Speaker 1: So anyway, Bob has his channel and he has Soco films.
Speaker 1: I've got the Soco films link below. Bob, tell us
Speaker 1: about you first, tell us what your the context of
Speaker 1: our chat today, your background, what you're comfortable talking about,
Speaker 1: and how you got into speakers, corners.
Speaker 2: Debates and anything else you want to tell us about you.
Speaker 3: Okay, I became a Christian because of Muslim who he
Speaker 3: tried to convert me to Islam when I was at school.
Speaker 3: He was a big fan of Acmedi Dat and he
Speaker 3: just assumed that everyone who was white and English was
Speaker 3: a Christian, and so he tried to, you know, use
Speaker 3: all of these kinds of arguments on me. And I
Speaker 3: came from a working class background and my family, much
Speaker 3: like lots of English working class, had this kind of
Speaker 3: notion that they were Church of England. You know, they
Speaker 3: were Christian because at baptisms they would baptize their children,
Speaker 3: At weddings they would go to church, and at funerals
Speaker 3: they would get a priest to come and say some
Speaker 3: nice words before sticking people in the ground. Without any
Speaker 3: real faith or without any real understanding of what it
Speaker 3: means to be a disciple of all Jesus christ And
Speaker 3: so when my Muslim friend tried to attack the Christian faith,
Speaker 3: I thought he was attacking something English. So I led
Speaker 3: to its defense in ignorance. Just to give you a
Speaker 3: level of my starting point. In one of these discussions
Speaker 3: that I remember because of how embarrassing it was, he said,
Speaker 3: he said, let's test how much you know. And he
Speaker 3: asked me, you know, what's the first book of the Bible?
Speaker 3: I didn't know, and someone said Genesis. And then he said, well,
Speaker 3: what's the second book of the Bible? I didn't know,
Speaker 3: and someone said Genesis too, and I just said, yes,
Speaker 3: Genesis two. So that just tells you how little I
Speaker 3: actually knew that correct. Yeah, So I started looking into it.
Speaker 3: I started learning about all of these apologetics and polemics,
Speaker 3: and then I remember through a Christian Church of Summer
Speaker 3: mission that I did in London, I came into contact
Speaker 3: with a guy called Jay Smith, who is a wonderful
Speaker 3: polemicist and apologist from America, and he really inspired me.
Speaker 3: He was the first time that I'd met someone who
Speaker 3: was doing evangelism to Muslims in the same way that
Speaker 3: I was. So I went to Speaker's Corner a couple
Speaker 3: of times and then when I lived in London years
Speaker 3: and years ago, I used to irregularly visit Speaker's Corner
Speaker 3: and then you know, life took me on a certain
Speaker 3: course which led me back to the question of considering
Speaker 3: my vocation and how to do that, and that led
Speaker 3: me to London and I wanted to get involved in
Speaker 3: supporting Jay Smith at Speaker's Corner. And the week that
Speaker 3: I went to finding because I knew where he hanged
Speaker 3: out before he went to Speakers Corner, he told me
Speaker 3: he was leaving. So he was leaving and going back
Speaker 3: to America, and he doesn't speak as Corner for decades
Speaker 3: and been one of the sole voices making a commendable
Speaker 3: defense of the faith down there, and he was leaving.
Speaker 3: And his first week that he wasn't at the Corner
Speaker 3: that you could tell the Dower team was in glee
Speaker 3: at the thought of not having Jay theirs and his
Speaker 3: booming voice. It was my first week there and I'd
Speaker 3: been going solidly to speak as Corner for about two years.
Speaker 3: It is a strategical platform that solved great importance to
Speaker 3: the church because it's broadcast across the entire world. Some
Speaker 3: of the Muslim speakers have followers that go into the millions.
Speaker 3: You're never going to have an opportunity to evangelize that
Speaker 3: many Muslims in one go, all that many people in
Speaker 3: one go. It's a fantastic opportunity. It does speak to
Speaker 3: a certain kind of person, the person who weighs truth
Speaker 3: by which which person seems to win the argument, which
Speaker 3: is not necessarily the best way of weighing what is true,
Speaker 3: But it does speak to that kind of person. And
Speaker 3: it's a platform I recognize the strategic importance of and
Speaker 3: you know, it's one that the church needs to So
Speaker 3: that's why I go there. And you know, I go
Speaker 3: there to to basically to evangelize the Christian faith and
Speaker 3: to stand against those that are opponents to the Christian Faith.
Speaker 3: And it just so happens because of the demographics of
Speaker 3: speakers corner and the demographics around speakers corner that that
Speaker 3: tends to be Muslims. Because I have a love and
Speaker 3: a passion for anyway, because I became a Christian because
Speaker 3: of a Muslim, and I have done lots of evangelism
Speaker 3: amongst Muslims my whole life, and it's something that I
Speaker 3: care very greatly for them as a people. I want
Speaker 3: them to know the truth of our Lord, to be
Speaker 3: as disciples like a everyone else to be. And I
Speaker 3: feel that God has placed that that calling, that desire
Speaker 3: on my heart. Yeah, as a basic.
Speaker 2: Intrum, that's interesting.
Speaker 1: Just two questions before on that, before we get into
Speaker 1: the other stuff, just out of curiosity. Did you have
Speaker 1: any training in philosophy or is your training mainly under
Speaker 1: Jsmith as an apologist?
Speaker 2: And I'm not trying to put you on the spot,
Speaker 2: I'm just.
Speaker 1: Curious if you did you did you study rhetoric and
Speaker 1: debate or did you just focus on apologetics.
Speaker 3: I think everything that I everything that I do in
Speaker 3: terms of debate, is something that I've just done through experience.
Speaker 3: Like I you'll often hear me talk about the DOWA
Speaker 3: team using a script, and the reason why I describe
Speaker 3: it as a script is because invariably Muslims say the
Speaker 3: same arguments the same way over and over and over
Speaker 3: and over and over and over again. And when you've
Speaker 3: been around that circuit a number of times, you kind
Speaker 3: of know what's going to be said before it's said,
Speaker 3: and you develop responses to that, and you also pick up,
Speaker 3: like you know, little tactics of rhetoric and stuff like that.
Speaker 3: But no, I've not had any formal training. I did
Speaker 3: study in my first year at university philosophy, but I
Speaker 3: went on to specialize in religious studies as I felt
Speaker 3: that was more important. I also studied physics in my
Speaker 3: first year as well, and philosophy obviously, the study of
Speaker 3: philosophy obviously introduces you to argumentation and the idea of
Speaker 3: constructing an argument, but I'm not a particularly formal training now.
Speaker 1: Yeah, well, actually, just being in the sphere of debating
Speaker 1: and doing that a lot is really how you get
Speaker 1: good at debating. I mean, that's the way I mean
Speaker 1: we started when I was in college. We would go
Speaker 1: out on campus and we.
Speaker 2: Would debate the atheists, we would debate the Buddhists, we.
Speaker 1: Would debate all the different groups that we found on
Speaker 1: campus that were willing to do debates.
Speaker 2: And so just doing that.
Speaker 1: Constantly, going to coffee shops, going to atheist defense and
Speaker 1: having the debates is really the best way to learn
Speaker 1: to debate and to get good at it, because, like
Speaker 1: you said, it's kind of the same with atheism. You'll
Speaker 1: notice that you hear the same kind of rehash things
Speaker 1: over and over and over. So a lot of times
Speaker 1: people ask me, do you get nervous before you debate
Speaker 1: an atheists? No, and it's not because oh I've got
Speaker 1: such a high IQ and it's not anything like that.
Speaker 1: The reason I'm not nervous about it is because I
Speaker 1: already know all of the limited number of iterations of
Speaker 1: the atheist argument that I'm going to hear. And by
Speaker 1: the way, it's funny you said that about an Islamic
Speaker 1: apologist or guy getting you into Christianity. There was a
Speaker 1: Job's Witness girl that I knew when I was about
Speaker 1: eighteen and I was new to Christianity. I was new
Speaker 1: to reading the Bible. I just read the Beatitudes at
Speaker 1: the time, and I met this Joe's Witness girl and
Speaker 1: I think she was really intent on bringing me into
Speaker 1: the Joe's Witnesses and so.
Speaker 2: She sent me all these texts.
Speaker 1: She's like, how do you respond to this verse that
Speaker 1: shows that Jesus is a creature? And so that actually
Speaker 1: kicked me off into apologetics. Was another you know, sort
Speaker 1: of anti trinitarian group. So that's in counter entering challenges
Speaker 1: are actually good ways to you know.
Speaker 3: Iron absolutely, and I think I think I think Christians,
Speaker 3: you know, if there's any Christian out there who's thinking about,
Speaker 3: you know, how do I get good at this? The
Speaker 3: answer is start doing it, you know, and and but
Speaker 3: have the humility to learn from your mistakes and to
Speaker 3: to learn like I'll often sit there and I'll listen
Speaker 3: to presentations by others and noting down good arguments as
Speaker 3: I hear them, and imagining how I might then use
Speaker 3: them in argument myself. In what circumstance might I use
Speaker 3: a particular line of argument?
Speaker 2: You know.
Speaker 3: And it's just a case of study practice failure, study
Speaker 3: practice success, study practice failure, study practice success. And this
Speaker 3: process refinds you in terms of your ability to do it.
Speaker 3: But evangelism is one of the callings of our Lord,
Speaker 3: and and it's something that we have to do, you know.
Speaker 3: And there are different styles of evangelism. Me and you
Speaker 3: go for the more direct, academic, debate confrontational style of evangelism.
Speaker 3: It won't speak to everybody, but it speaks to some.
Speaker 3: But most importantly, the kind of style of debate that
Speaker 3: you and I do is the kind of thing that
Speaker 3: influences cultures. It's the kind of the kind of debate
Speaker 3: that can influence decision makers, the kind of debate that
Speaker 3: can influence people in authority. It might not win over
Speaker 3: masses of people, maybe apart from some people who are
Speaker 3: rigulous and intellectual and follow the evidence where it leads,
Speaker 3: but it can influence people, and it can influence cultures.
Speaker 3: So it's really important that the Church is present in
Speaker 3: the intellectual debate and not absconding from it for the
Speaker 3: sake of doing more socially based evangelism.
Speaker 2: You know, yeah, I think you're right.
Speaker 1: I mean, all the church fathers, all the great apologists
Speaker 1: who really hammered out the Doctor of the Trinity, for example,
Speaker 1: in the early centuries, they were apologists. They were doing
Speaker 1: apologetics against various groups that already you know, in the third, fourth, fifth,
Speaker 1: sixth centuries were denying Christology, denying the Trinity, denying the
Speaker 1: full Deity of Christ, denying the deity.
Speaker 2: The Holy Spirit.
Speaker 1: Saint Basil comes to mind as somebody who's very important
Speaker 1: in that role. But yeah, I mean, if we're not
Speaker 1: doing apologetics, then we're not doing what we're actually called
Speaker 1: to do, because that's part of evangelisman. Absolutely right, And
Speaker 1: as Paul says, all things to all men. So we
Speaker 1: want to speak to the academic, We want to speak
Speaker 1: to the average Joe. We want to speak to everybody
Speaker 1: as best we can, and God gifts us all with.
Speaker 2: Different gifts to be able to do that.
Speaker 1: So you want to move on now to the topics
Speaker 1: of like your experiences of what are some of I
Speaker 1: know that Lewis sent me, for example, about fifteen I've
Speaker 1: encountered some of these, but you have had way more
Speaker 1: experience debating people in the realm of Islam, and I've
Speaker 1: only had a limited experience with us. I've had one
Speaker 1: debate with Paul, and then I've had four or five
Speaker 1: debates with people in my discord who had various views
Speaker 1: on Islam. I never could get the exact view of Islam.
