Speaker 1: Jamie, could you make me I express?
Speaker 2: So okay, we're gonna open it up. Let's keep it
on topic.
Speaker 3: One plus one plus one equal free icons are Ideala, Tree, Jay,
j but Jay, can I talk?
Speaker 2: But it wasn't.
Speaker 1: Next, cathod draf God is real?
Speaker 4: Wife?
Speaker 1: Does he allow evil? Why do you pray to dead people?
Traditions of men? It's a no brainer. You're such a
tyrannical rainer.
Speaker 3: Is this your first.
Speaker 5: Time on the in or wesh?
Speaker 6: I need a changer, Joe can't think of.
Speaker 1: These loads your slow boys?
Speaker 3: Is this your first time on the in or wesh?
Speaker 4: I need to changer?
Speaker 7: Joe?
Speaker 6: Was that an uncreative foot part?
Speaker 2: Unmute, dude?
Speaker 1: Stop repeating my name?
Speaker 4: Dude?
Speaker 2: You Goober's callin or I'll boot you. Where did you
get the Bible from? Have you read the Canons of Franzia?
Speaker 7: What are you Catholic?
Speaker 1: Are you promisants?
Speaker 3: I'm not trying to be mean, but do you have
an actual argument?
Speaker 2: There is only one church? You are in a cult.
Speaker 1: You're a goblin, a demon, a boomer?
Speaker 4: Quick question?
Speaker 1: Do we have any diddyback venerators in the chat?
Speaker 2: How is this your first time on.
Speaker 1: Being or well, I need a chance take it these loads?
Speaker 7: You're slow boys?
Speaker 1: Are you?
Speaker 2: Is this your first time momby wes?
Speaker 3: I need a If you're a wine on front of
the line.
Speaker 1: I'm mute, dude, what is your epistemic justification?
Speaker 8: That argument is circular and you are refuted.
Speaker 3: Is this your first time on me? Or where shay
I need a show? Can't take these littles.
Speaker 1: You're snow boying. Is this your first time on me?
Speaker 3: Or where I need to change your show? If you're
a lie in front of the lie.
Speaker 9: On mute, dude, it's that time to get you're freaking
Oh wait, that's the wrong time. That's not this time?
Is this time?
Speaker 1: So where do we get the Bible from? Did you
even read the cannons? There is only one charge. You
are in an occult.
Speaker 10: You're a gobbling a demon, a bull merchard.
Speaker 7: You saw me?
Speaker 4: I'm your dude?
Speaker 6: Is this your personal webs?
Speaker 2: I need a gender jew can't take it.
Speaker 4: He's little to your.
Speaker 6: Boys on your dude, I want us one plus one
equal free.
Speaker 1: It comes out the dollar tree.
Speaker 11: Why do you pray?
Speaker 1: Eat the dead people?
Speaker 6: The traditions madden you? Heretic on your fude, is this
your per webs shack.
Speaker 7: I need a gender jew can't take it.
Speaker 4: He's little to your.
Speaker 1: Boys, I'm your dude.
Speaker 4: What's your pistemic justification?
Speaker 9: Welcome in circular.
Speaker 4: To Jamie.
Speaker 2: At the monkey. You find off in that.
Speaker 9: What you're doing up there? Why you scared?
Speaker 11: Why you run it roun.
Speaker 1: Themy bab.
Speaker 12: You ran my manto and from me?
Speaker 6: Then till the monkey.
Speaker 1: Like the female monkeys.
Speaker 5: With the bananas between the trees, hanging.
Speaker 6: Down upside down, that's a smile. SI, tell the monkey
what you doing to me?
Speaker 1: Till it to a monkey, till a mallcky.
Speaker 9: Isn't this the trump downs? What's due to me?
Speaker 4: That's true?
Speaker 9: The road takes you. Chevy is ready to dar No,
can't let advertisements ruined the beauty. Welcome everybody. It's that time.
It's that time to get down and Sneezy. We're talking
about all of the dang seven Dwarfs. Sneezy Snorty y'all,
y'all know about Snorty the dwarf. He was over there
doing a little of that cocaine. Little little snorty dwarf,
like the O Bonn says, there was skanky. He was
one of the Dwarfs. He was a nasty, just trashy kid,
grew up in a trailer, drew up, he grew up
in a living in out of a bus, and then
got recruited into the Dwarf. In the Dwarf. Ops, that
was Skanky the Dwarf. There was Snorty, Sneezy Snorty was
all about cocaine. Skanky slutty the Dwarf. He was all
about hoeing around town. So the allergies are turned up
to eleven. I'm sorry, but you know, it's just how
it is living down here in Cuba, down here with
Operation Mongoose, Operation Mongoose of the CIA's y'all heard of that.
Welcome everybody, It's open for him today. I wanted to
try to try a different title. We'll see what happens.
Protestantism is false. Prove me wrong, like like Steve Crowder
style where you got to prove me wrong, Jay finally
lost it. I don't want people like I do the
same nonsense every time I'm sitting in front of this
computer screen, every time I'm lobstream, and it's the same nonsense.
You would think you guys would know it by now.
H Brosey ten dollars. Have you seen what rid von
AP's been posting? Yeah, I just DMed him. I DMed
him the other day. I mean, I don't know what
to say. I mean, what do you want me to do?
I mean, I've offered to debate. I've offered to discuss
the topics. I mean, anybody who wants to learn or
whatever could always hop on these streams. Is very easy
to do. They can come over here if they want to.
When you got a debate, Pastor Randy Balls bread in
ten dollars, that's one debate. I am scared of. People say, who,
why are you scared of debate? So and so I'm
not scared of debate anybody except for Pastor Randy Balls.
Rozie says. I understand he's new, everybody has baggage, but
he sounded like a subverter. To be honest, he needs
to be checked. I mean, if he keeps pushing you know,
LPTA for us and that kind of stuff, then yeah,
I mean it's unfortunate, but we'll see Kyle Kosha twenty bucks. Respectfully,
how is Christianity the One True Faith? Which brand of Christianity? Well,
I mean the fact that people disagree doesn't prove or
disprove anything. Every position out there is going to have
people within it or adjacent to it that disagree with it.
But people mistake disagreements and debate, with the truth itself
being unknowable. Which brand of Christianity is a correct one? Well,
you're going to have to spend some time and learn
about it, because there's no other way really to deal
with the competing claims. But just because there's competing claims
doesn't invalidate the system itself. Otherwise every system would be
invalidated because everybody has competing claims. How can I If
I can't trust mainstream media, why would I trust two
thousand year old texts? Well, that's a false equivalence. The
fact that something old doesn't necessarily mean it's true or false.
But mainstream media has a repeated record of being demonstrably false,
So I would just say those are false equivalences. But again,
I make the argument, if you're a skeptic, skepticism is
self refuting, all right, And if that's self refuting, then
what are the options for non skeptical positions? And that's
what moves us into tags, what moves us into arguments
for the positions that we have. So if there's a
better position, then somebody needs to come argue those positions.
But Kyle, you're welcome to call in. It's open for him.
We got already about five or six people in line.
The link is in the chat. It's also in the
show description. You can call in to debate or ask
questions right here. Today. I thought I saw gigantic Protestant
profiles everywhere and just mega followings of Protestant thought leaders
or whatever they are. So I thought, you know, we
spent so much time debating Roman Catholics and Romanclachs are
welcome calling today too. I don't care. So it's still
somewhat open. But I'm just trying out a different headline,
a different title to refute. See if you can get
some of these Protestants in here, because multiple Protestants have
made videos about me this week. So JW two dollars
debate n JF on the role of geopolitics in the Vatican.
I mean, I heard a clip of him the other
day admitting that the geopolitical elements have subverted the Catholic Church,
so it's difficult to defend it is what he said.
I don't know if he's an old clipper or a
new clip or what. But I don't know that he
wants to have that debate. J Man ten dollars, have
a blessed lint. Keep fighting. Thank you, Jordaane Jordaan ten Bucks.
You must forsake Yakubian punctuality. Yet today I was on
time and punctual. But that's because of yakub Warpick Gaming.
Shout out to Warpick Gaming. He hopped in here, became
a member. Remember, you can become a member through YouTube
or through the website as well. You can go to
the Jaysonnalysis website and sign up. Become a member, get
access to all the last ten years of archived lectures, talks, podcasts, interviews,
book reviews, deep geopolitical conspiratorial true conspiratorial analysis where we
go into espionage and the real that's real conspiracy, right conspiracy.
That's all this like cornball shit like Tartaria and stuff
like that. That's that's fake stuff. Real conspiracy is James
Jesus Angleton and backdoor channels to foreign nations and JFK.
That's real conspiracy. Austin Austin Kyle Bucks, thank you, for
all your content, Jay, you help me find in the
way to the orthoxy. Appreciate that, dude, Zach fifteen dollars,
I appreciate all your work. Are we going to get
a Sam Shumun discussion anytime soon? I don't know.
Speaker 4: I mean.
Speaker 9: Again, we're still discussing the possibility of doing rival presentations
on Sam's channel between me and Albrecht, So I don't
know if that's gonna happen or when that's going to happen,
but it's always they're the possibilities there. Nikki d what's up?
Speaker 4: Man?
Speaker 9: If you guys would hit like and share, what's up?
Nikki dep I'm you, hey, Jake.
Speaker 7: Yeah, I just want to say that that the status
quo that Protestants enable is perfection. What I just want
to say, the status quo Protestants enable is perfection.
Speaker 9: You know that what does that matter? What does that mean?
Speaker 7: I mean, I mean whole.
Speaker 13: White like snow white, whole white and the seven Blood
Diamond Dwarfs like the Protestants by their Salvationist theology, you know,
they they are in denial that a problem exists and
they can just ask for forgiveness on their deathbat about it.
Speaker 14: You know.
Speaker 9: Yeah, that's a difficulty because there's not really a change
that's required in the person ocean apg man, what's up, good,
I'm you? Oh wait hello, hey, right, sorry, quick question.
Speaker 11: So what's the difference of Like, where do you draw
the line between continue with the Old Testament and judea isa?
Speaker 9: Well, I think the New Testament lays down some guidelines
and then the rest of the Apostolic tradition would be
the other guidelines. So the guidance of the church as
the established authority being via Apostolic succession, the College of
the Apostles that Jesus set up, they would be able
to make further decisions as you see for example in
the quarter Disseminarian controversy in the second third century, the
Nicene Council ruling on some of these things as to
what's appropriate and not appropriate in terms of the Old Testament.
So it's a twofold thing between what's in the New
Testament and what the Apostolic tradition and the Apsoltic succession rules.
Speaker 11: Okay, so basically, well, correct me if I'm wrong. But
what I'm kind of hearing is that the way to
so the difference is it's kind of close, like they're
pretty related. And the only way to avoid falling into
like judaizing you hatra rely in the church, is that
what you're kind of saying.
Speaker 9: The principles are laid down in the New Testament in
general as to what things are fulfilled and which things
are still quote binding. But Jesus gave the apostles the
authority to bind and to loose and to make those decisions,
and their successors have that same authority to bind and
to loose, So that means the ability to decide what
things are normative, for example, for gentiles to come into
the church. And if you look at Acts fifteen, that's
an example of that binding and loosing power. Where the
apostles get together they look at the Covenant of Noah
and they reason that if Noah was able to be
made righteous through the Noeic Covenant, then the expectation should
be no more for gentiles that convert to the Church.
And that same principle is what you see in the first, second,
and third century when the Church has to make similar
types of decisions.
Speaker 4: Okay, thank you, yes, that was a good question.
Speaker 9: Quell quell unbreller, and then we'll go to Erwan.
Speaker 10: H.
Speaker 9: Brozy sends five bucks and says, lmfao that dude started
off son it's goods so as as f but he
redeemed himself. He made a decent point. Yeah, I think
so cool. A two dollars. I appreciate your work bringing
people to the truth. Thank you, man, appreciate that. Theosis
Pilgrim ten dollars. You There. Genesis Creation Early Man is
back in print.
Speaker 4: Yes, I know.
Speaker 9: I think I tweeted about it or talked about it
on a recent stream. Erwan, you want to I'm mute, Hey.
Speaker 15: Jay, I just had a question, who do you think
would win in a fight between Yakub and Messiah and sasquestion.
Speaker 9: I'm wondering if Yakoub might actually be incarnate as Messiah
been Sasquatch. So that's actually a trick question, Joshua. Theosis
Pilgrim said that Early Genesis Creation, Early Man, my father
siprom Ros is back in print. It's a hardcover, good quality.
I laugh pretty hard at Messiah and Sasquatch. Well, I
couldn't believe that one of the Mormon prophets claims that
Sasquatch is real and it's Kane. We went and looked
it up Joshua and mute, what's up?
Speaker 16: Man?
Speaker 4: Yeah, what's happened? I just have one question. Do you
think Protestants are going to Hell or not?
Speaker 9: I mean, I don't judge people on an individual basis,
but I judge the public confession of their groups. So
this is this is what's called in the tradition of
legal theory jurisprudence, you know, a public judgment. So public
judgment means I'm judging the profession of that group and
what they stand for. It doesn't mean that I know
the eternal destiny of each of those persons. But Protestantism
is really just a confluence of almost all of the
ancient heresies of the first six seventh centuries, all right.
