Speaker 1: This is not a very spy centric song. This is
Speaker 1: like a loud song. I want spy shit, dude, there
Speaker 1: we go, there we go. Give me some sixties spy
Speaker 1: stuff going, give me in the mood, give my vibes. Right,
Speaker 1: you know what I'm saying. Now, what I'm saying. Welcome
Speaker 1: to another late night stream. Today we're going to focus
Speaker 1: on problems in Protestanism and why Protestantism is false overallhem
Speaker 1: but we will also be welcoming calls from Catholics, Mormons, Charismatics,
Speaker 1: you name it. Any group that has various theological positions
Speaker 1: is welcome to call in that they take issue with. Right,
Speaker 1: if you feel like you would like to set me straight,
Speaker 1: tonight is your knight. You can call it. And yeah,
Speaker 1: if you want to talk about all the classic issues PSA,
Speaker 1: blah blah blah, we'll let you do it. I will
Speaker 1: also kind of intermittently comment on other topics issues clips
Speaker 1: relevant to today, including Wes huff coming at me right
Speaker 1: or as I should say, running away, not coming at me,
Speaker 1: going away from me, because the Protestants as a whole,
Speaker 1: it seems, are actually on the run. We've seen both
Speaker 1: DAWA and the Roman Catholics sphere pretty much collapse in
Speaker 1: terms of their apologetic approach. Dhahwa pretty much died last
Speaker 1: year when we did the sam Shamun Fresh and Fit
Speaker 1: debate with Hikikachu and he Jaws. We've not seen any
Speaker 1: significant debate challenges. Jake's done a few debates. Jake's pretty
Speaker 1: much the last of the Muslim debaters, and as I predicted,
Speaker 1: Rouslan has run from the debate. Although he admitted four
Speaker 1: times he wanted to do one, it was willing to
Speaker 1: do one. Now he demands I publicly apologize to his
Speaker 1: satisfaction and repent to him. I think Ruslan's got him
Speaker 1: and God mixed up. Like Rouslan seems to think that,
Speaker 1: as he named his channel, you can bless God, as
Speaker 1: of Godd needs a blessing or has some lack. Ruslan
Speaker 1: believes people w need to repent to him. Uh No, dude,
Speaker 1: I don't know what you're talking about. Rouselan believes that
Speaker 1: people should defer to him. He calls the shots when
Speaker 1: it comes to flexing channels, and I don't believe any
Speaker 1: of it. So I'm an atheist when it comes to Ruslanianism.
Speaker 1: I do not recognize the existence of Ruslan's spiritual auth already.
Speaker 1: So tonight is not mainly Ruslan as a topic, though
Speaker 1: I want to talk some about everybody's favorite Protestant apologist
Speaker 1: or what's left of him, who also now will not
Speaker 1: debate anyone. He is also removed himself from any debates.
Speaker 1: In fact, I don't even really think he did, like
Speaker 1: maybe one or two and they weren't even really Maybe
Speaker 1: he did more and I'm just not aware of it.
Speaker 1: But Galvin Orland and his interesting background when it comes
Speaker 1: to his dad, and the relationship to Christianity today, which
Speaker 1: I think is very sus So we're going to talk
Speaker 1: about some of that and the evangelical not just the
Speaker 1: griff sphere, but the sus sphere. Who is behind these people,
Speaker 1: who's funding these people? Does Christianity today have that kind
Speaker 1: of fed connection? Of course it does, of course it does.
Speaker 1: So we're gonna be talking about some of that today.
Speaker 1: The sort of evangelical mouthpiece of the Pentagon and the
Speaker 1: CIA establishment, much like we discussed for many, many years,
Speaker 1: way before Queen Kwondas did it. We talked about groups
Speaker 1: like TPUSA or evangelical ministries like Campus Crusade. Essentially being
Speaker 1: arms of the military industrial complex. They began actually out
Speaker 1: of the Pentagon if you don't know that, that's the
Speaker 1: actual history of campus crusade, and a plethora of evangelical
Speaker 1: groups actually do have a very close connection to cutouts, fronts, etc.
Speaker 1: You saw, for example, all over the news today vindicating myself,
Speaker 1: who's talked about this also for over ten years, radical
Speaker 1: fringe groups right like the neo in groups, the Christian
Speaker 1: identity groups which were essentially behind Eloheim City and the
Speaker 1: McVeigh event. We've talked about many cults having connections to
Speaker 1: intelligence agencies, shady suss funding and lo and behold, turns
Speaker 1: out we are vindicated. The allegations of the Department of
Speaker 1: Justice today are that multiple fake right wing entities were
Speaker 1: not just informed with or excuse me, infiltrated with informants,
Speaker 1: but we're actually run by significant amounts of money, including
Speaker 1: in the millions of dollars to a host of fake
Speaker 1: right wing front groups. In this case, it was not
Speaker 1: directly the FBI or the FEDS per se running in
Speaker 1: this case, it was the SPLC. Now, the SPLC has
Speaker 1: included large backing from George Soros, JP Morgan Chase, George
Speaker 1: Clooney and Open AI. So all of these mega leftist
Speaker 1: entities have obviously put significant amounts of money over the
Speaker 1: years into the Southern Poverty Law Center, which has then
Speaker 1: utilized that money to help fund and control the fake opposition.