Speaker 1: So my first question to you before we launch into
Speaker 1: those texts is that, so in my limited experience of
Speaker 1: debating Muslims, when I bring up the topic of the
Speaker 1: trinity or divine simplicity, I actually have gotten five different
Speaker 1: views just from five different random Islamic debaters.
Speaker 2: Is that the norm with you?
Speaker 1: Do you find that they they when you get to
Speaker 1: a really I know you talk about them sort of
Speaker 1: running on a script, but when you get really precise
Speaker 1: on certain things, I've not been able to nail down
Speaker 1: exactly what the Islamic view of divine simplicity is or
Speaker 1: this doctrine is. It seems to sort of morph and
Speaker 1: transform based on who you're talking to.
Speaker 3: Well, yeah, I mean, my experience of debating with Muslims
Speaker 3: at the corner is that depending on who they're talking to,
Speaker 3: the same person will will wax on what they understand
Speaker 3: about the Trinity. And a perfect example of that would
Speaker 3: be Hashian, who knows very who actually is quite erudite
Speaker 3: and educated about what Christian doctrine is, but sometimes he
Speaker 3: will he will feign a level of ignorance that he
Speaker 3: doesn't actually have about the Trinity because it will help
Speaker 3: him to make a point. So you'll often hear Muslims
Speaker 3: the same Muslims say to a Christian like myself when
Speaker 3: they're you know, surrounded by a more eradi audience, that
Speaker 3: they know that Christians believe in one God, but then
Speaker 3: say that there are issues with that concept of their
Speaker 3: belief in one God. But if they're speaking to someone
Speaker 3: who's a bit more of a pushover and a bit
Speaker 3: more ignorant, and they can feel that they'll they'll they'll
Speaker 3: just say, well, you Christians believe in three gods. And
Speaker 3: it's kind of like, depending on who they're talking to,
Speaker 3: they actually change what they say in terms of their critique.
Speaker 3: And I've seen that very clearly with people like Chansi
Speaker 3: and Hashim, and there's there's no consistency in their intellectual
Speaker 3: critique of the Christian faith. You know, they'll they'll on
Speaker 3: the one hand, they'll say that Christians believe in three odds,
Speaker 3: but then on the next hand, depending on who they're
Speaker 3: talking to, we know that you Christians believe in one God.
Speaker 3: So it's kind of like they can't seem to make
Speaker 3: their mind at what we believe. And I think the
Speaker 3: reason for that is because the Koran, they're trying to
Speaker 3: hold to the fact that you've got a modern education
Speaker 3: where information is readily available, so anyone can learn that
Speaker 3: Christians believe in one God. But then you've got what
Speaker 3: the Kuran says, which is in total era, where it
Speaker 3: says that Christians believe in three gods. And they're trying
Speaker 3: to balance these two forces together for political gain, as
Speaker 3: it were, within the arguments.
Speaker 2: What about when you're when you're getting them to be
Speaker 2: precise about their doctrines, though, because that's kind of the
Speaker 2: approach of.
Speaker 1: Apologetics that I often do is critiquing not just the
Speaker 1: arguments that is that are being presented, but the actual
Speaker 1: worldview of the other of the person. Have you found
Speaker 1: them to lay out a consistent doctrine, for example, of
Speaker 1: the unity and subplicity of God, Because again, I've heard
Speaker 1: multiple different doctrines of the of what God's unity and
Speaker 1: plasity actually is. And the reason I bring it up
Speaker 1: is that that's ironic because when they're refuting, are attempting
Speaker 1: to refute the Doctor in the Trinity that it's polytheism
Speaker 1: and all this. When I turn the argument around and
Speaker 1: get them to try to explain to me how they
Speaker 1: conceive of unity and multiplicity and relationship to God, I
Speaker 1: don't actually hear a coherent response. I hear five ten
Speaker 1: different doctrines of what God's unity and simplicity is amongst Islam.
Speaker 1: And I'm just wondering if your experience is that they
Speaker 1: do they actually present a consistent Islamic theology. I don't
Speaker 1: hear that in their system.
Speaker 3: Yeah, and I think that's fair, But you've got to understand, Jay,
Speaker 3: there's very few people that would tentatively and try to
Speaker 3: engage with Christian sorry with Muslims on their own theology.
Speaker 3: You know, we Christians, particularly in the West, are a
Speaker 3: disadvantage in the sense that Islam is relatively new to
Speaker 3: our shores, and so engaging with it intellectually is something
Speaker 3: that we're not particularly coherent with or or or well
Speaker 3: at first. You know, we are in a position to
Speaker 3: do that with Jehovah's witnesses, or with Mormons, or but
Speaker 3: not so much with Islam, partly because all their texts
Speaker 3: are primarily in Arabic or foreign languages that we can't read,
Speaker 3: and so it's only as these these texts are starting
Speaker 3: to be translated that we're able to start wrestling with
Speaker 3: their vision of God. And the inconsistencies are now becoming
Speaker 3: more and more apparent, and the perfectly most obvious one
Speaker 3: which will definitely come into shortly, is this idea that
Speaker 3: God can't enter into his creation. You know, Muslims have
Speaker 3: been having a field day challenging Christians about how can
Speaker 3: the infinite become finite and how can the all powerful
Speaker 3: become limited and become God? But yet when and as
Speaker 3: and then they present to the ignorant this idea that
Speaker 3: that God doesn't enter into his creation. But yet when
Speaker 3: you read Islamic texts, it's so clearly apparent that Allah
Speaker 3: enters into creation, and so all of their arguments against
Speaker 3: our incarnational beliefs collapse when you start pinning them down.
Speaker 3: But I think also within Islamic circles themselves, Islam doesn't
Speaker 3: have the same emphasis on theology as the Church does.
Speaker 3: We Christians define our identity by our doctrine, whereas Islam
Speaker 3: is very much more focused on the idea of obedience
Speaker 3: to laws and the obedience of five pillars. So it's
Speaker 3: much more about praxis than it is about theology. And
Speaker 3: that means that you know, Muslims don't engage with that
Speaker 3: kind of discussion deeply. But I think the kind of
Speaker 3: debates that we need to be having are pressing in
Speaker 3: on their theology, are pressing in on their doctrines. Yeah,
Speaker 3: because actually it's loaded with inconsistencies given the rhetoric that
Speaker 3: they use against the Christian faith.
Speaker 1: Let's get to some of those inconsistencies before. Let's start
Speaker 1: with some of their polemical critiques of us and their arguments,
Speaker 1: and then we'll move to some of the key inconsistencies
Speaker 1: that you are familiar with and that you've encountered. So
Speaker 1: I like that main point though, because God entering into
Speaker 1: time and space and that being a problem in their theology.
Speaker 1: That's kind of where many of the debates in my
Speaker 1: discord with Muslims led to, because we when we come
Speaker 1: to the issue of how does the Quran actually convey
Speaker 1: truths about God within time and space? That's kind of
Speaker 1: really where the rubber hits the road for difficulty for them.
Speaker 3: But they've not thought through, They've not thought through the
Speaker 3: implications of what the Kuran actually says visit verse that.
Speaker 2: That's a good point. Okay, so.
Speaker 1: Let's see what are Let's say one of the first
Speaker 1: things that you usually hear is something like, well, of
Speaker 1: Jesus is God, then he died and God can't die,
Speaker 1: so Christianity is a false religion. Is this one of
Speaker 1: the most common that you're here? I mean, I've heard
Speaker 1: it not I don't even do many of these debates
Speaker 1: with it with Muslims.
Speaker 2: I've heard it like five times already.
Speaker 3: Yeah, I mean, it's it's it's it's a common argument
Speaker 3: that's used and it's based upon You've got to you've
Speaker 3: got to understand that all of their arguments. All the
Speaker 3: arguments that are used by Muslims are aimed at the
Speaker 3: idea of proving that Christ was not God. That is
Speaker 3: the driving point behind virtually all of these kinds of arguments.
Speaker 3: So so they're denying the incarnation. So fundamentally, it's because
Speaker 3: they are not engaging with the idea of the incarnation
Speaker 3: that this this kind of argument is being made and
Speaker 3: they are unwilling to engage with that. So, for example,
Speaker 3: and I want this not to be sort of me
Speaker 3: doing a seminar, but to us to have a discussion,
Speaker 3: because I know that you have a lot of very
Speaker 3: interesting philosophical angles that you can bring to these kinds
Speaker 3: of conversations. So I want this to be a bit
Speaker 3: of a ping pong really to to look at how,
Speaker 3: you know, silly some of these arguments are. And thus
Speaker 3: while you're talking, it allows me to find some of
Speaker 3: the passages that I'm looking for.
Speaker 1: Okay, well, yeah, I would say my response to this
Speaker 1: would be, this is a misunderstanding of what our doctrine
Speaker 1: of Christ is.
Speaker 2: So we believe that Christ.
Speaker 1: Possesses two natures, so he's always possessed that divine nature
Speaker 1: from all eternity, because he's a divine person or divine hypostasis.
Speaker 1: So these kind of confusing terms that we use are
Speaker 1: therefore reason So terms like hypostasis times, terms like ussia
Speaker 1: or nature in the Greek and the News that are
Speaker 1: actually used in the New Testament, they for us are
Speaker 1: the models of how we understand these doctrines. So Christ,
Speaker 1: when he became incarnate, he was the second person of
Speaker 1: the Godhead from all eternity well, a fully divine nature.
Speaker 1: And when he assumed human nature, he never destroyed or
Speaker 1: lost his divinity. He didn't destroy or lose the full humanity.
Speaker 1: He possesses both of those natures in perfect union, and
Speaker 1: they're not destroyed. They're not they're not absolved, they're not molded.
Speaker 1: They're always in union and yet always still retaining, as
Speaker 1: we say, there created natural properties.
Speaker 2: And so when we speak of the death of.
Speaker 1: Christ, there's a one of our great theologians, Saint John Damascus,
Speaker 1: has a great section in book three The Exposition of
Speaker 1: the Orthodox Faith, where he talks about the death of Christ.
Speaker 2: Pertaining to his human nature.
Speaker 1: So Christ absolutely did undergo death in his humanity, and
Speaker 1: so his body was his soul was severed from his
Speaker 1: body in that death, but his divine nature remains and
Speaker 1: always remained impassable, and that means unchangeable, unalterable. So the
Speaker 1: divinity underwent no change. God can himself cannot change, He
Speaker 1: cannot be altered, he can't.
Speaker 2: Be destroyed, he can't die.
Speaker 1: But so when you see in the Church fathers, or
Speaker 1: even in scripture at times, there's phraseology that we use
Speaker 1: that's called appropriation. One of our other great theologians, Saint
Speaker 1: Cyril of Alexandria, called this the communication of properties.
Speaker 2: And what this means is that anything that's true of
Speaker 2: one of.
Speaker 1: Christ's nature's such as eating, drinking, dying, that's true of
Speaker 1: his humanity, can also be spoken of the whole Christ. Right,
Speaker 1: so walking on water, changing water into wine, that is,
Speaker 1: somebody came to my door, So that's true of his divinity.
Speaker 1: But because Christ is one divine hypostasis from all eternity
Speaker 1: who assumed human nature, whatever we say we can attribute
Speaker 1: to the whole Christ, and we mean it in a
Speaker 1: linguistic way without destroying it's a real It's true. It's
Speaker 1: not saying that it's just linguistic. But we can say
Speaker 1: God died without meaning that the divine nature died, right,
Speaker 1: So Christ as the single sole subject, they're present at
Speaker 1: his crucifixion. Christ's divine hypostasis underwent the experience of death
Speaker 1: in his human nature. But that does not mean that
Speaker 1: he as a divine person, died. And I would just
Speaker 1: recommend that if anybody what it's a really clear exposition
Speaker 1: of that from classical Trinitarian theology. Just read the last
Speaker 1: five or six chapters of John Damascus's book three of
Speaker 1: the Expedition Orthodox Faith, where he lays this out perfectly.
