WEBVTT

1
00:00:00.240 --> 00:00:04.280
<v Speaker 1>Again, the question here is about presuppositions, for sure, and

2
00:00:04.360 --> 00:00:07.960
<v Speaker 1>I've listed many things and many problems for the foundational's

3
00:00:08.000 --> 00:00:11.000
<v Speaker 1>approach that you're advocating. You replied with something to the

4
00:00:11.039 --> 00:00:14.480
<v Speaker 1>effect that, well, there's a trilemma that we could refer to,

5
00:00:14.560 --> 00:00:16.960
<v Speaker 1>and there's really not many other options here. Well, the

6
00:00:16.960 --> 00:00:19.039
<v Speaker 1>fact that you don't think there's many other options actually

7
00:00:19.039 --> 00:00:21.559
<v Speaker 1>doesn't count as a justification for the starting point. In

8
00:00:21.559 --> 00:00:25.079
<v Speaker 1>other words, you started with properly basic beliefs, and all

9
00:00:25.120 --> 00:00:26.760
<v Speaker 1>I have to ask you is that do you think

10
00:00:26.760 --> 00:00:30.559
<v Speaker 1>that the notion of properly basic beliefs themselves is self evident?

11
00:00:31.440 --> 00:00:34.759
<v Speaker 2>Do you mean the idea properly basic belief?

12
00:00:35.280 --> 00:00:38.359
<v Speaker 1>Well, if I said, only beliefs that are self evident

13
00:00:38.479 --> 00:00:42.399
<v Speaker 1>or encouragible or evident to the senses are properly basic,

14
00:00:42.600 --> 00:00:44.759
<v Speaker 1>the problem is that you're in an infinite circle of

15
00:00:44.840 --> 00:00:49.280
<v Speaker 1>regress because the proposition itself, in terms of you knowing it,

16
00:00:49.320 --> 00:00:51.560
<v Speaker 1>is not part of your sense data. Nor can you

17
00:00:51.600 --> 00:00:53.600
<v Speaker 1>show that it's properly basic without assuming it.

18
00:00:54.840 --> 00:00:57.479
<v Speaker 2>Well, I would agree that the idea of a properly

19
00:00:57.560 --> 00:01:01.200
<v Speaker 2>basic belief may itself not be properly based, but one could.

20
00:01:00.960 --> 00:01:03.359
<v Speaker 1>Just have no, self, that's not what I asked.

21
00:01:03.520 --> 00:01:04.239
<v Speaker 2>Okay, what did you.

22
00:01:04.159 --> 00:01:08.920
<v Speaker 1>Ask the proposition itself about properly basic belief Is it

23
00:01:08.959 --> 00:01:10.239
<v Speaker 1>properly basic.

24
00:01:11.680 --> 00:01:14.719
<v Speaker 2>The proposition? There are properly basic beliefs.

25
00:01:14.439 --> 00:01:17.920
<v Speaker 1>The proposition only beliefs that are self evident or incorrigible

26
00:01:18.079 --> 00:01:20.640
<v Speaker 1>or evident to the senses are properly basic.

27
00:01:23.159 --> 00:01:24.680
<v Speaker 2>Well, I would just I would say that it's true.

28
00:01:24.719 --> 00:01:27.560
<v Speaker 2>You're saying, how do I know what properly basic beliefs?

29
00:01:27.560 --> 00:01:31.519
<v Speaker 1>And it's true. I'm asking, is that notion itself properly basic?

30
00:01:32.560 --> 00:01:34.640
<v Speaker 2>So you're okay. So you're saying that if it is

31
00:01:34.760 --> 00:01:37.719
<v Speaker 2>properly basic, could create some kind of circularity if I say.

32
00:01:37.480 --> 00:01:39.359
<v Speaker 1>That, yes, okay.

33
00:01:39.400 --> 00:01:44.159
<v Speaker 2>Well, as I said before, I don't know if the

34
00:01:44.239 --> 00:01:47.159
<v Speaker 2>description of an idea might be properly basic, but the

35
00:01:47.239 --> 00:01:51.560
<v Speaker 2>experience itself is, and then we then we have terms

36
00:01:51.560 --> 00:01:53.159
<v Speaker 2>to describe what the experience is.

37
00:01:53.319 --> 00:01:55.799
<v Speaker 1>It doesn't matter how you redefine it, because the point

38
00:01:55.840 --> 00:02:00.120
<v Speaker 1>is that there's no self evident origin or incorrigible proposition

39
00:02:00.400 --> 00:02:03.959
<v Speaker 1>like that found in sense data. M So what's the

40
00:02:04.120 --> 00:02:04.879
<v Speaker 1>justification for that?

41
00:02:05.959 --> 00:02:08.680
<v Speaker 2>The justification is that there are some there are some

42
00:02:09.400 --> 00:02:14.120
<v Speaker 2>propositions that we encounter, and upon entertaining the proposition, the

43
00:02:14.319 --> 00:02:18.199
<v Speaker 2>justification is also immediately apparent, and so it is.

44
00:02:18.439 --> 00:02:21.800
<v Speaker 1>That's circularity. That's what that's the problem of properly basic beliefs.

45
00:02:22.319 --> 00:02:23.800
<v Speaker 2>No, it's not just you just.

46
00:02:23.719 --> 00:02:25.680
<v Speaker 1>Said it's immediately apparent. That's circularity.

47
00:02:26.360 --> 00:02:30.879
<v Speaker 2>No, because the question, okay, it's it's not that because

48
00:02:30.919 --> 00:02:34.360
<v Speaker 2>if I say, for example, I am having an experience

49
00:02:34.439 --> 00:02:38.560
<v Speaker 2>right now, I am just reporting something that is happening.

50
00:02:38.199 --> 00:02:40.439
<v Speaker 1>To you, all you're doing. No, I gave you multiple

51
00:02:40.439 --> 00:02:43.840
<v Speaker 1>examples what you said I didn't do in critiquing the Kogito,

52
00:02:44.840 --> 00:02:47.599
<v Speaker 1>Like what of all the metaphysical things that are assumed

53
00:02:47.639 --> 00:02:48.199
<v Speaker 1>in the sentence?

54
00:02:49.840 --> 00:02:52.199
<v Speaker 2>Okay, but even if I don't understand all the concepts

55
00:02:52.199 --> 00:02:54.000
<v Speaker 2>that are involved, we can also doesn't matter.

56
00:02:54.039 --> 00:02:56.960
<v Speaker 1>This is about justifying the beliefs. Okay.

57
00:02:57.000 --> 00:02:59.319
<v Speaker 2>So what you're so it sounds like you're saying to

58
00:02:59.360 --> 00:03:04.159
<v Speaker 2>me natural theology is false because there are no self

59
00:03:04.319 --> 00:03:05.000
<v Speaker 2>evident truths.

60
00:03:05.039 --> 00:03:08.080
<v Speaker 1>I'm creating your position of a strong foundationalism.

61
00:03:08.599 --> 00:03:12.759
<v Speaker 2>Okay, but even if someone picked a weaker form of foundationalism,

62
00:03:13.080 --> 00:03:15.360
<v Speaker 2>I think a lot of you Okay, what I would

63
00:03:15.439 --> 00:03:16.360
<v Speaker 2>what I would say.

64
00:03:16.280 --> 00:03:18.319
<v Speaker 1>That's not that a position you defended five minutes ago.

65
00:03:18.919 --> 00:03:21.240
<v Speaker 2>Okay, but even the position that I have, I would

66
00:03:21.240 --> 00:03:24.039
<v Speaker 2>just say a lot of people, even people who are

67
00:03:24.080 --> 00:03:27.639
<v Speaker 2>non believers or atheists, would agree there are just basic

68
00:03:27.680 --> 00:03:30.560
<v Speaker 2>facts about existence that we have agreement on. So you're

69
00:03:30.560 --> 00:03:31.360
<v Speaker 2>from there, we can build.

70
00:03:31.520 --> 00:03:33.280
<v Speaker 1>You're going to appeal to the master. That's actually a fallacy.

71
00:03:33.319 --> 00:03:34.159
<v Speaker 1>It's not a justification.

72
00:03:35.039 --> 00:03:38.719
<v Speaker 2>No, I'm not saying that. I'm saying that it's justification.

73
00:03:38.840 --> 00:03:41.280
<v Speaker 2>So what's the just The problem is I gave you

74
00:03:41.319 --> 00:03:44.919
<v Speaker 2>a justification, but your system just won't allow it because afations.

75
00:03:45.520 --> 00:03:47.199
<v Speaker 1>Those are fallacies. No.

76
00:03:47.319 --> 00:03:50.599
<v Speaker 2>I told you that some propositions that we immediate that

77
00:03:50.680 --> 00:03:54.240
<v Speaker 2>we encounter is immedia and we do not have to

78
00:03:54.319 --> 00:03:54.960
<v Speaker 2>infer them.

79
00:03:55.400 --> 00:03:58.240
<v Speaker 1>I'm asking for the justification. You're just saying that it's immediate.

80
00:03:58.840 --> 00:04:01.400
<v Speaker 1>But that's just I would rest that rests on the

81
00:04:01.439 --> 00:04:04.319
<v Speaker 1>assumption that the external world is properly caused to impress

82
00:04:04.360 --> 00:04:05.400
<v Speaker 1>upon your senshi Wou.

83
00:04:05.639 --> 00:04:10.319
<v Speaker 2>I would say the justification that the self evident truths

84
00:04:10.879 --> 00:04:14.080
<v Speaker 2>in my epistemology are true would be the same as

85
00:04:14.120 --> 00:04:18.160
<v Speaker 2>whatever justification, let you know, leads you to believe that

86
00:04:18.519 --> 00:04:21.560
<v Speaker 2>the God of Christian orthodoxy on the foundation I'm.

87
00:04:21.399 --> 00:04:23.480
<v Speaker 1>Not subject to that problem. I don't make the strong

88
00:04:23.519 --> 00:04:25.639
<v Speaker 1>foundations claim that you just did, so I don't have

89
00:04:25.680 --> 00:04:28.439
<v Speaker 1>that problem. I admit circularity at this level.

90
00:04:29.480 --> 00:04:32.240
<v Speaker 2>Okay, but but only at that level.

91
00:04:33.120 --> 00:04:36.600
<v Speaker 1>Right, because it's a metallogical question where circularity is unavoidable.

92
00:04:36.920 --> 00:04:39.720
<v Speaker 1>That's the point was set theory, and the incompleteness is.

93
00:04:39.720 --> 00:04:45.560
<v Speaker 2>Therem Okay, are there any other circular so circular reasoning

94
00:04:45.639 --> 00:04:49.319
<v Speaker 2>with God being the ultimate foundation of reality that is

95
00:04:49.399 --> 00:04:53.439
<v Speaker 2>not invalid? Are there any other kind of the nature

96
00:04:53.439 --> 00:04:56.120
<v Speaker 2>of the system itself? Okay, so it's not invalid. Are

97
00:04:56.120 --> 00:04:59.160
<v Speaker 2>there any other kinds of circular reasoning apart from God,

98
00:04:59.319 --> 00:05:02.160
<v Speaker 2>have nothing to do with God that are also not invalid?

99
00:05:02.319 --> 00:05:05.199
<v Speaker 1>Yeah? Sure, The categories themselves have to be presupposed for

100
00:05:05.240 --> 00:05:07.399
<v Speaker 1>the possibility of knowledge. So in other words, the way

101
00:05:07.399 --> 00:05:10.519
<v Speaker 1>I make the argument is just simply that knowledge presupposed

102
00:05:10.519 --> 00:05:13.519
<v Speaker 1>to the categories. The categories themselves are grounded in God.

103
00:05:13.720 --> 00:05:17.000
<v Speaker 2>Okay, So the categories themselves, their foundation is not circular.

104
00:05:17.040 --> 00:05:18.120
<v Speaker 2>Their foundation is in God.

105
00:05:18.399 --> 00:05:21.600
<v Speaker 1>Well, they're circular when we're considering whether we can justify

106
00:05:21.639 --> 00:05:22.600
<v Speaker 1>them at the human level.

107
00:05:23.519 --> 00:05:26.439
<v Speaker 2>So we can't say that logic is true because the

108
00:05:26.519 --> 00:05:29.920
<v Speaker 2>laws of logic themselves show that they're true. It sounds

109
00:05:29.920 --> 00:05:32.639
<v Speaker 2>like you're saying circucular Yeah, it sounds like you're saying

110
00:05:32.800 --> 00:05:37.240
<v Speaker 2>circular reasoning is invalid, except when we're talking about God

111
00:05:37.319 --> 00:05:38.959
<v Speaker 2>being the foundation of the universe.

112
00:05:39.360 --> 00:05:41.839
<v Speaker 1>I'm saying that every system at root is circular, and

113
00:05:41.879 --> 00:05:44.720
<v Speaker 1>that's what I'm demonstrating to you in your strong foundationalism,

114
00:05:44.759 --> 00:05:46.800
<v Speaker 1>and I'm showing that that's not going to be. Then

115
00:05:46.839 --> 00:05:50.800
<v Speaker 1>how we justify or explain the different systems themselves. It's

116
00:05:50.839 --> 00:05:53.319
<v Speaker 1>a comparison of systems and not a comparison of evidence.

117
00:05:53.399 --> 00:05:56.800
<v Speaker 2>Well, Jay, I'm actually not necessarily opposed to using logic,

118
00:05:57.120 --> 00:06:00.600
<v Speaker 2>knowledge and morality to show God exists or even these

119
00:06:00.639 --> 00:06:05.319
<v Speaker 2>even a kind of transcendental argument. My concern is the

120
00:06:05.839 --> 00:06:10.279
<v Speaker 2>specificity of the presupposition, because your case seemed to be

121
00:06:10.399 --> 00:06:14.560
<v Speaker 2>very negative to natural theology. It's inability to prove a

122
00:06:14.680 --> 00:06:17.959
<v Speaker 2>rigid designator that the triune God of Christianity.

123
00:06:18.120 --> 00:06:19.800
<v Speaker 1>No I do I agree.

124
00:06:20.120 --> 00:06:24.800
<v Speaker 2>So my question for you is what would prevent Why

125
00:06:24.839 --> 00:06:28.879
<v Speaker 2>couldn't I take your exact same presuppositionalism, swap out the

126
00:06:28.879 --> 00:06:31.959
<v Speaker 2>God of orthodox Christian faith put in the Catholic divine

127
00:06:31.959 --> 00:06:36.199
<v Speaker 2>simplicity God or William or Cornelius Vantil taking his Protestant

128
00:06:36.279 --> 00:06:40.240
<v Speaker 2>view of God using the same argument. What breaks the

129
00:06:40.240 --> 00:06:43.120
<v Speaker 2>symmetry to pick your presupposition over the others.

