Speaker 1: Welcome, Welcome, Welcome to the Transfigured Life. We have a
Speaker 1: special guest here in the building. I'm always here rocking
Speaker 1: with Father Jonathan. And as you guys can see, here
Speaker 1: we have the comedian, the apologist, the gifted one here,
Speaker 1: Jay Dyer.
Speaker 2: Give it up for Jay Dyer.
Speaker 3: How you doing, Jay, I'm doing great, man. Thanks for
Speaker 3: having me here. I'm glad to be here. It's honored
Speaker 3: to talk to you guys. Appreciate it.
Speaker 4: Yeah, our pleasure and our honor. Thank you very much.
Speaker 2: Jay.
Speaker 4: We're going to kind of get right into it, and
Speaker 4: I want to begin by by by asking you a question. Undoubtedly,
Speaker 4: if you've been watching YouTube for a while, and I
Speaker 4: think you have, and if you've been watching Orthodox apology
Speaker 4: I think you have, can't fail to notice that there's
Speaker 4: been an abundance of podcasts and videos out there now
Speaker 4: by Protestants and especially Reform Protestants, Evangelicals, Baptists that are
Speaker 4: attacking the Orthodox faith and church. You know, I recently
Speaker 4: heard some Presbyterian church out west even deny that we
Speaker 4: the Orthodox, have Apostolic succession. And so I'm sure you've
Speaker 4: heard some of these, But what do you make of
Speaker 4: what do you think of that, we're seeing more and
Speaker 4: more of them now.
Speaker 3: I think one reason that we're seeing that is just
Speaker 3: everybody's got a podcast now. My wife and I were
Speaker 3: joking about this, like every like every people's grandmothers are
Speaker 3: going to start having podcasts soon ago. Literally everybody has
Speaker 3: a podcast, and I think every pastor now has a podcast.
Speaker 5: So that's part of it.
Speaker 3: But I also think that there's a realization that there's
Speaker 3: a lot of problems in the religious world, especially if
Speaker 3: you come from a Protestant or Roman Catholic background.
Speaker 5: I mean, that's not to say there's no.
Speaker 3: Problems in the Orthodox world, but every group kind of
Speaker 3: has its own youth unique problems, and so I think
Speaker 3: that a lot of people are sensing that questions are
Speaker 3: being asked that are very difficult. A lot of times
Speaker 3: Protestant pastors might not have the answers to these kinds
Speaker 3: of questions, and so they're going online, they're seeking out answers,
Speaker 3: and they're feeling the need to have to address why
Speaker 3: people are converting. A lot of people are converting out
Speaker 3: of Protestantism, some to run Catholicism. But I think actually
Speaker 3: in the last three or four years, more to Orthodoxy.
Speaker 3: So I think there's a need to try to explain this,
Speaker 3: to say, hey, don't leave. You know, they've got problems too,
Speaker 3: and Protestanism can be defended. I don't think ultimately that
Speaker 3: it can, but I think that's the reason is that
Speaker 3: a lot of people are looking for more than what
Speaker 3: they're getting at Protestant churches. So they're seeing a lot
Speaker 3: of you know, rainbow flags going up at Protestant churches,
Speaker 3: and that's making a lot of people, you know, dissatisfy.
Speaker 5: This is not what you know historic Christianity is. So
Speaker 5: this is on the one.
Speaker 3: Hand of search for authentic historic Christianity, there's a search
Speaker 3: for wanting to be you know, consistent with what the
Speaker 3: Bible actually teaches in terms of morals and that kind
Speaker 3: of stuff. People are craving that they don't want this, uh,
Speaker 3: water down stuff. And even even in the conservative Protestant world,
Speaker 3: I think there's a lot of unanswered questions when it
Speaker 3: comes to the challenges that Orthodoxy and Catholicism are presenting,
Speaker 3: but more so Orthodoxy, because I think a lot of
Speaker 3: people are seeing, you know, really systematic level problems in
Speaker 3: the Roman Catholic world that perhaps Orthodoxy might have the answer.
Speaker 4: To that's good, Luthor. Both you and Jay came out
Speaker 4: of that Milio. If you and I know you probably
Speaker 4: have different issues that you could point to. But Jay,
Speaker 4: what do you think are the man? What do you
Speaker 4: think are the two or three biggest issues that are
Speaker 4: bringing people over?
Speaker 1: Yeah, you got a lot of a lot of people
Speaker 1: coming out of the you know, the Protestant world.
Speaker 2: So what do you think is that that reason?
Speaker 3: Probably the biggest let me see, the biggest two issues
Speaker 3: in the Protestant world would be and I don't know
Speaker 3: if there are in any specific order, just the ones
Speaker 3: that come to mind that I hear the most are
Speaker 3: questions like, well, you know, solar scriptura, which is really
Speaker 3: the essence of classical Protestantism. And it really doesn't matter
Speaker 3: what form you want to give to solar scriptura.
Speaker 5: I know that there's different.
Speaker 3: Versions of a different apologists that give different levels of
Speaker 3: a different.
Speaker 5: Protestant apologists will recognize.
Speaker 3: Some kind of place for tradition, perhaps maybe even all
Speaker 3: the way up to High Church Anglicans can concede maybe
Speaker 3: the most reverence for traditions supposedly, but I think there's
Speaker 3: still a recognition that there's big heaping questions of ahistoricity. Right,
Speaker 3: the Protestant position is not historical, especially when we come
Speaker 3: to the formation of the Canon, when it comes to
Speaker 3: how the Bible came to be, when it comes to
Speaker 3: the actual practice of the church in first six seventh century,
Speaker 3: is the way that it operated with liturgy or you know,
Speaker 3: teaching profession of the faith in the liturgy and not
Speaker 3: so much people having to go and read the Bible
Speaker 3: on their own.
Speaker 5: To figure it all out.
Speaker 3: When when people start to realize that, when they see
Speaker 3: what's in the ecumenical councils and the canons and even
Speaker 3: the earliest councils you know, prior to Iicea and Caira, Gangra,
Speaker 3: you know, you see these so called Catholic and I
Speaker 3: say that is in the sense of orthodox Catholic elements.
Speaker 3: People are seeing that and realizing that, you know, this
Speaker 3: is this, this isn't Protestantism. So I think that's probably
Speaker 3: the biggest And then number two might be.
Speaker 5: Questions that they have about.
Speaker 3: The morals changing in the in the world of Protestanism,
Speaker 3: and again that that doesn't necessarily go for the conservative
Speaker 3: Protestant evangelical groups. But I think in the Protestant world,
Speaker 3: like the I mean, I don't know the numbers per se,
Speaker 3: but most, you know, all the mainline Protestant nominations in
Speaker 3: the US they pretty much liberal in the.
Speaker 5: Nineteen twenties and thirties. Uh.
Speaker 3: And by that I mean not just you know, caving
Speaker 3: into higher critical textual scholarship, but also morals. They began
Speaker 3: to cave on moral questions and issues. And so I
Speaker 3: think that those are probably the two biggest ones, you know,
Speaker 3: the history of the church, the Bible, soul, scriptura.
Speaker 5: And then I think there's other issues too.
Speaker 3: Like this debate world you know that pops up on
Speaker 3: in the internet. You know, Yeah, there's a lot there's
Speaker 3: a lot of you know, great chats and discussions and
Speaker 3: debates going on that. H that's probably a big factor
Speaker 3: as well.
Speaker 1: Wow, I agree, Yeah, yeah, there's definitely definitely a bigger
Speaker 1: debate will happen out there.
Speaker 2: I see that.
Speaker 3: Well, yeah, real quick, I noticed. I don't even know
Speaker 3: this until a few days ago.
Speaker 2: Uh.
Speaker 5: And obviously I'm not I'm not a.
Speaker 3: Huge fan of TikTok because it's you know, obviously it's
Speaker 3: a Chinese sort of surveillance app. But I am on
Speaker 3: there just to put out clips and stuff. And I
Speaker 3: didn't realize that I could go live on there until
Speaker 3: fairly recently, because you've got to.
Speaker 5: Hit a certain tier of subscribers or something.
Speaker 3: But I went live on TikTok and turns out there's
Speaker 3: this giant world over there that's different from you know,
Speaker 3: YouTube and these other places. There's there's just masses of
Speaker 3: Protestants over there. Calviunists are arguing and going crazy. Muslims
Speaker 3: are going crazy on TikTok. So I've kind of stepped
Speaker 3: into that whole other.
Speaker 5: Mess of getting on TikTok.
Speaker 3: And but that's a whole nother, you know field for potential,
Speaker 3: you know, new audiences, and TikTok tends to be a
Speaker 3: lot of twenty five are really young people over there
Speaker 3: as well.
Speaker 2: Yeah, kids are always dancing on TikTok and stuff like that.
Speaker 3: Now, but now there's a whole debate world because they
Speaker 3: have live streams, so you can live stream for you know,
Speaker 3: long long form on TikTok.
Speaker 5: Now, so there's always people debating over there.
Speaker 6: Oh my gosh, well fascinating.
Speaker 1: Well let's let's dive into some calvinism. I know that
Speaker 1: you you yourself used to be a Calvinist. I was
Speaker 1: a Calvinist as well. You know what what led you
Speaker 1: specifically out of that? Jay, What are some of the
Speaker 1: issues that you started to see with it? What was
Speaker 1: your progression out of that.
Speaker 5: I'm curious that Father Johnathan, did you have a background Protestant?
Speaker 5: Did you convert or were you raise Orthodox?
Speaker 6: Well?
Speaker 4: I was theoretically I'm a cradle but when I was
Speaker 4: a when I was in high school around tenth grade,
Speaker 4: I started going to a Presbyterian church and attending their
Speaker 4: Bible studies and their youth pastors. I have to give
Speaker 4: them a lot of credit. They they taught me Bible,
Speaker 4: you know, they really did, and that that has literally
Speaker 4: stayed with me for fifty years.
Speaker 6: A lot of what I learned there.
