortlund
said, if everything that's not infallible is therefore reformable was his terminology, then
the canon of scripture itself is reformable. This is the logic of the reformed
and the Protestant position, even according to people like RC. Sproull. Remember
Sproll says, it's a fallible collection of infallible books, So the individual books
that went into this, that collection itself is fallible. It might be wrong,
is it not? Obvious to Protestants that this is the basis for higher
criticism. This is the basis, this is the thinking of Luther. It's
saying that I'm ready to start challenging all kinds of texts. Want to doubt
James. I want to doubt the Catholic epistles. I want it out Hebrews.
I want to doubt all these things. I want to throw out the
Dudo Caman. If it's a fallible collection of infallible books, then this is
also reformable. By Gavin Ortlund's argumentation right there, or the US Supreme Court
or the Jewish sanhedrew most stories in this world are not infallible, sooscript correct.
This is not required that every doctrine must be explicitly topic description. There's
a problem with that analogy, though, because the Protestant is making the analogy
to the what did you say, the Supreme Court, the Sanhedrin and those
are not infallible. Well, there's a difference though, because if you look
at the doctrine of the Church, is the New Testament Church the equivalent of
the Sanhedrin or the Supreme Court. Now I made an analogy on the basis
of interpreting the text and binding people to those interpretations. I'm not saying that
the Supreme Court is infallible. The analogy is just to show that normative authority
is different from existential individual certitude, two different things. However, that doesn't
mean that there's an equivalence between the Church as a human organization and other human
organizations like the Supreme Court or the Sanhedrin. Those are not divine institutions.
The Church is a panthropic, divino human institution, and it's unique because it's
the Kingdom of God where we will not have the gates of Hell prevailing.
So how could it ever officially teach universally teach error in this position? Not
only has it, it must it must fail. It must teach error because
now every individual protest must reinvent the wheel and rediscover if in fact any of
the doctrines of the first thousand years or the last two thousand years are correct.
Maybe the Trinity is not right. So each individual Protestant now has the
duty to reinvent the wheel to start over. Every generation has to start over
and figure out what is Christ the vine. I guess we got to go
and have this debate again. What's the canon? Of scripture. I guess
we got to redo the first seven centuries when they come to the canon that
Trollo and the Seventh Council. So you see the absurdity of this whole position.
But the position is not really historical at all, because if you watch
the Trent Horn James White debate, James White eventually admitted that the Church was
not operating on the base of soul scripture for many, many centuries, and
so therefore it's not true for those centuries. How could it then be the
cornerstone of the church. It's like the flip and verse view of the papacy.
If the papacy is dogmatized in terms of infallibility at Vatican One, then
how could it have been the principle of certitude for seeing and identifying the church
in the first few centuries. Likewise, the flip side of that is James
White's admission that the Church was not operating on a sol scripture principle because they
didn't have a compiled canon yet. And then his example of what was it
Meledo? Was it Bledo's canon, as Sam Munn pointed out, was totally
dishonest. It included du to econonical texts. So Melito didn't have the Protestant
canon. The strongest articulation of the only Protestant who has or excuman Church father
has the quote Protestant canon is Jerome, and Jerome is alone in that view
except for maybe one or two other people maybe. But why is a Protestant
should I accept or we accept Jerome's view? Well? But the Hebrew canon
and the Jews? And why did Jews decide what the canon of scripture is
for the church. We're talking about post destruction of Jerusalem, post seventy eight,
right opposed to Christianity. Jews they decide the canon. Do they also
determine the doctor of the Trinity, because I'm pretty sure they would say it's
not true. Do they determine the deed of Christ? Because then we would
be arian? So the post first second century Jews determine the canon. Are
the Protestants also going to go to the post second third century Jews for the
exegesis of the Old Testament because I'm pretty sure they're gonna argue that it's not
Jesus that's the Messiah. Do you see how silly this is, how arbitrary
this is That's why the argument that we make is no, the Church is
the continuation of Israel, and it has the authority that Christ gave to it.
Does Jesus say, he who hears the Sanhedrin hears me? No,
he says he who hears the Apostles, he hears you. Here's me,
the Apostles absolute succession, not the Sanhedrin stated doctrine, the sufficiency of Scripture
allow for doctrines to be deduced from Scripture by good and necessary consequence. Always.
Crituria is often caricatured on those points and many others. But I've stated
responsibly it's a very modest and reasonable claim. It simply means that popess councils
and other post apostolic organs of the church are okay. So if post apostolic
councils, popes, church authorities, elders, whatever, they're all fallible and
therefore reformable, then the canon of Scripture as a compilation is also reformable.
Now you have the open door to higher criticism and the destruction of the text.
And guess what, That's what happened in history. Shocker for some people,
because different strains of the Church are going to disagree on this specifically,
the most obvious one is my Catholic bids and sisters believe that the wait a
minute, I love one. Protestants do this thing where they call Catholics and
Orthodox their brothers and sisters. Historically Catholics and could you remb water as well?
Thank you. Catholics and Protests killed each other. Protestants killed each other
over things like baptism and the Lord's Supper and church governance, and we're just
supposed to ignore all that. These aren't war worthy disagreements anymore. We're all
just bros and sisters. Brayey, you're my brother. We're all brothers in
Christ. Let's just hold their hands up and do some praise and worsha.
It's not gay, I promise. Just repeat the same lines over like a
mantra, over and over and over to the same three chords. Uh Jesus,
here's my boyfriend right, this awful praise and worship. Who can stand
praise and worship? Even when I was going to praise and worship Protestant stuff,
I mean, I remember thinking, like, really, you know what
I mean. I'm trying to think, what's what's a classic praising worship song?
I'm trying to think of one. How do they go? I'm trying
to remember I had an idea for a gay praising worship leader skit, and
then somebody actually made that. They beat me to the punch a long time
ago. What's one of those praising worship songs that's super annoying. I'm trying
to remember one. Lord, I left your name on high Lord. I
love to seeing your praises from the ocean to the sea, from the sea
to the valley, to the value to the shores. I mean, oh,
no, wonder people become atheists. Praise and worship alone is like the
greatest argument for atheism. Atheists, if you're listening, you want to own
the Christians. Uh, You're not gonna own the Orthodox because our chance are
like masculine and babe, right, But you want to If you want to
own the Evangelicals, I'll give you this little nugget. Just make fun of
their Just play their praise and worship, dude. That's a stronger argument than
any of your soy atheist arguments. Just play praise and worship, dude.
That's it. Oh god, it is an awesome got you rage. I
can't even remember these do the people in the chat are They're they're loving it.
They're loving it. Jesus, isn't your boyfriend, dude? This is
all It's all very I mean, imagine meeting a monarch and then walking up
to the monarch and being I mean, obviously the monarchs nowaday are like disgusting
degenerates. But imagine meeting like a baze tried monarch, you know what I
mean, and being walking up and being like, Emperor Constantine, You're my
favorite guy. You're so hot and cool, and I love you too.
I love you Constantine the best Byzantine Emperor, and be like constantly like,
get this skittles man out of my court? What is this nonsense? Right?
But yet you're gonna sing to the Lord of the universe these horrible three
note I don't even know what you call them. They're like they're like beta
male pop songs, just the worst, just ugh. And his final authority
is infallible. And we would point and say that is very recent. And
then some of the other arms of the church, the traditions of the church,
are infallible, the Apostolic succession of traditions, not all of them people
fallible, but the scripture is infallible. I think Lane puts Us stated differently,
solo scripture is a statement that the church can enter the plausthoriety of Soloscricturer
begins with two simple observations, First, what scripture is and second how scripture
functions. First, scripture claims to be the inspired word of God. Now,
all of our traditions use the phrase the word of God in various different
ways. When we designate scripture as the inspired Word of God, we are
recognizing that it is ontologically and I'm trying to find me some good praise and
worship as a little bit about sample for you. The words of Scripture are
from God because the Holy Spirit carried along with the off Yeah. Next fallacy
here is the assumption that quote word of God and quote uh, well,
that word of God only refers to the written text. Where does the idea
of the Word of God equating to only written texts? Where is that?
Oh, it's not anywhere. So the fact that two Peter says that the
Old Testament prophets were moved by the Holy Spirit and spoke not by the will
of man, but according to the will of God. That doesn't mean that
everything that they spoke was only written. You understand, the Old Testament prophets
also were preachers, so the preaching that they did was also authoritative, was
also the word of God. And we know this because in Paul's letters to
Timothy, he says, pass on to good men after you the word of
God which you heard from me in the presence of many witnesses. He doesn't
say, just write another letter, just copy and paste my letter, Timothy.
No, he says, all of the teaching that you heard from me,
because Paul taught for three years. According to Acts, I think it's
Acts twenty in night emphasis, he says, pass on that whole body of
knowledge. So the assumption that Protestants always do here and I did I know
because I used to do this when I was Protestants to assume that when the
New Testament texts are talking about the Word of God, it only refers to
written texts. But it doesn't. The preaching of the apostles was also authoritative.
And I think, if I remember, I think James White admitted that
in the Trent Horn debate. If I recall, I'm trying to do y'all
want to y'all want to pause for a minute, get a little bit of
praise on worship who And I had to explain to the California Ortho bros what
a United Pentecostal was when you come to Tennessee. Okay, it's not like
they're like, oh, you mean charismatics. No, No, you see
this chick with the bun where the hair come down. That that's the that's
a Pentecostal right there. And the Pentecostals usually are anti Trinitarian. Okay,
So that's what this is, is what I talk. By the way,
this is better than the praise and worship stuff. I'd rather go to a
heterodox Unitarian praising worships. I'm joking, but that's actually better than the what
is this? Here we go like Hillsong type of stuff. You know what
I mean? This is the worst. If you're fifties, don't want to
use traditional makeup as I use traditional makeup. When I was on O a
n other day and I look like a damn diva, I got to hear
some hill song. Let's hear it. Oh this is oh yeah, this
is this is Chris. This is evangelical creed Man. Look at this dude.
I could be this dude. Look can you cheek me Hi, yeah,
jew a polish We're blind, man. She's no different than the crappy
radio rock, except worse Christian rock. Oh man, look at this dude.
