Speaker 1: Well, just like the tech issues that we recently had
Speaker 1: where our entire systems shorted. Sorry about that. Sometimes confusion
Speaker 1: comes into our lives. We often don't understand the reason
Speaker 1: why we live. We don't as to the purpose of
Speaker 1: our existence, and we're trying to find out exactly what
Speaker 1: it is we're supposed to be doing here. Now, many
Speaker 1: Americans have decided that, you know, the way that we
Speaker 1: find out who God is and what our purpose is
Speaker 1: is through Christianity. But when you approach Christianity, it's not
Speaker 1: as simple as you think. Sometimes you look around you
Speaker 1: as Protestants, there's in there, there's Evangelicals, there's the mainline denominations.
Speaker 1: Then you go out and then there's Orthodox, there's Catholic.
Speaker 1: But if you notice today with the gay flags in
Speaker 1: front of churches and the pastrixes, the female pastors, and
Speaker 1: the weird ideology, a lot of young people are finding
Speaker 1: out that the modern church perhaps may not be the
Speaker 1: best version of Christ's Holy Church. In fact, maybe just
Speaker 1: maybe the people of the past knew a little more
Speaker 1: than we did. When looking back in history myself, I
Speaker 1: found there's two churches. There's the Catholic Church, we'll call
Speaker 1: it in General and the Orthodox Church. They both claim
Speaker 1: to be the true church. One follows the papacy, it
Speaker 1: looks like the other one doesn't. And yet at the
Speaker 1: same time, when you ask either of them, really, where
Speaker 1: should I go to church? They'll say, well, most of
Speaker 1: them you should go to Catholic, but you know you
Speaker 1: can go to Orthodox if it has an Orthodox to
Speaker 1: say you can, but Catholic, but you should go to Orthodox.
Speaker 2: So why do we have both? Then? Which one is true?
Speaker 1: Which one is the way to be a part of
Speaker 1: Christ's eternal body, to be a part of the living,
Speaker 1: breathing unit of Christ. Joining me today to discuss the
Speaker 1: true Church, whether it's Orthodox or Catholicism. We are talking
Speaker 1: to experts in their field. Jaydyer. He's a podcast host,
Speaker 1: author of many books, an avid reader. Jay Dyer, welcome
Speaker 1: back to the show. Let us know who you are.
Speaker 1: For those that are just joining for the first time.
Speaker 1: You want to explain a little bit about what it
Speaker 1: means to be an Orthodox or what that even you
Speaker 1: know defines itself as in a little bit about where
Speaker 1: people can find your podcast.
Speaker 3: Yeah, Jay Dyer, I have been Orthodox since about twenty seventeen,
Speaker 3: and prior to that was Roman Catholic from many years,
Speaker 3: pretty dedicated Latin mass go or was raised Protestant in
Speaker 3: the Reformed Baptist and Reform tradition. And yeah, I would
Speaker 3: say that what Orthodox Christianity is is we believe it
Speaker 3: is the Church of the first millennium, still preserved and
Speaker 3: still holding to those synodal traditions that are essentially found
Speaker 3: within any of the canonical Orthodox churches throughout the world.
Speaker 3: So we think it is the church that Christ established.
Speaker 3: We think that it doesn't change. There might be political
Speaker 3: geopolitical issues that happened, but the fundamental constitution and beliefs
Speaker 3: of the Church do not change. And so we take
Speaker 3: truth to be the most important category over things like
Speaker 3: numbers and things like that. And me personally, you can
Speaker 3: find me at Jays Analysis dot com and a fourth
Speaker 3: hour host of the Alex Jones Show for the last
Speaker 3: five or six years, and I write for the Sam
Speaker 3: Hid Show.
Speaker 1: Yeah, jack of all trades and also an incredible guy
Speaker 1: behind the scenes. He's the real deal, by the way.
Speaker 1: And joining me to represent Catholicism, we'll find out a
Speaker 1: lot about it. Timothy Gordon's also podcast host, pretty influential
Speaker 1: in this field and all around.
Speaker 2: I'd say, you consider yourself a theologian. Correct? Awesome, you
Speaker 2: hear me? Yeah, there we go for a second. All right,
Speaker 2: I'm a tomistic philosopher, trained trained graduate philosophy, but but
Speaker 2: I taught theology for many, many years. And yeah, the
Speaker 2: Roman Catholic Church is the center piece of of what
Speaker 2: I do. Uh, physics, metaphysics, ethics, politics, That's what my
Speaker 2: podcast is on. Rules for Introgrades is the name, and
Speaker 2: I try to clarify. I try to clarify the issues
Speaker 2: because the Catholic Church receives so much attention. There's so
Speaker 2: much mis and disinformation out there. A lot of it's
Speaker 2: genuinely confusing to people, and it's a big tent. We
Speaker 2: have orthodoxy that always has to be separated from the
Speaker 2: chaef of heterodoxy, and there's been some confusion. Some of
Speaker 2: it is legitimate confusion, and some of it is confusion
Speaker 2: that has been stoked by media and opponents of the church.
Speaker 2: But a lot of it's been legitimate in the last
Speaker 2: sixty years. So I try to be a voice of clarity,
Speaker 2: a lay voice of clarity, and that's what I do
Speaker 2: on my podcast, The Rules for Introgrades. Timothy Gordon awesome.
Speaker 1: We'll be talking a little bit about their podcast later
Speaker 1: on and the rules in just a few moments. My
Speaker 1: name's Elijah Schaeffer and it's approximately seven forty five pm
Speaker 1: Eastern time in the United States. We are usually live
Speaker 1: right now Monday, Wednesday, Friday at seven pm Eastern time.
Speaker 1: We usually don't have our production booth blow up in
Speaker 1: the middle of things. But if you want to know this,
Speaker 1: we can do what we should always do and we'll
Speaker 1: just blame the Jews. Now, I'm totally kid, that's not
Speaker 1: what we're going to do. Thank you guys for joining me.
Speaker 1: Are going to be reading the super chats periodically throughout,
Speaker 1: so you send them in. I see Rachel Wilson's in
Speaker 1: there for twenty dollars saying to you guys, much love
Speaker 1: to Tim and Jay, much love to Alive for hosting.
Speaker 2: America will become Orthodox, America will become holy? Will it?
Speaker 2: I go about that and so much more.
Speaker 1: Here another episode of The Riff Live right now, Let's
Speaker 1: start the show.
Speaker 2: Welcome back to the Rift. You can find us at
Speaker 2: riftv dot com.
Speaker 1: New articles every single day on culture, politics, and religion.
Speaker 1: Also us a litt announcement for your joining us for
Speaker 1: the first time. This is a new network, it just
Speaker 1: launched a few weeks ago, and this is one of
Speaker 1: our shows, so we're hammering out some of the details.
Speaker 1: We have a couple of new shows launching, including Joel Webbin,
Speaker 1: who is a Protestant that is coming on and doing
Speaker 1: a new show for our network. We're very excited about that. Plus,
Speaker 1: Sarah Stock has a new channel. If you don't know,
Speaker 1: it's Sarah Stock on YouTube. She's also launching a new program.
Speaker 1: And we also have a new White House show with
Speaker 1: the Gateway Pun and Jordan Conradson. We're launching on September fifteenth,
Speaker 1: So God is good. We got our security clearances for
Speaker 1: the White House and we're very happy to be here anyway.
Speaker 1: Joining us today are my guests Timothy Gordon and Jay Dyer.
Speaker 1: They're both infamous, i should say, in their own right,
Speaker 1: and have both come on the show previously to discuss
Speaker 1: what it means to be Orthodox, what it means to
Speaker 1: be a Catholic, and so if you want to watch
Speaker 1: those episodes, you can go back. You can type in
Speaker 1: their names and you can find them. They're very, very
Speaker 1: very good, very developed individuals and thinkers. Let's go in
Speaker 1: and let's talk about what we're gonna be doing. So
Speaker 1: we're gonna be mainly talk covering three topics today. One
Speaker 1: topic is going to be whether Christ did or did
Speaker 1: not establish a visible head of church. We're talking about
Speaker 1: apostolic succession in its own way, what really defines the church?
Speaker 1: You know, the Orthodox and Catholic disagree on that. Plus
Speaker 1: topic two, we're gonna be talking about the Holy Spirit
Speaker 1: does or does not hypostatically proceed from the Sun, So
Speaker 1: we're gonna kind of talk about the Trinity, talk about.
Speaker 2: What's going on there.
Speaker 1: This is a very interesting topic, especially for me background
Speaker 1: and Protestantism. And number three, we're talking about the Divine
Speaker 1: essence is or is not absolutely simple and for the
Speaker 1: affirmative position not composed of any parts or potencies. Now,
Speaker 1: in the middle of these topics will have a normal
Speaker 1: struct Sure, there will be an opening statement, there will
Speaker 1: be a rebuttal, there will be a cross examination and
Speaker 1: a closing.
Speaker 2: It's a very formal debate.
Speaker 1: So if you're not familiar with that style on this channel,
Speaker 1: we're trying it for the first time today. Because these
Speaker 1: are academics, they are not retarded like myself. But in
Speaker 1: the middle of these topics, we will have a little
Speaker 1: bit of a break, so these will be a little
Speaker 1: bit lengthy might want to take out notes, and we
Speaker 1: will also be asking a few other questions more relevant
Speaker 1: to the culture and topics and what their responses are
Speaker 1: as the Catholic and the Orthodox church. All right, Jay,
Speaker 1: we'll start with you with your opening statement. Our topic
Speaker 1: number one that we are discussing whether Christ did or
Speaker 1: did not establish a visible head of church. We're talking
Speaker 1: I believe the correct phrase apostolic succession.
Speaker 2: I know you guys believe in the I know you
Speaker 2: guys believe in in uh they believe in in the
Speaker 2: in the papacy, right, and you don't correct?
Speaker 3: We agreed on divine divine simplicity or act as purists?
Speaker 2: First? Okay, out here a right that I have.
Speaker 1: I have the opposite on my on my, on my,
Speaker 1: Let's go to that. So you said, uh, we'll start
Speaker 1: with the we have as topic three, but we'll we'll
Speaker 1: go to that one second.
Speaker 2: Or you have one second or third? Which one the
Speaker 2: visible head of church? It's all over here, so I
Speaker 2: just have this one. All right, let's go.
Speaker 1: Let's go to topic we'll change topic three the topic
Speaker 1: one here. Let's all the divine essence is or is
Speaker 1: not absolutely simple. Go ahead your opening statement, right.
Speaker 3: So, if I look at scholastic dictionaries from Roman Catholic texts,
Speaker 3: we see that for God or for philosopher, Scholastic philosophy
Speaker 3: in general, pure act is defined as simple for perfection
Speaker 3: without any imperfection. It is free from any potency in
Speaker 3: the strictest sense. It is therefore unqualified perfection of existence,
Speaker 3: without any passive or limited potency. And this is from
Speaker 3: the dictionary Scholastic Philosophy. Aquitta says something very similar, and
Speaker 3: as does Etenial Sown the student rehive me the one
Speaker 3: of the premier tomas of the last century. In defining
Speaker 3: who God is, there is this beginning point that comes
Speaker 3: from Hellenic metaph physics. We would not, as Orthodox, necessarily
Speaker 3: agree with every you disagree with every usage of the
Speaker 3: word your act. But what we would say is that
Speaker 3: when I look at that definition and I compare it
Speaker 3: to the teaching of say same Maximus the Confessor in
Speaker 3: his famous two inter chapters, he begins to work by
Speaker 3: saying that God is not in himself as in as
Speaker 3: far as it is possible for us to know any
Speaker 3: kind of first principle. Nor is he in an intermediate state,
Speaker 3: nor is he in an end, nor is he any other concept.
Speaker 3: For he is indefinite, immobile, and infinite, since he is
Speaker 3: infinitely beyond any substance, any potentiality, and any actuality. So
Speaker 3: notice there he is not pure act in himself. He
Speaker 3: is not actuality in himself. He goes on to say
Speaker 3: in section four, God is not therefore a potentiality, nor
Speaker 3: is he a first principle, nor is he an actuality, nor.
Speaker 2: Is he a first cause.
Speaker 3: And he's citing from Aristoitilian categories and definitions.
Speaker 2: There he goes on to say, though, that in another sense,
Speaker 2: we can.
Speaker 3: Call God these things. And the reason for this is
Speaker 3: that for Orthodoxeology there's two very crucial key distinctions, or
Speaker 3: a name, the ways that we that we name God
Speaker 3: that are distinct. We name God first in terms of
Speaker 3: the intraternitarian life, or God in himself, and in that
Speaker 3: way we do not positively predicate of the divine essence.
Speaker 3: So even though tim will agree with me that there
Speaker 3: is a via negativa, Orthodoxeology has a different conception of
Speaker 3: what apathetic theology is so when we speak of the
Speaker 3: divine essence, we do not speak of it as identical
Speaker 3: to anything much less identical to pure act, first act act.
Speaker 2: As purists, et cetera.
Speaker 3: The divine essence is unknowable, imparticipable, unapproachable, and it is therefore,
Speaker 3: strictly speaking apathetic.
Speaker 2: How do we know God? Then?
Speaker 3: If God is apapatic in this sense, well he's not
Speaker 3: only essence. God is also person and the Saint John
Speaker 3: Damascus says multiple times in on the Orthodox Faith, the
Speaker 3: key to all heresies is to confuse the distinction between
Speaker 3: nature and person. The Orthodox Church, that distinction is as
Speaker 3: quote real or as strong as the distinction between the
Speaker 3: persons themselves. So while in Tim's philosophy he would agree
Speaker 3: agree that the Father and the Son are really distinct,
Speaker 3: that real distinction is somehow not applicable to anything else
Speaker 3: in the triad, be it God's attributes, operations, or the
Speaker 3: distinction between nature and person itself, which is conceived of
Speaker 3: as only mental or volitional intmistic philosophy. And I would
Speaker 3: argue that in Roman Catholic theology that holds as well,
Speaker 3: because the fourth latter in council accepts the Peter Lombard
Speaker 3: definition of what simplicity is known as identity thesis. This
Speaker 3: is denzing or four thirty two that person and essence
Speaker 3: are essentially identical, but they're only mentally or rationally distinct.
Speaker 3: Thus God is his essence. So notice for them, God
Speaker 3: is first and foremost essence. But the Orthodox position is
Speaker 3: very different. And Maximus goes on to describe the way
Speaker 3: that we do speak of God in positive catavatic categories,
Speaker 3: and that is because the energies are positive and known
Speaker 3: to us. Those energies are his operations.
Speaker 2: Where does this come from?
Speaker 3: Is this something that the medieval Byzantines made up? They
Speaker 3: just came up with this idea that energies are these
Speaker 3: things that God has that are other than him, and
Speaker 3: they are these other deities, these polytheistic parts of God.
Speaker 3: Absolutely not. In fact, we would argue that the only
Speaker 3: way to have divine simplicity consistently is to adhere to
Speaker 3: the divine simplicity of God. Yes, but also that his
Speaker 3: operations are really there and really different from him. How
Speaker 3: do I know that? The Coppadition's made a plastic analogy
Speaker 3: for how this is the case by looking at the
Speaker 3: difference between a man is nature and the work of
Speaker 3: nature and the product of nature. Allow me to quote
Speaker 3: Saint John Damascus briefly here for that specific distinction. John
Speaker 3: Damascus says that observe that energy, capacity of energy, and
Speaker 3: product of energy and the agent of the energy are
Speaker 3: all different. Or the Orthodox Church we call these things
Speaker 3: the difference between nature, person will, essence and operation or
Speaker 3: energy and the effect of that energy. Energy is the
Speaker 3: efficient and essential activity of the nature. So notice that's
Speaker 3: the first statement from John Damascus. The same statement is
Speaker 3: made by Saint Gregory. Excuse me, Saint Maximus in his
Speaker 3: at the Lassios sixty three he says that God's supernatural
Speaker 3: energy is the identical energy that the Father of the
Speaker 3: Son and the Spirit possess. That also the saints are
Speaker 3: deified by Saint Gregora Nissa says, and against Unumias two,
Speaker 3: the common nature is identified by common energy. Saint Grege
Speaker 3: Nissa says again, the essential invisible God becomes visible by
Speaker 3: his energies. He is not visible in his essence, but
Speaker 3: in some of his operations, And to quote Saint Cyril
Speaker 3: of Alexandria, things with the same energy are acknowledged to
Speaker 3: be of the same essence. So energy proceeds from essence
Speaker 3: and is the proper signifier in work or operation of
Speaker 3: that nature or essence. Now, natures don't operate. Eight persons
Speaker 3: with nature's operate. And this is why for John Damascus
Speaker 3: in Book three, section fifteen, there are two wills, two energies,
Speaker 3: but one divine hypostasis working in and through those two wills,
Speaker 3: and those two energies now to shift out of the
Speaker 3: philosophical definitions and statements that we have. And I would
Speaker 3: add that definition, by the way, is accepted at the
Speaker 3: six Ecumenical Council, where the Confession of Saint Sophronius, pulling
Speaker 3: from the explicit teachings of Saint Maximus the Confessor on
Speaker 3: essence and energy, two wills, two operations, and by the way,
Speaker 3: many energies, to cite John Damascus in book one, that
Speaker 3: is accepted at the six Ecumenical Council as the teaching's
Speaker 3: crystological definition. Again it's called the Confession of Saint Sophronius.
Speaker 3: You can find the Oxford text available on Amazon. Thus,
Speaker 3: even in the patristic teaching of the Roman Catholic Church,
Speaker 3: three minutes from the early few centuries achieved from the
Speaker 3: early seventh centuries. In six eighty six to Me sixt
Speaker 3: eighty one, at the six Secumenical Council, we have the
Speaker 3: affirmation of the teaching of Saint Sophronius and Saint Maximus
Speaker 3: that John of Damascus encapsulates in his later text of
Speaker 3: on the Orthodox Face, reflecting on the essence synergy sanction,
Speaker 3: which is seen most clearly in Believe it or not,
Speaker 3: not triadic speculations, but in Christology. In other words, it
Speaker 3: is the uncreated energies that Saint Ceerl says, deify us
Speaker 3: in this life through feeding.
Speaker 2: On the flesh.
Speaker 3: I'm going to be interested to hear how a person
Speaker 3: who believes in the real presence, that is the body
Speaker 3: bloatsole in divinity, president of Christ in the Eucharist, as
Speaker 3: the Roe Mecallity Church claims to confess how this is
Speaker 3: possible given that in the Orthodox conception, it's only possible
Speaker 3: given that the uncreated energies, as Saint Ceerl says in
Speaker 3: the two Letters to exth Census, deify the flesh and
Speaker 3: thus make it the thing that we participate in to
Speaker 3: be deified. He says in the two Letters to Sixtensus
Speaker 3: and this is reflected and then teaching the Council of Ephesis,
Speaker 3: by the way in the anathemas, that we do not
Speaker 3: eat the flesh and blood of some man, but the
Speaker 3: deified flesh of the God Man, made divine, not by
Speaker 3: the divine essence, but by his uncreated energy and immortality.
Speaker 2: So Saint Cyril of Alexandria.
Speaker 3: The fourth act, the third Actumenical Council of Ephesis is
Speaker 3: pretty explicit when we get into the actual teachings of
Speaker 3: how we participate in divine life. On the other hand,
Speaker 3: in the Roman Catholic Church, if I read from the
Speaker 3: teaching of Ludwig ott Louis, God says that them the
Speaker 3: grace that we receive in the Roman Catholic Church and
Speaker 3: theirs and their and their belief sanctifying grace is a created,
Speaker 3: supernatural gift, really distinct from God. In other words, the
Speaker 3: very thing that you are participating in, which by the way,
Speaker 3: point number one says is a creation. Point number five says,
Speaker 3: is a participation in the divine nature. I'm pretty sure
Speaker 3: the divine nature isn't a creature. So I don't know
Speaker 3: how we participate in God. If the thing that we're
Speaker 3: participating in is a quote quote created gift really different
Speaker 3: from God again quotes from a famous Roman Catholic agmatic manual. Lastly,
Speaker 3: I would say that there are a couple more examples
Speaker 3: that I think are very difficult for people who deny
Speaker 3: this distinction, particularly when it comes to what are called Theophanes.
Speaker 3: The often these are manifestations of God in the Old Testament.
Speaker 3: I'll give you a few that I think are really problematic.
Speaker 3: How much time to have one? You can have it,
Speaker 3: you can have. Got a couple more.
Speaker 2: I got a couple more examples, and then I'll be done. So.
Speaker 2: In number twelve we read that the Lord said to Moses, Aaron,
Speaker 2: and Miriam, come you three to the tabernacle of meeting.
Speaker 2: And they came out. The Lord came down in the
Speaker 2: pillar and in the cloud, and he stood in the
Speaker 2: door of the tabernacle and called out to Aaron and Miriam.
