Speaker 1: All right, welcome everybody. We are live and I'm joined
by my good friend Kai, And of course it is
that season. Christ has risen. Hopefully everybody is celebrating. It
is a celebratory time and hopefully you had a good
pasca Kai. How you been, dude?
Speaker 2: Pretty good, Jay, Glory to God. Things have been well.
Some things in my personal life have changed, as.
Speaker 1: You know.
Speaker 2: There.
Speaker 1: Congratulations, thanks so much.
Speaker 2: Yeah, so that's probably why you guys haven't seen me
as active as I used to be, Just basically adjusting
to a new way of life, other priorities, but slowly
as things are kind of stabilizing in that regard.
Speaker 1: I drink pellegrino to your marriage.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Yeah, thank you very nice.
Speaker 1: Yeah.
Speaker 2: No, things have been well. Just getting back into the
apologetics scene now. I'm gonna start up definitely those series
that you, David and I did with regards to the
Orientals and the Historians that was just kind of temporarily
put on hold. We're definitely going to be coming back
to those. We are nowhere near done that series. I
know people are asking for more content. Be patient. We
will definitely be delivering more content in the near future
than we're still looking to do Lewis and myself North
Drockshot and more stuff on Islam and just in general,
more collabse with the Orthodox online. Yeah, things have been.
Speaker 1: Good, perfect. So today we're going to talk about something
that is kind of adjacent to our Oriental's lecture series
that we've been doing, and it's not formally part of
the series, but it does relate to it, because we
want to give our assessment of the idea of Apostolic
Christianity that is somehow spread across the groups that believe
in Apostolic succession, and this form of ecumenism needs to
be addressed. And of course it deals with as probably
many of you know, Sam Shamun himself and others in
his circle. So Kai also has an experience that he's
had with Sam that he wants to get into, and
then maybe we'll get into the ecumenist elements of this
sort of failed ecclesiology. Do you want to start with
your experience with Sam?
Speaker 2: Sure? I can definitely go into that. Yeah, So the
stream is going to be a little bit of mix
of Sam directly, my experiences with Sam, what I know
about Sam and him personally, and then also just the
topic of ecumunism proper, where we find problems with it,
and how you can see Sam basically trying to promote
the idea of ecumenism and why this is quiteus So
my relationship with Sam stretches back a few years. I
don't really know exactly what is it, three years, four years,
don't know, wasn't really counting. But at some point Sam
was in contact with a lot of the Orthodox in
the circle that I was in with, like you j
with Lewis and some other people, and was having an
influence on un Orthodox a lot of other denominations as well,
quote unquote denominations. And he came out and basically said
that he became a member of the Assyrian Church of
the East, which is obviously Nestorian. A lot of people
will say, no, it's not a Nestorian and stuff. We
have our whole talk of why the Church of the
East is a historian. But nevertheless, at that time I
called Sam out on this. I didn't really have an
all too good relationship with Sam at the time. There
may have been some interactions here and there, but there
were not really any good substantive relations and I just
wanted to call him out given the influence that he
has on his platform, and he didn't take well to that.
He just took it as a personal attack. He bashed me.
You can go on the streams and see in the
history there where he basically took a very combative approach.
And people, many people had approached me, and they who
knew Sam, who have been friends with Sam, or friends
or just friendly or have known him for quite some time,
and they were counseling me saying, this is not the
way to get through to Sam. You have to take
a different approach with him. You cannot be direct and combative.
You need to really be kind, loving, patient, and you
just need to basically foster an atmosphere of dialogue with
him if you want to get through to him. And
so taking the counsel of people, I backtracked my aggressiveness
with regards to calling him out and attempted to make
amends with him and to basically treat him in a
kind way, teach him orthodoxy proper, make him see the
errors of the Church of the East and the theology.
And at that point I was convinced that he didn't
really understand the theology proper, He didn't really know what
he was getting into that his joining the Church of
the East was really something that was emotional. It was
not knowledge, because there's no way that you can say
certain things that Sam was saying in terms of what
he holds to certain aspects of Christology. Even though he
does have errors in his triology and Christology, there are
certain things that he says that are correct, and those things,
if he's holding to that and believes in that, it's
irreconcilable with the Church of the East's position. They're not saying,
we're not saying the same thing. And so I knew
right away that he was not intellectually adept to be
able to see these things, and so I wanted to
teach him. I wanted to coach him and instruct him
to basically understand what he was getting into. And so
Sam and I we developed a very close relationship behind
the scenes. We would talk quite a bit privately. I
would join a lot of times his dreams contribute to
his dreams the teachings that people were hearing from him.
I was always presenting the Orthodox position, So whatever Sam
was talking about, I would chime in and say, this
is what the Orthodox believe, or I can affirm yes,
this is Sam is correct, This is patristic, like he's
not erroneous on everything. So I want people to know
that that there is a lot of good that comes
from him. He does speak a lot of truthful things,
but it's that one percent of poison that is enough
to poison the entire well. And so that's kind of
where we're at right now, where it's reached a point
where with my interactions with Sam over two three years,
this person is not interested in learning. Despite what he
said the benefit of the doubt that we gave him,
that he's on this journey he's going to find the
church that speaks most truthfully to him, and that he
really wants to know the issues. He really wants to
go down into the issues. That's a lie. He absolutely
is not willing to take the time to actually learn.
What he is doing is he has preconceived notions and
he's just sifting through what people are telling him and
what he comes across in some of the stuff that
he's reading that affirms him. So he's basically looking like
for a confirmation bias for the position that he wants
actually hold to. He's not interested in learning about Orthodoxy,
He doesn't care about being catechised or instructed. And that's
one of the big problems with Sam is in order
to enter the Orthodox Church, you have to be catechized.
You have to be receptive to being told you are wrong.
Speaker 1: It's a reboot. You got to reboot and start over.
Speaker 2: Yeah, exactly, it is a reboot. It is not just
changing a few things that you kind of brought on
as baggage. This is a complete destruction of your existing
worldview and you have to build a new foundation and
start from scratch. And Sam is not the type of
person who will take well to that. He is he
has been for a very long time teaching people, and
he is not willing to become the student as much
as you may think he says he wants to be
the student that he wants to learn. No, he wants
to teach. And if you do not go along with
what he is teaching you, you will get the stick.
He will start pounding on you. What.
Speaker 1: Yeah, before you said that, I would add just to
throw in that it was a very similar move in
terms of his argumentation. And I was in the background
there as well. You were first doing a lot more
work with Sam, maybe three or four years ago than
I was, And I remember then it was well, Assyrian
Church of the East, it's all good, we're all cool,
because you know that's my background. That's what I feel
is right for me. It's my heritage. Is this is
that bad reasons? And then when it's well, I go
to the Catholic Church now because they'll get me communion,
and a bunch of mystical things happened, and I met
cool people that had to be God's miraculous Catholic problems.
So there's a bad reasons, it's the point I'm getting at. Yeah,
in both cases it was bad reasons. And he would
even say at times, well, I'm not going to go
to the Orthodox Church because they're not going to give
me communion. In other words, I have to start over
and be catechized.
Speaker 2: That's right exactly the and he has pointed that out.
He's like, the Orthodox are very strict, they will not
give him communion. So he knows about that, and he's
I think the kind of person he has a kind
of temperament that he doesn't want to wait. He's not patient,
he doesn't want to go through through the hoops. He
just wants something that is going to satisfy his inquiry
right now, and he's finding that in Roman Catholicism. So
it's definitely not an intellectual way of looking at things.
But one of the things that when he was going
into the Church of the East was he left Protestantism,
and even early in those times, he was starting to
kind of talk about this Apostolic Christianity type thing where
he's recognizing Apostolic churches. He's saying that the fullness of
the truth can be found in the Apostolic churches in
the Apostolic tradition, and he names them explicitly as Roman Catholicism, Orthodoxy,
the Orientals, and the Church of the East. These are
all the ancient churches. And the way he likes to
frame it, and I think this is a very very
terrible way to frame it, and I disagree with it completely,
is the analogy he gives is if you think of
like a dollar bill, so some of these churches have
more fullness of that dollar. So let's say if Orthodoxy
has one dollar's worth, Roman Catholicism might have ninety cents
worth of the dollar, the Orientals might have seventy, and
the Church these might have fifty or something like that.