I mean, I'm just thinking more and more about how Americanists,
you know, Protestanism is and just how you know, it's
really just a do it yourself. I don't need anyone else,
I don't need anything else. And you see all of
these you know, influencers with all of these you know,
millions of people, and it's just like, how do how
do people? Does it just never occur to anybody that
there's a history to all this stuff. So guys remember
looking for people who would like to discuss the topics
as listed, particularly Protestantism, but it's also open to Catholics, Muslims, whoever.
Quelln Rayler, Okay, I'm mute.
Speaker 17: Yeah, I was just went to say anyway, my question
is related to eschatology. You know how like the institution
of meat, right, God instituted the eating of meat, and
after price res Russian, he ate a fish. So do
you think that in the Esketon, since there's no death,
how are we gonna eat fish?
Speaker 9: And like meat and stuff, our bodies won't need that
type of sustenance. I think he does it as a
condescension to show that it's the same body as before.
I don't think he did it because his body needed
that sustenance. And in the Esketon, our bodies will not
need the type of sustenance that we need now. It'll
be a glorified body. So I don't think there will
be eating of meat now, Carl Minger, it won't be necessary.
Speaker 18: Aka, yes, sir, Hey, I was listening to your Mormon
stream the other day, and I was born and raised Mormon.
Speaker 14: I actually grew up believing that Gane was Sasquatch.
Speaker 9: Oh really, Yeah, so this is kind of widely believed.
There are just a few people believe it.
Speaker 14: I think it's mainly with the older generation. I was
told this by my dad, who was a boomer. He
converted when he was in his early twenties.
Speaker 9: Wow. Well, so what led you out of Mormonism?
Speaker 18: Well, a lot of the history and then it just
it just led me to atheism because they believe in
they believe in the name, it's a physical body that
lives on a planet.
Speaker 9: I'm sorry the ad popped on. They believe in what
can you repeat what you said?
Speaker 14: They believe in a god that has a body that
lives out and on a planet.
Speaker 9: Yeah, right, Like it's like an alien god. And I
just kind of completely Yeah, it's a it's a it's
like it's like scientology, like it's a sci fi space opera.
Speaker 14: Yeah yeah yeah, And I mean and like Battles for Galactica. Yeah,
that's something my dad always told me.
Speaker 4: He's like, yeah, that's right in my Mormons exactly.
Speaker 9: Yeah. We covered that the other day on that stream
because Lords of Colob, that's a Mormon thing, right Colob.
Speaker 14: Yeah, Yeah, they'd have hymns to uh p were to
hide to Colob.
Speaker 9: Well, you know anything else you want to leave us with.
I appreciate that.
Speaker 18: It led me into atheism for a good fifteen years,
and then I found the Orthodox Church and I was
seeing into the church in January.
Speaker 9: Oh awesome, man, many years. Do you appreciate that? Good
to hear it? Yeah? I think it was gonna if
I was gonna choose, you know, maybe Star Wars before
Disney got a hold of it. Maybe believe believe in
that sci fi universe.
Speaker 7: I don't know.
Speaker 9: I'm trying to think of which sci fi universe I
want to live there. Uh But Orson Scott Card is
a Mormon sci fi writer, so that makes sense too,
because he writes like in his Enders Game and all that,
like the not the planets are different religions. So there's
a Catholic planet, there's a Mormon planet, and a Protestant planet.
If I remember correctly, Jennifer, the Lords sounds like a
metal like a death metal man to Lords of Kolob.
What's up, Jeffer, Yes, ma'am, I was.
Speaker 19: I want to ask about some of your articulations of
the monarchical trinitarian you.
Speaker 2: So when you describe the difference between the Father, Sun.
Speaker 19: Holy Spirit, as the Father is like the source or
you know, the fount or give heard a couple of
different words, how would you articulate the difference between his
being the source of self existence and obviously the Sun
and Spirit also being uncreated.
Speaker 2: What is the difference between that?
Speaker 9: Because it's an eternal generation and any internal spiration, so
it's not a cause in a temporal sense or the
way that creatures are caused. The more of the Mormons
that the Aryans raise this objection to Saint Athanasius when
they when the Cappadocians, or when he talked about cause
the Eunomians to the Cappadocians, and the Arians to Athanasius,
they would say, well, cause implies temporal change and coming
into being when you were not. And the answer is
that cause is used in an analogical sense of an
eternal causing. So it's an eternal causing and coming forth.
It's not a beginning with a temporal sequence of something
coming to be. That's why the Son is eternally begotten
and eternally generated of the Father. In fact, this is
not just my quote monarchical trinitarianism. It's what the original
Nicene Creed says, following the theology of Athanasius, that the
Father is the eternal source of the eternally begotten Son,
and then the Kappadocians qualify that and make it more
specific in their writings to specify that the father's the
soul cause Soli, and then the son and the Spirit
are differentiated by their respective hypostetic properties, the son to
being generated, the spirit proceeding.
Speaker 19: So could I think of it sort of like how
when Christ becomes incarnate in the flesh, he self limits himself.
It's not that he lacks the power when he's human
to do the things that are proper to God. It's
just sort of the place that is appropriate for the son.
So it's not that the spirit or the son necessarily
lacks the power to be self existent.
Speaker 2: It's just the order that is the most.
Speaker 9: I don't know how to if you look at So
this is a Muslim argument. It's called the Eunomian premise,
and the argument is that in order to be divine,
you must have the characteristic of being self existing, or
to be assay, And that's actually a logical fallacy. There's
nothing about being amongst the class of things that are
quote divine or uncreated that necessitates being self existent, because
for us, being self existent is part of what we
mean when we pick out the person of the father.
The father alone is the self existent one, or the
unoriginate one, according to the Kappadocians. But the fact that
he generates a son and generates a spirit who lack
that hypostatic property does not mean that they can't share
or don't have the same nature. So just like a
father begets a son, the son derives that nature from
the father that begot him right in a human sense,
but he doesn't have any less of the human nature
because he lacks being the source or the origin of
his nature. So in the same way, you would have
to demonstrate that divinity somehow necessarily requires being awse to
prove what's called the Unomian premise. And if you watch
the way that doctor bo Branson critiques Jake the muslim
Ata physician in their debate, is precisely upon this point.
Another way to look at this is so, for example,
we talk about carnivore and omnivore right to be amongst
the class of things that are meat eaters. Omnivores are
meat eaters, but they also eat other things, right, such
as vegetables. Of wars do not eat vegetables, they only
eat meat, But they're both amongst the class of things,
right that are quote meat eaters. It's just that omnivores
have more properties or attributes right that pick them out,
But they're still all amongst the class that's more general
of things called meat eaters. So do you see that
lacking one of the properties does not mean that you're
not amongst the same class. So just because spirit and
son lack the property of being self existing, does not
mean that they lack the divine nature. Because in our theology,
self existing one or to be assay is particularly a
property of the person of the father. It's related to
the hypostatic properties, and hypocytic properties are not shared, okay,
because that picks out the father as the soul cause
of the fount, the unorriginal one, the self existing one.
Speaker 19: So being uncreated would be obviously all three of them.
And then just because I guess my brain is stuck
in this like temporal like time for like time matters
to me because I'm in time rather than being you know.
Speaker 2: The eternal generation. It's just kind of hard to wrap
my head around.
Speaker 9: But well, it is a mystery, right, It's a mystery
that the Father has eternally generated to somebody who read
John one, I mean John speaks in that way, right.
He says that even when Jesus was amongst us, he
was eternal, he was always in the bosom of the Father.
He never left the bosom of the Father, even when
he was incarnate.
Speaker 2: M okay, yeah, that's that's very helpful.
Speaker 4: Thank you for that.
Speaker 2: Do you mind if I ask about Hebrew six?
Speaker 14: No?
Speaker 2: Uh, so, I I guess I would still call it.
I'm not I wouldn't probably wouldn't call myself a Protestant still,
I've been an inquirer for a little while.
Speaker 19: But speaking about sort of the idea of you know,
being eternally secure in Hebrew six, would this imply if
it's not implying internal security, which probably doesn't as I'm
reading it, you know more?
Speaker 9: Well, remember these are these are Christians that have converted,
that have been baptized their Hebrews. So when Paul talks
about being enlightened and tasting the gift, he's talking about
baptism and Eucharist, and he's talking about becoming a partaker
of the Spirit, and he says, you've already tasted of
the age to come. Okay, that's not a false believer.
That's somebody who's really participated in the grace and in
the Covenant. Yeah, and there's a real possibility of being
cut out of that covenant exactly the way he warns
the church at Rome and Romans eleven. You guys can
be cut out if you're unbelieving, if you're unfaithful, and
if you're arrogant puffed up.
Speaker 19: So would this imply that if you are at that
point where you have been baptized in, you've received the Eucharist,
and then you fall away, that there is that there's
no coming back from that, that you are.
Speaker 2: Crucifying Christ a second time.
Speaker 7: If you.
Speaker 2: Attempt to come back.
Speaker 9: Well, I think that that there's always the possibility of
people repenting, and God's grace can reach anyone. But no,
if you persist until the end, right, and you die
without that, that's the hardening of the heart, That is
the rejection of the spirit, right, that's the blasphem of
the Holy Spirit. So you know the fact that people
might fall away from Christianity and then come back to
it later in life or something like that. I don't
think that it's I don't think Paul is saying that
a person who doubts and disbelieves can never come.
Speaker 19: Back again, Okay, and then just one of those things,
if that's okay. I watched the video that you've recommended
a couple of times from Orthodox Shahada about the continuity
between the Old Testament and the Divine Liturgy, which was
very helpful and I'm very thankful for that. By the way,
it was a great video. Is there any sort of
historical lineage for the sort of chanting or the way
that the text is read in the Divine Liturgy?
Speaker 9: Yeah, it's exactly. It's directly out of the synagogue, the
way that the synagogue has chanters and canters.
Speaker 2: Awesome, Well, thank you so much. I really appreciate it.
Speaker 7: Thanks you.
Speaker 9: Those are really good questions. Appreciate that. Jacob Jordain five bucks.
I love Sam. But oddly it seems that the claims
a Vatican two and him seeing the anti trinitarian errors
of Catholicism.
Speaker 2: Is not enough.
Speaker 9: Well, I mean, you know, we'll see. It takes time.
People have to work through these issues. It took me
a long time to work through a lot of these issues.
So what's up, Jacob? Are you there got anute? Guys,
you gotta turn your mic on if you're coming out.
We're looking for Protestants, so please don't be all the
same Orthodox people to call in every time I do it.
Last room, Chrisky.
Speaker 4: Master, Hey, can you hear me?
Speaker 8: I sort of had like three main questions because I
was watching, like I think there were more early sort
of videos about tag and and sort of that whole thing.
Speaker 2: And I remember I was.
Speaker 8: On TikTok yesterday just kind of scrolling through and I
ended up debating these Muslims.
Speaker 14: And one of the one of the things that was really.
Speaker 2: Confusing to me.
Speaker 8: I mean, I think you mentioned earlier is the idea
that in order to have divine nature you have to
also have been unngenerated basically, and the way that the
father is Wait, who said that, uh for I think
it was a Muslim or something like that.
Speaker 9: That's the Muslim argument. That's exactly what the woman before
you was saying. Yeah, so you want an answer to that?
Speaker 8: Well, so sort of I guess because of the response
that I had was a most eloquent way of answering
that you did.
Speaker 13: But then another thing.
Speaker 8: That I was kind of thinking about was sort of
the temporal thing.
Speaker 2: That's one thing I really did have to get my
head around pretty harshly, was.
Speaker 7: The idea that even though.
Speaker 8: The Son and the Spirit are generated from the Father,
that doesn't mean that they don't share divine nature. And
it was something that kind of like I understood it subtly,
but it wasn't something that I fully understood until I
started kind of looking into like different qualifiers, so what
divine nature even is?
Speaker 2: And then the second thing, the second.
Speaker 8: Thing that I have like a sort of question on
was specifically about the I don't know I say it properly,
but the seven Ecumenical Councils.
Speaker 12: Right is that?
Speaker 8: So I was I was wondering, uh, because this is
one thing where like when I was becoming Christian, I
was kind of weighing between Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism. What
it's specifically with the Roman I guess, uh, I guess
there's probably.
Speaker 2: Multiple points, but with the Ecumenical.
Speaker 8: Councils, I don't know which one it was, but it's.
Speaker 14: Basically the Uh.
Speaker 8: The Roman Catholicism like uh idolization and stuff like that,
where you see that like a lot of and this
is something that I noticed distinctly, is that a lot
of like the idols and the art, like the illustrations
they have, they seem almost.
Speaker 9: Like very h.
Speaker 5: Like very uh.
Speaker 8: I just in here would probably be the best way
I could put it, though it's probably not a great way.
Speaker 9: Yeah, they're they're they're emotionalists, they're sensationalist, they are essentially
it's essentially pagan art. So you're asking what specifically rebukes that, Well,
if the principles of the Canons of the seven Ecumenical
councils lay out the beginning of that, or excuse me,
the Seventh Council. So the Seventh Ecamenical Council and its
canons mentions icons multiple times in the canons, and it says,
for example, you cannot make images of the Father. Later on,
in eight forty three, there is the Byzantine Synod, which
we call the Orthodox Church the Triumph of Orthodoxy Sunday.