Speaker 4: But they didn't teach a lot of theology. It was
Speaker 4: here's what the Bible says, and you know we we
Speaker 4: kind of read it and read it and read it
Speaker 4: and kind of memorized it. So I didn't learn a
Speaker 4: lot of theology. So I have to say, I don't
Speaker 4: really come from that kind of a background.
Speaker 6: That experience.
Speaker 1: My experience Joy goes well that that background and not
Speaker 1: all Calvinists, right, We're not saying this all calvin but
Speaker 1: it's definitely like a debate world for real. When it
Speaker 1: came to that realm, it's like you weren't Calvinists enough
Speaker 1: at times, you.
Speaker 5: Know, yeah right, yeah, yeah yeah.
Speaker 3: Like so I got into that when I was about nineteen.
Speaker 3: I got into reading scriptures from an evangelical Bible study
Speaker 3: I was invited to when I was eighteen, and then
Speaker 3: kind of eventually wandered my way into reform Baptist stuff,
Speaker 3: like you said, because I went to a Reform Baptist
Speaker 3: Bible College for a.
Speaker 5: While and there everybody, you know, all the young guys.
Speaker 3: All we did was just kind of, you know, talk
Speaker 3: about church history and biblical theology all the time, and
Speaker 3: so we would get into these debates about well, you know,
Speaker 3: what about you know, the church fathers, they taught this
Speaker 3: and that. And I remember there was a really formative
Speaker 3: situation where I ended up stuck at Bible College throughout
Speaker 3: the whole winter break. And so now everybody else left
Speaker 3: and I was stuck there for the whole you know,
Speaker 3: three or four weeks or whatever it was, and I
Speaker 3: didn't have anything else to do. So I decided I
Speaker 3: was going to read The City of God. So I
Speaker 3: read from the beginning all the way up until about
Speaker 3: page nine hundred, and I wrote down all these I
Speaker 3: wrote down all these questions because there was nothing else
Speaker 3: to do.
Speaker 5: It's just me and in Louisville, sitting there by my well,
Speaker 5: and I didn't know anybody. So I just read that
Speaker 5: the whole time, and I wrote all these questions.
Speaker 3: And I took him to a couple of the of
Speaker 3: the professors, a couple of them are still pretty still
Speaker 3: teaching Baptist Bible College stuff. And I said, here's all
Speaker 3: these questions. I said, I don't understand how we could believe that.
Speaker 3: You know, we like Augustine, if you know, he's got
Speaker 3: all these things that we think are just you know.
Speaker 5: Catholic crazy accretions.
Speaker 3: And I didn't get very good answers, so I'll just
Speaker 3: leave it at that. But eventually they said, well, you
Speaker 3: might need to leave this this Bible college.
Speaker 5: This might not be for you. So I didn't.
Speaker 3: I wasn't ready for any changes at that time. But
Speaker 3: at that time I was more so thinking, I'm I
Speaker 3: think I believe in an infant bat Baptism. I think
Speaker 3: I believe in pedo Baptism, and I was reading a
Speaker 3: bunch of reform stuff from Bonson and rush Juni and
Speaker 3: Van Till and all those people. And so I found
Speaker 3: a PCA church at that time that I liked, which
Speaker 3: is the Conservative Presbyterians, and met one of the elders there,
Speaker 3: got to be kind of friendly with him, and we
Speaker 3: He introduced me to a lot of stuff that ironically
Speaker 3: would later point me in the direction out of out
Speaker 3: of Protestantism. And so in some of the circles of Presbyterians,
Speaker 3: there was a movement back then that's now kind of
Speaker 3: attached to Doug Wilson's stuff, which is kind of people
Speaker 3: looking into high church, you know, liturgy and that kind
Speaker 3: of stuff in the in the Protestant reform world. So
Speaker 3: I was kind of introduced to these questions at that time,
Speaker 3: but I still wasn't ready.
Speaker 5: I remember, I'll try to make this short and don't
Speaker 5: want to ramble a whole time, but.
Speaker 3: I met with some Catholic priests just out of curiosity,
Speaker 3: because I wanted to know, well, what do you guys
Speaker 3: teach about, you know, Augustine and Grace and all this stuff.
Speaker 3: And I remember having you know, one on ones with
Speaker 3: several Catholic priests, and they said, well, here's the Catholic
Speaker 3: Catechist them and I remember getting that, and I remember
Speaker 3: reading through about half of it, and I was like, now,
Speaker 3: I don't believe a lot.
Speaker 5: Of this stuff. This stuff's crazy. So I wasn't ready for.
Speaker 3: You know, Mary and stuff, and I thought all that
Speaker 3: was out there and wild. So but I did have
Speaker 3: a gradual movement towards reading more and more Church Fathers,
Speaker 3: and so for me at that time, it was really
Speaker 3: just I.
Speaker 5: Didn't know about Orthodoxy yet.
Speaker 3: This was like, this is about two thousand and one,
Speaker 3: and so I bought the Church Fathers, the Schaft set,
Speaker 3: and I was like, well, I guess I'm gonna have
Speaker 3: to start reading this. So I started reading Jerome, and
Speaker 3: I started reading Ambrose, and I started reading Cyprian, Saint Cyprian,
Speaker 3: and I started noticing, well, they don't.
Speaker 5: Teach anything like what we teach. So I was at
Speaker 5: a crossroads.
Speaker 3: And all I knew about at that time in two
Speaker 3: thousand and three ish, the only things on the Internet
Speaker 3: that you could ever find were Romechalic stuff and like
Speaker 3: Calvinist Protestants everything that that was the debate at that time, right,
Speaker 3: all the blogs, all the stuff, all the forums. You know,
Speaker 3: you would just see people debating on blogs and websites
Speaker 3: and forums back and forth. So I just thought that
Speaker 3: that was the extent of the debate. I didn't even
Speaker 3: know about Orthodoxy except for I'd heard there was a
Speaker 3: book by you know callistos Ware about Orthodox Church, but
Speaker 3: I didn't have it, so I just didn't think anything
Speaker 3: about it. Plus I didn't live with anywhere near an
Speaker 3: Orthodox church. So that was probably the hardest decision for
Speaker 3: me actually in my life at that time, because I
Speaker 3: was really I mean I was a huge student of
Speaker 3: Bonson van til rush JUNI I did a semester at Bonson's.
Speaker 3: There used to be think of Bonson seminary, So I
Speaker 3: was learning apologetics from doctor Bonnson.
Speaker 5: Like father father Johnathan.
Speaker 3: Said, you know, we were just like I mean, it
Speaker 3: was just Bible NonStop. I mean, we we were like
Speaker 3: temultic Jews with the Bible. I mean like we were
Speaker 3: just studying it NonStop. I mean we would have h
Speaker 3: we'd have morning Bible before church church was like two
Speaker 3: hours of lectures from Bible. We would have Sunday night
Speaker 3: Bible study and then we would have Winnesday and Friday
Speaker 3: meetings to read, you know, reform theologians. It was crazy
Speaker 3: because if you don't, I don't know if you guys know,
Speaker 3: but like in the Bons and Russian stuff, like, they
Speaker 3: were theonomists, So they have this very high view of
Speaker 3: Biblical law, and so there's a lot of you know,
Speaker 3: emphasis on what relevance you know, the Torah has for today.
Speaker 3: Now they're not messianic news or anything like that, but
Speaker 3: they just have this view that a lot of those
Speaker 3: laws are applicable to to today.
Speaker 5: So, you know, it was it was.
Speaker 3: Really difficult to move away from that because I was
Speaker 3: still wedded to it.
Speaker 5: But one of the things that really stuck with me.
Speaker 3: Was when I read Russiani's book called Foundations of Social
Speaker 3: Order and there was a chapter on the Ecumenical Councils,
Speaker 3: and so rush Janey ironically had this high view of
Speaker 3: the ecumenical councils. And I was starting to read The
Speaker 3: Church Fathers at that time, and I had read Cyril
Speaker 3: and I'd read Ethesis, so I knew kind of what
Speaker 3: it was all about. And then rush Janis take and
Speaker 3: Foundtions of Social Order was actually that.
Speaker 5: He thought, I'm not joking, he's he thinks that Cyril's.
Speaker 3: Position is in the storis disposition, and so rushing you
Speaker 3: got it completely backwards. And that really shook me at
Speaker 3: the time, and I just I didn't know what to do.
Speaker 3: I took that to my reform pastor and said, hey,
Speaker 3: this is this is totally backwards.
Speaker 5: I mean, how could he mess up that? You know
Speaker 5: that big?
Speaker 3: And well we're all fallible, Yeah, we're all fallible, but
Speaker 3: I mean that's a pretty big mistake if we're going
Speaker 3: to be saying why we're not why we're reformed. So
Speaker 3: then I decided it was going to be an issue
Speaker 3: of not so much this church father versus that church father.
Speaker 5: What's the root of Protestantism.
Speaker 3: Well, it's it's ultimately, if you're a classical Protestant, it's
Speaker 3: Bible alone.
Speaker 5: It's sole scripture, that's the ultimate primary authority.
Speaker 3: So I figured out I'm going to have to answer
Speaker 3: this question of how did the canon come to be?
Speaker 3: And I listened to tons and tons of Roman Catholic
Speaker 3: and reform debates. I went back and be forth, and
Speaker 3: at that time it was all you know, James White
Speaker 3: debating athletics, and it was Jerrymagticks debating Bonnson, and you know,
Speaker 3: reform to Catholic debates was about the extent of all
Speaker 3: you could find.
Speaker 5: And I went through all those and then I just
Speaker 5: said the best way to do this would be to read.
Speaker 3: A bunch of the Protestant evangelical scholars on the history
Speaker 3: of the formation of the Cannon.
Speaker 5: And so I read F. F.
Speaker 3: Bruce's book, and I read Lee McDonald's book their Evangelical scholars,
Speaker 3: and here they are admitting, oh, yeah, of course tradition
Speaker 3: plays a key role.
Speaker 5: In the Bible. Coming to me and I'm like, what
Speaker 5: so again?