So it's like you have these bits of truths in
all of them, but they're all kind of making up
the same currency, and so it's they're all valid. It's
just really which one of these is going to give
you the most fullness of that truth that you're seeking
and that will satisfy your personal journey. So, for example,
if the fifty percent that you can find in the
Church of the East is sufficient for you, because that
fifty percent meets your standards and you're happy as a
layperson to stay at that level, then go to the
here in Church of the East. If you're a little
bit more intellectual, you need a little bit more depth, okay,
maybe go to the Orientals or go to the Roman Catholics.
That will satisfy your inquiry because these are all valid churches.
It's just really more of where you're personally comfortable, and
if you want like the absolute truth, go to the
Orthodox Church. I mean, it's kind of ironic that he
seems to treat the Orthodox Church as having the most
fullness of the faith, but yet he's reluctant to come
to Orthodoxy. But nevertheless that analogy, that's the way he's
been presenting his conception of Apostolic Christianity and the Apostolic churches. Now,
during this time I'm with Sam, over the course of
two three years, I'm biting my tongue a lot of
the times. I'm restraining myself because as people counsel me
over and over again, be patient with Sam, Be patient
with Sam, teach him. And that's what I tried to do.
I would give him sources to read. I would try
to engage him in dialogue. I would try to explain
things to him. A lot of times we would just
have personal skype calls. Sometimes they would just be direct messages.
I would send him a list, Hey, if you want
to understand these, look at the list of this stuff.
Read it.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I had the same thing. I've sent many links,
many you know recommendations, many you know clips, many you
know copy paste snippets. I don't think any of those
ever set in.
Speaker 2: No, they they never set in. And it was just
basically the making absolute no headway with him. And then
it culminated now your experiences with him, and just having
my absence away from the apologetics scene for a while,
and then that whole mix up with the stream the
streams that we were doing for the Orientals series, which
I initially was going to do that on Sam's channel, right,
and Sam just kept delaying it, delaying it, delaying it,
delaying it. And I have the messages to prove it.
He admits to being at fault for delaying the appearance
of those streams. I was ready when I had initially
said the time frame that I wanted to come on.
He delayed it, delayed, delayed it, delayed, and he was
giving very dumb reasons. The guy can go and do
streams for three hours every single night, and he's giving
me dumb reasons for not doing the stream with this.
With regards to the Orientals, obviously he did not want
me to come there and start basically starting a war
with all these other Apostolic churches that he's trying to promote,
because this is now just basically him being a conduit
for presenting theology that is in contradiction to what he
wants to espouse. And so it just reached that point
where it's like, Okay, it's clear he doesn't want to
delve into this issue and he's not serious about it.
So I approached you Jay, and I said, Jay, let's
do it on your channel. And I'm glad that we
did that because it led us to just do it
on our timeframe. With you, me and David. We're unrestrained.
We can freely speak what we want to say with
regards to Ecumunism. We're not going to hold back. We're
not going to have any concerns that we're going to
insult the audience because oh they're Roman Catholic or so.
It's like, if you get insulted, that's your problem. We're
going to speak the truth. And if you're insulted the truth,
that's on you, that's not on us. And so that's
where we started and that's basically where my break came
with Sam. And when we started our streams, I kind
of made some comments with regards to the Orientals, who
I don't really look too favorably upon. These people are
very vicious. They attack Orthodox constantly, and.
Speaker 1: Up with anyone Protestant or Catholic to do that.
Speaker 2: Yeah, absolutely, the Orientals they hate Orthodox more than they
hate Muslims. And this is if you interact with them
to any extended period of time, you will see this.
The Orientals hate Orthodox like this is a hate. This
is not a dislike. This is an absolute hate and
they really love Muslims more than they love us, and
it's sad that that is the state of affairs. But
basically I made my own remarks with regards to them
that is fairly stern, and Sam jumped on this and
he just made me out to be the devil. And
look at the way Kai is talking and this and
that and whatever. At this point, I don't really care.
My relationship with Sam is more or less now non
existent because I see it's a futile, futile effort. And
so you have the incident with you then blowing up
and then Sam coming after you because what you challenged
him to a debate like this is ridiculous.
Speaker 1: Well, let's be clear. So I don't think you knew this,
But already in the background, we had for many weeks,
in maybe even a few months, been discussing the possibility
of doing some sort of roundtable discussion. Yeah, originally that
was going to be on Sam's channel, and the idea
was to have me a couple other people you, Lewis
Ubi whoever was willing to come on, and then it
would be on the other side all brack Yasi and
whoever else, and it sounded good at first, and then
it kind of got postponed. The first it was, oh,
Albert can't do it. Then it was Yasi can't do it.
He's got kids or family or something, and then Ubi
can't do it. I'm not making excuses. I'm just saying
like Ubi wasn't able to because he had to do
the Ybarro debate. But the bar debate got postponed. Then
everybody said, well, it needs to be after December, maybe
into January. So everybody legitimately had a bunch of stuff
going on. It wasn't people trying to get out of it.
But then eventually Ubi's own personal interactions with Albrecht. He
had a really hard time trying to get Albert to
do anything, nailing him down on any dates or anything.
And then Ubi finally told me, I'm not going on
your panel because i don't care about Sam and I'm
not interested in interactions with Albret because he just always
postpones it and never gives you a set date and
he always whins and bitches about the terms of the debate.
So Ubi was just like, I'm not interested. So that
left me like kind of looking for the pop stability
of other people. That didn't look like that was ever
going to happen. And so Sam was doing a discussion
about Protestant views of the Trinity and who was the
best amongst the Protestants. And I was messaging Sam at
the time, and I just said something like, well, I'm
not really a big fan of any of the Protestant
models of the Trinity. So I said, why don't you
and all Bracts come on my channel and we'll finally
have this discussion. And I said, it was very polite,
just a simple DM. We can do it even with
time responses. That way, nobody talks over anyone, nobody gets mad.
It's you know, you talk for five minutes. I talked
for five minutes, you talk for ten minutes. You know
that way it works that heat. Then that was just it.
He just blew up.
Speaker 2: So yeah, and the rest is history. It's all all
archived now. So yeah, I mean I just saw this
as an opportunity that to come out and actually confront Sam,
because he's unhinged at this point. Now he's pushing heretical stuff.
He's going after you. He's just talking the most nonsensical garbage,
a lot of vilification, and it's like, well, fellow apologists
going to come to your side, and let me just
take this as an opportunity. Then that time when I
had called Sam out before, when he first joined the
Church of the East, I did frame it as let's
have a debate. Sam. You think you're confident that you
know about the Church of the East and you're going
to be able to defend your position. All right, let's
do a debate. And he went on his tirade and everything.
And then this is where I changed course, not because
of his tirade, but just because of the people who
are counseling me show him a little bit of leniency. Well,
that leniency is over. Sam, I'm issuing you a formal
debate challenge on your e communism and your Church of
the East theology. All right, let's pick up where we
started from before, and let's see how well you do now,
tough guy. All right, you've had two years, three years
to learn your theology. You had that time to go
and research and become educated. All right, Now, let's put
that to the test. Formal challenge to you, Sam, Let's
do it, formal debate.
Speaker 1: Now there's another reason too, that we need to discuss
this because a lot of people asked a couple of
weeks ago, why are you and Kai talking about a
Church of the East theology? What does that have to
do with them being Catholic apologists so called. Well, you
have to understand that Albert himself has contradicted by in
the past saying that he wants to come on and
defend the Assyrian Church of the East as not having
an Assaurian theology, and more recently contradicted that by saying,
why would I defend the Church of the East. I'm
a Roman Catholic. So Albert himself has contradicted, and it's
precisely due to the train of events that Kai is
talking about, where Shamoon has done the exact same type
of flip flopping of saying that, well, I'm a Syrian
Church of the East, but I'm also a Roman Catholic
because they're all Epstolic churches. And so I appreciate you
offering that debate challenge. I don't think any of these
people are ever going to take up any serious day.
Speaker 2: They're not gonna take it seriously. And Sam, he's a
type of person he's going to hide behind All Breck.