This is when the iconic class were defeated and the
icons were restored. That council put together a document which
is called the sonatacon Sonoticon goes into great d listing
all of the heresies and all the things that are condemned,
many different positions and errors. It reaffirms other statements about iconography.
The book you want to read is Theology the Icon
Volume one and two by Lasky and Ospensky. Particularly volume
two goes into much more detail about the Palamite theological
principles behind iconography. There's a whole chapter on that, and
then later on you get into the principles that are
laid out in the Moscow Icon Synods about why certain
things are wrong in terms of iconography. Which icons are heterodox,
for example, the ones that teach the Philly oquay. So
all of that needs to be taken into account. And
some people misunderstood when I made the icon video. They
thought that I was saying that the seven of that
con Medical Council explicitly says we reject Roman Catholic artwork.
I said nothing like that. In the Orthodox Church, when
the eight forty three Council states the triumph of Orthodoxy,
that for us is part of the Seventh Council. That's
the victory of the Seventh Council. We don't have this
legalistic Roman Catholic view that the only thing that matters
is the document that the Pope signs off on. For us,
those are holistically part of the liturgical tradition. And so
if the eight forty three Triumph of Orthodoxy pronouncements in
the Sonoticon become part of the Orthodox universal universal liturgical tradition,
for us, they're received, and they're part of our dogmas,
They're part of our tradition. Yes, I know that the
Sonaticon has variations in it, and I know that different bishops,
even up into today, can add groups that are rejected,
such as the Joe's Witnesses, other cults and sex can
be mentioned in modern bishops versions of the Sonaticon. But
the principle is still the same, and the principles of
the iconographic tradition are still the same. And the best
book on that is the volume two of Lavsky Knowspensky.
And if you read that, you will see that all
of the things that you've heard me argue over the
last early years, they're all laid out there. So I'm
not making up things or randomly just saying crap, And
I have no idea where I'm getting in I'm just
asserting stuff. I give you guys the books and the
references all the time, but there's a lot of really
low quality, low tier, low information voters, especially online, who
don't know any of this stuff. Guys, if you what
we have with over a one thousand people a minute
ago and we got two hundred and seventy five likes,
hit Like, let's put this up to the top. Let's
get some good callers, let's get some good exchanges with
Wi Fi Gospel five bucks. Hey, what's the orthodox understanding
of tewod Peter three sixteen? How did Peter know that
Paul's writing for scripture? Peter was a divinely inspired apostle,
and so when he preached or teached, taught, excuse me,
preached or taught the Word of God, he knew it
was inspired word of God. Likewise, he would have also
been able to recognize Paul's authoritative teaching, and he presumably
then had access to and knowledge of what's called the
autograph of the autogra are the ones that Paul himself wrote.
Nobody has these. We don't have AUTOGRAPHA. All we have
in the church are copies of the apostolic writings and
the Gospels, and that's why the church tradition is absolutely
necessary to understanding and knowing the candidate scripture. And that's
a huge point against Protestantism. It's not just the argument
as many low tier Protestants have misunderstood, because many bad
Roman Catholic apologists say, you don't have infallible pope, so
you can't know the Bible infallibly. That's kind of a
bad argument, and we don't go that route because one
is an epistemic question about individual certitude and to just
say that the pope tells you that just moves a
problem back and stuff, because it assumes that you can
accurately interpret the pope's teachings. Secondly, that's a question of normativity.
Normativity means the ability to buying people. Kind of like
the Supreme Court interprets the Constitution. It's not everybody in
America just interpreting it the way they want. There's an
authority that has the ability to bind people to that
interpretation and to bind consciences. And that's something that the
Protestant Reformation is premised on. Rejecting. Protestant theology from the
Reformation on says that they have the freedom of conscience,
the rights of private interpretation. That's a rejection of the
notion of normative authority. That's a different question from individual
existential certitude about how do I know what the Canons
scripture is? How do I know that Matthew wrote Matthew.
Those are difficult questions and they cannot be divorced once
you get into this from the history of the church
and the history of the bishops and the Apostolic sees
maintaining the tradition, for example, that Matthew wrote Matthew's Gospel.
You see, why aren't you Catholic? I mean, I've got
thirteen hundred videos on my channel telling you why I'm
not Catholic.
Speaker 10: Dude.
Speaker 9: That's why we have these open discussions here almost every
other day, and all you have to do is call
in right here. So if you want to go to
the head of the line, and please, guys, I'm looking
for people who are Protestant or Catholic or Muslim. I
want them to call in. So take your catechumen questions
to your priest. I'm not your catechist, Okay. If you
don't have a catechist, then I understand you're in a
difficult situation. But every time I do this, all the
Orthodox catechumens and inquirers come in here and they pile
in and they take up all the time that could
go to people who are Protestant or Muslim who need
to hear these things. So don't take up other people's
times just because you want your question about fasting or
calendars or whatever. That's not what this is for. Okay,
It's listed very clear Protestantism is false. So I want
those people to come on. Please do not bring me
your Orthodox catechuman questions. You do that at your church
with your catechists hushed tones.
Speaker 14: Yo, can you hear me?
Speaker 2: Awesome?
Speaker 20: Sweet, I've been a long time listener, so I'm glad
I finally have something to ask.
Speaker 4: But I promise it's not a catech human question.
Speaker 20: So, like, I have an older family member right who's
a lifelong Baptist, and ever since I've been getting into Orthodox,
he's been more curious about it.
Speaker 4: But it kind of seems like that like being a like,
so his view, he's.
Speaker 20: Super into like Luther and Aquinas, but he also believes
in the Book of Enoch when that like contradicts Sola
script Torah. And then he's also super into like always
telling me about how the elites are doing the Kabbalah rituals.
The Trump getting shot was a ritual, and the JFK
stuff was a Masonic ritual. So like he's as a Baptist,
he's giving this like mystical power to these other like factions,
you know.
Speaker 5: So and then as a Baptist it leaves, it leaves.
Speaker 21: His are sacraments are mysticism as an Eastern Orthodox world
just as Christians in general as like merely symbolic and
not like giving us any like counter like to you know,
counteraction to this like mystical you know, evil or whatever.
So like, how does like Protestantism like ultimately leave to
like lead to the self defeating worldview where like we're
just reduced to symbols.
Speaker 4: But then all these other.
Speaker 9: Like traditions and oh that's an interesting point. Yeah, So,
like Protestantism sees the religion and particularly the way that
you know, the Lord's Supper or baptism, right, like Protestantism
sees that primarily as a kind of a symbolic function,
which is ironic because they have a judaized idea of
the sacraments, because their view of sacraments, for the most part,
unless they're high charged Protestants, is more or less the
way that we would say the Old Testament quote, sacraments functioned, right,
So circumcision or the temple rituals or whatever the Old Testament,
which are primarily typological pointing forward to the fulfillment of
the New Testament, Protestants really see the New Testament sacraments
as functionally no different than the Old Testament sacraments. And
the way that Paul argues, for example, and colautions, is
that circumcision was the type baptism. The ritual is the reality,
you see. So the New Testament sacraments bring the reality
and the power that the Old Testament sacraments foreshadowed, you see.
So to go back to a Old Testament notion of
what we think the sacraments in the Old Testament, this
pure symbolism type of view, like a Baptist, is retrograde, right.
It's removing the power. And it reminds me of what
Paul talks about a religion the form of godliness but
lacking the power thereof. But they will grant to sorcerers
and Talmudic magicians like all this magical power to run giant,
huge rituals and all this stuff. It's silly, But I
would say if I can, if you said it was
your uncle or your dad or whatever, but I would
just say, you know, older people are not going to
listen to you debating the position. You might as well
just invite him to church or something like that. Unism okay,
So if Forrest Drake won't come in here to debate,
just to boot the guy like this is okay, he
has no idea. Charles Francis, come in debate, you have
no idea what we're even talking about. This is so
these Protestants are so ignorant and arrogant, they have no
idea what even these words mean. And they're just like
super ready to debate. This is Protenism is a cancer, man,
It just produces all these idiots. If Charles and the
other dude uh don't won't come to debate in the chat,
boot these people because they just monopolize the whole chat,
and all they don't want to do is span their
craft Unism on you man, all right, Okay, if you
don't turn your microphone on, you can't you won't be
able to speak in the spaces Dylan, what's up man?
Shout out to everybody in the chat, welcome, hit like
and share it. We got thirteen hundred viewers right now
if you would call in, if you would like to
discuss Protestanism, and you can also support the stream bias
super chats through stream labs or natively through YouTube. What's
up man?
Speaker 14: Hey Jay?
Speaker 9: Do you hear me? Yes?
Speaker 22: Okay, Hey, So I have a question I raised in
the Protestant denomination. I would say I'm more like an
Orthodox in choir now and trying to try to wrap
my head around some.
Speaker 4: Stuff to help my wife understand.
Speaker 22: So in Protestantism and even in Catholicism, uh, there's a
sense of like I think the word is ecumenism or acumenism,
you know, kind of like a universal salvation.
Speaker 14: As I believe in the Trinity, you believe in the Court.
Speaker 4: Do trends.
Speaker 9: That's all you need.
Speaker 22: And I think even the Catholic Church has you can
be an invisible part of communion with the Church. I
haven't been able to find an answer to what is
the Orthodox position? I know there they say, you know,
with the One True Church, it's like Noah's this is
where salvation can be found. What is the I guess
you know, authoritative stance for right.
Speaker 9: So essentially there's no invisible church doctrine. The Church is
just as much a visible, real historical reality as Christ's
physical body was one united in history. So invisible church
doctrine which is the basis for a humanism which is
kind of at the root of Anglican branch theory, that's
the origins of modern ecumenism. And you're right that it's
ultimately kind of a denial of the incarnation, and it's
a denial it's basically a Nestorian version of ecclesiology. So
the same heresy of Nestorias to divide the person of
Christ from the person to the logos, is applying that
same division to the body, the body of the Church,
and then to kind of make Christianity dissolve into countless sects. Right, No,
there's one church in history. Every one of the ecumenical
councils speaks as if the Church is a single, visible
historical institution. And every time that this comes up, you'll
see appeals to what the Creed calls the four marks
of the Church. I believe in one Holy Catholic and
Apostolic Church. Now Protestants, many of them will confess the
Nicene Creed, and they'll say that they believe in one
Holy Catholic and Epistolic Church. But of course they don't
mean it in the sense of the Cappadocians and the
people at the Second Ecumenical Council who compose that part
of the creed. They mean it in the Protestant sense
of one invisible church, et cetera, et cetera. It is
not what the Cappadocians meant when they wrote that. So, yeah,
the Church is a single body, a single treat, a
single covenant, a single sheep fold, a single house, a
single New Israel. I mean all of the and now
ologies even to the New Testament, make it a single institution,
not something divided amongst countless sects with countless competing confessions.
And even within the Roman Catholic Church, this doesn't exist
because the Roman Catholic Confession allows you to be a uniate,
to believe basically most of Orthodox theology, and to do
what you want, act like you want as if you're Orthodox.
But it's an inconsistent position because many of them don't
believe the Council Trent. They don't believe in purgatory, they
don't believe back in one. And yet in Roman Catholicism
you are bound and are supposed to believe all of
the ecumenical councils that the Pope signs off on. So
you see that that right there, the allowance within the
Roman system from multiple creeds and confessions disproves the Roman
system number one as actually possessing the unity of faith
that they claim to have, and number two, it shows
that they have contradictory systems within it that are just
about political power. The only church confessing the same confessions
of the ecadmenical councils is the Orthodox Church. That's why
we always go to the ecaemical councils and their canons.
There's nothing to do with whether the canons are infallible.
It's a question of whether the canons of the councils
express the mind of the church in that century, which
everyone admits that they do. But that means that the
Roman Catholic view is not true because it does not
confess the principles of those councils. It professes the deviation
that begins in the eighth ninth, tenth, and eleventh centuries,
particularly the Gregorian reforms. Dictatus pape. This evolves into unum sanctum,
where the pope now becomes a geopolitical world ruler that
doesn't exist in the first seven centuries, not even the
papal states.
Speaker 7: Is that.
Speaker 9: That's very new. And every modern historian, whether Orthodox or Catholic,
admit it's this now. Papadacus, Sashensky, Mayandorf Kongar de Vornik,
they all admit this. The Vatican now admits it eighty
Alexandria documents. So the mindset of the Roman Catholic is
living as if none of that has has been admitted.
Oh no, I don't care about any of that. I'm
going to pretend like the donation of Constantine wasn't a
forgery and the pope is a geopolitical world ruler. Still okay,
But Dictatus pape And when I'm sunk to say that
to be saved, you also have to confess that the
pope is a legitimate temporal state power. To be saved,
it's not just believe in the Roman Catholic miship the
Romans is going to be saved. It's also belief in
the temporal supremacy the Roman vision to be saved. Jonathan,
it was Colon here turn a fan off, got on
mute Jonathan? Hey, yes, sir, Hey Jay?
Speaker 2: Sorry?
Speaker 5: So the oh first off, really big fan, really awesome
to have someone on the Orthodox I had to get
perspective on. I wanted to focus on sol scriptura and
the concept behind that, and I wanted to first get
the premise in this precondition.
Speaker 4: So my.