Speaker 3: And you and you know, you take these questions to
Speaker 3: your Protestant pastors and well, you know, I don't know.
Speaker 5: I've never read that. Yeah, I haven't looked at that, but.
Speaker 3: I'm sure we can find somebody that knows. And then
Speaker 3: they'll refer you to, you know, some professor at Reformed
Speaker 3: Theological Seminary or Westminster or whatever. And you know, I
Speaker 3: just never really got good answers, and so I decided
Speaker 3: I would have to be Roman Catholic. So that led
Speaker 3: me to the Roman Catholic world still didn't know about Orthodoxy.
Speaker 5: When when I bought the church.
Speaker 3: Father said, I just assumed that the Western church fathers
Speaker 3: had it all right, right, So I just started reading Jerome,
Speaker 3: and I started reading you know, Ambrose and Cyprian and Augustine,
Speaker 3: and I just thought, oh, well, Chris System and you know,
Speaker 3: he might be all right. And Cappadocians maybe they're cool,
Speaker 3: but there's no pressing need for me to read them.
Speaker 3: We all believe in the Trinity, right, I mean, they
Speaker 3: were defending the Trinity. Why do we need to We
Speaker 3: don't need to rehash that debate. Yeah, So long story short, Yeah,
Speaker 3: went I went in that direction. I left the Reformed Church.
Speaker 3: I started attending a local Catholic church in two thousand
Speaker 3: and three, went through what they call Catechumen r CIA,
Speaker 3: and UH spent.
Speaker 5: About ten ten years in the Roman Catholic world.
Speaker 3: UH got really serious about attending the traditional Latin Mass.
Speaker 5: Did that for many, many.
Speaker 3: Years, drove for two hours for probably five or six
Speaker 3: years to do that in Memphis or nashvillecause the only
Speaker 3: place that would have the Latin masks that I could
Speaker 3: go to.
Speaker 1: UH.
Speaker 3: And then I and then I got to this point
Speaker 3: where it was like I was so immersed in church
Speaker 3: history I got really into Tonism and all that, and
Speaker 3: it was like, well, what am I going to do
Speaker 3: with pre post Vatican two. Long story short, that got
Speaker 3: me looking at the Orthodox question. I encountered Orthodox blogs
Speaker 3: in two thousand and six for the first time. I
Speaker 3: wasn't ready to convert, but I would hash it out.
Speaker 3: I'd argue with all these different people that were online
Speaker 3: the Orthodox world at that time. Yeah, and so that
Speaker 3: kind of led me just to start reading Eastern Fathers,
Speaker 3: and that took me another ten years. I wasn't ready to,
Speaker 3: you know, because I mean I obviously think, well, maybe
Speaker 3: you're just unstable and you're just converting to one thing
Speaker 3: of the next. I would actually take long periods of time, right,
Speaker 3: I was Ronancallay for about ten years, and it took
Speaker 3: me another ten years before I decided that I would
Speaker 3: go into Orthodoxy. I mean I held off for a
Speaker 3: really long time. I say, I have the longest catecub
Speaker 3: in it, like I intentionally I was a ten year category.
Speaker 5: So I held off for a long times.
Speaker 3: Anyway, I'm sorry, I'm going to keep talking about myself.
Speaker 3: It's just kind of rambling and weird. But long story short, Yeah,
Speaker 3: I just I felt like ultimately, for me at the
Speaker 3: end of the day, the main issue of what led
Speaker 3: me out of Protestantism was looking into the cannon. It's
Speaker 3: historical formation, the reliance on church tradition for not just canonicity,
Speaker 3: but even things like absolutely authorship.
Speaker 5: That's those are things that we.
Speaker 3: Don't I'm the gospels, they don't name them their author
Speaker 3: in a case of like Matthew, right, I mean, and
Speaker 3: even if it says Matthew, well, there's other gospels that
Speaker 3: are false gospels you know that we don't accept. Why
Speaker 3: don't we accept them? So you can't take it just
Speaker 3: because the name, Oh this was the Gospel of Thomas, Right, Well,
Speaker 3: that's anot we don't want that one.
Speaker 5: Well how do we what do we adjudge between? Right?
Speaker 3: So yeah, more I got into the church history, more,
Speaker 3: I got into the Church fathers. More I realized that, well,
Speaker 3: it just can't be Protestantism. And I was also, you know,
Speaker 3: still really into the Bible the whole time, so I
Speaker 3: would always be encountering passages that didn't fit with the
Speaker 3: system that I had. So if you've got this solo
Speaker 3: feed a justication by faith alone, you know, Calvinist, you know,
Speaker 3: tulip system, You've got all these problem texts that you're
Speaker 3: kind of have to deal with, and over time, more
Speaker 3: and more of those problem texts just really started mounting up,
Speaker 3: and I didn't find the answers really sufficient. But the
Speaker 3: biggest things actually in terms of specifically Calvinism, and what
Speaker 3: I would say is just really ultimately the errors of
Speaker 3: a lot of Latin theology period, would be the questions
Speaker 3: of absolute divine simplicity and the energies and the issues
Speaker 3: of Christology. Because once I realized that Calvinist Christology, even
Speaker 3: though they don't intend it to be a lot of times,
Speaker 3: it actually is a Nestorian Christology. So you can take
Speaker 3: it in two directions. You can go to an historian and
Speaker 3: you can say that the subject who was punished on
Speaker 3: the cross by the Father is a human subject, Jesus
Speaker 3: of Nazareth, which would be an historian option, or you
Speaker 3: could say that the son was damned by the Father,
Speaker 3: which it would be an Arian option because that would
Speaker 3: mean the Trinity is no longer you know one.
Speaker 5: So all those are the only two options if you
Speaker 5: believe the.
Speaker 3: Classical Protestant doctrine of the son being punished.
Speaker 5: As you know, the payment for the sins of penal
Speaker 5: substitutionary atonement, right exactly.
Speaker 4: You mentioned what what must be a beautiful a doctrine.
Speaker 4: You mentioned what must be a beautiful teaching and it
Speaker 4: must be a beautiful thing because it's named after a flower, tulip.
Speaker 4: I think you mentioned that a moment ago, and and
Speaker 4: Luther and I were kind of anxious to talk to
Speaker 4: you about that, but you said something and I really
Speaker 4: want to follow up with you on that, and uh
Speaker 4: and and that is we were talking about the the
Speaker 4: the the incredible explosion and growth of videos against Orthodoxy.
Speaker 4: But at the same time, they're a lot of Protestants
Speaker 4: and certainly a lot of Calvinists, they're encountering the Fathers,
Speaker 4: in some cases for the first time, and they're having
Speaker 4: to to grapple and deal with things. And they're there,
Speaker 4: and I've spoken with some of them privately and it's
Speaker 4: they don't want me to quote them, but I mean,
Speaker 4: what they're saying privately about what they're what they're wrestling
Speaker 4: over is is profound. Do you see a change in
Speaker 4: Protestantism in general because of this? And I think the
Speaker 4: encounter maybe goes back only maybe twenty years when when
Speaker 4: when this started to get very serious?
Speaker 6: Do you see that? I see it?
Speaker 4: But I mean I'm wondering what you see in your
Speaker 4: encounters and talking with people. I'm starting to hear them
Speaker 4: talk about real presence. I'm talking they're starting to see
Speaker 4: to Pio baptism and things like that, and it's like,
Speaker 4: oh my god, this is what you guys abhored thirty
Speaker 4: years ago. And now you're you're actually saying there must
Speaker 4: be something to a Jay Dyer.
Speaker 6: What do you think? What do you say?
Speaker 5: Absolutely? Yeah?
Speaker 3: I mean, like I said, so, you know, twenty years ago,
Speaker 3: maybe two thousand and two or three, the Presbyterians, the PCA,
Speaker 3: and some of the OPC people had what they call
Speaker 3: the Auburn Avenue Conference, and that was a lot of
Speaker 3: these guys at that time dealing with grappling with the
Speaker 3: things that you're talking about. And so a lot of
Speaker 3: them were reading Schmaman Feathers, Schiemann's books. They were reading
Speaker 3: books that dealt with liturgical theology. Peterliheart, James Jordan, That's
Speaker 3: the people I'm talking about, and they're realizing that, hey,
Speaker 3: there's actually a lot of liturgy in the Bible. There's
Speaker 3: actually a lot of symbolism that could point us in
Speaker 3: the direction of typology that maybe is relevant for the
Speaker 3: New Testament Church. Maybe vestiments aren't a bad idea. Maybe
Speaker 3: it's not wrong to have incense, right, So, you know,
Speaker 3: and this is ironic because, like you're saying, thirty forty
Speaker 3: years ago, the Reform, the Calvinists, you know, they had
Speaker 3: this strong position which they called the regulative principle of worship,
Speaker 3: which is the idea that laid down in like the
Speaker 3: Westminster Confession, that you can only worship.
Speaker 5: God in the way that he is explicitly mentioned.
Speaker 3: But of course the difficulty there, and I've been making
Speaker 3: this point quite a lot with the Protestants in the
Speaker 3: last few years, is that, well, isn't it odd that
Speaker 3: the New Testament then doesn't give us a pattern of worship?
Speaker 3: Now we have of Saint Paul complaining about abuses, but
Speaker 3: how do we know the layout of what we're supposed
Speaker 3: to do? If you're going to make the argument, as
Speaker 3: many Calvinists do, that Nadab and Abaihu were put to
Speaker 3: death because they offered strange fire, they did what they
Speaker 3: weren't supposed to do in Leviticus, because they didn't go
Speaker 3: according to the explicit commands.
Speaker 5: Where are the explicit commands of how you do the
Speaker 5: worship service?
Speaker 3: And it's intentionally, i think, providentially not there because there's
Speaker 3: a reliance on the fact that the Apostles and that
Speaker 3: here's the weird part. Every Protestant scholar and even Anglican
Speaker 3: liturgists that I've read, they admit that the Apostles had
Speaker 3: some sort of liturgy that they established in the seas,
Speaker 3: the Apostolic seas and churches they set up that was
Speaker 3: some kind of blending of the Temple and the Synagogue service.