Speaker 1: We have been saying this actually for twenty years, back
Speaker 1: to the Big Nine event, because we argued back then
Speaker 1: that the groups that were used, such as al Qaeda,
Speaker 1: had a long time Western intelligence relationship and sort of
Speaker 1: cut out proxy status on record. Same with the nineteen
Speaker 1: ninety three event, and with many terror events. Not necessarily
Speaker 1: every every event, but in many cases that was the case.
Speaker 1: And now we've seen also explicitly, as I told people
Speaker 1: in twenty seventeen, I would not go to Charlottesville. That
Speaker 1: would be a massive fed honey trap situation. I told
Speaker 1: people on live streams at the time not to do it.
Speaker 1: Lo and behold, who's vindicated? I am. I knew what
Speaker 1: I was talking about. Do you think I just make
Speaker 1: these things up. I've been reading about these subjects for
Speaker 1: over twenty years. All the books that you see behind me,
Speaker 1: they're not just a set piece. I'm not like Michael
Speaker 1: Lofton with a bunch of fake books behind me that
Speaker 1: I've never touched. I actually read the books. You see
Speaker 1: all the sticky notes. I don't just stick them in
Speaker 1: there to make it look like i've read them. I
Speaker 1: read these books, and I have for over twenty years.
Speaker 1: And it's not just the domain of co intel and
Speaker 1: espionage and all that kind of stuff and geopolitics. I
Speaker 1: also read the theology books. Those books are also very
Speaker 1: well read. So that's ultimately why people don't want to
Speaker 1: come over here and have civil formal debates. It has
Speaker 1: nothing to do with my jokes or a four letter
Speaker 1: word here and there. That's all ploy that's all smoke
Speaker 1: and mirror's excuse. And they know that. They know that
Speaker 1: because we have organized countless formal civil debates all over
Speaker 1: the place with Muslims, with atheists, with cult leaders, et cetera.
Speaker 1: You name. It very easy to set up a debate,
Speaker 1: it's not hard. But these are all pearl clutching excuses
Speaker 1: to not interact. And I don't care whose channel it's on.
Speaker 1: It doesn't have to be on rous Lawn channel. In fact,
Speaker 1: I don't ever want to go on Rousselann channel. I
Speaker 1: don't care about Rousselance channel. So I told them I'll
Speaker 1: debate you on a tiny channel with no followers. That way,
Speaker 1: everybody can see that we're not doing it for the click,
Speaker 1: although I think Ruslan definitely does it for the clicks.
Speaker 1: For example, we notice that these people's standards are never
Speaker 1: applied consistently. When Rouslan said that he will not interact
Speaker 1: with people that are toxic or whatever other such nonsense
Speaker 1: he said, notice that it doesn't apply to the very
Speaker 1: thing he said about me. Though, I only want to
Speaker 1: debate people with bigger channels. I just debated Captain Crackrock twice.
Speaker 1: He has a much smaller channel than me. I'm debating
Speaker 1: a Protestant pastor in a couple of weeks who has
Speaker 1: basically no Internet following. We're doing it all modern day debate.
Speaker 1: So no, I don't just debate people formally with a
Speaker 1: large following, although everybody in the sphere would like to
Speaker 1: debate a larger following person because it gives him exposure.
Speaker 1: So he's acting like this is some thing unique to
Speaker 1: just me, And here he is wanting to interact, begging
Speaker 1: for nick flints, attention and clout so that he can
Speaker 1: get a bigger channel and a bigger presence. Looking at him,
Speaker 1: the very thing he said is all. So he basically
Speaker 1: is projecting everything that he does. Is what he accuses
Speaker 1: me of because he assumes that we the same, we
Speaker 1: get the same mind fram we ain't the same.
Speaker 2: Son.
Speaker 1: I don't care about your flex and I don't care
Speaker 1: about your channel.
Speaker 3: But it's interesting that our audiences overlap. But I'm here
Speaker 3: for it. I'm here for it. As long as long
Speaker 3: as he's willing to have a conversation, I'm here for it.
Speaker 3: I got I got no, I got no gripes with
Speaker 3: having a conversation with him. But it's it's interesting that
Speaker 3: our audience.
Speaker 1: Oh wait, those audiences don't overlap. What the hell are
Speaker 1: you talking about? That audience ain't watching your dumb ass
Speaker 1: What are you talking about? Nonsense? Yeah, Rouselm is a narcissist.
Speaker 1: I'm gonna show you his stupid ass churches, his fake
Speaker 1: business churches. Sermon. Remember bragging about his sermons the other day?