Speaker 5: My framework is more in line with how have you
familiar with Michael Kruger?
Speaker 4: No, okay, uncle crue.
Speaker 5: I got out a book called canon of the Deed
of the of the Bible based on.
Speaker 14: I forgot the guy's name before.
Speaker 5: But essentially he's he's making a model where he's talking
about a framework to view canonicity of scripture under a
self authenticating model, where can't where script itself like authenticates itself.
Speaker 4: For it's infallibility.
Speaker 5: I know the Orthodox position also has scripture and tradition I.
Speaker 4: Believe, so.
Speaker 5: I wanted to see if that if health thinking model
would be inherently contradictory logically.
Speaker 9: I think it would be, because, for example, if the
notion of apostolic authorship is part of what we need
to know, for example, that Matthew wrote Matthew's Gospel. There's
nothing self authenticating within the other text that tells you that,
and that it should be included.
Speaker 5: Nothink, So okay, okay, And then how does how does
the model like where you have the church authenticating the
model for canonicity subvert that, because then wouldn't that be
like a version of it, like a regression where people
can just argue, or there could be development of canon.
Speaker 9: There was development of canon. That's why, for example, you
see competing canons for centuries until an ecumenical council in.
Speaker 4: The Orthodox or Council of trend or even before that.
Speaker 9: No, before that, I'm talking about the Council of Trello's
canons being affirmed at the Seventh Council. That's the Orthodox
perspective on when an ecumenical council makes a decision about
the normative canon for the for the church. That's universal.
So prior to that, you have a bunch of different
types of canons and competing lists. I'm scrolling down to
my posts on this the other day. And so for example,
you have it's not until the time of Athenacious that
you get the agreed upon New Testament canon that we
all as Protestants, Orthodox and Catholic agree on. But Athenasius,
if you read Lee McDonald's book, Who's a textual scholar,
a Baptist guy, he admits that Athenasius had to go
to Rome to convince Rome to include some of the
Catholic epistles and Revelation because Rome didn't even think that
revelation was authentic. So you notice, right there there's an
example of process and debate and Patristic tradition and argumentation
that is nothing to do with this idea of self authentication.
I mean, in other words, the idea that the canon
authenticates itself is negated by the actual formation of the canon,
the way that it actually happened, as admitted by the
Protestant scholars like F. F. Bruce or like Lee McDonnell.
So you have, for example, competing New Testament Old Testament
canons until Affinaceous posits in his Festal Letter what we
mostly think of as a New Testament canon, but the
prevalent Old Testament canon according to the Apostolic canons, Canon
eighty five. Are you familiar with that?
Speaker 17: Yeah?
Speaker 9: So Canon eighty five lists most of the deuterocanonical texts,
but it also doesn't have revelation and it includes Clement right.
Speaker 5: Listed separately for the No, it does not or has
some other classifier for it where it says it's useful
but not not not inspired.
Speaker 9: Remember, you might be thinking of Laodicea, but Canon eighty
five does not specify that. Let me pull it up.
We can make sure. Okay, let me let me. Let's
make sure. Let me pull it up for the sake
of the audience. Now, it is true that so I
can't see it, just adds up. That's fine. It is
true that there are some church father that state that
the Deutero canon is useful for catech humans, right, So
Athanasius says that, but that doesn't that also doesn't mean
that it's not inspired or that it's not useful for theology, right,
because why would you catechize people with it if it
wasn't use useful for theology. So the fact that it's
even called duetero canonical or secondary canons, there's no problem
for us in the Orthodox Church saying that here's the
Canon eighty five that was normative in the Eastern Church.
In this collection of Church law. This is from about
three hundred to four hundred a d. And it lists
it says five books of Moses, and then it says
Judges Joshua, Judges Ruth historical books. And then it says
Judith Maccabees. It says too, but so it includes judithan Maccabees,
and then it does not include Judith Maccabees amongst the
ones that it says are recommended for young people young people,
it says wisdom of syric So you notice that it's
not the Dutero canon that's secondary and for Catechisis it
just says wisdom is of syric is for catechisas, but
it includes Maccabees and the other duterocononical texts as part
of canon.
Speaker 5: So that means there was when the ecumenical councils went
through any type of a theological position, they would use
tudor canonical books for a.
Speaker 4: Defense or to make an argument.
Speaker 9: I know that many church fathers cite Dutero canonical texts
for theological argumentation.
Speaker 4: Do you know if any of the College of Patriots
would use it. I'm just I'm trying to go for
more reference.
Speaker 9: Off the top of my head. I'm not sure of
a ecumenical council citing Dutero canonical text, but ultimately it's
not going to matter because what I'm arguing is that
the councils of Carthage that include the duterocanonical text, which
is identical to the local Romance Roman synod Counts canon,
which is what Damasist is called the canon of Damasist,
which is why Augustine posites his canon. That's the Carthaginian
Western Latin canon that includes the Dutero canon without any distinction.
And what I'm saying is that the Trollo Quinessex Council
happens later on in the East, which affirms the Carthage canon,
and then the Seventh Ecumenical Council for the Orthodox affirms
Trollo and Carthage on this issue. So does that make sense?
That's our perspective.
Speaker 4: Awesome, Okay, I got everything I need. I got to
do more reading on So thank you man you brought me.
Speaker 9: Those are great questions and I'm always happy to kind
of go through that logic process there because a lot
of people are not familiar with these topics. Now, keep
in mind, too, there are other earlier canon lists like
that one one of the earliest ones that James White
brings up in the Trent debate, and he ended up
getting humiliated over this because he got it wrong. And
I think it's the of Vicentian canon. Let's see here,
or I'm a human LDO of artists, let's see. Yeah,
So let's watch this because Sam Schimun calls out James
White after the trent Horn debate on this very topic,
because in the Trent Horn White debate, White says, oh,
there's a canon you know list, that's the Protestant canon
list the Old Testament early on with Meledo. But wait
a minute, Meledo includes what White doesn't believe, so it
was just wrong. He's so excited to Stary Gema take.
Speaker 4: Okay.
Speaker 16: Of Chronicles too, the Songs of David, the Proverbs of Solomon, Wisdom,
also Ecclesiastes Song of Songs.
Speaker 9: So you understand this is James White arguing against Trent
Horn that the Protestant Old Testament cannon is there early on,
and it's I think it's Meldo's canon. Let's make sure
Yeah takes it okay too. Meldo's canon is not the
James White Protestant canon. So he just was wrong, and
James White doesn't care.
Speaker 16: The songs of David, the proverbs of Solomon wisdom also
Ecclesiastes song of Songs.
Speaker 4: Job.
Speaker 16: You remember he said this is the accurate canon. He
got the accurate canon. He learned the accurate cannon, which
means the Jews accepted the wisdom of Solomon as inspired scripture.
See how you just buried himself. Some wan should make
a clip out of this. He kept saying, accurate, this
is accurate.
Speaker 9: This is what they believe.
Speaker 16: You just buried yourself, dude, because they accepted wisdom of
Solomon as part of their Old Testament as accurate canon,
and they accepted a scripture. Please gets a little better.
See that dis honesty of this man. Now watch here,
guess what is not included? Guess what is not included?
Pay attention of prophets Isaiah Jeremiah of the twelve Prophets,
one book Daniel Ezekiel Estras. Now some will say Estras
means Ezra Nehemiah, Thehemaiah. They're combined as one from which
also I've made dix tracks dividing them into six books.
Such are the words of Malito. Guess what he didn't find, folks,
he didn't find Esther. Esther was not in their canon.
Speaker 14: So I say this, here's what I say.
Speaker 4: Watch your watch your.
Speaker 16: Note that Malito includes the Big of Wisdom as part
of the Old testing canon and does not include Esther.
This means that the accurate canonical list of books omit
a book accepted by Jamila and include alrighty rejected by Jimmy.
Speaker 9: So there you go. James White owned himself in the
trent Horn debate by claiming that Melido of Artists had
the correct canon. He didn't even go and check to
see that it wasn't the Protestant canon for the Old Testament.
So hopefully again that's more AMO. But I also hope
it demonstrates the point that we were making earlier that
the canon isn't self authenticating because it doesn't even make sense.
And that's completely divorced from even the Protestant scholars who've
written books on the process of the canon. When you
read this process and how much debate there was to
then say, oh, but actually none of that was the case.
It was all just self authenticating, right, It's just kind
of like absurd christ supremacist. I hope these Protestants in
the YouTube chat are going to call in with all
this yappen? Are you there?
Speaker 10: Man?
Speaker 9: You gotta mute or what? Guys? If you want to
come on, you got to have your microphone capabilities turned on.
I don't like there's no one done a space before
on us on or something unism. You want to try again.
Remember we're not doing cticcumen questions today. This is for Protestants, Catholics, Muslims.
I disagree.
Speaker 4: Hey Jay, how's it going good?
Speaker 9: What's on your mind?
Speaker 23: Thanks for having me on the show. First of all,
I might be one of those ignorant Protestants you were
talking about a minute ago, so I do apologize. I
gotta say though I'm a big fan of the show.
Speaker 2: I really appreciate what you do.
Speaker 23: So I don't know that I'm qualified to speak with you,
but I just want to come on the show and
kind of talk about something like that you're talking to
the last speaker about, Okay, specifically that I understand that
the canon may not be self authenticating as such, or
like you were just saying, like it's important the work
that the early Church fathers and counsels had to go
through to establish the canon was necessary. We can all
agree on that. But it's maybe, and I hope I
can express this or articulate this correctly. It's not as
though because they decided that that's the canon, that that
power is in them, they more or less did the
leg work that allows us to look back and say, yes,
they did make the correct decisions in establishing the canon.
Speaker 2: Right.
Speaker 9: But the thing is that for Protestantism, classical Protestantism, no
post Apostolic writing or teaching is binding necessary and can
bind your conscience. And so if you're a Protestant and
you believe Classical Reformation doctrine a freedom of conscience and
right to private interpretation, there's nothing stopping you from creating
your own private canon that you prayed about and that
the Holy Spirit led.
Speaker 4: You to have.
Speaker 9: So you see how That's why it's I agree with
you that when the church fathers are quote, recognizing what's canonical,
they're not making it inspired. They're recognizing what is inspired.
But they're also given the authority to bind and to loose,
and thus can bind you to the decision of what
is canonical versus what is not. And that's a normative claim.
That's normativity in terms of ethics versus the question of
individual discovery of certitude or inspiration or whatever. That's a
separate question from like the Supreme Court. Does the Supreme
Court have the right to or to bind people to
the interpretation of the Constitution. We're saying Jesus gave to
his institutional body, the Church, the ability to bind people
to these decisions.
Speaker 23: I think that's well said, and I think that's a
perfect metaphor of a Supreme Court. In some sense, though,
if we had a Supreme let's let's say we had
a rogue Supreme Court under Biden. He put in, like,
you know, six or seven crazy Supreme Court people, we
would still know that the Constitution itself is what we
hold to. And the errancy, let's say, of the Supreme
Court tells us that they're not.
Speaker 9: Right.
Speaker 23: You know, in some sense, I'm saying, you know, let's
speak purely about the Catholic Church, right popes that put
into different councils or bulls or whatever that you know,
the lady should not read the scripture, or they shouldn't
read it without the clergy, or it shouldn't be translated
into the common parlance or whatever. Partisans look at that
and say, okay, well, clearly this is against what this
is against what the scriptures are about. And so in
some sense that I would say, not entirely undermines the
idea of apostolic succession, but it at least says, what's
more important than.
Speaker 9: The change, Right, I understand where you're going with this.
It undermines the notion of papal authority, which is a
different principle of unity and authority than the Protestant except
that actually, with Protestantism it's the individual this private interpretation.
With Catholicism, it's the papacy telling you. And the unique
position of the Orthodox Church is that it's communal and sinodal.
And we would argue that we are the actual historical church.
When there's an issue that comes up in Acts fifteen,
it's a synod. It's not one guy being an autocrat.
It's a synod. And we'd argue that if you look
at the promises that Jesus makes to the church, he says,
I will send you the Spirit the Helper, I will
never leave you, I will not forsake you. I will
be with you until the end of the age, the
spirit will guide you into all truth. That's a promise
made to the actual college of the apostles, not just
a Peter, but the whole college. And so their successor
is not in any individual person, but in their collective body.
In college cannot fall away. So the Orthodox conception of
the Church not being able to fall away is a
collective idea, not individual bishops being exempted from this warning.
And so no, we would not say that the Bishop
of Rome has sole title to this promise of not
falling away. Right, Jesus promises to the whole college, to
the whole body. But yes, absolutely a bishop, a group
of bishops can fall away, but never the entire collective
institution of the bishops themselves.
Speaker 23: No, well said, Well said, well, what do you say
about Galatians one to one where? And I know this
is obviously apostolic times. So when Paul says Paul, I
Paul an apostle, not from men nor through man, but
through Jesus Christ and God the Father, in some sense,
I do look at Paul. You maybe heard this before,
but like Paul is someone who wasn't walking with Jesus
during Jesus's ministry. He's almost the prototype of every believer
that comes after Jesus's time, Right, he wasn't obviously he
saw Jesus, but he wasn't walking with him.
Speaker 2: He's like the prototype believer.