Speaker 2: Yeah.
Speaker 3: And I think this is the thing is that Muslims
Speaker 3: who are making this kind of argument, if Jesus is
Speaker 3: God and God is immortal, how can God die? If
Speaker 3: they're making that kind of argument, they're not engaging with
Speaker 3: what Christians are saying. It says in one Peter chapter four,
Speaker 3: exactly what you've just said. Therefore, since Christ has suffered
Speaker 3: in the flesh, not suffered in the divinity, suffered in
Speaker 3: the flesh, he's saying that he suffered in his humanity.
Speaker 3: It's it's right there in the Apostolic writings from the
Speaker 3: beginning that the suffering that Christ underwent he underwent in
Speaker 3: his humanity. And so to use this kind of argument
Speaker 3: as if somehow this dismisses what the Christian faith teaches,
Speaker 3: means that they're not actually dismissing what we believe as Christians.
Speaker 3: What they're dismissing is is something a straw man of
Speaker 3: their own invents. And this has been the consistent teaching
Speaker 3: of the Church in the what is it the Second
Speaker 3: Letter to Nestorius written by Let's Cyril, in the same
Speaker 3: manner we conceive respecting his dying, for the Word of
Speaker 3: God is by nature immortal and incorruptible and life giving. Since, however,
Speaker 3: his own body did, as Paul says, by the grace
Speaker 3: of God, tastes death for every man. He himself he said,
Speaker 3: to have suffered death for us, not as if he
Speaker 3: had any experience of death in his own nature, for
Speaker 3: it would be madness to think this. But because as
Speaker 3: I have just said, his flesh taste a death. It's
Speaker 3: kind of like you take a stick and an iron rod,
Speaker 3: and you chuck them into water. One of them sinks
Speaker 3: below and one of them floats above. The two properties
Speaker 3: the two natures experience the same event in very different
Speaker 3: ways and respond very differently. The divine nature passes over
Speaker 3: death even though it passes through death, it doesn't is
Speaker 3: not affected by it, whereas the human nature falls into it.
Speaker 3: And so you know, I would say to hash him
Speaker 3: who makes this argument all the time down and Speaker's
Speaker 3: corner in twenty one, who who's listening to this, that
Speaker 3: if you want to dismiss Christianity, this is a stupid
Speaker 3: reason to do it. It's not a good reason because
Speaker 3: you're not actually arguing based upon what Christians say, but
Speaker 3: you're arguing on something different.
Speaker 2: Yeah.
Speaker 1: Yeah, So a lot of people, a lot of people
Speaker 1: in the Chat are asking the source. I guess they
Speaker 1: didn't hear what I said. So I'm gonna put in
Speaker 1: the chat first of all, the text that I mentioned,
Speaker 1: what you just mentioned was Cyril response, Saint Cyril of
Speaker 1: Alexandria responding to Astorias.
Speaker 3: And then yeah, second letters, second letter.
Speaker 1: And then I'm going to put into the Chat the
Speaker 1: book three of the Exposition in Orthodox Faith that I
Speaker 1: mentioned if you scroll down to the last five chapters,
Speaker 1: that the whole of book three is about Christology. It's
Speaker 1: a it's an excellent, excellent, one of the most profound,
Speaker 1: nuanced treatises of the Fathers. And so Saint John Damascus
Speaker 1: is writing in the seventh eighth century, so he's reflecting
Speaker 1: back on eight basically eight centuries of Christology, seven centuries
Speaker 1: of Christology, and able to sort of synthesize this into
Speaker 1: a one of the first what you could call perhaps
Speaker 1: systematic theologies.
Speaker 2: In the exposition of Orthodox faith.
Speaker 1: But if you scroll down to chapters I think it's
Speaker 1: twenty for those that I just put the link in
Speaker 1: the chat, you'll notice it about chapter twenty six.
Speaker 2: Yeah, twenty five.
Speaker 1: Twenty six is where he starts, and then it's all
Speaker 1: the way down to the end, which is not very long.
Speaker 1: But chapter twenty five is about the appropriation. And this
Speaker 1: is important because it's going to come into play.
Speaker 2: With a lot of the texts that.
Speaker 1: People of these persuasions Joe's Witnesses or Muslims use, and
Speaker 1: that's called the appropriation. And what that means is that
Speaker 1: there's a lot of times in texts work. For example,
Speaker 1: in Galatians three fifteen, we read that Christ became a curse.
Speaker 1: So what that means is that Christ willingly under went
Speaker 1: death for us. Okay, it doesn't mean that the Father God,
Speaker 1: the Father cursed another divine person and therefore split the Trinity.
Speaker 1: It doesn't mean that Jesus is a human hypostasis that
Speaker 1: underwent damnation from the Trinity or something like that. So
Speaker 1: these are classic mistaken understanding, mistakenly understood texts by groups
Speaker 1: outside of the orthodoxy of Christianity that have used like, oh, well,
Speaker 1: if Christ is a cursed then he must have been
Speaker 1: a separate deity that was cursed or a separate human
Speaker 1: being that was cursed, or something like that. You'll notice
Speaker 1: in chapter twenty six he expounds the very thing again,
Speaker 1: summarizing seven centuries of Christian theology on this, the very
Speaker 1: thing that Bob and I just mentioned, which is the
Speaker 1: impassability of Christ's divinity and the passibility.
Speaker 2: Of his humanity.
Speaker 1: And then you'll notice in chapter twenty seven he goes
Speaker 1: into discussing what went on when Christ died, how the
Speaker 1: second person that God had the logos, remained divine and impassable,
Speaker 1: and the human soul was severed from the human body.
Speaker 1: That's what happened in Christ's death, and then he will
Speaker 1: discuss the dissent of Christ's soul into Hades. I would
Speaker 1: also mention too, for people that want another testimony to
Speaker 1: something to this, that's earlier. There's a famous letter of
Speaker 1: Saint Basil, which is he's got two that are really
Speaker 1: important for the Trinity and for Christology. One of those
Speaker 1: is Letter eight, and Letter eight is a like a
Speaker 1: I don't know, fifteen to twenty page summation of the
Speaker 1: doctrine of the Trinity. And Basil wrote that in about
Speaker 1: three sixty eighty, so this is pretty early, not too
Speaker 1: long after.
Speaker 2: The Council of Nicia. Letter thirty eight is way more extensive.
Speaker 1: It's it's pretty long, and it gets into the nature
Speaker 1: person distinction. How we believe that there's one nature in
Speaker 1: the Godhead and three divine hypostases. So if you want
Speaker 1: an introduction to how the church fathers have consistently taught this,
Speaker 1: you can read out the Natius.
Speaker 2: Of course as well. Everybody knows about at the Natius.
Speaker 3: I think it's an important point to mention Jay that
Speaker 3: Christian apologetics can only be strengthened by familiarity with the fatherest.
Speaker 1: Absolutely, you know, I'm not citing these as if that
Speaker 1: means that it's true because I cited a church father.
Speaker 1: We're citing this as testimonies to the consistency of our teaching.
Speaker 3: Is the point exactly exactly, So I'll throw the next
Speaker 3: one at you because and then we'll discuss it there.
Speaker 3: The next on The kind of argument that Muslims make
Speaker 3: is the if Jesus is God, why how does he eat?
Speaker 3: How does he drink? How does he You know this
Speaker 3: this is not befitting of God, This is not you know,
Speaker 3: God can't do these things because God doesn't need food,
Speaker 3: God doesn't need water, you know, you know, to put
Speaker 3: it in philosophical terms, how can God be contingent?
Speaker 2: We would agree God is not contingent.
Speaker 1: God does not need food and God does not need water,
Speaker 1: but man does. And because God took on human nature
Speaker 1: in the incarnation name only the second person that God
Speaker 1: had that the entire trinity that not become incarnate, only
Speaker 1: the Son, the Logos became incarnate.
Speaker 2: And when he became incarnate.
Speaker 1: We believe that he willed to be in that state,
Speaker 1: so he didn't need those things. And this is a
Speaker 1: very important thing. For example, when Jesus is talking to
Speaker 1: Pontius Pilot, he said, you would have no power over
Speaker 1: me unless it was given to you. And because Christ
Speaker 1: is a divine person, because he is the one who
Speaker 1: created the world, he actually willed to be in this
Speaker 1: uh what the phrase Paul uses as kenosis, the canotic state,
Speaker 1: which is the you could say, humbling. Jesus chose and
Speaker 1: willed to humble himself to come into our lowly state.
Speaker 1: It's not that his life was forced from him, that
Speaker 1: it was taken from him.
Speaker 2: He couldn't needn't know what to do. Oh, I'm doubting,
Speaker 2: I'm scared.
Speaker 1: This is exemplified, for example, in the movie The Last
Speaker 1: Temptation of Christ, that blasphemous movie, which presents Jesus as
Speaker 1: just this dude who's like, man, I don't.
Speaker 2: Know if I'm going to do I want to do this.
Speaker 1: Man, you know, he's on the cross and he's doubting,
Speaker 1: and he's like, man, I could have like a you know,
Speaker 1: hippie Jesus.
Speaker 2: Basically, that's not what we believe. But all the heretics
Speaker 2: and all the cults, they.
Speaker 1: Believe that we believe in hippie Jesus, just the sort
Speaker 1: of doubting prophet. But no, we believe that he's a
Speaker 1: divine person. So you're correct that Muslim that we would
Speaker 1: agree that God in terms of his divinity is impossible.
Speaker 1: He's unchanging, he's eternal. But he has the ability to
Speaker 1: enter into time and space and to undergo our weakness
Speaker 1: for the sake of deification, for the sake of saving
Speaker 1: us and moving us out of that state and into
Speaker 1: eternal life.
Speaker 3: And he undergoes, and he bears this suffering, He spares
Speaker 3: this contingency in a contingent state of the humanity, correct
Speaker 3: the human nature that needs the food.
Speaker 2: It right. We don't say that his divinity needed that food.
Speaker 2: We say rightly.
Speaker 3: And so again the problem, the problem that where Muslims
Speaker 3: are picking up on this, the reason why they find
Speaker 3: this idea offensive is because they don't believe that it
Speaker 3: befits the dignity of God to do these things. They
Speaker 3: think that somehow that it is an insult to God's
Speaker 3: dignity is God, that he should become these things. And
Speaker 3: I think that what that drives at is a very
Speaker 3: different vision of God, because the division of the vision
Speaker 3: of God within Islam is a God of power, a
Speaker 3: god of authority, a god of might, have got a
Speaker 3: royal ruler, as it were, who you know, it's not
Speaker 3: fitting that he should dwell with his underlings, that he
Speaker 3: should dwell tabernacle with his creation, his creation is below him,
Speaker 3: is beneath him. It's about his royal dignity being insulted.
Speaker 3: Whereas I would say to all the Muslims who are
Speaker 3: maybe listening to this, that we're not inviting you to
Speaker 3: believe in your God. We're inviting you to believe in
Speaker 3: a different God. And the fundamental attribute of the God
Speaker 3: that we believe in him is a God of love.
Speaker 3: And love is that thing that drives God, as it were,
Speaker 3: to become man, to take on the fullness of human nature.