130
00:06:43.639 --> 00:06:46.480
<v Speaker 1>Because in this case, what I'm the way I would

131
00:06:46.480 --> 00:06:49.199
<v Speaker 1>make the argument is that the Trinity is actually the

132
00:06:49.240 --> 00:06:52.680
<v Speaker 1>ground not just of epistemology or logic or things like that,

133
00:06:52.720 --> 00:06:55.040
<v Speaker 1>but actually the entire paradigm. In other words, it's an

134
00:06:55.079 --> 00:06:57.759
<v Speaker 1>argument for the entirety of the Christian paradigm, not merely

135
00:06:57.800 --> 00:07:00.160
<v Speaker 1>an argument for this or that piece of it. So

136
00:07:00.160 --> 00:07:02.879
<v Speaker 1>the Trinity comes with in terms of Orthodox theology as

137
00:07:02.920 --> 00:07:06.319
<v Speaker 1>I understand it, Saint Maximus's grand metaphysic, It actually comes

138
00:07:06.319 --> 00:07:11.480
<v Speaker 1>with a holistic epistemology and metaphysic that is the grounding

139
00:07:11.600 --> 00:07:14.480
<v Speaker 1>of the natural world itself. So it's not just an

140
00:07:14.560 --> 00:07:18.720
<v Speaker 1>argument for an abstract concept or some logical thing. It's

141
00:07:18.720 --> 00:07:22.319
<v Speaker 1>the entire Christian paradigm and the metaphysics of the Trinitarian

142
00:07:22.360 --> 00:07:25.879
<v Speaker 1>theology that we have as Orthodox, which is unique to us.

143
00:07:26.399 --> 00:07:28.759
<v Speaker 1>And this is why one last point, this is why,

144
00:07:29.000 --> 00:07:32.439
<v Speaker 1>in for example, Questions and Doubts, Saint Maximus goes to

145
00:07:32.519 --> 00:07:35.839
<v Speaker 1>great links to show that there are natural proofs for

146
00:07:35.920 --> 00:07:38.319
<v Speaker 1>the Trinity. He actually thinks the existence of the world,

147
00:07:38.319 --> 00:07:41.600
<v Speaker 1>the modal existence of the world itself, is triadic and

148
00:07:41.800 --> 00:07:44.759
<v Speaker 1>is a proof, not an adamiration or a trace, but

149
00:07:44.839 --> 00:07:46.319
<v Speaker 1>an actual proof of the Trinity.

150
00:07:46.560 --> 00:07:51.160
<v Speaker 2>Okay, but why I didn't hear a reason? Why are

151
00:07:51.399 --> 00:07:56.079
<v Speaker 2>why is our presupposition going to be a trinity versus

152
00:07:56.120 --> 00:07:57.800
<v Speaker 2>a unity a unitarian God?

153
00:07:57.959 --> 00:07:58.079
<v Speaker 1>Oh?

154
00:07:58.879 --> 00:08:04.160
<v Speaker 2>Why that's point one and point two? Why your concept

155
00:08:04.160 --> 00:08:07.199
<v Speaker 2>of the Trinity as opposed to a Catholic or Protestant concept. Why?

156
00:08:08.120 --> 00:08:13.079
<v Speaker 1>Well, because, first of all, the the the Triune God

157
00:08:13.199 --> 00:08:16.759
<v Speaker 1>is not just posited. I'm actually saying that God and

158
00:08:16.839 --> 00:08:19.680
<v Speaker 1>the Christian world in the Christian Orthodox paradigm, gives an

159
00:08:19.720 --> 00:08:24.519
<v Speaker 1>account for the metaphysical problems, for the one and the many,

160
00:08:24.560 --> 00:08:28.800
<v Speaker 1>for the universals, for the for the you know, logical categories,

161
00:08:28.920 --> 00:08:32.639
<v Speaker 1>the Aristotelian categories that you know maximums basically squishes into

162
00:08:32.759 --> 00:08:35.480
<v Speaker 1>natural contemplation. I'm saying that the structure of the world,

163
00:08:36.639 --> 00:08:40.120
<v Speaker 1>as well as ethics, metaphysics, epistemology, all of that is

164
00:08:40.399 --> 00:08:44.200
<v Speaker 1>justified given an account for and grounded in a specific

165
00:08:44.360 --> 00:08:48.039
<v Speaker 1>triune God and the specific revelation of what he says

166
00:08:48.600 --> 00:08:52.000
<v Speaker 1>about how the world's constructed. So it's a revelatory theism

167
00:08:52.039 --> 00:08:57.399
<v Speaker 1>and a justification via revelation as opposed to autonomous Uh,

168
00:08:58.559 --> 00:09:02.120
<v Speaker 1>you know, the unaided reasoning approach that you're defending.

169
00:09:02.440 --> 00:09:05.120
<v Speaker 2>So you're saying that we should presuppose the God of

170
00:09:05.200 --> 00:09:08.799
<v Speaker 2>Eastern Orthodox Christian theism. Correct, because the God of Eastern

171
00:09:08.879 --> 00:09:12.120
<v Speaker 2>Orthodox Christian Theism has revealed we ought to presuppose him.

172
00:09:12.320 --> 00:09:16.399
<v Speaker 1>No, I'm saying that we should presuppose him precisely because

173
00:09:16.879 --> 00:09:22.159
<v Speaker 1>the self revelatory declaration gives an account for the problems

174
00:09:22.159 --> 00:09:24.919
<v Speaker 1>of ethics, metaphysics, and epistemology that I keep raising.

175
00:09:25.120 --> 00:09:25.519
<v Speaker 2>Why is it?

176
00:09:25.799 --> 00:09:27.639
<v Speaker 1>Why solves those problems?

177
00:09:28.159 --> 00:09:32.200
<v Speaker 2>Why does only Orthodox Christians? So so I guess what, I'm.

178
00:09:32.080 --> 00:09:36.320
<v Speaker 1>Trying to make revelatory character of the Trinity and Orthodox Christianity.

179
00:09:36.440 --> 00:09:39.360
<v Speaker 2>Right, But Protestants and Catholics also believe in the Trinity.

180
00:09:39.519 --> 00:09:41.519
<v Speaker 1>Yeah, but you don't have it because you have heterodox

181
00:09:41.600 --> 00:09:43.639
<v Speaker 1>versions of it. Not I'm not I'm personally attacking you,

182
00:09:43.679 --> 00:09:44.039
<v Speaker 1>but I'm.

183
00:09:43.919 --> 00:09:48.039
<v Speaker 2>Saying that that's fine. But okay, So we would we

184
00:09:48.080 --> 00:09:51.679
<v Speaker 2>would say your conception of theism is the only one

185
00:09:51.679 --> 00:09:56.600
<v Speaker 2>that explains reality, because we would deploy arguments of reason

186
00:09:56.759 --> 00:09:59.639
<v Speaker 2>to show that the competitors are false or don't succeed.

187
00:10:00.120 --> 00:10:02.360
<v Speaker 1>Correct. But that's a category error. But because I'm not

188
00:10:02.399 --> 00:10:04.519
<v Speaker 1>just because I'm using arguments from reason doesn't mean that

189
00:10:04.559 --> 00:10:07.600
<v Speaker 1>they have logical or or epistemic orontological priority. That's a

190
00:10:07.600 --> 00:10:11.039
<v Speaker 1>category error that Thomas, that Thomas constantly make that because

191
00:10:11.039 --> 00:10:16.080
<v Speaker 1>I'm using an argument that it therefore has epistemic orontological priority,

192
00:10:16.200 --> 00:10:18.519
<v Speaker 1>or did I use it first in a chain? Okay,

193
00:10:19.240 --> 00:10:19.519
<v Speaker 1>it doesn't.

194
00:10:19.639 --> 00:10:23.200
<v Speaker 2>With this also include we only got a few seconds

195
00:10:23.200 --> 00:10:28.679
<v Speaker 2>here My question earlier did did did Abraham believe God?

196
00:10:28.759 --> 00:10:31.039
<v Speaker 2>Do you think Abraham had an explicit knowledge of the Trinity?

197
00:10:31.200 --> 00:10:33.000
<v Speaker 1>Yes, and say Maximus, as he did?

198
00:10:33.200 --> 00:10:35.200
<v Speaker 2>Okay, so he knew the father son only is all right?

199
00:10:35.240 --> 00:10:37.919
<v Speaker 1>All right? So I think that what I really wanted

200
00:10:37.960 --> 00:10:43.320
<v Speaker 1>to get to here was the epistemic problems of an

201
00:10:43.399 --> 00:10:47.159
<v Speaker 1>approach that Trent has to strong foundationalism, which you affirmed

202
00:10:47.200 --> 00:10:50.799
<v Speaker 1>early on regarding the way that we go about doing

203
00:10:50.879 --> 00:10:54.120
<v Speaker 1>natural theology. What I heard from Trent throughout the debate,

204
00:10:54.159 --> 00:10:59.080
<v Speaker 1>in many many instances was actually equivocating and word concept

205
00:10:59.120 --> 00:11:03.639
<v Speaker 1>fallacy shift between natural law, moral law, the revelation of

206
00:11:03.679 --> 00:11:07.840
<v Speaker 1>God in nature and his tomistic conception of natural theology.

207
00:11:07.960 --> 00:11:09.799
<v Speaker 1>My whole point in this debate was that those things

208
00:11:09.840 --> 00:11:12.840
<v Speaker 1>are not equivalent. But multiple times of debate, Trent seemed

209
00:11:12.840 --> 00:11:15.919
<v Speaker 1>to switch back between these different things which are very

210
00:11:15.919 --> 00:11:18.960
<v Speaker 1>specific and nuance, as if they're all just talking about

211
00:11:19.000 --> 00:11:21.679
<v Speaker 1>the same thing. Of course, my questioning here is to

212
00:11:22.559 --> 00:11:25.039
<v Speaker 1>raise that very quick I'm questioning that very assumption right

213
00:11:25.039 --> 00:11:26.960
<v Speaker 1>there that I don't think those are all talking about

214
00:11:26.960 --> 00:11:31.360
<v Speaker 1>the same thing. I wanted to really stress that this

215
00:11:31.440 --> 00:11:36.440
<v Speaker 1>approach that Trent's doing is an empirical approach. I didn't

216
00:11:36.480 --> 00:11:39.240
<v Speaker 1>say Trent or Aquinas was an empiricist. I said the

217
00:11:39.279 --> 00:11:43.080
<v Speaker 1>approach is empirically based. And that's not in doubt because

218
00:11:43.200 --> 00:11:47.200
<v Speaker 1>in de Veritati, Aquinas clearly says that there's nothing in

219
00:11:47.200 --> 00:11:50.320
<v Speaker 1>the intellect that's not also in the senses. He also

220
00:11:50.360 --> 00:11:53.039
<v Speaker 1>affirms the distinction between what is better known in itself

221
00:11:53.039 --> 00:11:54.799
<v Speaker 1>and what is better known by us. And this is

222
00:11:54.879 --> 00:11:59.679
<v Speaker 1>really the basis of the foundationalist approach that we have here.

223
00:12:00.080 --> 00:12:02.759
<v Speaker 1>If we're gonna take that approach, we have a series

224
00:12:02.799 --> 00:12:06.240
<v Speaker 1>of problems that I raised one as an example of

225
00:12:06.279 --> 00:12:09.080
<v Speaker 1>properly basic beliefs in terms of the section when I

226
00:12:09.120 --> 00:12:12.679
<v Speaker 1>was questioning Trent about circularity of properly basic beliefs. This

227
00:12:12.799 --> 00:12:17.919
<v Speaker 1>is just one problem for any empirically based epistemology, and

228
00:12:17.960 --> 00:12:21.600
<v Speaker 1>make no bones about it, Trent's natural theology isn't empirically

229
00:12:21.639 --> 00:12:25.480
<v Speaker 1>based natural theology. So he's going to have to demonstrate

230
00:12:25.639 --> 00:12:29.799
<v Speaker 1>the justification for the empirical argumentation that he's doing to

231
00:12:29.840 --> 00:12:33.200
<v Speaker 1>say natural theology is a case when I am saying

232
00:12:33.240 --> 00:12:36.399
<v Speaker 1>that natural theology isn't the case because I can come

233
00:12:36.399 --> 00:12:39.320
<v Speaker 1>to the table and critique the presubpositions in the exact

234
00:12:39.320 --> 00:12:42.279
<v Speaker 1>same way that human kant do that you're gonna have

235
00:12:42.279 --> 00:12:43.799
<v Speaker 1>to give an account for And why do you have

236
00:12:43.799 --> 00:12:46.240
<v Speaker 1>to give an account for it in that way? Because

237
00:12:46.279 --> 00:12:49.519
<v Speaker 1>of the nature of your presubpositions and the foundationalism itself.

238
00:12:49.799 --> 00:12:52.840
<v Speaker 1>Foundationalism is saying these are self evident, these are the

239
00:12:52.879 --> 00:12:56.519
<v Speaker 1>things that everybody agrees on that we start with. What

240
00:12:56.559 --> 00:12:58.519
<v Speaker 1>does it matter how many people agree with something or

241
00:12:58.600 --> 00:13:01.200
<v Speaker 1>disagree with it. That's a appeal to the masses fallacy,

242
00:13:01.759 --> 00:13:05.240
<v Speaker 1>And so if Trent's going to have a foundationalist of pistemology,

243
00:13:05.360 --> 00:13:07.679
<v Speaker 1>He's going to have to answer not just that, but

244
00:13:07.720 --> 00:13:11.519
<v Speaker 1>the questions of what is the metaphysical content of all

245
00:13:11.559 --> 00:13:13.840
<v Speaker 1>the words that you're listing here in terms of this

246
00:13:13.960 --> 00:13:16.840
<v Speaker 1>sense data. What is the status of the external world

247
00:13:16.879 --> 00:13:19.960
<v Speaker 1>that you're presupposing in these metaphysical claims. What is the

248
00:13:20.159 --> 00:13:22.600
<v Speaker 1>certitude that you have that the sense data matches up

249
00:13:22.639 --> 00:13:25.000
<v Speaker 1>to the objects in the external world? How do you

250
00:13:25.000 --> 00:13:27.720
<v Speaker 1>solve Sellers problem of the myth of the given? How

251
00:13:27.720 --> 00:13:30.879
<v Speaker 1>do you resolve the underdetermination of data? How do you

252
00:13:30.879 --> 00:13:33.600
<v Speaker 1>account for the fact that the paraphetic axiom itself is

253
00:13:33.639 --> 00:13:36.600
<v Speaker 1>not in sense data? How if that's the case, do

254
00:13:36.639 --> 00:13:40.000
<v Speaker 1>you account for induction and deduction on an empirical basis?