Speaker 9: For well, I mean we can say that, we can
say that any person in the Bible is in some way,
perhaps any faithful person in the Bible is in some
way a prototype of a believer. I mean, even Rahab
the harlot is a prototype of a gentile believer, according
to you know, the Church fathers. But that doesn't it
doesn't follow from that that every office that they possess
thus then transfers over to every future believer. Right, So
I'm not a member of the episcopate, so not everything
that occurs in the church that is for a member
of the episcopate applies to me. And no, we would
say that there's twelve apostles, and if you look at
the church, for example, the Book of Revelation, it's a
giant city with twelve foundation stones, with twelve apostles names
on those foundation stones. So you must be specifically a
member of that twelve to be what Jesus calls the
princes of the Church calls you he says, you will
judge the twelve tribes of Israel when you get when
he is in the upper room talking to them, And
we would say that that means that they're they're the
foundation stone. So that's a unique role. And Paul was
called to that apostleship, but not everybody in the church.
It has the role of being Paul.
Speaker 2: No, No, clearly, not clearly not. What about this? Maybe
I can pose this not so much as maybe I
can kind of post this as a question.
Speaker 23: In Mark seven to eight crists you leave the commandment
of God and hold to the tradition of men. Now,
I don't throw that out to say that that's what
we're talking about, but I more so to say in
is there any sense in which you look at the
Eastern Orthodox Church today and say there are places, not
in terms of solar scripture or whatever, but just maybe
more broadly in which they're holding more to the tradition
of men rather than the commandment of God.
Speaker 4: Is there any Oh?
Speaker 9: Yeah, no, So I think Phariseeism and legalism could be
present anywhere. You know, Jesus in fact warns the disciples themselves, right,
the very foundation stones of the church are warned about
the possibility of the leaven of the Pharisees, which is
self righteousness, and uh, you know, majoring on the miners,
obsessing over minutia versus the bigger issues, the weightier matters
of the law. That could happen to anybody anywhere. You
could be in a monastics situation and you could have
you know, pharisaic legalism in the monastic realm. You could
have people getting pharasaical about the you know, fasting in
the church that happens all the time. People get pharisaical
about you know, calendar dates and issues in the Orthodox Church.
That happens all the time. So absolutely, yeah, But even
that happening in you know, various localized places or settings,
even that that doesn't destroy the collective promise to the church. Nick, Nick, mh,
what's up? Yeah, I'm you. I would add two that
that same section you're talking about Mark, but in Matthew,
it's Matthew twenty three when he's rebuking the Pharisees. Even
there he appeals to tradition. Go ahead, and now what's up.
Speaker 4: You there?
Speaker 9: Nick? Yeah, what's up?
Speaker 7: My bad?
Speaker 9: I was having some trouble.
Speaker 2: Sorry, if the background is.
Speaker 4: Too loud to just kick me or whatnot.
Speaker 24: So I'm I'm a Protestant right now, but I'm looking
into the Orthodox rash and I kind of got some questions.
I ran across some crazy interpretations in the past, and
this would.
Speaker 4: There's a guy named Johnny Chang. I don't know if
you ever heard of him.
Speaker 24: He's just he has a whole bunch of followers and
has a really good testimony.
Speaker 19: But he.
Speaker 9: Made a question about the Lord's prayer.
Speaker 4: I kind of wanted to see what you would say
about it.
Speaker 24: He said that we don't have to pray the Lord's
prayer because it was a past tense prayer, Like how
it says.
Speaker 9: Like that Kingdom come, that will be done, that like
the will of the.
Speaker 4: Father already came in the kingdom. So I kind of
want to see what your input is on that.
Speaker 9: Uh No, I mean, Jesus says pray in this wise,
So if it was a past tense thing, he wouldn't
have said told him to pray in this way. Every
church in history has prayed the Our Father and the
Kingdom of God is not just a present reality, it's
also an eschatological reality. This is called already not yet
in the theological language. So Jesus brought the eschatological reality
of the kingdom now, which is in the Divine Liturgy.
That's a foretaste of it. But the final full sense
of the eschological reality is at the Second Coming. So
it's a both and Jonathan Bursea, but good questions and
tell Johnny Chang or whatever his name is, tell them
to come in here, give them the link and tell
them to come come chat. I just boot these people
who are like spamming. If they don't, if they won't
come to bay, just get them out of here. They're
just wasting everybody's time. Nobody's going to convert from your
Protestants spamming the chat. And I've been hearing your arguments
for twenty years.
Speaker 14: I know, I know.
Speaker 9: Go ahead, man, what's up?
Speaker 25: Hey, I'm a first time calling in and I got
a weird question for you.
Speaker 9: Okay.
Speaker 25: I used to be Protestant. Nine years ago I left
the church because of what I'm going to describe you.
I went to one of the leaders of my church,
pastor and a deacon, because I had questions about why
there were women pastors in the church, and they basically
said I was too legalistic and I needed to go
reread acts about Peter's dream, and they kind of ignored
me after that.
Speaker 9: What would Peter? So the analogy is that Peter's dream
was a change of dietary law. So now we have
the dream of women pastors. So that's I mean, that's
is that what they arguing?
Speaker 25: Yeah, that's kind of the sense that I got. Like,
my my viewpoint was like, he's the dreams or vision
is only about like food. It's not about like women
pastors or homosexuality of the church or anything. So what
what would you say if somebody like clapped back at
you with that.
Speaker 9: Well, like we'd explained in the Mormon's dream the other night,
there's a finality to divine revelation first and foremost, So
when the last apostle died, there are no no new
divine revelations in the sense of public theological binding ideas
any for us, any say, Ecumenical Council of the Orthodox Church.
It's not a new divine revelation. It's really just specifying
and explicating what the Church has already taught in its
apostolic deposits. So, for example, Zecharai thirteen Daniel nine twenty
four Jude three Glatians one. You look at those passages
and you see that there is a finality to what
we call revelation, and that right there cuts off any
cult claiming new revelations. Now you're talking about liberal Protestant
churches who say that there could be a new truth
about you know, skittle stuff or women preachers or whatever. No,
first of all, that's outlandish to begin with, because we
can cut off all the cults with whether it's the
Mormons or whether it's the Muslims with their new prophets.
There are no new profits. Profits are done prophets. Jesus
says in Luke sixteen sixteen that John was the life
asked of the prophets, so there's no such thing as
an Old Testament prophet. And when John the Apostle died,
there's no more new Apostolic teachings or revelations. That's why
cults like Mormons or Muslims require new divine revelation that
compliments or quote corrects the old revelations.
Speaker 25: Awesome, I guess I have one more follow up question
because of that, and and sorry.
Speaker 4: If it's really stupid.
Speaker 14: I'm a.
Speaker 9: Good questions.
Speaker 11: So in that guard, then, isn't.
Speaker 25: One of the fruits of the spirit prophecy?
Speaker 9: Or maybe I just have been right, but that's right.
So that's during the period this is called the Intertestamental
period between the Old Testament New Testament, right when the
Church is being established at Pentecost. In the Book of
Acts Paul's writing to the Corinthians. Yes, at that time
it was necessary that there be a lot of these
manifestations like that, and so you could have the Holy
Spirit speaking through Agabus the prophet in the Book of Acts,
for example, or whatever. But that is still that period
prior to the death of the last Apostle John, And
I don't think it's accidental. It's providential that at the
end of John's Book of Revelation he says, don't add
to this, there's no more adding to the divine revelation.
So that kind of is the ceiling up a vision
and prophecy that we read in Daniel nine twenty four
to twenty seven. It says in the Messianic era, when
the Messiah comms, there will be a ceiling up of
vision and prophecy in the sense a public divine revelation.
And what binds everybody. That doesn't mean that there's no
more miracles. There could be a miracle. God can do
what he wants. God can give a saint a dream
or a vision of a clairvoyance or whatever. But that's
different from public divine revelation that binds everyone in the church.
And we know that because in the second and third
century there was a group that arose called the Montanists,
and Montanus claimed to be a new prophet who was
given new divine revelations in the church. Out out of
hand rejected Montanism.
Speaker 14: Man, I'm gonna be honest.
Speaker 25: You used a lot of things that I honestly have
not heard of or words that I haven't heard over before.
Speaker 4: But listening to you and other Orthodox.
Speaker 25: Public figures has has encouraged me to go get.
Speaker 9: Yeah, well just yeah, I really appreciate it. Yeah, get
an orthodox study by it will take your time, you know,
write some of the ideas down if you want to
go double check it or whatever.
Speaker 10: You know.
Speaker 9: The the idea of Montanism is is, you know, just
look up what the histor just just even Wikipedia would
be good on something like Montanas M. O. N. T. A.
And US and the Montanists and that early charismatic movement
of the second third century, which by the way, claimed
Tertullian as one of its member. Totullian left the church
and became a Montanist. And so this early version of charismaticism,
by the way, it also shows that all the crazy
heresies that we see today, they were already there in
the early Church in the fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh century.
Even in the first and second century. You got the
Judaizers like Bryce and Gray, you got the charismatic like
Joseph Smith, Ellen White Pentecostals. All of these mistakes were
already there and already rejected. Truth talker, by the way,
give me just one second. It's freezing Colin here, gonna
turn the air conditioning down. All right, truth talker, what's up?
Man gonna? I'm you hey, but sorry, I didn't hear
you speaking. There must have been a delay. What's on
your question?
Speaker 2: You know, I just had a question.
Speaker 12: I'm just joining the space last few minutes and having
heard the first part of it. So I grew up
Southern Baptist, me too, and uh so I'm curiously that's
been called so you know, I believe I know I've
been reading up on you know some of the some
of the early even Catholic church fathers, and you know,
not so much Orthodox, but I'm reading up.
Speaker 9: On that, and well, well we have the same church
fathers for the first thousand years, so right, right.
Speaker 12: Right, So so to my knowledge, we believe the same obviously,
you know, the Trinity, the Triyan God.
Speaker 11: Right.
Speaker 12: So when when the titles Protestism is false, I just
real quickly.
Speaker 4: I mean, not to go too long, but what do
you mean by that?
Speaker 12: And then I had a couple of follow.
Speaker 9: Up questions, Well, uh, it's true that in terms of
what we verbally say, when we say we believe in
the deed of Christ and the Trinity, that's true that, yes,
we agree Protestant, Catholic, Orthodox, everybody agrees that there is
a Trinity and that Jesus is divine. But actually the
Orthodox doctrine of the Trinity is not the same as
the Doctor and Trinity in either Protestantism or Roman Catholicism.
So we have a unique doctrine of the Trinity which
posits a strict view of monarchical trinitarianism and the rejection
of the philioque, as well as the doctrine of the
uncreated energies. Those are essential, absolutely necessary teachings of the
Orthodox Church about who the Trinity and who Jesus are.
And also Protestantism classically speaking or in terms of historical
Protestanism is defined by its confessions, and so this is
called classical Protestanism. Even the Southern Baptists have the Southern
Baptist Statement of Faith everything something like that. So even
they have like a general layout of the principles that
they believe, you know, confessional Protestantism, whether it's Lutheran, Methodist, Presbyterian, Anglican,
they all have their public professions of faith. And we
would disagree with the solas solofide, you know, sol scriptura.
We would also disagree with the notion of the rights
to private interpretation. We would disagree with a totally unbounded
notion of freedom of contents of worship that the classical
reformers taught. So there's a lot of different ways that
that discussion could go, but those are the basics.
Speaker 12: So I would agree that there's probably some differences, I think,
though I think that the main I think the main
point I want to maybe go with you on just
for a couple of minutes is the you know, uh,
the solo interpretation, I think, at least in my church.
So I'll speak on my personal experience. My pastor used
to say, even at a very young age, for myself,
there's no such thing as your personal interpretation. There's only
the truth, and then there's false interpretations of the doctrine.
Speaker 14: Right.
Speaker 12: So do you think that what you said about how
the Protestant churches kind of have their own Oh, this
is what I got, this is what I feel about.
Speaker 4: Is that unique to a.
Speaker 12: Small number of churches or do you think that that's
just kind of a whole of Protestant faith of Well,
I don't need I don't need the clergy to tell me.
Speaker 4: Well, I don't need scholars and.
Speaker 12: Tell me what this means.
Speaker 14: This is how I feel about it.
Speaker 12: Is that is that kind of what you think is?
Speaker 9: Well, I mean it could apply to that, but I
mean beyond just that question of I understand that many
Protestants and Evangelicals would would recognize some degree of authority
for elders and you know, pastors and presbyters. But I'm
saying it's a fundamentally different principle of church governance. It's
an episcopate, it's Apostolic succession. It's the necessity of Apostolic
tradition to know what the Biblical canon is, for example,
hence why we have more books than the Protestant canon.
So all of those elements go into it, as well
as the separate issue of the successors to the apostles
not just having the right to state their opinions, but
actually to bind people to an interpretation. So for example,
at the Council of Nicia, they don't just kind of
give an option for Arias and say, look, Arius, it'd
be nice if you agreed with us, but if not,
you can go start. You know, the Aryan stripmall church,
you know, if you want no. They believe that they
have the authority, like Paul told the church at Corinth
to excommunicate people and hand them over to Satan. And
that's why the church says we excommunicate areas he is
of the double you know, he's out. And ultimately ex
communication is intended to have a remedial effect. It's not
just to quote damn people, but it is a real
power and authority that you do not really see in
the Protestant mindset. Precisely because there's a tension in Protestant
theology between the right of private interpretation and the freedom
of conscience, and the so called authority of a minister
to bind people to an interpretation and to excommunicate them.