Speaker 3: It is a an overpowering, not an overpowering as if
Speaker 3: God is a slave to love. But it's the very
Speaker 3: essence of his nature that that it forms his actions
Speaker 3: in the way that it guides the way that he
Speaker 3: wishes to be. That by becoming man, he takes on
Speaker 3: something that is beneath his royal dignity, but it's because
Speaker 3: he's He's there's a greater, something more important to him
Speaker 3: than simply royal dignity or preserving royal dignity. It is
Speaker 3: this idea of love. And you've got to ask yourself
Speaker 3: which kind of ruler? And my sort of question to
Speaker 3: Muslims is which kind of ruler is a better kind
Speaker 3: of ruler, a ruler who is so distant and far
Speaker 3: from you that he only ever sends his delegates and
Speaker 3: his messengers and you never see him face to face,
Speaker 3: or a ruler who's who despite the fact that he
Speaker 3: is the ruler, despite the fact that he has all
Speaker 3: of his royal dignity, which incidentally cannot be affected or
Speaker 3: stripped away from him or taken from him by anything.
Speaker 3: You know, if a king gets covid in mud, he
Speaker 3: is He's still a king. If a king dresses as
Speaker 3: a peasant, is he still a king? You know? Does
Speaker 3: the clothes that the ruler have decide whether he is
Speaker 3: a ruler? If the queen doesn't wear the crown on
Speaker 3: her head, is she still the queen? Of course, none
Speaker 3: of the royal dignity of God is not defined by
Speaker 3: the fact or compromised by the fact that he becomes
Speaker 3: a lowly human being. But it does demonstrate something about
Speaker 3: who he is as a person that he does become
Speaker 3: a human being.
Speaker 1: Yeah, it doesn't want Yeah, I was going to ask
Speaker 1: you about I was going to ask you about the
Speaker 1: notion of sort of being the slave of Allah. Now,
Speaker 1: Paul will use that analogy at times where he says,
Speaker 1: I'm a bond slave of Christ and so forth. But
Speaker 1: Christ is pretty consistently using another analogy as well, that
Speaker 1: we are not just made servants and slaves of God,
Speaker 1: but actually sons of God. And this I say this
Speaker 1: because there's the idea of becoming sons. And the whole
Speaker 1: point of Christ doing what he's doing is for our
Speaker 1: good and to actually share in the glory that he
Speaker 1: possesses with the Father. So, for example, Jesus and John
Speaker 1: seventeen says, the hour has come. Now glorify your son,
Speaker 1: that the Son might glorify you, for you have given
Speaker 1: him authority over all flesh, that he should give eternal
Speaker 1: life to as many as you have given him. This
Speaker 1: is eternal life, that they might know, that they might
Speaker 1: know you, the One True God. And Jesus, whom you
Speaker 1: have sent, I've glorified you on earth. I finished the
Speaker 1: word that you've given me to do. And now glorify
Speaker 1: me together with yourself, with the glory that I had
Speaker 1: with you before the world was. And then he goes
Speaker 1: on to say that he intends to share that glory
Speaker 1: with us as sons with him. So Christ actually makes
Speaker 1: us sons, not just slaves.
Speaker 2: Not just this.
Speaker 1: If you think of Paul's allegory Galatians, for of Hagar
Speaker 1: and Sarah the slave girl, and he compares flesh Israel
Speaker 1: to those who are like slaves to the law, and
Speaker 1: he's saying that no, Christ actually came to make us
Speaker 1: heirs of the promise to make us sons of God.
Speaker 1: So the whole point of this, this humbling state that
Speaker 1: Christ undergoes is not just to die and to pay
Speaker 1: a debt, but to die and to satisfy eternal justice,
Speaker 1: you could say, and then to actually raise us to
Speaker 1: a higher status what was intended of man in the beginning,
Speaker 1: so that we might participate in eternal life.
Speaker 2: And so that's all we mean by a lot of.
Speaker 1: People are confused by Orthodox theology when you talk about theosis.
Speaker 1: They say, oh, you think that you're pagan and you
Speaker 1: become gods like Aster Croley apotheosis. No, no, we become that's no, no,
Speaker 1: we become participants in eternal life and immortality on the
Speaker 1: basis of the uncreated grace of God.
Speaker 2: And then that's what.
Speaker 3: And this is something this is because Muslims go to
Speaker 3: the passage that you've just quoted in John seventeen isn't
Speaker 3: it where it says Christ say, is the only true God,
Speaker 3: And any Christian who knows the scripture just goes, well,
Speaker 3: keep reading some and then what you get to is
Speaker 3: you get to the bit where Christ says, and now
Speaker 3: glorify me Father with the glory that I had with
Speaker 3: you before the beginning, before the beginning, before the creation
Speaker 3: of the world, thus demonstrating Christ's divinity. Now, any Muslim's progressed,
Speaker 3: any Muslim apologist or polemasist who's progressed past very basics
Speaker 3: of I've got you on this verse will then counter
Speaker 3: to the fact that the Christian points out Christ's pre
Speaker 3: exist and sharing of eternal glory with a father by
Speaker 3: going on and then saying, ah, well hold on. Later
Speaker 3: in that same passage, it says that Jesus will share
Speaker 3: that glory with his followers, and thus therefore it shows
Speaker 3: that he isn't God. But actually, what you're saying is
Speaker 3: is is correct. It's the idea that by taking on
Speaker 3: human form, Christ is elevating the humanity or that we
Speaker 3: have that when we are in him, when we embrace him,
Speaker 3: that we are able to share in the divine energy,
Speaker 3: in the divine attributes like eternality. And here's the thing.
Speaker 3: Muslims might be scandalized by that, but don't they also
Speaker 3: believe in eternal life. Don't they also believe that they
Speaker 3: are going to enter into eternal existence? And if that
Speaker 3: eternal existence is something that is a predica only of
Speaker 3: God alone, how can they possibly share in it? How
Speaker 3: can they have a hope of eternal existence except by
Speaker 3: sharing in something that is the divine attribute of God alone?
Speaker 2: Yeah? Absolutely, you know they've.
Speaker 3: Got the same They've got this scandal within their theology
Speaker 3: that they're not even aware of because they've never sat
Speaker 3: down and thought about it.
Speaker 2: Yeah.
Speaker 1: I want to add too real quick. If you want us,
Speaker 1: we will be reading superchat later on. So if you
Speaker 1: want to support this chat, this discussion, this channel, you
Speaker 1: can do that with Superchat questions. A bit of a
Speaker 1: scuffle that has immerged in the chat the answer to
Speaker 1: this question about I just want to address this real
Speaker 1: quick because everybody's sort of obsessed with this. When we
Speaker 1: say that Christ suffered death in his humanity, that's absolutely orthodox,
Speaker 1: that's in the creed. You have to believe that this
Speaker 1: human nature underwent death. So we're not saying that his
Speaker 1: humanity died and ceased to exist. He underwent the experience
Speaker 1: of death in his humanity read Book three of Saint
Speaker 1: John Damascus. And then in the resurrection he raised and
Speaker 1: restored that nature to a higher state. That is the
Speaker 1: Orthodox doctrine.
Speaker 2: He did die in his human nature.
Speaker 1: And so whoever this guy is that's saying that Christ
Speaker 1: can't die in his humanity is incorrect. Email you are
Speaker 1: incorrect anyway, So.
Speaker 3: Yes, he is incorrect. He is incorrect. It says it
Speaker 3: in scripture, the Apostolic Fathers teach it. And you know,
Speaker 3: the other thing to bear in mind is that lots
Speaker 3: of people confuse death with non existence. At that point,
Speaker 3: Christ died and ceased to exist in any state. Christ
Speaker 3: continued to exist, the logos continued to exist, but he
Speaker 3: no longer continued to exist in the state that existed
Speaker 3: before death. Right, And that's the point that lots of
Speaker 3: people confuse. Now I'm just thinking, Jay, we're running out
Speaker 3: of time to get through all of these fifteen. So
Speaker 3: what I suggest is one I picked, and we hammer
Speaker 3: two more, and then we move on to our next topic.
Speaker 3: Is there a particular one that you want to have
Speaker 3: a go at.
Speaker 1: Yeah, let's say we got several here, yeah, here's the
Speaker 1: good one that comes up. And actually several of these
Speaker 1: are kind of derivative of the same issue. Why does
Speaker 1: Jesus say in John seventeen three, I'll let you answer,
Speaker 1: and I'll give you my answer. Why does Jesus say
Speaker 1: the Father is greater than I? And why does Jesus
Speaker 1: say I'm ascending to my Father, to my.
Speaker 2: God and to your God. How does Jesus have a
Speaker 2: god if he's God?
Speaker 3: Okay, yeah, well so, I mean, if you go to
Speaker 3: Philippians chapter two, you've already alluded to it. You know
Speaker 3: the passage that I'm going to quote reading from verse
Speaker 3: three Christ. And this is an important thing because it
Speaker 3: demonstrates that our moral conduct is actually rooted in theological truths,
Speaker 3: Because Paul is about to make a statement about how
Speaker 3: we should behave based upon a theological narrative. Do nothing
Speaker 3: from selfie or empty conceit, but with humility of mind,
Speaker 3: regard one another as more important than yourselves. Do not
Speaker 3: merely look out for your own personal interests, but also
Speaker 3: for the interests of others. Have this attitude in yourselves,
Speaker 3: which was also in Christ. Jesus, who, although he existed
Speaker 3: in the form of God, did not regard equality with
Speaker 3: God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself, taking
Speaker 3: the form of a bond servant and being made in
Speaker 3: the likeness of men. So when when the divine Logos,
Speaker 3: when the divine Logos, who shared the glory with the
Speaker 3: Father before the world was, became a man, He's not
Speaker 3: going to become an atheist man. He's not going to
Speaker 3: suddenly deny God's existence, is he And so when he
Speaker 3: becomes a man, he takes on the status of a servant,
Speaker 3: it says, which is the way to interpret all of
Speaker 3: these statements about I am going to my God and
Speaker 3: you God, because in his humanity, his humanity as also
Speaker 3: being the person of the Son, because that's a continuous
Speaker 3: state all the way through both post and preincarnation. There
Speaker 3: is that status in which he is the son of
Speaker 3: the Father. But now he is the son of the
Speaker 3: Father in human form, and humanity must glorify God. That
Speaker 3: is what it's all about. That's what the whole purpose
Speaker 3: of life is that our humanity glorifies God, and Christ,
Speaker 3: being the perfect man, glorifies God the Father. And so
Speaker 3: he can speak rightfully in his humanity of having my
Speaker 3: God and your God. He's speaking to human beings. He's
Speaker 3: speaking as a human being. And what was the other
Speaker 3: passage that you mentioned about the Father being the only
Speaker 3: true God?
Speaker 2: Yeah, the Father.
Speaker 3: I mean, the Father is greater than I in the
Speaker 3: sense that he is he is, he has taken on
Speaker 3: a human nature. This is not a statement about This
Speaker 3: is not a statement about that his ontology in his
Speaker 3: divinity is somehow less than the father's. It is that
Speaker 3: he has taken on a lower status than the Father.