He knows every word. He knows every word. What's he got a
what's that pink bracelet? All the conspiracy he will be like, he's got
a caballa bracelet. You've got a pink caballa bracelet? Eh? Yeah,
he fixed his heart for Oh yeah, oh yeah, I'm a crappy Christian
version of Creed Paul calls scripture god breathed. John Stott uses words like spiration
and expiration to convey the meaning of that term. Qut plainly thinking would start
cutting carts. Oh yeah, I'm unsure of my sexuality and I'm in a
prison worship band or the words of God. That is exactly how scripture speaks
of itself. And Jesus quotes the Old Testament as God speaking. Yeah,
but none of that prison is infallible, it cannot be broken. But none
of those things personal scripture. So you noticed that it's all non sequitors from
Gavin Orland here, because God is infallible, and sure it's the same of
that. I mean Catholics make with Vatican one, right, and mining the
first thousand years of quote proof text for Vatican one, where it's like,
no, this here a track cat. Notice here it says that the Bishop
of Rome was listed as first, therefore Vatican wela. No, the fact
that he's listed first does not in any way prove Vatican one. And by
the way, the Alexandria document admits that ninety six prove Vatican one. So
it's like they're using all these battle It's no, it's the same type of
fallacious move that Ortland or Lundia over here and Russlan over here speech. So
us simply maintains that as scripture is unique in its nature, so it is
correspondingly unique in its authorities. Well, again, the fact that it's unique
does not equate to being the sole infallible authority. So you notice that all
of this so far has just traded on non supporters. Okay, So notice
what he's saying here. Scripture is unique in its nature, and it's correspondingly
unique as authority. So Protestants who hold that scripture is the final authority do
not believe that modern day prophecy is equal with scripture. This is why when
people ask modern day prophets, do you still believe in apostles and prophets and
healings to day? And I say yes, but not in the sense that
we see it in the scripture, meaning I do believe there was so wait
he believes in apostles today, so wait, so then what do you have
a problem with? That was ald of succession. By the way, the
best ships are not apostles. But that's weird. The uniqueness of with the
apostles, and a uniqueness with the writing of scripture, and a uniqueness with
the Old Testament prophets. And when we see prophetic prophetic elements today or elements
of apostleship today, it is not with the same authority as the apostles in
the Bible. Well, we saw last time that this is nonsense, right
because Zechariah specifically says that in the Messianic era, you will not have people
claiming to be profits. Prophecy will cease. We don't need prophecy anymore because
the canon is closed. That doesn't mean that there aren't people with clairvoyance or
something like that, or elders and people who have spiritual gifts. But those
things are not right. The equivalent of divine revelations. So we would agree
with him that there is a uniqueness to the apostolic deposit right, the faith
wants for all delivered to the saints. But the whole fallacy here is to
think that the faith once for all delivered to the saints equates to and must
be only what's in the written text, and none of that has actually been
demonstrated. None of the texts that he showed so far actually demonstrate that it's
just all been assumed. And again we bring it back to the first point,
which is that I think is Zechariah thirteen. I think it's either eight
or thirteen, but that's the chapter that predicts in the Messianic era that you
will not have people calling themselves profits, and people they call themselves profits will
be stoned with stones. Now we don't literally think that people are going to
be stoned, but it means that the New Testament equivalent of the quote death
penalty or being excommunicated the way that you would be ceremonially unclean in the Old
Testament. For example, you couldn't go to participate in the rituals and whatnot
until you were cleansed in a bath. That's a type that's a foreshadowing as
symbol of the New Testament notion of being baptized and then being admitted to the
Eucharist. So the way that you're quote stoned and excommunicated nowadays is by not
confessing your sins and not being prepared for the admittance to the covenantal meal of
the Eucharist. So there's a direct parallel there to the New Testament. And
in that text of Zachariah where talks about in the Messianic era, if anyone
says I am a prophet, his father and his mother who who begot him,
will stone him with stones. I want to say, is zach rai
ate? But it's been well since we looked at that text. But Father
Deacon and I covered this, and he had a great point too about you
know, if you look at Paul's texts and Galatians one, Paul says that
if anyone preaches a new gospel or a different gospel to you right, ignore
them. Well, if the can and divine revelation, if public divine revelation
wasn't sealed and wasn't complete, then there wouldn't be a way to say that
there weren't. There wasn't a defined thing to test it against. So we
agree with the Protestant that there's not new ongoing public revelations. The councils and
their teachings are authoritative interpretations of the existing the positive faith. The positive faith
is complete, as Jude says, once for all delivered the saints. So
therefore there could never be new divine revelations. It's just not even possible.
And it is zechari At thirteen, and that day there will be a place
in every place opened up to the House of David and the habits of Jerusalem.
So this is Messianic gar It will come to pass, says the Lord
of Hosts, that I will utterly destroy, Hey, Jamie, could you
bring me a water? Excuse me? I will utterly destroy the names of
the idols in the land, the false prophets, the unclean spirits. If
anyone says that they are a prophet or shall still prophesy, his mother and
his father, who begot him, will say you are not. You will
not live, or you speak falsehoods in the name of the Lord. Thus
his father and his mother who begot him, will bind him when he prophesies.
And it will come to pass that the prophets will be put to shame
their visions and their prophecies, and they will put on leather skins because they
spoke lies. And one will say, I am not a prophet, but
rather I am a tiller of the soil and man who brought me up thus
from my youth. So I think this tilling of the soil. Right.
In the New Testament, this is typically a reference to the work of the
apostles. Right, so the church is typically portrayed as a vineyard, as
a field where the seed is sprinkled and it's sown, and so tilling the
field, right, you shall not muzzle the oxen while it works. The
New Testament, and Paul applies that to the apostles. So the New Testament
application is that, well, there's gonna be a finality of revelation. Right,
there's no more profits because, as Jesus says, John was the last
of the prophets. So there are New Testament prophecies, but as paulices,
prophecies will cease, so there's no longer a need for the office of an
Old Testament prophet, because that was in anticipation too, the coming of the
Messiah. And the common theme here that I'm getting at is that for much
of Protestantism, the error, the underlying error throughout a lot of this is
to think that we can move back to the Old Testament status of things.
And you'll notice they're always trying to make this move, even inadvertently. They
think that, oh, the way the sacraments operate, well, it's like
circumcision or any of the ritual meals in the Old Testament. It's just a
symbol. Wait a minute, that's the Old Testament status. Oh well,
if the Church is like Israel, then it's just like Israel, and then
it's just as fallible. Well, this is prior to Pentecost. Jesus said
the Holy Spirit woul be given to the Church, and that it would never
leave the church. I will never leave you and never sink you. I
will guide you into old truth. And yet no, you see, according
to Process, the Church isn't an actual historical thing. It's this amorphous,
unknown, invisible thing which is just ecclesiological in Hisstorianism. Oh, it's an
invisible entity where everybody somehow might be part of the Church, and there's not
really a visible authoritative thing. Jay reminds me of Alan Watts, the man
who sings without an orchestra, just just playing rhymeless music. That's what I'm
talking about, absolutely, man, there are no more profits. Now that
we have a book. We worship you, oh Holy Book. You are
the one thing on myself that I worship. Now, even though you're a
creature, I worship you, Oh Book. This is the way that Protestants
should really do their prison worship, right, I don't worship creatures. Even
though a book's a creature. Boy, it is not with the same accuracy
as the prophets in the Bible, right that that that phase was unique.
It's not with the same accurate So now profits can like prophesy and be totally
off. Actually, the structures on quote prophecy are that if they don't get
it right, they're dead to you or they're stoned. Right, that's the
Old Testament strictures. And where does he get the idea that, well,
you know, I mean basically like no stradonka, don't you know what I
mean? Like, if you get like thirty percent of your prophecy right,
you know, we'll let you slide. Right. It's not like it used
to be, though, where you had you had to get it like spot
On. You know, the bar was pretty high from Malachi. But for
I don't know, for Benny hen I will let you slide on about eighty
percent of your failed prophecies. So what that is he even talking about.
So there's a distinction here. There is a distincitionship. We believe Cruit is
unique in its nature and it's authority. It's not the same. It's just
so funny because as you think about this, the whole methodology of the Protestant
and their whole approach here is literally to make the book God. I mean,
they actually think that this is God. And that's super duper irony because
number one, it's against their iconoclasm position, because if this is God,
then you're God is a creature and the book is full of images words.
Those are images if you didn't know, they're iconographic, and they're depicting the
thing that you say can't be depicted. So actually you're just a book idolator,
is all you are. Even though Jesus says, and he quoted John
ten citing Gavin Orlandia right, he cited that where Jesus says the scriptures cannot
be broken. But he also says that you search the scriptures because you think
that it's in them that you have eternal life. Oh but you didn't cite
that one, did you? Erusalem? Did you? Gavin? When?
And it is they that bear witness to me. So this is like a
letter. Imagine mistaking a letter for the person. That's that's the mistake they're
doing here. It says silly, right, somebody writes you a letter about
how good of a rapper I am, and we all know I'm probably probably
the best. I mean, we know it's not Little aids aka Tristana.
So who's left me? That's it? Easy equation there, cancel out the
second rateist rapper and you've only got one left. Somebody writes a big letter
explaining how good I am with my vocal bars and skills. And you get
this letter, and you read the letter, and you, oh, dude,
I know Jay now. I know all about his freestyle. I know
all about his flow because I read the letter. And you're like, but
do you know him? Yeah? I read the letter, dude, but
you don't know me. You read a letter about me. This is how
silly it is. Prophetic word the authority positions tend to separate infallibility from inspiration.
Second, Scripture functions with superior authority than other authorities in the Church.
So separating infallibility from inspiration distinguishing is not separating so that people make these mistakes
all the time. It's the same move that like people the mistakes that people
make in terms of the Trinity or Christology. Oh, if you make a
distinction, that means that there's separation and division. No, just because scripture
is infallible doesn't mean that there's nothing else about. So again, these are
it's all non sequitis. For example, in Mark seven, Jesus places scripture
over the Pharisees traditions despite the fact that the Pharisees had legitimate teaching authority and
it claimed to possess an oral law for Moses. Yeah, but that's an
admission that the teaching is oral and written even in the Old Testament. So
he doesn't even understand that this isn't own right, But the traditions are not
all that, So this is a I'm surprised that Gavin Ortland's approach was so
low tier here actually, given how much people talk about Gavin Ortland, I
thought, and I expected something a lot more quality than this. This is
super like basic tier stuff, right, Like, well, Jesus is good
traditions, traditions and men traditions to me, Yeah, but those are traditions
of men. We're talking about the traditions of God, which Paul says second
Massalonians two fifteen are written and oral. Famous claim of plus tradition is roughly
equal authorities. The Pharisees could have objected, but Jesus, where does the
Old Testament explicitly say that it has a greater authority than are oral traditions.
But of course the Bible need not anticipate every possible leader Jesus the way.
Yeah, but that doesn't prove that the idea of there being oral and written
tradition is false. Right, So that again, anywhere else, this guy
has a new, a new ad. We think about the think about the
serpent oral Torah and what was passed down and all of these different things.
And Jesus, so here's the mistake here, because the Pharisees had a false
oral tradition that Jesus, rebuking the Protestant then thinks that this is a rejection
of all oral tradition. That's silly again, non secultor. It's always word
concept fallacies and non sequitors. It's like all it's everything acknowledged that they had
authority. He incurs and do as the Pharisees say, just don't become like
that. Right, So it's it's an interesting uh distinction here was right.
Yeah, but I can agree with that same idea that Jesus is rebuking the
traditions of men and admitting that the Pharisees have authority, and none of that
has anything to do with proving so scriptura. We could agree to the exact
same critique that Jesus is making that Rouslan is making, and yet we still
don't get soul scripture from that. The oral traditions of the Pharisees like the
greater authority of holy scripture. Yeah, but the oral traditions of the Pharisees
are things that replaced the word of God. The word of God still has
not been demonstrated to be only written yet that's just been assumed. Foreans noble
for testing the apostolic message against the scripture. Yeah, but none of our
position, nobody in our position would disagree with these texts. So again you
see that checking the things against the scriptures does not prove sola scriptura. Do
you see how that's a non sequitar It doesn't follow command is that Apostolic teaching
and even Angelic teaching must be tested according to the deposit of divine more relation
given in the Apostolic age. But actually, remember that Paul's standing command to
Timothy and the Thessalonians is not to only test everything by the written texts.
It's also the things that you heard from me in the presence of many witnesses,
Paul says to Timothy. So if they're going to make this an argument
from Paul, then Paul now contradicts himself because Paul also says to listen to
his oral teachings, which they're equating to things somehow inferior to what is written
down. Well, where do you think a lot of Paul's letters come from
their oral teachings written down? This is behind tests that which is to the
inspired word of God, by that which is the inspired word of God.