Speaker 4: Yeah, and this will be my last talking point. I
know you got a lot of people that probably want.
Speaker 10: To come up.
Speaker 12: I think that maybe then, just hearing, because this isn't
the first time I've had this conversation with someone in orthodoxy.
I think the more I hear it, where I realized
that maybe my circumstance may have been unique in the
way that our pastor guided our church.
Speaker 4: Doesn't seem like you got it in in.
Speaker 14: A typical Protestant type way.
Speaker 12: But uh, you know that being said, I think that
you know, maybe maybe maybe.
Speaker 9: You can give your opinion that Apostolic succession, and we
believe is when Paul talks to Timothy that he taught
for three years, day and night in Ephesus x twenty,
and then he lays hands on Timothy. He tells Timothy
not to hastily lay hands on anyone because the gift
to the Holy Spirit has passed on That for us
is apostolic succession, which is a real power. They shouldn't
be given hastily, and it's modeled on numbers eleven. When
you know you have the elders being laid their hands
by Moses, and then it says the Holy Spirit's given
by Moses to the elders. This is mirrored by what
Paul's doing. And most Protestants do not believe that in
the laying out of hands there's an actual transference of
power by the Holy Spirit. Hence they don't scary well,
they don't believe in They don't believe that it's a
a sacramental power. They just kind of see it as
a committee appointing you to be a pastor or whatever.
Speaker 14: Yeah.
Speaker 12: No, I can see where that can be a problem
because that's anti biblical for them to say that it
is insignificant.
Speaker 9: Anyway, I agree with you on that.
Speaker 12: So all right, Well, I look, I said, man, I
don't want to.
Speaker 19: Take up too much time.
Speaker 4: I appreciate I camming in your spaces.
Speaker 9: Luther. Hey, how's it going, Yes, sir.
Speaker 10: Uh, I was listening to one of your streams a
few days ago and I heard someone comment that concessional
Lutherans are your greatest fear.
Speaker 9: Oh yeah, terrified.
Speaker 14: Thought that was funny. But I haven't heard a lot
of confessional Lutherans.
Speaker 9: Call in, Well, there's not that many that are out
there debating, so that's probably a better explanation. Yeah, I
would agree.
Speaker 10: So I had a few questions. First, one would be
when it comes to the philioque.
Speaker 7: I think I was.
Speaker 9: Listening to your.
Speaker 10: Conversation slash debate with Redeemed Zoomer, you know.
Speaker 4: I'll touched on that a little bit, and he got
into the idea.
Speaker 10: That if if we say that the spirit proceeds from
both the Father and the Son, that that in some
way onto logically subordinates the spirit.
Speaker 9: Right, because you're giving you're giving an attribute. You're giving
a positive power attribute to two persons that one of
them lacks. And the Cappadocian dictum of all trinitarian theology
of the Second Ecumenical Council is that there's nothing that
all three persons share that's not a property of essence,
and anything that is unique is a property of a
single person in the triad. So, for example, to be
the son, that's the unique property of the son. Sonship
is not shared, and it's not a property of the
divine essence. It's unique to the second hypostasis of the
son to be the cause is unique to the Father.
That's his hypostatic property. So cause in the Trinity cannot
be shared without creating a diad where you have two
persons that form a principle of unity that the Holy
Spirit does not have or is not part of, because
no one believes that the Holy Spirit spirates or generates
any persons, you see, So he lacks this positive power
or attribute. So there's no such thing in trianitarient theology
as attributes that two persons share that one lacks. So
cause must be restricted to a hypostatic property and thus
only had by one person, the Father.
Speaker 14: All right, that makes sense to me.
Speaker 9: That's the that's the orthodoxology. You're already orthodoxylia.
Speaker 25: Necessary.
Speaker 14: You mentioned a council that discussed.
Speaker 9: Well, the second Ecumenical Council is the normative definition for
Trinitarian conciliar theology. The Trinity doesn't become a focus of
councils uh until the Palamite Synods, and that's in the
Middle Ages. So basically the first econmenical council is the
d do christ Athanacious areas et cetera. Second Ecumenical Council
is the Trinity, and it's Cappadocian theology that dominates that.
That's basal of cesarea. Uh, that's Gregory Nazianzus and Gregor
of Nissa. Those three church fathers are the theologians par
excellence and particularly Gregor Nissa of the Second Ecumenical Council.
So Trinity doesn't get debated much because the next several
councils focus on Christology, and then Trinity comes up again
in the Energies in Phillyoquoid controversy of the Byzantine Church
versus the Council of Lions, in Rome, in the West,
and in the Council of Florence. So trinity doesn't be
an issue anymore until then doesn't become an issue. And
the Cappadocian dictum is whatever is a common property is
shared by all three, and whatever is a hyposthetic property
is only had by one.
Speaker 10: All right, I haven't studied much of that, to be
honest with you, I'd be curious. So why you think
the Western Church just kind of ignored that concept.
Speaker 9: I don't think they ignored it. I think that Latin theology. Uh, well,
in the case of the Second Acadomical Council, Rome didn't
accept that council. In fact, the council has had out
of communion with Rome. It was presided over by St. Melidius,
and at that time was in schism with Room. It's
called the Malician schism, and Rome didn't accept that until
about two or hundred years after Calcedon. So Constantinople One
was not accepted in the West until centuries after Poblio.
Speaker 10: But was Rome in or I guess it would be
the Western Church. Were they in communion with the Eastern Church.
Speaker 9: For a time even Yeah, broadly speaking, yes, broadly speaking yes,
but I mean the.
Speaker 11: Yes.
Speaker 9: So after Augustine you have the dominance of his Neoplatonic
influenced model of the triad based around Neoplatonic doctrines of simplicity.
So Augustine starts with Plutonian definitions as to what simplicity
is and must be, and then Trinity has worked into that.
So we do not in the East accept his model
of the Trinity because it was not accepted at constantinble One.
Speaker 10: All right, so it's Augustine's fault.
Speaker 9: Then, well, it's not one person's fault. It's a series
of issues of theological assumptions about metaphysics that take many
centuries to kind of come true fruition. So that's why
we don't reject the West until they dogmatically state their
position in the eleventh, twelfth, and thirteenth centuries. That's when
you find a real split between you and West.
Speaker 4: Okay, if you don't mind, have another question.
Speaker 10: Okay, I think this was another thing that came up
in that conversation with redeem Zuomer. But uh, and it's
come up a lot. But the idea that the Protestant
view of imputation or I mean it relates to justification,
also that it is somehow nominalist.
Speaker 2: Help me understand that.
Speaker 9: Read Haiko Oberman's book about Luther being influenced by William
of Aackaman Gabriel Bile, and that will explain how that
was the first time in history that you could have
a person positing the idea that God can pronounce something
and it be a legal status, completely divorced from the
ontological status. So God can call me righteous even though
I'm wicked. Nominalism is the philosophy that facilitates that.
Speaker 25: What would you say to.
Speaker 10: Response is that basically, it's not it's not that it
doesn't have an ontological basis.
Speaker 9: Because it's but that is the Protestant view. The Protestant
view is in terms of souls, tour and justification by
faith alone, is that when God pronounces you righteous, it
has nothing to do with anything in you or that
you do. It is solely on the basis of the
imputation in Christ's work. Well, I don't know.
Speaker 10: I tend to think of it more as having a
union with Christ aspect to it.
Speaker 9: No, No, the doctrine of justification in classical Reformation teaching
does not posit that the basis of the legal imputation
is anything that you do. That's Luther.
Speaker 10: I don't know.
Speaker 9: You don't know. I mean, I've read Luther's commentary on
Romans is commentary on Galatians. You don't think he teaches that.
Speaker 10: Yeah, Well, he might teach something like that, or he
might He might be kind of inconsistent because he also
speaks very highly of baptism in it that in baptism,
that's that's when we are clothed Christ's righteousness. I'd also
go to Romans six, like we we truly die with
Christ's in baptism and are.
Speaker 9: United to him in that way. Yeah, I understand. He
teaches baptism regeneration, but even baptism regeneration, the gifts and
graces of that come to you because you're elect right,
So he believes in predestination like Augustine does. Se the
actions and works that you do, even going to the
baptismal font. In Luther's view, it's God that caused you
to get there and to be baptized. So even those
works are the works that God caused in you. Maybe
maybe somewhat hold on, hold on, hold on, you say,
maybe somewhat. Have you read Bonda of the Will, I've
started it. Okay, Well, that's why he's got.
Speaker 14: A strong, a strong predestination view.
Speaker 9: And he says what I just told you because I
read this book twenty years ago. Yeah, well, I know.
Speaker 10: We also just believe in infant baptism and that all
babies who.
Speaker 9: Are I know that, but that still can fit within
an Augustinian predestinarian model. Augustine believed the same thing, that
infants who make it to the font were destined to
be there. In Augustine's model, he doesn't believe that that
necessitates that you get the gift of perseverance, so you
might fall away in the Augustinian model. Luther's model is
more like a well, if you fell away, you were
never really elect So I know he's not a Calvinist
because he believes in a baptism regeneration. Calvin does not.
But I assure you that what I'm telling you is correct.
I had when I was a Calvinist. I had a
period maybe a year, where I was tempted to be
interested in Lutheranism, and so I read about six or
seven of Luther's books twenty years ago. But I eventually
was not convinced because Lutheranism is crystologically erroneous. And I
read Luther's debate with Jan Eck, and if you read
the full debate, it's pretty funny. And I found k
to be the winner of that debate. But I thank
you for your questions. Uh, we're looking for Protestants tonight,
so I see a lot of Orthodox guys. I'm asking
for Protestants, Holy Assassin, what's up? Protestants or Catholics are
Muslims tonight? Please? If you're an Orthodox catechumen, don't bring you.
Speaker 2: What's up?
Speaker 4: How's it going your mind.
Speaker 15: Yeah, honestly, I mainly wanted to kind of discuss the
Orthodox Church.
Speaker 4: View of the Old Testament, but I I just had
a quick question.
Speaker 15: So I've heard you say that, like when you're when
you are defending the Orthodox position on justification, you say
like that, even like putting your faith in Jesus is
a word you do right with Like, ha, do you
reconcile with that? With Ephesians where Paul says that.
Speaker 9: You know that salvation is a gift, Jesus is the
one that says this is the work of God, that
you believe on him that He's sent.
Speaker 14: Are you there?
Speaker 9: I can't hear you, So I don't know if you
dropped off for what. Yeah. I don't think there's any
discord between the idea that works are necessary and that
their gifts of grace. The only difference is that I
don't believe in the Lutheran view that God is directly
causing me to do the good works. There's a cooperation
that goes along with me working with God. And that's
why Paul can say that the only faith that counts
this is Paul, not James. Paul says, the only faith
that counts is the faith that worketh through love. And
when he lists what love is and verse twenty thirteen,
it's a bunch of works. So Paul teaches the necessity
of works. But the works, as Augustine says, themselves, are
also divine gifts of grace. That doesn't mean that I
don't cooperate. But I can still say that my good
works even though I do have a synergy that God
created me to have as a created being who cooperates
with God, like Paul says, Paul says, I am a
co worker with Christ. Is Paul detracting from God's grace
because he calls himself a coworker. No, and so likewise
we are co workers. But get the works themselves are
also done by grace. If you want to come back,
try again, if you're at Mike's.
Speaker 14: Working, you can hear me.
Speaker 15: Yeah, yeah, mat, I totally got disconnected. So yeah, So
the Orthodox Church, right, you have a canon? So like
what's the basis of the Orthodox canon? Because and like,
how do you even trust that the Orthodox is right
when they determined that this particular book belongs to canon,
Like what is the reliability of that perce it's the
same as.
Speaker 9: The reliability that you you would use. Right, So I
don't know if you did you hear the explanations or
did you get booted out? Right? Jesus says, this is
the work of God that you believe in him that
he has sent John six twenty nine. So that wasn't
me saying that it was quoting Christ calling faith at work.
Speaker 15: Okay, Yeah, I kind of got booted out by accident.
Speaker 9: Body here thatch okay. And then I said that Ephesians
when it talks about the works or that we're not
saved by works that we do, but by grace, that
doesn't mean that there's not a requirement of us doing works.
It means that our status and our interests into salvation
is not something that we deserve or earned because Jesus
saved us, right, Jesus died for us. We didn't tell
him that what he needed to do, and we didn't
earn his death. That was all done out of his
over abundance of love for us. So, but that doesn't
mean that I don't synergize with and work with God
work out my salvation with fear and trembling, as Paul says.
Paul says he's a co worker with Christ, and Paul
says that the only faith that saves is the one
that worketh through love.
Speaker 4: Fair point.
Speaker 15: So just another question before I move on to the
actual Old Testament arguments that had so like the proudence
in prices of like faith is what saves you. But
like the words there they just like sanctify you, Like
that's what you do after you get justified, right, So
like do you agree with that?