Speaker 3: The scripture is clear that he's taken on the form
Speaker 3: of a servant, and thus he can rightfully speak as
Speaker 3: the Father being greater than I. You know, But when
Speaker 3: you look at these passages, Christ also says things like
Speaker 3: honor me as you honor the Father. Now, you're a
Speaker 3: logical thinking person, Jay, and I'm sure many of your
Speaker 3: audience must be as well, because that's the kind of
Speaker 3: person you'll attract. Who is who is the Father? The
Speaker 3: Father is God? How do you honor God? You honor
Speaker 3: God with divine worship. You honor God as God. So
Speaker 3: if Jesus Christ is saying honor me as you honor
Speaker 3: the Father, what is he saying? He's saying, honor me
Speaker 3: as God, and that the worst thing that a Muslim
Speaker 3: can do is to try to use John to argue
Speaker 3: against the idea of Christ's divinity, when the whole point
Speaker 3: of John's Gospel is to demonstrate christ divinity. You know,
Speaker 3: there's another passage where where Christ says, I of myself
Speaker 3: can do nothing. In that same passage, which is John five,
Speaker 3: Christ also says on me, as you want to the Father,
Speaker 3: and he says, I do exactly what I see the
Speaker 3: Father doing. Everything that the Father. What the Father does
Speaker 3: I do? If we just go to it, I want
Speaker 3: to get the exact wording because it is important. In
Speaker 3: John five, Christ says, truly, truly, I say to you,
Speaker 3: the son of the Son can do nothing of himself
Speaker 3: unless it is something he sees the Father doing. And
Speaker 3: Muslims use this as an argument to show that Christ
Speaker 3: is not God. For whatever the Father does these things,
Speaker 3: the son also does in like manner. And I just
Speaker 3: think about that, whatever the Father does, the son also
Speaker 3: does in like manner. So when the Father creates, what
Speaker 3: does the son do? When the Father gives life, what
Speaker 3: does the son do when the Father, you know, exists
Speaker 3: before the world or creates the angels or commands the angels?
Speaker 3: What does the Son do you know? And and and
Speaker 3: Muslims miss all of this. They're just picking and choosing
Speaker 3: individual versus out of context, and it demonstrates a lack
Speaker 3: of sincerity on their part that they are not engaging
Speaker 3: with the text. And invariably, when you read just a
Speaker 3: bit further on, a bit further down, it always compromises
Speaker 3: their argument. When Christ says that the Father is the
Speaker 3: only true God, he's speaking to Jews in a context
Speaker 3: in which they are being dominated by Romans and had
Speaker 3: just been previously dominated by Greeks, both of which were pagans.
Speaker 3: So to say that the Father was the only true
Speaker 3: God is to say that the Caesar is not a god,
Speaker 3: or that Pluto is not a god, or that you know,
Speaker 3: Jupiter is not a god, that none of these other
Speaker 3: gods are God, that the Father alone is God in
Speaker 3: that context, but that none of the statements that Muslims
Speaker 3: use ever ever create the impression that Jesus is just
Speaker 3: a man. There's always room within the interpretation that Jesus,
Speaker 3: even when he says that the Father is the only
Speaker 3: true God, doesn't exclude Christ from divinity. It doesn't exclude
Speaker 3: Christ from divinity. It doesn't say that I am just
Speaker 3: a human being.
Speaker 2: You know.
Speaker 3: And when when Muslims say, you show me where Jesus
Speaker 3: says I am God in these words, We'll show me
Speaker 3: where Jesus says I am just a human being, he
Speaker 3: doesn't say that. You know, it's a silly form of argument.
Speaker 1: But yeah, well, of course, and he actually does say
Speaker 1: many times over I am So he actually does, yes, exactly,
Speaker 1: I mean.
Speaker 2: And when you.
Speaker 1: Understand that the Old Testament, Theophanes are actually manifestations of
Speaker 1: the logos than many many times over all throughout the
Speaker 1: Old Testament, every time God is speaking and saying I
Speaker 1: am the Lord, there is no other that's actually Jesus talking.
Speaker 1: So but they don't actually understand that because they don't
Speaker 1: understand that. They think Jesus is like this this new
Speaker 1: creation like that, you know, like arians thought.
Speaker 2: That that he well, actually don't, don't.
Speaker 1: Don't Muslims think that there was there's some kind of
Speaker 1: logos that's related to Jesus or something like this.
Speaker 2: You would know more about this than they say that that.
Speaker 3: Muslims say that Jesus is the creation of Allah, that
Speaker 3: he created Allah by that that the Allah created Jesus
Speaker 3: by a word, that Jesus is just a word spoken
Speaker 3: by Allah. And in their theology they just think it's
Speaker 3: the word command be and he became. It's kind of
Speaker 3: like that. But but I don't think they they they
Speaker 3: thought through the implication that that that it's the Kuranic
Speaker 3: text and in fact might be able to just find it.
Speaker 3: Let's the I mean, there are some Christians that argue
Speaker 3: that this actually demonstrates that even in the Koran, there
Speaker 3: is this idea of Christ's divinity, because how can God
Speaker 3: ever be separated from his words. So if if Jesus
Speaker 3: is but a word from Allah, well that word must
Speaker 3: have eternally been with Allah. You know. Muslims have the
Speaker 3: complication within the idea that the divine attributes, like the
Speaker 3: words that we find in the Iran. Our eternal is
Speaker 3: an eternal book. But this eternal book, these eternal words
Speaker 3: that have apparently always existed in the Mother of the book,
Speaker 3: have become now written texts, and so you have a
Speaker 3: compromising of the what is said to be a divine attribute,
Speaker 3: a divine reality, crossing over the barrier and entering into
Speaker 3: the contingent world. As it were, but they don't have
Speaker 3: They don't have the same view of Jesus that we do.
Speaker 3: They think he is just a creation, akin to Adam
Speaker 3: being it became, is their logic. Some Christians argue that
Speaker 3: because the Koran says that that Jesus is just a
Speaker 3: word from Allah, that therefore that word is also eternal.
Speaker 3: And you can make that kind of argument certainly that
Speaker 3: the Koran is not without his problems on that.
Speaker 1: Okay, so I'm sorry I need to address this again
Speaker 1: because the chat is being ridiculous. So Emil I explained
Speaker 1: earlier on the Communicatio Idiomatum. This is Saint Cyril's explanation
Speaker 1: that whatever's true of either nature's can be spoken of
Speaker 1: the whole Christ. That does not mean that when we
Speaker 1: speak of the death of Christ that we don't therefore
Speaker 1: mean that he died in his humanity. The divine nature
Speaker 1: is impassable. When we say the nature of humans, Christ
Speaker 1: humans nature does it's the person of the Logos that
Speaker 1: underwent death in his human nature. It is the human
Speaker 1: nature that died. You're committing the Monophysite Theopaschite heresy by
Speaker 1: saying that the Logos died. That's why Saint Cyril explains
Speaker 1: it as communicastio idiomatum. The Logos died in his humanity.
Speaker 1: The whole section of Book three of John Damascus refused
Speaker 1: the basic mistake that you're making, and I'm going to
Speaker 1: ban you because you keep monopolizing the chat over something
Speaker 1: that is not the topic that we're discussing. It's a
Speaker 1: basic Christological mistake that you're making, and you won't listen.
Speaker 1: That's why I'm going to ban you. Anyway, I'm sorry,
Speaker 1: So let's move on.
Speaker 2: Maybe to the issue of Christian politics.
Speaker 1: Do you want to move on to that, because I
Speaker 1: do actually have a debate with the Kurgan that's coming
Speaker 1: up here a little bit. No, you don't agree with
Speaker 1: what I just said, because what I just said is
Speaker 1: addressing the mistake that you're making. We have to distinguish
Speaker 1: nature in person. Even after Christ is incarnate, he has
Speaker 1: two natures. He does not die in his divinity. That's
Speaker 1: why you don't get communicatio idio mantum. Anything that we
Speaker 1: say of either of the nature is is true of
Speaker 1: the whole Christ. So did God die, Yes, in the
Speaker 1: sense of his human nature undergoing death. This is a
Speaker 1: basic mistake that you're making you're starting to make me mad.
Speaker 1: So again, you take, let's talk about let's talk about
Speaker 1: let's talk about politics.
Speaker 2: So you take, you take the next part.
Speaker 3: So so moving on, So moving on in terms of
Speaker 3: in terms of Christian politics, Let's just do a bit
Speaker 3: of an introduction because I've often been perturbed by this
Speaker 3: thought that we've had prime minister after prime minister and
Speaker 3: president after president who are professing Christians, and yet the
Speaker 3: position of the Church and the position of the Christian
Speaker 3: communities continue to get worse. Laws are being passed that
Speaker 3: are contradictory to a Christian world view, and these laws
Speaker 3: are often being passed by Christians or people that profess
Speaker 3: to be Christians. Now possibly, I mean, I try to
Speaker 3: be charitable, so if someone says that they are a Christian,
Speaker 3: I don't presume to judge other wise unless they give
Speaker 3: me lots of good reasons to presume otherwise. And I'm
Speaker 3: often willing to accept that people can think erroneously about
Speaker 3: politics despite the fact that they are Christian. So I
Speaker 3: wondered as to why that is, and I've kind of
Speaker 3: come to the conclusion that the reason why you can
Speaker 3: have a prime minister that is willing to pass a
Speaker 3: law that change is the definition of marriage, or a
Speaker 3: Christian Prime minister that's willing to pass laws in favor
Speaker 3: of divorce or abortion, or even presidents I mean in
Speaker 3: America who do similar such things like you know, I
Speaker 3: think in America, President Obama passed a law that compelled
Speaker 3: Catholic adoption agencies to hand children over to gay couples,
Speaker 3: despite the fact that it contradicts our faith. I don't know,
Speaker 3: you can correct me if that particular factoid is wrong.
Speaker 3: But why is that? And I've come to the conclusion
Speaker 3: it's because Christians don't have a political consciousness that is
Speaker 3: rooted in their faith as a people, and that what
Speaker 3: Christians need to become conscious of is that because we
Speaker 3: are a collective, because we are a people known as
Speaker 3: the Church, we are the body of Christ, that that
Speaker 3: means that we have legitimate political interests in society that
Speaker 3: we have to defend. That we have to defend our
Speaker 3: own values which give rise to our own culture, and
Speaker 3: that the way that we need to do that is
Speaker 3: is by having a Christian political narrative that that is
Speaker 3: socially conservative, that seeks to defend things like married life,
Speaker 3: the family, that that is concerned with justice, so opposes
Speaker 3: things like you know, slavery, leaving people in poverty, you know,
Speaker 3: has a care for the poor, but also have a
Speaker 3: third element which is particularly unique, which is based upon
Speaker 3: solidarity with other Christians, the idea of political solidarity with
Speaker 3: other Christians in whatever they're going through, you know, particularly
Speaker 3: when the thing that they're going through is because they
Speaker 3: are a Christian. And that's sort of like what what
Speaker 3: a Christian political narrative looks like. And I think as
Speaker 3: as society continues to change and continues to change in
Speaker 3: a way that's Unchristian and even aggressive towards Christianity, the
Speaker 3: need for a political awakening amongst the church, a political
Speaker 3: consciousness amongst the church is increasing. We've just seen a
Speaker 3: coordinated attempt to wipe out Christians in Iraq and Syria.
Speaker 3: Catholics and Orthodox have suffered the brunt of that by
Speaker 3: Isis who have deliberately attempt to wipe out the church. There.
Speaker 3: There are attempts to persecute Christians in Central African Republic.
Speaker 3: There are attempts to persecute Christians in North Africa. There
Speaker 3: are there's persecution of Christians in Egypt, there's persecution of
Speaker 3: Christians in Pakistan, this persecution of Christians in Burma, and
Speaker 3: you know, and we as Christians, we've we've we we
Speaker 3: are just so mind bogglingly silent about this topic. I am.
Speaker 3: I am confounded as to why. And my only conclusion
Speaker 3: is that it's because Christians lack any kind of political
Speaker 3: narrative that is coherent. I'm going to ask, I'm going
Speaker 3: to ask Lewis very cheekly, if you could film like
Speaker 3: with water cuss I'm talking to you and I'm thirsty,
Speaker 3: and yeah, you're just your thoughts on that.
Speaker 2: Jay, Yeah, I mean, I think that my take.
Speaker 1: And we have a lot of talks and videos where
Speaker 1: we discussed this about the political aspects of Christian theology
Speaker 1: that's been lost as a result of a lot of
Speaker 1: developments in the West, particularly the Enlightenment. We absolutely an orthodoxy,
Speaker 1: believe that there has to be there is a doctrine
Speaker 1: of the civil state. You can see this in the
Speaker 1: development of Christian theology.