I have no interest to engage with All brect. If
he wants to debate me on Church of the East,
I'll issue the challenge directly to you as well, All Breck,
if you think the Church of the East has correct theology,
like you are on record saying you have called us,
to use your term, morons, you called us morons for
not thinking that the Church of the East theology is correct.
So if you hold to that persuasion, here's the direct
challenge to you as well, All bread Let's debate, formal debate.
Let's do it. But I have history with Sam. I
have history with him directly on these issues, and so
Sam doesn't have excuses to go and run behind All Breadth.
I can do a separate debate with All break But
I'm calling you out, Sam. You you need to know
what you're talking about, not going and running like little
sissy hiding behind people. All right. If you want to
join a church, if you want to proclaim that it's apostolic,
if you want to say that it's theology is correct,
all right, let's demonstrate it. Demonstrate to the whole world
how ignorant you actually are, how unknowledgeable you actually are
with regards to its Christology and its synods. And let's
see how well you can actually read the Syriac documents
to know what that church teaches and what they say
in English and what they actually right and they won't
tell you in English. Let's have that debate, Sam, please come.
Speaker 1: Now on top of that. You know, there's a lot
of ways that I'd like to critique this position, because,
first of all, keep in mind Sam was Calvinist Protestant
for many, many years and then suddenly decided that Okay,
I'm beginning to doubt that we had a pretty heated
debate in about maybe twenty twenty, twenty twenty one. In
the discord a father Deacon Anonius was there, maybe Kai
was even there. And I'm bringing that up because Shamun
mentioned this a few weeks ago in one of his streams,
that he had muzzled me in this debate. But the
funny part about it is is that that debate was
actually about the canon of Scripture and the Deutero canon.
And Sam now believes the position that I was arguing
in that debate, and now he's saying that no, I
won that debate you lost it and you don't want
to talk about that. They know I'm happy to talk
about it because you now hold the position that I
was arguing four or five years ago. So that's not true.
First of all, beyond that, Sam didn't get catechized, didn't
learn patristic theology, didn't learn any of the monarchical Trinitarian doctrines.
Even though he praised doctor bo Branson to the last
four or five years, he didn't really go and pay
attention to what was being said. Because the thing that
I mentioned in the DMS that really set him off
after the first debate discussion was I said, you can't
really have a consistent Trinitarian doctrine of you know, monarchical
role of the Father as the mono archae without the
doctrine of the energies. The energies goes along with this.
It's not a piecemeal pick and choose, it's a whole
package deal. And that also set him off because he
apparently thinks that the energies are some stupid, made up thing,
and he I clipped him, he was blasphemously, maybe, well,
why don't you go get more of your energies. Maybe
they're going to help you out in your debate, as
if the divine energies are not a New Testament doctrine
taught very clearly in you know Paul's usage of the
word uh ergaia, so Paul. So the point is that
Chamun did not get catechized, did not listen, did not
care about any of this. You can even see it
in his recent misuse of Palamas against the Muslims. If
you go and read the whole discourse, I read the
majority of it. Palamas actually argues that Muslims do not
have the Trinity. He does a reductio argument where he
says that even your Qur'an ascribes a contradictory position of
Jesus being divine, and in another place the logos the
word of a Llah, and in other places he's not.
And that's the point. It's not saying that you have
the faith of Christ, therefore let's have an ecumenist, no stratate,
you know, common natural theology position. No, that's not what
Palamas is saying. And so his quote, minds and his
clipping again demonstrate no interest in actually understanding what the
Cappadocians or what Saint Gregory Palamas actually teaches as it's
just so silly. He's imprisoned by the Muslims when this
is happening, and he's debating with the Muslims while he's
imprisoned by them. Of course he's not going to say
we all believe in the same God. Even in the
very passage that was quoted, he says, you proclaim in
your Qur'an my position. That's pointing out an inconsistency. He's
not saying that you believe in the Trinity and the
deedy of Christ. That's so stupid, right to have this
ridiculous position. But the point is that it's not about
what's correct or the right reading or reading comprehension. It's
just Ammo for causing a big fuss and getting people
upset and confusing people. And so Sam didn't get catechized,
and since he didn't get catechized, and since he's not
under any authority or episcopal blessing, this is another point.
You cannot be even in the Roman Catholic system. You
got to pick a rite. You can't be a Syrian
church these and go to the Latin Mass or the
Novasorto Mass. In the Roman Catholic Church, you have to
get permission to leave the Latin rite and go to
the Eastern right. You can't do a both in and
do whatever you want. So it doesn't even make sense
on his own terms. And who knows if even does it.
Nobody even knows it. Does he even go who knows
if even goes. I mean, there's just no way to know.
Then there's no That's why there's no episcopal oversight. There
is no authority that is said Sam Shimun speaks for,
you know, the Romancolic Church or the Assyrian Church of
the Easter or whatever. And that I think is another
point that's overlooked is that this is a du that's
just sort of like creating, like Christian Prince, a sort
of an online religious cult. So when he says Apostolic churches,
my first point, my first critique, and then I'll let
you offer your critiques, is, first of all, what does
that mean? Does that mean Anglicans? Because on what basis
do you just arbitrarily say that it's all the quote
ancient churches but not the Anglican Church. Now I don't
believe it's the Anglican Church, but I mean the point
is that it's an arbitrary standard of well, it's it's
these because they're quote ancient. Well, an Anglican will say
that his church, the Church of England, is ancient. So
to call it ancient and to call it apostolic is
ambiguous in itself. It requires more than that. Furthermore, these
communions historically have excommunicated each other. How can they all
be the same communion? Ex communicate, ex communion, Katie right,
not in communion, you are not our church. And in
fact there are anathemas as we'll talk about the Fifth
Council and the Edict of Justinian. Right. You have to
reject these things. And so it's an impossible position. Thus,
either there is one true church or there is not.
There are two options here. You can't have a fifty
percent true church, a thirty percent true church, a twenty
percent true church. But it is correct that Sam's position
lines up with Vatican two's view of ecclesiology and the church,
because we're remember about it. In two says the Catholic
Church subsists in the Roman Catholic Church, but also exists
outside of that bounds of the Roman Catholic Church. Thus
you can have the concentric circles model of Peter in
the center the Roman Church as its main one hundred
percent church, the Orthodox Church with what eighty percent of
the Apostolic faith. Then outside of that you have the
Orientals and what Anglicans with I don't know, seventy fifty percent.
Then you have Lutherans and whoever else, right, and then
outside that you have the Protestant Evangelicals, and then outside
that you have Muslims who have what maybe twenty thirty percent.
That's the tier concentric circles model of we're all in
partial communion. Where is partial communion in the Canons of
the Church in the first thousand years of the church?
Where is this idea? There is no idea that the
one true Church exists amongst five different sects or groups
or four sects or groups, anymore than it exists amongst
three thousand or thirty thousand. So just because you boil
it down to an arbitrary decision of merely the churches
that profess to have Apostolic succession, that doesn't prove that
that's the true church. On what is it basis is
just the ones that profess to have it, especially when
the certain Church of the East and the Oriental Coptics,
et cetera. They don't agree with each other, so how
could they all be the same church. It's stupid. It's
a stupid position. And nobody has ever argued for an
Apostolic Christianity that is the quote ancient churches. That is
just those four or five seas, unless you want to
talk about branch theory. But Anglican branch theory includes the Anglicans,
so it doesn't make any sense. So either it's one
true church that is a visible canonical unity, or it's not.
It can't be a middle position.
Speaker 2: That's good. Jay, I'm more or less on the same
page as you. I'm just gonna unpack it a little
bit differently. I'm just gonna take a little bit of
a different angle. But it's basically the same point that
you're making. So I'm gonna start with first just simply
trying to identify what is at the heart of ecumenism, Okay,
and that's gonna then lead me into discussing Apostolicity.
Speaker 1: So before you, let me at one last statement before
you go into that, because it reminded me of my
last note here. The only other thing I would add
is that It is definitely true that outside of the
Orthodox Church you do have degrees of agreement or disagreement. Right,
So I'm not saying that there's absolutely no difference between
a Muslim and a Coptic person or something like that. Now,
obviously those churches have a lot more in agreement with us.