Speaker 3: Now noticed that we have this day authentic manifestation in
Speaker 3: the Old Testament where God comes down and specifically said
Speaker 3: to stand there. When we go back to the situation
Speaker 3: in Genesis. In Genesis thirty one, we read that the
Speaker 3: Angel of the Lord, who identifies himself as the I
Speaker 3: am the God who appeared to you at Bethel is
Speaker 3: there talking to Jacob. And that same I Am that
Speaker 3: appears in time and space is also talking to Jacob
Speaker 3: and calls himself the form of God. This is out
Speaker 3: of the subtuision text. The form of God was seen
Speaker 3: by Jacob. And then we have another statement that it
Speaker 3: is the Im that he wrestles with, because Jesus at
Speaker 3: the end of John one says that he is.
Speaker 2: The gate the doorway.
Speaker 3: To have the ladder of Jacob and the angels descending
Speaker 3: and descending on the Son of Man signifies and shows
Speaker 3: that he was the one wrestling with Jacob. Jacob wrestled
Speaker 3: with an actual form or being in time and space
Speaker 3: that manifested in an energetic manifestation, as the Church has
Speaker 3: always taught. But after Tomism and after the Middle Ages,
Speaker 3: the Roman Cacolic Church moved away from this and decided
Speaker 3: and said that these manifestations are rather created images, holograms, angels,
Speaker 3: et cetera, whatever imagery you want to use, they're not
Speaker 3: the uncreated energies of God in time and space. Why well,
Speaker 3: because of divine simplicity, it's not possible for God to
Speaker 3: be present in time and space in these ways, because
Speaker 3: God would then undergo change. But I want to remind
Speaker 3: them as I close in this point, that this theoteny
Speaker 3: argument is actually the basis and the predication, the presupposition
Speaker 3: for the doctrine of the incarnation. It is not the
Speaker 3: divine Essence that became incarnate. It is this second person who,
Speaker 3: according to Philippians too willfully limited himself to step into
Speaker 3: time and space in a mode of being that the
Speaker 3: Father and the Son did not enter into. So the
Speaker 3: reductionist act as purest position will undercut not just the
Speaker 3: ofphanies and the real manifestations of the glory of God
Speaker 3: in time and space.
Speaker 2: The Leviticus nine says.
Speaker 3: This is the glory of God that appeared God's glories
Speaker 3: under creature John seventeen. Thus this refutes the Roman Catholic
Speaker 3: simplicity position.
Speaker 2: And just to clarify, so thank you for that.
Speaker 1: Since you guys do have a bit of a rigid structure,
Speaker 1: do you prefer to do an opening statement and then
Speaker 1: do rebuttals after?
Speaker 2: Do you want to rebuttle him and then do an
Speaker 2: opening statement, I'll do. I'll do opening statement. Okay, let's
Speaker 2: go ahead. And so representing the Catholic side.
Speaker 1: If you're just joining the stream, shout out as well
Speaker 1: to in the chat crucible, Andrews said, it's a one
Speaker 1: hundred dollars super chat. We're not going to do weird
Speaker 1: sound effects for this, will keep it very very serious
Speaker 1: to the point. But it also said thank you Andrew
Speaker 1: for that. He said, Andrew Wilson here, thank you very
Speaker 1: much for hosting this. And Andrew's Orthodox correct, I think correct.
Speaker 1: So that's cool that you're tuning. I appreciated. I's all
Speaker 1: your wife there too. So go ahead, Timothy your opening statement,
Speaker 1: you have a ten minutes, give or take. Since he
Speaker 1: took an extra two minutes, will give you two if
Speaker 1: you need it. You have twelve minutes on the clock.
Speaker 2: Go ahead. Pure act is the basic expression of God's perfection,
Speaker 2: all powerfulness, his essayity. That means He's self subsisting, his necessity,
Speaker 2: his eternality, his simplicity. So God as pure act according
Speaker 2: to classical theism Western definitions of God, which has included
Speaker 2: broadly speaking, it's even included a lot of Orthodox thinkers
Speaker 2: Eastern thinkers over the last two thousand years. It is
Speaker 2: the most basic expression of who and what God is.
Speaker 2: So when you think pure act, because this is the
Speaker 2: term of pure metaphysics, think pure being. By pure being
Speaker 2: we mean being without any becoming or potency mixed in.
Speaker 2: There are no non actualized potencies that are mixed in
Speaker 2: with the person of who God is now. Just so
Speaker 2: we are clear, Jay told me the last time we
Speaker 2: debated that mistaking a single aspect of God's reality means,
Speaker 2: in the context of Islam, worshiping a false God rather
Speaker 2: than worshiping the true God. Arrently, I would say, I
Speaker 2: hope for all of our sakes, Jay's sakes here too,
Speaker 2: because he's a friend and he's a good guy, that
Speaker 2: this isn't true. Because mistaking God as being a composite
Speaker 2: of act with passive potency is the most fundamental mistake
Speaker 2: you can make as to who God is. Passive potency
Speaker 2: means something else can change you. And we have to
Speaker 2: talk about passive potency today. The fact that Jay has
Speaker 2: asserted on multiple occasions that something else can change God
Speaker 2: through this term passive potency. So there's some basics of
Speaker 2: classical theism. One God cannot change. This is in Malachi
Speaker 2: three six. It's reflected in James one seventeen. God can't change.
Speaker 2: This is a basic pillar of classical theism. God cannot
Speaker 2: be affected by anything else. It's reflected in Acts seventeen
Speaker 2: twenty four to twenty five. Thirdly, God cannot fail to
Speaker 2: be what he is. The principle of necessity only applies
Speaker 2: to him in this sense that he is utterly perfect,
Speaker 2: and he cannot be anything other than what he is.
Speaker 2: This is reflected in Matthew five, verse forty eight. Now,
Speaker 2: if God were not pure act, and by this we
Speaker 2: just mean pure being, there are so many equivocations that
Speaker 2: are going to be made here on terms I just
Speaker 2: mean pure being, Thomas, and the Aristotelian lexicon that he's
Speaker 2: working out of just means pure being with no becoming possible.
Speaker 2: The basic definition between a creator and a creature is
Speaker 2: there's only one creator. He's got to be pure being
Speaker 2: itself outside the categories of time and space. Anything inside
Speaker 2: the categories of time and space has to be a mixture,
Speaker 2: a composite of act and potency, form and matter, substance
Speaker 2: and accidents. There are seven modes of composition, and anything
Speaker 2: inside the categories that was created by God has to
Speaker 2: be a creature who is a composite of these things.
Speaker 2: But God has to be immutable, meaning he cannot change.
Speaker 2: He cannot change because he's outside the categories. He must
Speaker 2: be eternal. Nicia actually anathematizes anyone who says that he's
Speaker 2: anything other than the eternal, meaning there's no change in God,
Speaker 2: meaning God cannot exist prior to X and after X.
Speaker 2: That would that would earn one the anathematizations of Nicea.
Speaker 2: He can't be composite. And if if God were mixed
Speaker 2: in the way that Jay is saying, act with potency
Speaker 2: in any manner, he would be composite. I mean there's
Speaker 2: a composer behind God, because one would have to be
Speaker 2: composed of their parts by some posterior principle, and that
Speaker 2: composer itself would be God, not God. So he has
Speaker 2: This is why he has to be simple. Passive potency
Speaker 2: means that that something else can change God. This always
Speaker 2: implies temporality, so God would not be perfect. This is
Speaker 2: a complete and total rejection of all classical theism. That
Speaker 2: doesn't make it good or bad. I'm just stating it
Speaker 2: from the outset that that classical theism requires God to
Speaker 2: be pure act for him to even obtain all the
Speaker 2: properties that we're talking about. Now. What Jay will say
Speaker 2: is that God transcends logical category. If God truly transcended
Speaker 2: logical categories for one thing, this would require that we
Speaker 2: predicate being unifically, and for a Roman Catholic, we never
Speaker 2: predicate being unifically. We always predicate being analogically. So that's
Speaker 2: not true. Because we predicate being analogically, we can actually
Speaker 2: talk about God in one way and one way only.
Speaker 2: That's what the analogy is. But if it were true
Speaker 2: that we predicated God unifically and and he transcends logical categories,
Speaker 2: then there would be no debates. We wouldn't be able
Speaker 2: to do what we're doing right now, wouldn't be able
Speaker 2: to identify God, name God. There'd be no dogma, no councils,
Speaker 2: no scripture, anything that's important to Catholics or Orthodox. So
Speaker 2: there's an absolute equivocation on this idea of analogical versus
Speaker 2: unifical predication of being. Now that because there are so
Speaker 2: many different terms between the East and the West, I
Speaker 2: will say this, there is unintentional equivocation, meaning good faith
Speaker 2: equivocation between the Eastern thinkers and the Western thinkers on
Speaker 2: what pure act is and what it requires, but in
Speaker 2: some sense, in the sense of meaning being pure being
Speaker 2: without becoming. We have affirmations of one sense or another
Speaker 2: of pure being by even Eastern thinkers like Gregory of Nissa,
Speaker 2: Maximus the Confessor, Athanaceous, John Damascene, even Gregory Palamus, though
Speaker 2: he puts forward a kind of alternative theory, the heartline
Speaker 2: distinction between God's essence and energies, and more recently scholars
Speaker 2: like doctor Bradshaw admits that God must be pure act.
Speaker 2: Now I'll just run through a few of these, and
Speaker 2: against Eunomias two, we have Gregory of Nissa saying, except
Speaker 2: for the divine essence, nothing is uncreated, meaning the divine
Speaker 2: essence alone is uncreated. This is good because for God
Speaker 2: to be God, for there to be a real distinction
Speaker 2: outside of the Uziah of God would be to posit
Speaker 2: a second God. Gregory of Nissa also says, and again
Speaker 2: he's operating on an Eastern equivocal definition, so I'm not
Speaker 2: saying that he means exactly what Thomas means, but he
Speaker 2: means the important part of it, that God is pure being,
Speaker 2: and that if he were any bit of potency passive potence,
Speaker 2: he would have to be inside the ten categories of existence.
Speaker 2: He says, the untouched and formless God is free from
Speaker 2: all composition and likewise the only begotten. So this proves
Speaker 2: a couple important things at once. That because God is
Speaker 2: the untouched and formless God, free from all composition, that
Speaker 2: means any of the seven modes of composition, most importantly potency.
Speaker 2: Same thing with the Sun. That's Gregory of Nissa. Maximus
Speaker 2: the Confessor says God is the active and inexhaustible state
Speaker 2: of all actualization. The important aspect of what he's saying
Speaker 2: is that he is being. God is pure being, without becoming,
Speaker 2: no becoming, mixed in, no potency. Maximus also says, for
Speaker 2: it is not natural to contemplate any change in God.
Speaker 2: Of course, this has been anathematized right at the beginning
Speaker 2: at Nicea to say that there's any change in God,
Speaker 2: in whom we cannot conceive of any movement whatsoever. So
Speaker 2: there can be no admixture of change in God. And
Speaker 2: again this is basically obvious to everyone. Uh Saint Athanasius
Speaker 2: says God is holy what he is, he means, no potency,
Speaker 2: no division. I'm just demonstrating here that there are Eastern
Speaker 2: thinkers who are operating out of the basic existential fact
Speaker 2: of God as pure act Just think John of Damascus
Speaker 2: says God is uncreated, immutable, and not composed. So composing
Speaker 2: doesn't just mean act potency. It means any of the
Speaker 2: other six modes of UH possibly composing God. Now we
Speaker 2: can reduce this to a syllogism to prove it, since
Speaker 2: we're debating. After all, this comes out of Theologia one
Speaker 2: nine one basic. First premise, whatever has passive potency can
Speaker 2: be changed or moved from potentiality to actuality by something else.
Speaker 2: By definition, this is what passive potency is. Second premise
Speaker 2: is God can't be changed because we all agree on
Speaker 2: that premise, and the conclusion is therefore God has no
Speaker 2: passive potency. It's important to note for logic nerds that
Speaker 2: this can be propositionalized. You can use symbolic logic to
Speaker 2: prove that this is true. I won't go through the
Speaker 2: symbolic logic, but it's important that people know this ought
Speaker 2: to be sacricynct for any of us. Whatever has passive
Speaker 2: potency can be changed or moved by another. We don't
Speaker 2: agree that that can be done with God. Since God
Speaker 2: can't be changed it's been anathematized at NICEA. We have
Speaker 2: to say God has no passive potency, and Jay has
Speaker 2: said otherwise multiple times recently in the last year eight months.
Speaker 2: So there's a simple way of explaining this to people
Speaker 2: the analogy of an automobile, since we're using all these
Speaker 2: terms composition, pure act, potency, whatnot. Composed of parts is
Speaker 2: how automobiles and all things operate. Think of your car,
Speaker 2: a drive shaft, the wheels, the windows, the chassis, whatever.
Speaker 2: They are dependent on an external assembler. A composite is
Speaker 2: ontologically posterior to its parts. If God had parts to
Speaker 2: you depend on a composer, a God behind the God.
Speaker 2: This is not a mere logical category. This is a fact.
Speaker 2: This is an existential fact. It contradicts his assayeity, meaning
Speaker 2: he is self subsistent, and his necessity to say otherwise. Now,
Speaker 2: where you know, Jay, I think is equivocating or misunderstanding
Speaker 2: Tomism is on several of the terms. They're just real
Speaker 2: terminological differences that I think of good faith are eluding.
Speaker 2: Now he will confuse platonism, neoplatonism, and aristotomism. These are
Speaker 2: three separate systems that disagree radically, and they have informed
Speaker 2: Christianity at different parts, But the Catholic Church is informed
Speaker 2: by aristotomism, which I said predicates being analogically, which goes
Speaker 2: right to the heart of what we're going to be
Speaker 2: debating with Palamus later. We don't use Platonism, which predicates
Speaker 2: being unifically. I know the sounds absolutely insane, The terms
Speaker 2: are are bizarre, but it's really really important because for
Speaker 2: us to even be able to speak about God, we
Speaker 2: have to predicate being analogically. That means we have to
Speaker 2: be in aristotomist mode. Jay has said before he thinks
Speaker 2: that Aristotle and Thomas made being a genus. They explicitly
Speaker 2: reject this in Platonism. So the Tomistic predication is never nivical.
Speaker 2: Being is never a genus. This goes right to the
Speaker 2: heart because of these equivocations. There are some basic terminological difficulties,
Speaker 2: confusions equivocations on that he makes on essence versus nature.
Speaker 2: These are very technical in matter, very much energies versus accidents,
Speaker 2: act versus operations, Like pure act doesn't mean God is
Speaker 2: pure action. It means God is pure being. And this
Speaker 2: confuses the matter, and I think that might literally be
Speaker 2: all that we're debating at the end of the day,
Speaker 2: because God is pure being and even Eastern thinkers accept it.
Speaker 2: Passive versus active potency, and relations of opposition versus contrariety,
Speaker 2: all of these together mean that necessarily think Jay is
Speaker 2: intending to say that God is not pure being without
Speaker 2: any becoming. We have to get to the heart of
Speaker 2: the matter, all right, and at a time on that.
Speaker 1: I'll be adding another minute here Clark for a rebuttal,
Speaker 1: because he went over a little bit there.
Speaker 2: I was saying it.
Speaker 1: You know, it's funny because I was I was trying to,
Speaker 1: you know, execute some things you were saying, and Groc
Speaker 1: went just as complex. He was like the onontological exigency
Speaker 1: of also the dogmatic corpus. I was like, wow, when
Speaker 1: you have two people here there speaking at a level
Speaker 1: of the ai' I'm asking the question. You know, this
Speaker 1: is a very complex debate has been going on for what,
Speaker 1: in many ways well over a thousand years right now
Speaker 1: as we're talking. And that's kind of an interesting point
Speaker 1: is that, you know, people that are Protestant are not
Speaker 1: used to these complex, deep discussions.
Speaker 2: And the things are like what do we want to
Speaker 2: do today.
Speaker 1: In Protestantism, And sometimes it's like, let's all be gay
Speaker 1: pastors and everyone's like yay, and it's like okay.
Speaker 2: But you know, people have.
Speaker 1: Been thinking about some of these topics for for centuries,
Speaker 1: you know, even for a millennia if you look at
Speaker 1: the actual topic here and when we talk about what's important.
Speaker 1: I just want to remind you guys, if you're watching that,
Speaker 1: take notes and rewatch, rethink, re listen, and try to
Speaker 1: understand the complexity of their arguments. Also crucible. Andrew Wilson,
Speaker 1: for another one hundred dollars, said, and here's another. He
Speaker 1: also yelled out, say my names. I don't know why,
Speaker 1: We'll just say your name Andrew Wilson in the chat.
Speaker 1: It's good to see you here. We're very happy to
Speaker 1: have you. He also sent another chat for one hundred dollars.
Speaker 1: He said, here's the last one. Take these guys out
Speaker 1: to dinner, Elijah and yourself love you all.
Speaker 2: Yeah, and I would.
Speaker 1: I don't know if you guys are free afterwards, but
Speaker 1: we'll check that out. If you're just joining for the
Speaker 1: first time, don't forget to like the video, don't forget
Speaker 1: to subscribe.
Speaker 2: It's very important that you do.
Speaker 1: And I want to jump into what I believe to
Speaker 1: be the most important part, which is give them a
Speaker 1: chance to respond to each other. Particularly before we do that. Though,
Speaker 1: just a reminder to check out one of our sponsors
Speaker 1: for today, redpill Threads dot com. They are a T
Speaker 1: shirt company, but they're not just T shirt company. They
Speaker 1: are a merch company that has shirts that actually align
Speaker 1: with our values. These are not just like mago ts.
Speaker 1: When you check them out, you know, it's actually kind
Speaker 1: of crazy, Like they have you know, Hollywood on Fire,
Speaker 1: basically mocking Gavin Newso. And they also have you know,
Speaker 1: Disney T shirt, but the Disney Castle has a star
Speaker 1: of David or bath Mett what are you Gonna call?
Speaker 1: On top and it says propaganda instead of Disney. And
Speaker 1: so there's so many of the other T shirts they have.
Speaker 1: Plus they also have the Burger king guy with his
Speaker 1: mouth opening a cartoon and a memes style. They have
Speaker 1: a I think they have like a monkey skull and
Speaker 1: it says something like fully developed or something I don't
Speaker 1: even know. And then they also have the commet Pingpong
Speaker 1: pizza T shirt the brands so it's basically provocative shirts
Speaker 1: of all the right wing memes and culture that we've
Speaker 1: created over the last you know, decade or so, since
Speaker 1: we've sort of emerged on a four chan and they
Speaker 1: put it right on a T shirt. You get ten
Speaker 1: percent off today at Redpill threads dot com R E
Speaker 1: D P I L T h R A d s
Speaker 1: dot com. Use promo code rift for ten percent off.
Speaker 1: Check it out, guys. It even just helps if you
Speaker 1: click the link of the description as we are a
Speaker 1: new network, a new channel, and if you want to
Speaker 1: know what Rift TV is just a shout out or
Speaker 1: the first mainstream network developing from funding from only Western people,
Speaker 1: only Western countries, and we are not being defined by
Speaker 1: any Zionism or any sort of outside influence that will
Speaker 1: try to destroy our core message, which is to save
Speaker 1: Western civilization. That starts now and here with what we're discussing,
Speaker 1: especially with Christianity. Now, let's go over to Jay Dyer.
Speaker 1: I want to give you an example here. Jay is
Speaker 1: representing the Orthodox tradition in this discussion. You have six
Speaker 1: minutes on the clock. If you want to use, I'll
Speaker 1: give you a minute. You want to use the minute here?
Speaker 1: Do you want to use a minute on the cross
Speaker 1: examination of the clothing statement?
Speaker 2: I can tell your minutes up, I'll go and use
Speaker 2: it here, because he touched on a lot of things.
Speaker 1: Okay, cool, you have six minutes on the clock. Your
Speaker 1: time starts now, all.
Speaker 2: Right, I'll work through this.
Speaker 3: So the first thing that he said that was a
Speaker 3: basic theological mistake was that he identified God in the
Speaker 3: Divine Essence with asayity. Of course, all the three persons
Speaker 3: have a sayity or self existence or our auto theos
Speaker 3: in that system, if they're identical to the divine essence,
Speaker 3: except that he's not aware of Cappadocian theology, nor the
Speaker 3: theology of Constantinople, one which accepted unanimously with explicit decree
Speaker 3: the necessity to follow the Cappadocian dictum that the Father
Speaker 3: is identified as autotheos. But to identify the Divine Essence
Speaker 3: as autothaos is actually to introduce the later Christological and
Speaker 3: Trinitarian heresy that the Calvinists introduced, that the Son and
Speaker 3: the Spirit are also this autotheos because they share the
Speaker 3: same divine essence.
Speaker 2: So he's not aware of that.
Speaker 3: That's a classic theological problem. Next, I didn't say that
Speaker 3: God changed. He's confusing the idea of what orthodox call
Speaker 3: reciprocity with the idea that God undergoes change. What we
Speaker 3: mean by that is that if you read the Book
Speaker 3: of Amos, for example, God says he's going to destroy Israel.