Speaker 1: You realize, so just preached like three sermons of my church.
Speaker 1: So you realize I've just preached sermons as if anybody
Speaker 1: cares about your stupid sermons, as if we're impressed by that.
Speaker 1: Oh oh dude, was that business church, and he was sermonize,
Speaker 1: oh shit, I better back down. I better showed this.
Speaker 1: I'll put I better put some respect on this man.
Speaker 1: Now his actual church, which he publicly says for you people,
Speaker 1: he's dog should to be dogs. He publicly talks about
Speaker 1: his church on his podcast. He mentioned in his last
Speaker 1: video people probably didn't catch it because it's such a
Speaker 1: stupid ass name for a church. You probably thought he
Speaker 1: was talking about his R and B group or his
Speaker 1: hip hop group when he said, I go to Rhythm Church. Yes,
Speaker 1: that's right, it's called Rhythm Church. You can't make this
Speaker 1: up based around lame ass beats. So here he is
Speaker 1: at Rhythm Church. He preaching up there to Rhythm Church.
Speaker 4: Doll.
Speaker 1: I like how Rhythm Church, by the way, has a podium,
Speaker 1: an ugly ass damn corporate style chair, a computer and
Speaker 1: that's it. But they also put a little bit of
Speaker 1: image free stained glass windows to make it look churchy.
Speaker 1: Do hey, look, this looked too much like an AMN lecture.
Speaker 1: Hall put a little bit of stained glass up in
Speaker 1: here to make it a little bit of churchy. Yes,
Speaker 1: it's called Rhythm Church. You can't make this up. Okay,
Speaker 1: So this is what rus lines right, he was. This
Speaker 1: is what he was all bragging about. Do flexing. You realize,
Speaker 1: well just preached three times looking about church, right, you
Speaker 1: realize I am a preacher. I'm not joking. To check
Speaker 1: this out. Let's see this. Let's see this awesome mad
Speaker 1: cap sermonizing.
Speaker 2: Right.
Speaker 5: Hell, all right, one more time. Give it up for
Speaker 5: the amazing worship team.
Speaker 1: Everybody who so dudes preaching wearing a T shirt for
Speaker 1: his book. And you're trying to tell me it's not
Speaker 1: business church now, he said, imagine the apostles thinking of
Speaker 1: the Orthodox Church was the true church. The Apostles and
Speaker 1: their church looks nothing like the accretions of the Orthodox Church.
Speaker 1: Roussel It says, Meanwhile, Rouse line, God, a damn uh
Speaker 1: looks like a a damn factory worker back there on
Speaker 1: bass guitar. We got a we got a farm boy
Speaker 1: back there on bass guitar. Rooselin's got a a T
Speaker 1: shirt for his book doing sermons now. Clearly, Rhythm and
Speaker 1: Blues R and B Church. Clearly R and B Church
Speaker 1: is what the Apostles had in mind. You're trying to
Speaker 1: tell me Peter wasn't over there busting it down like
Speaker 1: Prince right. You tell me Peter wasn't over there doing
Speaker 1: a little bit of I'll be sure you tell me
Speaker 1: that the Apostles didn't set up Rhythm Church. So the
Speaker 1: dude calling us out of line with the post Apostolic
Speaker 1: fathers the first century goes to rapper Rhythm Church and
Speaker 1: wears t shirts about his book up on a stage,
Speaker 1: no altar, a stage. Yes, that's clearly the true shirt.
Speaker 4: It's serving behind the scenes.
Speaker 5: So how many guys know where we've been parked in
Speaker 5: the last years, all of twenty twenty five?
Speaker 4: What book have we've been in? That's right? And I
Speaker 4: was looking.
Speaker 5: At last week at what was talked about in Acts
Speaker 5: this week, and I said, Jeff, this is this is
Speaker 5: really good.
Speaker 4: I want to I want to preach this part.
Speaker 1: Oh he going back to the origins of the church
Speaker 1: br the Book of Acts. Right. Let me ask you
Speaker 1: a question, Roseline, Where in the Book of Acts do
Speaker 1: you see a bass guitar? Where do you see a stage?
Speaker 1: This man up on stage, this is the grifter over
Speaker 1: here trying to say that we aren't Apostolic and this
Speaker 1: is the church his his dumb ass is at And
Speaker 1: Jeff said, now, bro, oh, look they do have a
Speaker 1: stained glass that does have an image. Okay. I was
Speaker 1: getting a little nervous because I was like, they just
Speaker 1: got stained pretty colors. Well they got one image. Okay,
Speaker 1: so we're at least not iconoclast.
Speaker 5: I got this. I want it for myself. I said,
Speaker 5: all right, so we're gonna do something fun. We're gonna
Speaker 5: we're actually gonna Last week, do you remember where where
Speaker 5: Paul was an action?
Speaker 4: Where was he?
Speaker 1: Yeah, he went over to Rhythm Church. Paul went over there.