So the entire video just relied on the non sequitor that word of God equates
to the written text, which was never demonstrated, and in fact, multiple
texts demonstrate that that's not true in a contradiction, and that makes sense because
God's speech has greater authority than other seech. Now, these two considerations scripts
nature in scripture's role don't yet establish, but they lead to the question,
by the way, the nature of scripture, like he never even addressed that
he's just calling inspiration the quote nature of scripture. Where was the ontology of
scripture ever mentioned? Because as an Orthodox person we would have a really excellent
ontology of scripture which would mirror the synergy in the two natures of Christ.
Right divining human in synergy is the model for how inspiration occurs and how the
apostles also orally preached the word of God. It's the same synergy. And
the only difference between orally preaching something and writing something down is the medium.
That's it. The content is the same, the authority is the same.
So Peter orally preaching is no different than somebody writing down what he orally preached.
It's just the medium is different. But the assumption here is that only
what is written down is authoritative. But where where does that come from?
None of the text that were shown prove that they're just assumed and read into
it and in fact, multiple other texts that reassert and reaffirm the authority of
the oral prove our point that you cannot read it in this limited, written
only way. How does the church possess any other rule that is comparable to
scripture with respect to infallibility? What it cric will be at some point to
oral apostolic traditions that are mentioned in in New Testament. But these were given.
You noticed that that that he How long did that stay up there?
For about two seconds? So Gavin kept that. The other quotes Galvin had
up there for about fifteen to twenty seconds. The two texts where Paul talks
about there's other texts, but the two where he mentioned tradition. Let's see
how quick does Gavin allow this to stay up that is comparable to scripture with
respect to infallibility? What it crip will be to orso one Mississippi two Mississippi
Missisippi two seconds. So he gave you two seconds to see versus talking about
tradition interested directly by the apostles during the era of public revelation while are still
being written. We don't have those oral traditions, right, You're how do
you know that you're assuming that we don't have the public oral traditions, and
yet every liturgical scholar can go back and tell us that, I mean it
actually knows. I mean, even the Protestant liturgical scholars will tell us that
there's an Apostolic tradition for what the liturgical services are. So Gavin Ortland just
blew past that, acts like that doesn't exist, which he probably doesn't even
know that, right, because isn't he a Baptist? Okay, so is
a Baptist going to know anything about the history of liturgical worship? Of course
not right, ninety nine point nine percent of them will not, So no
surprise here that he doesn't. He just assumes that there is no tradition.
We don't have a And you know, it's funny when most of the time
when Protestants talk about this and you say, what do you mean we don't
have any oral tradition, they're like, where's it written down? Well?
Number one, again, we're all just assuming the Protestant mindset here by well,
the oral tradition must be written down or we can't know it. Oh,
really, let's apply that argument to the canon. Where's the Protestant canon
in the first second and third century. Oh it's not there, So I
guess we can't know it by your own standard, can we? Did you
see that? Did you guys notice this argument? If we apply his same
logic of the bar the criterion of what's expected to know quote a tradition,
in his case, it's knowing an oral tradition. If it's not written down
in the first few centuries, it's unknowable. Okay, let's apply that same
principle to the Protestant canon of Scripture, the Protestant list of books where in
the Church fathers, because there's no other I mean, unless you want to
go to liturgy. But I don't think you want to go to liturgy as
a Protestant as a basis for quote tradition. Okay, where are we going
to get the Protestant list of books? Oh there's not one in the first
three centuries. Oh okay, so then we can't know the canon according to
your line of argument. You see how silly this is. Christian bass historical
facts like the date of Easter, and each side appealed to Apostolic tradition to
defenditive position. Actually, the early Easter debates appealed to all kinds of things.
They didn't just appeal to quote traditions. So I don't know where he
gets the idea that Pope Victor and the quarter deesseminarians were only appealing to quote
traditions. I mean, the arguments were all about all kinds of different stuff.
And actually the arguments were about judaic readings, right, So it's about
whether we would celebrate Easter according to a judaic kind of a tradition, or
whether the Church has the authority to decide how the calendar will go, and
all of this constantly. You'll notice the move of Protestants inadvertently is to always
tend towards a judaizing tendency. They just inadvertently automatically do it, and they're
just rehearsing constantly ancient church heresies. That's why protestantsm is always an historian.
It's always tending towards Arianism. It's always tending towards Montanism with its weird charismatic
nonsense, gibberish, barking like dogs, rolling around acting like idiots, because
they're just regurgitating every single ancient church heresy in the first seven centuries. There
is a difference between it and by the way, there's still a difference between
the Orthodox and the Oriental Orthodox and the Catholics on when Eastern actually was oral
teachings and what is that supposed to prove? So Protestants always bring this up
like this is some sort of will you and Roman Catholics disagree? So what
like? So if I found people that disagreed with tuplus two equaling four,
what would that have to do with tuplus who equaling four or not? You
see, this is just silly, like this comes up all the time.
I'm generally mystified. So why people think that this is an argument or objection?
Will people disagree? So you don't know what straight from and the famable
transmission process by which he is preserved. Wait a minute, so the fallible
transmission process. So now Gavin's has doubled down and doubly admitted that the transmission
of these texts because he doesn't have a time machine to go back to the
autographa. You understand, there's no time machine where we can get in and
go back and see what Paul was actually authoring. It doesn't exist. Those
are called the autographa, the original Apostolic text. No one has those the
only things that exist are later copies arranged in different collections and codesies. So
if nobody has Paul's AUTOGRAPHA or Peter's AUTOGRAPHA, what are we relying on?
Oh, the church tradition. But you just heard Gavin Ortland say that this
is reformable and fallible. Yeah, exactly. So every individual Protestant can study
really hard and do a lot of praying and prayer, praise of worship,
do lots of praise and worship like Poul Washer. Have you listened to a
lot of Poul Washer. I'm going to pass around this offering plate full of
smooth small stones, and if I don't preach according to that Bible over there,
I want you to stone me. And I'm going to cry right now
because it's the forty five minute markt my talk, and that's what the spirit
moves me to cry. Give me money, by the way, because I'm
missionary. You give me money, a little bit of Paul Washer. Therefore
you, by the way, people said, did you do your Paul Washer
impression out your life? Event? Yes, yes I did. I mean
it wasn't long, but you got you got a little dose of Paul The
positive mechanisms of infallibility, but in the new custody. Okay, but wait
a minute. If there's no mechanism of infallibility all to the post episode at
Church, than the books that are in this book can be reformable. Reformable
that's the terminology of Gavin Ortlandia. But there is not even a hint of
any posts infallible. And I like how this guy's whole video is just playing
the Gavin Ortland video and him going mmmmm mm hmmm. So again super low
tier stuff. And I can't believe you said that. You're so mean.
Oh you're so mean, so mean a faculty. I'm so mean. I'm
so mean. I'm so mean, also mean, I'm so I'm gonna start
up. That's my next song. It's gonna be an R. R.
Kelly style song. I so mean, I'm so mean, I mean felt
information about the offices in the nature of the church. Nor did the only
Church exhibit any awareness of possessing an infallible authority. So when Athanasius speaks of
the Holy Spirit speaking through the Council of nicea right, So come on,
right. And this quote here is deceptive because Augustine talks about the authority of
the Church. Augustine was a bishop who believed that in his day, the
Bishop of Rome had defined the canon for the West right, so Pope Saint
Damasis in Augustine's writings, had given the church the dudoaconomical texts as part of
scripture famously. And here we have Gavin Ortland in a very deceptive way or
ignorant way, because all they do is quote mine, giving a quote about
the superiority of scripture above a letter of a bishop. Of course, the
scriptures are above the letter of a bishop. That isn't but this is totally
deceptive to act like a person who believed in apostolic oral tradition Augustine that he
taught solo scripture. So just remember every time Protestants are quote mining, it's
a lie much leader in history that such an idea develops, and when it
frankly doesn't have a good tracture like extant, Ignatius says, where the bishop
is right, there's the church. When you hear the bishop speaking, it's
God the Father, right, the bishop is liking to God the Father.
I'm not saying the bishop individually is infallible. We don't believe that basically nobody
believes that. Even Roman Catholics don't believe that you know, Francis or who,
that they're always infallible. So everybody has strictures on this to a degree.
Now, I think the Romancolic position is totally inconsistent, but the Protestant
position, which is the flip side of the papal position, is totally incoherent
because everything that Gavin Wrtland has said, again remember, undermines the post Episoltic
decision of putting these books together in the canon. And every time you bring
this up to Protestant what do they say. No, the scholars can tell
us by going back to Jerome, and this arbitrary. Why Jerome, I
mean, Jerome doesn't teach solar scriptura. He doesn't teach he believes in absolt
tradition. He believes in bishoprics, he believes in the Pope of Rome,
he believes in relics, he believes in the perpetual virginity of Mary. He's
got famous essays against vigilanteus. Right, So by your standards, Jerome,
your one dude is a heretic. He doesn't teach the Gospel of free grace,
the Gospel of free grace, justification by faith, the law none.
He doesn't tease that, so he's a heretic. Oh, but he's gonna
give you the can So a heretic gives you the canon. This is insane
and it's totally deceptive. It's a lie. That's why they have to do
this deceptive move of going back to the Church Fathers quote, minding them to
make them into Protestants. But this is actually a good thing because we forced
the Protestants into having to now go to the Church Fathers to try to betray
them as proto Protestants. But that will quickly be a failed endeavor because anytime
you go into reading the Church Fathers, you will quickly discover just read the
Canons of Nicea, ignorant. Slow boys out there. I'm not talking about
the Nicene Creed. I'm talking about that Canons of Nicea. They don't believe
anything like Protestants. Well, the Church was corrupted by this side. They
had followed away from the Bible, but they didn't have the Bible yet,
according to James White, so what are they fall away from? They fell
away from the proto canon of Malito of Sardis Malito sartist didn't have the Protestant
canon. Well they it was short circuit. So again they're gonna short circuit.
That's necessary. That's where we're going in the process of the Protestants losing,
and that's necessary. It's good. There's nothing wrong with this. Now
he's bringing up Vatican to contradiction the Church. Yeah, well, I all
agree with this one. So Gavin Orlin is one point herefore pointing out the
contradiction between cantate Domino and lemageum has changed from allegedly infallible teaching in the medieval
world to allegedly infallible teaching today. Attempts to reconcile these problematic changes. Why
is Galvin Ortland playing like Prager University ad piano music in the background. It's
like, is this I feel like I'm being hypnotized by this weird piano.
It's not an ad. Feel like I'm watching an ad for some kind of
like gay Silicon Valley app with this piano music in the background. It's like
some app that's gonna teach me where can I find the biggest Skittles evangelical strip?
Mall church? Right, and then you have this piano playing Welcome to
Gay church. We're going to find you the greatest skittles non denominational megachurches in
the San Francisco Bay area. Just sign in here. And they've got this
little piano playing in the background. And remove the practical value of allegedly infallible
teaching, because evidently it can be misinterpreted. And where's Rouselan. He's just
this whole video is him just going like he's hungry. He's going to eat
some some He's gonna eat him some. I don't know what a Rouslan's eat.
I thought that sounds Russian, but he said he's Oriental Orthodox, So
I don't know. What does a Ruse lawn eat. Damn, some kind
of some kind of crouch. No, that's what Germans e, some kind
of I don't know, some kind of stew with water and cabbage in it.