Speaker 3: Amos comes and praise and says the Lord, please don't
Speaker 3: do this, and God says, because you prayed, I'm not
Speaker 3: going to destroy Israel. That does not mean that God
Speaker 3: can't excuse me that God undergoes change. It means that
Speaker 3: he is willingly condescended to engage in a creaturely reciprocity.
Speaker 3: That means that God is first and foremost a divine person,
Speaker 3: in particularly the person of the Father or the monarchea
Speaker 3: of the Father, which is a crucial Orthodox doction upon
Speaker 3: which all of this is built, whether it's the essence center, yourstinction,
Speaker 3: or these other distinctions. So, no, it is not the
Speaker 3: case that creatures cause it divine essence to change or
Speaker 3: anything like that. In fact, I said that there's two
Speaker 3: ways that we can name God. I guess he didn't
Speaker 3: hear that, or he just wanted to do the quote
Speaker 3: mind from the Eastern Fathers, ignoring, by the way, all
Speaker 3: the places in those Eastern Fathers where they actually make
Speaker 3: the arguments against his position. For example, a specifically cited
Speaker 3: Maximus pointing out that the same energies that God possesses
Speaker 3: are the same energies that deify the saints. He says
Speaker 3: in at the Lascios, which thus means that Trent is
Speaker 3: wrong when the Council, Trent says that we are justified
Speaker 3: in baptism by the righteousness, not that God has himself,
Speaker 3: but by the righteousness by which He.
Speaker 2: Makes us just.
Speaker 3: And again, to cite Nissa, again, common nature is identified
Speaker 3: by common energy. If you read on the Holy Spirit
Speaker 3: by Saint Basil, you'll notice that the way that Basil
Speaker 3: proves the Holy Spirit is fully divine with the Father
Speaker 3: and the Son is because he possesses the exact same
Speaker 3: energy or operation, because energy and operations signify nature. Now
Speaker 3: interesting in the scripture is when we read about the
Speaker 3: gifts of the Holy Spirit. In the Book of Corinthians,
Speaker 3: when Paul talks about the spiritually gifts, he calls them
Speaker 3: the gifts of the inner gaya of the Spirit, the
Speaker 3: energies of the Spirit. Tim could look at Strong's seventeen
Speaker 3: fifty three and he would see all the multiple uses
Speaker 3: throughout the New Testament, even places in the septuagen where
Speaker 3: inner gaia is used many times over, and that leads
Speaker 3: me to the other issue he doesn't seem to be
Speaker 3: well aware of in scholarship, which is if he could
Speaker 3: read Michael Renee Barnes's book Dunamis in Gregor Nissa, where
Speaker 3: there's this idea of the discussion of the power of God.
Speaker 3: And this is the Cappadocian dictum to utilize first and
Speaker 3: second actuality to help explain how it's possible for God
Speaker 3: to create and yet to be perfect and to not
Speaker 3: undergo change. So to say that God possesses first and
Speaker 3: second act and that he doesn't always actualize all of
Speaker 3: his powers does not imply any imperfection and deity, and
Speaker 3: rather it implies God has free will. If I was
Speaker 3: a Toast or a Roman Catholic, and I identified the
Speaker 3: act of creating with the divine essence as they do
Speaker 3: and with divine providence, then there's a necessary creation and
Speaker 3: a necessary providence, and a necessary world that occurs because
Speaker 3: those things are isomorphically identical. This is called the modal
Speaker 3: collapse argument. So that also refutes Tim's reductionist position. People
Speaker 3: can look at Radigalwitz's famous Oxford thesis on simplicity in
Speaker 3: the Cappadocians. Moving on, he noted that as he went
Speaker 3: through his quote Mind of the Eastern Church Fathers, he
Speaker 3: sort of tried to fit this into an aristotomist scheme. Well,
Speaker 3: if he was able to look into the scholarship on
Speaker 3: the Cappadocians, the transition from the Cappadocians into Cyril and
Speaker 3: Maximus and John Damascus in a very very recent, very
Speaker 3: well known text by yan Zach Kuber called the Rise
Speaker 3: of Christian Theology Naction Metaphysics, he would know that the
Speaker 3: Cappadocians were not working with a two tiered cause effect
Speaker 3: Aristotelian scheme. They're working more so with a neoplatonic scheme.
Speaker 3: I'm not advocating for neoplatonism. I'm saying that when the
Speaker 3: neoplatonic philosophy is used by the Cabo Doocians, and thus
Speaker 3: that model and that tendency to speak that way is
Speaker 3: accept a particularly a Constantinople, one which by the way
Speaker 3: is called close and had out of communion with Rome,
Speaker 3: which is the council that defines the Trinity. It has
Speaker 3: nothing to do with aristotomism, and so this is a
Speaker 3: kind of a revisionist anachronistic approach where they will take
Speaker 3: things and reread the tonistic positions into quote minds from
Speaker 3: the Church fathers. Because as I noted, as Gregor of
Speaker 3: Nissa says, the invisible God becomes visible by his energies.
Speaker 3: He is not seen or known in his essence, but
Speaker 3: in his operations. And that's from on the Beata Toudes
Speaker 3: section four. So divine energies are what come down to us.
Speaker 3: It is not the mere created effects, but the actual
Speaker 3: participation in the attributes, energies and life of God. That's
Speaker 3: not a created thing. Jesus says in John seventeen, he
Speaker 3: came to give us a share in the glory that
Speaker 3: he had with the Father before the foundation of the world.
Speaker 3: Saus it is a real participation in uncreated glory. God's
Speaker 3: glory is not a creature. The glory and the grace
Speaker 3: itself is what we partake of. So he says that
Speaker 3: I engage in unifical predication. I never made an argument
Speaker 3: that human terms or conceptions aren't unifical to the attributes.
Speaker 2: In fact, I would agree with analogical predication.
Speaker 3: It's just that the analogies do not match up to
Speaker 3: divine essence, they match up.
Speaker 2: To the energies.
Speaker 3: Hence Basil says in Letter two thirty four, what God's
Speaker 3: essence says, we do not know, but rather it is
Speaker 3: his energies, his operations that come down to us. Exactly
Speaker 3: what Innessa says Jay Dyer. That was the rebuttal.
Speaker 1: Now, obviously you can both rebuttal his opening statement and
Speaker 1: his rebuttal here a few of his points. You are
Speaker 1: going to have five minutes on the clock. Please with
Speaker 1: the rebuttal, try to keep it within the direct timing.
Speaker 1: If we're in halftime, you have an extra thirty seconds. Bleed,
Speaker 1: Go ahead, Timothy in Strong's since Jay cited it. Energeia
Speaker 1: in Paul means God's activity and grace, not specifically, not
Speaker 1: a metaphysical part of God.
Speaker 2: Distinct from his essence. This would this would repeat the
Speaker 2: entire position. The Catholic theology captures this through uncreated grace.
Speaker 2: That's our position, God himself at work in us and
Speaker 2: without it, does all of this without dividing him into
Speaker 2: essence versus energies. So it's sounded by that quote as
Speaker 2: if it was essence energies, nothing of the sort. The
Speaker 2: Orthodox move from a biblical usage of energeia, which again
Speaker 2: I warned you there would be this equivocation time and
Speaker 2: time and time again, because entergaya is a word in
Speaker 2: the Greek that's frequent here to metaphysics, and ergay it
Speaker 2: means something very very different in the in the distinction
Speaker 2: between essence and energies. It's a strong extrapolation, in strong
Speaker 2: I think the most important question that Jay frequently asks sincerely,
Speaker 2: I've heard him ask it sincerely many times. I'm not
Speaker 2: being facetious here is he'll ask, And this is really
Speaker 2: at the heart of the matter. Why if there's a
Speaker 2: real distinction between If Catholics allow a real distinction between
Speaker 2: the three persons, why can't they abide a real distinction
Speaker 2: between the divine essence and the energies? Which is a
Speaker 2: it's a fair question. The answer is usiological, which means
Speaker 2: when we're looking at the single essence of God, the
Speaker 2: one thing which absolutely must be worshiped. This has been
Speaker 2: affirmed at I see it too. Worship is latria worship
Speaker 2: proper to the divine essence alone. We are talking about
Speaker 2: God's one uzia. Real distinctions within that Uzia can be
Speaker 2: made by what we've called relations of opposition between the
Speaker 2: three persons. That because in proper theology, the three persons
Speaker 2: are inside that divine essence, that Uziah. This does not
Speaker 2: enable or rehabilitate or allow extra usiological distinctions between God's
Speaker 2: essence and energies, because the entire point of the essence
Speaker 2: energies distinction is that there is a real distinction, and
Speaker 2: they don't have what we call virtual distinctions anyway. There's
Speaker 2: a real distinction between God's Uziah and his energies, his
Speaker 2: operations that and they're uncreated, both whether you're talking philosophy
Speaker 2: or classical theology. Anything that's uncreated is God. Anything that
Speaker 2: is on the other side of creation as God. So
Speaker 2: if you have an uzir that is the divine essence
Speaker 2: of God and something else that's uncreated you're talking about,
Speaker 2: you must be talking about two gods anyway. This is
Speaker 2: why we don't allow that distinction, any distinctions within the
Speaker 2: single divine essence. The relations of opposition between fatherhood and filiality, filiation,
Speaker 2: these are fine. These make sense. Relations of opposition makes
Speaker 2: sense from within what we know to be the Trinity,
Speaker 2: within the uziah of God. The Father is not the Son,
Speaker 2: is not the Holy Spirit. But they're all the same
Speaker 2: substance of God. But you can't make you can't distinguish
Speaker 2: between two uncreated realities outside of space and time without
Speaker 2: positing a new essence. So it's an usiological answer. It's
Speaker 2: very basic, and hopefully you see that the former is
Speaker 2: possible because monotheism requires one uzia of God, whereas the
Speaker 2: latter would require seemingly two divine uzias. They won't say it,
Speaker 2: they won't say that the position is too divine uzias
Speaker 2: because it's one divine essence and then something else uncreated.
Speaker 2: But it's required, it's necessarily follows incredible.
Speaker 1: So you know, in the midst of this you actually
Speaker 1: are under time by forty five seconds?
Speaker 2: Can I? So if you want to keep going, yeah,
Speaker 2: I would just say there's there's scriptural evidence against the
Speaker 2: essence energies distinction too. I'll jump into the Theophanes that
Speaker 2: Jay has been talking about in Exodus three one to six.
Speaker 2: At the burning bush, God himself speaks. It's not that
Speaker 2: God some energies of God speak. God himself speaks. It's
Speaker 2: a direct quote. But pillar of cloud and fire the
Speaker 2: Lord went before them, not a separate energy. Is a fact.
Speaker 2: The Lord himself, the substance of God, went before them.
Speaker 2: So direct quote in Isaiah chapter six one to five.
Speaker 2: In the vision Isaiah saw the Lord did not see
Speaker 2: some likeness of the Lord. In John chapter twelve, verse
Speaker 2: forty one, this is applied to Christ. At the transfiguration,
Speaker 2: the apostles beheld Christ's glory participation. So this is important
Speaker 2: because when we're talking about the divine essence, we're talking
Speaker 2: about the divine essence. When we're talking about some work
Speaker 2: of God, we're talking about something that's distinct.
Speaker 1: Okay, So, Jay, I don't know if you were laughing
Speaker 1: at him or you're laughing in his argument, I showed
Speaker 1: you're chuckling a little bit over there, and I couldn't
Speaker 1: help but notice.
Speaker 2: And so you know, as you.
Speaker 1: Cross examine and you go into this, you'll have exactly
Speaker 1: five minutes to respond.
Speaker 2: Here the clock starts.
Speaker 3: Now go ahead, No but wait a minute, oh yes,
Speaker 3: stop hold on, so I can cross the exam and interrupt,
Speaker 3: right uh.
Speaker 2: Yeah yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah yeah. I just I just
Speaker 2: wanted you to do a little bit, if you is
Speaker 2: that how you would like to that is that how
Speaker 2: you'd like to do that that section, like to what
Speaker 2: were you going to say? Oh? No, I was gonna say.
Speaker 1: I didn't know if you wanted to go back over
Speaker 1: what he was just saying right now and then jump
Speaker 1: in there a little bit.
Speaker 3: But uh, well, what we'd agreed to was cross exam
Speaker 3: where we can where I cross exam him and I
Speaker 3: can abrupt him correct yea.
Speaker 2: Yeah, yeah, yeah, totally within reason. Yeah yeah, I mean yeah, exactly.
Speaker 3: Potentially just gonna interrupt every five seconds.
Speaker 2: Yeah, that's funny.
Speaker 3: I'm glad that you mentioned Exodus three because it was
Speaker 3: actually next to my notes, because I don't know if
Speaker 3: you're familiar with Exdus twenty three, because God goes on
Speaker 3: to describe who that being is. You said, the substance
Speaker 3: of God went before them. Do you think that the
Speaker 3: substance of God is the angel messenger?
Speaker 2: No, I think I think that God entered into I
Speaker 2: believe that the Theophanes represent a creation of God. Are
Speaker 2: they the substance of God or they represent they're not
Speaker 2: the substance of God. You said the substance of God
Speaker 2: went before them. Yeah, No, I didn't mean it that way.
Speaker 3: Okay, But in Leviticus nine, it's said to be the
Speaker 3: glory of God that comes down.
Speaker 2: It was an equivocation. Yeah, I'm just saying in God himself.
Speaker 3: Yeah, so it's God himself for a representation, because that's
Speaker 3: a big deal.
Speaker 2: We believe it's a representation. Okay.
Speaker 3: In Leviticus nine, what comes down in that so often
Speaker 3: he is called the glory of God is God's glory
Speaker 3: of creature? Yes, God's glory is a creature. Yes, you're
Speaker 3: a polytheist.
Speaker 2: No, you called the divice that glory is a creature
Speaker 2: because it's created. Yes, God's glorious creator, like I said,
Speaker 2: like I said at the beginning, well this is the
Speaker 2: Catholic position, and you know it's the laughing at it
Speaker 2: to pretend that this isn't a one thousand year old dispute.
Speaker 3: Are you about what you're saying? God's glory is created?
Speaker 3: God's glory is? Is it eternal?
Speaker 2: Yes?
Speaker 3: So there's eternal. So you're a polytheist. God's glory is
Speaker 3: eternally created. And this is a game.
Speaker 2: It's not a game.
Speaker 3: Okay, this is why it's let me know poetry, let's
Speaker 3: do fifteen second blocks. It's not a game. No, it's
Speaker 3: you said that God's glory is eternal and it's a creature,
Speaker 3: that the angels are eternal, and no they're not. They're created.
Speaker 2: No, they can be eternal with God like a footprint
Speaker 2: in sand, to use Augustin's term.
Speaker 3: Yeah, yeah, are they created axt nilo? Well, of course, yeah,
Speaker 3: they're not eternal, they're not uncreated. But with regard to glory,
Speaker 3: it can't since it's uncreated. Since it is created. Which
Speaker 3: one is it? Since it's created?
Speaker 2: Jay, No, it's not to God because I'm created, separate
Speaker 2: from the divine, as you to gods.
Speaker 3: I don't believe that that the glory is a creature.
Speaker 3: You may you messed up by saying that you belielory
Speaker 3: is eternal. It's uncreated. It's the glory that.
Speaker 2: Is it separate from the divine. Up to me, it's
Speaker 2: my time because i'm because I'm asking you back questions
Speaker 2: in my cross examination. All right, he's.
Speaker 1: Correct on that, Yeah, sure, all right, Yeah, so let's
Speaker 1: let's leave the question.
Speaker 2: Seventeen. Can I clarify my answer quickly if he allows you? Okay,
Speaker 2: so we say it's not polytheism because it's created. It's
Speaker 2: that simple. God's glory is a creature. God's glory is
Speaker 2: a creature.
Speaker 3: Wow, you understand that in Ezekiel, the son is identified
Speaker 3: as the glory.
Speaker 2: Is the son a creature? No, this is an equivocal definition,
Speaker 2: because yeah, woman is the glory of man. That doesn't
Speaker 2: mean that she's Uh. The unifical predication is the glory
Speaker 2: of the father. The son in this analogical sense can
Speaker 2: be the glory of the Father. That doesn't mean so
Speaker 2: when is that God's glory as such is uncreated? Okay?
Speaker 3: And Judge's six it says that Yahweh turned his face
Speaker 3: to get in. Is that Yahweh really in time of space?
Speaker 2: Or you don't know? Yeah, I'm not sure.
Speaker 3: Well, maybe you should have looked into the theophanies if
Speaker 3: you wanted to talk. Well, you've already admitted that God's
Speaker 3: glory is a creature. Right, that's polytheism, an analogy. I mean,
Speaker 3: I never disagree with anal analogical predication.
Speaker 2: But you no, No, I don't mean analogic. I mean when
Speaker 2: God turns his face. You think that a theophany means
Speaker 2: requires logical body? Did Jacob rustle with Jesus it's a theophany?
Speaker 2: Did he wrestle with Jesus. We say this is a
Speaker 2: created participation. So the son prior to the incarnation was created. No,
Speaker 2: this is what you said. It was a creature.
Speaker 3: It's less than a So now you're a polytheist again,
Speaker 3: and there's multiple gods less than the creature.
Speaker 2: I can't be a polytheist, Jay, if I keep saying
Speaker 2: that these are creations, I'm only a god. I separate
Speaker 2: from the divine essence you're calling that is God, and
Speaker 2: that they're called that means they're not creatures.
Speaker 3: You always uncreated. His glory is uncreated because he had
Speaker 3: it forever in the triad in a triadic relationship. You
Speaker 3: said God's glory is a creature. You just messed up
Speaker 3: big time. That's idolatry.
Speaker 1: That's I'm done all right six the time, And yeah,
Speaker 1: I was gonna add another thirty seconds out of the clock.
Speaker 1: Then anyways, you still have thirty seconds here for him
Speaker 1: interrupting you with the questions. So you have an additional
Speaker 1: minute on a future category if you'd like to, especially
Speaker 1: in the closing or on a separate topic.
Speaker 2: We'll go ahead and we will switch Outay, hold on,
Speaker 2: I have more time or.
Speaker 1: No, I'll give you an extra minute because of him
Speaker 1: interrupting the questions. You have thirty seconds left, and I'm
Speaker 1: give you additional thirty seconds onto either to the closing
Speaker 1: or on the section of the next topic. Let's go
Speaker 1: over to Timothy. Go ahead, you have five minutes on
Speaker 1: the clock. You can be in your questioning.
Speaker 2: Okay. If the energies are not the divine essence, there's
Speaker 2: a real distinction between them, but they're still uncreated. How
Speaker 2: many such uncreated realities are there in God? Butzel says,
Speaker 2: there's infinite energies, So they're infinite uncreated existences. Are they
Speaker 2: essences of their own? Their energies? Hence they're not essences? Oh,
Speaker 2: so what are they? But they're uncreated?
Speaker 3: So the operations, the attributes, and the thought, wills or
Speaker 3: ideas of God.
Speaker 2: So they're infinite. There are uncreated things? Well, I'm asking you. Yeah,
Speaker 2: God is one in many. But except so when we
Speaker 2: go to worship God, we worship infinite things. Yes, God's infinite.
Speaker 2: I don't know if you know that. No, do you
Speaker 2: worship an infinite number of properties?
Speaker 3: When we say God is infinite, infinity is an infinite number?
Speaker 2: Can I worship the energies alone without worshiping the divine essence.
Speaker 3: No, because every person who acts in the every every
Speaker 3: act of God is triadic and thus includes all of God.
Speaker 2: But then, how are they really distinct because God does
Speaker 2: different things? What does that mean? Creating isn't walking on water? No,
Speaker 2: if I can't worship them separately, in other words, if
Speaker 2: there's not a passive potency in them that is receptive
Speaker 2: of my worship God's divine essence, his energies, I can't
Speaker 2: worship them separately. So why call them really distinct? Because
Speaker 2: if you guys had virtual distinctions the way you should hear,
Speaker 2: this wouldn't be a problem. But because you say it's
Speaker 2: a real distinction in God, that's a problem. Modal collapse
Speaker 2: is why we don't. This is not modal collapse. Why
Speaker 2: I'm telling you why we don't have that? No? No,
Speaker 2: But but then they're not really distinct. You just said they're.
Speaker 3: Distinct, because it can't be they are really distinct because
Speaker 3: the Father and the son are really distinct, and you
Speaker 3: don't have a problem with that.
Speaker 2: I don't have a problem with that because that's all
Speaker 2: within one Uziah. Do you have a problem with constant
Speaker 2: standardizes are the operations from that one? You see, they
Speaker 2: might be the operations from but they're different from the uzia.
Speaker 2: Distinction applies to the substance. You're with me, right, So
Speaker 2: like when we make a distinction about a thing, we're
Speaker 2: making a distinction about the substance itself. Philosophy one on one. Yeah, yeah, sure, okay,
Speaker 2: So that's what I That's why I asked, why can
Speaker 2: we call them really distinct when they're they're somehow outside
Speaker 2: the uzia. They're different from it. They're really distinct, they're
Speaker 2: not virtually distinct. But I mean, do you want to end?
Speaker 2: You want answer? I want your answer?