Speaker 2: I don't believe in the evolution of.
Speaker 1: Dogma, but there is a development of the theology of
Speaker 1: the Church Fathers that's legitimate, and that development, in our view,
Speaker 1: is getting greater and greater precision and clarifying. It's not
Speaker 1: the Roman Catholic notion of sort of evolving doctrine of
Speaker 1: Colonel Newman or something like that. So there is a
Speaker 1: doctrine of the civil state, and I think a lot
Speaker 1: of modern even orthanox in the West, are sort of
Speaker 1: unaware of this doctrine. In Russia, it's called sober noost,
Speaker 1: where you have the idea of community in our civil state. Theology,
Speaker 1: it's called simple nea where you have a balance of
Speaker 1: powers between the civil state under God and the Church
Speaker 1: under God. So both are under God. That's why you
Speaker 1: have the Byzantine double headed eagle, and so they're both accountable,
Speaker 1: but in different ways. Right, So the Church is spiritual,
Speaker 1: it does have a priority and a premacy of place
Speaker 1: over the state.
Speaker 2: But the state is not anti God.
Speaker 1: The state is not a thing that I mean, we
Speaker 1: believe that if you believe the biblical account, God actually
Speaker 1: established the state. It's God that gave no other right
Speaker 1: to exact the death penalty. And if you follow from
Speaker 1: Genesis nine where the death penalty is given, all the
Speaker 1: way up to Run thirteen, where Paul says that the
Speaker 1: state still has the authority from God as a diaconos.
Speaker 1: Paul uses the word and the term diaconos, which is
Speaker 1: a liturgical term for a deacon of the civil state.
Speaker 1: And that's why in the Byzantine symphonia notion you have
Speaker 1: the emperor actually could go behind the iconostasis. He was
Speaker 1: actually seen as a lesser minister of God. You could say,
Speaker 1: we would say that that is the norma, even all
Speaker 1: the way up into Father serfrom Rose, one of the
Speaker 1: more prominent defenders of the Book of Genesism in Orthodoxy
Speaker 1: in the modern period. In his book Nihilism, he says
Speaker 1: that the Orthodox imperium is the providential mode of government
Speaker 1: that God has ordained for Christianity, and that's why for
Speaker 1: hundreds and hundreds of years from millennia, the Church has
Speaker 1: done coronation ceremonies where you have Orthodox emperors and Orthodox kings.
Speaker 1: Chris made it to be ministers under God. So in
Speaker 1: our review this is not up for grabs. It's not
Speaker 1: something that nobody knows about. There is a political perspective
Speaker 1: that we're supposed to have, and although we don't know,
Speaker 1: necessarily apply everything from the mosaic legislation into the civil sphere.
Speaker 1: It's not judaizing, and it's not a heresy to have
Speaker 1: the same view of the way that the Church operated
Speaker 1: from after the Christianization of the Empire with Theodosius, all
Speaker 1: the way up until the Byzantine Fall. You have this
Speaker 1: simple notion of Symponia, that there's a balance of powers,
Speaker 1: that the state has a duty to keep the moral
Speaker 1: law of God. That is the orthodox view, and to
Speaker 1: deny that is actually just to adhere to the liberal
Speaker 1: and Enlightenment principles that come out of the Enlightenment. And
Speaker 1: that's why we don't really care for the Enlightenment too much.
Speaker 1: I mean, yeah, there was a lot of legitimate criticisms
Speaker 1: of corruption in the state and in the church in
Speaker 1: the West at that time, but that doesn't mean that
Speaker 1: all the principles of Voltaire and all these characters are
Speaker 1: necessarily the ideals that we want. So we do have
Speaker 1: to re evaluate and reinstitate, reinstitute, excuse me, the notion
Speaker 1: of a Christian civil order. Now, that's not in our view.
Speaker 1: Like our primary thing, we want to convert people first.
Speaker 1: We believe that there has to be a conversion on
Speaker 1: the inner side of man first, and that's.
Speaker 2: What if you look at the history of the Church.
Speaker 1: The martyrs of the first three centuries is what led
Speaker 1: eventually to the conversion of the Empire. We see that
Speaker 1: as a good thing, and so the same idea would apply.
Speaker 1: Now we're not trying to like we're let's go convert
Speaker 1: a bunch of kings and then they'll force everybody to
Speaker 1: be Orthodox and Christians.
Speaker 2: No, no, it's not like that.
Speaker 1: We convert hearts first, and then it spills out into
Speaker 1: the civil sphere. Right, So if we put things in
Speaker 1: the right order, eventually it will spill out into the
Speaker 1: political civil sphere when it's appropriate in our views. So
Speaker 1: and last one, last point, I'll Megan, I'll let you
Speaker 1: have the floor, which is that I will give Islam
Speaker 1: credit for understanding that God is not divorced from the
Speaker 1: rest of society, right. I mean, Christianity, because of its
Speaker 1: acceptance in the West, at least of Pietism and of
Speaker 1: the influence of the Enlightenment, has been severely weakened because
Speaker 1: it doesn't believe that, oh, God doesn't haveyhing to do
Speaker 1: with the civil sphere. That's just me and my church
Speaker 1: laugh on Sunday, and then the rest of the week
Speaker 1: is just whatever you want. Why is that well, because
Speaker 1: Jesus is just a hippie prophet, So there's a Nestorian
Speaker 1: and Aryan Enlightenment conception of Jesus and not understanding that
Speaker 1: he's actually a Ponto crad or he is actually king
Speaker 1: of kings, right, that means that he's actually over the
Speaker 1: civil state as well.
Speaker 3: I think, and I think the problem that the issue
Speaker 3: is that Christians have divorced the idea that we can
Speaker 3: hold politics as Christians. You know that a member of
Speaker 3: the laity can hold the highest office in the land.
Speaker 3: And I think part of that comes from an abuse
Speaker 3: of or as or an erroneous reading of Matthew twenty
Speaker 3: two fifteen, the idea of paying tribute to Caesar. Then
Speaker 3: the Pharisees went and plotted together how they might trap
Speaker 3: him in what he said, and they sent their disciples
Speaker 3: to him along with the Herodians, saying, teacher, we know
Speaker 3: that you are truthful and teach the way of God
Speaker 3: in truth, and defer to no one, for you are
Speaker 3: not partial to any tell us. Then what do you
Speaker 3: think it is lawful to give a pull tax to
Speaker 3: Caesar or not? Now? Why was that controversial question? It
Speaker 3: was because the Jewish believers, the Jewish community didn't like
Speaker 3: the idea of having Caesar as their king. They saw
Speaker 3: God as their king, and the idea of having a
Speaker 3: pagan image on their coinage broke the Jewish commandment. So
Speaker 3: it was kind of like, you know, where do you
Speaker 3: stand on this? And the Herodians were people who were
Speaker 3: supporters of the Party of Herod, who was the son
Speaker 3: of Herod the Great, and the idea of him being
Speaker 3: the puppet king of the Roman occupiers. And Jesus answer
Speaker 3: was this. But Jesus perceived their malice and said, why
Speaker 3: are you testing me, you hipoc show me the coin
Speaker 3: use for the poll tax. And they brought him a denarius,
Speaker 3: and he said to them, whose likeness and inscription is this?
Speaker 3: They said to him, Caesars. Then he said to them,
Speaker 3: then render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and
Speaker 3: to God's the things that are God's. And hearing this,
Speaker 3: they were amazed, and leaving him they went away. Now
Speaker 3: why were they amazed? People were paying the poll tax.
Speaker 3: So it sounds at a very surface level Jesus is
Speaker 3: just saying, go along with whatever you know is going
Speaker 3: along with the current thing. But it's in his answer
Speaker 3: that it is the amazingness of his answer, because he says,
Speaker 3: render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to
Speaker 3: God the things that are God's. Well, according to the
Speaker 3: Old Testament, what belongs to God. He says in the
Speaker 3: Psalms that the earth is the Lord's and everything upon it.
Speaker 3: So when Jesus says, render to Caesar, what belongs to Caesar,
Speaker 3: and to God what belongs to God, he's saying everything
Speaker 3: belongs to God. That means politics belongs to God. It
Speaker 3: means political authority belongs to God. It means political office
Speaker 3: belongs to God. It means the nation state belongs to God.
Speaker 3: And we as Christians must render our political office to God.
Speaker 3: We must render the state to God. We must render
Speaker 3: our political activism to God. But in the Enlightenment, what
Speaker 3: happened was this verse was used as a way of
Speaker 3: separating politics from religion, and so lots of people have
Speaker 3: this erroneous view that the church, and I use this
Speaker 3: in the broadest sense, that the body of believers me
Speaker 3: and you as part of the Church, the laity, that
Speaker 3: the Church should stay out of politics, and that religion
Speaker 3: is just this private thing that we keep to ourselves
Speaker 3: and we don't infuse it with politics. Well, we've seen
Speaker 3: where that leads and it's not led to anywhere good.
Speaker 3: So I think it's time that the Church has a
Speaker 3: rethink on this topic and that actually we see that
Speaker 3: we should use any influence or authority that we have
Speaker 3: in society to nudge and to be a light that
Speaker 3: shines out on a hill, to be the salt the
Speaker 3: yeast that levens a hole, to be salt in the earth,
Speaker 3: and to deconate to move society in a Christian direction,
Speaker 3: you know, and that is about rendering to God what
Speaker 3: belongs to God, because Jesus is saying that Caesar belongs
Speaker 3: to God. And that's why this answer was amazing. That's why,
Speaker 3: because he managed to get out of the trap that
Speaker 3: they've laid for him without ever compromising the truth of scripture.
Speaker 3: And I think that Christians need to recapture this vision
Speaker 3: of seeking a Christian politic, a Christian society, and what
Speaker 3: I mean by that is the idea that we are
Speaker 3: a Christian politic, we are a Christian society in this
Speaker 3: world that we exist. You were talking about the theology
Speaker 3: that the political narrative that developed after the conversion of Caesar.
Speaker 3: But we don't live in that world now. We live
Speaker 3: in a world where many Caesars are against Christ. Back
Speaker 3: as actually that at the time when the New Testament
Speaker 3: was written, there are many Caesars that are against Christ.
Speaker 3: Obama was against Christ, Cameron was against Christ. Mercle is
Speaker 3: against Christ. There are many caesars now. The caliphates were
Speaker 3: all against Christ. You know, all of these Caesars are
Speaker 3: against Christ. Stalin Hitler, they were all against Christ. We
Speaker 3: as Christians now are in a world where where we
Speaker 3: have to re We're in a pre Constantine time and
Speaker 3: we have to re envision what it means to reconvert
Speaker 3: the empire, as it were, to reconvert the states that
Speaker 3: we live in. And an example of someone who's done
Speaker 3: that to some degree is the President of Hungary, you know,
Speaker 3: who's very much about incorporating the idea of Christian identity
Speaker 3: into his political narrative, even to the point that he
Speaker 3: has established a political office, the Department of State, that
Speaker 3: is dedicated to helping persecute a Christians.
Speaker 1: You know, that's a great point. Your thoughts, No, I
Speaker 1: fully agree with that. I think that we're going to
Speaker 1: let me ask you.
Speaker 3: A question then, because I mean one of one of
Speaker 3: the arguments that's often used about, often used against this idea.
Speaker 3: It is this idea that you know it was never
Speaker 3: intended that the Church should be in power. How do
Speaker 3: you respond to that? What's your thought on that.
Speaker 1: Yeah, it's a misunderstanding of the predictions and prophecies of
Speaker 1: the Old Testaments. In fact, many times in Isaiah and
Speaker 1: the latter chapters of Isaiah, Isaiah predicts that the Church
Speaker 1: will actually have tremendous power and influence in the world.