Speaker 9: No, because justification in the Bible and in the ancient
world was not a pure legal standing, and that's why
Luther and the reformers needed the philosophy of nominalism, which
divorced the actual reality from the name or the title
of it. That's called nominalism. The ancient world didn't have
nominalists really, So anybody who talked about in the ancient
medieval world as being quote righteous or being just that
meant they had the actual ontological power and quality of
being that. It wasn't just a legal status.
Speaker 4: Fair point.
Speaker 15: So this is where I wanted to get into, like
my arguments, let's say, like against the Orthodox Church. So
you know the Orthodox Church they have a different Old
Testament canon, and so I was just wondering, like sure,
like you know, there's the idea that the church has
the authority to decide, you know, the canon for the
Old Testament New Testament, But what is the basis for
accepting the Old Testament considering that, Like when I was
doing research as well in my personal research, it showed
that it led me to believe that a lot of
the scholars right the books of the Old Testament they
have been edited out and then like some of the
authors are unknown. For example, even the Book of Isaiah.
I think I had the Orthodox Study Bible that I have,
Like they kind of just give a generic traditional answer,
which doesn't really work.
Speaker 4: So for the Book of Isaiah, for.
Speaker 15: Example, I think the Orthodox City Bible does say that
that it was written by the prophet Isaiah, but you
know there's nothing like there's no good evidence.
Speaker 9: For it, and like all the how do you know that?
Speaker 14: No.
Speaker 9: In fact, the the Dead Sea Scrolls contained old ancient
text of Isaiah. So I think the Dead Sea Scrolls
is one of the things that is an attestation to
the validity of Isaiah. And I mean you can say that,
I mean, if you're going to read a bunch of
like higher critical stuff I mean, they're going to say
that any of the Protestant stuff you believe is also false.
So I mean to use higher critical stuff to prove
Protestantism unless you were an atheist. And maybe you're already atheism.
I don't know, but to me, it seems like it's
a double edged sword. Kov, what's up. The reason that
the duoconomical texts are in the Bible is because the
apostles have they used primarily the septuagent and the subtu
agent included the dudo chronical texts, and that's why the
Apostles cite and refer to the duo canon many many times.
Speaker 4: Go ahead, Hey, j how are you doing?
Speaker 9: What's up? Man? I'm good? How are you?
Speaker 4: So?
Speaker 26: I was raised in a non denominational church, went to
Sunday School, went.
Speaker 4: To youth church, and you know, whole manuorids.
Speaker 26: Kind of stopped going to church.
Speaker 4: It was, you know, very low church.
Speaker 26: So I didn't feel too bad about like not going
when my parents weren't making me anymore. But recently I
just had a daughter and I'm like, I, you know,
I got to get my family back to church. So
I start looking at non anominal churches near me, and
I couldn't really find one, but I found.
Speaker 4: A bunch of other denominations.
Speaker 26: I started looking into those, and I realized I had
no idea about theology. I just got a couple questions
for you, Okay. So I heard a lot of like,
you know, the canon and all that stuff.
Speaker 2: Was it just Martin Luther that took.
Speaker 26: The books out and now all Protestants follow that?
Speaker 9: Well, he was the first.
Speaker 2: Uh.
Speaker 9: And then you had people who were humanists, and that
doesn't mean secular humanists, but like Theodore Beza and Calvin
and other reformers were very into a movement at that
time called humanism, which was a desire to go back
to the original texts, languages, and sources. So it was
kind of a movement that amongst intellectuals at that time
to prefer to look at, say, the Hebrew text versus
the Greek translation of the subtu agent. So that also
was part of the motivations. It wasn't just well to
do what Luther said, right because Calvin and Calvin's not
He might respect Luthor, but he's not going to just
do it because Luther said it or did it. Calvin
was a scholar of his own mind and devising, and
so he was interested in going back to Hebrew and
Greek texts, and that was part of the reason why
they thought, well, that would lead us to the masoretic
texts of the Jews versus the Canada Scripture that the
that the Latin Papal Church had normalized.
Speaker 11: Got it?
Speaker 14: Okay, thank you?
Speaker 9: So I heard I've heard you.
Speaker 26: In past videos talk about, you know, the five solas.
Now you are you just against sol scriptur and so or.
Speaker 4: Is there the other three that you I mean?
Speaker 9: I think the way that classical Protestantism brings the meanings
of those terms out, the way it fleshes out the solas,
we would as Orthodox disagree with all the solos the
way they define them.
Speaker 11: Okay, Okay, Now something I hear.
Speaker 26: So basically, I'm a slow boy, and so learning like
by reading is hard. I've been listening to a bunch
of Christian apologetics and debates and stuff. So I hear
a lot of Calvinists, and I'm sure many other.
Speaker 9: Protestants say this as well.
Speaker 26: But like they say like by or by grace through
faith or something like that, and then they'll turn around
and then say by faith alone. And I don't know
if you've heard the by grace through faith.
Speaker 4: Or something like that.
Speaker 9: I used to be a Protestant with the prost seminary bro.
Speaker 4: So when they're saying that, what does that mean versus
just so.
Speaker 9: The assumption is that human operation, energy and activity can
in no way tribute to the root and ground of salvation,
because this would be to detract from God's glory, in
God's sovereignty, in God's grace in salvation. So, if you
have anything to do with it in terms of the
legal status of your justification and the imputation, you're basing
your salvation on works. You're basing your salvation on yourself
self worship, will worship, and you're detracting from God and
you're worshiping yourself. It's an idol. This is the classic
Protestant Reformation preachy way to go after any notion of
synergy or synergism. Even though there's many arguments in many
ways to combat this. I've listed several already. Tonight. Jesus
calls faith a work in John six twenty nine. This
is the work of God. Jesus says that when God speaks,
it comes about right when God speaks to create the world.
It happens. When God speaks into our hearts, it happens.
So there's no such thing as God speaking and it
not being efficacious. Oh, God calls your righteous, but you're
filthy rags, You're an evil, wicked thing. But that's the
actual basis of both Luther and Calvin's doctrine of justification
by imputation and faith alone. Even the action of you
believing in Luther or Calvin's system is not the basis
of your salvation. That is also something God caused in you,
and thus that removes you from having any contribution to
the salvation. When you do good works and when you
are sanctified, those are all flowing from the justification status
that you got, which has nothing to do with you.
So you do contribute to and cooperate in sanctification, but
that sanctification process has absolutely nothing to do with the
original justification status or the regeneration status. Even though Luther's
a little inconsistent on that, Luther would just say, well,
God caused you to get to the font. So even
baptism regeneration in Luther's mind is still somewhat monargistic. Again
read bonded to the will or read it twenty years ago.
Luther believes that God's the direct cause of everything in
your life, including the good and bad works. Calvin's not
that extreme. He says, no, if there's anything good in
your life, that's God, anything bad that's you. But even
the good works are tainted, filthy rags in Calvin's view.
So you see justification in the classical Protestant systems are
very precise, they're very legal oriented. They're strictly legal status positions,
not based on ontological realities. I'm not saying that the
Protestant positions don't believe in antological change in you. They do,
but the ontological change in you that ultimately, this sort
of sanctification in your process of being made holy has
nothing to do with your original justification legal status that
is only on the basis of Christ's work and ultimately
whether you're elect or not. And that's both Luther and
Calvin's view because both believed in unconditional election because they
followed Augustine very strictly. Okay, what's up, Jake Moore? Five dollars?
I'm a Catholic, but for the win, very heavy, Jay,
have very very I don't know what that means. Fw
J heavy Hold on a second. What do you know about?
Just one second? What do you like about Shamoon? What
do you take issue with? Again, We've addressed this countless times.
I've done many, many, many streams and talks, talked to
Sam Schumann all the time. But Sam is at a
position where he believes that all of the Apostolic churches
have a sort of a common Apostolicity, but he doesn't
believe in a single divine institution per se, and so
he says he's not sure which of these. So I
would take an issue with that because obviously I promote
the Orthodox Church. Okay, what's up?
Speaker 4: Hey, Jay?
Speaker 9: How are you good?
Speaker 5: Nice to meet you man, I've been listening to you
for years, we never actually spoke with you in person.
Speaker 4: Hey, thank you.
Speaker 5: So first, I just want to say glory to Jesus Christ,
and I really hope that this conversation can be fruitful
and we can both you know, remember that first and
foremost as Christians, we need to treat each other and
love and respect. So why is it that you get
nervous as soon as you come up, but before you're
like completely calm what so weird.
Speaker 9: No, I'm saying, Oh, I'll tell you. I think you're
talking about me.
Speaker 5: And I was like, oh, no, you're you're a vetman. Yeah,
So first I did want to ask you. So I
was listening to your conversation the other day with that
the Joseph guy, the Ben Joseph what was it?
Speaker 4: The was he Mormon?
Speaker 9: Oh? His name was Robert Gerr. You talking about that guy?
Speaker 5: Yeah, yeah, saying that like the Joseph and the New
test Yes.
Speaker 9: The two messiahs that the Talmut has.
Speaker 4: Yeah, right, And I was just thinking.
Speaker 5: Well, maybe I'm a prophet because my middle name is Joseph.
Speaker 9: So there you go. How do we know it's not
about you? Maybe it is, Hey, it could.
Speaker 4: Be God forbid. So I had a question in that conversation.
Speaker 5: And I am someone who believes, well, I used to
believe very deeply in the pre sup based on the
teachings of Van Till and Bonson. I got introduced to them,
read their books. I've had some difficulties with it. So
I was hoping first that maybe I could share with
you some of my difficulties because I do believe that
it debunks atheism, like atheism and agnoscissism, I do believe.
Speaker 4: My issue is how do I defend it.
Speaker 5: Against other transcendental justifications, other transcendental roundings, or when they
do the whole like, well, I have a rock and
his name is Paul, and he has all the attributes
of the Christian God except for this one thing that
he's like he lied once or something.
Speaker 9: Right. Well, we've addressed that, and I'm not saying this
to be rude to you. We've addressed that many, many,
many times, because many people have brought that up. And
I argue that the Monson van Till crowd could only
get so far with the argument because they had a
defective Calvinist theology, so they didn't have a good Trinitarian
model to work with. And also they didn't have a
lot of the toolkit of the Christian metaphysics that we
have as orthodox Orthodox theology and metaphysics is very vast
and very it's a better toolkit. I don't have to
say it. So when I make the tag argument, I
argue that depending upon who I'm debating, but ultimately speaking,
it's not just a defense of an abstract conception of
a deity that reconciles one in many or an abstract
deity that's like a math problem or something like that.
You're actually arguing for the entire Christian worldview, and at
times Vonton Eventil would actually say that that, they would
actually make that point. So if that's the case, then
the whole world view is actually grounded on trinitarian theology.
And if orthodox Trinitarian theology is a correct Trinitarian theology,
then you need orthodox trinitary theology and the metaphysics that
flows from that. So you need the essence introducecinction, you
need the low Gie doctrine for divine conceptualism. You need
all kinds of things that are just not in the
Calvinist mindset to make it work. To refute, furthermore, on
a more basic level, when somebody says something like, oh, well,
my rock, I have a rock that has all the
same attributes, Well, first of all, it would not be
the same attributes if it's a rock. A rock is
a created thing, so to give the rock all the
attributes of the Trinity would be absurd. But beyond that,
it's even more flawed because the Christian paradigm is not
just an abstract conceptual list of propositions or doctrines or
ideas like math problems or sets or something like that.
It's actually a historic religion, so you actually need the
incarnational aspect, God stepping into time and space, the Son
of God becoming man. That affects our view of history.
God stepped into history, so history is now part of
the Christian paradigm, you see. And so this atheist, this
specuative view of the trinitarian rock God, would not have
all the same attributes. It would also be an obvious
copy paste from the already historically grounded and situated religion
of Christianity.
Speaker 5: Okay, do you have any books that I could read
other than because I'm pretty much done with Bonton. I
was reading his how he kind of interprets the van
Til because man Till is very heavy, so he tries
to come in and kind of interpret it for someone
that's a little more late. But like you said, there's
issues with that, and this dude just keeps repeating himself
over and over. I'm like one hundred pages in and
he said the same thing like twenty times. So do
you have any other books that you would recommend for
the precept that I could learn a.
Speaker 9: Little bit more honestly, not really not from them. I
would say watch all of our old transcendental argument and
precept videos going back last six years, because we get
into all the all those questions, all those questions that
all those questions that you're asking. You know, we actually
have dealt with us for a long time. So that
might be a better route than saying, oh, go read
Bonson here, because Bonnson and Ben Tall are not going
to deal with those questions. They don't have the tool
kit to deal with it. Modernity, what's up? Even though,
like you said, they did get so far with tag
recovering areaan three dollars. In my opinion, the only thing
left to debunk in the Protestants is conservative non Calvinist
high churches that claim up so succession in Liturgic War.
So Anglicans, well, that may be the case, but there's
not a lot of those. I mean, I've had like
maybe two Anglicans ever call into debate. So I mean,
if that's what's left, then we're doing pretty good because
there's not a lot of there's not a lot of
loud Anglican voices. Although I did try to get that
Black Day with Afro Calvin Robinson or whatever his name is.
We were having exchanges back and forth before he did
his faux tiny mustache man debacle thing, which was kind
of ridiculous, and I think his Anglican synod made him
step down. We're just in this is such a weird
time to be alive where Kanye and Anglican black dudes
are like doing Roman salutes and putting up tiny mustache
man symbols. Like, it's just such a weird time to
be alive. I don't even know how to process it.