Speaker 1: Punks pod people don't know. Paul was a damn beat boxer.
Speaker 1: Paul could be box at best with the best of them.
Speaker 1: Gospel Church, Gospels Church, That's what the Apostles was up to.
Speaker 5: Son traveling through the church in ephsis So we're gonna.
Speaker 1: Spile in the book of CS. Let me ask you
Speaker 1: a courtion.
Speaker 5: Stay in Ephesians today, and we're gonna talk about something
Speaker 5: that I think is so relevant. So if you turn
Speaker 5: your bibles to Ephesians chapter one with me.
Speaker 1: Why they got sadass piano music playing while he talking.
Speaker 1: I ain't going on somebody's low ass number stream. I
Speaker 1: ain't going on his dumb stream. Those people can call
Speaker 1: in here I'm not going on a two hundred one
Speaker 1: subscribers stream. Why are you wasting my time?
Speaker 4: Then?
Speaker 1: Boys? Is all in the orbit? Then a bunch of
Speaker 1: gay orbiters of roost lines. You think I'm gonna go
Speaker 1: on gay orbiter rouse lines people's stream. No, they can
Speaker 1: come over here. By the way, I'm doing them a
Speaker 1: favor because all they want is a clip farm. All
Speaker 1: they wants attention them dummy stream about me every two weeks.
Speaker 1: So no, I'm not giving them what they want. But
Speaker 1: although I will give them what they want because they
Speaker 1: can come over here and they can call in and
Speaker 1: they can get their dumb clips. That's all they do.
Speaker 1: Y'all not realize that people just want clips. You think
Speaker 1: I'm scared that dude called in. I asked him to
Speaker 1: call in and debate me on Intercession of the Saints,
Speaker 1: and he did so. How am I scared? You're about
Speaker 1: to just get booty. You're wasting everybody's huh, y'all are
Speaker 1: just scared because I'm making fun of your dumb cult
Speaker 1: leader ruse Line r u Se ruse Line and his
Speaker 1: dumb uh Rhythm and Blue R and B.
Speaker 5: Church Ephesians, Chapter one, Chapter one, Verse three, I'm reading
Speaker 5: out of the NIV.
Speaker 4: It says, Oh, praise be to.
Speaker 1: Be over there in the n IV. He over there
Speaker 1: in that n I b right. He ain't got the
Speaker 1: KGB Bible. He ain't got the KGV Bible. He got
Speaker 1: the NIB Bible. Yo. You got the NIB, bro, you
Speaker 1: got that Pigeon Bible, or you got a e Bonics Bible.
Speaker 2: Yo.
Speaker 1: I think we need to send Ruslana e Bonics Bible.
Speaker 1: Then maybe his dumba ass could read it.
Speaker 5: God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has
Speaker 5: blessed us in the heavenly realms with Averyka.
Speaker 1: Now, I'm not doing a performative, fake ass prayer. We've done.
Speaker 1: Get that gay crap out of my face, dude, with
Speaker 1: this performative prayer. I wish I had known all this
Speaker 1: before I even went on his cringe ass podcast. Also
Speaker 1: to change the subject to get over here to the calls.
Speaker 1: We did have some. I had a couple people reaching
Speaker 1: out to Doug Wilson. I didn't do it. It's another person
Speaker 1: that organized an event with me a year ago, and
Speaker 1: he's reached out to Doug Wilson, he says in multiple
Speaker 1: emails and Originally there was a planned potential discussion and debate.
Speaker 1: It started, I want to say, maybe six months ago,
Speaker 1: and I was busy at the time, and I said,
Speaker 1: why don't we see if you could get you know,
Speaker 1: father Deacon to do it. I've got a little bit
Speaker 1: too much going on right now to do a debate
Speaker 1: with Doug Wilson, although we did also try in that
Speaker 1: three way debate with me and Tim Gordon and the
Speaker 1: Lower Lodge dude. Originally the Protestant was going to be
Speaker 1: Doug Wilson, but I don't know if he canceled or
Speaker 1: just didn't want to do it, or they just never
Speaker 1: got into say, But then it turned into a potential
Speaker 1: other debate with FDA that never came to fruition. So
Speaker 1: I told the guy, I said, hey, Tingu says, I
Speaker 1: sent you a message on picture app to my Instagram. Uh, basically,
Speaker 1: I want to say that I'm grateful and for you
Speaker 1: bringing me back to the faith after running from it.
Speaker 1: If you read my message, I greatly be appreciated. God
Speaker 1: bless you all.
Speaker 6: Well.
Speaker 1: Thank you Tingu. He sends a big old fat Hunters
Speaker 1: one hundred dollars superch. I appreciate it. I didn't know
Speaker 1: that you can't say the word instagram. That's odd. I
Speaker 1: didn't know, crash Meta says. When Rouselan was asked about
Speaker 1: why he won't debate Jay but he would talk to
Speaker 1: Nick Flints, he says, because Nick Quintus is a pagan.