Speaker 3: This is pretty pretty unanimous in history of liturgy books
Speaker 3: they will read, even from Protestants. So to me, that
Speaker 3: was kind of another big, you know thing when I
Speaker 3: read that many years ago that I didn't realize when
Speaker 3: I was Protestant, that liturgy has a key role in
Speaker 3: the formation of the Biblical canon. And when I learned that,
Speaker 3: that was pretty much I think the McDonald or Brusa
Speaker 3: says that you can't divorce the daily lectionaries, the daily
Speaker 3: readings from the canon and how the canon of Scripture
Speaker 3: was was decided upon in terms of the many centuries actually,
Speaker 3: plus even the fact that it's centuries and you know,
Speaker 3: the Orthodox view, if we accept the you know trollo
Speaker 3: and I see it too, that's really where they affirm
Speaker 3: the canons of Carthage that list our loose canon.
Speaker 5: You could say.
Speaker 3: That to me, and if you're a Protestants, I will wouldn't.
Speaker 3: If we're Protestants in the in the first century, the
Speaker 3: first thing we would do is decide the canon.
Speaker 5: The Posts.
Speaker 3: Would have said, hey, uh, we got to have Jerusalem
Speaker 3: Council to right acts fifteen.
Speaker 5: Let's have Jerusalem to right away here. And I don't
Speaker 5: know one hundred eighty or ninety eighty, well, I guess it.
Speaker 3: I'll be dead, But I don't know right after Why
Speaker 3: didn't Why wouldn't happen in the you know, John's day?
Speaker 5: Why wouldn't John say, let's get together. We got to
Speaker 5: decide this Bible first. I mean, we're Bible alone right.
Speaker 3: Anyway, So I'm rambling, But again, yeah, I think you're
Speaker 3: right father, that so many Protestants are beginning to see
Speaker 3: that there's not just an issue of throwing this or
Speaker 3: that Bible verse. There's a bigger issue at work here,
Speaker 3: which is how does this Bible come to be? And
Speaker 3: the very people that make these decisions about putting these
Speaker 3: books into the Bible, none of them believe Protestant stuff.
Speaker 3: And then the option usually for Protestants at that point.
Speaker 5: I tried this too.
Speaker 3: When I first encountered this was well, I'm going to
Speaker 3: try to find protestant Ish quotes in the church followers.
Speaker 4: Well, you know, one of the other things that people
Speaker 4: say about the IM not going to go into this,
Speaker 4: but just regarding the canon, is that the canon was
Speaker 4: formed very early. Excuse me, the Lectionary was formed very early.
Speaker 4: And one of the reasons why Revelation was debated for
Speaker 4: the longest time, because one of the arguments was people
Speaker 4: at point and say, it's not the Electionary, right, you know,
Speaker 4: it's not already one of the books that we're reading.
Speaker 4: So anyway, but we got we got so much more.
Speaker 6: We want to.
Speaker 3: One point on that, which a lot of people don't
Speaker 3: know about. I think it's in the in the le
Speaker 3: McDonald book. If you read the Lee McDonald book.
Speaker 5: He said, there's a whole chapter in there on how St.
Speaker 3: Athenasius went to Rome and Rome was doubting, Uh, the
Speaker 3: Catholic Epistles and Revelation and Athanasius said, it's our tradition.
Speaker 5: This is this is a valid book, you should include it.
Speaker 5: So it's actually the.
Speaker 3: Pope of Rome was convinced to keep the Catholic Epistles
Speaker 3: in the Roman Canon by Saint Anthenasius. And if once
Speaker 3: you start to realize that, you know, in the Protestant mindset,
Speaker 3: it's kind of like sold scripture to the Bible just
Speaker 3: sort of like falls out of heaven as this like
Speaker 3: complete thing, and then you realize, no, actually, the history
Speaker 3: is God using people through divine providence like Athenasius to say, uh,
Speaker 3: and I'm not saying that, I'm not saying it's true
Speaker 3: because Rome said. I'm just saying that it is important
Speaker 3: that Rome included the Apocalypse in the Cannon. But it
Speaker 3: wasn't just the pope saying I had to create the
Speaker 3: apocalypse and no, it's out and Nasious had to go
Speaker 3: convince it.
Speaker 1: It's interesting that earlier you mentioned like as you were
Speaker 1: thinking through that calvinistic system of yours, like you're you're
Speaker 1: seeing scriptures like that weren't really, you know, compatible with
Speaker 1: your your calvinistic beliefs. And I actually had a similar
Speaker 1: kind of experience at my previous church when I, you know,
Speaker 1: I was asked to preach.
Speaker 2: We're preaching through the Sermon on the.
Speaker 1: Mount, and I was just like, man like, justification seems
Speaker 1: like a process, and you know, like as you walk
Speaker 1: through this Sermon on the Mount, like text I was
Speaker 1: struggling with was like judging not unless.
Speaker 2: You be judging the measure that you judge, you'll be judge.
Speaker 1: Or also the you know, text about forgiveness like forgive
Speaker 1: so that your heavenly Father would forgive you. And I'm
Speaker 1: just like, man like, how do I preach this text?
Speaker 1: And I was like struggling because I was on stage.
Speaker 1: I was like, yeah, this is what scholars you know
Speaker 1: say like rc sproll this that and the third and
Speaker 1: and here you know, so like I had this I
Speaker 1: was I was almost like arrested to the text in
Speaker 1: a way where I was like I had to give
Speaker 1: two views because I didn't know what to do because
Speaker 1: I was like, clearly the text is saying something different
Speaker 1: than what Calvinism teach. What would you say for you
Speaker 1: were kind of those things that you looked at and
Speaker 1: you're just like this this does not work.
Speaker 5: Oh.
Speaker 3: There were so many I mean I remember thinking you know,
Speaker 3: like the parable of the sower. You know, in Calvinism,
Speaker 3: if you're regenerated, you're regenerated, right, that doesn't go way
Speaker 3: because only the elect are regenerated. But in the parable
Speaker 3: of the Sower, it's very clearly the analogy is used
Speaker 3: that one of the seeds sprouts up to new life
Speaker 3: and withers, aways and dies. And I could never make
Speaker 3: sense of that. And of course you have to say
Speaker 3: things like, well it didn't really spring up to now.
Speaker 5: The analogy doesn't work anymore if it didn't really spring
Speaker 5: up to new life.
Speaker 3: And you know, there's there's so many other passages like that,
Speaker 3: where you know, in Hebrews, you know, you have the
Speaker 3: passage about tasting of the heavenly gift, and you know
Speaker 3: they've been washed, they've tasted of the life to come.
Speaker 5: How do you taste of the life to come? If?
Speaker 3: I mean, that could only be a regeneration and you
Speaker 3: can't be unregenerated if you're regenerated. So, you know, so
Speaker 3: many of those passages were difficult passages too that related
Speaker 3: to baptism. I noticed that, you know, every time we
Speaker 3: would talk about the right of baptism, it was distinct
Speaker 3: from all those.
Speaker 5: Things in the New Testament about baptism, and it's.
Speaker 3: Like, well, you know, how come Paul isn't distinguishing visible
Speaker 3: invisible church, visible baptism from invisible baptism. Right, It's always
Speaker 3: spoken of as this unit of act, even to the
Speaker 3: point of, you know, Titus three five, the washing of
Speaker 3: the labor of regeneration, like this seems to be the
Speaker 3: grace and the sacrament. The physical elements are united here.
Speaker 3: And so the more I noticed this union, and the
Speaker 3: more I noticed that, well, now wait a minute. So
Speaker 3: we're doing the same thing with ecclesiology, where we're saying
Speaker 3: that the church is invisible, it's a spiritual thing, and
Speaker 3: then there's this visible church that's kind of a big mess, right,
Speaker 3: and the true Elector amongst the you know, all these
Speaker 3: different groups. And it's like, but Paul is always saying
Speaker 3: one Lord, one faith, one body, one baptism.
Speaker 5: It's always joined.
Speaker 3: And those were you know, when I would think about
Speaker 3: those pastors another here's an overlooked one too.
Speaker 5: That really stuck with me.
Speaker 3: When I was a Calvinist. I remember, you know, I
Speaker 3: was really into covenant theology. If you're Reformed, you know,
Speaker 3: you love Covenant theology.
Speaker 5: You really want to you.
Speaker 3: Want to stress Covenant theology when you're discussing with a
Speaker 3: dispensationalist or a Baptist. You want to say, hey, you know,
Speaker 3: we've got these Covenant blessings just like or even better
Speaker 3: than the.
Speaker 5: Old Testament that people had.
Speaker 3: You know, we can have people included in the Covenant
Speaker 3: more so, right, because if you in the Old Testament,
Speaker 3: you know, it was the males that.
Speaker 5: Were circumcised to be included in the Covenant.
Speaker 3: Now it's anybody, men, women, gentiles, everybody can be included
Speaker 3: in the Covenant. But then I realized, well, I'm making
Speaker 3: an argument against a Baptist or against a dispensationalists. That's historical.
Speaker 3: And then I started thinking, you know, the history of
Speaker 3: the Covenant in the Old Testament is one people, right,
Speaker 3: And yeah, in the Old Testament, certainly other people outside
Speaker 3: the nation of Israel could be joined to the Nation
Speaker 3: of Israel as possible.
Speaker 5: But the point is that there's one group or church
Speaker 5: called the people of Israel, the Ecclesia.
Speaker 3: And then in the New Testament, if I'm going to
Speaker 3: make that historical argument, I can't just restrict it to
Speaker 3: the New Testament. There seems to be one historical group
Speaker 3: as well in the New Testament, and so the church
Speaker 3: has to also be just as one, and even more
Speaker 3: so one because it's post penthecost than the Old Testament Church.