I don't know. Is that what they eat? I don't know.
Virtually everybody Ford sol is a healthy, good and necessary doctrine because it directs
us to place our ultimate trust, not infallible human beings who can air.
He's gonna eat some of that Eastern European beanstalk soup, right? Is that
what they eat over there? But rather than God and his word which will
never fail us. Shout out, so Gavin from Truth Unite. I love
that breakdown. I think it's an important one. And if you actually go
back and watch more conversation with Trent Horn, we got into Sola scripture and
one of the things I said about that is, I think it's easy to
straw man Sola scripture when you're looking at it from a when you're looking at
the I would say, the very like fringe fundamentalist version of it, versus
looking at it in the context of how Protestants have always viewed souls. Yeah,
but that's not gonna matter because they're both just as dumb. So no,
that's the only you'll notice by the way that look. I mean you're
like, well, Jay, why are you making this video? And you
know, why are you laughing and being so uncharitable and so look, we've
been through this for many years now pretty much in every case when I reach
out to these people, I haven't talked to Ruslan or anything, but I'm
just saying, on the on the on the average, what usually happens is
we get people saying, yeah, we could set this up, we could
have this conversation we have this debate, and multiple times people have been canceled,
right, and or they just out of hand, no, I don't
want anything to do with you. And then they come up with some excuse
that, well he's not nice enough. I'm sorry. I just this is
just so soy and ridiculous. I mean, let's think back to the Matt
Frad days. Oh you mate fraid Jake DoD will leave it, be onlaw
Channel, be cool on just awesome. And I have this voice and people
love it and like Crocodile Dundee and all that stuff. Right, why would
I hear He's mean, really mean? So the best that they've come up
with is mean. And you know what's funny is that? So I spent
the whole last like three days in Los Angeles in a bunch of comedy circles.
So we were hanging out with all these different comedy people, and we
went to multiple comedy shows. And what's funny is that in the comedy world,
like it's standard to be roasted. Okay, I wasn't involved in roasting,
but people were talking about their classic roasts. People were getting roasted.
Sam Tripley was roasting people multiple for like thirty minutes in two different sets.
Okay, the comedians are roasting each other. The only reason that Tim Gordon
and I got to be buddies is that we we we're roasting each other,
make jokes, and he thought it was funny that I was calling him the
creed dude, and so then we got to be So Tim is a real
one. That's what I'm trying to say, right, Because people that can
take a joke and laugh, you can already kind of tell about their personality,
whether they're stable people or not, and whether they can, you know,
just freaking act normal. But most people can't. They can't handle this.
They're super emotional. Go watch the video that we just posted from my
Andrew Bustamante talk where actually the CIA dude was saying this very thing, saying
that people can't actually handle these challenging situations and they become emotional, and that
other people play on that manipulate people through that. So all I'm trying to
say is that this is just a super weak excuse that people won't have those
conversations because number one, we have countless interviews, countless shows, countless debates
where everything is perfectly civil, perfectly formal, all these people will do is
then say, oh, but look at this blood sport that you did six
years ago, where you're arguing with some idiot who was acting like a complete
idiot, and you dared to call him a complete idiot. That's just not
pios. I mean, it's just disgusting. Right now, I'm not saying
Rousselan did this. I've never talked to Rousalan, but I'm already guessing that
there's this convenient excuse that, well, I don't have to interact with him
because he mean, what does it even mean to say mean that? I
don't even know what that means? Mean? Is that a fat joke?
Is that? What mean? Really? If you get your feeling term or
a fat joke, you're not going to be an Internet figure for very long
because the Internet will rip you apart for everything anyway. So and people that
have larger size channels, they've been ripped apart, I'm sure many many times.
So it's not that that's the point. It's not that somehow magically mean
and meaner than all the other people on the internet. Shutter. That's not
actually the case. So it's an excuse, is what it is. And
look, people don't want to have their worldviews challenge. Of course not,
and we know that, and that's why it doesn't really bother me. I'm
not bothered that people don't want to talk to me because we don't have to
have all these people right Like, I can just put out my content and
people can listen or not listen. I just can't stand the piety signaling.
Like the dudes today, the first two dudes that we're talking about, the
evangelical Skittles couple guy, like, those guys talked mad crap. And then
all I did was ask them in the comments, would you guys like to
come to bate? I didn't say anything mean to them, literally nothing mean,
would you guys like to come to me? Because I assumed that if
somebody does a two hour live stream and they're talking mad crap, like,
okay, well do they want a debate? I guess I mean, is
that what they're after here? Because they're calling me out? I assume that
that that's but no, but no, how dare you offer me a debate?
He's like, you're a debate bro? You want dude? You're sitting
there calling me out, and I assume that means you want to have a
debate. But then what I'm what I'm learning is that people want to just
talk smack and never have any accountability for what they say. That's literally what
I'm learning. In fact, one dude like a month ago, who was
like a young twenty year old dude. Remember when I invited that guy on
like all the smack talkers and I was like, so, what what are
you mad about? He's like, why do you reply to the people who
talk smack to you? And I'm like, why not? It seems like
they want He's like, that's what is supposed to happen. I'm like,
what do you mean that's what's supposed to happen. He's like, there's we're
supposed to try to tear you down and you are not supposed to respond to
us. That's literally what he said. And I'm like, what so you
ever said? Howpathetic? That sounds like you want to be able to say
anything with absolutely no consequences and no accountability for the claims that you say.
And I think that's actually the case. That's what this is. People don't
want they're not even man enough to like just deal with the challenges and the
argumentation anyway. All right, So that's Ruslan in this first argument. This
one is kind of long, so I'm not gonna play this. We're gonna
go ahead and probably open it up. We got a lot of people in
the chat here. If you have questions, challenges, issues, topics,
debates, We've got a nice over thousand today. Boom roasted exactly exactly.
I've invited people to come on and roast me. I don't care like it
doesn't If you hang out with a bunch of comedians, you're gonna get roasted
and it's fun. Like, I don't understand why people don't want to enjoy
the creativity that goes into roasting. Remember that one dude called in or no,
Austin, it was Austin Peterson. Forget it. I'm like, dude,
let me help you out to roast me. Like you're trying to roast
me. He's like, you look like you stink and you don't have showers.
I'm like, dude, you could at least make fun of my rebel
tooth, Like I got a rebellious tooth over here. I've made fun of
that, and you're over here making like fourth grade jokes. Come on,
man, you gotta step it up. Base philosophies ys are five dollars.
I'm not gonna say around for the stream, but I want to shout you
out, all right, doll TND five dollars. If Hellenic and religious platonic
philosophy dismisses the material world as fake and gray, that's not what he said.
I had to that. Why was there so much emphasis on physical beauty,
strength and power and martial values and athleticism. So Hellenic philosophy is not
a monolithic thing. So certain philosophers would have been more hedonistic and would have
been maybe stoic, and would have emphasized those things. Could you make me
one more coffee before you go? Thank you? So there were hedonists.
There were Epicureans who would have been absolutely pro physical beauty. They were not
degenerates like a lot of people think Epicureanism is like totally no. No.
I mean to the Epicureans, the height of pleasure would be like, you
know, wine and cheese in a philosophical conversation. But they didn't think that
physical beauty, strength and power were like bad. So Hellenic philosophy is not
a monolithic thing. And I think Aristotle would be very pro body. But
it's Neil Platonism, Platonic strands that emphasized the transcendent to the negation of the
here and the now. That would be the people engaged in that. And
I would say that the Orthodox tradition, how could we be anti matter when
the God of the universe assumed matter? Shawn two dollars. If the Kingdom
is the Church, why is it Christ of the Church is within us in
Luke seventeen twenty one. That's because it's both, right, So it's not
in either or. The Kingdom is the presence of the Holy Spirit. That's
why Pentecost is so important to the life of the Church. So the Holy
Spirit dwells in us, in our in our hearts, and in the Church
as a collective body. Jesus says it's within us, which sounds like Protestantism.
No, why would I mean, every Christian tradition out there would believe
that the Holy Spirit is within us, So how would the verse be quote
Protestant. There's no Protestant verses that doesn't exist. So what I'm saying is
that the Holy Spirit dwelling within us does not mean that there's no external reality
of the Holy Spirit. Right, So what Protestism typically does is it takes
one verse and it exclusivizes that verse and excludes all the others. Right,
So Jesus says that the gates of Hell would not prevail against the Kingdom,
which is a collective body the Church. Paul says in his letters that you
are the body of Christ. He says, the church at Ephesus, you
are the body. He doesn't say that it's an invisible body. He says,
the actual physical group that meets at Ephesus, you are the body of
Christ. So it's not and cannot be an invisible church. Icono Matt five
dollars. I love your stuff. My cousin is Protestant, and he was
saying that the Book of Acts, every time the apostles baptize, they do
it in the name of Jesus and not the Trinity. That's just a stand
in, Okay, Does it literally mean that they only repeat the name of
Jesus. H And again, I mean, I think that there's way more
fundamental issues with your oneness, Pentecostal friend there, which would be the Trinity
itself. So rather than debating about the name of Jesus the Book of Acts,
we need to start talking about the Trinity. Okay, in the Book
of John. Just take your buddy through, you know, John fourteen to
seventeen and look at all the references to Father, Son and Spirit in those
passages. Those are the most trinitarian passages. In fact, I've lectured through
the entire Gospel of John. Like these goober Protestants who said that, I
quote, never go to the Bible, We've lectured through the entire Book of
Genesis. We've lectured through the entire Book of John. And every chapter of
the Book of John includes deity of Christ and or Trinity. J I T
S two Q two dollars, Hi, J thank you, JITs to Q
storm the cap five dollars in June too. There looks like Taoist influence.
I would not be surprised because they talk about the religion is Zen Sunni,
is Zen Sunni Catholicism. So it's a perennialus merged type of thing, and
I've talked about that extensively. This is because of the legend of Lao Zi.
He had knowledge and wisdom of an enlightened philosopher and his and his mom's
womb before he was born. And this is like Alia Paul's sister. Absolutely,
I think you're a spot on there. You know, Dune definitely borrows
Frank Herbert borrows from multiple religious traditions. Arena Dacian blood. By the way,
that's a good point because I actually forgot to mention the zen elements in
my Dinge andn elyses, So thank you for pointing Arena Dacian blood. Three
dollars. What's the What is going on with the OCA? I have no
idea, so I'm not in the OCA. Couldn't tell you. Can you
update about Bishop Gilitzen. I don't know anything about it. Couldn't tell you
what's going on. I would say, rather than worrying about jurisdictions per se,
you know, in terms of your saying worsh I go to church,
just visit the local churches and find out which of the local priests is the
best fit for you, and I wouldn't worry so much about jurisdictions. Alula
five dollars. Jay, I wanted to say that the Protestants that you're talking
about here are cowards and they're not men worthy of any respect. You know,
this is typically what happens, and that's what I'm getting at here is.
I'm not about rouse Lam, but the two guys the beginning who basically
made an entire podcast and all these clips about how awful I am and all
this stuff. And then I, in a very kind, polite didn't say
anything mean way, asked them to come in debate, and then they lie
and they run away. So that's exactly what they're snakes and cowards exactly.
Chase Haggard three dollars. I debated Matt Slick a few nights ago. Oh,
interesting to know that he rambled and appealed to I know what the interpretation
is because I read it. Yeah, so the text means what it says,
says what it means. Very naive approach to how interpretation actually works.