Speaker 1: In fact, kings and emperors and queens will submit to
Speaker 1: the law as it goes for from Zion. And we
Speaker 1: know that those are all predictions of the Messianic period
Speaker 1: and therefore of the Church. So when Jesus established the kingdom,
Speaker 1: if you look at Daniel two, the kingdom that the
Speaker 1: Messiah sits up is the one that will actually conquer
Speaker 1: the empire under which the Messiah is born. So Daniel
Speaker 1: actually predicts in Daniel two, Daniel seven, and Daniel nine
Speaker 1: the conversion of the Roman Empire. And I've made many
Speaker 1: videos and discussions about this as a powerful prophetic testament
Speaker 1: to the inspiration and authority of the scriptures. So it's
Speaker 1: just a basic misunderstanding of what the doctrine of the
Speaker 1: New Testament actually is. And it's assuming that it's out
Speaker 1: of accord with all of those Old Testament prophecies of
Speaker 1: the victory and power of the Church. In fact, all
Speaker 1: of those prophecies and predictions, for example, about the covenant
Speaker 1: curses and blessings in Deuteronomy twenty eight and the latter
Speaker 1: chapters of Leviticus, those are actually applied in Revelation two
Speaker 1: and three by Jesus himself to the church. The Covenant
Speaker 1: curses and blessings model is applied to the Church, and
Speaker 1: Jesus says that if.
Speaker 2: You are faithful to me, I will actually give you.
Speaker 1: A victory over your oppressors and over your persecutors. So
Speaker 1: we aren't necessarily out first and foremost to seek political power.
Speaker 1: We are out first and foremost to convert the nations.
Speaker 1: And then political power itself again is from God. And
Speaker 1: you have to deny ultimately the root of this in Genesis.
Speaker 1: And this is of course why a lot of people
Speaker 1: deny the text of Genesis. We're big defenders of Genesis here,
Speaker 1: but God actually gave the right to exact the death
Speaker 1: penalty to Noah. State rulers are not outside the authority
Speaker 1: and providence of God.
Speaker 2: Even pagan emperors.
Speaker 1: If you read the Book of Daniel, you'll notice that
Speaker 1: Nebucaneser was under the providence of God, and Daniel tells
Speaker 1: Nebucaneser this that you need. Basically, the whole first several
Speaker 1: chapters of Daniel is about Nebganese being humbled and realizing
Speaker 1: that he has to submit to God. So the holistic
Speaker 1: interpretation of the Bible from Genesis all the way up
Speaker 1: through God consistently holds rulers, even pagan rulers, accountable to
Speaker 1: He has moral law, accountable.
Speaker 2: To the Ten Commandments.
Speaker 1: So even though God providentially can use the pagan nations too,
Speaker 1: for example, in the Old Testament chastise Israel many times over,
Speaker 1: it doesn't mean that those.
Speaker 2: Rulers aren't accountable.
Speaker 1: In fact, in Isaiah, when God talks about using the
Speaker 1: Babylonians against Israel as a chastisement, God says, I will
Speaker 1: then turn around and chastise the Babylonians for their paganism
Speaker 1: and their idolatry. So civil rulers are bound to Christ.
Speaker 1: They have to submit to Christ. And that's always been
Speaker 1: the doctrine of the Church. Now, there was some confusion
Speaker 1: in the first second century of the Church because some
Speaker 1: people like Tertullian and other people who didn't end up
Speaker 1: being kind of are accepted theologians who were early writers.
Speaker 1: They thought that, well, maybe the end of the world
Speaker 1: is coming really soon, and maybe we're not supposed to
Speaker 1: have anything to do with the civil state.
Speaker 2: But the Church, for the most part.
Speaker 1: In its saints and in it's recognized the Elogians. You
Speaker 1: can actually read Saint Clement. The letters of Saint Clement
Speaker 1: early early on, affirm the death penalty, and they affirm the.
Speaker 2: Duty of the ruler to God. Right, so this is
Speaker 2: all just made up Enlightenment nonsense.
Speaker 3: There is a political narrative right there in the Church Fathers.
Speaker 3: I think many Christians have this. Certain Christians have a
Speaker 3: sort of false concept that it seems like only non
Speaker 3: Christians are destined to be instituted into political office. And
Speaker 3: it's you know, they read Romans thirteen, where it says
Speaker 3: every person is to be subject in subjection to the
Speaker 3: governing authorities, for there is no authority except from God,
Speaker 3: and those which exist are established by God. Now they
Speaker 3: use that, But then they have this really weird interpretation
Speaker 3: that states that that only applies to non Christian political authority,
Speaker 3: that actually it's all the Pagans, the Muslims, and the
Speaker 3: Communists and the fascists that are destined to be in charge.
Speaker 3: But if you take that worse seriously, then when Constantine converts,
Speaker 3: so when a Christian president is in power, you know,
Speaker 3: then that obviously applies to them as well, and they
Speaker 3: are still a disciple of Christ even though they are
Speaker 3: in political office. And then lots of Christians will will
Speaker 3: have this idea, well, you know, it is a Christian
Speaker 3: who's in political office, so they have to conduct themselves honestly,
Speaker 3: and they have to be fair, and they sort of
Speaker 3: treat it like, you know, like you would behave in
Speaker 3: any everyday work that you might do that doesn't have
Speaker 3: a greater wider social implication, and that you just have
Speaker 3: to act with integrity. And they reduce the idea of
Speaker 3: a Christian in political office to simply questions of integrity.
Speaker 3: But that is that is not actually what natural law demands,
Speaker 3: that is not what justice demands, it's not what Christian
Speaker 3: discipleship demands. It means that a Christian has to pass
Speaker 3: Christian policies based upon a Christian worldview, and that might
Speaker 3: mean that they have to be pragmatic. Like Constant Team
Speaker 3: was pragmatic. He didn't just become a Christian and then decide, right,
Speaker 3: I'm going to destroy all the pagan temples. He just
Speaker 3: did what was politically pragmatic for the good of the church.
Speaker 3: And he passed the Edict of Milan, and he made
Speaker 3: it legal to be a Christian, and he made Christianity
Speaker 3: one of the official Roman religions, and then he allowed
Speaker 3: restitution and he compensated Christians for their losses. But he
Speaker 3: didn't suddenly start going around making, you know, the ancient
Speaker 3: pagan Roman religions illegal. You know, so you've sometimes got
Speaker 3: to be pragmatic because we still live in a sinful world.
Speaker 3: But Christians should have a political vision and they should
Speaker 3: seek to pass Christian laws. And so when a Christian
Speaker 3: finds themselves in the political office, they should believe that
Speaker 3: they are there because God put them there, which means
Speaker 3: that they have a purpose for being there, you know.
Speaker 3: And if you're truly to be governed by Christian discipleship,
Speaker 3: then that means that the cause of the persecuted church
Speaker 3: has to rank really, really high in your list of priorities.
Speaker 3: It's got to be in the top three. You know.
Speaker 3: It's kind of like, you cannot be a Christian and
Speaker 3: when you have the opportunity to intervene against the persecution
Speaker 3: of Christians, you do nothing. It cannot be that that,
Speaker 3: when you have the actual ability and means an opportunity
Speaker 3: to try and alleviate the persecuted church, that you do nothing.
Speaker 3: When you have that power and authority. Me and you, Jay,
Speaker 3: We're never going to get close to that kind of office.
Speaker 3: But anyone whoever, ever ever hears this, whoever's listening to this,
Speaker 3: you know, whatever position you're in in legitimate authority, you're
Speaker 3: there because God put you there, and that means that
Speaker 3: you have a purpose for being there.
Speaker 2: Yeah.
Speaker 1: Our model is you look at something like the Code
Speaker 1: of Justinian. I mean, he's a saint and an Orthodox
Speaker 1: emperor because he I mean he was also a theologian, right,
Speaker 1: I mean we believe he was Orthodox. We believe that
Speaker 1: he defined and laid out some solid Christological writings and confirmed.
Speaker 2: The Orthodox faith.
Speaker 1: So he is a model monarch, as are you know,
Speaker 1: great Kings of Serbia, as are many Russian kings and
Speaker 1: so forth. So that's the norm, that's the classical view.
Speaker 1: And I really appreciate that you are bringing attention to this,
Speaker 1: because the political sphere has to be governed by the
Speaker 1: moral law of God.
Speaker 2: Yeah.
Speaker 3: Absolutely, But then you've got the question of, you know, politically,
Speaker 3: what do we do when we're faced by caliphates and
Speaker 3: communists and Nazis. You know, the reality is that Christians,
Speaker 3: if you're a Christian, then that means that you have
Speaker 3: to pursue the heart of God. You have to pursue
Speaker 3: the things of God, and that means the justice and
Speaker 3: peace of God. And that therefore ideologies that are opposed
Speaker 3: to the justice and the peace of God, we as
Speaker 3: Christians must oppose. You know, the limits of political authority
Speaker 3: over the Church were limited when Peter. Let me just
Speaker 3: find the passage in the Book of Acts where the
Speaker 3: apostles were arrested. Right here we go in Acts chapter four,
Speaker 3: when Peter and John were arrested and the Sahandarin basically
Speaker 3: said to them stop preaching in the name of Christ.
Speaker 3: So we read from verse thirteen. Now, as they observed
Speaker 3: the confidence of Peter and John and understood that they
Speaker 3: were uneducated and untrained men. They were amazed and began
Speaker 3: to recognize them as having been with Jesus, and seeing
Speaker 3: the man who had been healed standing with them, they
Speaker 3: had nothing to say in reply. But when they had
Speaker 3: ordered them to leave the council, they began to confer
Speaker 3: with one another, saying, what shall we do with these men?
Speaker 3: For the fact that a noteworthy miracle has taken place
Speaker 3: through them is apparent to all who live in Jerusalem,
Speaker 3: and we cannot deny it, so that it will not
Speaker 3: spread any further amongst the people. Let us warn them
Speaker 3: to speak no longer to any man in this name.
Speaker 3: And when they had summoned them, they commanded them not
Speaker 3: to speak or teach at all in the name of Jesus.
Speaker 3: Now it's really important to recognize that this was the
Speaker 3: civil authority. This was the civil authority of the time.
Speaker 3: These people were speaking in their office, They were speaking
Speaker 3: as the legitimate civil authority, and they were giving a command.
Speaker 3: So these Romans thirteen kind of fundamentalists who believe that
Speaker 3: you should just surrender everything to the state and obey
Speaker 3: the state in every regard, no matter what it says.
Speaker 3: Listen to the next bit. But Peter and John Ansiden
Speaker 3: said to them, whether it is right, morally right, whether
Speaker 3: it is morally right, whether it is right in the
Speaker 3: sight of God to give heed to you rather than
Speaker 3: to God, you be the judge. In other words, they're
Speaker 3: saying that there is an authority higher than the civil authority.
Speaker 3: There is an authority higher than the parliament. There's an
Speaker 3: authority higher than the president. There's an authority higher than
Speaker 3: the secular authority. And wherever that secular authority is opposed
Speaker 3: to God, Christians must be rebels.
Speaker 1: Right, That's why there's martyrs. I mean, if if we
Speaker 1: just submitted to anything that the emperor said or that
Speaker 1: the pagan ruler said, then there wouldn't be martyrs. You
Speaker 1: would just sacrifice to the to the gods, and you
Speaker 1: would dig.
Speaker 3: The martyrs were deemed as criminals.
Speaker 2: Right.
Speaker 3: But you look at the church today and you hear
Speaker 3: these wimpy Christians quoting Romans thirteen to try and avoid
Speaker 3: any conflict with the secular states.
Speaker 2: Right, Yeah, that's total nonsense. Yeah, And we.