Like I'm not saying Calvin Robinson is a tiny mustache
Man follower. I know he's not. But we were actually
discussing having a kind of a debate, and then he
just kind of wind and bitched about me challenging him
to a debate when he said he would debate people.
It's just and by the way, like to give a
shout out to Dasha, I don't have anything against this
girl she put up. By the way, she was on
Sam Hyde's Perfect Guy Life, like right before I was
like a week or two before me, maybe a month
before me. I think she's an actress in some series.
I forget what, But she went from being on the left,
and she was part of Chapo Traphouse, remember that podcast.
And then now she is going to an Eastern Catholic
church and she's always tweeting about I'll debate anybody about
worths like stuff, and I'm like, let's do it, and uh,
I'm not going to be mean, and then she's like, oh,
I'm not going to quarrel during lent during Lent and
it's like, well, you just said you wanted to do it.
So it's like people put these things out where they
want to do this stuff, and Calvin Robinson did the
same thing, and then when you say all right, let's
do it, then suddenly they dash it. Whatever. She didn't
do this, but that Calvin Robinson did it was oh
look how look out what a piece of shit this
dude is. So it's like, I want to put myself
out there. I want to say I'm ready to debate anybody.
When people actually then say they want a debate. Look
at this piece of shit. Look at him. Oh he
just wants attention. Dude, you're the one saying that you
wanted this. What are you talking about. People on the
internet are just insane, man, They just don't It's like
and then everybody thinks I'm being mean. It's like, how
am I being mean if I'm asking them to come
have the discussion that they said they wanted, So now
I just don't want it with you. That's what it is.
Speaker 4: Like.
Speaker 9: They want to have the discussion with a bunch of idiots.
They don't want to have that with you. I feel
like I feel like I'm turning into Quentin. They don't
want to have that with me. Okay, I'm turning into
freaking Quentin Tarantino. Okay, like we're gonna We're not gonna
have that discussion because I'm gonna shut your butt down. Okay,
you want to have discussion, but now with me, Okay,
now with me, right, and let's just be freaking honest
about that. Okay, I'm turning into Tarantino. Jamie, welcome back.
Could you make me an espresso ex tanglia ten dollars?
Smash the leg button Wi Fi Gospel. We already read that.
Excuse me. I'm trying to make sure I didn't miss
the super shit. I feel like I did. We got that,
We got that, We got that, got that. Okay, we
get more over here on YouTube, Thoughlet's say Joshua Strove
into twenty Jay. I want to find an Orthodox church.
There's a few in my area. What do I need
to look for? Should I be aware of a humanism? Yeah,
I mean I think that's the big you know, if
he's if the priest seems you know, skittlesy or whatever,
just go to the other one. But I always tell
people don't worry about jurisdictions if you're new to Orthodoxy,
because it's not really a thing you have to worry
that much about. Like, if you're new, what you want
to do is check all the churches in your area
and find the one that's the best fit for you
based on the priest and the people there, because that's
going to be your family. So don't worry about internet
drama or whatever unless it's something like really you know big,
like I would stay away from LP to forests. He's
a notorious you know, marches with BLM people. I mean,
he's bad news. But don't worry about jurisdictions. Jason T.
Five bucks, Thank you so much. Theology explore two dollars
Hollywood requesting is from a reform background. Okay, I'll pull
him up if he's still there. Hey, Jamie, could you
make me an espresso? Thank you appreciate it. What's up man?
You know I'm mute? Do you turn your mic on?
Speaker 7: I think.
Speaker 9: Hollywood? What's up date? Leo? Leo DiCaprio, Thomas b How
are bishops that allow contraception or chrismate those who aren't
triple and is to be reviewed? Hey?
Speaker 4: Yeah, sorry, So I have a question. I don't know
if it's properate to stream.
Speaker 26: Or not, but I was basically asking, so, with the transcendental.
Speaker 4: Argument, how did you make the jump from that?
Speaker 21: I have a stream on still, how did you get
a jump from that to Christianity in the Bible?
Speaker 9: Because the argument is an argument for an entire worldview
that includes a lot of metaphysical beliefs and ethical beliefs,
And the argument is that the Christian worldview also provides
the toolkit and the grounding for those metaphysical beliefs and
ethical beliefs.
Speaker 14: Okay, yeah, this is a question.
Speaker 2: Really, I was going to debate something else, but.
Speaker 9: What's the other? So I'll get out? Thanks, what's the
other topic? You want?
Speaker 4: But to that? No?
Speaker 7: He left?
Speaker 9: Okay, t K breaks five solas? Where's that guy? Is
that that guy that's posting the trail of blood stupid
stuff on the on Twitter. Oh my gosh, I've been
asking that guy to come to Baate for months. Where's
he at? Come on, dude, where are you at? Here's
the here calling right here?
Speaker 4: Man?
Speaker 9: Is he five solas or five the chad solas? I
forget this guy's name. It's like, t K, what's up?
Speaker 11: Man?
Speaker 9: I'm mute?
Speaker 4: Hey, what's up?
Speaker 12: Can you hear me?
Speaker 11: Yes?
Speaker 9: Sir?
Speaker 4: Hey, how's it going?
Speaker 9: What's on your mind?
Speaker 4: I'm new to the channel. I just tuned in.
Speaker 27: I saw the tag protestansm Protestantism is false, prove me wrong?
Speaker 4: So and then I heard you say something about your
being like orthodox.
Speaker 9: Yeah, so.
Speaker 4: Do you think that Orthodoxy is like the one true Church?
Speaker 9: Yes?
Speaker 4: Okay, yeah.
Speaker 27: Scripture would argue that I don't need to argue that,
because Scripture argues that for me. Jesus himself says that
he's against sectarianism, and I can tell you the verses.
Speaker 9: Two, right, But this is prior to that, because I
would argue that the Orthodox Church is who put that
Bible together. So the reason that he's against sectarianism is
because he set up a College of Apostles who have
successors who are his church. So anyone who's not the
Orthodox Church is the sectarians that you're talking about.
Speaker 28: Yeah, I'm sure you've had this argument before, but what
you just said is like self defeating because you just
said that if they were the ones that set up
the Bible, and in what is in the Bible is
the most true, which I believe it to be the
most true, then sectarianism is against Jesus' will?
Speaker 9: Correct, right? I agree?
Speaker 4: Yeah, yeah, So I don't know why you're like trying
to be divisive.
Speaker 9: Well, I'm not being divisive because I'm calling people to
the unity of the same church that existed in the first, second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh,
eighth centuries. So we believe the same as those people.
That's the identical beliefs in church that we have today.
So that shows that whatever Protestant sect you're in is
the actual sectarianism.
Speaker 4: I never said I was in one. In what a
Protestant sect?
Speaker 9: Okay, what are you in?
Speaker 4: I just follow the Bible?
Speaker 9: Wells that doesn't exist. That's even worse, because that's worse
than a sectarian church that's you alone, that doesn't exist.
Speaker 4: It does exist.
Speaker 27: There's Bible, there's Bible churches. You can be a follower
of Christ and not belong to specific sect.
Speaker 9: Jesus Jesus established. Jesus established a church, and that church.
If you look at Paul's epistles first and second, Timothy
is based around. In that case at Ephesus, the person
that Paul laid his hands on, who is Timothy. And
then Paul tells Timothy, don't pass on this apostolic deposit
without laying hands on somebody who you know is approved,
because it gives the gift of the Holy Spirit. That's
apostolic succession. It mirrors the example in numbers eleven where
Moses lays hands on the elders to give them authority
and the spirit that Moses had, so the Holy Spirit
goes from Moses to the seventy elders. That parallels the
apostolic succession of the New Testament, particularly enacts one where
you have a replacement for Judas, and it says that
replaced his office or episcopate. That's episcopal church government. And
that's why when I'm when I'm telling you, if you
look at the church in the first, second, third, fourth, fifth,
sixth seventh centuries. They don't teach evangelical do it yourself
Bible church stuff. They believe in what the Orthodox Church teaches.
So you're the sectarian.
Speaker 28: I don't believe so, because it's very clear in the
even in the Apostles Creeds says they believe in the One.
Speaker 4: Catholic Church. What what do you think Catholic means?
Speaker 9: So we don't follow the Apostles creed? That's pseudonymous, that's
a Western creed. You're talking about the nice you constant
apolican Constantapolitan creed. It says one Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.
That's the four marks? Does your strip mall Bible Church?
The foremarts?
Speaker 4: But you didn't answer my question.
Speaker 9: I said, one Holy Catholic Episolic, the four Marks, that's
what's necessary for the church.
Speaker 4: No, I asked you, what is Catholic mean?
Speaker 9: Fullness of truth? According to the fathers who Yes, it does,
according to the fathers who composed that. That's what they
interpret it.
Speaker 7: To me.
Speaker 4: No, it means universal.
Speaker 9: It means in the Orthodox Church, not just universality in
terms of numbers. Because Roman Catholics make this argument that
it means numbers in terms of universality. That's why I'm
qualifying it with fullness of truth. That's what it means
in the Orthodox Church. So it can't be numbers. Let
me give an example why in the fourth century the
majority of the church was aryan or semi arian. So
you can't identify it with a large number of people
the fullness.
Speaker 4: You're conflating like a heresy with Yeah.
Speaker 9: No, I'm not. I know this subject matter very well.
I'm not conflating anything. I'm telling you.
Speaker 4: Because you've had these debates.
Speaker 9: Over and no, I've studied this for twenty plus years.
It's not just abase.
Speaker 28: What you're having is willful ignorance, like you're choosing to
disregard when people have told you in the past that
Catholic means universal.
Speaker 9: No, I know what the word itself means. I'm giving
you the Orthodox explanation that it's not just a universality
sense of numbers. I'm giving you a deeper sense that
the Orthodox theological tradition gives it. I know that I
know what universality is. I learned this stuff twenty five
years ago. Dude, yea, yeah, yeah, So why are you
mocking me because of Your condescension and condescending attitude is
getting on my nerves.
Speaker 4: I'm not being condescend you are.
Speaker 9: You're talking about that people have told me this in
the past, and I wasn't rebuked properly and I didn't
listen to them. What are you even talking about.
Speaker 4: I'm not rebuking you.
Speaker 9: You said people in the past told me this, and
I'm being arrogant and I need to be rebuked. That's
what you're saying. Not being passive aggressive. Come on, get
to your point. What's your argument.
Speaker 4: I'm not being passive aggressive either.
Speaker 9: One Holy Catholic Apostolic does not mean stripball Bible church
like you believe.
Speaker 4: Okay, that's that's just rude.
Speaker 9: Okay, it's rude. Fun, It doesn't matter. What's your argument.
Speaker 4: See, what you're doing is condescending.
Speaker 9: Stop doing the two quote now you want to do it.
Stop telling policing. Get to the argument.
Speaker 4: This is so.
Speaker 9: Like you said, you belong to your own thing at
a Bible church. That's what strip mall Bible churches are.
Speaker 4: Yeah, that's that's like super condescending.
Speaker 9: So you know, I feel like, well, you're making bad
arguments because you started out wanting to argue that they
stop interrupting.
Speaker 4: Is the Bible making bad arguments? Because I already told
you that it's the Bible that No, it's not.
Speaker 9: You don't know. How do you have the right How
do you know you have the right Bible?
Speaker 4: How do you know you have the right Bible?
Speaker 9: I can look to the Orthodox I can look to
the Orthodox tradition and the canons of the Apostles that
we pulled up earlier.
Speaker 4: Mm hmmm. And so they tell you it's like the
King James or something.
Speaker 9: The King James, the Church Fathers. No, the canons of
the appoll muscles are like the three hundreds. That's not
going to be the King James. Goofas I know.
Speaker 4: I was choking.
Speaker 9: No, no, you didn't know what we're talking about. I'm
talking about Apostolic Canon eighty five.
Speaker 4: You know what that is? The Apostolic Canon eighty five?
Speaker 9: No, I don't know, right, So you are joking, you
have no idea?
Speaker 4: I was joking about the King James thing.
Speaker 9: Okay, how do you know that you have the right
Protestant Bible?
Speaker 4: Okay, how do you know that I'm a Protestant.
Speaker 9: That's a too My gosh, this is too stupid. We're done.
Speaker 4: Bye.
Speaker 9: That was the dumbest guy I've ever talked to. Nick. Nick. Yeah,
let's all Jay. Yeah, my bad. I don't know what
happened earlier.
Speaker 4: Because I got booted out as soon as I answered
I asked my question.
Speaker 14: But all right, can I want to go? I want
to ask the.
Speaker 9: Question real quick, okay, and make it quick. Come on, yeah,
go real quick.
Speaker 24: I know I started as a Protestant, and I'm looking
into the Orthodox Faith because I finally looked into early
Church history.
Speaker 4: And saw my beliefs like fold before my eyes. So
I'm in shocked right now.
Speaker 24: But I kind of want to ask, real quick, if
you can start all over in your journey and and
learn Orthodox faith.
Speaker 4: But what would you do from the very beginning. You
don't have to go on like a long like like
right away read the Early Church.
Speaker 9: Father'll take my time and not rush into it. Start
by reading Athanacious. Start by reading