255
00:13:40.399 --> 00:13:43.240
<v Speaker 1>What are the primary what are the properly basic beliefs?

256
00:13:43.559 --> 00:13:45.720
<v Speaker 1>Given the fact that I don't think the ones that

257
00:13:45.759 --> 00:13:49.039
<v Speaker 1>you listed are actually properly basic beliefs, given the critique

258
00:13:49.039 --> 00:13:53.000
<v Speaker 1>that I gave of Descartes cogito. If that's the case

259
00:13:53.080 --> 00:13:55.360
<v Speaker 1>and we start with induction, how do we get to

260
00:13:55.399 --> 00:13:59.759
<v Speaker 1>the justification of universals right from induction? So if deduction

261
00:13:59.840 --> 00:14:02.200
<v Speaker 1>is a problem, excuse mean. If the induction is the problem,

262
00:14:02.399 --> 00:14:07.399
<v Speaker 1>deduction also goes What is the justification for the epistemic

263
00:14:07.480 --> 00:14:11.080
<v Speaker 1>bootstrapping project at the outset that Trent is involved in,

264
00:14:11.480 --> 00:14:13.200
<v Speaker 1>Given that as I tried to show there are no

265
00:14:13.279 --> 00:14:16.799
<v Speaker 1>properly basic beliefs, and also given the fact that things

266
00:14:16.960 --> 00:14:20.600
<v Speaker 1>like the uniformity of nature, that logic works and operates

267
00:14:20.600 --> 00:14:23.919
<v Speaker 1>in an external world, or that the external world actually

268
00:14:24.000 --> 00:14:28.399
<v Speaker 1>has a causal relationship that it imprints data upon Trent's mind.

269
00:14:29.039 --> 00:14:32.480
<v Speaker 1>Nothing in that was a affirmation or an accusation that

270
00:14:32.480 --> 00:14:35.320
<v Speaker 1>Trent is a human empiricist, or that a Quitas is

271
00:14:35.360 --> 00:14:38.000
<v Speaker 1>an empiricist. I never said that, so Trent was replying

272
00:14:38.000 --> 00:14:40.720
<v Speaker 1>to a strong man. I simply said, how does Trent

273
00:14:41.080 --> 00:14:45.360
<v Speaker 1>reply as a foundationalist to these classic problems? For any

274
00:14:45.399 --> 00:14:48.360
<v Speaker 1>foundationalist system, it really doesn't matter which one we pick.

275
00:14:49.399 --> 00:14:51.600
<v Speaker 1>One thing that I really wanted to conclude with was

276
00:14:51.679 --> 00:14:55.080
<v Speaker 1>about the arguments of Saint Maximus for the Trinity, and

277
00:14:55.080 --> 00:14:57.360
<v Speaker 1>I'll just run through these really quick. Maximus thinks that

278
00:14:57.399 --> 00:14:59.720
<v Speaker 1>the modes of natural contemplation lead us to the low gee,

279
00:14:59.720 --> 00:15:02.559
<v Speaker 1>which to the logos. The logos is a rigid designator,

280
00:15:02.639 --> 00:15:07.200
<v Speaker 1>not for generic reasoning or Marcus Aurelius's logos, but in fact,

281
00:15:07.200 --> 00:15:11.519
<v Speaker 1>for as Trent said, the wisdom literature logos of Ecclesiasticus,

282
00:15:11.639 --> 00:15:14.840
<v Speaker 1>Proverbs and John One, who is the second person of

283
00:15:14.840 --> 00:15:17.960
<v Speaker 1>the Godhead. It's a rigid designator creation that, according to

284
00:15:17.960 --> 00:15:21.679
<v Speaker 1>Saint Maximus, is fundamentally chrystological and fundamentally triadic. And big

285
00:15:21.720 --> 00:15:24.159
<v Speaker 1>Ue ten shows that creation is a veil for the logos.

286
00:15:24.279 --> 00:15:26.720
<v Speaker 1>The creative world, Maximus says, is a book. It's a

287
00:15:26.759 --> 00:15:29.080
<v Speaker 1>book that's the same as the logos in terms of

288
00:15:29.120 --> 00:15:32.279
<v Speaker 1>the Bible book, right Maximus. This goes on, of course

289
00:15:32.279 --> 00:15:35.600
<v Speaker 1>to say that the created order is a theophany. And

290
00:15:35.679 --> 00:15:38.399
<v Speaker 1>my main point here is that natural theology posits a

291
00:15:38.480 --> 00:15:43.679
<v Speaker 1>deity that does not allow the created world to actually

292
00:15:43.720 --> 00:15:47.639
<v Speaker 1>be a theophany. And I think the tomism demonstrates that

293
00:15:48.159 --> 00:15:51.200
<v Speaker 1>Matt Frad and Trent Horn are we not supposed to

294
00:15:51.200 --> 00:15:52.080
<v Speaker 1>be Orthodox?

295
00:15:52.399 --> 00:15:56.120
<v Speaker 2>And for me, the papacy is a gift that God

296
00:15:56.159 --> 00:15:58.200
<v Speaker 2>has given the church. That makes sense. It's one of

297
00:15:58.240 --> 00:15:59.960
<v Speaker 2>the important things in being Catholic.

298
00:16:00.919 --> 00:16:03.720
<v Speaker 1>If the papacy makes sense, then why is the papacy

299
00:16:03.840 --> 00:16:06.759
<v Speaker 1>such an issue of contention right now in the Roman

300
00:16:06.799 --> 00:16:10.240
<v Speaker 1>Catholic world, and especially since the time of attic in two.

301
00:16:10.759 --> 00:16:14.519
<v Speaker 1>I mean again, you'll find that they always just appeal

302
00:16:14.679 --> 00:16:18.320
<v Speaker 1>to this sort of the simple pragmatic argument. Look, it

303
00:16:18.399 --> 00:16:21.399
<v Speaker 1>just makes sense. Look it's just gonna help with unity. Look,

304
00:16:21.399 --> 00:16:24.360
<v Speaker 1>it's going to solve the problems. And does it actually

305
00:16:24.399 --> 00:16:28.200
<v Speaker 1>do that? No, it doesn't. Remember ninety percent of their

306
00:16:28.200 --> 00:16:32.320
<v Speaker 1>apologetic of these guys is you need this office because

307
00:16:32.360 --> 00:16:34.240
<v Speaker 1>it's going to solve all the problems that you have.

308
00:16:35.000 --> 00:16:38.200
<v Speaker 1>Yet when we do the problem analysis, we don't find

309
00:16:38.200 --> 00:16:41.279
<v Speaker 1>that it actually provides the thing that it's supposed to do.

310
00:16:41.759 --> 00:16:44.799
<v Speaker 1>It doesn't provide unity, it doesn't provide clarity. In fact,

311
00:16:44.879 --> 00:16:47.600
<v Speaker 1>if you remember when we did the for the two

312
00:16:47.720 --> 00:16:50.639
<v Speaker 1>four hour streams, the eight hours of response to Trent,

313
00:16:50.879 --> 00:16:53.360
<v Speaker 1>remember that right got a lot of views on that.

314
00:16:54.720 --> 00:16:58.759
<v Speaker 1>We saw that Trent himself was struggling consistently with how

315
00:16:58.799 --> 00:17:01.879
<v Speaker 1>to make sense of And here's your various ways to

316
00:17:02.039 --> 00:17:05.400
<v Speaker 1>interpret Francis on the death penalty. Why do we have

317
00:17:05.519 --> 00:17:08.599
<v Speaker 1>to give varying interpretations of something that's supposed to be

318
00:17:08.839 --> 00:17:13.480
<v Speaker 1>a clarifying statement on basic morals? Why do we even

319
00:17:13.559 --> 00:17:18.599
<v Speaker 1>have to have the pope clarifying the basic morals which

320
00:17:18.599 --> 00:17:23.119
<v Speaker 1>are now ambiguous, which related to quote natural justice in

321
00:17:23.160 --> 00:17:26.920
<v Speaker 1>the traditional Roman cality view. But remember what's he doing here?

322
00:17:27.000 --> 00:17:32.440
<v Speaker 1>Just falling back on these kinds of pragmatic low tier Oh,

323
00:17:32.480 --> 00:17:34.759
<v Speaker 1>it'll just make it easy. Oh, it'll make it simple,

324
00:17:34.839 --> 00:17:37.519
<v Speaker 1>it'll solve the problems. Again, the last seventy years of

325
00:17:37.599 --> 00:17:42.599
<v Speaker 1>Roman Catholicism illustrate nothing but the opposite of that chaos, collapse,

326
00:17:43.720 --> 00:17:48.039
<v Speaker 1>lack of clarity, greater and greater confusion, greater and greater

327
00:17:48.240 --> 00:17:54.079
<v Speaker 1>moral revulsion, especially when it comes to to Rome itself

328
00:17:54.640 --> 00:17:58.160
<v Speaker 1>on quote clarifying moral issues. So the irony is that

329
00:17:58.240 --> 00:18:01.400
<v Speaker 1>the selling points that these guys always fall back on

330
00:18:01.960 --> 00:18:04.599
<v Speaker 1>are the very things that they're also always having to

331
00:18:04.599 --> 00:18:08.680
<v Speaker 1>deal with that it's not practical, it's not clarifying anything,

332
00:18:09.000 --> 00:18:13.359
<v Speaker 1>it's not making anything better, it's not producing unity. And

333
00:18:13.440 --> 00:18:19.559
<v Speaker 1>this is they're apologetic, is what papal lawyering.

334
00:18:19.839 --> 00:18:22.559
<v Speaker 3>We debate these guys, they are always like on following Peter,

335
00:18:24.200 --> 00:18:26.599
<v Speaker 3>and by Peter they mean the papacy, right, because we

336
00:18:26.720 --> 00:18:31.680
<v Speaker 3>believe to see if Peter's in every bishop and bring

337
00:18:31.759 --> 00:18:35.920
<v Speaker 3>up for the audience your argument from indefectibility.

338
00:18:35.960 --> 00:18:39.279
<v Speaker 1>It's a great one. Yeah. So essentially, what we've gotten

339
00:18:39.319 --> 00:18:43.480
<v Speaker 1>to in modern day Roman cathloch Apologists that are in

340
00:18:43.599 --> 00:18:49.240
<v Speaker 1>this sphere is the idea that rather than I'm gonna,

341
00:18:49.680 --> 00:18:52.119
<v Speaker 1>you know, to move away from the question of infallibility,

342
00:18:52.160 --> 00:18:54.119
<v Speaker 1>not that you can't debate infallibility. I think it's funny

343
00:18:54.119 --> 00:18:55.880
<v Speaker 1>and you can go down that route. But they'll just

344
00:18:55.920 --> 00:18:58.519
<v Speaker 1>always have this out where they'll just say, well, but

345
00:18:58.680 --> 00:19:02.039
<v Speaker 1>he's only infallible in xyz cases, and I will tell

346
00:19:02.079 --> 00:19:04.640
<v Speaker 1>you when that is right. So every individual Catholic will

347
00:19:04.680 --> 00:19:07.240
<v Speaker 1>have their own list of when he's being fallible when

348
00:19:07.240 --> 00:19:10.880
<v Speaker 1>he's not being infallible. And so the better way to

349
00:19:10.920 --> 00:19:14.799
<v Speaker 1>construct this argument is to talk about indefectibility. And this

350
00:19:14.839 --> 00:19:18.200
<v Speaker 1>is better because we know Vatican one is teaching very

351
00:19:18.200 --> 00:19:21.160
<v Speaker 1>clearly that the Roman Sea will never defect from the

352
00:19:21.200 --> 00:19:23.680
<v Speaker 1>faith until the end of the world. It will contain

353
00:19:24.319 --> 00:19:27.559
<v Speaker 1>valid successors until the return of Christ. Vatican One says

354
00:19:27.720 --> 00:19:30.960
<v Speaker 1>the Sea of Rome is indefectible until he defects, which

355
00:19:31.000 --> 00:19:34.480
<v Speaker 1>is to say nothing, so basically a meaningless statement which

356
00:19:34.519 --> 00:19:38.079
<v Speaker 1>allows every individual Roman Catholic to simply say that I

357
00:19:38.160 --> 00:19:41.440
<v Speaker 1>will accept and reject the papacy insofar as it applies

358
00:19:41.480 --> 00:19:44.279
<v Speaker 1>to my own version of papalism. And that's why every

359
00:19:44.279 --> 00:19:47.519
<v Speaker 1>single Roman Catholic will have a different list of what

360
00:19:47.559 --> 00:19:52.119
<v Speaker 1>the infallible teachings actually are. And again, this whole system

361
00:19:52.440 --> 00:19:55.599
<v Speaker 1>should at least give us the list. What do the

362
00:19:55.680 --> 00:19:58.079
<v Speaker 1>Roman Catholics always come over to us and say, where's

363
00:19:58.079 --> 00:20:02.559
<v Speaker 1>your list of Douglas, where's your list of dogmas? Oh,

364
00:20:02.559 --> 00:20:05.279
<v Speaker 1>they don't have it? Exactly what do they have? They

365
00:20:05.319 --> 00:20:10.119
<v Speaker 1>have a couple criteria of categories to rank the authority

366
00:20:10.160 --> 00:20:12.799
<v Speaker 1>of the various teachings and dogmas, which is then up

367
00:20:12.839 --> 00:20:16.799
<v Speaker 1>to every individual Catholic to apply and to try to

368
00:20:16.799 --> 00:20:19.880
<v Speaker 1>make sense with mental gymnastics, how the system isn't chaos

369
00:20:19.880 --> 00:20:20.519
<v Speaker 1>and nonsense?