But the attitude of the Patristic Church, the mindset of
the church is that it only takes one error, heresy
or schism to remove you from the body. Yes, and
that's all it takes. That's why the faith has to
be whole, entire and complete. You can't have a ninety
percent church a fifty percent church. It just doesn't make
any sense. It doesn't mean all the members know all
the doctrines perfectly or have a PhD. It just simply
is necessarily the case for the unity of the body
that it cannot be split, it cannot be spread among sects,
and one heresy or schism is all it takes to
remove a person.
Speaker 2: Ye, all right, Am I good to go? All right?
So a lot of people will approach ecumenism trying to
like understand what is at the heart of ecumenism, and
they will see it as the coming together of various
denominations in some kind of harmonious union or whatever. It
may be, just simply a coming together of groups that differ,
and they focus on that aspect and just say, oh,
this is ecumenist, It is ecumenist, but it's not really,
in my opinion, ecumenism proper. What is at the heart
of ecumenism is the conviction that no one single party
exclusively has the truth in its entirety. If you're an
ecumenist and you're part of that ecumenist movement, that's basically
what your con conviction is is that you don't have
one single identifiable party that exclusively has the truth in
its entirety. So the different groups have bits and pieces
of the truth, and that we must all come together
on the grounds that unite us in commonality while ignoring
the differences. Okay, So that is the whole reason why
the ecumunist movement exists and why people want to be ecumenical,
is because they don't believe that there is the truth
in this one church. There's just the truth scattered everywhere,
and we're just gonna come together with what unites us,
and we're going to ignore the differences as if the
differences are not are not relevant. Okay, That way of
thinking is demonic. It is completely against the patristics, and
it is completely against the ecumenical councils and the way
the church has functioned since its inception. As Jay has
said rightly, if you are excommunicated, that means you are
not in communion. And if you're not in communion, you
are not a church. I'm gonna get to that when
I talk about apostolicity. So now you have to ask
yourself the question, Well, if you, as an ecumenist, can
actually identify that this one church does actually have the
fullness of the truth, then does it make sense for
me to go elsewhere? Why would you not go to
the place that you believe has the fullness of the truth.
Why would you go to somewhere that teaches error and
proclaims heresies? All right, So it makes absolutely no sense
for me to want falsities in my worship when I
know the truth exists over here. So the point here
is is I don't have to seed any ground just
to not hurt your feelings or upset you. I care
about the truth. I know that the truth exists here.
I don't care about your feelings insofar as they compromise
the truth. And that's the stand against ecumenism. The stand
against ecumenism is this. It's like, you guys are getting
upset because your feelings are getting hurt that we're rejecting you. Well,
we're rejecting you because you're rejecting the truth. Okay, you
need to accept the truth. We're not going to compromise it,
and we're not going to cater and placate your feelings
because oh we are afraid to speak the truth. No,
we're going to tell you where the truth is, why
it's the truth, and this is where you need to
be because this is the church that Christ himself established,
And if you want to cut yourself off from that,
then that is an action on your part. You are
removing yourself from the church. I don't have to be
accommodating to you because you don't want your hurt feelings hurt. No,
if you don't want your feelings hurt, then learn where
the truth is and come aboard. Okay. So Christ did
not go around telling you to go and proclaim the
church that you believe is in your head. He said,
follow the church that I'm establishing here with the apostles.
So that's what you have to do, which then leads
us into well what is apostolicity? And one thing that
I want to stress is that it is not restricted
to just material succession.
Speaker 1: Yes, in other words, yeah, the faith, Like you've got
to have the faith too, It's not just you have
to have the faith.
Speaker 2: So Sam is basically reducing his apostolic Christianity to really
just be those ancient churches that have material succession and
just let's completely ignore what exactly the details are of
their theology and the fact that they've been excommunicated. That
doesn't matter. It's just that is there some kind of
material succession? Oh they're apostolic? Well, material succession is necessary,
but it's not the sole grounds that determines apostolicity. You
have to preserve the faith. That is a key marker
for apostelicity just as much as material succession.
Speaker 1: Can I add on that real quick. I don't want
to interrupt your flow, but I know what it's like
to think that way because I was a Roman Catholic.
I went from Calvinism to Catholicism, much like many of
the people out there like Sam have. And one thing
that I didn't understand until I got interested in orthodoxy,
was the orthodoxy you is not identical to the Roman
Catholic view that there's all this validity of apostolic succession
even outside of the church. And when you you understand
this point that it was actually sant Athanasius's letters that
convinced me of this position, because when I first heard this,
I thought it was donatus, but then I realized, no, actually,
it doesn't make any sense to say that there isn't
a succession of the apostles that is heretical. That doesn't
make any sense. But that's what you have to say
if you're an ex operata x operaparado a Roman Catholic
Augustinian view here, and the orthodox to you is said, no, no,
if you lose the faith, the other mechanical stuff also
doesn't matter. Now the church can make determinations about how
you're received into the church, that's a different issue, but
you're not still the church without the faith. In other words,
you would have to be saying that you can have
heretical apostolic succession, and that makes no sense.
Speaker 2: Exactly, it makes absolutely no sense. And that's actually going
to lead into the example that I'm going to give.
And this is directly tied to the Church of the East.
And so if you're talking about apostolicity with regards to
material succession and correct dogma to correct expression of the faith.
So let's take Nestorius as the example. So by Ecumenical Council,
by the Third Ecumenical Council, Nestorius was deposed, meaning that
he was completely stripped of clerical status. He's not a
bishop anymore, he has no clerical status whatsoever. And once
that happened, there is no apostolicity to him. Okay, he
is not a valid cleric. He cannot transmit apostolicity because
apostolicity has to go through the clerical establishment. So any
church that follows Nestorius or considers him a saint, or
venerates him or gives him a clerical status loses its hostelicity. Okay,
this is a very important point that we see in
the Fifth Ecumenical Council. Okay, you look at I think
it's Canon eighth uh or sorry, no, Canon eleven and
twelve of the eighth Session of the Ecumenical of the
Fifth Ecumenical Council. I've made a community post on it.
So why is this important? Because the Ecumenical Council, which
apparently if Sam is part of the Roman Catholic Church,
he has to hold to this Ecumenical Council. It clearly
states you must anathematize Theodore of Mopsuestia and Nestorius. These
are saints and they're venerated within the Church of the East,
and if you do not anathematize them, then you yourself
are also anathema. So that means you take yourself out
of Apostolicity just the way the councils had deemed the
story is to no longer hold Apostolic success. So if
you don't anathematize him, you are anathema, meaning you're no
longer an Apostolic. That's what the argument is. And it's
that simple. And so you cannot argue for this Apostolic
church when you actually if you're going to be a
Roman Catholic and hold to these councils and these canons,
and yet you're gonna tell us that the church that
doesn't anathematize these people are Apostolic.
Speaker 1: This is huge. Now I want to back that up
by pointing out that you have to understand too that
all Bracked aChn Voice of Reason, and I don't know
if all Bergs has shifted his position on this or what,
but they have. All and Sam as well basically said
in various ways and phrases, Ephesus actually got it wrong
when they condemned Nestorius because quote Nestorius wasn't Astorian. Now,
this is so stupid because it shows no familiarity with
the actual documents of Ephesus, because if you read the anathemas,
the anathemas are actually directed at Nostorias. In other words,
this would mean that all the anathemas of Ephesis are
also wrong because they're misattributing a position that Nestorius claims
to have. And it would mean that Nestorius was not
diffracked and did not lose his apostolicity. But that's literally
and I paid this to play this quite many times.
Voice of Reason, ach and all these guys say that no,
Nestorius wasn't a Nestorian. And it's not just a denial
of ephesis, and it's fundamental to Ephesis that it's Nestorius.
That's right. You have to believe that Cyril correctly understood
Nestorius's position as a dual subject Crystal. So to say
that Nestorius wasn't a Nestorian means that ephesis was theologically
wrong as well.