Speaker 1: Rouselan is just insane, dude. This dude is just cra
Speaker 1: I mean, none of the shit he says actually even
Speaker 1: makes it. I figured out that, Like, there's no point
Speaker 1: in even trying to make sense of what Rouselan's thinking
Speaker 1: is saying. I think he's just crashed out for real,
Speaker 1: Like I think there's something else going on. I mean,
Speaker 1: everybody wants to overuse this term crash out. I think
Speaker 1: something weird is going on with Rusalom. I don't know
Speaker 1: since their Hypocrette says, step aside Apostolic Church, we got
Speaker 1: Rhythm Church up in here, boy, That's what I'm saying.
Speaker 1: How do we know the original Apostolic Church wasn't Rhythm church?
Speaker 1: Can you prove it wasn't exactly exactly? You can't? Can you? There?
Speaker 1: We go? Of course you can, But I'm being silly.
Speaker 1: I mean, this is the dude that has the gumption
Speaker 1: to talk about how we are the ones that departed
Speaker 1: from the early church. Dude that goes to damn rhythm
Speaker 1: and blues church. Wait, Walter Schmidt, what's up? I'm mute,
Speaker 1: Walter Schmidt. I'm mute.
Speaker 2: Hey, j Yeah, how do I sound? Can you tell me?
Speaker 1: You sound sexy and amazing?
Speaker 2: That's good to hear it.
Speaker 7: The thing is, I want to do spaces myself and
Speaker 7: I'm kind of figuring.
Speaker 2: This stuff out with the equipment. But yeah, I just
Speaker 2: wanted to say hi. I'm I'm I don't really want
Speaker 2: to debate you. I pretty much agree with everything you say.
Speaker 7: Okay, Yeah, stuff with Rustlin is crazy.
Speaker 2: I'm glad that it finally is coming out.
Speaker 8: I never really watched him, but that guy is really weird.
Speaker 1: It's something it's it's something weird going on for sure.
Speaker 8: Yeah.
Speaker 2: Yeah, no, but yeah, I just wanted to say hi.
Speaker 9: And you know, it's really interesting to see how well the.
Speaker 10: Different spirit in the Orthodox.
Speaker 11: Apologetics, the Catholic apologetics, the Protestant apologetics, the Muslims.
Speaker 12: The Orthodox are the only one that have like a
Speaker 12: warrior spirit, like never liked ever.
Speaker 1: Yeah, well, all the other ones are gay. The rest
Speaker 1: of them are gay. They even are. I mean, the
Speaker 1: Proston churches are pretty much all gay.
Speaker 7: Yeah, I mean literally, even I saw what happened with
Speaker 7: you and Nick frent Is.
Speaker 2: It's such a shame. I mean, you had a great
Speaker 2: debate back then, and I watched it a couple of
Speaker 2: years ago, and I thought it was very interesting. I mean,
Speaker 2: it was very cordial on both sides.
Speaker 13: But now he's like scared and I like Nick flint Is,
Speaker 13: He's like an interesting guy.
Speaker 2: He's he's pushing the boundaries all that.
Speaker 12: But it's such a shame that he just doesn't want
Speaker 12: to interact with you.
Speaker 4: Well.
Speaker 1: I mean, Nick said the other day on one of
Speaker 1: his streams, I just saw the clip that Vatican two
Speaker 1: did go off the rails. So that's really just admitting
Speaker 1: the thing I've been trying to convey to him for
Speaker 1: ten years. So, Bruce, what's up? Thank you for that call?
Speaker 1: Dog said it. Bruce, how you doing? Go ahead? What's up?
Speaker 2: Hey?
Speaker 14: Man?
Speaker 2: I really been listening to a lot.
Speaker 15: Re release really.
Speaker 2: Helped me out with a lot of things.
Speaker 8: I'm a Protestant right now, but I'm trying to figure
Speaker 8: out there's two things.
Speaker 2: I don't know what's more interesting to you. I've said
Speaker 2: a union people.
Speaker 8: So to share Toeman or pre subpositional apologetics and the
Speaker 8: Canon scripture, which one's more.
Speaker 2: Interesting to you?
Speaker 1: Either one is fine, all right, So.
Speaker 8: Let's first talk about like the Cannon descripture and pre
Speaker 8: substantional apologetics. Why do you think it is, like you're
Speaker 8: you're a student of Boston Seminary and.
Speaker 2: Obviously well read on Van Hill, right, Well, why do
Speaker 2: you think it is that they missed this?
Speaker 1: Well, there are several reasons. I mean, they were not,
Speaker 1: to my knowledge, even familiar with anything from Orthodox Christian
Speaker 1: theology at all. It's really only been in this last
Speaker 1: several years that you know, Orthodox christianities theology presidence has
Speaker 1: even been kind of out there. I mean one of
Speaker 1: the first books was in the two thousands, right where
Speaker 1: you had I forget that guy's names, Daniel McClellan or
Speaker 1: mcmc something, and he wrote a book about Orthodox pros
Speaker 1: and Catholic views and he was like an evangelical guy.