370
00:20:20.680 --> 00:20:24.359
<v Speaker 2>And Orthodox counsel of just the Orthodox bishops, well, one

371
00:20:24.359 --> 00:20:27.799
<v Speaker 2>guy can always just kind of they can't, and so

372
00:20:28.119 --> 00:20:31.559
<v Speaker 2>you're not able to address you don't have that unity

373
00:20:32.079 --> 00:20:35.960
<v Speaker 2>that a person who is given a special authority from

374
00:20:36.039 --> 00:20:41.759
<v Speaker 2>Christ to be the first among bishops, and the Orthodox

375
00:20:41.799 --> 00:20:43.799
<v Speaker 2>say the BOE has that title, but it doesn't really

376
00:20:43.839 --> 00:20:44.400
<v Speaker 2>mean much.

377
00:20:44.640 --> 00:20:47.160
<v Speaker 1>Well that's interesting because if this is the case, then

378
00:20:47.200 --> 00:20:51.720
<v Speaker 1>why does Ratzinger and by extension, the post Vatican too

379
00:20:51.799 --> 00:20:55.440
<v Speaker 1>Vatican why do they admit that the Orthodox Church has

380
00:20:55.720 --> 00:21:04.200
<v Speaker 1>preserved its faith and it's doctrines, it's unity for the

381
00:21:04.279 --> 00:21:09.319
<v Speaker 1>last thousand years. So that's an admission that we preserve

382
00:21:09.480 --> 00:21:16.160
<v Speaker 1>this without the papacy for a thousand years. So the

383
00:21:16.200 --> 00:21:20.440
<v Speaker 1>papacy actually isn't necessary. So your own popes admit that

384
00:21:20.799 --> 00:21:23.079
<v Speaker 1>we don't need the pope. I mean, this is in

385
00:21:23.200 --> 00:21:25.960
<v Speaker 1>Ratzinger's books. Now you might disagree with that, but my

386
00:21:26.039 --> 00:21:28.599
<v Speaker 1>point is that, well, how come your authorities recognize that,

387
00:21:28.880 --> 00:21:31.519
<v Speaker 1>let's not an infallible statement. I don't have to acceipt that, Okay,

388
00:21:31.519 --> 00:21:34.519
<v Speaker 1>so what right? This is? All they do is spur

389
00:21:34.640 --> 00:21:37.599
<v Speaker 1>out and go to this arbitrary of when it's infallible

390
00:21:37.599 --> 00:21:42.279
<v Speaker 1>when it's non infallible, which again they're going to have

391
00:21:42.359 --> 00:21:46.000
<v Speaker 1>to have an infallible criteria when they say what isn't

392
00:21:46.039 --> 00:21:48.400
<v Speaker 1>isn't infallible or else. That whole system falls apart into

393
00:21:48.400 --> 00:21:51.240
<v Speaker 1>the contradiction. But as we've seen, they're not very good

394
00:21:51.240 --> 00:21:52.640
<v Speaker 1>at logic and epistemology.

395
00:21:53.079 --> 00:21:54.799
<v Speaker 2>But when you go back to the New Testament, it

396
00:21:54.839 --> 00:21:57.119
<v Speaker 2>seems clear to me and even to many non Catholic

397
00:21:57.119 --> 00:22:00.000
<v Speaker 2>commenters that Peter was given special.

398
00:22:00.319 --> 00:22:03.079
<v Speaker 1>In the yearly. So here we go again. The only

399
00:22:03.119 --> 00:22:05.920
<v Speaker 1>things that matter to them are Matthew sixteen, right, So

400
00:22:05.960 --> 00:22:08.519
<v Speaker 1>it's like they don't care about the Bible at all

401
00:22:08.880 --> 00:22:11.920
<v Speaker 1>until they want to do is to Jesus with Isaiah

402
00:22:11.960 --> 00:22:14.160
<v Speaker 1>twenty two in Matthew sixteen. They don't care about anything

403
00:22:14.160 --> 00:22:17.119
<v Speaker 1>else to do. They go to Acts fifteen where Peter

404
00:22:17.319 --> 00:22:20.480
<v Speaker 1>is not the voice of God and the final authority

405
00:22:21.440 --> 00:22:24.799
<v Speaker 1>where it's James. No, they don't do that, or they

406
00:22:24.799 --> 00:22:26.720
<v Speaker 1>do this stupid thing where they try to argue that

407
00:22:27.039 --> 00:22:31.240
<v Speaker 1>it's a different Peter in Galatians one or in Acts fifteen.

408
00:22:31.240 --> 00:22:36.319
<v Speaker 1>I mean, just silly mental gymnastics. The whole system is nothing.

409
00:22:36.400 --> 00:22:39.599
<v Speaker 1>But I'll use the Bible for when it backs up

410
00:22:39.640 --> 00:22:41.400
<v Speaker 1>the Papa seat. The rest of the time, I don't

411
00:22:41.400 --> 00:22:44.079
<v Speaker 1>care what the Bible says, and they don't, especially the trads.

412
00:22:44.119 --> 00:22:46.599
<v Speaker 1>I mean they even say that they're happy that they

413
00:22:46.599 --> 00:22:49.079
<v Speaker 1>don't read the Bible. Many of the trads that they're

414
00:22:49.079 --> 00:22:52.359
<v Speaker 1>said on Twitter all the time, right, Reading the Bible

415
00:22:52.400 --> 00:22:54.640
<v Speaker 1>is a Protestant thing. They think the sell delusional and

416
00:22:54.680 --> 00:22:58.160
<v Speaker 1>idiotic these people are. But I mean, these are just

417
00:22:58.240 --> 00:23:02.400
<v Speaker 1>terrible arguments. This is this is car salesmanship.

418
00:23:02.759 --> 00:23:04.960
<v Speaker 2>Paul will stand for the truth and he'll even stand

419
00:23:05.039 --> 00:23:06.000
<v Speaker 2>up to Peter.

420
00:23:07.039 --> 00:23:10.720
<v Speaker 1>Oh really, sound like Vatican one, Trent.

421
00:23:11.119 --> 00:23:13.160
<v Speaker 2>Now, why why does you make note of Peter? Because

422
00:23:13.200 --> 00:23:16.960
<v Speaker 2>Peter has the most authority, right, I will even oppose Peter.

423
00:23:17.079 --> 00:23:22.960
<v Speaker 1>So mouthpiece authority. None of that equates to Vatican One. Again,

424
00:23:23.039 --> 00:23:25.200
<v Speaker 1>all non sequitors. The whole thing is bait and switch,

425
00:23:25.920 --> 00:23:29.319
<v Speaker 1>just telling you that because there is this place, because

426
00:23:29.440 --> 00:23:34.039
<v Speaker 1>Rome has this pre eminence, that the Roman, therefore Roman

427
00:23:34.079 --> 00:23:38.000
<v Speaker 1>Catholic doctions are all true. It doesn't follow. In other words,

428
00:23:38.039 --> 00:23:41.119
<v Speaker 1>there's an Orthodox read, and maybe the Orthodox reading is wrong, right,

429
00:23:42.039 --> 00:23:45.119
<v Speaker 1>But my point is that there's an orthodox reading of

430
00:23:45.160 --> 00:23:50.400
<v Speaker 1>all of this stuff, and it's ignored because the idea

431
00:23:50.480 --> 00:23:54.319
<v Speaker 1>is just that look at all these quote minds, look

432
00:23:54.359 --> 00:23:56.279
<v Speaker 1>at my reading of Galatians and all this stuff, and

433
00:23:56.279 --> 00:23:59.640
<v Speaker 1>therefore Vatican one. That's essentially what he's saying, even though

434
00:23:59.640 --> 00:24:02.599
<v Speaker 1>he's not saying that or making any reference to Vatican One,

435
00:24:03.400 --> 00:24:06.640
<v Speaker 1>but he knows that Vatican one is the counsel about

436
00:24:06.680 --> 00:24:10.519
<v Speaker 1>the papacy. So the whole point of this text of

437
00:24:10.599 --> 00:24:15.960
<v Speaker 1>Paul is that even Peter can be rebuked if he

438
00:24:16.240 --> 00:24:19.640
<v Speaker 1>errs this is all spun to be the opposite in

439
00:24:19.720 --> 00:24:24.079
<v Speaker 1>their exegesis, to be that Paul went to Peter to

440
00:24:24.160 --> 00:24:29.119
<v Speaker 1>see if he was correct, and Paul found out, oh oops,

441
00:24:29.599 --> 00:24:32.200
<v Speaker 1>Peter made a gaff. He just kind of messed up.

442
00:24:32.319 --> 00:24:34.720
<v Speaker 1>Is that what he says? No, he says that he

443
00:24:34.799 --> 00:24:40.039
<v Speaker 1>departed from the Gospel. That equates to defecting from the faith.

444
00:24:40.519 --> 00:24:43.519
<v Speaker 1>That is the very thing that Vatican One says Rome

445
00:24:43.640 --> 00:24:50.319
<v Speaker 1>can never do. Peter is Rome their exegesis proves he

446
00:24:50.359 --> 00:24:56.599
<v Speaker 1>departed from the faith in Galatians. It's like, did they

447
00:24:56.599 --> 00:24:58.960
<v Speaker 1>even read the text or did he just read quote

448
00:24:59.000 --> 00:25:02.200
<v Speaker 1>minds from other Roman Catholic apologists or did he actually

449
00:25:02.359 --> 00:25:07.039
<v Speaker 1>even read Galatians? Is he just repeating Dahlgreen in Hest's book.

450
00:25:07.400 --> 00:25:10.079
<v Speaker 2>Question difficult for people to discuss is that many people

451
00:25:10.119 --> 00:25:13.759
<v Speaker 2>have a very narrow definition of worship. Worship is just

452
00:25:13.799 --> 00:25:16.599
<v Speaker 2>giving God all the honor God is due, and.

453
00:25:17.359 --> 00:25:21.839
<v Speaker 1>That is not what worship essentially is. That's a very

454
00:25:21.880 --> 00:25:25.960
<v Speaker 1>broad statement that you could say, Okay, yeah, we give

455
00:25:26.039 --> 00:25:29.119
<v Speaker 1>God the honor, but how do we give God the

456
00:25:29.200 --> 00:25:32.359
<v Speaker 1>honor in the way that God lays down. This is

457
00:25:32.440 --> 00:25:37.799
<v Speaker 1>why Roman Catholics always argue against Protestants that Protestants are

458
00:25:37.960 --> 00:25:43.400
<v Speaker 1>essentially failing at worship because they don't have a eucharistic

459
00:25:43.480 --> 00:25:48.160
<v Speaker 1>altar and sacrifice. Yes, Protestants believe that Jesus died on

460
00:25:48.200 --> 00:25:51.279
<v Speaker 1>the cross and that was a sacrifice, but they have

461
00:25:51.440 --> 00:25:58.279
<v Speaker 1>discarded that eucharistic centrality to worship that's ongoing at an altar,

462
00:25:59.680 --> 00:26:03.839
<v Speaker 1>and to most pop apologists in the Roman Calic sphere,

463
00:26:04.079 --> 00:26:07.240
<v Speaker 1>they love to make the argument that Protestants therefore do

464
00:26:07.319 --> 00:26:10.640
<v Speaker 1>not really worship God. They might have a mental assent,

465
00:26:11.119 --> 00:26:15.079
<v Speaker 1>but the actual holistic worship, which is the entire person,

466
00:26:15.400 --> 00:26:19.039
<v Speaker 1>the entire being of the person. This is why the liturgy,

467
00:26:19.079 --> 00:26:21.599
<v Speaker 1>both in the East and the West includes the whole man.

468
00:26:21.839 --> 00:26:25.880
<v Speaker 1>It's not just a mental assent. It's also actually eating God,

469
00:26:25.960 --> 00:26:30.160
<v Speaker 1>it's actually partaking of it's bowing down, it's crossing yourself.

470
00:26:30.480 --> 00:26:34.680
<v Speaker 1>It's all of these actions that are including the physical

471
00:26:34.799 --> 00:26:39.119
<v Speaker 1>body just as much as the mind, and Romancalolics don't

472
00:26:39.119 --> 00:26:43.680
<v Speaker 1>even have this for Orthodox the heart. Keep in mind,

473
00:26:43.680 --> 00:26:46.640
<v Speaker 1>in the Roman Catholic system there is no noose or

474
00:26:46.759 --> 00:26:50.000
<v Speaker 1>heart doctrine. They don't believe that. They believe in the

475
00:26:50.039 --> 00:26:54.079
<v Speaker 1>Augustinian and Thomistic idea that its body and soul, and

476
00:26:54.160 --> 00:26:58.759
<v Speaker 1>for them, soul is essentially primarily identified with the intellect.

477
00:26:59.200 --> 00:27:03.559
<v Speaker 1>So for them's salivation is ultimately an intellectual vision of

478
00:27:03.599 --> 00:27:06.480
<v Speaker 1>the divine essence. This is known as the beatific vision.

479
00:27:06.960 --> 00:27:10.160
<v Speaker 1>This is why for them, when they talk about worship,

480
00:27:10.480 --> 00:27:14.200
<v Speaker 1>it's in that context of a mental assent to a

481
00:27:14.359 --> 00:27:18.559
<v Speaker 1>vision of God's essence. Ultimately, that's the highest form of worship.

482
00:27:18.960 --> 00:27:21.559
<v Speaker 1>For the Orthodox, that is not the highest form of worship.

483
00:27:21.839 --> 00:27:25.440
<v Speaker 1>We do agree that there is an intellectual faculty in man,

484
00:27:25.799 --> 00:27:28.680
<v Speaker 1>but we think that as Romans One says, man's heart,

485
00:27:29.720 --> 00:27:33.880
<v Speaker 1>as a result of the fall, is darkened, and the

486
00:27:33.920 --> 00:27:37.039
<v Speaker 1>heart is not identical to the intellect or the mind.

487
00:27:38.720 --> 00:27:41.039
<v Speaker 1>The heart is the innermost being, the spirit in man,

488
00:27:41.119 --> 00:27:43.839
<v Speaker 1>which is why Paul talks about body, soul, and spirit.

489
00:27:44.680 --> 00:27:47.920
<v Speaker 1>He lists three things. Roman Catholics they only believe it two.