Speaker 3: As Christians, we need to rediscover this theology of martyrdom,
Speaker 3: this spirituality of martyrdom, because right now the liberal Western
Speaker 3: states are moving away from Christ. And it's reaching a
Speaker 3: point now where Christians have to choose, who are we
Speaker 3: going to follow? Are we going to follow the secular
Speaker 3: a liberal state? You know, when when the secular liberal
Speaker 3: state is telling you that you have to speak a
Speaker 3: lie and you have to call a man a woman
Speaker 3: and a woman and a man, and you have to,
Speaker 3: you know, go along with abortion, and you know, you
Speaker 3: have to go along with the whole liberal progressive agenda
Speaker 3: about definitions of the family and you know, the ideas
Speaker 3: of sexuality. And if you dare to speak out about
Speaker 3: these things, you're guilty of thought crimes. If you speak
Speaker 3: out against you know, multiculturalism, you're guilty of thought crimes.
Speaker 3: And we're beginning to see people being politically persecuted in
Speaker 3: the West for these things. Like we've got a choice
Speaker 3: to make. Are we just going to go along with
Speaker 3: a state? You know, the company mattresses are god kind
Speaker 3: of spirituality that permeates so much of the Church of
Speaker 3: England is not going to cut the kind of intolerance
Speaker 3: that we're seeing and it certainly wouldn't survive in a caliphate.
Speaker 3: You we've got to rediscover this idea of martyrdom. We've
Speaker 3: got to rediscover this idea that actually, you know, where
Speaker 3: the state is opposed to God, then then then that
Speaker 3: means that we're in conflict with the state, you know,
Speaker 3: and that means that Christians must actively work to bring
Speaker 3: down those political offices, those powers that be, those powers
Speaker 3: and authorities right are in opposed to the Gospel.
Speaker 1: Yeah, that's why I'm a constant critic of classical liberalism.
Speaker 1: Classical liberalism will never be able to stand up against Islam.
Speaker 1: Islam will crush the degeneracy that classical liberalism promotes and
Speaker 1: allows because it is based on an atheistic presupposition. All right,
Speaker 1: we're gonna have to take the superchats because I've got
Speaker 1: a debate debate coming up here in a little bit.
Speaker 2: Okay, so let's do those superchats if we can.
Speaker 3: See.
Speaker 1: Let me pull this up here, so Slavk for ten pounds.
Speaker 1: He says Islam came around six hundred years after Christ.
Speaker 1: Martyrs died for nothing until some pagan guy saw an angel.
Speaker 1: The only thing that they say in response to Acts
Speaker 1: for twelve in Galatians one, Ace one eight is that
Speaker 1: the New Testament is fake. So I think you're hinting
Speaker 1: at the sort of regurgitated arguments that you hear from
Speaker 1: Islamic apologists.
Speaker 2: Would you agree that the only thing.
Speaker 1: That they that they say is the New Testament is fake?
Speaker 1: Is that kind of like a fallback that you usually
Speaker 1: hear from from Islamic apology.
Speaker 3: Yeah, Muslims. Muslims will make this fake attempt at engaging
Speaker 3: with the scripture by misquoting textual versus. But then when
Speaker 3: you slam all their arguments by using the whole of
Speaker 3: the scripture, their, their, their, their fallback position is always, well,
Speaker 3: the scriptures were all corrupt and they're not trustworthy. But
Speaker 3: yet that I am not yet able to meet a
Speaker 3: Muslim that's provided any evidence of an original, Because if
Speaker 3: you're going to say that something is corrupted, you've got
Speaker 3: to be able to evidence that there was an original
Speaker 3: that it was corrupted from. And the fact of the
Speaker 3: matter is that Muslims have presented no evidence at all
Speaker 3: for their idea of an ingeal that was first given
Speaker 3: that as an incorrupted text that was suddenhow lost. There's
Speaker 3: no evidence of such a text existing arguments that reference
Speaker 3: Q and P. In terms of textual criticism. Well, these
Speaker 3: are the sayings of Jesus that we have in the Gospels.
Speaker 3: You know that that's why this correlation between the synoptics.
Speaker 3: They're not proof of some they're not proof of some
Speaker 3: Islamic in ingel their text that the if the theory
Speaker 3: is true, that they're evidence of a Christian text, a
Speaker 3: sort of manual of the sayings of Jesus that was
Speaker 3: permeating the Christian community. And if you read the beginning
Speaker 3: of Luke, you know that that's more than fits within
Speaker 3: a Christian world view, because Luke actually references the fact
Speaker 3: that other people had written down accounts even before he'd
Speaker 3: written down his. So where's this, Jael, guys, where's the
Speaker 3: evidence of.
Speaker 1: Okay, so Emil who monopolized the chat and wouldn't shut
Speaker 1: up about this. It did end up getting banned, but
Speaker 1: he left a super chat and he said Jay is
Speaker 1: married the Mother of God only, the mother of his
Speaker 1: humanity and his human nature.
Speaker 2: And do natures die?
Speaker 1: Now again, I answered this question multiple times when I
Speaker 1: said that there was one divine person present, Cyril uses
Speaker 1: the formula of a sole subject present for all of
Speaker 1: Christ's in carnate actions. Who is the divine person of
Speaker 1: the logos? There's no created human hypostasis in Christ. I've
Speaker 1: done countless lectures on this. I lectured through the entirety
Speaker 1: of the Exposition of Orthodox Faith. So I'm really depressed
Speaker 1: that you monopolize the chat with this basic mistake. So
Speaker 1: I'm going to read to you the section of John
Speaker 1: Damascus's Exposition Orthodox Faith, Chapter twenty six, book three, where
Speaker 1: he says, concerning the passion of our Lord and the
Speaker 1: impassibility of his divinity. Did you hear me the Word
Speaker 1: of God endured all of this in the flesh?
Speaker 2: What did I say?
Speaker 1: I said, he died in his flesh. He is a
Speaker 1: divine person who underwent death in his flesh. That's his
Speaker 1: human nature, while the divine nature alone was passionless and
Speaker 1: remained devoid of passion. Can you read that his divine
Speaker 1: nature was passionless and remained devoid of passion, So his
Speaker 1: human nature died.
Speaker 2: Does that mean that Mary is Christodicos?
Speaker 1: No, we're not an historian. So there's two ways that
Speaker 1: you could understand this. You can understand this in the
Speaker 1: way that Saint Cyril does, who invented the term communicatio idiomodem,
Speaker 1: which is the communication of properties, which is that whatever's
Speaker 1: true of either nature can be spoken of the whole Christ.
Speaker 1: It doesn't mean that the divine hypostasis died. As a
Speaker 1: divine hypostasis, he underwent death. He yes, that subject in
Speaker 1: his human nature, his divine hypostasis did not die. And
Speaker 1: as John goes on to talk about the death and
Speaker 1: descent of Christ, he makes that very clear. The word
Speaker 1: of God, the logos, remained inseparable from the soul and
Speaker 1: the body even at his death, and his subsistence continued
Speaker 1: to be one that refutes everything that you said.
Speaker 2: Let's move on.
Speaker 3: To the title. Theotokos is obviously a defense of Christ's divinity, right.
Speaker 1: It's a defense of the fact that the divine person
Speaker 1: that she get, the only person that she gave birth to,
Speaker 1: is a divine person.
Speaker 2: Right.
Speaker 1: So did he get his human nature from her? Yes,
Speaker 1: But the person that she gave birth to is the logos.
Speaker 1: I have lectured on Saint Cyril against an Astorreus for years.
Speaker 1: I don't know why you would even come in here
Speaker 1: and make this silly argument. Alfonso Corral ten dollars, here's
Speaker 1: some mammon. Very a very interesting conversation so far.
Speaker 2: Well, thank you all. Fonzo appreciate that.
Speaker 1: Not a verse five bucks, She says, Jay good, amazing guest.
Speaker 1: Love to see Bob the Builder as a regular Hello,
Speaker 1: Bob brother, you're a legend at Speaker's Corner, so thank.
Speaker 2: You for that.
Speaker 1: And I don't see any more super chats, but that's okay. So, Bob,
Speaker 1: do you want to promote your own channel or Soco films?
Speaker 2: Are both? Which one? Do you prefer to both?
Speaker 3: So? Yeah, I mean if you could share the link
Speaker 3: to both the channels.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I put the Soco film's link in the description first,
Speaker 1: so I'll add your live channel as well. But everybody,
Speaker 1: if you want to subscribe to Bob's apologetics, go to
Speaker 1: the link in the description show, which is two Soco films.
Speaker 2: And then again, yes, so I will be debating the
Speaker 2: said a privationist, not a set of a contest.
Speaker 1: But by the way, they're going to fall into the
Speaker 1: same problems in a little bit.
Speaker 2: Here, let's see what is it.
Speaker 1: It's twelve forty in one hour on Ralph's channel on
Speaker 1: d Live, so.
Speaker 2: Come here that debate.
Speaker 1: This guy made a big stink in the last couple
Speaker 1: of weeks and almost all of his videos are insults
Speaker 1: and at Hominem's and cussing at me. So I don't
Speaker 1: know that this is going to be much of a debate.
Speaker 1: I think he was trying to debate me, debate me
Speaker 1: into this to get attention. Turns out the guy channels aliens,
Speaker 1: he believes UFO's bombed Mars, he does past life regression therapy,
Speaker 1: he believes in reincarnation. So I don't think this is
Speaker 1: going to be much of a debate.
Speaker 2: But because a lot of people really wanted to see this,
Speaker 2: I agreed to it. So that will be.
Speaker 1: At one fifty Central time. And thank you Bob the Builder.
Speaker 1: Everybody go subscribe to Bob check out his debates.
Speaker 2: He's got tons and.
Speaker 1: Tons of debates at Speaker's Corner that are video on YouTube.
Speaker 2: You can watch all those, Bob, Will you come back
Speaker 2: again for another chat?
Speaker 3: Yes? Absolutely, it's been a pleasure. Jay. What's this channel?
Speaker 3: Call this particular? So this one is called Bob the
Speaker 3: Build of Soco Films. If you want to if you
Speaker 3: want to subscribe to that, the link will appear with Jay.
Speaker 3: It's been a pleasure talking with you. Jay. I'm sure
Speaker 3: that there's lots of people again to benefit and that
Speaker 3: the church will hopefully be edified by this, and hopefully
Speaker 3: some Muslims we'll actually engage with. You know, what Christians
Speaker 3: really believe as opposed to what their Dowur team tells
Speaker 3: them that we believe. And you know, it's been a
Speaker 3: pleasure speaking with you. Let's let's do it again sometime.
Speaker 3: And uh, you know, I'm appreciative of all the work
Speaker 3: that you do. You know, it's a it's a great thing.
Speaker 2: All right, thank you very much.
Speaker 1: And again, if you want to check out my stuff,
Speaker 1: go to Jasoniscels dot com.
Speaker 2: Subscribe to the channel below. You can get my books Esotery.
Speaker 1: Hollywood one and two where I cover symbolism and film.
Speaker 1: So again look for the debate hearing about an hour
Speaker 1: and signing off just before.
Speaker 3: You go to anybody who wants to I'm going to
Speaker 3: do another Q and A after this back on our channel,
Speaker 3: so if you want to knit back over in about
Speaker 3: ten minutes, we'll do another Q.
Speaker 2: And A and that will be on Soco or on
Speaker 2: you or.
Speaker 3: The build of Soco Films.
Speaker 2: Okay, so I'll put the link to that.
Speaker 1: Everybody go to Bob the Builder Soco Films if you
Speaker 1: want to do Bob's Q and A, so hopefully you
Speaker 1: guys enjoyed it.
Speaker 2: God bless, have a good night.
Speaker 3: God bless. Peace Ready take care,