Speaker 3: Right, Well, I'm going to say what they say because
Speaker 3: I agree with them. They say that just as a
Speaker 3: person works, he's not identical to the work, and persons
Speaker 3: do different works.
Speaker 2: Okay, but that's a nonsense term. You can't say it's
Speaker 2: really distinct. That's fine. I'm just saying it doesn't work
Speaker 2: out because when something is distinct. No not, because when
Speaker 2: something is distinct usiologically, that means that we would have
Speaker 2: to act upon it. It would it would receive passive potency.
Speaker 2: Is that the persons, because they're the same. Do you
Speaker 2: think the persons aren't consubstantial they're really distinct? No, they're
Speaker 2: really distinct within an uzia. Oh, I don't believe that.
Speaker 2: You don't believe the person of the trinity are within
Speaker 2: the same us. I don't start with the essence. I'll
Speaker 2: start with the fathers, the monarchical dark. Wait, you don't
Speaker 2: believe that the three persons are consubstantart. I'm not asking
Speaker 2: where you started. I asked, do you think that the
Speaker 2: persons are consubstantial? Yes? Or now? Of course they're consubstantial. Okay,
Speaker 2: I don't So they're not ziologically distinct. That's all I'm saying.
Speaker 2: I don't have your metaphysics. No, I don't have your metaphysics.
Speaker 2: But the point is they can't be distinct if we're
Speaker 2: talking about two separate things. The persons are not too separate.
Speaker 2: The three persons are not too separate.
Speaker 3: The relations of opposition the energy is a separate not Okay,
Speaker 3: they're not separate, is my if I work?
Speaker 2: Is it separate? No? You screwed up there. No I didn't.
Speaker 2: You're just saying I screwed up the energy did I
Speaker 2: never said separate? Is it consubstantial or not? I said,
Speaker 2: the persons are consubstantially. Yes, the energies aren't consubstantial with
Speaker 2: the essence, though for very distinct Okay, but then I
Speaker 2: can't worship them separately. Then the same here's here's another one,
Speaker 2: that the essence is eternally unknowable. Do we fulfill our
Speaker 2: final end in the Beatific vision. We don't believe in
Speaker 2: the Bitua vision because we believe in the purpose of life. Okay,
Speaker 2: when we look at you believe we see God in
Speaker 2: the end. We don't see God.
Speaker 3: That's not our union, the uncreated energies, and we have
Speaker 3: a body. So I don't believe in a uh neoplatonic
Speaker 3: satiating of the intellect.
Speaker 2: You're a platonist. I'm not a platonist on the Beato vision. No,
Speaker 2: you know it's from origin. Yes, So you don't believe
Speaker 2: that we can fulfill the purpose of life and see
Speaker 2: the divine essence ever?
Speaker 3: Right, Nissa says, no one sees the divine essence ever,
Speaker 3: even in theton.
Speaker 2: Even in the sketon.
Speaker 3: Okay, I said, we see the divine energies, as the
Speaker 3: Cappadocians say, we see the things around God, not his essence.
Speaker 2: What do you think the things around God are. If
Speaker 2: God has passive potency, explain to me how he can
Speaker 2: be immutable, eternal, perfect thirty second bleed.
Speaker 3: Right now, divine essence is unchanging, unalterable. But I don't
Speaker 3: reduce the persons and their actions to the essence, and
Speaker 3: so it's not a problem for me. Yes, I answered,
Speaker 3: with reciprocity.
Speaker 2: You're just saying there is a circular object, this planer
Speaker 2: that can be orthogonal. I mean, explain divine revelation then yeah,
Speaker 2: So if God can be I never I said that
Speaker 2: he condescends to have their identity with creatures. That doesn't
Speaker 2: make sense. I'm sorry you don't believe that prayer, right,
Speaker 2: God answers prayer? No, I believe acted upon which you've
Speaker 2: said several times in your podcast. I never said that
Speaker 2: passive potency. How could he still be immutable? The divine
Speaker 2: essence doesn't change.
Speaker 3: God condescends to have reciprole relationships with our prayers.
Speaker 2: That's what I said. That's time there.
Speaker 3: I'm glad you don't think God answers prayers. So again
Speaker 3: you have a pagan metaphysical system.
Speaker 2: All right, that's the time question.
Speaker 1: Now, what I want to know from you guys in
Speaker 1: the chat right now if you heard the cross examination.
Speaker 1: One's in the chat if you think that Jay is
Speaker 1: cooking and that you think that he's winning right now
Speaker 1: in terms of just truth, and I don't want to
Speaker 1: hear just the Orthodox pros.
Speaker 2: I know how you guys, are you guys will just
Speaker 2: be like jaywins.
Speaker 1: So One's in the chat if you think theologically is
Speaker 1: arguments and more sound. Two in the chat if you
Speaker 1: think that Timothy's arguments and cross examination was more sound.
Speaker 2: That means even if you're Orthodox or you're Catholic, you
Speaker 2: don't have to vote for your home team. One's in
Speaker 2: the chat for j Two's in the chats.
Speaker 1: Before we do the closing statement, I do want to
Speaker 1: just read a couple of super chats here reminding you
Speaker 1: guys that Humphluru one said tim is based, Jay is based.
Speaker 1: We should be Catholic republic and the Authos should build
Speaker 1: the churches. We also had from Daniel Ward seventy nine said,
Speaker 1: thank you Tim Gordon for defending the one true Church
Speaker 1: that Jesus founded on the Prince of the Apostle, Saint Peter.
Speaker 1: May all least an Orthodox become Catholics, so we may
Speaker 1: be in one holy Catholic and Apostolic church. We also
Speaker 1: read the ones here from Maximus Decimus said keep my
Speaker 1: name out of your mouth, little boy, shout out for
Speaker 1: our supreme leader, Jay Dyer, Christ is King. All right,
Speaker 1: we're gonna give a one more minute here to read
Speaker 1: a couple super chats before we get to the closing statements.
Speaker 1: Servant Necros is thirty three cent, huge respect for Jay.
Speaker 1: Keep it up my brother now the Aldohyan and also
Speaker 1: said Tim makes you sleep in Elijah is using groc
Speaker 1: This is the most rigorous debate I have ever seen.
Speaker 2: It's truth.
Speaker 1: I don't use I don't use AI, but I had
Speaker 1: to use ad a lookup some of the stuff you
Speaker 1: were saying in real time. Also, we have missed a
Speaker 1: fist and said I'm too subtarted to understand any of this.
Speaker 1: But Orthodox have better hats, which settles it. A tree
Speaker 1: will be known by its fruit. Come home, Papists. So
Speaker 1: it looks like we got a pretty good split in
Speaker 1: between there. Right, let's move into the closing statement. Just
Speaker 1: so you guys know watching at home, we will be
Speaker 1: taking a five minute break between each of our topics.
Speaker 1: So you can use the restroom, you can breathe, and
Speaker 1: it might be a couple of minutes, so don't go anywhere.
Speaker 1: We're gonna start with our closing statement. If you guys
Speaker 1: are John, are you prepared and are you prepared to go?
Speaker 1: All right, Jay, you're gonna have ten minutes on the clock.
Speaker 1: You do have an extra minut would you want to
Speaker 1: use it here on a future topic?
Speaker 2: We'll say that. Okay, soat we're doing closing statements for
Speaker 2: each topic. Well, that's the forumt that I was handed here,
Speaker 2: unless you like to do a closing statement overall. I
Speaker 2: thought we were doing overall. But what I defer to
Speaker 2: you if you want to do, that's your figure. That's
Speaker 2: gonna be really.
Speaker 1: What about brief? Yeah, why we just want we'll just
Speaker 1: do a three minute wrap up because I think that's
Speaker 1: for a lot of us. Just a reminder, because this
Speaker 1: is an internet debate. While there are a lot of theologians,
Speaker 1: some people may have gotten lost in there. So maybe
Speaker 1: we'll keep to understanding to help us understand what your
Speaker 1: final statement was. You have three minutes on the clock.
Speaker 1: Will make it brief and we'll have a complete one
Speaker 1: at the end. Go ahead, Jay, your time starts now.
Speaker 2: Yeah.
Speaker 3: I want to remind everybody that again, I think if
Speaker 3: you are familiar with Biblical theology, the Patristic teaching, nobody
Speaker 3: believes that the glory of God is in any sense
Speaker 3: a creature or created. In fact, it is the uncreated
Speaker 3: immortality and light that Paul talks about at the end
Speaker 3: of Timothy, in which God eternally dwells that uncreated light
Speaker 3: in glory was manifested in Matthew seventeen on the mount
Speaker 3: of transfiguration through the human nature of Christ.
Speaker 2: And so it is precisely this crucial.
Speaker 3: Mistake that's made amongst the Catholic friends of ours that
Speaker 3: they think that this in some way will violate these
Speaker 3: basic metaphysical principles. But in fact we have a reverse
Speaker 3: system that we derive our theology first, in our metaphysics second.
Speaker 2: This is what allowed the Church Fathers to be.
Speaker 3: Pretty fluid with the way that they appropriated the philosophy
Speaker 3: of their day.
Speaker 2: As the zach Kuber.
Speaker 3: Book notes, the Church Fathers are able to in some
Speaker 3: places pull from Arisothean logic text, but for the most
Speaker 3: part they utilize a lot of neoplatonic argumentation. At least
Speaker 3: up until John Damascus, who then does use a lot
Speaker 3: more Aristotilian argumentation.
Speaker 2: So what that shows is that for us, it's not.
Speaker 3: A question of Aristotle versus Plato, but rather divine revelation,
Speaker 3: as Father Fluorowsky says, which comes first and foremost. And
Speaker 3: that's why, for example, when Aquinas in on a de vertate,
Speaker 3: when he talks about the section on divine simplicity, when
Speaker 3: he rejects John Damascus's essence energy argument, which shows by
Speaker 3: the way that John Damascus is actually making the same
Speaker 3: essence energy arguments that I'm making, which is precisely why
Speaker 3: they were present in all the cab Dootionans, why I
Speaker 3: was present in Saint Cyril, and it's even present in St.
Speaker 2: Anthonasius himself.
Speaker 3: If you read Fluorowsky's essay on Creation and Creaturehood about
Speaker 3: the essenceentary distinction in sant Athenasius even you'll notice that
Speaker 3: Aquandas's rejection has nothing to do with what the actual
Speaker 3: Patristic teaching is. In fact, he says in on the contrary. Moreover,
Speaker 3: Rabbi my Minides notes that the names of God do
Speaker 3: not signify intentions added to the substance of God, because
Speaker 3: every accident signifies an intention added to the substance of
Speaker 3: its subject. Therefore, the foregoing names do not signify an accident.
Speaker 2: In God.
Speaker 3: We simply don't have the two tiered metaphysical collapse structure
Speaker 3: that He has, which nobody in the first seven hundred
Speaker 3: years of the Patristic teaching has either.
Speaker 2: So the attempt to categorize.
Speaker 3: The energies as accidental or in some way hearts or
Speaker 3: something like that was never an argument that I made,
Speaker 3: nor did any of the Eastern trust Fathers make it.
Speaker 3: And in fact, if you the dissutation with Piis which
Speaker 3: is the theology of Saint Maximus that goes into the
Speaker 3: Confession of Saint Sophronius, which is accepted at the six
Speaker 3: Ecumenical Council, that whole treatise, it's about one hundred pages,
Speaker 3: is a treatise utilizing all the same essence energy arguments
Speaker 3: that I make against the monothelite monophysite position that is
Speaker 3: accepted in the Confession of Saint Sophronius at the sixth
Speaker 3: Econminical Council, and even Pope Agatho in his letter admits
Speaker 3: two wills and two energies in Christ and so when
Speaker 3: when Tim said that inner gaia means something very different
Speaker 3: in the Bible, it's not metaphysical. He then goes on
Speaker 3: to give this elaborate ussiological story about what it's all
Speaker 3: really meaning, doing the very opposite of what I'm doing,
Speaker 3: which is looking at the text when it says that
Speaker 3: Moses walked up on the mountain and God's glory was
Speaker 3: shown to him, his goodnesses, and by the way, it's
Speaker 3: plural there the goodnesses of God are shown. And yet
Speaker 3: Jesus says in John five, no one saw the Father
Speaker 3: at any time. Well, it's not the energies that are
Speaker 3: manifesting in time and space. It is the person of
Speaker 3: the Son, who is the face of the Father in
Speaker 3: time and space, and.
Speaker 2: It is his energies that are manifest sacing.
Speaker 3: So he misunderstood, especially when he was talking about the
Speaker 3: Angel of the Lord, who is obviously the person of
Speaker 3: Christ in time and space in the Theophany. So I
Speaker 3: think that that Theophanees really clenches the whole argument.
Speaker 2: All right, it was forty seconds over, but we'll give
Speaker 2: you the minute bleed. Go ahead.
Speaker 1: I'm gonna put the same amount of time then that
Speaker 1: he had let me reset the clock. You'll have four
Speaker 1: minutes since he had four. Go ahead, Timothy, give us
Speaker 1: your closing statement on the topic.
Speaker 2: Here on the simplicity, you see the devastation to the
Speaker 2: EO position when you look at scripture on the beatific vision.
Speaker 2: In First John, it says we shall see Him as
Speaker 2: he is. That would mean the divine essence at the
Speaker 2: end of time. Blessed are the pure in heart. Or
Speaker 2: they shall see God. This is Matthew chapter five, verse eight.
Speaker 2: They shall see God, not the works of God or
Speaker 2: the energeias of God. They will not see his energies.
Speaker 2: They will see God himself. This is the problem. This
Speaker 2: is the teleology of the good life. This is what
Speaker 2: we're promised. And they say otherwise, they say we will
Speaker 2: never see God in his essence. All we can ever
Speaker 2: see are the energaias of God's same as what we
Speaker 2: see on earth. It's absurd. If we never see God's essence,
Speaker 2: we never reach full union with him. Also, so this
Speaker 2: is really really important to draw. It's it's absolutely theologically
Speaker 2: and teleologically devastating, and it's a fatalistic worldview. Very very important. Now, Glory.
Speaker 2: When Jay was asking me about glory, and he's spit
Speaker 2: firing questions at me. Glory is a created reality. The
Speaker 2: way we experience it, the way we're talking about it,
Speaker 2: the way it's predicated. Analogically, it's glory in our soul,
Speaker 2: in our intellects, and our participation in it is created
Speaker 2: and therefore the way we interact with God's glory. Again,
Speaker 2: this is a virtual distinction because it involves the way
Speaker 2: that we receive it in interact with it in the
Speaker 2: mode of the receiver us creatures. It's of course has
Speaker 2: to be created. A created glory has to interact with
Speaker 2: creatures as it exists in God, it is uncreated. But
Speaker 2: we don't know glory from the side of God because
Speaker 2: glory from the side of God remains uncreated until the
Speaker 2: be a typic vision. The most important thing he was
Speaker 2: asking about the Theophanes and Jay's claim. He'll say, the
Speaker 2: Theophanes are this easy, easy proof that passive potency can
Speaker 2: exist in God, which is a non sequitur. It's absurd,
Speaker 2: says there's a distinction between the inner, unrevealed aspect of God,
Speaker 2: his essence, and what he reveals and manifests us his
Speaker 2: divine personal energies. A Theophany. Like I said before, it's
Speaker 2: a it's a created sign or instrument of uncreated presence.
Speaker 2: The change is in the medium, not in God himself.
Speaker 2: So this does not even begin to prove that God
Speaker 2: is not pure actor, that God can change. Particularly, I
Speaker 2: thought Jay was going to come on this first segment
Speaker 2: and distinguish, well, God can change because he has active power,
Speaker 2: active potensia. Well that's true, but he's the unmoved mover.
Speaker 2: He can he can act on things without them being
Speaker 2: acted on him. But he he came on and defended
Speaker 2: God as passive potency. And this just doesn't begin to
Speaker 2: be shown by the fact that the Theophanes have taken
Speaker 2: place as signs and instruments that are created. Worship is
Speaker 2: something funny. Worship belongs to the divine nature alone. This
Speaker 2: is from Second Constantinople. But not if we take Jay
Speaker 2: at his word, worship Second Constantinople belongs to the divine
Speaker 2: nature alone. So that that's really important, I mean the most.
Speaker 2: The heart of this issue is whether or not passive
Speaker 2: potencies can be allowed within God. And this would simply
Speaker 2: destroy all of classical theism. God would change, He wouldn't
Speaker 2: be immutable. He wouldn't be eternal. This is anathematized it,
Speaker 2: and I see it. If God had passive potency, he
Speaker 2: wouldn't be simply wouldn't be perfect. I mean, I'm restating
Speaker 2: what I said in opening because it's so very basic
Speaker 2: and it's so devastating to what we believe about God.
Speaker 2: If we believe that God, if we were to allow
Speaker 2: ourselves to believe that God had passive post I still
Speaker 2: have a minute.
Speaker 1: Yeah, if you want to want to have the minute
Speaker 1: on the clock right now, all right, give me one moment.
Speaker 2: Let me reset the clock. Give you a minute and
Speaker 2: go ahead and take that.
Speaker 3: Yeah, I just want to address in this minute the
Speaker 3: fact that I mean, he doesn't seem to be aware
Speaker 3: that the Theophanes are called God, they're given the name Yahweh,
Speaker 3: they're worshiped, and they're pre signifiers of the incarnation. So
Speaker 3: he's literally saying that these signs and symbols can be worshiped.
Speaker 3: So he believes that you can worship creatures. Then he
Speaker 3: turns around and contradicts himself because he says that only
Speaker 3: divine nature can be worshiped.
Speaker 2: The triad is worshiped.
Speaker 3: And it doesn't say only the divine nature is worshiped,
Speaker 3: but we worship God in Triad. That's the actual definition
Speaker 3: of the council doesn't say only divine nature. So I
Speaker 3: think it's just kind of insane to me that that,
Speaker 3: like how far removed from divine revelation that position actually is.
Speaker 2: And again, as I said in.
Speaker 3: Philippians too, if God is a being that is reducible
Speaker 3: to pure act, then it's not possible for the self
Speaker 3: emptying or the limiting to occur in the incarnation when
Speaker 3: the Sun, according to Filippians to in the Canosis passage
Speaker 3: willfully limits himself. A being that is pure act according
Speaker 3: to definition reducibly would undergo change via Philippians too, And
Speaker 3: we don't believe.
Speaker 2: That can have a minitary respondent. No where you're you're
Speaker 2: over on that one.
Speaker 1: You can't actually still in the other topics if you'd
Speaker 1: like to, you can always address technically if you like
Speaker 1: to take a little bit of time to bring back
Speaker 1: some points, I do want to mind you, guys, we're
Speaker 1: gonna take a break here in a second, so that
Speaker 1: if you're dis joining right now in the live stream,
Speaker 1: we are in the middle of debating some of the
Speaker 1: core dogmas theological concepts, depending on where you come from
Speaker 1: and what wording you like to use. Of Orthodoxy and
Speaker 1: Catholicism in terms of the Church itself, not the Orthodoxy
Speaker 1: of religion, Orthodoxy of faith, or the Gospel, but of
Speaker 1: the approach and of the Church. That being said, if
Speaker 1: you guys are sending super chats, I just want to
Speaker 1: remind you guys a couple of things. We have a
Speaker 1: few more people in here. Mista also said that it's
Speaker 1: a little bit too much beyond him. We also have
Speaker 1: some win Titus, win Hadrian. We also have a l
Speaker 1: chemist said, depending on Gordon's performance, tonight might be Jay's
Speaker 1: third conversion to Catholicism and second denunciation of the Orthodox Church.
Speaker 2: Curious to know which way the wind swayed him tonight.
Speaker 1: Uh, Sigilists said Orthodox equals divine person, Catholic equals divine robot.
Speaker 1: We also have a servant, said Hard passed on trusting
Speaker 1: a church founded on forgeries. I'm not sure that's in Australia,
Speaker 1: and shout out to my Aussies. I just got banned
Speaker 1: from Australia. Unfortunately, I don't even know what the currency
Speaker 1: AARs is, but uh, buddy, Pep nine seven three said
Speaker 1: tim has been forsake and everyone got to donate to
Speaker 1: the stream where y'all are Yukubians.
Speaker 2: Really, we're all did you cube made us?
Speaker 1: I remember you said that, right, Yeah, you're all creating
Speaker 1: the image of a cube.
Speaker 2: You're learning the right religion now, yeah, finally yeah, And.
Speaker 1: And a grand canon is a portal, that's what they say. Uh,
Speaker 1: Techno Ox said, let's go, not one step back.
Speaker 2: There you go.
Speaker 1: We also have a few more that we'll read in
Speaker 1: a moment, but let's join and let's jump into a
Speaker 1: quick break. We're taking a couple of minute break here,
Speaker 1: just a reset. They're gonna reset their books, their notes,
Speaker 1: and we're gonna come back just to make sure I
Speaker 1: have it correct by the from you so that we
Speaker 1: don't make them no mistake.
Speaker 2: Again.