Speaker 1: And that was in the early mid two thousands, and
Speaker 1: that was kind of one of the first books that
Speaker 1: even exposed a lot of people in the West. So
Speaker 1: Bonson dying in the late nineties or whatever, and Van
Speaker 1: till earlier than that. I mean, they just weren't even
Speaker 1: familiar with the in the stale.
Speaker 8: Logical problem here with regard to the lens by which
Speaker 8: they you'll effectively get caught by begging the question using
Speaker 8: the scripture that I'm able to justify the use of
Speaker 8: the scripture in the first.
Speaker 1: Place, Well, it's I mean, they're the ones that pioneered
Speaker 1: the idea that it's an argument for an entire paradigm.
Speaker 1: And if you're going to go that line of argument,
Speaker 1: then the paradigm needs to make sense. It can't just be,
Speaker 1: you know, something grounded in a book. It's got to
Speaker 1: be more than that, because the book itself comes from
Speaker 1: a paradigm, from a miliu, from a community. So I
Speaker 1: think that they missed, for example, there's certain metaphysical implications
Speaker 1: that go along with TAG that relate to the Trinity.
Speaker 1: That's something that I pushed quite a bit of the
Speaker 1: last ten years. So in other words, you could say
Speaker 1: that they worked in trans in augmentation. But if their
Speaker 1: conception of the deity was sufficiently heterodox and wrong, then
Speaker 1: the argument is only going to go so far. If
Speaker 1: you're saying that the Christian God is the foundation of morals, ethics,
Speaker 1: and metaphysics, a human morals, bismology, metaphysics, So you better
Speaker 1: have the right doctrine of God. So I think, combined
Speaker 1: with other Reformation distinctives like the doctrine told depravity and
Speaker 1: that there's you know, perpetual noetic effects of sin that
Speaker 1: constantly sort of put you in a a spiral of
Speaker 1: never having the type of certitude the tag allegedly is
Speaker 1: supposed to give you. People highlighting and bringing these points
Speaker 1: to the four for many many years, which were ignored.
Speaker 1: For example, I highlighted, I highlighted a lot of these
Speaker 1: arguments and points to John Frame and to Douglas Jones
Speaker 1: from the Wilson circles years ago, and a lot of
Speaker 1: those people would just try to ignore it. So again
Speaker 1: I think there's many things going on. Also, Protestantism is
Speaker 1: a form of prelust. It's a it's a situation where
Speaker 1: you you, you are the real arbiter of everything and
Speaker 1: you're the one that decides over everyone else. And although
Speaker 1: it claims that it's scripture, it's not. It's really you
Speaker 1: and scripture and you're the final arbiter.
Speaker 2: Yeah, that's been the problem I've been coming up against
Speaker 2: as well, and thanks for that man.
Speaker 8: And so going forwards, the PSA issue at stake an
Speaker 8: issue I feel like there's either a semantic issue or
Speaker 8: a literal theological issue where it seems as though people
Speaker 8: that are proponents of substitutionaryatment.
Speaker 2: Are creating a third category of Christ.
Speaker 8: I don't know if that makes sense, but they're basically
Speaker 8: saying that he doesn't actually have the same nature we have,
Speaker 8: and therefore he can't be a substitute because his nature
Speaker 8: is without sin, but ours is the noetic effects of sin.
Speaker 8: And so I don't see how that's an actual substitute
Speaker 8: if indeed he is a substitute, and he must be
Speaker 8: the same as us in some sense, at least the
Speaker 8: human side of his nature.
Speaker 1: Right, there's multiple problems, multiple problems going on there. First
Speaker 1: of all, I'm not heard of Protestant saying this. I'm
Speaker 1: not saying that they haven't said that, but usually and
Speaker 1: usually they say that Christ does have the same nature
Speaker 1: as us, and that's why he's able to, you know,
Speaker 1: to die in our place as a substitute. But the
Speaker 1: fact that he assumes a sinless human nature doesn't mean
Speaker 1: that it's not the same nature as ours, because sin
Speaker 1: isn't something that's Sin isn't a nature, And that's another
Speaker 1: mistake Protestants make. Sin is a deprivation of grace or
Speaker 1: an act of a will against the good. It's not
Speaker 1: a state of being. It's not an ontological status. So
Speaker 1: they're actually being Manichean if they think that sin has
Speaker 1: ontological existence or evil has existence.
Speaker 2: Yeah, so it doesn't fit together.
Speaker 8: Well if they say that man's nature is indeed painted entirely.