Speaker 3: And so I realized that I couldn't argue that the
Speaker 3: Church arch existed amongst thirty thousand different groups. Right, it
Speaker 3: has to be a single visible and all the analogies
Speaker 3: that not just Paul, but Jesus uses right, the tree,
Speaker 3: one tree, the sheep fold, right, it's all these unit
Speaker 3: of things that are also united in history. Doesn't mean
Speaker 3: that the Church doesn't have periods of you know, schisms
Speaker 3: and stuff like that. But I'm just saying that there's
Speaker 3: also a historical continuity to the historicity of God's people
Speaker 3: being a single people.
Speaker 5: Jay.
Speaker 4: When we talk in orthodoxy about what's central to our
Speaker 4: to our faith, what's central to our church, we talk
Speaker 4: about across the Death the Resurrection. Is it fair to
Speaker 4: say that when you were a Calvinist that rather than that?
Speaker 4: Is it fair to say that Tulip was the foundational
Speaker 4: center of Calvinist theology rather than the Cross, the Death
Speaker 4: the Resurrection?
Speaker 6: Is that favorable?
Speaker 3: That's another angle that's a great critique, you know, because
Speaker 3: you would if you read the epistoles.
Speaker 5: You know, Paul.
Speaker 3: Paul's always stressing those things. The gospel is death, grow resurrection.
Speaker 5: The gospel is that, And then if you're a Calvinist,
Speaker 5: you're thinking, well, that's not really the gospel. The gospel is.
Speaker 3: Roman's nine and the divine decree, right, I mean, the
Speaker 3: gospel is this sort of process of you knowing the
Speaker 3: divine mind's decree of who the elect are, and then
Speaker 3: understanding that there's toll to pravity, that you don't have
Speaker 3: the ability to move yourself towards God, that you have
Speaker 3: to have irresistible grace and monargism, which is the divine
Speaker 3: energy has to act in you to cause you effectually
Speaker 3: to believe. So there's a loss of synergism and all
Speaker 3: that in the process of salvation, and there's no notion
Speaker 3: of losing that faith falling away because the elect or
Speaker 3: that's who Christ died for limited atonement, right, irresistible grace,
Speaker 3: and then perseverance, meaning that only the elect ultimately perseveres.
Speaker 3: So yeah, that's an interesting angle as well that you know,
Speaker 3: it's kind of like when you're if you're an Evangelical, Baptist,
Speaker 3: not Reformed. You know, you think when somebody says, what's
Speaker 3: the gospel, and you think, oh, it's Romans Road. You know,
Speaker 3: you go to Romans three and you don't understand that
Speaker 3: you're a sinner, and then you go over here that
Speaker 3: you can't do good, and then you go here it
Speaker 3: at Romans five that you know justified by it.
Speaker 5: So it's like this, that's the.
Speaker 3: Pathway that supposedly lowest common denominor scales the Gospel down.
Speaker 5: But that's not what Paul says. How come Paul's always
Speaker 5: saying resurrection, resurrection, ascension, ascension, and I just, yeah, you're
Speaker 5: absolutely right.
Speaker 3: Like at a certain point you realize, you know, those
Speaker 3: weren't really significant and reform theology or Pentecost, I mean,
Speaker 3: even the action of Pentecost.
Speaker 5: It's like I realized eventually that.
Speaker 3: Well, Pentecost is the empowering of the church, and Jesus says,
Speaker 3: I'm not going to leave you, forsake you, and I'll
Speaker 3: guide you into all truth. And yet here we are,
Speaker 3: as Protestants and reform we're saying, well right away that
Speaker 3: you know, the church pretty much failed historically, right, But
Speaker 3: where was this promise of Pentecost, guidance and so forth. Oh, well,
Speaker 3: that's all for the elect. But wait a minute. When
Speaker 3: Paul writes to the Ephesians when he's talking about predestination,
Speaker 3: he's not writing to the elect, to the invisible church.
Speaker 5: He's writing to a visible community at Ephesus.
Speaker 3: And that was always a problem for me in terms
Speaker 3: of exegesis of Ephesians, because I have a you know,
Speaker 3: a million reform commentaries and I'm over here reading Charles
Speaker 3: Hodge and you know how to see exegy, you know Ephesians. Oh,
Speaker 3: this is Paul writing to the regenerate at ephicis to
Speaker 3: the elect. No, it's written to the visible church. And
Speaker 3: that's a problem. That means that the Protestant, the Calvinist
Speaker 3: of auction predestination is not what's in Paul's mind.
Speaker 1: There.
Speaker 3: So, long story short, the essence of what you're asking
Speaker 3: is that the the Tulip approach is the wrong order theology,
Speaker 3: the wrong order of theology. It's reading theology from trying
Speaker 3: to do.
Speaker 5: It from the vantage point of the divine mind, the
Speaker 5: divine decree. But that's not how we do it.
Speaker 3: Theology is read first and foremost trying to and Christology wise,
Speaker 3: then that leads you to how you would understand saeteriology
Speaker 3: and ecclesiology. So if you try to start with the
Speaker 3: divine decree, start with uh sateriology, right justification by faith alone,
Speaker 3: that's the gospel, it gets all messed.
Speaker 5: Up, and then you get people.
Speaker 3: Then then down the road your your trinitarian christological stuff's
Speaker 3: all messed up because you have to squeeze Jesus being
Speaker 3: damned into the presuppositions.
Speaker 5: That you have of justification by faith alone.
Speaker 4: And both of you coming from a Calvinist background, it
Speaker 4: would seem to me there's another big thing missing out
Speaker 4: of out of this is that you can take the sinner,
Speaker 4: and you can forgive the sinner all you want, forgive, forgive, forget, forget, forgive.
Speaker 4: That sinner is still going to die. You haven't in
Speaker 4: the Calvinist it seems to me, and I could be wrong.
Speaker 4: In the Calvinist way of looking at things, you still
Speaker 4: haven't dealt with death. And Christ destroyed death so that
Speaker 4: the inner still forgiven, who is still having to deal
Speaker 4: with the sin in him, the sinful nature and so forth,
Speaker 4: could live. And it seems like that that's missing, that
Speaker 4: that the the idea that Christ destroyed death. Yeah, that's
Speaker 4: missing from Calvinist theology.
Speaker 3: It's a crucial point because in Calvinist theology, death is
Speaker 3: kind of like a necessary it's it's a necessary element
Speaker 3: under the divine decree. Right, So it's not the enemy
Speaker 3: of God. It's sort of just the tool of God.
Speaker 3: And certainly, certainly God's providence covers evil and death, but
Speaker 3: it doesn't mean that he positively wills.
Speaker 5: Or decrees it.
Speaker 3: In fact, Scripture says God does not will death. And
Speaker 3: you know very well, I's got these different wills. So
Speaker 3: he's got one will where it's like he doesn't really
Speaker 3: want it, but he's got a secret will where he's
Speaker 3: like doing it now.
Speaker 6: It's crazy.
Speaker 4: Yeah, so this is this is a.
Speaker 5: Huge gap.
Speaker 3: You're absolutely right, and it ties into the notion that
Speaker 3: you can be saved and justified and righteous and have
Speaker 3: no no actual holiness. Right, that's the That's a weird
Speaker 3: thing that I actually encountered that in a lot of
Speaker 3: the Roman Catholic critiques of Protestantism when I was looking
Speaker 3: at Roman Catholicism, because they made a great point. I
Speaker 3: think it was it was I think it was on
Speaker 3: k there's a there's an old book that his X
Speaker 3: debate with Luther. It's actually a really good book. I'm no,
Speaker 3: I'm not advocating Roman calicism. I'm just saying that k
Speaker 3: has some really good arguments in that debate with Luther,
Speaker 3: and he's and and and some of the topics brought
Speaker 3: up are things like, well, how can God call somebody
Speaker 3: righteous if in fact they're completely wicked?
Speaker 5: As you say, Luther, right, you're filthy rags.
Speaker 3: Luther was even more radical and depravity than Calvin was
Speaker 3: because Luther wrote Bondage of the Will, which is basically
Speaker 3: arguing that you can you can't do anything good at all.
Speaker 3: He's more radical just on that point than Calvin is. Well,
Speaker 3: He's says that you you're a you're a you're an
Speaker 3: ass that's either ridden by.
Speaker 5: God or the devil, but the devil.
Speaker 3: Yeah, And that's in that BONDI as the Will book,
Speaker 3: and I had a page where I read I read
Speaker 3: Luther books.
Speaker 5: I was really enamored with Luther for maybe a year
Speaker 5: or two.
Speaker 3: I wasn't Lutheran, but I just thought he was an interesting,
Speaker 3: you know, bombastic figure. But uh, you know, AQ was
Speaker 3: making these points that well, doesn't that make God a liar?
Speaker 3: How can God call you righteous when in fact you're
Speaker 3: evil and God can't lie, So how is that possible?
Speaker 3: Oh well, he's just seeing the righteousness of Christ's covering you.
Speaker 3: But it's not actually the righteous of Christ. It's actually
Speaker 3: just a legal status. And that there's a great point
Speaker 3: that I think it's brought up in the Alistair McGrath
Speaker 3: Ustisia Day Book, which is that nobody before nominalism in
Speaker 3: the Middle Ages and the Reformed, the rise of the
Speaker 3: Reformed tradition, they didn't think of a division between what
Speaker 3: you called something and it's actual metaphysical status. That's an
Speaker 3: actual post Enlightenment Reformation division.
Speaker 5: In other words, it's.
Speaker 3: Impossible to have that view, that nominalist view prior to
Speaker 3: medieval nominalism debates.
Speaker 5: So, in other words, nobody in the ancient Midial world.
Speaker 3: Including Paul, thought that you could have a purely legal
Speaker 3: status of righteousness divorced from the actual ontological status of
Speaker 3: you being righteous.
Speaker 5: And that's a little bit of a philosophical angle on it.
Speaker 3: But if that is the case, and I think that
Speaker 3: it is, that's also really devastating to the idea that
Speaker 3: you can be just before God in a.
Speaker 5: Purely nominal legal sense and not in an actual sense.
Speaker 5: There wasn't a vision in the world.