Speaker 1: For the next topic that you wanted to cover, we
Speaker 1: are able to get into the Christ did not establish
Speaker 1: the papacy? Or did you want to go to the
Speaker 1: Holy Spirit? Does not have a do you want to
Speaker 1: go to the Holy Spirit?
Speaker 2: Question? Was it Philly? What do you want? He went first?
Speaker 2: You can pick the next topic. We'll be going first.
Speaker 2: I'm fine with either, but but Philly oquay would be
Speaker 2: would have more of them.
Speaker 1: All right, let's go there, all right, So we'll be
Speaker 1: back talking about that just a moment, and we'll be
Speaker 1: starting opening statements with Timothy Gordon representing Catholicism. We'll see
Speaker 1: just a few moments, take a break, and we'll be
Speaker 1: right back in the Rumble section. That justays imagine Allied
Speaker 1: to trying to process all this when he couldn't even
Speaker 1: get the sound started to start his live stream.
Speaker 2: Absolutely fantastic.
Speaker 1: We got a great debate going on today directly between
Speaker 1: Jay Dyer and Timothy Gordon. If you're just joining Live today,
Speaker 1: we are live on rumble x, Facebook and on YouTube.
Speaker 1: We can also find us on Instagram and Elijah Schaeffer
Speaker 1: dot locals dot com makes it if you want to
Speaker 1: know where we've been.
Speaker 2: I've been very sick.
Speaker 1: I was in El Salvador shooting content and then I
Speaker 1: end up picking up a stomach bug from a taco stand.
Speaker 1: I love the country, but don't eat pork from strangers
Speaker 1: in developing countries.
Speaker 2: That's just a little a little tip for tat there.
Speaker 1: We're gonna be jumping into our next topic today on
Speaker 1: the overarching discussion of orthodox is in the Church itself
Speaker 1: and Catholicism as in the church and the dogma. If
Speaker 1: you're joining me today on YouTube, make sure that you
Speaker 1: like the video right now and subscribe to We are
Speaker 1: a brand news show, still working out the kinks, just
Speaker 1: a couple months old, and absolutely fantastic and excited because
Speaker 1: we are a network riftv dot com not influenced by
Speaker 1: outside countries like Israel, and that's our claim to fame
Speaker 1: here and so we really appreciate that.
Speaker 2: All right, We're gonna jump into the topic here, specifically
Speaker 2: about the Holy Spirit, and you know, we are asking ourselves,
Speaker 2: does it or does it not hyposthetically proceed from the sun.
Speaker 2: So this is a very complex topic.
Speaker 1: It's going to get intricate, it is going to get
Speaker 1: absolutely incredibly in many ways incredibly technical, and so again
Speaker 1: I encourage you guys to please have your your notes
Speaker 1: out and be ready to discuss. Our guests are of
Speaker 1: agreed to doing ten minute opening statements and they will
Speaker 1: have a minute bleed if they so choose. We're going
Speaker 1: to start with Timothy Gordon. The time is on the clock.
Speaker 1: You have ten minutes. You can start now.
Speaker 2: So the second question tonight is nothing less than the
Speaker 2: unity of the Trinity. Does the Holy Spirit proceed from
Speaker 2: the Father alone or from both the Father and the
Speaker 2: Son together is one eternal source. This is called the philioquay.
Speaker 2: It means and the Son. The Catholic position is that
Speaker 2: the Holy Spirit proceeds from the person of the Father
Speaker 2: through the person of the Son. Brief historical note, there's
Speaker 2: a semantic dodge that happens with Orthodox The narrative proves
Speaker 2: how absurdly reactive the Orthodox position is against the Catholic position.
Speaker 2: Or early on, there are a couple of thinkers. One
Speaker 2: is named Photius. The other is Michael Ceriularius, who was
Speaker 2: the patriarch during the Schism, who mistakenly thought that the
Speaker 2: Catholic philioque meant a polyarchic generation of the divine essence,
Speaker 2: meaning that both the Father and the Son like generate
Speaker 2: the essence as it comes to the Spirit, which has
Speaker 2: never been the Catholic position. It's the Catholic position has
Speaker 2: always been monarchic. The Father alone generates it through the
Speaker 2: Son it comes to the Holy Spirit. So so together
Speaker 2: these thinkers, who are separated by about two hundred and
Speaker 2: fifty years, Photius and Cerularius together reduced the Orthodox position
Speaker 2: to the view for for a time that the Spirit
Speaker 2: proceeded from the Sun only economically or temporarily. By the
Speaker 2: time they realized their error in interpretation in the late
Speaker 2: thirteenth century, the Eastern Orthodox, they're already committed to schism,
Speaker 2: and so even though they became willing to admit that
Speaker 2: the Spirit proceeded from the Sun eternally and this is
Speaker 2: an eternal relationship, they maintained some linguistic distance from the
Speaker 2: Catholic position, which is called hypostatic procession. It means a
Speaker 2: procession from the person by use of nonsensical language like
Speaker 2: eternal manifestation, which is either a distinction without a difference
Speaker 2: from the Roman Catholic view and we're the same all along,
Speaker 2: or else it's nonsensical here. I'm on this one topic
Speaker 2: of three. I'm very willing to be persuaded, but it
Speaker 2: seems just like a semantic dodge. They don't want to
Speaker 2: have the Catholic view. By the time the Eastern Orthodox
Speaker 2: realized that, Photius in around eight hundred and Ceriularius around
Speaker 2: two hundred and fifty years later, badly misunderstood the philioque
Speaker 2: and created this whole stink they decide. It seems they
Speaker 2: decided to employ the semantic dodge rather than admit the
Speaker 2: air of these two thinkers. So it depends what's being said.
Speaker 2: If the Father alone truly spirates, truly spirates the Spirit,
Speaker 2: then it becomes nonsensical. It would deny that all the
Speaker 2: Father has belongs to the Son, which is a quote
Speaker 2: directly from scripture. From John's Gospel, it severs the eternal
Speaker 2: relation of the Spirit to the Son, which again Jesus says,
Speaker 2: all that the Father has I have. In this sense,
Speaker 2: Scripture strongly supports philioka, which is, the Father gives the
Speaker 2: divine essence to the Holy Spirit through the Son. The
Speaker 2: spirit is called the spirit of the Son in Galatians
Speaker 2: chapter four, verse six. In Romans chapter eight, verse nine,
Speaker 2: Christ breathes the spirit. In John chapter twenty, verse twenty two,
Speaker 2: this is an image of external procession. I think they'll
Speaker 2: say it's strictly economic. But he's breathing the spirit, and
Speaker 2: it's an eternal relation. When Jesus says all that the
Speaker 2: Father has is mine. John chapter sixteen, verse fifteen, nothing
Speaker 2: is excluded from the sun the river of life. In
Speaker 2: the final Book of the Bible Revelation twenty two, verse one,
Speaker 2: the river of life flows from the throne of the
Speaker 2: Father and the Lamb. This has only one possible meaning
Speaker 2: that I can construe most condemningly, and there is a
Speaker 2: lot of equivocal language here. And again I think there's
Speaker 2: the least difference between our two positions of all these
Speaker 2: three topics by far. I would say that the Eastern
Speaker 2: Orthodox thinkers, or Eastern thinkers of the first millennium, many
Speaker 2: of them largely support it. Cyril of Alexandria says spirit
Speaker 2: is from God in the Sun and through the Son.
Speaker 2: That's an Eastern thinker. Saint Maximus the Confessor says, outright,
Speaker 2: the Latins are correct. They mean from the Father through
Speaker 2: the Son. Saint Basil and Gregory of Nissa both say
Speaker 2: almost identically, all God's works are from the Father through
Speaker 2: the Son in the spirit. Saint John Damascene gives an
Speaker 2: amazing image for all of it, for anybody out there
Speaker 2: that's trying to think about it. This is an amazing
Speaker 2: image and it captures both the medium and the substance
Speaker 2: of the way that I believe the philioque works. He says,
Speaker 2: the Father is the source the Sun is a river,
Speaker 2: the Holy Spirit is a lake. The spirit quote proceeds
Speaker 2: from the Father and rests in the Sun. Saint Gregory
Speaker 2: of Nissa writes, every operation which extend from God to
Speaker 2: creation has its origin from the Father, proceeds through the Son,
Speaker 2: and is perfected in the Holy Spirit. This is very
Speaker 2: very close, very close to our view. None of these views,
Speaker 2: because of the abstrusity of the topic, are going to
Speaker 2: be identical, particularly in the Early Church, but it's very
Speaker 2: close to what we're saying. A hypostatic procession, a procession
Speaker 2: of the Father through the person of the Son to
Speaker 2: the Spirit. But still only the Spirit only gets the
Speaker 2: divine essence from one source. That source is the Father
Speaker 2: alone through through Jesus. As a reminder, Avenatia says, the
Speaker 2: Holy Spirit has to the Son the same proper relation
Speaker 2: as we have known the Son to have to the Father.
Speaker 2: So a nice relation of proportion. The Holy Spirit is
Speaker 2: to the Son as the Son is to the Father.
Speaker 2: Gregory and Azienzas said, if there ever was a time
Speaker 2: that the Father was not the Son was not. If
Speaker 2: ever there was a time when the Sun was not,
Speaker 2: then the Holy Spirit was not showing eternality through temporality,
Speaker 2: and Saint Epiphanius of Salamus says, the Spirit is from
Speaker 2: the Father indeed, but he is not without the Son.
Speaker 2: For if the spirit is of the Father, he is
Speaker 2: also of the Son. For the Son says he will
Speaker 2: receive from me. Ecumenical councils support this. It was not
Speaker 2: crystal clear until the fourth latter in council. The Spirit
Speaker 2: receives equally from both leons two, which takes place supposed
Speaker 2: to be the Reunion Council, the first Reunion Council in
Speaker 2: twelve seventy four, from the Father and the Son, as
Speaker 2: from one principle one spiration. There's equivocation on whether or
Speaker 2: not there's one principle at times there's just one principle,
Speaker 2: one spiration through the Son. Florence in fourteen thirty nine,
Speaker 2: which actually was the Reunion Council. The Catholic Church and
Speaker 2: the Orthodox Church did unify at the Florence Council, where
Speaker 2: the Orthodox position thirty one the thirty three delegates said,
Speaker 2: you are right on phillyoquay and on the papacy says
Speaker 2: spirit eternally from both one principal one spiration. Now scripturally,
Speaker 2: the spirit is sent by both the Father and the
Speaker 2: Son in John chapter fourteen, verse twenty six and in
Speaker 2: John chapter sixteen, verse seven. Logically speaking, this holds if
Speaker 2: the son cannot spirate, he is less than the Father,
Speaker 2: which is a semi arianist error. Unity requires it as well.
Speaker 2: Phillioquay preserves the Trinity's unity, denying it divides the Father
Speaker 2: and the Son. So I'd say this that you have
Speaker 2: to take this historical look at the Phillyoquay one because
Speaker 2: it's so dense, but also because the historical account is
Speaker 2: really really important. It seems that by the time the
Speaker 2: Orthodox real we weren't we Catholics did not the Latins
Speaker 2: didn't have the position on the filioqua that they were
Speaker 2: attributing to us. They did not want to admit that
Speaker 2: the position had being correct all along. So until this
Speaker 2: misunderstanding about what Western fathers meant began, the Eastern fathers
Speaker 2: were comfortable with eternal relations between the Spirit and the Sun.
Speaker 2: It's called the Athenation model, after all, and Athenacious is
Speaker 2: an Eastern father. This is the Eastern formulation of the
Speaker 2: hypostatic procession, though they don't use the term hypostatic. In
Speaker 2: the sixth century, the formulation begins getting put into the Western,
Speaker 2: non Roman creeds, which makes the I guess East feel threatened.
Speaker 2: There's a lot of natural tension at the time. In
Speaker 2: eight oh three, Charlemagne enthusiastically adds it to the creed.
Speaker 2: Frankish priests at the time say the creed this way
Speaker 2: in the Holy Land. And then in eight sixty nine,
Speaker 2: this important date, Photius of Constantinople says the creed is heretical.
Speaker 2: He thinks that it means the Holy Spirit's essence in
Speaker 2: the Creed comes from two sources. This is just wrong.
Speaker 2: It's an embarrassment. He thought that the Catholic position was
Speaker 2: one of Polyarchia. And it's probably why we're disagreeing about
Speaker 2: this today is because there's an error mate and a
Speaker 2: misinterpretation of the Catholic position that's factual, with no account
Speaker 2: ever given for it by Photius or his people. He
Speaker 2: thinks it means the Holy Spirit's essence in the creed
Speaker 2: comes from two sources. To repeat for people out there,
Speaker 2: for those whom this is new, Photius says, the spirit
Speaker 2: has no eternal relation with the Son, which is not
Speaker 2: I believe the Orthodox position today even only a historical
Speaker 2: temporal economic relation is what Photius was willing to say
Speaker 2: because he knew he didn't want that Catholic view. Fifty four,
Speaker 2: Michael Cerularius revitalizes Photius is overreacting misunderstanding of the Philly. Okay,
Speaker 2: are we at time? You know we're at time? Okay,
Speaker 2: And I would say that this is a history of
Speaker 2: a misunderstanding without account ever taken.
Speaker 1: All right, going over in the chat you know, remember
Speaker 1: you guys, at any point if you think someone's cooking,
Speaker 1: it's always one in the chat for ja two in
Speaker 1: the chat for ten. We're gonna go over to Jay
Speaker 1: Dier at the Orthodox position on the Philly. Okay, if
Speaker 1: I'm even pronouncing that right, iings to pronounce that differently,
Speaker 1: So sorry for that.
Speaker 2: But go ahead and give us your opening statement. Yeah,
Speaker 2: thank you. Give you a second to set up your
Speaker 2: notes here, and do you wanna do you want to
Speaker 2: a couple of seconds here? Uh? No, I got it.
Speaker 1: Okay, I'll start your timer whenever you're ready. Let me
Speaker 1: know when you're ready to begin or so.
Speaker 3: The Orthodox doctrine is again going to flow out of
Speaker 3: the teaching of the Cappadocians, and particularly Constantinople one, which
Speaker 3: is the second Ecumenical Council. Keep that in mind, because
Speaker 3: second Ecamenical Council was called closed and confirmed outside.
Speaker 2: Of communion with Rome.
Speaker 3: At the time Saint Melidias of Antioch was the presiding bishop.
Speaker 3: He died outside of commune with Rome, and a few
Speaker 3: years later Rome eventually accepts that council as the dogmatic
Speaker 3: definition of the Church, supposedly. I want to before we
Speaker 3: get into this, well, I'll just start here. In the
Speaker 3: Orthodox view, following the Cappadocians, there's a famous dictim of
Speaker 3: Gregor Nazianzus.
Speaker 2: Everything that the Father.
Speaker 3: Has, the son has likewise accept the causality. You'll notice
Speaker 3: that nowhere in that discussion did you hear a clear discussion,
Speaker 3: a clear explanation of what the Father is as the
Speaker 3: sole archade. The Father is the principal fount, the source,
Speaker 3: and the unorigin at beginning point of the triad. Thus,
Speaker 3: his hyposthetic property in Orthodox theology is is precisely to
Speaker 3: be picked out as cause. That's why, if you heard
Speaker 3: in the first part he made the huge mistake of
Speaker 3: calling the Divine Essence a say or autotheos or of
Speaker 3: himself or of itself. It is the Father alone, according
Speaker 3: to the Capitoian and constantin one teaching, that is God
Speaker 3: of himself.
Speaker 2: Why because the Son and the Spirit have.
Speaker 3: Their origin in the Father, in particularly the Father's essence.
Speaker 3: The Son and the Spirit thus do not possess and
Speaker 3: cannot possess, the Father's hypostatic property. And so Tim doesn't
Speaker 3: seem to be aware of what the Creed teaches. When
Speaker 3: the Creed says, I believe in one God, the Divine Essence,
Speaker 3: Oh no, it's actually one God, the Father. Tim appealed
Speaker 3: to monotheism, apparently not being aware of the fact that
Speaker 3: the word monotheism is a sixteen hundreds term. Maybe he's
Speaker 3: not aware of the term that was used explicitly in
Speaker 3: the Creed and amongst all the Church fathers east and
Speaker 3: West for many years, and that is the monarchea in
Speaker 3: the Greek. The monarchia of the Father is the beginning
Speaker 3: point of Orthodox Trinitarian theology, particularly Exodus three fourteen, when
Speaker 3: God says, I am from fourteen fifteen, I am that
Speaker 3: I am as Saint Maximus, Saint Grey Palamas says he
Speaker 3: did not say I am essence.
Speaker 2: He said I am as an I am he.
Speaker 3: Thus, the Father is the beginning point of all Trinitarian theology,
Speaker 3: and contrary to Latin metaphysical essentialism, we don't begin our
Speaker 3: Trinitarian theology with the divine essence the Father's hypostatic property,
Speaker 3: since it's what picks him out as the one God,
Speaker 3: as the cause of the source the RK.
Speaker 2: This is the cappadoc in one on one teaching.
Speaker 3: Cannot be shared as the cappuditions noted, whatever is a
Speaker 3: hypostatic property is unique to and individuates that person. Whatever
Speaker 3: is not is common to all three. Otherwise there would
Speaker 3: be some form of subordinationism in the triad if there
Speaker 3: were to be a power and attribute a property that
Speaker 3: two persons have that one lacks. You'll notice when Tim
Speaker 3: gave his explanations, he explicitly affirmed the very thing that
Speaker 3: Photius pointed out. He says, he's a red Photius. It
Speaker 3: doesn't sound like he's actually read it.
Speaker 2: To me.
Speaker 3: I think he's read some Roman Catholic websites that cite it.
Speaker 3: I've read it actually multiple times through us, so I
Speaker 3: know the Mystagaji very well. He actually talks about the
Speaker 3: manifestation of the spirit in the Mystagaji, which Tim says
Speaker 3: they don't talk about They missed this and had to
Speaker 3: make it up later. But wait a minute, Tim said,
Speaker 3: if one cannot spiate or if the he said that,
Speaker 3: if one of them does not spiate, they're less. Thus
Speaker 3: the son has to be able to spirate. Tim, maybe
Speaker 3: you didn't realize that in the In the Mysticgogy, that's
Speaker 3: actually an argument that Photius makes that the spirit doesn't
Speaker 3: aspirate or generate.
Speaker 2: So, by your own argumentation, if the son is not
Speaker 2: equal to the Father because he doesn't spirrate, then the
Speaker 2: spirit has to also spirrate.
Speaker 3: But nobody teaches this. The spirit spir rates or generates
Speaker 3: a person. So by your own argument, you subordinated the spirit,
Speaker 3: which is the very argument this made in the Mystic God,
Speaker 3: which tells me that you didn't actually read the Mystagogy.
Speaker 2: I'm going to quote you again. If one does not
Speaker 2: inspire it, then they're less. That's what you said. I
Speaker 2: hope the son does inspire at east less? Sorry?
Speaker 3: Uhuh so the spirit does he do? No, he doesn't,
Speaker 3: does he? So by that same John's Gospel, he says,
Speaker 3: I have everything the Father has.
Speaker 2: Yeah, except the causality as the Cappadotions and constantin Noble
Speaker 2: One teach. So quoting the scripture, you're quoting the Cappadocians.
Speaker 2: Uh scripture.
Speaker 3: Oh wait a minute, So the concetpt Noble one is
Speaker 3: the dog of the Roman Kelly Church or not, because
Speaker 3: it says you have to follow the Cappadocian teaching all.
Speaker 2: The Father is the sole cause, sole cause.
Speaker 3: Now isn't it interesting that Roman Catholic scholars themselves have discussed,
Speaker 3: by the way, Basil talking about eternal manifestation in Edward
Speaker 3: Kishenski's famous book The Philioka, which is one of the
Speaker 3: more recent historical academic texts on that. Oh but wait
Speaker 3: a minute, did you know it turns out that Sishansky
Speaker 3: actually went from Unionism to Orthodoxy. Why is that, Well,
Speaker 3: he wrote this book about the philio Oka and he
Speaker 3: realized that. Turns out Basil teaches eternal manifestation on page
Speaker 3: thirty nine, which oh you thought that was made up
Speaker 3: in the Middle Ages, even though it's in Saint Basil.
Speaker 2: Oh, but it's also in the Mystagogy in book two.
Speaker 2: So you're acclaiming all.
Speaker 3: Of these things about what the Orthodox position is and
Speaker 3: where it made all these mistakes. You don't have any
Speaker 3: knowledge or familiarity with constantinumble one. And it's mandate that
Speaker 3: you have to follow the capitotion. Teaching on the Father
Speaker 3: is the sole cause. And in fact you give to
Speaker 3: the son the very thing that picks out the Father,
Speaker 3: which thus creates a diad, as Photius.
Speaker 2: Argued in the mystagogy originally.