490
00:27:48.359 --> 00:27:53.519
<v Speaker 1>So the whole man is deified. The whole man participates

491
00:27:53.559 --> 00:27:56.359
<v Speaker 1>in worship, which is why we taste and see that

492
00:27:56.400 --> 00:27:59.720
<v Speaker 1>the Lord is good, the fountain of immortality as we

493
00:27:59.759 --> 00:28:03.400
<v Speaker 1>see in the liturgy, and why the whole body is

494
00:28:03.440 --> 00:28:09.359
<v Speaker 1>involved in worship. Kissing, praying, kneeling, bowing. All of these

495
00:28:09.359 --> 00:28:13.880
<v Speaker 1>things go into the holistic element of man being involved

496
00:28:13.880 --> 00:28:17.519
<v Speaker 1>in worship, which is because the resurrection is not just

497
00:28:17.559 --> 00:28:22.319
<v Speaker 1>an intellectual resurrection. It's a resurrection of body and soul

498
00:28:22.480 --> 00:28:27.039
<v Speaker 1>and spirit coming back together after death. Thus, the body

499
00:28:27.200 --> 00:28:30.480
<v Speaker 1>plays a key role in the escaton and in the

500
00:28:30.519 --> 00:28:35.039
<v Speaker 1>resurrected state these people don't really realize that, because for them,

501
00:28:35.440 --> 00:28:40.039
<v Speaker 1>the eschatological state is an intellectual vision of the divine essence.

502
00:28:40.240 --> 00:28:42.640
<v Speaker 1>For the Orthodox, there's a new heavens and a new Earth,

503
00:28:43.440 --> 00:28:47.880
<v Speaker 1>and it's mirrored and patterned on the resurrected body that

504
00:28:47.920 --> 00:28:50.279
<v Speaker 1>you see at the end of the Gospel of John

505
00:28:50.480 --> 00:28:54.559
<v Speaker 1>that Jesus possesses. Jesus has a new body that walks

506
00:28:54.599 --> 00:28:57.720
<v Speaker 1>through walls, and that can appear and disappear, and yet

507
00:28:57.720 --> 00:29:00.480
<v Speaker 1>he can still eat and it still has physical reality,

508
00:29:00.880 --> 00:29:04.000
<v Speaker 1>even though it's deified flesh. According to Saint Cyril of Alexandria,

509
00:29:04.480 --> 00:29:07.000
<v Speaker 1>that's the deified flesh that we're eating in the Eucharist, which,

510
00:29:07.039 --> 00:29:09.759
<v Speaker 1>by the way, disproves the Roman Catholics in the debate

511
00:29:09.839 --> 00:29:12.720
<v Speaker 1>with Father Deacon Antonius, because they argue that you don't

512
00:29:12.720 --> 00:29:16.279
<v Speaker 1>actually taste and see God in the Eucharist, because they're

513
00:29:16.319 --> 00:29:20.160
<v Speaker 1>being consistent with their Toumistic theology that it's all created

514
00:29:20.240 --> 00:29:24.799
<v Speaker 1>causal effects and not the actual uncreated divinity that you're

515
00:29:24.839 --> 00:29:28.880
<v Speaker 1>participating in. I hope you see this, because this all

516
00:29:28.960 --> 00:29:32.400
<v Speaker 1>of this nonsense the last two weeks three weeks is

517
00:29:32.440 --> 00:29:36.799
<v Speaker 1>simply illustrating the vast differences between the Orthodox view and

518
00:29:36.880 --> 00:29:39.640
<v Speaker 1>these other pagan systems, and I will include Rome in

519
00:29:39.680 --> 00:29:44.079
<v Speaker 1>the pagan systems. It should be evident now and on

520
00:29:44.160 --> 00:29:47.359
<v Speaker 1>display for everyone all the things that I've been telling

521
00:29:47.400 --> 00:29:51.240
<v Speaker 1>you for the last ten years. The entire internet e

522
00:29:51.839 --> 00:29:56.279
<v Speaker 1>religious world is able to now see this that Rome

523
00:29:56.440 --> 00:30:02.200
<v Speaker 1>has a severely heretical and de efficient position on all

524
00:30:02.240 --> 00:30:03.079
<v Speaker 1>of these topics.

525
00:30:03.599 --> 00:30:06.880
<v Speaker 2>Is the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit deserve honor. Refusing

526
00:30:06.920 --> 00:30:09.720
<v Speaker 2>to honor each of these persons as God means a

527
00:30:09.759 --> 00:30:13.640
<v Speaker 2>nontrinitarian can't worship God. Critics also say that the Bible

528
00:30:13.680 --> 00:30:16.400
<v Speaker 2>teaches that whoever denies the Son does not have the Father,

529
00:30:16.839 --> 00:30:20.559
<v Speaker 2>and that Pagans offer worship to demons, not God. Therefore,

530
00:30:20.759 --> 00:30:24.599
<v Speaker 2>they say, Muslims cannot be worshiping God. But we have

531
00:30:24.680 --> 00:30:27.400
<v Speaker 2>to be careful about taking a few proof texts and

532
00:30:27.559 --> 00:30:31.200
<v Speaker 2>using that to answer a complicated question. Zeus and Thor

533
00:30:31.440 --> 00:30:33.440
<v Speaker 2>do not exist, and if they have any effect on

534
00:30:33.480 --> 00:30:36.119
<v Speaker 2>the world, that's just the work of demons. And John

535
00:30:36.200 --> 00:30:38.759
<v Speaker 2>says the Antichrist doesn't have the Father, but in the

536
00:30:38.759 --> 00:30:41.839
<v Speaker 2>same letter he also says he who loves is born

537
00:30:41.880 --> 00:30:43.000
<v Speaker 2>of God and know.

538
00:30:43.200 --> 00:30:47.720
<v Speaker 1>Yeah, but loving is still contingent in terms of being

539
00:30:47.839 --> 00:30:51.359
<v Speaker 1>in the covenant and having the love of God. So

540
00:30:51.559 --> 00:30:54.240
<v Speaker 1>just saying that anyone that loves is of God is

541
00:30:54.279 --> 00:30:56.720
<v Speaker 1>not the sense that John means it in One John.

542
00:30:56.759 --> 00:31:00.920
<v Speaker 1>He's not saying that anyone, even a say Satanists, who

543
00:31:01.000 --> 00:31:04.319
<v Speaker 1>loves their spouse or their husband is of God. That's

544
00:31:04.319 --> 00:31:05.119
<v Speaker 1>completely false.

545
00:31:05.279 --> 00:31:08.200
<v Speaker 2>Knows God. A person might not have God as a

546
00:31:08.240 --> 00:31:11.599
<v Speaker 2>covenantal father, but the Bible says non believers can have

547
00:31:11.759 --> 00:31:15.200
<v Speaker 2>God as the creator to whom they must give worship.

548
00:31:15.079 --> 00:31:17.480
<v Speaker 1>For the wrath of God is revealed against all on

549
00:31:17.599 --> 00:31:20.759
<v Speaker 1>goodness and unrusouness of men who suppressed the truth and unrightousness.

550
00:31:20.920 --> 00:31:24.240
<v Speaker 1>So notice that in the pagan world the truth is

551
00:31:24.279 --> 00:31:31.680
<v Speaker 1>not revealed, it is not acknowledged, it is suppressed. Why well,

552
00:31:31.720 --> 00:31:36.680
<v Speaker 1>it is manifest within them. Notice he's not talking about

553
00:31:36.720 --> 00:31:43.720
<v Speaker 1>external reasonings at this point, about syllogisms or Aristotle having

554
00:31:43.720 --> 00:31:47.319
<v Speaker 1>a really supreme high IQ intellect. And that's why he

555
00:31:47.400 --> 00:31:51.440
<v Speaker 1>got a lot further than the Amazon tribesmen did about

556
00:31:51.440 --> 00:31:55.119
<v Speaker 1>who God is. Right. It's nothing to do with syllogisms

557
00:31:55.160 --> 00:32:00.480
<v Speaker 1>and reasoning out in some Hellenic philosophic Plato aristotl sense.

558
00:32:00.960 --> 00:32:04.960
<v Speaker 1>It's about the universal world of idolatry, that all the

559
00:32:05.079 --> 00:32:08.519
<v Speaker 1>nations fell into after the fall except for the Covenant

560
00:32:08.559 --> 00:32:11.680
<v Speaker 1>people who maintained the true worship of God, the only

561
00:32:11.720 --> 00:32:15.680
<v Speaker 1>acceptable worship of God, by the way, and he says

562
00:32:15.720 --> 00:32:22.559
<v Speaker 1>that these people had a manifest witness to them in creation,

563
00:32:23.240 --> 00:32:25.599
<v Speaker 1>that they should have come to the conclusion that there

564
00:32:25.680 --> 00:32:28.880
<v Speaker 1>is only one true God, and that he lives and

565
00:32:28.920 --> 00:32:33.839
<v Speaker 1>exists and so forth. But did they come to that conclusion. No,

566
00:32:34.000 --> 00:32:37.000
<v Speaker 1>Paul says, they are without any excuse. According to the

567
00:32:37.039 --> 00:32:41.960
<v Speaker 1>Roman Catholics, they're all excused. Paul says, they're without excuse.

568
00:32:42.279 --> 00:32:45.759
<v Speaker 1>Roman Catholics say, well, but they didn't know God, but

569
00:32:46.000 --> 00:32:49.839
<v Speaker 1>they reason from creatures to a creator, so they are

570
00:32:50.119 --> 00:32:55.240
<v Speaker 1>given a free pass. Paul says, they're without excuse. Even

571
00:32:55.279 --> 00:32:59.200
<v Speaker 1>though they knew God, they did not honor him as God. Now,

572
00:32:59.319 --> 00:33:02.680
<v Speaker 1>I think there's different ways you could exeitute this passage.

573
00:33:02.799 --> 00:33:06.759
<v Speaker 1>Some people might exitute this as if Paul is talking

574
00:33:06.759 --> 00:33:11.039
<v Speaker 1>about any individual pagan at any point in their life.

575
00:33:12.400 --> 00:33:16.359
<v Speaker 1>I think Paul's talking about the original connection that man

576
00:33:16.440 --> 00:33:19.880
<v Speaker 1>had to God in Adam, and that all of Adam's

577
00:33:19.880 --> 00:33:23.559
<v Speaker 1>sons should have had to God had they been faithful.

578
00:33:23.880 --> 00:33:27.440
<v Speaker 1>But since they felt they are patterned and live after

579
00:33:27.519 --> 00:33:31.079
<v Speaker 1>their father Adam and not after Christ. And so what

580
00:33:31.160 --> 00:33:34.720
<v Speaker 1>happens then is that there's a sense in which back

581
00:33:34.759 --> 00:33:38.640
<v Speaker 1>to Adam, man knew God and had a relationship with God,

582
00:33:39.400 --> 00:33:44.720
<v Speaker 1>but the fall led to idolatry and universal pagan worship

583
00:33:44.799 --> 00:33:48.400
<v Speaker 1>of the demonic and anything other than God. And so

584
00:33:48.519 --> 00:33:52.000
<v Speaker 1>that's the sense in which at one time man knew God,

585
00:33:52.640 --> 00:33:56.839
<v Speaker 1>but we have all then fallen from that uh oh,

586
00:33:58.519 --> 00:34:02.119
<v Speaker 1>and have not glorified or worshiped or honored him as God. Now,

587
00:34:02.200 --> 00:34:09.840
<v Speaker 1>this right here refutes the Roman Catholic Vatican to excuse

588
00:34:09.960 --> 00:34:14.199
<v Speaker 1>and invisible invincible ignorance arguments, because they're trying to say, well,

589
00:34:14.239 --> 00:34:17.159
<v Speaker 1>in the case of Pagans, they're still worshiping God, they

590
00:34:17.239 --> 00:34:20.840
<v Speaker 1>still acknowledge a creator. But Paul is saying that even

591
00:34:20.840 --> 00:34:24.440
<v Speaker 1>if they acknowledge the proposition that there's a creator, they're

592
00:34:24.559 --> 00:34:29.239
<v Speaker 1>not worshiping and serving him in any way that God accepts.

593
00:34:29.559 --> 00:34:33.960
<v Speaker 1>I mentioned the word triad in passing, and Trent Horne

594
00:34:34.440 --> 00:34:40.480
<v Speaker 1>assumed as the original tweet shows that he thought this

595
00:34:40.559 --> 00:34:43.920
<v Speaker 1>meant something to do with arianism. I said that, you know,

596
00:34:43.960 --> 00:34:47.559
<v Speaker 1>in our debate, you were incorrect by misunderstanding the fact

597
00:34:47.599 --> 00:34:51.840
<v Speaker 1>that Abraham worshiped the Trinity. Trent thought this was mind blowing.

598
00:34:52.239 --> 00:34:55.800
<v Speaker 1>How no natural theology teaches me that they worshiped a

599
00:34:55.920 --> 00:34:58.519
<v Speaker 1>Unitarian God in the Old Testament. And then he says,

600
00:34:58.559 --> 00:35:01.519
<v Speaker 1>I asked if they knew that God, would trinity Jewish

601
00:35:01.599 --> 00:35:06.199
<v Speaker 1>multiplicity in the Godhead could be akin to proto arianism. No.

602
00:35:06.519 --> 00:35:09.440
<v Speaker 1>In fact, the very point of why would argue that

603
00:35:09.480 --> 00:35:12.039
<v Speaker 1>the Old Testament teaches the triad is to prove that

604
00:35:12.079 --> 00:35:15.559
<v Speaker 1>they were trinitarian Trent. So, as you can see, his

605
00:35:15.679 --> 00:35:20.639
<v Speaker 1>initial reply is quite literally a fundamental misunderstanding of the

606
00:35:20.679 --> 00:35:23.119
<v Speaker 1>basics that every Orthodox Christian knows by looking at the

607
00:35:23.199 --> 00:35:26.400
<v Speaker 1>ruble of Icon that the Old Testament saints worshiped the Triad.

608
00:35:26.760 --> 00:35:29.639
<v Speaker 1>And Trent says, you even had to use the word

609
00:35:29.679 --> 00:35:33.159
<v Speaker 1>triad to describe it, but you would say that modern

610
00:35:33.199 --> 00:35:36.519
<v Speaker 1>people that worship triad as in Jehovah's witnesses are not

611
00:35:36.599 --> 00:35:39.519
<v Speaker 1>worshiping the One True God. So notice that very clearly

612
00:35:39.840 --> 00:35:45.159
<v Speaker 1>Trent didn't even understand the very common terminology amongst the

613
00:35:45.199 --> 00:35:50.360
<v Speaker 1>Greek fathers, the Byzantine theologians, the very theologians who dogmatized

614
00:35:50.360 --> 00:35:55.199
<v Speaker 1>and solidified and explicated the Trinity Cappadocians, Saint Maximus, etc.