Speaker 4: And ladies and gentlemen watching this debate sometime in the
Speaker 4: future of this recording, go back and listen to what
Speaker 4: Jay just said.
Speaker 6: Listen to that again. That's really something.
Speaker 5: Yeah, there's no diventon.
Speaker 3: And the same thing goes for sacraments, right the ancient
Speaker 3: and medieval world. Now, certainly there were heretics that deny
Speaker 3: the real presence, but they didn't typically think of this
Speaker 3: radical division between.
Speaker 5: Sign and signifier. Right.
Speaker 3: The same goes for iconography, the image of the icon,
Speaker 3: the image of the saint. They didn't think of it
Speaker 3: as this radical division of Oh, that's just a purely
Speaker 3: token symbol. They thought of it as having in some
Speaker 3: sense a real, a real metaphysical connection with the person,
Speaker 3: that being the thing. Right, So there might have been
Speaker 3: debates about the real presence, but nobody thought about it.
Speaker 3: As you know, symbols in the ancient world were not sure.
Speaker 5: Dead matter. Does that make sense?
Speaker 4: Yeah, well that's what they think of it today, That's
Speaker 4: not what they thought of it back then. The word
Speaker 4: symbol is radically altered now from what it meant two
Speaker 4: thousand years ago.
Speaker 5: There you go.
Speaker 2: Yeah, because you were clashing two things together.
Speaker 6: Is that absolute? Yeah?
Speaker 2: You so this question here, I got to ask you this.
Speaker 1: So Daniel, Daniel MacArthur, if you're listening, he wanted me
Speaker 1: to ask Jay Dire this when when the opportunity presented itself,
Speaker 1: So you're welcome. So basically you touched up on this
Speaker 1: idea of the Christology, this reformed Christology. Now it's been
Speaker 1: kind of you know, you know, mutilated in a way.
Speaker 1: Can you can you speak more in to that. I
Speaker 1: know you referenced you know where that kind of gets
Speaker 1: messed up, But it's an it's an important point.
Speaker 2: Daniel said. That was something I was very convincing for
Speaker 2: him as well.
Speaker 5: Back in the day.
Speaker 2: You've you've had videos where you've talked about this. But
Speaker 2: can you kind of walk through why that Christology issue
Speaker 2: is such a huge point and and and why it's heretical?
Speaker 3: Sure, so I would say I'm not saying that Protestants
Speaker 3: are intentionally wanting to be an historian.
Speaker 5: Sure.
Speaker 3: A lot of times when I make this point, though,
Speaker 3: say I'm not a Nestorian. I don't believe that I'm
Speaker 3: not saying that you're intending to be. What I'm saying
Speaker 3: is that the logic of the penal substitution position will
Speaker 3: take you there if if you're consistent with it, and.
Speaker 5: It's pretty clear cut. I think that now some Protestants and.
Speaker 3: Evangelicals today, I mean maybe maybe Calvinists are up in
Speaker 3: the air today. I'm not sure I did hear that one.
Speaker 3: Somebody told me that one of the modern calvin Is
Speaker 3: systematic theologians. I don't remember who it was, maybe Robert
Speaker 3: Raymond or somebody. Somebody supposedly doesn't have the classical Reformation
Speaker 3: view that that Jesus was damned in our place.
Speaker 5: But for the classical.
Speaker 3: Reformers, even up in two people like j. I. Packer, uh,
Speaker 3: Paul Washer teaches it got to do who's the other
Speaker 3: the Calvinist Baptist guy that everybody that's super famous always
Speaker 3: good blank on his name, John John Piper John Piper
Speaker 3: teaches hyper teaches that Christ was damned. I'm trying to
Speaker 3: think of who the classical guys.
Speaker 5: All that's really cool.
Speaker 6: You've got the damns himself. I like that one. Boy.
Speaker 3: Yeah, Well, I mean they're trying to be consistent because
Speaker 3: so you have, you know you have in the Apostles Creed.
Speaker 3: I know that's not really an Orthodox church. But in
Speaker 3: the West, when Luther or Calvin and these guys, when
Speaker 3: they were commenting on Christ's descent into Hades and the
Speaker 3: Apostles Creed, they had to give it a new understanding
Speaker 3: because unfortunately, even though the Latin Church in the West
Speaker 3: at that time they I believe that they had kind
Speaker 3: of lost the significance of christ discent into Hades, it
Speaker 3: was still it was still there in confession, and even
Speaker 3: today in the calch Catechism.
Speaker 5: It's still there that they professed that Christ has sent
Speaker 5: it into the Hades.
Speaker 3: But the Reformers, this is a fascinating They gave it
Speaker 3: a new spin. They said, well, it's not him actually
Speaker 3: going to some place called Hades. What that means is
Speaker 3: that on the cross he experienced the reality of the
Speaker 3: damn nation enough of all.
Speaker 5: The people that he died for.
Speaker 3: The logic of that is that if it's going to
Speaker 3: be a full transaction in a legal sense, if he's
Speaker 3: going to pay the debt that I owed he paid.
Speaker 5: Hey, you know, I remember that Baptist hmi we used
Speaker 5: to sing when I was a kid.
Speaker 3: Uh so, right, I mean, if the debt is, if
Speaker 3: it's a one to warry, you've got to pay the damnation,
Speaker 3: which was to me that I then get.
Speaker 5: The bank account righteousness put into my bank account.
Speaker 7: Right.
Speaker 3: That's how it works in the classical Protestant idea. So
Speaker 3: it's not just them saying, oh, well, God just forgives
Speaker 3: you and transfers the righteous acust to your bank account.
Speaker 3: It's on the basis of in most of the classical reformers,
Speaker 3: the wrath of the Father being poured out on the son.
Speaker 3: So then we have this question in terms of Christology,
Speaker 3: which is that, well, if we're going to be orthodox
Speaker 3: in our christology, how does that actually work?
Speaker 5: Because is it the Father damning the son? And if
Speaker 5: you believe Ephesus and the Christology that you know comes.
Speaker 3: Out of well not just Ephysis but calcil On, then
Speaker 3: we know that the subject is a divine person, the
Speaker 3: logos is the divine person who's undergoing supposedly this event,
Speaker 3: and that would mean then that the divine person of
Speaker 3: the Father is damning the divine person of the Logos
Speaker 3: who's incarnate.
Speaker 5: So you kind of only have two options there.
Speaker 3: You can say, well, it's not the father damning the
Speaker 3: divine son, it's the damnation of the human nature.
Speaker 5: Well, but it's there has to be.
Speaker 6: Some one person.
Speaker 3: Yeah, you've got to be some subject that is the
Speaker 3: recipient of that. It can't just be the human nature
Speaker 3: that's damned. It has to be a subject. And so
Speaker 3: is that Jesus of Nazareth the historical person.
Speaker 5: Well, that would be the story in view that.
Speaker 3: The story is sought a dual subject christology, that there
Speaker 3: was a human hypostasis Jesus Nazareth, and then there's the
Speaker 3: divine hypostasis of the Logos, who was kind of sometimes
Speaker 3: present and then sometimes it's the human person sometimes. So
Speaker 3: it's this weird dual subject risology and the whole point
Speaker 3: of the tokos the word the phrase is, Cyril said,
Speaker 3: this completely cuts out the whole idea of there being
Speaker 3: a dual subject risology. The only subject for all the
Speaker 3: incarnate action, Cyril says, is the divine person of the Logos.
Speaker 5: That's it. He is a full human nature, but he's
Speaker 5: not a human hypostasis or person.
Speaker 3: And so if we accept ephicis and that teaching, then
Speaker 3: what happened And by the way, Calcton as well, because
Speaker 3: a lot of people don't know.
Speaker 5: People think Leo is the measure of Calciton. That's not
Speaker 5: actually true. They measured the tone of.
Speaker 3: Leo against Cyril, So Calcedon is actually Kairellion, not primarily
Speaker 3: Pope sing Leo. Now, point being, then the other option
Speaker 3: is I could say, well, in this transactional event, I
Speaker 3: could say that the divine person of the Sun is
Speaker 3: the one that's damned. But this presents so many trinitarian
Speaker 3: difficulties that it's almost just unimaginable. I mean, first of all,
Speaker 3: the persons of the triads share the same will.
Speaker 5: There's one will in God.
Speaker 3: How could you have one will the person of the
Speaker 3: Father setting his will against the son to damn the son, right,
Speaker 3: how could you you would We would lose parichoresis, the
Speaker 3: divine involve right, the Father and the spirit would no
Speaker 3: longer dwell the son if he's damned, because he's a curut.
Speaker 5: So it's just absurd, it would be it would be
Speaker 5: anti trinitarian.
Speaker 4: But that they wouldn't have those teachings to begin with,
Speaker 4: because from Protestants from the Reformation on, think of how
Speaker 4: much they were simply inventing because everything was anti Catholic
Speaker 4: at that point. So if the Catholics believe it, we don't,
Speaker 4: then what do we believe? And then they have to
Speaker 4: come up with this kind of stuff as something, because
Speaker 4: what are the people waiting for?
Speaker 3: You know, well, if you read Lutheran Calvin, there's always
Speaker 3: this sort of verbal credence given to things like Calcedon
Speaker 3: and so forth. Uh are oddly enough, the Westminster Confession,
Speaker 3: if I recall, which is post Calvin, it actually does
Speaker 3: give it gives verbal credence to Christ having uh two
Speaker 3: wills and two natures, which is the you know fifth
Speaker 3: and six councils explicate that, but you know, the six
Speaker 3: Council goes really deep into two energies, so you know,
Speaker 3: you have to have the essence energy sinction doctrine to
Speaker 3: have two wills and two energy. And to my knowledge,
Speaker 3: there's no Protestant that that have an essence energy sinction doctrin,
Speaker 3: unless it's just people modern people just kind of saying, oh,
Speaker 3: I like that idea.
Speaker 5: Cool, But but Calvin, I think, you know, and then
Speaker 5: I've read the entire institute how to read that?