Speaker 3: Now to come back to this notion of the monarchia again,
Speaker 3: in John fifteen twenty six, Jesus illustrates our position when
Speaker 3: he says, when the helper comes, who I will send
Speaker 3: to you from the Father. That's Economia, the spirit of truth,
Speaker 3: who proceeds from the Father. Procession is explicitly said by
Speaker 3: Jesus to be from the Father. Now Tim likes to say, ah,
Speaker 3: but I can go to Romans, and I can go
Speaker 3: to Galatians four, and I can find Economia. Passage is
Speaker 3: where Jesus sends the Holy Spirit or it's called the
Speaker 3: spirit of the Sun. And I can read that back
Speaker 3: into the eternal trinitarian relations. No, you cannot, And I'll
Speaker 3: give an example. In Isaiah forty eight, we're told that
Speaker 3: the Spirit sends the Son. Is that going to be
Speaker 3: read back into the eternal relations in Isaiah forty eight.
Speaker 2: No, and this is a classic passage that Orthodox.
Speaker 3: Church fathers have cited for centuries to show that you
Speaker 3: cannot arbitrarily say that the economic relations and passages can
Speaker 3: be read into the eternal triad. That's only it only
Speaker 3: takes one example to show why you can't do that.
Speaker 3: Thomas Aquinas said persons are relations or persona at relatio. No,
Speaker 3: a person is not a relation. A person is a subject.
Speaker 3: And this is precisely why his essentialist trinitarian theology goes wrong.
Speaker 3: You don't begin our trinitarian theology with the divine essence,
Speaker 3: but rather with the person of the Father. And that's
Speaker 3: what the Orthodox Church fathers teach. That's why we continue
Speaker 3: to uphold the Father as the soul arcade.
Speaker 2: Now beyond that, how much, how to have you have?
Speaker 2: Three minutes?
Speaker 3: Okay, beyond that, I want to talk about his quotation
Speaker 3: which surprised me.
Speaker 2: He cited to Gregor of Nissa, and I don't think.
Speaker 3: He even understood what he was citing, because again he's
Speaker 3: pulling from Quote Minds, where he said that every operation
Speaker 3: is from the Father through the Son and in the
Speaker 3: Holy spirit. He is apparently not aware that this is
Speaker 3: the Basilian dictum that every Orthodox person knows very clearly
Speaker 3: from the liturgy, which is about the movement of the energies.
Speaker 3: If you'd actually read Nissa in that section, you would
Speaker 3: know that he's talking about the energetic procession, which is
Speaker 3: the same thing as energetic manifestation.
Speaker 2: But you didn't know that. You just saw a quote
Speaker 2: mind that.
Speaker 3: You thought would help to prove philioak way, when it's
Speaker 3: actually the opposite of philiokuay. So I'm glad that you
Speaker 3: cited this, because energetic manifestation or energetic procession is very
Speaker 3: crucial to our doctrine.
Speaker 2: The reason that we don't.
Speaker 3: Believe in the Latin definition is precisely because they don't
Speaker 3: understand that the movement of the energies is necessarily connected
Speaker 3: to rejecting the person of the son as a spirator
Speaker 3: of the spirit.
Speaker 2: So no, he's only.
Speaker 3: Shown that he didn't understand any of what he read,
Speaker 3: if he even read it. Furthermore, the letter to Marhinus
Speaker 3: that he quoted doesn't say the Latins are correct what
Speaker 3: Maximus says, and the letter to Marhus is that at
Speaker 3: this point it's unclear what they mean. We ought to
Speaker 3: just leave it up to an open question, and it's
Speaker 3: not solved until twelve to seventy four of the Council Lions.
Speaker 3: So this happens many centuries later, and we would agree
Speaker 3: that at that time it was not exactly clear because
Speaker 3: if you read Saint Hilary Portier, guess what he doesn't
Speaker 3: teach philioque, as Sushenski admits, he teaches that the father
Speaker 3: is the soul monarchia in the godhead. All that the
Speaker 3: father has belongs to the son is correct, except not
Speaker 3: paternity or causality. So it is not the case exclusively
Speaker 3: that all that the father has belongs to the son.
Speaker 3: And anybody who knows orthoxiology would know that there's no
Speaker 3: semantic dodge. As we said, Toodius doesn't teach anything different.
Speaker 3: In fact, in eternal manifestation, if you'd read some of
Speaker 3: this from people on our side, is found in the Cappadocians. Yeah,
Speaker 3: I'll go ahead and just stop.
Speaker 1: With that, all right, You have an additional forty five seconds.
Speaker 1: You can add it to any one of your positions.
Speaker 1: As we're talking about. Well, I'm sorry, I'm sorry, Okay,
Speaker 1: you want to have this second.
Speaker 2: Okay, go ahead, you have forty five seconds left. Okay.
Speaker 3: So where do we get the idea that this both
Speaker 3: essence energy teaching which is directly connected to the person
Speaker 3: of the Father as the sole monarchia in the Godhead. Notice,
Speaker 3: the Cappadocians don't teach monotheism. They never talk about monotheism,
Speaker 3: if in anyone and by the way I sent all
Speaker 3: this information to him, I told him to listen to
Speaker 3: doctor bro Bo Brandtson's lectures on the monarchy of the Father,
Speaker 3: because he would have been able to see that in
Speaker 3: on the Holy Spirit of Saint Basil, Letter thirty eight
Speaker 3: to Saint Basil and Nissa against Eunomius, by both Basil
Speaker 3: and against Unomius Nisa theological orations, particularly Ration twenty five,
Speaker 3: we have in those statements and as well as the
Speaker 3: decree of Constantinople one, that you must follow the Cappadocian
Speaker 3: view that the One God is the Father. There is
Speaker 3: no identification of the One God as the Essence as
Speaker 3: is taught in Augustinian theology. It just so happens that
Speaker 3: in Tim's mind, in the Roman Catholic mind, all the
Speaker 3: world accepted Augustinian theology is trinitarian, but they're totally ignorant
Speaker 3: of constantinople One's Cappadocian theology. And guess what, Augustine's not
Speaker 3: taught theology is not taught a constantineble one.
Speaker 1: All right, I would like to hear one's in the chat.
Speaker 1: If you think for the opening statement one's the chat,
Speaker 1: do you feel like there was a stronger or I
Speaker 1: shouldn't say feel Do you confidently know before your family
Speaker 1: and God that Jay Dire had a stronger argument? And
Speaker 1: two do you confidently know between your family and God
Speaker 1: that Timothy Gordon had a stronger argument? As you're writing
Speaker 1: that down, let's go ahead and we will jump in
Speaker 1: to our rebuttals. Are you prepared and ready to uh
Speaker 1: to rebuttal? All right, Timothy, I'm gonna go ahead and
Speaker 1: reset the clock. You're going to have five minutes. Give
Speaker 1: me one moment here to adjust and set the clock.
Speaker 1: All right, If you're ready, your time starts now.
Speaker 2: Okay, Uh. Constantinople One wasn't outside of communion. Jay misspoke there.
Speaker 2: Malicius was in communion, so it was an in communion
Speaker 2: council unless I misheard Je you said it was outside
Speaker 2: of communion a source on that. The father. Also, the
Speaker 2: father is the only auto theos. Well, malicious was in communion.
Speaker 2: It's a communion council. Uh, people check, I don't want
Speaker 2: to waste my time. The father is the only auto theos.
Speaker 2: The ark is the father. Now this is this is
Speaker 2: my my soul time here, check it, google it. Uh.
Speaker 2: The father is the only auto theos is basic constantinople
Speaker 2: one was before before out of communion. Have you read Basil.
Speaker 2: We're talking about Malaysia. Jay, let's ask some questions during
Speaker 2: during during this first sex faults. So the father, the
Speaker 2: father is the only auto theos. This is absolutely affirmed
Speaker 2: by Catholic theology. One of Jay's tricks that everyone everyone
Speaker 2: has to look out for is he'll just say, well,
Speaker 2: this is Cappadocia. Have you read Cappadocian theology. That well,
Speaker 2: according to Catholic theology, the father is the only auto theos.
Speaker 2: According to Phillyoquay, father is the only auto theos. The
Speaker 2: ark is the fathers according to Catholic theology. According to
Speaker 2: the Phillyoquay the ark is the father's Let me say that,
Speaker 2: and it's not subordination to say Philly Oquay because they're
Speaker 2: all the essence, and because of the relations of opposition
Speaker 2: between the three persons of the Trinity, they're all the essence,
Speaker 2: and because of passive spiration of the Holy Spirit. Now,
Speaker 2: you can quibble with scripture if you want. When Jesus
Speaker 2: says in Gone John's Gospel that all the Father has
Speaker 2: I have as well, evidently Jay didn't read that all
Speaker 2: the Father has I have as well, and he's saying
Speaker 2: that it's subordinationism for me to read that scripture and
Speaker 2: to say, Okay, two of the persons can have active
Speaker 2: spiration and one of the persons, the Holy Spirit, can
Speaker 2: have something called passive spiration. But that's the fact. The
Speaker 2: Father is the Autotheos, that's the ARKA. Retards in Chad
Speaker 2: are probably saying something like, oh this is this is Orthodox. No,
Speaker 2: this is Catholic. This is Catholic as well. Of course
Speaker 2: the ark is the Father's. For the retards out there,
Speaker 2: only the divine, the Divine Essence only comes in an
Speaker 2: ungenerated way to the Father. Now, the Son is the
Speaker 2: only begotten. He gets it from the Father. So we'll
Speaker 2: say it again, the Holy Spirit gets it from the source,
Speaker 2: from the ark of the fathers through the Son. This
Speaker 2: is not subordinationism. There's spiration happening actively from the Father
Speaker 2: and the Son and the Spirit. Now I wouldn't be
Speaker 2: making this bold claim, and neither would the Roman Catholic
Speaker 2: Church via filioque, if not for passages where Jesus affirms
Speaker 2: explicitly over against Jadier and any what else he wants
Speaker 2: to sight that everything he has comes from the Father explicitly.
Speaker 2: And so this is Saint Hilary of Poitier concerning the
Speaker 2: Holy Spirit. He is of the Father and the Son
Speaker 2: his sources. I'll say that again. He is of the
Speaker 2: Father and the Son his sources. Or he is not
Speaker 2: without origin. He is from the Father and the Son.
Speaker 2: This is about as explicit as you can be. And
Speaker 2: Jay's saying just because I don't know, he's accuse me
Speaker 2: of quote mining. Let me read it again. The Holy
Speaker 2: Spirit is from the Father and the Son his sources.
Speaker 2: Not to say that the Father is not the only autotheos,
Speaker 2: but the sources still can be the Father with the son.
Speaker 2: Where he's not without origin. He is from the Father
Speaker 2: and the Son. If ever there was a time the
Speaker 2: Father was not, then the son was not. If ever
Speaker 2: there was a time when the Son was not, then
Speaker 2: the Holy Spirit was not. I don't know how this
Speaker 2: is merely an economic relation. This is Gregory Nazianzas, and
Speaker 2: it seems really strange to be talking about nazianzas As
Speaker 2: if this is not some sort of eternal relation drawn
Speaker 2: between the Father and the Son. Tell me where I'm wrong,
Speaker 2: Tell me where I'm wrong, if this is eternal or not.
Speaker 2: When the Helper this is John fifteen, verse twenty six.
Speaker 2: I just want to get this out. When the Helper comes,
Speaker 2: whom I will send you from the Father, the Spirit
Speaker 2: of truth, who proceeds from the Father, he will bear
Speaker 2: witness about me. I don't know with regard to Orthodox
Speaker 2: theology what this means, but this is scripture, and it
Speaker 2: is utterly clear. It is the Father, the source, the
Speaker 2: direct spirator, through the Son, another direct spirator sending the
Speaker 2: Holy Spirit. This does not contradict the ark being solely gods,
Speaker 2: the moan arcade of gods. All right, time, all.
Speaker 1: Right, So as we have the rebuttal there, we're gonna
Speaker 1: go ahead and we're gonna move over to Uh, We're
Speaker 1: gonna move over to Jay.
Speaker 2: You're gonna have five minutes on the clock.
Speaker 1: Let's try to keep it tight for the sake of
Speaker 1: the length of the of the debate and.
Speaker 2: Make sure people are able to watch the whole thing.
Speaker 2: So you have five minutes. Are you ready? Just to
Speaker 2: make sure you have your notes in front of you.
Speaker 2: All right, great, all right, Jane, you can begin now. Yeah.
Speaker 3: I mean, I don't think Tim understands half of what
Speaker 3: he's talking about, because if he wanted to pull out
Speaker 3: the Hillary quote. First of all, Shansky admits on that
Speaker 3: section on Hillary that this isn't really a good argue
Speaker 3: for anything to do with the philioquid. For one, Tim
Speaker 3: may not have heard or may not be aware what
Speaker 3: the lions in Florence definition actually is. But he tried
Speaker 3: to pull Hillary to say his sources. Are you aware
Speaker 3: that lions and Florence teach that the father together are
Speaker 3: a single source of spiration? In your view, there's no
Speaker 3: dual sources. It's not the father and the son. So
Speaker 3: either Hillary got it wrong or that's not a text
Speaker 3: that proves eternal hypostatic double procession. The tacks in scripture,
Speaker 3: as I pointed out, don't necessarily prove what he thinks
Speaker 3: they prove. Again, because I pointed out in Isaiah forty eight,
Speaker 3: the text says that the Spirit sent the Son, and
Speaker 3: that's a messianic prophecy.
Speaker 2: Section.
Speaker 3: Nobody believes that the Holy Spirit is the center of
Speaker 3: the Son. If you read that economia back into the
Speaker 3: eternal relations. Again, he didn't address the argument I made
Speaker 3: about the power of generating inspirating. He said that the
Speaker 3: son must have this because because it shows also that
Speaker 3: he's equal to the Father, because he has everything that
Speaker 3: the Father has. Again, he's not realizing that when I'm
Speaker 3: citing the Cappadocians, I'm not just citing church fathers because
Speaker 3: I'm citing them as random opinions. I'm citing what the
Speaker 3: decree of constantinople One says, which is that you must
Speaker 3: follow the Cappadocian dictum and the Cappadocian interpretation of the
Speaker 3: Niceno constant of the Politan creed. When the creed from
Speaker 3: that council, which was an edited version of nicea One's creed,
Speaker 3: says I believe in one God, the Father. It is
Speaker 3: identifying it as the Cappadocians all teach the sole source
Speaker 3: or rka or monarchia of the Father. It is not
Speaker 3: the Latin essentialist definitions of Thomas Aquinas and later Roman
Speaker 3: Catholic councils, which, by the way, refutes what he said
Speaker 3: the first time around when he tried to make the
Speaker 3: Church Fathers into aristotomists.
Speaker 2: Again, they're not.
Speaker 3: Furthermore, he said in his opening statement that a sayety
Speaker 3: God is when he was cashing out his divine simplicity
Speaker 3: act as Purist doctrine, a sayety a sayty means self
Speaker 3: existence or of oneself.
Speaker 2: That's what autotheos is.
Speaker 3: So now he's attributing the very thing that he argued
Speaker 3: in his opening statement about the divine essence to the
Speaker 3: person of the Father, showing that he confuses essential properties
Speaker 3: with hyposthetic properties. But what do we expect from people
Speaker 3: who think that relations of opposition is a way to
Speaker 3: cash out something in the triad? Nobody in the Church
Speaker 3: and the Church Fathers teaches a relation of oppositions, Because,
Speaker 3: as east Congar says in his famous essay on sant
Speaker 3: Agustin and the Kappadocians, that's an Augustinian idea that's developed
Speaker 3: in Thomas Aquinas. It doesn't exist in the first thousand
Speaker 3: years of the Church. And again because he actually thinks
Speaker 3: that relations are persons, because that's the tonistic teaching, when no,
Speaker 3: a relation is something that a subject has, right, a
Speaker 3: subject has a relation, A relation is a predicate. Subjects persons.
Speaker 3: He the father, so he doesn't underst and these basic
Speaker 3: distinctions that the Eastern Church fathers make, which he would
Speaker 3: have done a lot better to actually have read these
Speaker 3: Eastern Church fathers or to actually read maybe some of
Speaker 3: the academic texts from his own theologians about the Philioquay,
Speaker 3: admitting that a lot of these quote minds don't actually
Speaker 3: work to prove anything and actually work against his case
Speaker 3: because again he wants to downplay his own church's dogmatic definition,
Speaker 3: and he's patently totally false. I've got scholars here right
Speaker 3: next to me for years have been talking about the
Speaker 3: fact that Constantinople one closed outside of communion with Rome.
Speaker 3: Saint Melidius of Antioch was in schism with Rome. He
Speaker 3: doesn't even know that, and so he just says google it,
Speaker 3: which again shows he's deficient, totally deficient in this area.
Speaker 3: It's the Malician schism is famous. Basil writes about it
Speaker 3: in his letters, and in fact Basil says Rome is
Speaker 3: absolutely worthless. They can contribute nothing to helping the church
Speaker 3: in the East. They're a waste of time. Doesn't sound
Speaker 3: like papal supremacy to me. But what do you expect
Speaker 3: from people who don't know what the Cappadocian's taught.
Speaker 2: They just think that they do, because well, I can
Speaker 2: read it all through Thomas Aquinas. Thomas Aquinas when.
Speaker 3: He argues against the Phillyoque in contra against the errors
Speaker 3: of the Greeks.
Speaker 2: I've got the recently printed book here. Guess what it's like,
Speaker 2: sixty seventy forgeries.
Speaker 3: So shout out to George, our good buddy, and he
Speaker 3: just published the two volume Errors of the Latins text.
Speaker 3: The second volume is all about forgeries, and one of
Speaker 3: those key forgeries is against the errors of the Greeks
Speaker 3: Thomas Aquinas. And it's entirely possible that Aquinas legitimately believe
Speaker 3: that all the sources he was reading were authentic. But
Speaker 3: now we know, and it's now admitted in the scholarship.
Speaker 3: The Vatican admits it as well. I've got the Alexandria document, which,
Speaker 3: by the way, I don't know if Tim ever had
Speaker 3: the time to read his own Vatican statement about the East,
Speaker 3: both in she eighty and here it admits most of
Speaker 3: the positions that I'm arguing for.
Speaker 1: Okay, So, like I said, let's get some ones in
Speaker 1: two's in the chats. I want to read a couple
Speaker 1: of the super chats that we have here as we
Speaker 1: get into the cross examination game, just a second to
Speaker 1: get their question in line of what they want to
Speaker 1: talk about. Reminding you that you know, Buddy pp All
Speaker 1: said Tim has been forsaken. Everyone got to donate to
Speaker 1: the stream, or y'all are Yacubians? Like I mentioned. After that,
Speaker 1: tego Ocho said, let's go. I also have a couple
Speaker 1: of critics late night tweakers. A critic of Tim said
Speaker 1: two dollars said, I feel embarrassed for Tim.
Speaker 2: Now.
Speaker 1: However, however, let's talk. God said, fy all polytheists idols
Speaker 1: are created. Tim might be a polytheist, but others are
Speaker 1: saying Jay Dyer ain't no Yukubian. You're not Yucubian.
Speaker 2: Okay. Servant Nectoria said, Jake, keep it up.
Speaker 1: R CC is a joke. I'm sure that's a Roman
Speaker 1: Catholic church. Maximus said, what I say has nothing to
Speaker 1: do with Jay. Also, we have let's talk. God said
Speaker 1: question for Tim, heaven has created? How can you see
Speaker 1: the divine essence in heaven in the beatific vision aka Creationean.
Speaker 2: I don't think we're gonna answer those questions right now.
Speaker 1: Don Visiu said, this is all retarded, splitting hairs over
Speaker 1: divine theosophy leads no one to Christ.
Speaker 2: We also have real Carlism.
Speaker 1: No matter what you think, who you think is winning,
Speaker 1: We're all better off knowing this conversation is drowning out
Speaker 1: James White's gay lisp. Also, we have machine Santo for
Speaker 1: two dollars, and they said, Jay looking twenty years older,
Speaker 1: but he's defined cooking.
Speaker 2: Okay, Hey is he gay? Ass? Hey it's you know what? Yeah?
Speaker 2: Do trust me, man, I've aged so much. I see myself.
Speaker 1: I've only been doing this for like about a decade now.
Speaker 1: When I first started, I looked like a teenager, like
Speaker 1: you know, look like a nice little kid.
Speaker 2: And now I'm like nearly look dead. Warth thunder Us
Speaker 2: sent thirty dollars.
Speaker 1: Said Tom was talking about potential equivocations in the start,
Speaker 1: yet his arguments hinges on them. He sneaks in quote
Speaker 1: denying actus purists passive potency as well sneaking in ortho
Speaker 1: real distinction scholastic major real distinction.
Speaker 2: We also had a dork.
Speaker 1: Jansen said, please ask mobs to ban anyone in the
Speaker 1: chat who says that we should act more civil in chat.
Speaker 2: Fine, you guys can, guys go to war. And then
Speaker 2: true for once seesaid.