He appealed to his autism. I don't understand how people are trying to defend
this. Actually, I would rather Matt Slick appeal to the tism than to
the spirit, because in his debate with Father Deacon and Aias he appealed to
the Holy Spirit. Maybe he's confusing the two comfy friend three dollars. Did
you see that Father Stevens, I don't know who Father Stevens is had a
conversation with Gavin Orland. I have not Oh you mean father Stephen to young.
I have not watched that yet. It was a conversation, but Father
made Gavin's position look silly. Oh good glad he No, I've not seen
that dation blood three dollars, Jay, would you consider making a few videos
on Orthodox spirituality. I'm not your spiritual father, so probably not. And
then you get into moral issues and all this kind of stuff. Now it's
not The people have roles and things that are appropriate to them, and that's
not appropriate for me. Five gives five dollars. This is a salute to
mauger In Christ from Jipiland, Romania. Okay, thank you, Logan Daily
five dollars. Who are the final bosses of Protestant and papal apologetics? Will
you ever get to refute them? Well? I guess. I mean,
I thought James White performed pretty poorly against Trent Horn. Thank you. I
can't, I mean, can anyway? I feel like we already know who
the final bosses would be. I mean, but James White doesn't do a
whole lot of debates as much. I don't think he won his Trent Horn
debate. That doesn't mean that I think Roman catholsy. I actually think the
funny part about the Trent Horne James White debate was that James White brought up
great contradictions in Rumman Catholic dogma changing towards the end of the debate, But
that wasn't the topic of the debate. The topic of the debate was sole
scriptura. So yeah, so I guess James White is the final boss of
Protestant apologetics. I don't know who else. I mean, if this is
the best that Gavin Ortland has that was super weak, who's the best of
papal apologetics? I don't know. You tell me, I mean, is
it what? By the way, I guess Luigi debated. I forget the
hispanic dude's name, but he's like he's at Barr's disciple, and Luigi debated
him, and Luigi and I are going to be doing a debate review this
weekend. But I don't that that guy wouldn't be the final boss. I
don't even know, you guys, tell me who the final boss is?
Who's even left? Is it? I guess it's just Trent. I mean,
is there anybody else that's better at papal apologetics than Trent, I mean
Taylor Marshall. I mean Taylor Marshall doesn't do debates, so how is he
the best? I mean I asked Taylor Marshall to debate and he blocked me.
So what do you what does that tell you? DC? What working?
Five dollars? Thank you so much, Petro Guard five dollars, Sola,
nub Tura, We follow the nub alone. I did integrate a little
bit of Richard Dawkin's nub into my impression stand up routine, so thank you
for that, Gigo, five dollars. Given the doctrine of deification of creations,
such as it relating to icons, crosses, and relics, why would
you not wear one hundred cross and necklaces and cover your house with icons?
You should and so you would. You would then look like basically an orthodox
flave of flave, and that is what I advocate. JITs two, Q
two dollars. What are your three biggest tips that you would tell yourself if
you were eighteen? Again, Oh, that's a good question. Then we're
going to open it up to Q and A. Here we got several people
here in the chat. Shout out to our bros and sisters. In the
chat on x So if you want to ask your questions, bring your comments
and your challenges, you can do that through the link in the show description
Twitter space, so you call in through the Twitter space right here. So
the nub thing comes from. I didn't even realize this until Jamie was talking
about it in her chat, but basically because of the joke I guess that
I made a while back that because you know Richard Dawkins defending like evolutionary theory,
and the whole idea is that the mutations that occur that continue on are
for the advantage of the species. And my joke was, okay, well,
what does one eighth of a ppe do? Right? Like? What
advantage is one eighth of a pepe? Maybe Richard Dawkins knows from experience,
right, But like a nub? Like what advantage are you gonna get from
a nub? Right? Like? What is one sixtieth of a teat of
a breast? How does that an advantage to the species? You see?
You see how silly this is? Anyway, So I did include some of
that in my routine. But my three biggest tips. First biggest tip would
be one hundred dollars. Second, biggest tip would be two hundred dollars and
the third biggest tip would be bitcoin. So those three tips, just kidding,
three tips. Don't go to college, start your own business, and
buy bitcoin. How's that be? Like? What? What is bitcoin?
This is the year nineteen ninety eight. How do we just just listen for
this and when you hear it, buy it? So go on the nerd
forums, in the freaking Pokemon card forums or wherever you get that stuff and
buy bit. There you go, And so what's my what's my uh advice?
Today? The same stuff? All right, So we're gonna open it
up. If you would like to come on. You can ask a question,
you can make an argument. That doesn't mean argue with me. That
means make an argument. And to make an argument means that you have a
premise, you have supporting evidence, and you come to some kind of conclusion
on the basis of those things. It does not mean that you machine guns
spit out your position. It doesn't mean that your machine guns spit out to
me. The history of Wakanda and the pyramids and how we was kings and
the ancient Hebrew Nephelin god. People could fly the pyramids around I'm not joking
because every time I do this we get this guy, multiple of those kinds
of dudes. I don't need to care. I don't care about your hermetic,
alchemical, esoteric gibberish. I don't believe it. I don't want to
hear about that. I want to hear the argument for it. Those are
two different things. An argument is not a story. Well, we have
an ancient lineage where the gods. That's a story. What's the argument for
that? So the way it goes is your request to speak. I'll give
you a microphone. Next up as first up as sperguio. What's up?
Spurgio a Spurgio? Are you blueberl Abril? What's going on? Bro?
You got to unmute. What's up? Man? So? Are your Orthodoxy
correct? Yes, sir, I am Orthodoxy. I am all of Orthodoxy.
Okay, good. So I don't want to say that I'm Protestant or
Orthodoxy or a Catholic. I'll usually just call myself a polar it's just Orthodoxy.
Yeah. So my thing against Orthodoxy is that a lot of the uh
whatever they came together during during the meetings to decide what was going to be
you know, put into the Bible, or what we would all agree on
should be agreed upon all together. It was usually based upon dreams, like
all all they would all have. They would all come together every day and
they would talk about their dreams, and if certain people had dreams that matched
up, then that would help them to decide what was going to uh you
know, be a part of the I'm gonna assume that that was a troll
because that's just that was so silly. Uh fda, you don't have the
request to speak. I've already I've already sent you the the invite to co
host. Yes, all, yeah, all the ecumenical councils were just people
coming together on the basis of dreams. Basically just a big psychoanalysis, you
know. Uh the Seymour h m hmm. It was a very odd trolling
dreams. You gotta unmute Seymour, feed me Seymour, feed me Seymour on
mute or don't so you don't have to request this. Father Diggan, do
you want to come on or let me see if I can do it a
different way. There we go. Next up is hex Nube. Sorry,
I don't know what happened, alright, you're on here, hex Nube.
What's up? Man? I'm mute, uh mute. I want to un
mute my soul for you. I want to on me my soul. Lord.
Yep, sorry about that. Just had a question, how would you
respond to Calvinists that appeal to Augustine's view of predestination? And can you go
a little bit can you go into a little bit of how Calvinists are considered
a historian, Sure, so it is true that Augustine teaches double predestine well
single predestination, and then kind of I wouldn't say double predestination, but he
doesn't have a problem basically saying that the number of the elect is fixed so
to be precise single predestination. But we also think he taught other mistakes as
well, and the error on predestination has to do with his view of divine
simplicity. So, starting with reasoning about God from the divine essence, which
you see all throughout the Confessions, he has a lot of problems. For
example, and he expresses us in Confessions he says, I don't understand how
an eternal, absolutely simple God could act in time and space and do different
actions. And so for example, we see that Gregor Palomos, when he's
debating with Barleam, says that God rested on the seventh day from his work
of creation. So clearly the work of creation is not the same as the
work of walking on water. They're two different actions of God. So we
have to have an essence centergy distinction. Augustine does not teach the essen sentergy
distinction. But also strictly in terms of predestination, the order is out of
whack. So the order of theology, like the Protestants do, begins with
the divine essence and the divine decree. We're not told about the divine decree.
We're told about Christ the Trinity. So theology begins with the Trinity,
and then it moves to Christology. And that's the actual process of the ecumenical
councils. And unfortunately, Augustinian theology, I should say fortunately, not unfortunately,
Augustine theology is not what's accepted as the ecumenical teaching on the Trinity.
It's the Cappadocian teaching. So constant to double one is the Cappadocian Trinitarian model
that's accepted for the Church. The West professes to accept that and by the
time we get to the late Middle Ages, it has already gone off into
deviating into the doctrines of the Filioque and beginning to adopt to create a grace.
I'm not saying that all the West was lost. I'm just saying that
that's the direction it goes. In part of the reason that it's a Nestorian
or proto and Hisstorian would be the idea that Christ, as Augustine says,
is the predestined man. And so you can't predicate to Christ's humanity a predestined
status as if he's not the second person of the godhood, as a godhead,
as this subject. So it's a Nestorian in that regard. And the
question then is well, what happens on the cross? So in Augustinian theology
you lose the cosmic scope of Christ being the assumer of universal human nature.
Augustine doesn't believe that there's any connection directly between Christ's assumption of human nature and
the reprobate, So why are the reprobate resurrected? And you see him in
later on in the City of God he struggles with us, and the same
problem applies to the Calvinists, why would the reprobate be resurrected so they don't
have a cosmic scope of Christ's redemption, and assuming of all human nature.
If you understand that Christ assumes universal human nature and that's why all humans are
resurrected, this would cancel out limited atonement. It would cancel out the notion
that Christ only dies for a predestined elect So those are a myriad of issues
and problems there that would make Nestorianism ultimately. Calvin is ultimately the stumber,
the key killer. The kill shot is actually the idea that Christ is damned
on the cross to pay the penalty for the rest of us, and that
would be a Nestorian if you believe that Christ is a human person who is
the subject of the damn nation, that would split the hyposthetic union. Or
you are Arian if you believe that Jesus is a human person or a creature
that gets damned by God the Father, and then you split the trinity.
Either of those are devastating. Got it? Thanks a lot man, Yeah,
good question, And for those who want a fuller treatment of that,
I've done multiple live streams for multiple hours dissecting Calvinism Just type in Jay Dire
Comic Calvinism. You'll get the talks on David Patrick Harry's channel. You'll get
the talk the five six hours on Sam Shummuon's channel. So we've covered the
specifics of Calvinism and Augustinianism. I've got hours of talks on Augustin again,
it's all on my channel. Next up is Big Brain Bear. You gotta
unmute, bro. I wanna unmute my soul for you. I wanna unmute
your soul. Oh yeah, sing a praise and worship style. I'm gonna
come out with a praising worship album. Next, go ahead, big Lee,
big lead chew. All right, no sound. We'll move on leaks
and freaks. That's what I'm talking about. Leaks and freaks up in here.
I want to I'm mute my soul for you. Hm, you gotta
un mute leaks, Guys, I'm mute yourself to day. I had a
question about conscience because growing up, I grew up in a reform tradition and
you ain't got one. You ain't got one. Can you hear me?
Hello, it's just a joke, man, Go ahead, Oh my bad.
Yeah, I grew up in a reform environment and the freedom of conscience
thing where you have to you fully assent to it. Oh yeah, have
all logical connections speed in your Mind's a big thing growing up. And I'm
kind of wondering now as I've grown and I'm definitely veering towards orthodoxy if there
are certain elements that that you don't you haven't made the logical connections yet in
your mind, and you don't fully have that like gun agreement with it,
what is the freedom of conscience deal with that? Because I know for telementist
is a big deal where it's like you don't if you don't have that,
you can't you shouldn't be assented to it. You know, well, I
would agree you shouldn't assent to orthodoxy if your conscience is still not convinced.