Speaker 2: Yeah, And to actually add to that point, I think
it's in Pope Celestine's letter to Nestorius. I read it
a part of it way back when when I was
doing my streams on the Church of the East. But
I think it's Pope Cealestine's letter. He even says he's
like explicitly saying, it's like, there's no room for misunderstanding
what you believe, Nestorius, because we have your writings in
your own hand. So it's like it's not like telephone,
a game of telephone, or a misrepresentation. They had Nestorius's
own writings that they were consulting and reading and making
their judgments on. So there's that point. The other point
was there was the double apostolicity charge against Nestorius, meaning
that it was both the See of Rome and the
of Alexandria that found fault with Nestorius. So it's not
just a misreading of him. It is like the Seas
themselves are saying, Nestorius, you are wrong. And in the
letter it basically says that Nestorius must confess the faith
as Saint Cyril lays it out.
Speaker 1: Yes, and my extension, the Fifth Council would also be wrong.
Speaker 2: Exactly exactly exactly. So these people who are are are
trying to say the Ecumenical councils got it wrong. I
think they're just a little bit ignorant of their theology.
Speaker 1: And the councils, well, let me let me read from
your post. This is two weeks ago. Sam Shimun will
not condemn the Nasaurian Church of the East, which venerates
Theodore mops Queshia and Nestorius. Instead, Sam preaches that the
Nestorian Assyrian Church of the East has a valid appso
succession and thus is a vehicle of salvation. However, the
Fifth Ecumenical Council, which is the reinterpretation of Chalcidon in
a Karellion way, if we understand that, then we understand
that it's just as important as Fhicis and Calcidon. It
reads quote the Fifth Acamenical Council states in the Canons
of the Eighth Session, if anyone does not anathematize in
the Storius, let him be anathema. If anyone defends the
impious Theodore Mopsuestia, and he does not anathematize him, let
him be anathema. And that's from Richard Price. And that's
pages one, twenty three to twenty five of Constantinople five
to fifty three.
Speaker 2: Yeah, the second volume specifically. So I got it like
right here, right there, Pick it up, go and read it, Sam,
if you are serious about wanting.
Speaker 1: To learn, well, in my experience that all of these
Roman Catholic apologists, they don't care. They don't care what
ephesis says, they don't care what the Fifth Council reaffirms.
They just handwave that don't care.
Speaker 2: Okay, Well, if you want to handwave it, then you
have a church without ecumenical councils.
Speaker 1: I mean, well it's Protestant, isn't it.
Speaker 2: So based on that argument, that that argument alone demonstrates
that Sam's whole Apostolic Christianity. It's just it's nonsensical and
it's heretical because to preach a church that the Ecumenical
as canonical, that Ecumenical Council has said cannot be canonical,
that is heresy, That is outright heresy. You are preaching
heresy at this point. Okay. So another thing that you
can also look at is this whole idea of participation
within non Orthodox churches and the participation of non Orthodox
when they come to Orthodox churches. So non Orthodox are
not allowed in the alter area of an Orthodox church. Now,
if you're not Orthodox and you're Apostolic, why would you
not be allowed to go into the alter area. You're
not allowed to go into the alter area because you're
not Orthodox, you are not Apostolic. And priests within Orthodoxy
they're forbidden on principle, though I know we have certain
hierarchs that err in this regard because they're ecumenists. But
on principle, Orthodox priests are forbidden to con celebrate with
non Orthodox. You just you cannot do that. And the
reason why you don't do that is because those are
not Apostolic clergy. You cannot be celebrating a divine mystery
with somebody who is not a member of the body.
You just you cannot do that. Okay. So basically, what
sam is doing with his notion of Apostolic Christianity is
that he's using his orb magic to just in his
head put whatever standards he wants to call something apostolic okay,
and it's contrary to what the ecumenical counsels teach. But
now this leads us into this whole Protestant mindset idea
where I'm gonna ask you, Sam, who gave you the
authority to set the standards of what constitutes apostolic? Okay?
Are you just making it up in your own head
and saying, oh, if you satisfy this threshold that I'm instituting,
it's apostolic. It's like you saying, oh, as long as
you confess the Trinity, you're okay. You can be a
social trinitarian, you can be a relative identity trinitarian, you
can be a monarchical trinitarian. Doesn't matter. I'm going to
set the bar and say, as long as you confess
the Trinity, you're a Christian. Well, I'm sorry, Sam, it
doesn't work like that, all right. We don't have multiple
conceptions of the Trinity. We have the Trinity as it
is taught by the Church, and.
Speaker 1: The only teaching of grace is uncreated grace and participation
in the divine energies. That's the only one. There are
not a bunch of different schools of theology on what
grace is the Orthodox Church is the only one that
has always confessed the same theology of grace that the
Cappadocians teach, that Palamas teaches, that Maximus teaches, and that's
on created energy.
Speaker 2: Yeah, so it's basically it's it's coming to this argument,
that is, you are not in a position sam to
set the standards of what people need to believe in
order to be part of the Body of Christ or
to be a member of the church or to be
called a Christian. The Church and the councils have made
it clear what you need to believe and what you
need to profess in order to satisfy the burden. Okay,
and your criteria does not satisfy this burden. It is
just something you're creating in your head. And just if
anybody critiques you or challenges you on it, you just
custom out and you think that they're an agent of
Satan and that they are manifesting, and it's like, no, dude,
you're the one manifesting. You're living in your head and
you want people to live in your head as well.
You're completely disregarding what the church and the councils have
taught and you're doing that out of ignorance. You are
not knowledgeable on the patristics. You go to William Albreck.
Do you think this guy is a fount of knowledge.
He is not a fount of knowledge. If he wants
to debate me, I'll easily show just how ignorant he
is of the councils and what the Church teaches. Sure,
let's do it. Set it up. But the point here
is is that you are acting as your own arbiter. Okay,
you're using your own measuring stick. That is text book demonic.
That means you are not following the church. You are
following your own pride, and you cannot set your pride
aside and actually take construction and follow what the church teaches.
You want to invent your own Apostolic Christian nonsense. Okay,
it doesn't work like that. You have to follow the
Apostolic Church as it itself has defined what you need
to do in order to follow it. And now that's
going to lead me into the next point. And this
next point, this is probably going to get quite a
few people upset, but you need to hear the truth,
and the truth is who is a Christian? Let's answer
this question, and when we ask the question who is
a Christian? Well, what do we mean by that term Christian?
Because you can understand it in many different ways. Historically,
the way that the Church has defined who is a
Christian and who is rightfully to use that appellation is
those who can canonic receive the Holy Eucharist within the
Orthodox Church. Otherwise the person is not a Christian. The
whole point of living a Christian life, the whole point
of going to church is to partake of the Holy Eucharist.
As Christ says, you must partake of the body and
blood to have life in you. So to have life,
you must partake of the Holy Eucharist. So to be
a Christian is somebody who does this, And the only
place you can do that is within the Orthodox Church.
And if you are permitted canonically to do that, you
are a Christian. Otherwise, according to the Church's own standards,
you are not. Now catechumens. And those under a penance
or in a state of impurity who cannot receive the
Holy Eucharist are in a special category, okay, And should
they repose in such a state, they will be buried
as Orthodox Christians. But otherwise everybody else they are not
to be considered Christians. Okay. Now, we will use the
term Christian in a loose sense when referring to those
who self identify as a Christian, and it's just shorthand
label to say, oh, Christian but not Muslim, Christian but
not jew. So it's used kind of as a marker
that sets people apart from everybody else. But we're looking
under this term Christian to see basically what are the
some of the things, the core beliefs that people have.
But then we will identify where the errors are with
regards to the so called denominations. But just because we
may use that to term loosely Christian to fight people,
it doesn't necessarily mean that we equate them as Christians
in the truest sense of the word. Okay, The patristic
understanding of Christian is strictly referring to those who can
canonically receive the Holy Eucharist within the Orthodox Church. And
if that is the view, if that is the way
the church functioned, then so much more is the whole
idea of Apostolicity. That's exactly how we have the Apostolic Church.
And how do you identify what is the Apostolic Church
it's those that are in communion with each other. So
you can have the churches in various different countries around
the world, and what unites them in Apostolicity is the
fact that they are in communion and they're not ex communicated,
as Jay would say. They are in communion. They are
participating in the body and blood of Christ. And it's
to Peter one four, participating in the divine energies of Christ,
participating in Christ. So that is your whole Apostolic tradition
summed up in the Christian expression of Orthodoxy.