Speaker 1: Yeah, it's Manichein. That would be Manichean. That we mean
Speaker 1: God creates evil natures, which doesn't make sense because evil
Speaker 1: doesn't have a nature. Evil is a privation or a
Speaker 1: predatory act against nature. So for us, evil is the
Speaker 1: act of the will against the good. It's not a
Speaker 1: thing that has being or substance. But they collapse nature
Speaker 1: into person. So that's how they get the idea that
Speaker 1: we're all damned and atom because our whole nature is
Speaker 1: quote a sin nature that is inherently guilty of sin,
Speaker 1: because we're children of atom. That's why they think infants
Speaker 1: are damned. That we don't believe them, So then.
Speaker 8: You don't adhere to the doctrine of original sin, at
Speaker 8: least you wouldn't articulate it that way.
Speaker 2: What you call it ancestral then.
Speaker 1: And that's to distinguish between the deprivation that results from
Speaker 1: Adam's sin, whereby we are deprived of grace. That's not
Speaker 1: the same thing as having actual guilt, which you accrue
Speaker 1: when you commit a sin. So infants don't commit actual
Speaker 1: sins because they don't have the use of their reasoning
Speaker 1: to act against God's will. That's why James says that
Speaker 1: sin when it gives birth and it is assented to,
Speaker 1: he says evil when it is when it gives birth,
Speaker 1: when it times with the passions and the concupis sense,
Speaker 1: when it's assented to it, he says it's a sin.
Speaker 1: So he actually specifies that it's not the desires that
Speaker 1: themselves are the sin. It's the assent of the will
Speaker 1: to an illicit or disordered desire. And what Protestants do
Speaker 1: and have done since the Reformation, due to a misunderstanding
Speaker 1: of Romans five, is that they think that our nature
Speaker 1: itself is a sin, and they think it's a state
Speaker 1: of being, But it can't be a state of being
Speaker 1: when it's a deprivation.
Speaker 2: Yeah, so they've gotten the power totally wrong.
Speaker 1: That and there is no real ontology and Protestantism correct.
Speaker 2: Yeah.
Speaker 8: So as far as like book recommendations might go for
Speaker 8: this particular issue with regards to the Union, what might
Speaker 8: you recommend outside of course like no Chalcedonian Council and
Speaker 8: canons or you know the story.
Speaker 1: No, I can tell you exactly what you need to read.
Speaker 1: You need to read uh st Cyril of Alexandria and
Speaker 1: the Christological Controversy because when I read that book and
Speaker 1: I understood that Jesus is a divine subject and that
Speaker 1: there's no human hypostasis in Christ, it led me to
Speaker 1: understand fully why there could never be a PSA.
Speaker 2: This seems to me to like undercut the entire the
Speaker 2: entire West.
Speaker 1: If that's true, probably, I mean it doesn't just begin
Speaker 1: with you know, Lutheran Calvin. Uh it goes back to
Speaker 1: Anselm and satisfaction theory.
Speaker 2: So yeah, yeah, yeah, the legal theory as well, all
Speaker 2: that sort of work.
Speaker 1: Absolutely well.
Speaker 8: Well, thanks a lot, Jamen, that's the luck to you.
Speaker 8: I appreciate all that you do.
Speaker 1: Yeah, anytime. Also, I would say there's another side accessory
Speaker 1: book that would help. That's good and that's written by
Speaker 1: a Lutheran guy, and it's called Harvest of Medieval Theology
Speaker 1: from Gabriel Auckham, Akham and Bile to Luther ific at
Speaker 1: the exec title. But he's a Lutheran who wrote about
Speaker 1: the fact that you have to be a nominalist philosophically
Speaker 1: to have Luther's doctrine of justification in PSA. And if
Speaker 1: you can point out that successfully that I think you can,
Speaker 1: that the ancient and medieval world or the ancient and
Speaker 1: Patristic world was not nominalist, then that means that Luther's
Speaker 1: doctrine is impossible in the first one thousand years of Christianity.
Speaker 2: I think Luther is just an obnstadium monk, right, So
Speaker 2: how did he be wrong?
Speaker 1: Well, I mean, I know you're joking, but I mean,
Speaker 1: I mean, even if I'm just saying, even if we
Speaker 1: granted that Luther was right in some of the critiques
Speaker 1: of Rome, it's like, yeah, but what But if Luther's
Speaker 1: argument of how we are changing from a state of
Speaker 1: divine wrath to a legal state of divine grace, if
Speaker 1: it's dispositional, that requires a certain philosophical framework called nominalism,
Speaker 1: which divorces the essence of things from the names given
Speaker 1: to them. And so Luther made use of Oakham and
Speaker 1: Gabriel Bile to figure out how God could call someone
Speaker 1: righteous when they're in fact an actuality wicked, and he
Speaker 1: uses nominalism in the philosophical system. According to Haiko Oberman,
Speaker 1: very famous Lutheran scholar and historian to say that this
Speaker 1: is how Luther did it. He uses this systemic approach. Now,
Speaker 1: if nobody in the first thousand years a Christianity was
Speaker 1: a nominalist, which is what's required for a purely legal
Speaker 1: status justification, then we know that Paul, Saint Paul in
Speaker 1: the Church Fathers aren't teaching anything like Luther. Yeah, yeah, that.