So I don't have a problem admitting that, Like I wouldn't want people to
I wouldn't want to like mind control people into becoming Orthodox and then against their
will and then they wake up they're like, oh, I don't believe this,
So so we could affirm freedom of conscient and the notion of authority.
So I don't think those things are like in contradiction, because I mean,
don't you if you just think about the Bible itself, right, I mean,
you have the same issue with the Bible. So if you're a Protestant,
you've got all kinds of different Protestant interpretations. Should I believe this one
that my pastor has, Should I believe the pastor down the road? Should
I believe the woman pastor down the road that's going to marry? The method?
Method ministries bros. I mean, what you know, you're not gonna
You're not in any different position than anyone else by having to adjudicate between conflicting
positions, and that doesn't violate your freedom of conscience. So I mean,
if I understand what you're asking, you're asking like the Protestant doctrines of freedom
of worship and freedom of conscience typically go to go together. I just don't.
I don't see how that's really Like, are you just saying that if
I'm not convinced of all the orthodox positions of my conscience, should I not
convert? I would say no, you shouldn't. You should be convinced.
You should take your time, Okay. So to clarify, like, if
we're talking about the the door mission or some of the Marian stuff obviously and
very harsh. Yeah, or the perpetual virginity of Mary. Let's use that
as an example. Okay, if that's something that you're kind of like,
Okay, well I don't it's not a big issue for me. I kind
of don't believe that she never had sex with Joseph or something like that.
Or give me for saying something about the Blossop mother like that. But you
know, that's that's what I'm getting at. That's fine. I mean,
I remember going through the same stuff. You're not going through anything different or
new that everybody else hasn't gone through. We all have these issues that we
have to work through. I remember when I was a Calvinist and I was
going into Rome in two thousand and three, I had to work through marry
an issue. Use. So yeah, there's it's part of the process,
the journey whatever, and yeah, you should take your time and and and
work it out. It's much better to do that than to jump into something
because people that jump into it. One of the patterns I've seen is that
they'll jump into it and then they're not ready for the challenges from I don't
know, let's say, let's say you jumped it. Not you, but
let's say theoretically, somebody jumps into Orthodoxy after I don't know, watching some
YouTube videos and a few debates, and they read a book, I'm ready
to be Orthodox, and then like a year later they hear some scholastic presentation
from a Roman Catholic or a Uniate. So this is the most common thing,
is that. And this is not common in the sense of a lot
of a lot of cases. But there's a handful of people who leave Orthodoxy
for Uniitism every now and then, right, And usually what happens is they
rushed into Orthodoxy and then they act like nobody ever told me about the Uniate
positions that I was laed to, that I've could be Roman Catholic and be
Orthodox at the same time, It's like, no, you just didn't know.
Look, nobody was hiding this from you. You just didn't take your
time to study these issues out. That's not anybody's fault but your own.
And then, by the way, those people sometimes end up then just quitting
wholesale because they didn't get grass greener situations. They thought the grass would be
greener. Oh guess what I have to basically become a lawyer for Pope Francis.
And that's not a lot of fun and it's not very easy to do
because you go nuts. So now you're drunk, because being a Roman Catholic
is a lot of crazy hard work to make this insane system work for Pope
frank anyway, so yeah, take your time work through the issues. There's
plenty of good works from orthodox writers on Mary. If you want to talk
about the perpetual virginity, just go read the classic essay from Saint Jerome on
the Perpetual Virginity of Mary. You know, read Saint John Maximovis's book on
Mary. For those in the chat about Calvinism, look right here, people
are asking about how you review. Go did We've been talking about Calvinism for
like seven years going back to actually I was making comedy videos making fun of
Calvinists fifteen years ago. That was like my first YouTube video right here.
However, if you just go to these two this right here on Sam Simoon's
channel, uh twenty thousand views almost or you can watch this one over here,
or you can watch this one over here. So there's all of these
podcasts ready made for you. Anyway, go ahead. Yeah, definitely.
That answered my question pretty much. And I just wanted to say that these
unions do they usually after they convert from Orthodoxy to Catholicism? Did they usually
fall to Islam shortly thereafter? One of them did? I don't know about
more of them. I think that there was like one unstable priest who did
that, like you went UNI eight and then he went to Islam or something
crazy Constantinople. I don't know what his name was. Is your joke the
city of Constantinople? Yeah, got it? I mean, yeah, I
don't have a problem saying that. Constantinople. Uh, you know it is
not doing well. So good one, super funny, Dan Griffin, what's
up, any sir? I was looking for the Eastern recognition of the canon
in Truel. I think I'd heard you mentioned that that is where that was
the council that was. It's because it affirms the Trollo affirms the canons of
Carthage. Carthage is what list but but but Carthage is a local you know,
a series of local synods. But Trollo says, we affirmed the canons
of Carthage. Blah blah blah blah, blah at list of the years,
and one of those includes the Orthodox canon, which is more or less basically
the same as the canon of Pope Saint Damasis in the West that Augustine talks
about. So West and East had basically even though in the West it was
earlier. It's like, you know, four hundreds when Damasis lists his letter
that Augustin talks about, and then it's Carthage was around the same time Ate
three hundred, four hundreds that we're talking about, and then Trollo for Orthodox
is pretty normative, right, but Trollo gets reaffirmed for sure by the Seventh
Council as authoritative and acceptable to the Orthodox. I don't know. Rome has
actually shifted its position on At one time they used to accept the Seventh a
Commentical Council in total, and then no, we don't. We don't accept
all those because oops, has you know, married clergy and Trollo, So
we don't accept because the Seventh Council accepts quinnissex Trolo. Okay, yes,
yeah, no, I knew that. So I guess is it true then
that the East they loosely accepted it basically when the West sort of accepted it
they just did and kind of put a scamp on it. Well, the
difference, you can tell. The difference is that between the Latin mindset and
I'm not saying that this was the Latin mindset in the days of Damasis,
So in the days of Pope Demasis. If you had the patriarch of the
West of Rome, right, and he says, Okay, here's the canon
that we accept, that's going to be the normative attitude for a lot of
the West, just because that's the patriarch of Rome. That's the the you
know, the key patriarch of the West. In the East, it's going
to be a little different because the recognition is not going to be oh,
let's just what is constant and oples say, it's going to be more so
like, well, what's the closest thing to a canonical or synodyl list of
the canon. And that's why Trollo says, well, okay, here's Carthage's
list. You know this looks pretty solid. We'll go with this. Okay.
That pretty much answers my question. Do you intend on trying to get
a debate with Gavin sometimes soon? He did something recent with father Stephen de
Young that was kind of, you know, good to watch, but it
would be good to see somebody really just rough them up. You know.
I haven't thought about it. I mean, I'm not totally opposed to it,
but I kind of feel like the expectation is that there will be the
same old. Oh he's mean and he's a controversial person and I'm too good
impious to talk to him. That's my assumption as to what would happen.
Scott Grace, what's up, dude? You gotta I'm mute, bro.
Uh well, Onna, I mute your heart? Hey, how's it going,
Jay? Yes, sir. So I'm a Protestant, and I've been
kind of looking into unconditional election and looking into what Augustin wrote about it and
what a Quinas and the Thomas wrote about it, and I was curious.
I can't seem to find anything. How exactly did Augustine and Aquinas, how
did they reconcile the view of unconditional election but also universal atonement. Yeah,
the position is basically reconciled by saying that the grace is not identical. So
basically, can you mute it's a loud background? Yeah, So basically there
is a kind of grace that comes to all via the atonement, I think
they would say. And so God does in a sense love everyone and have
a desire for everyone, but that doesn't mean that he gives everybody the same
portion of grace so that they then come to faith and persevere. So remember
Augustine, for example, believes that you know, there's there's baptismal regeneration.
So everybody in the church that makes it to the font is regenerated and in
Christ, but they can also fall away. And so if you read his
book on perseverance, Augustine explains that not everybody's given this specific additional gift of
perseverance until the end. Only the elect, the conditional, the unconditionally predestined
fixed number of the elect also get the gift of perseverance. So that's what
he says. Aquinas pretty much agrees with Augustine on these topics. It's in
Suma book one. It's around I don't know questions eighteen to twenty three.
Somewhere in there is where he goes through his doctrine predestination. He does affirm
efficacious grace or what Augustina talks about operative grace, and so operative grace is
what you need at the beginning to convert, and then cooperative grace is where
you synergize your will. The Orthodox view doesn't make that distinction. We think
that all grace is cooperative. The human energy and will is never lost.
You were always at some point synergizing with divine grace. So those are some
points where we would differ. But another problem, as we said a minute
ago with the other guy, is that number one and the scope of Christ's
redemption is cosmic. And this is why Augustin struggles with it because of his
predestination doctrine. Because he begins his atereiology with a divine decree, he doesn't
have an explanation for in what sense Christ is connected to all men. And
that's because later councils, particularly picking up on the teaching of Saint Cyril of
Alexandria. If through the McGucken book, it's very clear Christ assumes universal human
nature. That's why all men are resurrected. And this is precisely why at
the end of City of God, Augustine struggles with why the reprobate would be
resurrected. The only way to be resurrected is have a connection to Christ.
Why are the reprobate resurrected, they have no connection to Christ. So this
is the problem with the materiological element of Augustine's theology. But there's also christological
problems with Christ being a predestined man, which would compromise seemingly him being a
divine subject. There's also problems with the grace taking over or over writing the
human will. That would be presumably a Monothelite or Monointurgist move, which the
Church rejects at the Fifth and Six councils, ultimately the Six because the whole
debate of the Six Council is whether there's two wills and two energies in Christ,
because those are fundamental components of human nature. So if he has our
nature, we have to have the same faculties that he has. That means
we have to have human will and human energy. That means that we can't
never we can never not have human will and energy. But the Calvinist and
Augustinian positions are premised on the notion that there's a natural tension between man's will
and God's will, and so that tension has to infallibly, efficaciously, irresistibly
be overcome by the divine will. And energy to be saved and we don't
believe that, right, which makes definitely makes sense from that perspective because obviously
they believe in total depravity, so like like you said, obviously there'd be
like that, yes, And their soteriology has nothing to do with Christology.
They don't even care. They will be a Nestorian or arian to maintain their
soteriology. So the whole thing is wrong headed because it's the wrong starting point
order theology, order of theology. Their order of theology begins with the divine
decree and arguability, divine simplicity, and then everything else is teased out from
that, and then we'll do trinity and incarnation down the road from that.
That's why it's all heterodox. That's why they end up a historian. That's
why they end up being Aran because who's punished on the cross. Is Jesus
a human person that's punished or is he the second person of Godhead who then
becomes damned and split from the trinity? Right, Yeah, thank you so
much for answering that question. Really good insight into that. And then one
more question, just kind of a fun one. Who do you typically enjoy
having discussions with more Protestants or Catholics? Who do you enjoy who hooting the
blowfish? Who would you say you enjoy having who? Who? Okay,
I think he said hoodie. I went in the back, chicker. Hi
sat on the roof and just cried and fell sorry for myself. It's Calviners
cry as the tears rolled down, moppery dustined tears face. Anyway, what
was your question, arnswer God? Who do you enjoy having conversations with more
about theology? Protestants or Catholics about theology. It's a tie like neither one.