Speaker 3: For bonds and seminary they measure that the whole thing,
Speaker 3: all fifteen hundred pages of it. And I remember there
Speaker 3: are sections where Calvin's you know, he's like, well, you know,
Speaker 3: we believe in two natures and two wills, and that's
Speaker 3: consistent with Calcedon, and we definitely believe. We don't believe
Speaker 3: Colson is a fallible, but we definitely believe what it teaches.
Speaker 3: But they don't really understand the implications of it. You know,
Speaker 3: it's more than just verbal verbal credence, right right.
Speaker 4: Well, Jay, what do we do with a person comes
Speaker 4: along and says something like, you know, I'm not okay,
Speaker 4: I'm not reformed or Calvinist anymore. I'm a Bible believing Christian.
Speaker 4: You know, you have a lot of I'm a Bible
Speaker 4: believing Christian. Read If that's all they are, how do
Speaker 4: you show them that they're no better off from the
Speaker 4: ancient Apostolic Christianity.
Speaker 5: And you've probably encountered a lot of this, right, Oh yeah, yeah,
Speaker 5: I mean there's a lot of a lot of.
Speaker 3: Yeah, right, well, I find it typically the most beneficial
Speaker 3: to go into just saying, well, who do you think
Speaker 3: put the Bible together?
Speaker 5: You know, I mean, did it just happen fall out
Speaker 5: of the sky.
Speaker 3: I mean there's a real historical process to that that
Speaker 3: you can't you can't divorce the divine from the human
Speaker 3: in this regard. So just as just as in Christology,
Speaker 3: for example, I know evangelicals might not know about Christology,
Speaker 3: but for you guys, for orthodox people, like, we know
Speaker 3: there's a synergy in Christ, right, there's a synergism between
Speaker 3: the human nature and the divine nature in Christ. And
Speaker 3: we know there's a synergy in terms of our participation
Speaker 3: in grace. Right, we are always cooperating. Paul says, I'm
Speaker 3: a co operator, co worker with Christ coworker. Yeah, yeah,
Speaker 3: So there's always synergy. It's never gone, it's never lost.
Speaker 3: And you know, one of the problems in Calvinism is
Speaker 3: that conversion requires God.
Speaker 5: Stepping in and basically taking over.
Speaker 3: So it's a monargistic view, and if they were consistent,
Speaker 3: I think they would also have to be monargists in
Speaker 3: terms of Christology as well. So it seems to me
Speaker 3: that they would prefer severus and peer us, you know,
Speaker 3: the people that Maximis in the Church Fathers argued with
Speaker 3: they would be more like a Coptic my Ephicite type
Speaker 3: of position.
Speaker 5: If they wanted to really be monogists.
Speaker 3: But for the typically evangelical, I would say, one thing
Speaker 3: I've found really effective is to point out, you know,
Speaker 3: they'll always say, well, we're not saved by our works, bro,
Speaker 3: you can't be saved by works, you know, We're justified
Speaker 3: by faith, not works.
Speaker 5: And I said, well, how does what is Jesus describe
Speaker 5: faith as? And they're like, it's a gift. Yeah, but
Speaker 5: what does he say? He says, this is the work
Speaker 5: of God that you believe on him. So wait a minute, So.
Speaker 3: Faith is actually a work according to Christ of the
Speaker 3: Gospel of John. So it can't be the case that
Speaker 3: no works are necessary, because every evangelical is going to
Speaker 3: at least say, well, you do have to believe.
Speaker 5: Wait a minute, doesn't believe something I do. Even if
Speaker 5: you think that it's just a mental notional thing, it's
Speaker 5: still something I gotta do.
Speaker 3: You well, but it's a gift, yeah, but it's still
Speaker 3: it's something I gotta do, right, So they can't totally
Speaker 3: divorce the human element from it at all. And then
Speaker 3: you then I would point out, well, one thing that
Speaker 3: happens in the history of this debate of justification by
Speaker 3: faith alone is that the people who defend it oftentimes.
Speaker 5: Totally disagree amongst themselves as to what it actually means. So,
Speaker 5: for example, does my faith faith in the Atoning.
Speaker 3: Death, row resurrection work of Christ is that if I
Speaker 3: put all my faith in trust in that alone?
Speaker 5: Is that just the case by faith on? Or as
Speaker 5: many of the classical Reformed actually said and Lutherans do.
Speaker 3: I also have to know and believe in justification by
Speaker 3: faith alone. To be just by by faith alone, you see,
Speaker 3: So you can sort of pile on the difficulties there
Speaker 3: to illustrate that what sounds perhaps as a very clear,
Speaker 3: you know, the persecutive structure that sounds as a very
Speaker 3: clear doctrine, actually isn't that clear?
Speaker 5: What does it actually mean?
Speaker 8: And I would point out one other strong point which
Speaker 8: I learned when I was a Catholic, was, you know,
Speaker 8: if you look at Romans, for when Paul cites Genesis,
Speaker 8: and it doesn't matter whether you're a Protestant, Evangelical or
Speaker 8: a Calvinist.
Speaker 3: Abraham's what they call transition from wrath to grace. This
Speaker 3: is the the idea that before you regenerate your God's enemy,
Speaker 3: you're a child of wrath, got hate, right, when you're regenerated.
Speaker 5: That's what they call a transition from wrath to grace.
Speaker 5: Now God loves you, you're the friend of God, your regenerator.
Speaker 3: The transition from wrath to grace in Abraham's life should be,
Speaker 3: if you're a good Protestant, Genesis twelve.
Speaker 5: But I remember noticing it one day when I was
Speaker 5: looking at the Catholic stuff back in twenty or four.
Speaker 3: Actually, Paul cites Genesis fifteen, or the passage supposed to
Speaker 3: be supposedly the ultimate passage, Romans four, you know, defending
Speaker 3: justification by faith alone. Why is Paul citing the wrong chapter?
Speaker 3: Abraham has already done three chapters of righteous works from
Speaker 3: twelve to fifteen. Paul's using the text in fifteen that
Speaker 3: he was justified by faith, he was righteous by faith,
Speaker 3: not Genesis twelve. And that always bugged me because he
Speaker 3: should have cited Genesis twelve. Right, if we're Protestants, but
Speaker 3: if righteousness from God is something that is an actual
Speaker 3: power that we participate with and synergize with.
Speaker 5: Right, and Paul's point, of course, I think we all
Speaker 5: know Paul's point is not that there's no works that
Speaker 5: we do. Paul's point is that the works of.
Speaker 3: The ceremonial law and circumcision didn't make Abraham righteous.
Speaker 5: That's the point of that passage. The mosaic law didn't
Speaker 5: make because if mosaic law was necessary, then how are
Speaker 5: people before mosaic law?
Speaker 6: Rochester.
Speaker 5: That's Paul's point, not that we don't do any works
Speaker 5: at all. Right.
Speaker 3: So, but if the Protestant reading, whether you're Calvinists or evangelical,
Speaker 3: a Romans four is what Romans four is, Paul should
Speaker 3: have sided Genesis twelfth.
Speaker 2: Yeah, facts, yeah, no, good point, good point.
Speaker 5: Wow.
Speaker 6: Well other thing two.
Speaker 5: I would say to one other point.
Speaker 3: You know, when when God speaks, it occurs, it's efficacious. Right,
Speaker 3: God speaks, the world comes to be. And so if
Speaker 3: God speaks, you're righteous. God speaks a word into our hearts.
Speaker 3: The New Testament says, right, it's efficacious. I don't mean
Speaker 3: this in the sense of like irresistible grace, but I'm saying.
Speaker 5: It's not possible for God to say you are righteous
Speaker 5: and you'd be Luther and you not be that right
Speaker 5: because His word is efficacious.
Speaker 2: Yeah. Good's stuff. Good stuff. Father. As as we come
Speaker 2: to close, Barther, you how you're about to say something.
Speaker 6: Well, I think we have.
Speaker 4: Kind of one last thing we'd like to ask Jay,
Speaker 4: And this kind of wraps back to the to the
Speaker 4: first question. So many Protestant videos coming out why you
Speaker 4: should leave Orthodoxy, Why you should become a Protestant. Let's
Speaker 4: turn that around. Why is Eastern Orthodoxy a better alternative
Speaker 4: for Protestants?
Speaker 6: Maybe two or three reasons, Jay, What do you think, right?
Speaker 5: Well, I would say that, you know, between product I
Speaker 5: was raised Evangelical, Baptist.
Speaker 3: And then Calvinists for many years, and then it spent
Speaker 3: about a decade in room with autism. I would say
Speaker 3: that a lot of what both Roman Catholics and Protestants
Speaker 3: and Evangelicals are looking for are's kind of in that
Speaker 3: midway of the Orthodox Church. So a lot of people
Speaker 3: are looking for while I want Bible, but it seems
Speaker 3: to be like just Bible alone doesn't work, right, because
Speaker 3: it's like, ultimately, at the end of the day, if
Speaker 3: you're a Protestant, you might like your pastor you might
Speaker 3: like your community, but they don't really have authority. And
Speaker 3: at the end of the day, it's kind of like
Speaker 3: you and your Bible, right, And that's I mean, I
Speaker 3: know that Protestants recognize that there's an authority that elders have,
Speaker 3: but I'm saying that in terms of the church, I
Speaker 3: think that whole thing is disastrous because there's not a
Speaker 3: body that can actually govern. And one thing I noticed too,
Speaker 3: was that you in the in Poul's epistles, for example,
Speaker 3: of the Corinthians, he says that you should excommunicate the
Speaker 3: people that are really causing these troubles in the church.
Speaker 3: And then if you read the Councils, you know, all
Speaker 3: the way up until the triumph of Orthodoxy in the
Speaker 3: Southern Council and in the Sonoticon, you have the continuation
Speaker 3: of the idea that the church has the authority to excommunicate.
Speaker 3: And if you're a Protestant, I mean, the only time
Speaker 3: I ever encountered a Protestant ever even thinking of ex
Speaker 3: communicating it was in a very small Presbyterian reform group.
Speaker 5: They were the only.