615
00:35:55.960 --> 00:36:01.079
<v Speaker 1>For Trent, he thinks this is somehow bound up with Arianism,

616
00:36:01.599 --> 00:36:06.119
<v Speaker 1>even though Trent attended, according to his own description, for

617
00:36:06.239 --> 00:36:09.079
<v Speaker 1>many years, or presumably for many years, the Eastern Right.

618
00:36:09.559 --> 00:36:12.639
<v Speaker 1>The Eastern Right hails Palamas as a saint, which actually

619
00:36:12.639 --> 00:36:14.760
<v Speaker 1>makes no sense given the fact that he was considered

620
00:36:14.760 --> 00:36:17.360
<v Speaker 1>a damnable heretic for many centuries, and to notice that

621
00:36:18.039 --> 00:36:20.679
<v Speaker 1>the most famous work that he has is called the Triads.

622
00:36:21.119 --> 00:36:24.440
<v Speaker 1>A simple search would tell you that amongst the Orthodox world,

623
00:36:25.000 --> 00:36:30.039
<v Speaker 1>Triad refers to Trinity. Does Trent simply say, oh, I misunderstood,

624
00:36:30.639 --> 00:36:35.440
<v Speaker 1>you're correct? No, He doubles down because it shows that

625
00:36:35.480 --> 00:36:39.360
<v Speaker 1>he's not even familiar with basic terminology in the very

626
00:36:39.440 --> 00:36:43.679
<v Speaker 1>Fathers that dogmatize the Trinity. Doubles down and says, no,

627
00:36:45.039 --> 00:36:48.760
<v Speaker 1>this is an Egyptian term. What the word can be

628
00:36:48.800 --> 00:36:52.159
<v Speaker 1>synonymous with Trinity, but it's more common as a grouping

629
00:36:52.199 --> 00:36:56.280
<v Speaker 1>of deities. Look at the nineteen ninety six Egyptology book

630
00:36:56.320 --> 00:36:59.840
<v Speaker 1>from John Griffith. Now the more common use is not

631
00:37:00.039 --> 00:37:03.320
<v Speaker 1>some of them from an obscure egyptologist Trent. The more

632
00:37:03.320 --> 00:37:06.599
<v Speaker 1>common use is what you should know from the Uniate world.

633
00:37:06.599 --> 00:37:09.719
<v Speaker 1>In the Orthodox world of triad and meaning trinity. This

634
00:37:09.880 --> 00:37:13.440
<v Speaker 1>is just silly. Now, Trent doubles down again and says

635
00:37:13.440 --> 00:37:17.079
<v Speaker 1>that Old Testament Jews did not worship the Trinity. He

636
00:37:17.119 --> 00:37:19.760
<v Speaker 1>says it right here, did the faithful Jews who live

637
00:37:19.840 --> 00:37:23.440
<v Speaker 1>before christ incarnation worship God? If they did, then they

638
00:37:23.480 --> 00:37:25.199
<v Speaker 1>must have worshiped the same God or the Trinity of

639
00:37:25.239 --> 00:37:28.079
<v Speaker 1>the Christians. Even though they didn't worship. Trent does not

640
00:37:28.239 --> 00:37:31.920
<v Speaker 1>believe that the Old Testament saints worship the triad, even

641
00:37:31.960 --> 00:37:36.280
<v Speaker 1>though Jesus and John five through nine says that they

642
00:37:36.320 --> 00:37:41.199
<v Speaker 1>worshiped the Father, his Angel, and his Spirit. So Trent

643
00:37:41.280 --> 00:37:44.880
<v Speaker 1>doesn't even know that the Old Testament teaches the triad. Now,

644
00:37:44.880 --> 00:37:48.639
<v Speaker 1>I pointed this out in at the time of the debate,

645
00:37:48.639 --> 00:37:51.920
<v Speaker 1>and after all we had our debate, and Trent and

646
00:37:52.039 --> 00:37:55.039
<v Speaker 1>other people tried to save face and tried to do

647
00:37:55.119 --> 00:37:59.360
<v Speaker 1>damage control. He says right here, literally a few seconds ago,

648
00:38:00.079 --> 00:38:02.559
<v Speaker 1>that they didn't believe in the Trinity. So do you

649
00:38:02.639 --> 00:38:07.320
<v Speaker 1>understand that Roman Catholics do not understand the Trinity? And

650
00:38:07.360 --> 00:38:10.559
<v Speaker 1>I don't mean in terms of an intellectual comprehension. They

651
00:38:10.639 --> 00:38:16.440
<v Speaker 1>fundamentally have ridiculous, stupid theology and in order to save

652
00:38:16.519 --> 00:38:20.320
<v Speaker 1>face and defend his natural theology. Alla Vaticant's no stratat

653
00:38:20.760 --> 00:38:24.880
<v Speaker 1>Trent is literally saying that they believed in a Unitarian God,

654
00:38:25.079 --> 00:38:28.320
<v Speaker 1>the very thing that I said was the problem in

655
00:38:28.360 --> 00:38:31.760
<v Speaker 1>the debate. Trent still thinks that the Old Testament people

656
00:38:32.000 --> 00:38:35.840
<v Speaker 1>believed in a Unitarian God and not the Triad. So

657
00:38:35.920 --> 00:38:38.960
<v Speaker 1>this refutes all of the Roman Catholic liars that sat

658
00:38:39.000 --> 00:38:42.000
<v Speaker 1>here saying that that's not what true means. Why do

659
00:38:42.199 --> 00:38:45.239
<v Speaker 1>Roman Catholics feel the need to lie and how could

660
00:38:45.280 --> 00:38:47.800
<v Speaker 1>you be this silly in your theology to be so

661
00:38:47.880 --> 00:38:51.039
<v Speaker 1>ignorant of the Old Testament? Again proving my point in

662
00:38:51.079 --> 00:38:54.280
<v Speaker 1>the debate that how would you argue against a Muslim?

663
00:38:54.679 --> 00:38:58.199
<v Speaker 1>Do you not understand that to debate any Muslim requires

664
00:38:58.599 --> 00:39:01.639
<v Speaker 1>going to the Old Testament to prove the Trinity. I

665
00:39:01.840 --> 00:39:05.840
<v Speaker 1>even showed a video that was my opening statement in

666
00:39:05.840 --> 00:39:07.559
<v Speaker 1>the day on Hookie getch you debate to Trent, which

667
00:39:07.559 --> 00:39:11.000
<v Speaker 1>apparently he hasn't watched because it refutes his stupid heresy

668
00:39:11.400 --> 00:39:14.719
<v Speaker 1>in Acts seventeen. In no way says that they worshiped

669
00:39:14.719 --> 00:39:16.760
<v Speaker 1>a Unitarian God. It's just like this guy is on

670
00:39:16.800 --> 00:39:20.480
<v Speaker 1>another planet and doesn't even understand what the debate is,

671
00:39:21.039 --> 00:39:23.880
<v Speaker 1>and now the libertarian says he can't hop on. Dude,

672
00:39:23.920 --> 00:39:25.800
<v Speaker 1>I sent you the link. There's no reason why you

673
00:39:25.800 --> 00:39:28.800
<v Speaker 1>can't hop on this debate. It's an open chat. You

674
00:39:28.880 --> 00:39:31.280
<v Speaker 1>wanted to debate. Now you're saying he can't get on here.

675
00:39:31.320 --> 00:39:33.559
<v Speaker 1>Give me a break. Here you are you hopped on here?

676
00:39:34.039 --> 00:39:37.559
<v Speaker 1>Now where's the actual video? I hope you guys understand

677
00:39:37.559 --> 00:39:41.360
<v Speaker 1>that this means that Roman Catholics don't have the basics

678
00:39:41.400 --> 00:39:44.039
<v Speaker 1>of the Trinity. I'm pretty sure that trinity is a

679
00:39:44.039 --> 00:39:47.400
<v Speaker 1>pretty important doctrine. And you just saw Trent say that

680
00:39:47.519 --> 00:39:50.880
<v Speaker 1>in the tweet that he just put up the very

681
00:39:50.920 --> 00:39:53.239
<v Speaker 1>thing that all of his defenders were saying he didn't mean.

682
00:39:54.119 --> 00:39:57.800
<v Speaker 1>He says it again. Now, let's remind ourselves of a

683
00:39:57.840 --> 00:40:02.159
<v Speaker 1>few moments of the debate with Daniel Hoikikachu, because it

684
00:40:02.199 --> 00:40:06.079
<v Speaker 1>turns out Trent and Daniel have the same god, the

685
00:40:06.360 --> 00:40:09.960
<v Speaker 1>Unitarian generic God of natural Theism. Now, I know that

686
00:40:09.960 --> 00:40:12.159
<v Speaker 1>Trent would confess to believe in the Trinity and the

687
00:40:12.159 --> 00:40:15.079
<v Speaker 1>deed of Christ, but he doesn't understand that he's got

688
00:40:15.079 --> 00:40:19.000
<v Speaker 1>two conflicting, contradictory positions in his worldview. And he doubled

689
00:40:19.039 --> 00:40:21.679
<v Speaker 1>and tripled down in the last hour on Twitter on

690
00:40:21.719 --> 00:40:25.440
<v Speaker 1>this so I repeat again, did the Old Testament saints

691
00:40:25.519 --> 00:40:28.239
<v Speaker 1>worship a generic Unitarian deity, the very thing that Trent

692
00:40:28.920 --> 00:40:31.760
<v Speaker 1>and Roman Catholicisms are taughte Entrent just now within the

693
00:40:31.800 --> 00:40:34.679
<v Speaker 1>last five minutes reaffirmed, Or do they worship the triad

694
00:40:34.719 --> 00:40:37.079
<v Speaker 1>as every Orthodox person knows. You're saying that this is

695
00:40:37.119 --> 00:40:41.039
<v Speaker 1>fundamental to us, and they're still wandering around, groping in

696
00:40:41.079 --> 00:40:44.960
<v Speaker 1>the dark like the Pagans of Acts seventeen, not understanding

697
00:40:45.239 --> 00:40:48.320
<v Speaker 1>that it's a triad in the very beginning, because their

698
00:40:48.400 --> 00:40:52.599
<v Speaker 1>theology is all jacked up and dumb. That's why. Because

699
00:40:52.599 --> 00:40:55.079
<v Speaker 1>they're in a giant machine that they have to make

700
00:40:55.119 --> 00:40:59.320
<v Speaker 1>all of these pieces work and make this giant algorithm

701
00:40:59.360 --> 00:41:03.320
<v Speaker 1>that's a giant contradictions fit together, and they don't. They

702
00:41:03.360 --> 00:41:06.159
<v Speaker 1>don't even know what recapitulation is. They don't even know

703
00:41:06.559 --> 00:41:11.960
<v Speaker 1>what monarchical trinitarianism is. If you've read Justin Martyr against

704
00:41:11.960 --> 00:41:16.159
<v Speaker 1>Tripho the Jew is Trent even aware that Justin Martyr

705
00:41:16.280 --> 00:41:19.639
<v Speaker 1>argues from the Old Testament Theophanies to prove the deedy

706
00:41:19.639 --> 00:41:23.480
<v Speaker 1>of Christ and his attempt at proving Triad It's like

707
00:41:23.559 --> 00:41:26.400
<v Speaker 1>Trent's never talked to a Muslim or never read these

708
00:41:26.440 --> 00:41:28.400
<v Speaker 1>church fathers. Oh but wait a minute, Trent didn't know

709
00:41:28.800 --> 00:41:31.639
<v Speaker 1>what the word triad meant. He thought it was a pagan,

710
00:41:31.679 --> 00:41:35.800
<v Speaker 1>anti Trinitarian term when it's constantly used in the Eastern

711
00:41:35.840 --> 00:41:39.360
<v Speaker 1>Church fathers. So now Trent is doubling down, as we said,

712
00:41:39.400 --> 00:41:43.079
<v Speaker 1>tripling down that the Old Testament saints did not worship

713
00:41:43.119 --> 00:41:47.039
<v Speaker 1>the Trinity. They worshiped a Unitarian God. Has he never

714
00:41:47.119 --> 00:41:49.920
<v Speaker 1>read John five through nine? Has he not read Second

715
00:41:49.920 --> 00:41:52.679
<v Speaker 1>Corinthians three, where Paul says that Moses looked face to

716
00:41:52.719 --> 00:41:56.440
<v Speaker 1>face with Jesus. If no man sees the Father at

717
00:41:56.519 --> 00:41:59.559
<v Speaker 1>any time, as Jesus argues in John to the Pharisees,

718
00:41:59.599 --> 00:42:03.840
<v Speaker 1>and then who was Moses talking to? This is the

719
00:42:03.840 --> 00:42:06.880
<v Speaker 1>point of Jesus' argument to the Pharisees. I don't think

720
00:42:06.960 --> 00:42:10.119
<v Speaker 1>Trent knows the Bible very well at all, and particularly

721
00:42:10.119 --> 00:42:13.360
<v Speaker 1>not the Old Testament at all. I think Trent knows

722
00:42:13.400 --> 00:42:17.719
<v Speaker 1>a lot of pop apologetics, because remember Trent was not

723
00:42:17.800 --> 00:42:21.119
<v Speaker 1>too long ago a Deist who converted to Roman Catholicism,

724
00:42:21.480 --> 00:42:22.760
<v Speaker 1>and so I don't think Trent knows the.

725
00:42:22.760 --> 00:42:27.239
<v Speaker 2>Trinity a Catholic teaching that has not been infallibly defined

726
00:42:27.599 --> 00:42:28.639
<v Speaker 2>could be in error.

727
00:42:29.119 --> 00:42:32.719
<v Speaker 1>Interesting, but you said a minute ago it was authoritative.

728
00:42:33.360 --> 00:42:36.639
<v Speaker 1>So even if it's not been infallibly defined. Trent earlier

729
00:42:36.719 --> 00:42:41.480
<v Speaker 1>said Leo's normative teaching is authoritative. What does that mean, Trent?

730
00:42:42.360 --> 00:42:47.760
<v Speaker 1>What is authoritative non infallible teaching? Does that mean you

731
00:42:47.760 --> 00:42:52.400
<v Speaker 1>can reject it? And Trent? What are the ex cathedral statements?