I don't know. It's an equally bad scenari and I'm joking. I
mean, I really enjoy talking to Tim because Tim knows more philosophy than I
do. So actually I learned stuff from Tim, so I'm usually happy to
talk philosophy with Tim because he knows Aristola very well. He knows metaphysics well.
I don't agree obviously with everything. But but that's not really theology.
So I don't know. Man, that's a that's a tie for evil,
tie for worse. I'm just joking, but thank you for that question.
There's Scott Grace. That's a good that's a good Calvinist. Name a good
Protestant, Scott Grace, Alex the Inquirer. Man, it's getting hot up
in here, fan got on mute. I'm wan on mute your soul.
Hey. So, first of all, your work is greatly appreciated in the
Czech Republic. Thanks for all you do for the church. There was so
although when we went to so when we went to see Sam Tripoli at this
late night comedy store set, there was like, literally, I'm not joking,
the weirdest gathering of people at this late night comedy venue the other night
in La right, So there's like literally twenty Canadians are there for no nobody
could figure out why. Different groups of Canadians suddenly at the comedy store.
And this one dude with his mom from the Czech Republic, and Sam Tripley
was up there just blasting the Czech Republic. I don't know. It was
great he was talking about. He's like, do you guys still have that
game Kick the Box in your failed Republic? Anyway? I'm sorry, go
ahead, yeah, no problem. So the church is actually growing here due
to the young converts all things too. So thanks for that. I'm just
becoming a Catechumban. But I still have this one question. So if you
do not have external criteria such as the Scripture to assess the truth of the
claims of different churches, for example, the Oriental, the Eastern and the
Assyrian Church of the East. Now all of these churches claim that they are
inspired by the Holy Spirit. But now if you don't have that external criteria
such as the scripture, how can you assess their different truth claims? Like
if they all just say already won true church, why, well, because
we have the Holy Spirit, because hold on solar So what we do have
that right? So in other words, it's not like we we can't or
wouldn't appeal to scriptures. We would, So I don't I don't follow that
logic there. Yeah, So I just wanted to know. I'm kind of
slow. Let me let me put it this way. Let me put it
this way. So if I'm debating with a Rouman Catholic or a Protestant or
an Oriental, can I appeal to scriptures? Absolutely? Yeah, So the
fact that the scriptures aren't the sole final authority doesn't mean that they're not a
authority. Oh and and and do I have any way of knowing that,
So my church does have the Holy Spirit and the Oriental one does not have
the Holy Spirit? Is there any way to determine that, like our traditions
are right and theirs are not. Well, there's there's no there's not necessarily
going to be for any of these debates like one easy, Like I mean,
this is the whole argument of the papacy right, and actually the Protestants
as well, like they both try to have these like silver bullets that make
it to worry. Oh, you know what, you don't even have to
worry about anything because the silver bullet is the pope, and the other position
of the Protestant is, oh, you don't have to worry about any of
that who cares about all this theology and philosophy and because you have the silver
bullet of the Bible. But neither of those quote silver bullets actually do the
work. So again, if you go back to the beginning of today's live
stream, you'll notice that I talked about the difference between individual existential certitude and
the question of normative authority. So those are two different things, and it's
related, but it deals with your question in a way, because there's no
nobody has like an epistemically privileged position by which you can just sort of bypass
all the difficulties. Romagantholicism often tries to sell this. This is like their
car salesman pitch that you don't have to worry about any of these things because
the Pope. See you see, the Pope makes this so easy. Oh
but wait a minute, hasn't Francis actually just changed the position on the death
penalty. Hasn't Francis just changed a position on blessing of unions which the CDC
document previously said couldn't be done. Well, of course he has, yes,
So actually it's not doing the work that you were promised. It's like
a lemon. It's like a car salesman sells you this car that looks shiny
on the outside and there's no engine inside, and you're like, well,
wait a minute, where's the engine. Oh sorry, that's your problem.
You got to work that out now. By the way, enjoy your nice
shiny car. Right. So yeah, of course we can appeal to scripture
and tradition and all these things. And if you're in a dispute with somebody
who shares a lot of your scripture and tradition, then it's going to be
a little more difficult. But my point is just simply that there's no easy
silver bullet that bypasses really difficult disputes, as for example, between say Orthodox
and Orientals, you do, you're going to have to go into the writings
of Cyril and the council. What other way is there? Right? Because
in other words, if we just appeal to a council, okay, well,
how do I know that that's the true council? Right? An Oriental
will say, oh, that's a false council. So there's just simply is
no one silver bullet way. And even if you're arguing a bunch of scripture
texts with an Oriental, I mean, that's what Cyril and Thestorius have,
these kind of scripture text arguments. But I could point you to one great
book on this that's very accessible because the fifth Actamenical Council was called to reconcile
with Orientals. And so if you read the Kenneth Vesha book on the person
in Nature of Christ in Saint Justinian, that book is probably the best readable
fifty eighty pages, two hundred pages addressing the specific dogmatic decision between Orthodox and
Orientals. At the fifth Actemenical Council. So the the easiest I could make
this debate is that book? Right, thanks a lot, So that answers
my question. I'll definitely read that, But I just wanted to ask you,
do believe that every heretic is sinning? Or do believe someone can just
be wrong? Honestly? Yeah? This is typically the distinction between material and
formal heresy. So just being wrong is not what makes a person a heretic,
because being wrong is we're all in some degree wrong. A heretic is
somebody who's obstinate. So there's an obstinacy of will and a perpetual sort of
pushing over time, and there's no easy dep what's the timeframe? Is it
like one year of heresy? No, it's like I mean, is James
White a heretic? Absolutely? I mean, this guy's been pushing you know,
gibberish nonsense for thirty years, so so there's a Yeah, there's definitely
a difference between somebody who is just simply ignorant, and again it's possible that
they're wilfully ignorant, so that could make them more culpable. But I think
typically that's why we don't. We don't use sometimes the church does. But
usually heresy is like mentioned in a public sense for a group, right,
like Protestantism is a heresy. That doesn't mean that like I'm gonna go to
every individual Protestant and say you're damn your damn your damn your, damn you,
damn you damn Right. It doesn't work like that, Right, So
we can leave the judgment up to God and say that in a general sense,
the confession of faith that I don't know the Lutheran Church has is heterodox,
and we condemn that as a heterodox position, and that doesn't put me
in the position of judging every individual in that in that group. Now does
that mean that everybody then therefore is saved? No, I'm not saying that.
But God doesn't tell us who he works in and who he works with
and in what ways he can join people to the mystical body. So what
I do know is that no one can be saved without being joined the mystical
body. And does God have means by which he can do that for people?
Sure? Does he tell me all those means? No? So what's
my job to around and judge and trying to figure out who's damn who's not?
Absolutely not. It's ridiculous, right, So what's our duty then?
Just tell people to become wardogs. That's it so simple. Yeah, things
that that actually helps me a lot, because I know a lot of young
guys that are trying to figure out which church is to write one, and
they're just nervous as hell about being condemned to hell every night. So yeah,
that helps. Yeah, I mean I think that's kind of a I
don't think we're God's not damning everybody because they don't have all their theological you
know, if you don't have the right Amazon wish list of the theology books
to buy, and so you're danned. I mean, God knows our hearts.
God's a fair judge. He's a lot better of a judge than any
of the idiots on the internet. So yeah, so yeah, let's see.
Next up is Sapphire. What's up, Sapphire? You're ummuted to go
ahead? Got I'm mute? Hey, what's up? Yeah? Jay?
So I have a few questions. This doesn't take too long, Okay,
right out the gate. I don't know how to praise this, but would
you consider non orthodox people who are of the Christian faith. Are they Christians
in your view, or like Catholics for example. I don't really think that
it's that helpful to use this generic terminology of Christian for everybody. But I
mean, since the world and they call themselves Christian, I don't typically make
a big deal about it that okay, So they call themselves Christian, okay,
But ultimately, I mean Christianity is synonymous with orthodoxy. I see.
So what in your view constitutes a Christian like being triditarian or the divinity of
Christ, things like that. So there is a yeah, I think you
could make an argument that in the Canons of the First Seven Councils, you
could argue that people who affirm like the Nicene Creed are in a loose sense
Christian. So there is a canonical argument that I think Rocorps makes on this
on this topic. So, but there's still Christian in profession. I guess
you could say, I see, uh the second question, oh sorry,
are you still talking? Okay, the second one just might be a goofy
one. But in your view, who is worse Mormons or Muslims? I
think with all the kind of sectarian heterodox cult groups, And I would say
that Mormonism and Islam are basically Christian heresies of a sort. Uh, there's
not really a tier system there. They're all kind of the same. So
it's those two, by the way, have really similar a lot of the
moves. Yeah. Yeah, well so so in your view, like non
like other religions, you don't think some are better or worse than others,
or are they all just like equally bad in your view, I think any
anti trendy Tarrian anti christ position, and I would class both of those as
anti Trinitarian and thus anti Christ are all They're always basically going to have the
same manifestations, so they're not really going to have like tears, you know
what I mean. Like, I just think that's interesting. They're all going
to have the same I mean, individuals in that religion might be better than
others, Like I might meet a Mormon who's a better, more moral individual
than the Muslims down the road, but I don't know that in the sects
as a whole. You could really tease out like some kind of graded system
or something. I understand. So you, I mean, it is kind
of a Reddit topic, but you wouldn't be able to make like a tier
list of all the religions of the world, like it would just be Orthodox
Christianity of s and then everything else that I get. I mean, I
do think that there's two perspectives that you could have that are that are complementary,
they're not contradictory. So from the vantage point of like capital t ultimate
truth is how many religions are there? Are they on a scale? No,
there's only one true religion, one true faith. But in terms of
like, can we have dialogue with people who share a lot in common?
Sure? Right, so, and both of those things can be true at
the same time because they're two different vantage points. So if we're talking about
you know, do we do we in Roman Catholics have things in common that
we could dialogue about. Absolutely? Absolutely, we share at least we're supposed
to right the first say seventh well six seven ecumenical councils, even though they
don't really follow the seventh, So we could, we could, we could
form a basis to have conversation, dialogue and a lot of agreement there as
opposed to say a Muslim. So while both of those things can be true,
I'm not gonna then turn around and say, oh, well, because
we have you know, sixty percent in common with a Roman Catholic. The
Roman Catholic is sixty percent above the Muslim. It works that way because because
ultimately one significant heresy places you outside of the visible confines of the church.
Yeah, it's kind of like a binary, like you're you're either in the
church or not. Right, But it's also true that you can have discussion
and dialogue on commonalities. Those aren't mutually exclusive positions. I understand, like,
for example, Tim Gordon and I would have way more in common than
I would have in common with Daniel Hikikachu or Jake. Yeah. I was
just about to ask about Jake. This maybe off topic, but the end
of debate you mentioned that Islam is polytheistic. Is I haven't read the kron
personally, so this is news to me. I just oh, I was
probably talking about in the context of Jake's slophism where Allah has a foot,
two right hands, a shin that would be according to his own I mean,
according to Islamic shirk, right. I mean he's gonna say it's not,
but like, yeah, well, okay, how come you get to
have anthropomorphism that's real? Uh, and it's not idolatry. But and if
you read Sunny texts like Sunny text will critique them on that that very basis.
They will say that the Salafi are all anthropomorphic idolators. Yeah. So
I was just making the point that the soonies make against the Jake crowd.