Speaker 1: Tim said, we can't experience any uncreatedness of God as creatures,
Speaker 1: so how does the incarnation work? I'll read two more
Speaker 1: here before we'll move on to the cross examination. Cult
Speaker 1: of Modernism said and quote, we deny the son is
Speaker 1: either a cause or a father, but although we do
Speaker 1: not say that the spirit is from the Sun, we
Speaker 1: call him the spirit of the son. And he quotes there,
Speaker 1: and I think that's perhaps probably Latin, and I'm not
Speaker 1: going to try to read it. Machine Santo also, I
Speaker 1: wonder if he believes the son is begotten by the son,
Speaker 1: because the son does what he sees the father doing.
Speaker 1: And one more quote from the same Culto as the
Speaker 1: second party said, the holy spirit is a spirit of
Speaker 1: the Father as proceeding from the Father, and is the
Speaker 1: Son's spirit not as originating from him, but as proceeding
Speaker 1: through him from the Father the Father alone. It is cause.
Speaker 1: All right, you guys, keep sending your super chaps. We'll
Speaker 1: be reading some more after this. We're gonna jump into
Speaker 1: the cross examination. If you're just joining the stream here,
Speaker 1: it's where they can ask questions and then interrupt. This
Speaker 1: is a very strict format that they've agreed to, and
Speaker 1: a lot of you are enjoying it. With that few
Speaker 1: thousand of you watching across the platforms, I appreciate you
Speaker 1: guys watching. Don't for you to like, share and subscribe
Speaker 1: to this video. Let's begin here with Timothy Gordon representing
Speaker 1: the Catholic position. I'm going to reset the clock to
Speaker 1: be one moment. I've got to get out of the
Speaker 1: super chats. Your time starts now.
Speaker 2: Jay, you think triadic relations of opposition don't exist. Triad
Speaker 2: is three, opposition is two, precisely, so there's no opposition
Speaker 2: a triad. So within a triad, there cannot be individual
Speaker 2: relations of opposition. It's relations of origin in our view, now,
Speaker 2: not in your view. As a matter of nature. Have
Speaker 2: you ever played paper scissors rock? Yeah? Do you understand
Speaker 2: that paper scissors rock is at heart triadic relations of opposition,
Speaker 2: which you just said don't exist. The triad does not
Speaker 2: like paper rock scissors. No an, no, no, you said
Speaker 2: that that can't exit because two is indivisible within three
Speaker 2: relations of opposition we have, so as the trinity scissor
Speaker 2: paper rock, paper, these can exist, Bill, reality can exist
Speaker 2: with fatherhood. You said this to Christian Wagner. Do you
Speaker 2: care to amend your statement. It's a major logical I.
Speaker 3: Think that relations of opposition described the thing as relations
Speaker 3: of origin.
Speaker 2: That's what I disagreed with. You said, there's a mathematical
Speaker 2: problem that two doesn't go into because the diad is
Speaker 2: not a triad. But you understand that there can be
Speaker 2: relations of opposition within a triad.
Speaker 3: Speaking naturally, there's not not in the divine triad.
Speaker 2: No, no, we'll explain why. I just demonstrated the relation. Okay,
Speaker 2: so you're going to play the game. Demonstrated paper scissors
Speaker 2: rocks doesn't exist. That's not the triad. That is a triad.
Speaker 2: That's three there. Do you how many positions are there
Speaker 2: with just three? And how many how many oppositions and
Speaker 2: relations triad is so you have a different triadology, and
Speaker 2: that's why this doesn't explain why it's different in the trinity,
Speaker 2: because we works perfect because we You say that, but
Speaker 2: you don't know our position relationship.
Speaker 3: I'm asking within the position of the trinity. Shut up
Speaker 3: and let me answer that question. Your position relations of
Speaker 3: origin is our position, not relation of opposition.
Speaker 2: This is just equivocation. Wait, no, I've heard enough. That's
Speaker 2: equivocation on a turn. Equivocation. You said the orthodox position
Speaker 2: is a quick quote. You're not even familiar with opposition,
Speaker 2: Christian are I'm talking to one dude. Triadic relations of
Speaker 2: opposition cannot exist because two doesn't go into three. That's
Speaker 2: what I said. I said, I diead is what opposition is.
Speaker 2: I didn't say two doesn't go in I th that's
Speaker 2: you're mistaking contrariety and opposition. You don't know you can
Speaker 2: have an opposition with a relations position. How do you
Speaker 2: don't know how? Patrician?
Speaker 3: So you haven't played number theory is not your you're
Speaker 3: ever an now specialty the way that paper argues for
Speaker 3: a did.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I would say he's asking he's asking you to
Speaker 2: cut your response. He wants to continue on this questioning
Speaker 2: within a triod. Within a triad, you can have oppositions
Speaker 2: and it doesn't contradict the triad. I showed the trinity
Speaker 2: show that I created. You didn't show that. You just
Speaker 2: said it it's an analogy. Well, how do you know,
Speaker 2: How do you know what matches up to the triad?
Speaker 2: You don't. No, I didn't say it matches up to
Speaker 2: the triad. You're you're not cross examining.
Speaker 3: Your analogy doesn't work. I thought, that's the thing is
Speaker 3: it works perfectly.
Speaker 2: Reality, filiality in fatherhood, those are opposed within a trinity.
Speaker 3: You're saying they're not opposed. That's not what relations of opposition.
Speaker 2: Forget my analogy oppress This is the most important distinction
Speaker 2: within the entire philio O. Wait, hold on, So you're
Speaker 2: saying that affiliation and fatherhood are not opposed in the
Speaker 2: traditional ways of a couple.
Speaker 3: Will you let me answer this please? Are they opposed?
Speaker 3: There are real relations?
Speaker 2: Are they opposed? Let me finish.
Speaker 3: We do not believe in cashing out who the persons
Speaker 3: are by relations of opposition, because it's relative.
Speaker 2: So filiation and fatherhood are not opposed. It's relative because
Speaker 2: you because there's the third part. They're not a posed.
Speaker 3: You can talk about relations in the triad, but they
Speaker 3: don't ground the persons. That's Lostky's critique of this. You
Speaker 3: could have just read the things.
Speaker 2: I sent you, and then you want to be asking no, no,
Speaker 2: no no, because you didn't read anything I asked you.
Speaker 3: I asked you very specifically. Can there be oppositional terms
Speaker 3: that I'm telling you from ourselves? You don't understand? Is
Speaker 3: the way that dichotomies work. We can have we can dichotomies.
Speaker 2: All I was showing mathematically is that we can conceive
Speaker 2: of a triad that has three parts and three relations
Speaker 2: that are all diadic. But there's there's no part. It's
Speaker 2: just parts, and it doesn't work there. No, of course,
Speaker 2: not right. So that's what doesn't work. But there are
Speaker 2: relations of opposition, No, there's not. Yeah, there's relations of origin.
Speaker 3: Well, why don't you just understand our position before trying
Speaker 3: to trap me on your position?
Speaker 2: I don't hold to your position? Can you? Is there
Speaker 2: a single Eastern thinker between Photius and Blacker? Okay, so
Speaker 2: we got that. So there there can be relations of
Speaker 2: opposition between some trinities. Uh, I never granted any of this.
Speaker 2: Is there a single Eastern thinker between Photius and Blackeranne
Speaker 2: who embraces the eternal procession? Or they all just believers
Speaker 2: in economic procession for those four hundred years. Can you
Speaker 2: name a single thinker between eight hundred and twelve fifty
Speaker 2: who says that there is an eternal procession from the
Speaker 2: Sun to the Holy Spirit?
Speaker 3: Energetic procession is taught in the telmost against John Becos,
Speaker 3: it's in our council. Okay, Wait, so you think you
Speaker 3: don't know what our councils teach. I'm asking you, right,
Speaker 3: but is there a single person and you're not you're
Speaker 3: not aware of the temost against John Becko's You guys
Speaker 3: have thirty seconds, son, but so so, can you explain
Speaker 3: to me what that is? It's a document from the
Speaker 3: Palamite sonods in use against John Becko's Palamite sentence.
Speaker 2: What year they're in? The thirteen hundreds? Okay? No, I said,
Speaker 2: I wore between eight hundred and twelve fifty. I picked
Speaker 2: the dates for specific reason. What if, because it's very
Speaker 2: important to my case. The Catholic cases that between serial
Speaker 2: between Photius and serial areas, they completely botched the understanding
Speaker 2: of what Philly o'quay is, and then for the next
Speaker 2: four hundred and fifty years they reduced all the relations
Speaker 2: between the Sun and the Holy Spirit to economic ones.
Speaker 2: And then when they came back around the time of
Speaker 2: the council, you're citing that they came back in parsed language.
Speaker 2: It's eternal, but it's not hypostatic.
Speaker 1: All right, we're gonna have to cut that there, and
Speaker 1: if you want to continue to respond to that, we're
Speaker 1: gonna have to move over to Jay Dyer. Let me
Speaker 1: go ahead and reset this, and you have five minutes
Speaker 1: on the clock. I gave him a minute bleed because
Speaker 1: it was interesting. I'll give you an extra minute bleed
Speaker 1: if you need to as well. The time starts now.
Speaker 3: It's a stupid argument because I showed you from Sishensky
Speaker 3: that he says Basil talks about eternal manifestation. The very
Speaker 3: quote that you gave from Nissa about the movement of
Speaker 3: the energies. You didn't even know that it's energetic procession.
Speaker 3: So you read things and you quote things, no idea
Speaker 3: what the context is, or that it's actually disproving.
Speaker 2: You not true. You're begging the question, begging the question
Speaker 2: energetic procession, what does that even mean? You cided Nissa,
Speaker 2: every operation moves from the Father through the son in
Speaker 2: the spirit precisely, what do you think operation is there?
Speaker 2: What do you mean? What is that? What's the word?
Speaker 2: What is what's the word of the means hypostatic? What's
Speaker 2: the word for operating? Begging the question because you're begging
Speaker 2: the question because what's energetic procession? What's the word is? Right?
Speaker 2: You use to avoid saying that it moves? To you, goober,
Speaker 2: what's the word when you're talking about the word in
Speaker 2: the Greek for operation? There, I don't, I don't know erga. Yeah,
Speaker 2: I just said so the movement energy in your quote,
Speaker 2: but except energeia has three definitions that are that are
Speaker 2: susceptible of meaning there you would you know? This is
Speaker 2: what I warned people that your own Yeah you don't, No,
Speaker 2: you don't, which can mean either operation, It can mean action,
Speaker 2: it can mean work, it can mean product.
Speaker 3: You just admitted you didn't know what the word was.
Speaker 3: Now what I said is that the did you requires?
Speaker 3: So if it's energy, if it's a word, show that
Speaker 3: it's not hypostatic. That has nothing to do with the
Speaker 3: fact that you misunderstood the quote. No, I didn't misunderstand
Speaker 3: it at all.
Speaker 2: I didn't miss about energetic procession. You didn't know that
Speaker 2: because you didn't know what it was. Yes, I did.
Speaker 2: I said it. You're just lied because you said you
Speaker 2: didn't know what it was energy. But the point is
Speaker 2: you didn't know. You're begging the question, you know as
Speaker 2: you knows, versus you have to lie the question, isn't.
Speaker 2: You're changing the subject because you just got caught lying.
Speaker 2: I didn't get caught lying. I said before you did.
Speaker 2: Why why does it matter? Here's how Jay proved because
Speaker 2: that energetic.
Speaker 1: Because look, we're going we're going in circles right now,
Speaker 1: and we're gonna have to agree to disagreeable. On the
Speaker 1: next section, you said, if one, uh, you have three minutes,
Speaker 1: if one spire, if one cannot spirate, there less does
Speaker 1: the spirit produce?
Speaker 2: A Person's ridiculous. I don't care if you think it's ridiculous.
Speaker 2: Answer it. Repeat the question. You said, if one cannot spirrate,
Speaker 2: they're less talking about the sun, right, m H, Well,
Speaker 2: I was talking about all three persons. Oh so the
Speaker 2: spirit spirates, yeah, passively, the past spirit spir rates. The
Speaker 2: spirit spirates passively. He produced, Well, who does he produce?
Speaker 2: Does he produce? He rates passively? You've never heard the distinction, No,
Speaker 2: who does the Spirit produce. The Spirit produces passively himself.
Speaker 2: Hit the spirit act the spirit. If you never heard
Speaker 2: the distinction between active and passive spiration is the have
Speaker 2: you is the essence of the source, according to see
Speaker 2: all you do. You could come in here and you say,
Speaker 2: according to my theology, it's this. According to campus theology,
Speaker 2: our theologian is passive the spirit. You got to answer
Speaker 2: the question. We're not going to run the clock. The
Speaker 2: Holy Spirit proceed inspirates passively, which means it's done to him. Yes,
Speaker 2: he receives it active versus passive. So yes, he himself aspirted.
Speaker 2: We call that active aspiration.
Speaker 3: Did you even know that? You know it's the Son?
Speaker 3: Are you familiar? Are you familiar who the Holy Spirit?
Speaker 3: You're saying the Holy Spirit produces himself?
Speaker 2: No, I said, that receives spiration from and this is
Speaker 2: a passive spiration. Who does hespirate? He doesn't actively spired?
Speaker 2: Who does thespirate? You said he has to he has
Speaker 2: to spirate to have the same part. You're just playing
Speaker 2: games again because you don't know the Father son actively spirate.
Speaker 2: You think it's the Father only in Roman Catholic the
Speaker 2: tell me what I think the Holy Spirit.
Speaker 3: He's answering the question claimed that the Holy I'm just
Speaker 3: telling you how a theology has You're just talking and
Speaker 3: you're insisting because I've got you on this. You have
Speaker 3: not you said that if you don't produce a person,
Speaker 3: you're supporting it.
Speaker 2: Who does the Holy Spirit produce? No? I said, spir eight,
Speaker 2: you have to spy if you don't back up the rest.
Speaker 2: Does son have the same power as the father? Yes?
Speaker 2: Does the spirit have that power? The Spirit has a
Speaker 2: different power, which is to what wishable to produce who? No,
Speaker 2: it's a passive spirit who, which is not the same
Speaker 2: thing it's actively produced. So he does I thought the
Speaker 2: language cause? So the spirit is not a cause. You've
Speaker 2: never heard this distinction in Roman Catholic theology. Spirit a cause?
Speaker 2: Have you ever heard this distinction in Roman? Not answer you?
Speaker 3: He won't answer the questions because he doesn't. Is the
Speaker 3: spirit of causes?
Speaker 2: A cause? Is the spirit of thirty seconds on the
Speaker 2: clock to get an answer? Or do you want to
Speaker 2: end the question? Is the Holy Spirit? There's also a cause?
Speaker 2: He is the cause in so far as he's passively spied?
Speaker 2: Who or what?
Speaker 1: Of?
Speaker 2: Who? Are what? Exactly? He just lost. No, wh you
Speaker 2: asked me, do you know what theology? Had you ever
Speaker 2: heard the distinction? You're here to tell me what your
Speaker 2: theology is? No? No, not okay. Every time I ask
Speaker 2: you said do you know what theology? Do you know
Speaker 2: a theology? Answer? No, you don't know. Answer you claim
Speaker 2: your spirit. You're just making it at home? No, at homes?
Speaker 2: And who does? By the way, the reason he won't answer, no,
Speaker 2: you open who does produce? You opened up? He's saying,
Speaker 2: why won't you answer? No? You just said who? Yeah exactly,
Speaker 2: I said you our term is passive spression. No, you won't.
Speaker 2: You won't accept these people have different that. He produced
Speaker 2: terminological bases for making the claim. We don't accept subordinationism.
Speaker 2: I know you don't accept it, but I'm telling you
Speaker 2: how you have it orthodolosity. Say it's subordination, if it's
Speaker 2: if it's the sun and the spirit together. All you're
Speaker 2: doing is insisting on your upside. You have answer, You
Speaker 2: just have silence.
Speaker 3: I said, answer is an answer your father and son.
Speaker 3: No I'm not, you said the son. Who does the
Speaker 3: spirit produces?
Speaker 2: Who? He passively spirates? Who? Who? What it's? Who does he?
Speaker 2: Do you understand the difference between an active forms and
Speaker 2: a passive verb. He is the cause of Do you
Speaker 2: understand the difference between an active verb and a passive
Speaker 2: before me?
Speaker 3: Who's he called active verb? Has is transit is the
Speaker 3: spirit of the cause. Do you not understand called him
Speaker 3: a cause? He's not transitive?
Speaker 2: You called him a cause? Do you understand transitivity? You're
Speaker 2: not going to answer it. He won't answer. He's a
Speaker 2: passive cause. I answer according to Roman Catholic, he is
Speaker 2: a pastor who were on time. Let's do this.
Speaker 1: Here's I'm gonna I want to leave it with two questions.
Speaker 1: He's asking you a question.
Speaker 2: Nothing that you ask asked the question clearly, and I
Speaker 2: want to hear just a simple answer. We'll leave it
Speaker 2: at that. What is the question? Repeat it? What is
Speaker 2: the one question the cause of who? Go ahead? What
Speaker 2: is the cause of him? Exactly? Can you act?
Speaker 1: Asking questions to questions which, to be fair, said of
Speaker 1: the moderator, You know that's saying that's It's the point
Speaker 1: to where I feel like we've gone in a complete circle.
Speaker 1: I'm going to take completely unbiased here and say we
Speaker 1: can't come to a conclusion when we're asking questions to questions.
Speaker 2: So we will just leave it there. We will move here.
Speaker 2: I think, can I make a response? Yeah, you can.
Speaker 2: You can make a response or ask one question, but
Speaker 2: it's got to be as simple to the point, not
Speaker 2: a paragraph. Just what's the statement. So in Roman Catholic
Speaker 2: theology we say active spiration by the father and the son,
Speaker 2: passive spiration by the spirit. Passive means that one is
Speaker 2: not acting but is acted upon. It is a passive potency.
Speaker 2: I asked you if he's a cause, and you said
Speaker 2: he was. Yes, there's one soul. Cause are you talking
Speaker 2: to K I thought you were talking one soul causes
Speaker 2: the I just add you said I don't know. I
Speaker 2: didn't know.
Speaker 3: I sincerely didn't know what you I the term that
Speaker 3: the spirits are cause the.
Speaker 2: Spirit is a passive spirator of who? And I said,
Speaker 2: this doesn't make sense in the context of active and passive.
Speaker 2: So he doesn't. He's not a cause. You're making it
Speaker 2: like there's a flaw. There's not. This is just how
Speaker 2: we call you're not. This is how we explain. So
Speaker 2: he won't the monarchy, you don't explain it. And John
Speaker 2: chapter sixteen, you're dodging the basic question. I'm not dodging
Speaker 2: twenty things. I'm not dodging Jay. All I'm seeking to
Speaker 2: do is exitgy John sixteen. The fact that that Jesus said,
Speaker 2: Jesus says everything the Father has, I have as well.
Speaker 2: And you said, well, the cause that subordination. That the
Speaker 2: cause you're trying to drive the position into subordinationism. And
Speaker 2: I'm saying, no, there's such a thing as passive spies.
Speaker 2: I sure stand you're saying that. But what you're showing
Speaker 2: a cause you didn't show anything. You just say, are you?
Speaker 2: Are you? Are you? Are you satisfied with the answer?
Speaker 2: Do you feel like he answered no, he's not about dodging.
Speaker 2: But okay, And do you believe that you're answering or
Speaker 2: do you think do you agree with me you're dodging.
Speaker 2: I'm answering on behalf of Roman Catholic theology that we have.
Speaker 1: What are you dodg because you're also you're dodging my question?
Speaker 1: Do you think you dodged him? Or do you think
Speaker 1: you give an absolute answer?
Speaker 2: I gave an absolute answer. What is your absolute answer?
Speaker 2: I just I just want to know. For the absolute
Speaker 2: answer is when we say active spiration we mean that
Speaker 2: the Father causes the Holy Spirit through the hypostasies of
Speaker 2: the hypostasis of the sun. These are active because the
Speaker 2: sun aids Uh. The view of John Damascene is literally source, Father, River, Sun, lake, Spirit.
Speaker 2: So he's saying, well, well, what does the spirit do?
Speaker 2: I'm saying, well, in Roman Catholic theology, which is perfectly
Speaker 2: uh philly Okuwa is perfectly square with this analogy, With
Speaker 2: this analogy that we would say that that is what's
Speaker 2: called a passive spiration. He receives it.
Speaker 3: And it's a difficult question, as he asked many times,
Speaker 3: as he was asked many times, was when you said
Speaker 3: that the spirit is a cause, which you affirmed multiple times.
Speaker 2: I asked you cause of who are what? And you
Speaker 2: had no answer. No, I didn't have no answer. I
Speaker 2: was saying that the spirit is caused. And this is
Speaker 2: this is why you say it's subordinate. You said he's
Speaker 2: a call I said, he's a passive spirator of who
Speaker 2: or what? So he's saying he's he's a spy ray
Speaker 2: to or of who are what does the passive voice
Speaker 2: as a verb have Does it mean cause or does
Speaker 2: it assert a cause has been done? He's a cause
Speaker 2: grammatical you said he's a cause. I feel like I
Speaker 2: feel like we're arguing semantics. I feel like this is
Speaker 2: semantics because you're saying one thing, he's saying another, and
Speaker 2: I feel like we're getting We're not getting nowhere. I'm
Speaker 2: just giving the answer. According to our theology, we the
Speaker 2: Holy Spirit is a passive spirator. That's the whore that
Speaker 2: can be who are what? The Holy Spirit receives spiration
Speaker 2: from God through the sun, and he receives it. Okay,
Speaker 2: Is that clear generation produces the sun? Right? Yes, generation produces.