732
00:42:52.679 --> 00:42:55.480
<v Speaker 1>Where is the list of ex cathedral statements? And to

733
00:42:55.519 --> 00:43:00.800
<v Speaker 1>make this again a very devastating epistemological argument, if we have,

734
00:43:01.519 --> 00:43:04.679
<v Speaker 1>for the sake of argument, say ten ex cathedral statements,

735
00:43:06.199 --> 00:43:09.559
<v Speaker 1>I need to know where the list is that is

736
00:43:09.760 --> 00:43:13.719
<v Speaker 1>also ex cathedral because if the list of ex Cathedra

737
00:43:13.760 --> 00:43:17.639
<v Speaker 1>statements can be wrong, then you're in the same dilemma

738
00:43:17.800 --> 00:43:21.639
<v Speaker 1>as the Protestant on the canon question. You make the

739
00:43:21.679 --> 00:43:25.679
<v Speaker 1>same argument epistemically to Protestants about knowing the canon of Scripture.

740
00:43:26.360 --> 00:43:30.840
<v Speaker 1>Apply that same argument to your claim about knowing the

741
00:43:30.880 --> 00:43:35.880
<v Speaker 1>ex cathedrals statements. Where is the infallible decree of the

742
00:43:35.920 --> 00:43:40.559
<v Speaker 1>infallible list of ex cathedra statements you just reputed yourself.

743
00:43:40.639 --> 00:43:43.880
<v Speaker 2>But they are not all infallible because the Catholic code

744
00:43:43.920 --> 00:43:48.000
<v Speaker 2>of canon law says, no doctrine is understood is defined

745
00:43:48.039 --> 00:43:52.039
<v Speaker 2>infallibly unless this is manifestly evident.

746
00:43:55.639 --> 00:43:58.639
<v Speaker 1>So his answer is, the things that are infallible are

747
00:43:58.639 --> 00:44:01.480
<v Speaker 1>the ones that are manifestly of You can't make this up.

748
00:44:02.039 --> 00:44:05.320
<v Speaker 1>This is the stupidest most This is T Jump level.

749
00:44:05.880 --> 00:44:09.119
<v Speaker 1>He's literally T Jump reality is reality. The ones that

750
00:44:09.119 --> 00:44:11.840
<v Speaker 1>are infallible are the ones that are manifestly evident as infallible.

751
00:44:15.320 --> 00:44:19.440
<v Speaker 1>This should end this whole retarded system and Trent Horn's career.

752
00:44:19.559 --> 00:44:23.800
<v Speaker 1>This is so stupid, And imagine Trent Horn saying the

753
00:44:23.840 --> 00:44:30.159
<v Speaker 1>same thing as t Jump. Let's replay that, because this

754
00:44:30.360 --> 00:44:33.159
<v Speaker 1>was better than I hope this was, Like, this is

755
00:44:33.199 --> 00:44:37.519
<v Speaker 1>funnier than I expected. Let's go back. Trent Horn's epistemic

756
00:44:37.559 --> 00:44:40.960
<v Speaker 1>criteria is to go to by the way, canon law,

757
00:44:42.119 --> 00:44:46.760
<v Speaker 1>Trent is canon law infallible. Most Roman Catholics would argue

758
00:44:46.760 --> 00:44:50.519
<v Speaker 1>that canon law is not infallible. So wait a minute.

759
00:44:51.199 --> 00:44:54.960
<v Speaker 1>The thing that Trent goes to to know the canon

760
00:44:55.280 --> 00:45:00.320
<v Speaker 1>what's infallible is itself fallible. You can't make this on.

761
00:45:00.880 --> 00:45:04.639
<v Speaker 1>This is what you get when you don't know basic

762
00:45:04.719 --> 00:45:07.960
<v Speaker 1>epistemic questions and basic epistemology. Do you remember in the

763
00:45:07.960 --> 00:45:10.599
<v Speaker 1>debate with Trent, I said, Trent, tell me the things

764
00:45:10.599 --> 00:45:16.440
<v Speaker 1>that are self evident. He said, descartes cogito. What dude,

765
00:45:16.480 --> 00:45:21.559
<v Speaker 1>that's been savage by philosophers for centuries. It's laughable. And

766
00:45:21.599 --> 00:45:24.320
<v Speaker 1>that's what every person who takes in epistemology one on

767
00:45:24.360 --> 00:45:26.920
<v Speaker 1>one class. That's like the first thing they think.

768
00:45:27.159 --> 00:45:31.840
<v Speaker 4>Dude, like descartes cogito. Man, It's like I, I look,

769
00:45:31.960 --> 00:45:35.559
<v Speaker 4>I exist or whatever. Right, It's like, I think therefore

770
00:45:35.559 --> 00:45:40.519
<v Speaker 4>I am uh so that's why it's self opened or whatever, right.

771
00:45:40.679 --> 00:45:42.880
<v Speaker 1>And then the professor in your first class or first

772
00:45:42.960 --> 00:45:49.760
<v Speaker 1>day of epistemology shreds that because it's stupid. That's literally

773
00:45:49.760 --> 00:45:53.519
<v Speaker 1>what Trent argued in the debate with me. To show

774
00:45:53.559 --> 00:45:58.639
<v Speaker 1>what's self evident, descartes cogitoe, What are you serious, dude?

775
00:45:58.719 --> 00:46:02.400
<v Speaker 1>Is so easy to it's not even self evident. First

776
00:46:02.440 --> 00:46:06.199
<v Speaker 1>of all, it relies on time determination. Has Descartes proven

777
00:46:06.280 --> 00:46:11.440
<v Speaker 1>time yet? No? It relies on language and words having meaning.

778
00:46:11.880 --> 00:46:13.760
<v Speaker 1>It relies on the existence of a self, which has

779
00:46:13.800 --> 00:46:17.320
<v Speaker 1>not been proven yet. It relies on the existence of

780
00:46:17.440 --> 00:46:23.480
<v Speaker 1>logical inferences. Has Descartes proven logical inferences yet? Okay, so

781
00:46:23.599 --> 00:46:25.840
<v Speaker 1>if it relies on all these other things to be

782
00:46:25.920 --> 00:46:28.800
<v Speaker 1>the case, to say, the sentence of the Cogito, then

783
00:46:28.840 --> 00:46:32.079
<v Speaker 1>it's not self evident. Anything that relies on another thing

784
00:46:32.280 --> 00:46:42.679
<v Speaker 1>Trent isn't self evident. Look up the criterion problem. But again,

785
00:46:43.079 --> 00:46:48.800
<v Speaker 1>I cannot believe that this goober, in order to show

786
00:46:49.639 --> 00:46:54.760
<v Speaker 1>what things are ex Cathedra, actually goes to a thing

787
00:46:54.840 --> 00:46:58.320
<v Speaker 1>that Roman Catholics say is not infallible. Now, maybe there's

788
00:46:58.320 --> 00:47:00.280
<v Speaker 1>a Roman Catholic trid who will argue that ken law

789
00:47:00.320 --> 00:47:04.039
<v Speaker 1>is infallible. Uh, I've not seen that. Maybe they do.

790
00:47:04.800 --> 00:47:07.599
<v Speaker 1>It's similar to their approach to the Catechism, the Catechism

791
00:47:07.639 --> 00:47:10.559
<v Speaker 1>of the Calogy Church. It's authoritative, it's normative. But I

792
00:47:10.599 --> 00:47:13.440
<v Speaker 1>don't think most Roman Catholics would argue that everything in

793
00:47:13.480 --> 00:47:17.639
<v Speaker 1>the Catechism is infallible. There would be differences of levels

794
00:47:17.679 --> 00:47:22.159
<v Speaker 1>and whatnot. Okay, fine, so is canon law infallible? Most

795
00:47:22.280 --> 00:47:25.239
<v Speaker 1>Roman Catholics would say, probably not, because it's changeable and

796
00:47:25.280 --> 00:47:27.880
<v Speaker 1>it can, you know, move around, and it deals with

797
00:47:27.880 --> 00:47:31.639
<v Speaker 1>a lot of practical stuff that's not eternal, divine revelation,

798
00:47:31.760 --> 00:47:36.199
<v Speaker 1>divine law. Right, Okay, So if it's fallible and changeable

799
00:47:36.239 --> 00:47:39.760
<v Speaker 1>and mutable, then how are you going to the thing

800
00:47:40.400 --> 00:47:44.679
<v Speaker 1>that is changeable and fallible to tell me where I

801
00:47:44.679 --> 00:47:49.880
<v Speaker 1>identify the infallible. This is so simple. This is epismology

802
00:47:49.960 --> 00:47:50.199
<v Speaker 1>one O.

803
00:47:50.320 --> 00:47:55.840
<v Speaker 2>One says, no doctrine is understood, is defined infallibly, unless

804
00:47:55.880 --> 00:47:59.639
<v Speaker 2>this is manifestly evident. That's why I said Jay's complaint

805
00:47:59.679 --> 00:48:03.559
<v Speaker 2>about the Second Vatican Council saying Muslims worship God does

806
00:48:03.639 --> 00:48:07.440
<v Speaker 2>not disprove Catholicism as a whole, because even if that

807
00:48:07.599 --> 00:48:11.239
<v Speaker 2>teaching were false, it's not an infallible definition.

808
00:48:11.960 --> 00:48:15.760
<v Speaker 1>H No, even if it's not infallible, you are still

809
00:48:15.840 --> 00:48:20.880
<v Speaker 1>bound Trent by what we saw here to the normative

810
00:48:20.920 --> 00:48:23.760
<v Speaker 1>teaching of the papacy, and all of the documents of

811
00:48:23.800 --> 00:48:27.079
<v Speaker 1>Vatican two are normative and binding. So that means you

812
00:48:27.119 --> 00:48:30.719
<v Speaker 1>are now bound by the Roman see to error. That's

813
00:48:30.760 --> 00:48:37.599
<v Speaker 1>the point. You don't get to reject more telling no state,

814
00:48:40.719 --> 00:48:45.039
<v Speaker 1>because as we see here five places in Denzinger that

815
00:48:45.199 --> 00:48:48.000
<v Speaker 1>say that you have to support all of the normative

816
00:48:48.079 --> 00:48:52.440
<v Speaker 1>ordinary teachings, even if it's not infallible. You are still

817
00:48:52.440 --> 00:48:55.480
<v Speaker 1>bound by religious submission of intellect and will to the

818
00:48:55.599 --> 00:49:01.760
<v Speaker 1>ordinary teaching. That's Canon seven fifty two.

819
00:49:03.360 --> 00:49:06.960
<v Speaker 2>Or a dogma that cannot possibly be false. And in

820
00:49:07.000 --> 00:49:11.960
<v Speaker 2>some cases Jay complains about statements from the Vatican that aren't.

821
00:49:12.079 --> 00:49:16.280
<v Speaker 1>That like, as if we can't say the Vatican, I mean,

822
00:49:16.320 --> 00:49:19.480
<v Speaker 1>does he not realize that the Vatican is not merely

823
00:49:20.400 --> 00:49:23.960
<v Speaker 1>the papacy but also the Roman College. When the Roman

824
00:49:24.039 --> 00:49:28.239
<v Speaker 1>College makes decisions, for example, the election of a pope,

825
00:49:28.480 --> 00:49:31.199
<v Speaker 1>does the pope decide who the pope is? No, the

826
00:49:31.400 --> 00:49:35.119
<v Speaker 1>Roman College decides the pope. So yeah, it's correct to

827
00:49:35.199 --> 00:49:36.639
<v Speaker 1>talk about the Vatican.

828
00:49:36.719 --> 00:49:40.119
<v Speaker 2>Trent aren't even church teachings at all.

829
00:49:40.239 --> 00:49:44.639
<v Speaker 1>The actual Vatican source that loft Dog mc Lofdog pulled

830
00:49:44.719 --> 00:49:50.039
<v Speaker 1>up which refutes what Trent says. The Holy Spirit the guys,

831
00:49:50.079 --> 00:49:52.800
<v Speaker 1>the Church is at work in the religions. The universal

832
00:49:52.880 --> 00:49:56.119
<v Speaker 1>presence of the Spirit cannot be compared to the presence

833
00:49:56.159 --> 00:50:00.480
<v Speaker 1>in the Church. Although one cannot exclude the it's alf

834
00:50:00.840 --> 00:50:04.920
<v Speaker 1>value of the false religions. This is the nineteen ninety

835
00:50:04.920 --> 00:50:11.440
<v Speaker 1>seven Vatican document clarifying what you see in Vatican two.

836
00:50:12.440 --> 00:50:17.679
<v Speaker 1>So notice they don't explain things the paup apologist because

837
00:50:17.679 --> 00:50:20.639
<v Speaker 1>they have some idea that this is absurd and obviously

838
00:50:20.679 --> 00:50:24.159
<v Speaker 1>a contradiction. They don't explain things the way their Vatican does.

839
00:50:24.320 --> 00:50:28.519
<v Speaker 2>The Catholic Church often permits theological opinions without.

840
00:50:28.519 --> 00:50:35.800
<v Speaker 1>Oh but Trent, the theological commissions just got approved by

841
00:50:35.840 --> 00:50:41.840
<v Speaker 1>the Pope, so they reflect Leo's mind. We just saw

842
00:50:41.880 --> 00:50:46.719
<v Speaker 1>that with the Theological Commission on the Eastern Churches. So

843
00:50:46.920 --> 00:50:50.119
<v Speaker 1>you understand, this is so great that Leo, Leo is

844
00:50:50.199 --> 00:50:54.840
<v Speaker 1>now going to be the great apologist like Francis because

845
00:50:54.880 --> 00:50:58.559
<v Speaker 1>they were able to handwave they tried to handwave for

846
00:50:58.639 --> 00:51:03.320
<v Speaker 1>the last several years and Alexandria by saying that it's

847
00:51:03.360 --> 00:51:07.320
<v Speaker 1>just a theological commission, it's not approved by Rome. Oh

848
00:51:07.360 --> 00:51:11.719
<v Speaker 1>but now turns out Leo has expressed his approval of

849
00:51:11.800 --> 00:51:15.840
<v Speaker 1>Kiati and Alexandria and that it expresses and fulfills his

850
00:51:15.920 --> 00:51:21.280
<v Speaker 1>desire and his mind. So notice when I go to

851
00:51:21.320 --> 00:51:25.320
<v Speaker 1>the same documents that Loten uses against Trent and Tim Gordon,

852
00:51:26.320 --> 00:51:29.480
<v Speaker 1>that document that Trent was talking about, the Theological Commission

853
00:51:29.599 --> 00:51:33.480
<v Speaker 1>is approved by the Vatican, and then Trent says it's

854
00:51:33.559 --> 00:51:37.199
<v Speaker 1>just a theological commission document, it's not binding. Oh but

855
00:51:37.239 --> 00:51:42.280
<v Speaker 1>wait a minute, Leo has now approved the Theological Commission.