Speaker 3: Protestants I've ever heard. Maybe there's Protestant churches of it,
Speaker 3: and I saw I'm not saying that you should become
Speaker 3: Orthodox because people get ex communicated. It's an indicator of
Speaker 3: the fact that the ecclesiology of Protestism is kind of
Speaker 3: a disaster, and it's kind of a mess, and it
Speaker 3: doesn't really have what we call normative authority and ethics,
Speaker 3: which is the idea that there's somebody that can entern
Speaker 3: and make a decision and buying people right. It doesn't
Speaker 3: necessarily make them infallible or not, you know, Papists or
Speaker 3: Roman Catholics, but there is a body that has sonodal
Speaker 3: authority and their decisions can be made, and ultimately the
Speaker 3: Church as a totality is infallible. I think that's the
Speaker 3: Orthodox position as I understand it, but not necessarily need
Speaker 3: an individual. So so the loss of that, I think
Speaker 3: pentecostal guidance of the church. I think you'll find in
Speaker 3: the elements that are missing in Protestantism and that are
Speaker 3: missing even in Catholicism, I think genuinely are are maintained
Speaker 3: in the Orthodox Church.
Speaker 5: So that's one great reason is that probably a lot
Speaker 5: of what people are looking for is there.
Speaker 3: You know, you don't want to give you a false
Speaker 3: impression that there's no problems in the Orthodox Church and
Speaker 3: it's all, you know, green pastures. I think my experience
Speaker 3: that different bodies have different sets of problems, and there's
Speaker 3: some overlap there's going to be we have similar problems
Speaker 3: to other groups, but there are problems unique to Orthodoxy.
Speaker 3: There's problems unique to Rome, there's problems unique to Protestantism.
Speaker 3: But I think that if it's not a systemic problem.
Speaker 3: For example, I would argue that in Roman Catholicism, the
Speaker 3: papacy and what has tried to bind people to infallibly
Speaker 3: and with dogmatic authority, that becomes a systemic level problem
Speaker 3: such that that system kind of can't be rescued or
Speaker 3: it can't function.
Speaker 5: It it doesn't work right. And I would say in Protestantism.
Speaker 3: Because of the nature of the kind of chaotic ecclesiology,
Speaker 3: it also.
Speaker 5: Is a systemic level problem. I don't think Orthodoxy has
Speaker 5: those systemic level problems. It certainly has its problems.
Speaker 7: But.
Speaker 3: Systemic level problems, in my argument, would be enough to
Speaker 3: cancel that out is not a good option basically. So
Speaker 3: I think that beyond those kind of intellectual arguments, you know,
Speaker 3: Orthodoxy is very different. It's going to push you to change,
Speaker 3: it's going to push you to actually, you know, deal
Speaker 3: with your sins. You know you're not you're not just
Speaker 3: in your prayer corner mentally, you know, recounting your sins
Speaker 3: with you in the Bible. You're going to be going
Speaker 3: through a kind of a healing I like Father Deacon,
Speaker 3: doctoronisis analogy or it's act like rehab. It's all go
Speaker 3: into rehab and we've got to keep going back and
Speaker 3: working on uh, you know because throughout the week we relapse,
Speaker 3: right like people who have addictions relapse, So well, you
Speaker 3: got to go back, you gotta keep working at it.
Speaker 3: So that's very different than anything I experienced in Protestantism
Speaker 3: and even roby Tholicism. In my experience is the you know,
Speaker 3: when you go to confession, it's it's just very mechanical.
Speaker 3: It's very oh, here's my sins, Okay, here's your five
Speaker 3: helm mares. And then it's like I might go to
Speaker 3: another priest and it's that he doesn't even know, right.
Speaker 3: But in Orthodox it's different because my case maybe any
Speaker 3: other cases, I don't know everybody's case, but you're typically
Speaker 3: confessing to a spiritual father who is tracking and knowing
Speaker 3: your progress, and so he knows the medicine that you need.
Speaker 3: And that's why that mechanical system doesn't really work. I
Speaker 3: don't think if it's just a I'm here to pay
Speaker 3: my hail Mary debt and let me go back to
Speaker 3: do it.
Speaker 5: No, it's like no, you okay, so.
Speaker 3: You're you got this problem. Maybe you need to you know,
Speaker 3: maybe you have a problem with greed. Maybe you need
Speaker 3: to be more magnanimous this next week. You need to
Speaker 3: give some more money if you're greeding. Oh you got
Speaker 3: a problem with eating too much? Maybe you need to fact.
Speaker 3: You see what I'm saying that there's a the medicine
Speaker 3: is applied to the difficulty, and that that's.
Speaker 5: Not anything I ever experienced in other groups. So I
Speaker 5: actually think that deep down we all kind of want
Speaker 5: to be healed.
Speaker 3: Right, I don't know it an Orthodox building has that
Speaker 3: healing medicine facts facts.
Speaker 2: Amen, No, that's that's facts, like it is like, uh
Speaker 2: but I.
Speaker 3: Mean it's it's hard. I mean it's tough. I mean
Speaker 3: I'm trying to scare people, but like, you know, it's
Speaker 3: it's going to be.
Speaker 5: It's not the Christian Marines in Protestism. It's really intellectual.
Speaker 3: You can read a lot of books and argue a
Speaker 3: lot and you're not challenged to work on your vices,
Speaker 3: you know what I mean.
Speaker 5: That's it's just different.
Speaker 1: Yeah, yeah, yeah, I say, I say all the time
Speaker 1: like it. You know, Orthodoxy is almost like the Christian Marines.
Speaker 2: In a way.
Speaker 5: You know, there you go exactly.
Speaker 1: But before we close, I do want to ask you
Speaker 1: a lighthearted question, really a real quick one here. So
Speaker 1: I know before, like off air, we were talking about
Speaker 1: like how you know I connected with you know, we
Speaker 1: talked on discord a little bit. Now I know you
Speaker 1: you've had things on Discord, You've had open dialogue and
Speaker 1: things like that. There was a time where Deacon and
Speaker 1: and I is father Deacon was debating Matt Slick and
Speaker 1: you called that Slick a goblet, which is like hilarious.
Speaker 5: Of our pret going sorry, go ahead, are good?
Speaker 1: You could you called? Uh, you called Maslick a goblin?
Speaker 1: Did you know that that was going to become a
Speaker 1: music video? No.
Speaker 3: I think that he's a really nasty person that I've
Speaker 3: had a lot of nasty interactions with in the past,
Speaker 3: and so I think people clip that and they think that, oh,
Speaker 3: you just like randomly wanted to call him names. Now,
Speaker 3: there's a long history of of he would come on
Speaker 3: the discord and we would he would just be really
Speaker 3: really nasty, and we ended up having to just cut
Speaker 3: off all the communications with that guy.
Speaker 5: And there was supposed to be that day, there.
Speaker 3: Was supposed to be a debate between doctor father diggon
Speaker 3: Doctor and Ias, a guy named Darth Dawkins and somebody else,
Speaker 3: and then they brought Maslick on and so it kind
Speaker 3: of surprised everybody that it didn't end up being the
Speaker 3: debate that everybody.
Speaker 5: Thought it would be. And so, uh, no, I just
Speaker 5: I just I think he's a pretty nasty person. And
Speaker 5: I don't have the view that we should always never
Speaker 5: call people for what they are.
Speaker 3: I mean, maybe maybe I'm wrong about that. I can
Speaker 3: be corrected, But no, I didn't. I didn't have no idea.
Speaker 3: What was I don't even know who makes a lot
Speaker 3: of those You ever heard the God I'm saying, I
Speaker 3: don't I've heard it. I'm saying I don't know who,
Speaker 3: Like I don't know who these who who made that?
Speaker 5: No idea? So people just you know, kind of clip stuff.
Speaker 2: Good stuff.
Speaker 5: Man.
Speaker 1: Well, well thanks for addressing Calvinism, Protestant Protestantism.
Speaker 5: And and just really great questions.
Speaker 6: Thank you, Ja.
Speaker 4: We've got a message that we want to get out,
Speaker 4: and we wanted we got a message about the faith
Speaker 4: and the church, and and uh, we're not hard people
Speaker 4: to get to know. This is not a hard faith
Speaker 4: to get to know. We are opening, open and welcoming,
Speaker 4: and uh we want people to to engage with us,
Speaker 4: and that in many different areas, at many different levels.
Speaker 6: So thank you for coming on. We really appreciate that.
Speaker 5: Absolutely, thank you. And yeah, I agree with that.
Speaker 3: Not everybody needs to hear, you know, a detailed reputation
Speaker 3: of Tula, but some people do, all right, some people
Speaker 3: do need that.
Speaker 6: No, we had a good interaction here.
Speaker 4: I'm very grateful Luther, Thank you, Jay, Thank you ladies
Speaker 4: and gentlemen who are watching this, Thank you, and subscribe
Speaker 4: so that you can be notified of future videos coming out.
Speaker 4: And we're aiming to provide quality content and really good
Speaker 4: engagement on issues about our faith, about our culture, and
Speaker 4: so much more. So subscribe to The Transfigured Life, and
Speaker 4: thank you again for watching.
Speaker 5: Take care, y'all, have a great day. Thank you so much.
Speaker 2: Thanks.
Speaker 7: You are not in a turk in your own excuse me,
Speaker 7: you're just making an assumption that all the saints agree
Speaker 7: they do.
Speaker 5: Go read them no thing. You're a scholarly, a demon,
Speaker 5: a boomer, part part a demon.
Speaker 7: A boomer making an assumption, and even a boomer part
Speaker 7: an excuse, excuse me?
Speaker 5: A demon, a boomer part part You're acholarly, even a
Speaker 5: boomer part.
Speaker 7: Of an even a boomer part an excuse me, even
Speaker 7: a boomer part part even a boomer.
Speaker 3: Making an assumptuous?
Speaker 2: Are all the councils inspired at an errant?
Speaker 7: The ecumenicals th idea so there ecumenical sentence are inspired
Speaker 7: in an errant?
Speaker 5: Correct