Speaker 1: It'd be interesting too to point out the ahistorical element
of this. Who prior to Shimun Albrecht Aichan voice of reason,
I don't know who who has ever argued that the
Catholic Church is the listing of the people who claim
to have outsolt succession. Whoever taught this? Can anybody cite
anyone prior to Sam Shimun or Aichen or whoever that
taught this Like it's a new ecclesiological doctrine. I mean,
the doctrine of ecclesiology itself is not something that we
craft on our own right. It's something that is part
of the jurison that's handed down. You can't make up
a new ecclesiology. It has to be consonant with Christology
because Christology will reflect into ecclesiology because the Church is
the body of Christ. And if you have right Christology,
you're going to have right ecclesiology. It's precisely erroneous Christology
which these people are defending in terms of the Church
of the East and the Coptics and arguably even Roman Catholicism,
which is why they don't have correct ecclesiology.
Speaker 2: Yep, yep. Another point that I guess I can make,
and this is one that I made a community post on.
It's also you look at the mentality of the Orthodox
in having this understanding of who is a Christian and
the apostolic question is when somebody from a different quote
unquote Christian profession comes to the Orthodox Church, what they
have to renounce. And so, for example, like if you're
a former Roman.
Speaker 1: Catholic, yeah you have a renunciation.
Speaker 2: Yeah you have a renunciation. If you are coming from
the Church of the East, you have a renunciation. If
you are coming from one of the Oriental establishments, you
have a renunciation. And these are explicit these are explicit
renunciations that you have to say that these establishments Roman, Catholicism,
Orientals Church of these are incorrect. They are not the
body and blood of Christ. They are not the Church.
You do not have valid sacraments, if you will, or
what we prefer the term mysteries. We don't really use sacraments.
We also call it as mysteries that those are not
present in those churches, and you have to renounce them.
You cannot be Orthodox and not renounce those churches. You
have to. Now, if you are an Orthodox who is
a fan of Sam, and you are saying, well, I'm
not of that persuasion and whatnot, you just don't know
what your faith teaches. You don't know what Orthodoxy teaches.
You have to take this hard line because we don't
compromise on the faith. You cannot be Orthodox and not
renounce these other churches. If you don't want to go
out and bash them. Okay, Sam said, oh I will
never bash these churches. Okay, don't bash them. You don't
have to go and assault them. But you have to
renounce them. And you have to have that personal conviction
that these are false churches and they do not have
the mysteries, because if they had the mysteries, then you
wouldn't have to renounce them. It doesn't make sense to
renounce Christ if He is over there. You're renouncing them
because you're saying Christ is not there. Christ is here,
and if I come here, I will participate in the
divine mystery that is Christ. That's the whole point. There's
only that one arc of salvation. Noah was commanded to
build one arc, not a gazillion arcs. One arc, and
that's the arc that you come aboard. And now maybe
we can make a point here because I think a
lot of people may not understand when you say Jay
or others will say that this Nestorian ecclesiology, and what
exactly does that mean?
Speaker 1: And if you want to elaborate on that, yeah, just
I'll explained Blake briefly that you know in the notion
of is there a been an echo?
Speaker 2: Right?
Speaker 1: No, it's good now Armand so basically in church history
you have the division at ephesis between Nestorius and the
rest of the Church over the question of whether Christ
is a dual subject or a single subject. If you
believe the writings of Saint Cyril of Alexandria, and if
you believe the teaching of Ephesus and people that are
not familiar with it, I would say start by reading
something simple like on the Unity of Christ by Saint Cyril.
You're going to notice that Cyril correctly identifies the stories
as having a dual subject Christology, that there's this Jesus,
the man, who's a subject, who's the agent behind all
the human actions like eating and crying and all this
kind of stuff. And then there's a divine person, the logos,
who's the one that kind of peeps through when there's
miracles or when there's an ascension or something like this.
So there's two subjects. And this principle in Christology gets
applied the same way to the mystical body, which is
the Church, when you have an historian ecclesiology where Christ
is not identical to the visible body in the same
way that he was identically united to his visible physical
body when he was incarnate. Let me bring Kai back.
Are you there?
Speaker 2: Yeah?
Speaker 1: I lost you for a second. So basically, so basically,
just as Nestorius would divide the incarnation in the hypostatic union, Likewise,
in the church you have an ecclesiological version of Historianism,
where Christ is not synonymous with his mystical body, the visible,
single body Church, but rather amongst a bunch of different
sects and groups. And this, although not explicitly called the
invisible church doctrine in the Reformation, becomes Calvin's invisible Church doctrine.
Calvin teaches that there is a visible church which is
splintered and split and divided, and everybody hates each other
and they're all excommunicating each other Roman Catholic, Lutheran, Calvinists,
Presbyterian and Methodist. And then there is a elect church
that is the true believing elect amongst these groups. Right,
that's the kind of classical Calvinist Westminster Confession view visible
invisible church. It's premised on a Nestorian ecclesiology. The same
principles and Astorius applies to Christ, these people apply to
the mystical body of Christ, the Church, and so they
deny a single, visible, substantial right in time and space history,
single visible church. And that's exactly the same position that
Sam all Breckt and the Vatican to a humanist mindset has.
Speaker 2: Yeah. Yeah, thanks for that, Jay, You explained it much
better than I would be able to the other thing
that I wanted to touch upon, and this is kind
of like the last thing that I really had in
my notes to talk about. We can talk about other
things if you have anything else, j But the other
thing that I really wanted to highlight to people is
this or nonsense with with This.
Speaker 1: Is relevant because charismaticism is a huge part of this
picture here, because Roman Catholicism officially accepts charismaticism.
Speaker 2: Yeah, so Sam kind of seems to be backtracking a
bit with regards to saying that the whole things with
the orbs is a joke whatever. Those who have known Sam,
who have followed Sam for a while, they know that
he was serious. He really did think these orbs are
something miraculous, some kind of confirmation of his teaching, of
his position and things. But patristically Sam would be and
I don't and I don't say this lightly, but it
is very much the case. The patristic sources would really
basically say that Sam is under demonic influence, and especially
if he is giving credence to these things, there's a problem.
There's a serious spiritual problem going on with Sam. He
has made remarks to the effect that he knows that
signs can come that are from Satan, so he is
aware of it. But if he is like allowing it
to permeate his thinking that something special is actually going on,
then those of you who are listening to Sam and
just gobbling up all the ecumenist garbage that he's putting out,
this is basically demonic influence. If you pick up this
is the third volume in the Philocalia. Okay, and I
made the community post about that, and patristically, I'm just
going to read this short little paragraph just so that
you guys are aware. Whenever you hear Sam talking about
these orbs. Now, if he doesn't preface it with say,
oh guys, this is a joke. Look at this orb,
and he's just basically saying it the way he does
on stream makes it sound serious. People can misinterpret that
and actually think him being very serious. But me personally
knowing Sam and having interacted with him, I do think
he believes these orbs are.
Speaker 1: Put I put a clip that I clipped where he's
being very serious, that very seriously about it.
Speaker 2: Yeah. So the particular part is it's from Saint Peter
of Damascus, and it's in his book one a treasury
of divine knowledge, and it's in the recorded in the Philocalia,
And this is what he writes, says, when the devil
saw Christ descending in his extreme goodness to the holy
Martyrs and revered Fathers, appearing either in himself or through angels,
or in some other ineffable form, he began to fabricate
numerous delusions in order to destroy people. It is on
account of this that the Fathers, in their discrimination wrote
that one should not pay any attention to such diabolic manifestations,
whether they come through images or light, or fire, or
some other deceptive form. For the devil can deceive even
in sleep or through the senses. If we accept such delusions,
he makes the intellect and its utter ignorance and utter
se and sorry and self conceit depict various shapes or colors,
so that we think that this is a manifestation of
God or of an angel. Often in sleep or to
our senses. When awake, he shows us demons that are
apparently defeated. In short, he does all he can to
destroy us by making a succub to these delusions. So
that's patristic, that's orthodoxy. That is what the Orthodox teach,
and basically, if you believe Sam, you would be considered
to be demonically influenced. And people, you guys listening to
this stream, you can go and watch Sam. You can
go and see for yourself the way he talks about
these things, and you can clearly make your own judgments
in that regard. But I think you will see that
coupled with his mental state, you guys can see that
this person is unhinged. He is not well, He is
not well spiritually. And though he does say that he
goes and takes communion at the Roman Catholic Church, you
can see that that communion is not having an effect
on him. It is not helping him spiritually, it's making
him even more deluded. He talks about his numbers, how
his ministry is growing. It's basically he is seeing a
lot of demonic stuff come his way as an affirmation
that he's speaking the truth and bringing people to Christ.