Speaker 1: So let me go to this because because of the
Speaker 1: statements here, we're not going to go very long on
Speaker 1: the closing. I want to give it it basically like
Speaker 1: a well basic called a second rebuttal bit of closing
Speaker 1: because there's a miscommunication or an intentional dodging. But I
Speaker 1: am going to stay completely unbiased in the moderation. Say,
Speaker 1: I will leave the chat up. I want to know
Speaker 1: from you guys in the chat. We'll switch it up
Speaker 1: the ones in the chat. If you think that uh,
Speaker 1: Timothy answered the question and that he answered it according
Speaker 1: to what he said, two's in the chat. If you
Speaker 1: think he's lying slash dodging. I guess you could use
Speaker 1: different words upending what you think and agree with Jay
Speaker 1: and someone's like, I've seen the chat you accusing me
Speaker 1: of agree with both of them. I am neither orthodox
Speaker 1: nor Catholics. You guys can all hate me because I'm
Speaker 1: neither and I don't have a.
Speaker 2: I just articulated what the view is. Articulated you. You've
Speaker 2: given that answer four times in acting. All right, so
Speaker 2: let me let me go to this.
Speaker 3: I'm gonna don't you know what aspiration means because you
Speaker 3: said he cause he's a cause I said you said that.
Speaker 2: If I said that when you're sputtering out sentence fragments
Speaker 2: in the cross X, I never said that. I never
Speaker 2: intended to say the spirits.
Speaker 3: Cause that's why you got silent and had to think
Speaker 3: about how to talk your way out of it.
Speaker 2: I got silent because I'm trying to talk over because no,
Speaker 2: that's not true.
Speaker 3: The Holy Spirit doesn't have the power of the son, right,
Speaker 3: so he's subordinated, so he's lacking a power.
Speaker 2: No, no, we say he's not subordinated because he is
Speaker 2: a passive. But he doesn't produce a person. Right on
Speaker 2: your view, you are the Son to the Father.
Speaker 3: There is subordination in the trinity, yeah, role subordination, not
Speaker 3: ontological subordination.
Speaker 2: That's called monarchia. Yeah yeah, except no, that's not true.
Speaker 2: You're picking who's subordinated, either the Holy Smell or the
Speaker 2: Son together. No, no, that's a logical.
Speaker 3: Does Jesus say that he worships the Father and he
Speaker 3: does the Father's will?
Speaker 2: Does the role of subordination role? No, No, you don't know. Basically,
Speaker 2: he says that the Father has is mine as well.
Speaker 2: Does he says, let me come here, let.
Speaker 1: Me come here and ask you a question, Because from
Speaker 1: somebody who's not as well versed in the news of
Speaker 1: this debate between Catholics and Orthodox it would just, in
Speaker 1: a structural sense, seem like perhaps you're avoiding answering something
Speaker 1: directly to avoid being seen as crazy or to like
Speaker 1: not be seen as in Saint colag If somebody you
Speaker 1: know asked someone like, oh, are you a good question,
Speaker 1: like are you a white supremacist or something, and you know,
Speaker 1: it's sort of like a question. If you answer it,
Speaker 1: you're kind of screwed either way. If you say no,
Speaker 1: people are gonna get mad because you don't like your race.
Speaker 1: If you say yes, they're going to call you an
Speaker 1: extremists and try to disqualify you.
Speaker 2: So it comes across like there's a little bit of
Speaker 2: that moving around. Understand, you're saying I'm lying because he's
Speaker 2: questions I'm saying. I'm saying I'm saying to me, I'm
Speaker 2: saying I'm getting the dancing. I'm not saying it's lying.
Speaker 2: I'm singing that. Like, maybe there's a more direct way
Speaker 2: you want to answer it that you're not saying. He's saying.
Speaker 2: I don't know what he's saying you're lying about because
Speaker 2: I don't. I don't understand because I don't know if
Speaker 2: you talking about I haven't said it across examination in
Speaker 2: a cross examination, though, you're harassing the witness. When I said,
Speaker 2: here's our two active spirators, one passive spira, you're like, well,
Speaker 2: what is that? I was like, that's our theology. And
Speaker 2: then you're like, that's a dodge. That's not a dodge.
Speaker 2: Two active spirators. We have the father the son.
Speaker 3: I thought the father generated, not spirated the spirit the
Speaker 3: fun Wait, the father general generate right then he spirates, right?
Speaker 2: Yeah, what I was what I was trying to get
Speaker 2: out is the passivity of the spirit. And then you said,
Speaker 2: you said that's a cause. I said, that's not a cause.
Speaker 2: So how many causes are there? I think there's one
Speaker 2: and that's who the father. Okay, but he gives cause
Speaker 2: alary to the son, right, he gives the ability through
Speaker 2: the son.
Speaker 3: So many causes? Is that it's one, but he gives
Speaker 3: it to the son. Yes, this is this is hypostatic.
Speaker 3: This is hypostatic.
Speaker 2: What does the son contribute that the father doesn't to
Speaker 2: the to the spiration? Well, I mean, are we just
Speaker 2: going on an extra cross examination? Oh so he doesn't
Speaker 2: want to answer that.
Speaker 1: I know, so I don't want And we could take
Speaker 1: this conclusions as a little extension to see where if
Speaker 1: you guys, could further explain your position only because of
Speaker 1: someone who's trying to position.
Speaker 2: Let's just go ahead with it as trying to understand
Speaker 2: the position. I'm thinking about the audience. And if you were,
Speaker 2: let's say, a prop sitting here and you're not familiar
Speaker 2: with the you know, consequential dogma from from Catholics or
Speaker 2: from Orthodox I'm sitting here like trying to actually understand
Speaker 2: what you're saying. And I am not accusing you of lying.
Speaker 2: I'm actual accusing you of doing nothing.
Speaker 1: But I'm saying to me, I'm like, okay, I know,
Speaker 1: I wouldn't know if you were jumping around from what
Speaker 1: he's saying, or.
Speaker 2: You can understand the Orthodox view of the Trinity from
Speaker 2: what he said. That's a good question. So let's let's
Speaker 2: do a question, because if you're being object no, no,
Speaker 2: you're lying something, I wouldn't know if you're lying, right,
Speaker 2: I wouldn't know if you're dodging him, or if you're lying,
Speaker 2: I wouldn't know.
Speaker 3: I'm not saying he's lying about the Catholic position, that
Speaker 3: he's representing the Catholic position. I'm saying that in the
Speaker 3: course of that discourse, he's lying about what he previously
Speaker 3: he said saying no, I never said that when he
Speaker 3: did say the cause part, yes.
Speaker 2: Okay, because that's how I thought. Okay, Then I got confused.
Speaker 2: I thought he was saying that you were not right.
Speaker 2: I said it was unintentional. And if you said, is
Speaker 2: it a cause, and I've said yeah, yeah, yeah, So
Speaker 2: half the time I'm brushing you off. That's not the
Speaker 2: That's what this was all about. I was saying a
Speaker 2: Roman Catholic point of view. Well, it's not a misunderstanding
Speaker 2: the Roman Catholic point of view. I said, all along,
Speaker 2: we have these two. I mean, it's an upside down triangle.
Speaker 2: And all I was saying is it's subordination. Uh, he's
Speaker 2: accusing us of subordination just because I cited John chapter
Speaker 2: sixteen where Jesus says, all the Father has I have
Speaker 2: as well, And he's saying, well, then he cannot the Essence,
Speaker 2: the Divine Essence cannot come to the Holy Spirit through
Speaker 2: the sun.
Speaker 3: That's not what I said. You don't even understand the argument,
Speaker 3: making a very clear argument. You're in it seems to
Speaker 3: be not understanding that because it's basic and it's very simple.
Speaker 2: Read it's very simple. Did you read the mistagogees, it's
Speaker 2: very're gonna cut that. We're gonna cut that there. And
Speaker 2: by the way, to the people saying I'm trying to understand,
Speaker 2: because if you don't know, I'm just saying in a
Speaker 2: very basic sense, I'm like you, guys.
Speaker 1: Part of the reason why we're hosting this debate, and
Speaker 1: I think it's very important, is personally, I'm very interested
Speaker 1: in understanding what church I should go to. Whether Catholic
Speaker 1: is a church to join and to become a part of,
Speaker 1: whether Orthodox.
Speaker 2: And a lot of you guys are searching this too.
Speaker 1: I don't think a lot of you guys who are
Speaker 1: Catholic or Orthodox may be wanting to uh, you know,
Speaker 1: revert or convert whatever you want to call it in
Speaker 1: your language into the other uh uh you know order.
Speaker 1: But for myself, you know, because just because I started
Speaker 1: attending a Catholic church, I've been to an Orthodox church
Speaker 1: before too. For a while, I've gone to a Catholic church,
Speaker 1: and sometimes they aren't always very open about exactly what
Speaker 1: they believe.
Speaker 2: There's a lot of disagreements.
Speaker 1: So kind of the point of this is, is someone like
Speaker 1: myself to sit here and try to make sure if
Speaker 1: he's saying he's lying. I'm just asking what he's saying
Speaker 1: he' lying about. Is he saying about what he said
Speaker 1: previously or about the Catholic's position, because I'm interested to
Speaker 1: find out to make sure I'm getting the correct position,
Speaker 1: and if if that's a correct position, I appreciate it
Speaker 1: and your position. However, I do think in a quick
Speaker 1: in a quick summary, like if you could do in
Speaker 1: like one paragraph, just what is the official Orthodox position
Speaker 1: on this on this topic, because.
Speaker 2: It was a lot of this back and forth and
Speaker 2: then you you go, is this the closing statements correct? Correct?
Speaker 2: For the section I stated succinctly what the Catholic position is.
Speaker 1: Yeah, yeah, I'm just saying, but inside with an end
Speaker 1: summary and make sure you restate it just for people
Speaker 1: who were new to the stream or who got lost
Speaker 1: in the argument and the tit for tat what what
Speaker 1: was it? And if you could finish, and then we'll
Speaker 1: have you, we'll have you closed as well.
Speaker 2: Yeah.
Speaker 3: So essentially what I'm taking issue with is the idea
Speaker 3: that he said if the son does not spi rate,
Speaker 3: he's subordinated because he's not having all that the father has.
Speaker 2: So I ask, does the spirit spi rate? And or
Speaker 2: excuse me?
Speaker 3: Yeah, and then he says he's a passive he passively
Speaker 3: spir rates.
Speaker 2: I say, who does the spir rate?
Speaker 3: He says, he aspirated passively because he receives spiration.
Speaker 2: That's what passive means.
Speaker 3: Because he thinks that being spy rated is spiration, which
Speaker 3: is a basic blunder. No, moving on, I'm doing my talk,
Speaker 3: so you hush please, moving on, he says, I mean,
Speaker 3: I'm sorry that you just dizz bad in this section.
Speaker 2: Dude. It would have helped if you'd read the Mystagajy,
Speaker 2: but you didn't. Passive spiration, you didn't. You said you did.
Speaker 2: Stop stop, let's keep it. You go here and then
Speaker 2: we'll switch. You can make fun of me all you want,
Speaker 2: and you're let's.
Speaker 1: Keep let's keep the personal tax out and let's go
Speaker 1: and just explain the facts, and then we'll go over
Speaker 1: to Tim.
Speaker 2: He'll explain the facts as well. So I understand. You know,
Speaker 2: he's got a lot going on, he's busy.
Speaker 3: I don't fault him for not reading the stuff that
Speaker 3: I send, but it's been multiple years where I've linked
Speaker 3: and sent him these texts which he hasn't read. If
Speaker 3: you had read the Mystagogy, he would know that. One
Speaker 3: of the first arguments in the mystagaji Uh, and it's
Speaker 3: stated it multiple times over. It's also repeated in the
Speaker 3: appredicted Treatise of Sant Gregory Palmis by the Way centuries later.
Speaker 3: The same argument that to say that there's sport nation
Speaker 3: because the son doesn't have the power of causality becomes
Speaker 3: a problem because the Holy Spirit now lacks that causality.
Speaker 3: To talk about passive spiration and to equate that with
Speaker 3: to to equate being spirrated with spiration is just so silly.
Speaker 3: I don't even know how to respond to it. It's
Speaker 3: it's fundamentally stupid.
Speaker 2: Because spiration is what picks out the Holy Spirit. Generation
Speaker 2: is what picks out the Son.
Speaker 3: They're called hypostetic properties, and for Orthodox we relate them
Speaker 3: to the Father in relations of origin. That's the Orthodox teaching.
Speaker 3: The Cabadocians, it's restated. You want to read Loski's paper
Speaker 3: called the Procession of the Holy Spirit Orthodox Doctrine. You can
Speaker 3: also read a Roman Catholic that talks about this and
Speaker 3: admits all my points by Eaves Kongar. He wrote an
Speaker 3: essay about Augustine relations of opposition and the Cappadocians, which
Speaker 3: also makes all of my arguments. So again, our position
Speaker 3: is that the Father is the one true God. He
Speaker 3: is the sole archae, the monarchia. It is the teaching
Speaker 3: of Constantinople One. The Cappadocians don't teach the Philly oquaper,
Speaker 3: so I said, because causality is the hyposthetic.
Speaker 2: Property that is not communicable.
Speaker 3: And again the argument that the son becomes the cause,
Speaker 3: imbalances the trinity and creates a diad because no one
Speaker 3: teaches that the spirit is a cause, and so he
Speaker 3: lacks causality in both the Roman Catholic and the Orthodox model.
Speaker 3: But we're consistent because we don't give the father's unique
Speaker 3: hypostatic marker and property of being cause to the son.
Speaker 1: And just to ask you simply, do you feel like
Speaker 1: he he dictated correctly or at least to what you
Speaker 1: know to be the actual position of the Orthodox Church
Speaker 1: on this issue. Yeah, okay, you do. So I just
Speaker 1: want to make sure that that's so we're clear because
Speaker 1: the chat, you know, was a little bit all over
Speaker 1: the place, not not knowing what was going on.
Speaker 2: All right.
Speaker 1: So then going over to Timothy, also to Jay, please
Speaker 1: don't interrupt. We're gonna just keep this a straight, a
Speaker 1: straight uh diatribe here. So if you want to go
Speaker 1: ahead and give your position, one.
Speaker 2: Off Jay's tricks is he'll laugh at the Roman Catholic position,
Speaker 2: which which he knows what it is, and then he'll
Speaker 2: ask for a term to be identified, like passive spiration,
Speaker 2: as if it's being made up ex nilo or something,
Speaker 2: and he'll say, well, how does that relate to Orthodox theology?
Speaker 2: And I was saying, well, it doesn't. That's the tension
Speaker 2: that exists between the Orthodox and the Catholic position. And
Speaker 2: he laughs, and then all of the Bots in Chat say, oh, okay,
Speaker 2: a good score. I would go back to the heart
Speaker 2: of Trinitarian theology for Roman Catholics, which really has to
Speaker 2: do with actus purus, the fact that the consubstantial Father Son,
Speaker 2: Holy Spirit relate to one another oppositionally. And this is
Speaker 2: within the substance. He was making fun of the term usiological.
Speaker 2: That just means they all relate within one substance. There's
Speaker 2: nothing uncreated outside the substance of God, the Divine Essence,
Speaker 2: Father Son, hohold Spirit. They relate to each other with
Speaker 2: a distinction, a distinction of operation. Jay had this infamous
Speaker 2: debate with Christian Wagner where Christian Wagner was getting him
Speaker 2: to admit, essentially that he didn't understand what a relation
Speaker 2: of opposition was. I brought this up today and I
Speaker 2: was saying, Okay, have you ever played paper scissors rock?
Speaker 2: The reason I did that is because paper Scissors Rock
Speaker 2: proves that conceptually, at least at the very least conceptually
Speaker 2: if you're trying to win paper scissors rock Triadic relations
Speaker 2: of opposition do exist. Just because there are three couplets
Speaker 2: doesn't mean that there is not individual tension or opposition
Speaker 2: or a dichotomy between ab BC and c A. This
Speaker 2: is absolutely nonsensical. It was an embarrassment that Jay said this,
Speaker 2: and I was saying, Okay, that's fine. When I brought
Speaker 2: this up with him earlier, he said, we'll prove that
Speaker 2: that exists for the Trinity. I'm just proving that it's
Speaker 2: conceptually possible. So it's an embarrassment to say that, to
Speaker 2: deny that the relations of opposition which characterized the Catholic
Speaker 2: view of the Trinity, which work very very well, because
Speaker 2: then we don't end up having deposit in uncreated energy
Speaker 2: outside of God that is not created, not a creature,
Speaker 2: but is really distinct from God, which is a nonsense term.
Speaker 2: It means to gods are more or infinite gods. As
Speaker 2: Jay said earlier, infinite divine energies. He said, infinite divine energies.
Speaker 2: You're going to say, I'm that's not a lie. That's
Speaker 2: what I said. That's what I'm saying. That's an absurdity.
Speaker 2: We avoid this problem by saying we allow distinctions within
Speaker 2: the substance of God, we don't allow distinctions within God
Speaker 2: that would be concerning or about another other essence, an
Speaker 2: essence and energy's distinction. And this all boils down to
Speaker 2: relations of opposition, which jay I still am not clear
Speaker 2: on his position whether or not whether or not relations
Speaker 2: of opposition can exist within a threesome within a triad?
Speaker 2: Can they that you think the trendy is a threesome?
Speaker 2: It's it's three? Do they? Do they exist? What exists?
Speaker 2: Can a B and C oppose one another? Within the
Speaker 2: triad of holy.
Speaker 3: Spiatistic number theory diad relates to two, not a triad?
Speaker 2: Well, diet is always two. That's not what I'm asking.
Speaker 2: There's no opposition in a triad because opposition is a diet. No,
Speaker 2: there can be opposition within individual constituents of a tria. Okay,
Speaker 2: so for for all time, I want this on records.
Speaker 2: I mean again, how much time do I have left?
Speaker 2: Technically here on the clock you have you have ten seconds?
Speaker 2: When can give you extra thirty seconds if you need? All? Right?
Speaker 2: So within a triad, so people know when we're talking
Speaker 2: mathematically here, individual can can maintain their opposition, their contrariety.
Speaker 2: This is a matter of simple fact. And Jay said,
Speaker 2: as a matter of simple fact, that can't even happen.
Speaker 2: When I pressed him on this, he said, oh, that's
Speaker 2: only within the trinity. You lose. That's wrong. No, yep,
Speaker 2: I don't understand.
Speaker 1: Wrong.
Speaker 2: I'm saying, it's very very simple, you thought, because don't
Speaker 2: into three the opposition. This is central understanding correctly what
Speaker 2: I said, that's what What did you say? Then?
Speaker 3: I said that diad in Patristic numbering example, right, it's
Speaker 3: it's counting by division. Do you know what that is?
Speaker 3: Of course, versus what counting by identity? You don't know
Speaker 3: those things.
Speaker 2: But that's not what it was. My question explaining to
Speaker 2: you that you don't know that Tristan within theology counts triads.
Speaker 2: If you had debated the Muslims, you would know, because
Speaker 2: I have to do this. You said no, and you're
Speaker 2: like a Muslim because you don't know how there's two
Speaker 2: different ways. You said, no, there's two different ways to count.
Speaker 2: You told you told Christian counting debate because you don't
Speaker 2: you nor him understand this point. If you'd read Kogar
Speaker 2: on this point, he says what I'm saying. I don't
Speaker 2: have to have read Coongar right, because you know these
Speaker 2: economies want dichotomy is not a relation of opposition, Elijah,
Speaker 2: do you understand economy is not a relation of opposition?
Speaker 1: Yes, it is.
Speaker 2: It's all right, I'm you Dichotomy is not a relation
Speaker 2: of opposition.
Speaker 3: We're going to be paper because it talks about can
Speaker 3: economy is not a relation of opposition.
Speaker 2: That's the most absurd thing. For a second, you have
Speaker 2: you have, you have a choice. I'm gonna give us
Speaker 2: a choice here.
Speaker 1: Either A we can continue arguing this, but then we're
Speaker 1: gonna have to skip the third topic altogether.
Speaker 2: Do the timing of the debate. Uh, and what's what's
Speaker 2: going on here? I want the paper?
Speaker 1: Okay, So then so then if that's then we're gonna
Speaker 1: agree to disagree on what that is and we can
Speaker 1: talk about things later. But I think we're gonna leave
Speaker 1: it there. Okay, We're gonna take a couple minute break here.
Speaker 1: Before we do that, I want to read a couple
Speaker 1: more of the superchats. Remember, if you guys are leaving superchats,
Speaker 1: we'll read them as we go along. We appreciate you
Speaker 1: guys doing so. We have Jay Betteley or said Tim,
Speaker 1: I'm sure you're a decent guy.