Okay, thank you, Yeah, I guess my last question. Have you
seen the delay rage quin with Andrew? Yes, yeah, yeah, it's
on I put I put it on my Twitter. I got like two hundred
thousand views. So now what was your reaction when you saw that? I
mean, I didn't. I didn't. I did. I honestly did not
think Matt would do that, Like it seemed odd to me. I mean,
I haven't talked to Matt since our twenty eighteen debates, so I have
no idea like what his mental process is nowadays. But you know, at
the at the time of the debate between me and Matt, he seemed like
this very kind of like wanted to be cool, calculating, methodical, unemotional
type of atheist. And the atheist that I saw in that discussion was like
just an emo like can't control his you know, rage or whatever. So
it was odd, not what I expect it. I think he's gone downhill
in the last six years. Probably well. I think the atheism is like
mind rot So you're yeah, you're gonna go on hell yeah, yeah,
yeah, great questions. Appreciate that. We got a couple of super chats
here. I'll let Father Deacon he since he's on, if he wants to
make any comments. Father Dickon, you've been here for a while. You've
heard a lot of questions, a lot of comments. We've we've heard a
lot of bad argumentation from the Ruslan video. I want you to comment if
you if you have any insights. Jay Zuna since twenty five dollars and says,
can you talk about the Orthodox stance on death penalty? You mentioned an
article that you wrote in the past. Yeah. My article is called the
Patriarchal Principle and the death Penalty. I think something like that. I'll try
to find it here now. Unfortunately, the OCA, I think is anti
death penalty. They have some statement on their OCA website that they don't approve
of the death penalty. I disagree with that. I've always disagree with that.
I think some Antiochians disagree with the death penalty. The ro Corps traditional
statement affirms the death penalty. So even though that's not like the most important
thing to me, Like I'm just I do think it's pretty obvious that the
New Testament teaches the death penalty. The early Church Fathers pretty consistently, maybe
a couple outliers teach the death penalty. So I've always been a porter of
it. I don't really understand. I mean, just all the passivist stuff
drives me nuts. So here's my article on it, and I include,
by the way, several Church Fathers statements on the death penalty, and I
think the ro Corps it's at mospad dot are you the roal course statement on
it's good? Here it is past fist tendency in the patriarchal death penalty.
Here is my article, and we'll look at a couple quotes down at the
bottom. Here is that essay if you want to go read that essay right
there, and we'll see, for example, Athenasius in Letter forty eight notes
that God permitted the lawful use of the sword when he stated in Genesis one
or excuse me, a lawful use of sexuality. I think he's talking about
there. And then he says in Hebrews thirteen marriage bread should be undefiled.
And then it says, for example, Athanasius is saying that in some cases,
one action in certain situations might be vice. In other situations that might
be virtue. So another word, sexuality marriage is good, but outside of
marriage, he's saying would be a vice. And he says likewise, it
is not right to kill, Yet in war it is lawful and praiseworthy to
destroy the enemy. Accordingly, not only they who have distinguished themselves in the
field are worthy of great honors, but monuments are actually put up to their
achievement. So the same action is at one time, under one circumstance unlawful,
while under other circumstances it is lawful and permissible. So their Afthenatius is
calling the people who have exemplified bravery in warfare worthy of praise and great honors.
So that is not pacifism. Saint Ambrose, in his letter seventeen writes
that the Christian emperors have the right to exercise the sword. Similar exhortation in
his fortieth letter to Theodosius. And I mean, this is all stuff that
I worked through and learned. I didn't write this in twenty seventeen. This
is an article I wrote from I think about two thousand and fourteen, maybe
earlier. And I wrote this because so many people try to make a religion
this weird pacifist thing, and it's a huge problem, and it's just it
blows my mind. I don't I don't get it. And they when you
bring this up, they don't care. They don't care what the church fathers
said. All they all they care about is oh, well, you know
there were there were some statements of pacifism by this saint here or that saint
there. So what like, what does what does one person talking about pacifism
have to do with whether that's universally the case? Uh, go ahead,
father Dan, Well that's right. It just it's uh Christian, this this
whole idea innovation that comes into the church, because it's certainly this pastism was
not something received or practiced throughout the church. And I don't know why we
can't get across to people that it doesn't matter if you can cherry pick and
find quotes from different saints. That's not how orthodoxy works. It's it's what's
received. So whatever particular heresy or weird thing that you want to do you
have to look and say, is it received? It received in practice in
the Church? Of course it never is. And i'd also have too.
I think there's something very compassionate about the death penalty in terms of Christianity,
that it gives one a chance for repentance that they wouldn't have they were sentenced
to life or something like that. There's also the statement in Hebrews eleven.
We are told in Hebrews eleven that the in the Hall of Faith chapter the
faithful who went before us, some of them were heroes because they fought entire
armies, They turned to flight, entire armies. They were valiant in battle.
Hebrews eleven in verse thirty four. Now, how is that the case?
How would Samson, Gideon, Barak, Jeffa, the judges, David
and all these people, how would they be valiant heroes and models if suddenly
the New Testament in this marcianit way, we're supposed to be pacifist. This
is a Marcianite argument. Like literally, I'm saying Marcion literally made these kinds
of arguments that you hear people arguing today and add to contra pacivism. Look
at the warrior saints I was gonna say the warrior saints exactly. By the
way, I'm not talking about saints that you were part of the military before
conversion, right, I'm thinking of for example, Sat Alexander Nevsky, Stefan
ChIL Mare, the Saint Stephen the Great, Saint Olga of Kiev. They
were actually they were made saints in part because of their leadership in wels Uh.
Saint Stephen Stephan the Great for killing Muslims. Yeah, I was gonna
say, there's songs that the Serbs sing about their Serbian kings fighting the Muslims.
I mean, this is just ido idiocy. Right to act like christian
I mean, and as part of the NGO, like pacifist liberal feminist push
is to make Christianity. It is totally pacifist thing. That's part of the
strategy of how to basically cuck the West. Chalk to Sexy. Three dollars
will you report refute Voice of Reason on a stream? I don't know who
voice of reason is. There's a million atheists agnostic people, so but maybe
one day evon Estrada three dollars, how do I call in? The Twitter
link is bugged? I don't know what Twitter link bug means it's you go
to my Twitter. It's the space is right there. So I don't know
what you mean bugged. How does one get saved in your worldview? Well,
we don't have this idea that salvation is like this Roman's road, you
know, combe, dono alta bill aguelmo, I've got hat choose pizzla,
don hilp alto. If you're coma givill halt to jo, I'll give you
a little cocola on hats pizza. We don't have that. Okay, So
you got to be catechized. You enter the church six months, three year,
two year process of catechisas depending upon your situation. Uh, and then
you beat test. Then you have to get your PhD. In the Cappadocians.
And as those guys said, you read the Cappa Docans in the original
Latin, even though the Cappuditions were Greek. But procrastinator two dollars, what's
your advice or thoughts on procrastination? Well, number one, don't call yourself
procrastinator, because you're just reinforcinating, reinforcing that in your head. But calling
yourself procrastinator. So if you want to fight procrastination. Get chalk. Chalk
dot com will give you so much energy you'll be so amped up, especially
from the tongkat Ali. Head on over to chalk dot com right now at
cchoq dot I'm using from J fifty to get fifty percent off all those excellent
products, especially the Chad mode which is now out, which is awesome.
But if you mix it with the Patristic faith uh coffee. Ah, yes,
the lower coffee is listed in the show description. There's the link if
you want to get that great coffee. Thank you for reminding me of that,
FDA. Get that link in the show description and you can support my
work as well as Father Deacon Ananias's work through lower Coffee, which will help
you to not procrastinate. So substances such as chalk and coffee you can help
you to not procrastinate. Let's see who's next, Dan moletor what's up Dan?
By the way, we're gonna have to close it out pretty soon.
I have to go. I have an interview with Deanna Lorraine tonight, so
this will probably be our last question here tonight. Jay. So it's actually
just based off of what you just talked about with Capital punishment or definitely can
you or father you can an and ize speak to because I think when when
you say pacifism, like the Protestant mindset will probably think of like the murtyrs
or turn the other cheeks, like how how do you? Yeah, I
think that I think the answer, yeah, this is a fair question.
And I think the answer to this is that there's gonna be wisdom in determining
what the right action is in the right situation. So there's not necessarily a
one size fits all solution to how you, as a Christian would handle any
possible situation that comes along. So let's say I'm a soldier and I'm called
into battle for let's say for the Sego argument legitimate reasons. It would not
be legitimate in that case to say, oh, I'm suddenly a pacifist and
I'm not going to defend my homeland because oh, I'm a pacifist. That
would be cowardice. So you would not be exercising the virtue of bravery in
defying the providential situations scenario that comes about for you where you should fight.
If I am I don't know, a hermit out in the woods and a
battalion of soldiers. This has happened many times in the history of the church.
Right comes out to my hermitage and says, we're going to chop your
head off because you confess Christ. To step outside here, it would not
it would be absurd to fight back in that situation, right, So that
would be a call to martyrdom. So, in other words, my take
on this is that I think in various situations, depending upon our station and
our calling in life, will determine what the right course of action is.
So, maybe you know, a burglar breaks into my house at night and
he says, I'm going to take your wife and your children and do what
I want with them. Okay, that is not the time to say,
oh, I'm a silly man pacifist, do whatever you want. Now,
I have a duty to stand up and protect my wife and my children,
and that would be soy pacifism. To not step up, I would be
being a coward in that situation. So the context will determine our actions that
are appropriate to what the situation is. Father Deacon A degree. Yeah,
I want to add too, that we need to be careful of not kind
of falling into a continent deontological ethics. Rule worshiping. This is not how
we Orthodox do this. So when we read commands like thou shall not lie
turn the other cheek, it's exactly as Jay said that, Well, there's
going to be uh, that's not a rule applied everywhere, at all times,
in all places, in all situations, in the same way. Otherwise
we're gonna be falling into kind of a Kantian deontological ethics. And we certainly
aren't this Orthodox that And really what you see is uh committing the fallacy of
accident. Accident. The fallacy of accident is taking a rule and apply it
to cases it's not intended to apply to. So you get a lot of
people, will you never ever ever lie? Well, I found some of
the fathers say that in times it's actually morally required for you to lie.
Let me give you another example. You should always give property back to its
rightful owner. And uh, you borrowed a hunting rifle from your neighbor.
And he's got he's broken up with his wife, and he's been on a
meth for a week, and he's he's uh, he says, I'm gonna
he's totally falling apart. I'm gonna kill my wife, he says, and
I'm going to murder everybody in the block. And then he asks you for
his rifle back. And what do you do if you're a contient, Well,
the rule is you always give property back to its rightful owner. You
see that that's committing the fallacy of accidents. So this is an analogy for
turning the other cheek. Yes, it's a general rule, and there's cases
that wouldn't apply to you. And if you don't think so, you're committing
the fallacy the accident. That's what I would add. Yeah, great point.
Thank you guys so much. I am going to have to run.
I've got the interview tonight with Leanna Lorraine. We're gonna be talking about i'm
sure British intelligence type stuff and what happened to Kate Middleton. I have no
idea. Nobody really knows why she's missing, so I don't know, but
we'll be speculating on what might be going on, So look for that tonight.
I thank you guys so much. If you would like to share and
support the show via the stream labs function, or you can also if you
like tonight's discussion on this, you can get all of my apologetic essays in
One Big Fat Thing, Essays on Theologian philosophy at the website and