Whereas when if you're not bringing people to Orthodoxy, then
you're not bringing people to Christ. And though some people
will find their way to Orthodoxy through Sam, the Holy
Spirit has its way of working through people. So that's
not to validate Sam as a being of the Holy Spirit.
It is the Holy Spirit guiding people despite Sam, and
so he does not necessarily need to be understood as
a vessel to bring people to Orthodoxy because of the
amount of people that he's actually diverting away from Orthodoxy
and encouraging to go and adopt heresy. The Holy Spirit
is not going to promote somebody to go into a
heretical church and go to where the divine mystery of
Christ is not present. Okay, the Holy Spirit is not
going to do that. So you have to look at
Sam's initiatives. Do they line up with Orthodoxy and they don't,
then they have to be demonically influenced.
Speaker 1: Oh yeah, absolutely. And I want to remind people too
that just the Roman Catholic Church's position on acceptance from
the papacy down in the last thirty forty years of
the charismatic movement and the so called Charismatic renewal, which
is what they call it, that is another defeater for
the position. If the papacy is there to guide us
and show us the truth, lead us into the true faith,
preserve the true faith, keep us in unity, et cetera,
why would they accept something that already was condemned in
the early Church when the Montanousts were condemned. Modern day
charismaticism in all its manifestations is literally a repeat of
the Montanist heresy. And if you want my longer breakdown,
we did a six hour talk where we had charismatics
calling in. And it doesn't matter whether it's Evangelical, Pentecostal,
or Roman Calvilic charismatic. This is a defeater for the position.
If you read Father Seraf and Rose's book or the
actually their religion in future, same critique of charismaticism and
the delusion that it promotes. So this and this applies
to Taylor Marshall as well, because Taylor Marshall has all
the same mystical delusions that he talks about with Blessed
and a Taiigie in the Days of Judgment and Black
the Darkness that are coming, all this nonsense that he's
been pushing since twenty twenty. Same goes for the tradcats.
They're all charismatics and charismaticism is delusion. Now, we do
have some super chats. If you guys want to support
the stream, I will also be supporting Kai as well.
You can send super chats, and I'll split those with Kai.
Speaker 2: We have.
Speaker 1: First one is snead chucks and five dollars. If Sam's
position is that all the Apostolic churches are the body
of Christ, and each one declares the other heretical, that
means the entire body of Christ is wrong. Yeah. You
might could take the argument that way, right, because if
they're all disagreeing, then they're all wrong. None of them
are right. And I think that's actually correct. In terms
of what Kai said at the beginning about acumenism, a
humanism has premised on the idea that there's not a
true church. We're all in the process of finding the church.
The church is something that's discovered at the end of history.
After we all, you know, admit that we're all wrong
and nobody has it right, will eschatologically find the true church.
That's the presupposition of ecumenism. Hauling the goods fifty bucks.
I appreciate both of you guys, and Perry Robinson. You
helped me get out of Protestantism. Now I'm hopefully becoming
a catechumen and will be baptized into the Serbian Orthodox Church.
God bless you both. I have to correct you Kai
is not actually a Serbian. He's Orbian and Kai joined
the Orbit orbitan Orthodox church. Actually, as somebody beat me
to this joke, Cards, I promise I did not read
Cards as super chat. He says, repent and become an
Orthodox exactly Cards read in my mind, Nick. Five dollars.
Sam will pen Muslims playing a pick and choose game
in their Islamic texts and theology, but then he does
the same thing when he's presented with problem texts in
Roman Catholic contradictions. I assume you mean Nostre Tate three
in lumin Gentium sixteen, the way that it speaks of
Muslims having the faith of Abraham and adoring the One
God Chia totally. Ten dollars. Thank you so much. TL.
Remember guys, if you want to support, you can support
by sending a super chat and it goes to Kai
as well. We got new members with winter meet. Eyes
are the leather strap of the Ans. Five dollars. That's
from the hadiths. I think, if I recall this is
a little bit off topic, but how does one join
your discord. I don't run that discord. It's run by
David and FDA and the mods in there. I think
if you just search for Orthodox Discord, it's the biggest one.
So you should be able to join that way or
d m Chase Haggard and he can give you the
link on Twitter. Zen Razor became a member. Let's see, guys,
I have Kai linked in the chat. You can head
on over to Orthodox Shahta and follow Kai. Be sure
to support him, and be sure and muzzle and bark. Kay,
you need to be muzzled and you need to stop
barking because you're manifesting. I'm just this is like the
classic terminology that we hear from. Uh. There's the link
by the way for people in the chat. So also,
will there be a debate with the Orthodox Orientals? Look, guys,
David debated all the Orientals like five years ago. You
can go to David's channel. He has a whole playlist
where he debates with all those guys. And we're not
gonna the debates. We're going to do another installment of
the critiquing the Orientals. Ky, could you give us an
update on what the next in that series is going
to be?
Speaker 2: Oh, it's been a while since I looked at it.
I think what I had lined up is we're going
to look at what composite hypostasis means, the composite language
when it's applied to Christ. How do we understand that,
what is actually composite and also start looking at the
essence energies, What exactly is the energy's doctrine, Why is
it relevant? Why is it central to Christology? Because a
lot of people don't actually understand it's Christological impacts. They
will see the essence energies distinction as really more of
just kind of the way God interacts with creation, if
you will, in a very kind of limited scope of
understanding the guess and energy's doctrine, But it has very
massive implications on a chrystological level for the person of Christ,
and it ties into the whole composite Christ question. So
that's I think what I have lined up for the
next installment.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Also, I would say that for those that are interested,
if you want to read more on it, the discussion
of composite hypostasis towards the in the Edict of Justinian
is really good in the vest of books. Everybody should
get on the person of Christ. If you want to
go deeper into the theology of the Fifth Council. Uh,
podios five dollars, you go ahead.
Speaker 2: Well, I was going to say that book, it's a standard,
that is a very, very very good book. I recommend
everybody to read that. On the Person of the Christ.
That is just it's on my top ten. It'll probably
always be on my top ten. You have to read it.
And it's very interesting how even the Saint Justinian, he
points out the same problem that we have with the
Orientals today. He's pointing it out. It's like these people
are just incapable of reading context. They're just word concept fallacy,
over and over and over again. Saint Justinian points that out,
and we're pointing that out today. But just a comment
with regards to the debating of the Orientals that may
be on the table, I don't want to completely take
that off of the table. What I'm not doing is
I'm not going to play their games and do it
on their time frame. I'm going to take the time
to do the series. It may take us a year,
two years, I don't know however long. We have a
lot of parts, we have a lot of material to cover.
We're going to be very extensive and exhaustive in this treatment,
and so we'll see how the Oriental community responds to
all of this and whether or not a final debate
will will materialize. I'm not fearful to debate them. It's
really more of a waste of my time right now,
because when you engage these people, it's not a proper debate.
It's about really demonstrating how they fall into word concept fallacy.
And so that's what it is, over and over and
over again, just trying to get these people to understand
concepts context where they're making the mistakes. So it's not
even a debate, it's more of like an education session.
So I want to really take the time to demonstrate
and to develop with you j and with David the paradigms,
so the Orthodox paradigm, the Oriental paradigm, the the Historian paradigm,
so that people stop just looking at quotes and think
they understand the theology behind these words that they're reading.
They have to start understanding in paradigms, how you're framing
what a particular father is saying with in the respective paradigm.