856
00:51:42.320 --> 00:51:47.199
<v Speaker 1>It reflects his mind right here. It doesn't matter it's

857
00:51:47.199 --> 00:51:49.440
<v Speaker 1>not binding anymore. I don't have to follow it, I

858
00:51:49.480 --> 00:51:53.000
<v Speaker 1>can reject it. How do you know what? What did

859
00:51:53.000 --> 00:51:55.159
<v Speaker 1>he say at the beginning of his video? He said,

860
00:51:55.239 --> 00:52:00.400
<v Speaker 1>Leo's teachings, even if they're not infallible, can be authoritative.

861
00:52:01.519 --> 00:52:03.719
<v Speaker 1>Watch Trent contradict himself right here. Watch this.

862
00:52:05.920 --> 00:52:09.599
<v Speaker 2>As they don't falsify Orthodoxy, but Catholicism teaches that the

863
00:52:09.639 --> 00:52:13.440
<v Speaker 2>Pope only acts with the charism of infallibility on very

864
00:52:13.559 --> 00:52:16.679
<v Speaker 2>rare occasions. Most of the time when he teaches, he

865
00:52:16.760 --> 00:52:19.800
<v Speaker 2>teaches authoritatively but not infallibly.

866
00:52:20.639 --> 00:52:23.760
<v Speaker 1>What does that mean, then, Trent, that it's authoritative but

867
00:52:23.840 --> 00:52:26.159
<v Speaker 1>not infallible. Are you bound by it? Are you bound

868
00:52:26.239 --> 00:52:31.719
<v Speaker 1>by the Apostolic journey letter that you should joyously embrace

869
00:52:31.880 --> 00:52:37.880
<v Speaker 1>what Kiati and Alexandria say. Are you now supporting Leo

870
00:52:38.199 --> 00:52:45.280
<v Speaker 1>in dropping the philioque just the recitation, not the theology.

871
00:52:45.360 --> 00:52:48.599
<v Speaker 1>Do you not see how arbitrary and ridiculous this system is?

872
00:52:48.679 --> 00:52:54.639
<v Speaker 1>This is the most talmudic ridiculous. Like it's like rabbis

873
00:52:55.239 --> 00:52:58.840
<v Speaker 1>writing documents to refute documents, to make documents work with

874
00:52:58.880 --> 00:53:01.519
<v Speaker 1>other refutations of docum to then refute and make the

875
00:53:01.519 --> 00:53:05.679
<v Speaker 1>document where it's just crazy level insanity. And that's why

876
00:53:05.719 --> 00:53:11.320
<v Speaker 1>it only appeals to SuDS and I don't know people

877
00:53:11.360 --> 00:53:15.079
<v Speaker 1>with you, Froze, I don't know, Like who finds this appealing?

878
00:53:15.239 --> 00:53:19.280
<v Speaker 1>What in this system do you get? Trent? What are

879
00:53:19.280 --> 00:53:24.480
<v Speaker 1>you getting out of this other than your paycheck? I

880
00:53:24.480 --> 00:53:27.599
<v Speaker 1>think Trent is also mad because I asked him if

881
00:53:27.679 --> 00:53:31.320
<v Speaker 1>because people were alleging that Trent took money to promote

882
00:53:31.360 --> 00:53:34.800
<v Speaker 1>stabbies during KOUF. I asked Trent, was that the case?

883
00:53:34.920 --> 00:53:38.719
<v Speaker 1>Trent said no, But I think that might have been

884
00:53:38.960 --> 00:53:42.039
<v Speaker 1>what prompted this angry Trent video here.

885
00:53:42.679 --> 00:53:46.320
<v Speaker 2>So so if the pope were to instead, it publishes

886
00:53:46.440 --> 00:53:50.000
<v Speaker 2>permitted opinions that have gained a consensus among members of

887
00:53:50.000 --> 00:53:51.519
<v Speaker 2>the MAGISTI yeah.

888
00:53:51.360 --> 00:53:56.960
<v Speaker 1>But Trent now, Leo affirms Kat and Alexandria and.

889
00:53:56.920 --> 00:53:59.360
<v Speaker 2>The document JA Sites is not an error on the

890
00:53:59.400 --> 00:54:03.519
<v Speaker 2>point J raises, because it says salvation quote is not

891
00:54:03.679 --> 00:54:06.760
<v Speaker 2>produced independently of Christ in his church.

892
00:54:07.679 --> 00:54:10.679
<v Speaker 1>Yeah. The problem is that it says that salvation occurs

893
00:54:11.159 --> 00:54:12.559
<v Speaker 1>through the false religions.

894
00:54:12.920 --> 00:54:17.119
<v Speaker 2>It also does not outright say other religions have Salvavic value.

895
00:54:17.280 --> 00:54:20.440
<v Speaker 1>It does it says that salvation can occur by Christ

896
00:54:20.519 --> 00:54:21.920
<v Speaker 1>saving them through Islam.

897
00:54:22.320 --> 00:54:25.360
<v Speaker 2>It discusses the question of whether we can say, non

898
00:54:25.440 --> 00:54:29.440
<v Speaker 2>Christian religions that predispose people to truth have Salvavic value.

899
00:54:29.719 --> 00:54:33.239
<v Speaker 2>This is why the document talks about, quote, the possibility

900
00:54:33.519 --> 00:54:35.519
<v Speaker 2>of the existence of Salvavic elements.

901
00:54:35.760 --> 00:54:40.960
<v Speaker 1>And so look at those ridiculous kazustri just word games. Well,

902
00:54:41.039 --> 00:54:42.960
<v Speaker 1>it doesn't actually say that they can be saved in

903
00:54:42.960 --> 00:54:45.519
<v Speaker 1>those religions. That discuss the possibility of them being saved

904
00:54:45.559 --> 00:54:45.920
<v Speaker 1>to those.

905
00:54:45.800 --> 00:54:49.360
<v Speaker 2>Religions as whether the religions as such can have Salvavic

906
00:54:49.480 --> 00:54:51.760
<v Speaker 2>value is a point that remains open.

907
00:54:51.920 --> 00:54:54.360
<v Speaker 1>Oh, it says that it is possible.

908
00:54:54.639 --> 00:54:56.719
<v Speaker 2>So that document doesn't say what Jay claims.

909
00:54:56.719 --> 00:55:00.320
<v Speaker 1>It says. That's why Lofton is actually correct here saying

910
00:55:00.320 --> 00:55:03.960
<v Speaker 1>that the Roman Catholics, with all the clarity between themselves

911
00:55:04.000 --> 00:55:10.000
<v Speaker 1>and they're apop apologist, refute one another every single day.

912
00:55:10.039 --> 00:55:14.119
<v Speaker 1>What the papal teaching is on castid CANUBII and marital

913
00:55:14.159 --> 00:55:17.840
<v Speaker 1>relations is abundantly clear because of the papacy, right, Tim Gordon.

914
00:55:18.159 --> 00:55:22.039
<v Speaker 1>But then the top Catholic apologists are calling themselves male

915
00:55:22.119 --> 00:55:25.400
<v Speaker 1>feminists because they say Tim Gordon is wrong. Well, I

916
00:55:25.400 --> 00:55:27.440
<v Speaker 1>thought it's clear. So if we're gonna make the argument

917
00:55:27.480 --> 00:55:32.599
<v Speaker 1>that the papacy provides clarity. How come the top apologists

918
00:55:32.679 --> 00:55:38.679
<v Speaker 1>completely disagree over fundamental questions about salvific roles of false religions.

919
00:55:39.199 --> 00:55:42.960
<v Speaker 1>You can't even get that right now. I'm not saying

920
00:55:43.039 --> 00:55:48.039
<v Speaker 1>that itself is a defeater of the system. That's just

921
00:55:48.119 --> 00:55:53.840
<v Speaker 1>an observation, an anecdotal observation of the absurdity of the

922
00:55:53.880 --> 00:55:58.639
<v Speaker 1>claim that the papacy provides unity, clarity, and moral guidance.

923
00:55:59.639 --> 00:56:02.119
<v Speaker 1>Where the unity and clarity and moral guidance on a

924
00:56:02.239 --> 00:56:04.920
<v Speaker 1>basic issue of whether or not I can be saved

925
00:56:04.920 --> 00:56:08.519
<v Speaker 1>in Hinduism or not? You and Lofton and Tim Gordon

926
00:56:08.599 --> 00:56:09.519
<v Speaker 1>can't even tell me that.

927
00:56:12.800 --> 00:56:15.079
<v Speaker 2>And it isn't even an official teaching of the church.

928
00:56:16.320 --> 00:56:19.800
<v Speaker 1>What's the official teaching Trent? Where's the list?

929
00:56:21.000 --> 00:56:24.039
<v Speaker 2>In that respect, it would be like many documents proposed

930
00:56:24.039 --> 00:56:27.840
<v Speaker 2>by orthodox theologians that Jay or other online apologists might

931
00:56:27.880 --> 00:56:32.400
<v Speaker 2>disagree with but don't disprove orthodoxy. Now, Jay is correct

932
00:56:32.440 --> 00:56:36.400
<v Speaker 2>that Catholics must submit even to the non infallible teachings

933
00:56:36.400 --> 00:56:36.559
<v Speaker 2>of the.

934
00:56:36.599 --> 00:56:38.960
<v Speaker 1>Church, oh really.

935
00:56:39.280 --> 00:56:42.360
<v Speaker 2>Including the teachings of the Second Vatican Council. But since

936
00:56:42.400 --> 00:56:46.559
<v Speaker 2>those teachings are not infallible, that means in rare cases

937
00:56:47.000 --> 00:56:51.320
<v Speaker 2>a Catholic could privately, not publicly, but privately fail to

938
00:56:51.400 --> 00:56:52.559
<v Speaker 2>accept these teachings.

939
00:56:52.880 --> 00:56:56.400
<v Speaker 1>If notice the level of like how they're saving the system.

940
00:56:56.559 --> 00:57:01.599
<v Speaker 1>Now when Vatican two teaches obvious contradictions and heresies, just

941
00:57:01.760 --> 00:57:05.039
<v Speaker 1>privately keep that to yourself because you have to submit

942
00:57:05.079 --> 00:57:08.280
<v Speaker 1>to the pope Canond seven fifty two. So I mean,

943
00:57:09.679 --> 00:57:13.400
<v Speaker 1>I think you get what you deserve. So the people

944
00:57:13.440 --> 00:57:16.800
<v Speaker 1>that want to follow this, the forty thousand idiots that

945
00:57:16.840 --> 00:57:20.400
<v Speaker 1>are over here supporting this and loving this, like you this,

946
00:57:20.719 --> 00:57:24.679
<v Speaker 1>you get what you deserve. You want a giant organized

947
00:57:24.719 --> 00:57:30.960
<v Speaker 1>crime syndicate Operation Gladio thing running your life and ruining

948
00:57:30.960 --> 00:57:33.960
<v Speaker 1>your life, and you want to take your kids to

949
00:57:34.039 --> 00:57:38.079
<v Speaker 1>be around these creeps. You deserve what you get.

950
00:57:38.039 --> 00:57:41.079
<v Speaker 2>If they have a proportionate, serious reason for doing so,

951
00:57:41.519 --> 00:57:44.199
<v Speaker 2>and such an act would not constitute the grave sin

952
00:57:44.280 --> 00:57:44.880
<v Speaker 2>of heresy.

953
00:57:45.400 --> 00:57:49.599
<v Speaker 1>Oh really, so private theologian random dude Trent Horn, who

954
00:57:49.639 --> 00:57:52.679
<v Speaker 1>was a Unitarian not too many years ago now is

955
00:57:52.679 --> 00:57:57.039
<v Speaker 1>an expert in canon law and identifying when it's magisterial

956
00:57:57.320 --> 00:58:00.719
<v Speaker 1>how what's what was Trent's I gotta go back to

957
00:58:00.760 --> 00:58:02.679
<v Speaker 1>this because this was the best thing in the whole thing,

958
00:58:04.360 --> 00:58:07.559
<v Speaker 1>the best thing in the whole discussion.

959
00:58:10.719 --> 00:58:14.840
<v Speaker 2>All doctrines would be infallible, but they are not all infallible,

960
00:58:15.039 --> 00:58:19.039
<v Speaker 2>because the Catholic Code of Canon Law says, no doctrine

961
00:58:19.079 --> 00:58:23.840
<v Speaker 2>is understood is defined infallibly unless this is manifestly evident.

962
00:58:24.719 --> 00:58:29.119
<v Speaker 1>This is the greatest reaffirmation of a circle that I've

963
00:58:29.199 --> 00:58:33.199
<v Speaker 1>ever seen. Could you imagine something being more stupidly circular

964
00:58:33.239 --> 00:58:35.679
<v Speaker 1>than this? Now you say, wait a minute, Jaye, don't

965
00:58:35.679 --> 00:58:40.119
<v Speaker 1>you argue that at base all arguments are self referencing

966
00:58:40.159 --> 00:58:45.599
<v Speaker 1>and self recursive. Yes, that's why I'm a presubpositionalist. That's

967
00:58:45.599 --> 00:58:48.079
<v Speaker 1>why I believe in trance in all argumentation. That's why

968
00:58:48.119 --> 00:58:51.800
<v Speaker 1>I don't believe in Trent's classical foundationalism. But do you

969
00:58:51.840 --> 00:58:55.400
<v Speaker 1>notice what Trent is doing here? The papal epistemology is

970
00:58:55.440 --> 00:58:59.760
<v Speaker 1>forcing him to commit a vicious circle, which he said

971
00:58:59.760 --> 00:59:03.320
<v Speaker 1>in our or debate should be rejected. All vicious circularity

972
00:59:03.360 --> 00:59:07.719
<v Speaker 1>is rejected according to Trent Horne. Oh really, Trent, how

973
00:59:07.800 --> 00:59:10.920
<v Speaker 1>do I know what's ex cathedral? It's the ones that

974
00:59:10.960 --> 00:59:12.800
<v Speaker 1>are manifestly evident as ex cathedral