And now you're going to put the sayings of Saint
Cyril in the Orthodox paradigm and in the Oriental paradigm,
and you're going to see which of these two paradigms
actually makes sense of what Saint Cyril is saying. We're
going to look at what is the paradigm that the
Council of Chalcedon worked under, what was the paradigm of
the Fifth Ecumenical Council, and so on, and that's how
we're going to unfold this. So the audience needs to
be educated generally in paradigmatic ways of thinking, so that
should a debate in the future actually materialize, that they
actually can be able to follow along a paradigmatic level debate.
It's not going to be a quote mind debate. And
this is exactly what these orientals want. They want to
quote mind war. They just want to throw quotes at you.
Look at this is what these fathers have said. That's
not what the debate is going to be. You guys
are not at the level yet to the debate at paradigms.
So we're gonna set out all of the paradigms so
that should this debate happen, we're going to demonstrate that
you guys don't even know how to think in paradigms,
that you don't even know what your paradigms are so
you don't even know how to process what these fathers
are thinking. It goes beyond just simple quote minding. Okay,
don't be so eager for debate. It will be your downfall. Okay,
just stop with the taunting and have a little bit
of patience. Watch the series. Continue to do your refutation series.
I don't really care about that. You guys can just
go and just circle jerky yourselves. You think that you
are refuting us, that's fine, you guys keep doing that.
But hopefully maybe after the ten part series is done,
you might actually have learned something beyond just doing keyword searches.
All right, So just don't be so eager for a debate.
Speaker 1: By the way, so I've got multiple times the link
right here for David's debates that have already Look, we've
already had these debates, all right. This guy's getting on nerves.
I'm just done with it. All these debates have been
had five years ago. The people that are debating the
same stuff now are not bringing anything new to the table.
Sever In Zelat said all the same stuff five years
ago to David, and nobody wants to go listen to this.
Nobody wants to hear the same debate over and over
and over. All you guys want is attention to grow
your channels, and that's why we're not going to give
it to you. However, Kai is probably open to eventually
doing debates. At least that's what he seems to be saying.
Yaiko says to you Kai. For seven ninety nine, Daniel
Kaikish wants a debate with Kai on Iabis's leg or
to Mari and Theodore. Theodore at not repenting at Calcidon,
and he wants to talk about ephesis and the oppositions.
Speaker 2: No, Kakush is not worth my time. This guy. I
have talked with him behind the scenes. I have been
on friendly terms with him up to a point for
quite some time. He is not theologically literate. Okay, he
approaches I don't know if Kakush did. Maybe he did,
I don't really or maybe he was just there. I
don't know, but he Kakush will openly admit that he
approaches things from a historical point of view. He wants
to look at things historically. Okay, that is not really
my avenue. That is not where I look with regards
to my argumentations with regards to understanding orthodox theology oriental historian.
I look at theology, I look at metaphysics, I look
at the councils. What do they teach? I look at paradigms.
I'm not going to go on a back and forth
on historical documents. He can go and debate somebody else
on that, but I'm just not interested in that. Kakish,
you know I'm not scared of you, bro, don't play
these games. Come if you want to debate theology, you
know that you don't know theology, okay, and you know
that I would embarrass you on that. So if you
want a theological debate and I know that you don't,
don't waste my time with stuff that you know that
I don't bother reading and I don't really bother on
those details. Those are not the issues that are at
my forefront. I deal with other issues. So don't be
throwing out challenges that you know I don't specialize in
a particular area. Just how I'm not challenging you two
with your logic debate because I know you are very
poor in theology. That is not your strength. Just like
you said on stream, you don't do metaphysics you're Syriac.
You write poetry, all right. I know that's not your strength.
I'm not going to call you out on that, So
don't try to do this one up. It's not going
to work.
Speaker 1: Gainer Zola five dollars. The Christian Worksman the Old Testament
video on orthodox of how to help me leave Protestantism.
Thank you for your work. Thank you Jay for the suggestion.
Hey Man, that's great to hear you. It's a classic,
excellent documentary that they put together. Cody g twenty dollars.
This is a fantastic discussion, fantastic guest, Jay, Thank you.
I'll be it would be great to have Kai on
to respond to common quote arguments that you get a
day or so after your debate live streams. I'm not
sure what you mean, but thank you for the super chat.
I first heard of Orthodoxy because of your channel. Glory
to God. Thank you now again to people that are asking,
I'm putting in the chat right here, David's entire playlist,
and I guarantee you and I can tell you the
Orientals are not bringing anything new to the table. Does
all of these debates were already had the exact same
stupid quote mind debates five years ago. So you can
go watch David's playlist and you can have your hearts
fill and fill your heart with all the Oriental debates
that you want from five years ago. There's nothing new
that they're presenting or bringing to the table. And there
you go. There's David has I don't know how many
plenty of videos in this playlist. Let's see how many
he's got Oriental orthodoxy refuted. Fourteen videos right there, including
does he have debates in this one? You can go
let's see go watch his Severn's Zealot debate and I
think he debated Daniel Kakish too, So you can go
watch those those debates from David and people say, oh,
you're just talking about the the Church of the East.
Speaker 2: You haven't.
Speaker 1: You haven't refuted anybody in your series. This series is ongoing.
Kay's number one focus in his life is not replying
to every idiot Oriental on the internet. He went and
got married because he actually is a normal human being
with a life. He's not and that's all right. Like
what Orientals are saying on the internet is not Kay's
number one thing. You will get your day. We will
get to you eventually, I promise you.
Speaker 2: Or the story, yeah, look at it. So the thing
here is is just to address the point in terms
of why talking about the Church of the East and
Historianism is actually very important to the Orientals, is that
people don't really understand. I tried to talk about it
in the streams that we already did. I hinted at it,
but a lot of people don't understand, and even the
Orientals themselves don't understand a lot of the criticism that
we level at Nestorians is actually also that is leveled
at the Orientals. They are Nestorians in a different way.
They're just making some slight metaphysical different move than the Nestorians.
But they both basically have the same starting point, and
that is not the starting point that Orthodoxy has. Okay,
orthodoxy starting point is very different, but the Orientals and
the Nestorians they both share a common starting point and
then they just go in separate ways. So understanding the
Nestorian mistake is actually going to help you better understand
the Oriental mistake. And then when we see how Saint
Cyril is criticizing the Nestorians, that is going to elucidate
that Nestorian position a lot more, and then we see
the metaphysical mistakes that the Orientals then take and apply
to Saint Cyrial that basically makes them historian. So that's
why I'm focusing on that. But the Orientals are too
low IQ to understand that, and that's why they keep
harping about, Oh, you're not really refuting the Orientals, You're
just talking about historians. Yeah, just you'll have your date,
don't worry about that.
Speaker 1: Yeah, it's it's you need to understand the two extremes.
That's the whole point here. Or Maxer sixty nine hundred.
You can't spell kai without a win without the W
in other words of the win. And if you know this,
Orthodox Roy Per five dollars. I found my way to
Orthodoxy through Sam and then I wrote a song about
him to thank him. Lol. Yes, I played that piano Diddy.
It was very well crafted and very entertaining, a nice
jazz diddy that you put together, which was pretty funny.
Thank you, Thank you Orthodox Royper. I appreciate that. All right, guys,
be sure and heading over to chalk dot com use
promo co jy for zero to get forty percent off
all those great products at c hoq dot com, Chalk
dot com, as well as a brumbo code jy four
four l A f E J forty four life to
get forty four percent off. You can subscribe it at anytime.
The best in supplementation on the internet to add to
a healthy diet, to make sure that you are actually
becoming toxically masculine.
Speaker 2: Kai.
Speaker 1: Anything you want to leave us with before we.
Speaker 2: Go, Yeah, I would just say go and check out
The Orthodox Church and Echuanism by Saint Justin Popovic. Sorry,
I don't have a physical.
Speaker 1: Copy of it. I have I have it over here.
It's a good book.
Speaker 2: Yeah, that's a good that's a good introduction to for
those of you who want to know the basic ideas
of ecumenism, why we're against it, how to identify it.
That's a very good introduction. And I would say for
people to check that out and then when you see that,
you will when you read that, you will then clearly
see what sam Is is trying to accomplish.