Speaker 2: Seems to the.
Speaker 16: Well.
Speaker 2: Thanks a lot, man, I really appreciate it.
Speaker 1: Absolutely. Yeah, keep keep reading and keep searching. You you're
Speaker 1: on your way to orthodoxy. Robotic, what's up? No, I'm
Speaker 1: not going on his channel, so stop asking me. I'm
Speaker 1: talking to the chat robot, you know what I mean. Oh, yes, sir, Hey,
Speaker 1: thanks for having me. I'm can you speak up a
Speaker 1: little bit. I can barely hear you speaking to the mic.
Speaker 1: Oh sorry, can you hear me there now a little bit?
Speaker 14: Uh?
Speaker 2: Sorry, shoot.
Speaker 1: Yeah, just talk into the to the mic, dude, you
Speaker 1: hear me?
Speaker 2: Now?
Speaker 1: We'll try go ahead at that.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I'm I'm.
Speaker 1: Not the folks you were talking about. And I can't
Speaker 1: even hear you. Dude, I don't know what what kind
Speaker 1: of a micro are you using? Dude?
Speaker 2: Yeah, it's like my boozy earphones.
Speaker 4: I'm sorry.
Speaker 2: Let me Uh, I might have a bit.
Speaker 1: I can hear you a little better now, but you
Speaker 1: just need to talk directly into the mic. We can
Speaker 1: barely hear you, all right, Sorry about that. Well, now
Speaker 1: you're far away and I can't hear you. So yeah,
Speaker 1: I don't know what's happened, and I really am not really.
Speaker 2: Shoot.
Speaker 9: Uh can you hear me?
Speaker 2: Now?
Speaker 1: We'll try. Oh yeah, I'm.
Speaker 2: I'm a Protestant. I listened to a lot of the
Speaker 2: content at the shore.
Speaker 17: Think it's really good, and I'm honestly.
Speaker 2: Just trying to.
Speaker 1: I mean, I can't. I'm sorry, man, I can't hear you.
Speaker 1: Try to get to a good mic. It's just we
Speaker 1: can't even hear you. You're there and then you're gone
Speaker 1: for like five seconds and then you're back. So try
Speaker 1: to find a good mic. No, I'm not going to
Speaker 1: some randos fifty person in live stream? Why would I
Speaker 1: do that? I'm doing my live stream. I'm not If
Speaker 1: they want a clip farm, they can come be on
Speaker 1: this stream. Smokey, what's up? Stop asking me? Or I'm
Speaker 1: just going to boo you smoky?
Speaker 18: Yes, that's try.
Speaker 1: How's it going, good man? What's on your mind?
Speaker 18: Good I just wanted to see if you would give
Speaker 18: me just less than sixty seconds to present an argument
Speaker 18: to justify going and having a chat with Moler.
Speaker 1: Well you want the debate about me going to his stream?
Speaker 18: Well, not a debate, just to presenting an argument.
Speaker 1: Well, if you're presenting an argument, that's a debate. What
Speaker 1: if you're presenting an argument, then that's part of a debate.
Speaker 1: So that's right. If they want to dude, if they
Speaker 1: want to clip, if they want a clip farm, they
Speaker 1: can just hop on here right now.
Speaker 18: Well yeah, but I mean, Jay, that's that's not really
Speaker 18: fair what they want to do.
Speaker 2: And you're the king of.
Speaker 1: Clip Why is that not from channels.
Speaker 18: To do that for you? So, I mean you know
Speaker 18: it's all a clip farm. It all grows a brand, right.
Speaker 1: Oh So now now you know the motives and I'm
Speaker 1: just clip for me.
Speaker 18: Well, I mean, you do encourage channels to build off
Speaker 18: of clips of things that you've done in the past,
Speaker 18: and debates and things like that.
Speaker 2: I know you do that for a reason.
Speaker 18: Because you like to get your name out there and
Speaker 18: your interactions so people can see your talents and your
Speaker 18: numbers grow.
Speaker 2: I'm not faulting you for it. It's playing the game.
Speaker 1: And did I fault them? I said, if they want
Speaker 1: a clip farm, they can come over here.
Speaker 2: Well, I understand that.
Speaker 18: It's just I don't understand why you wouldn't want to
Speaker 18: go ahead and expose yourself to their audience.
Speaker 1: Concurrently, I've already been already.
Speaker 18: I've already why you wouldn't just want to do that,
Speaker 18: and they promised they wouldn't mute you at all.
Speaker 2: Would you give them.
Speaker 1: The same part implying that I'm going.
Speaker 18: To go on over and he'll give you a piece
Speaker 18: of Spaci.
Speaker 1: Get out of here. Shut up, you're not you're talking
Speaker 1: over me. No, I'm not going to go over there
Speaker 1: because I don't want to go over there. And I
Speaker 1: already had the debate with them and they did it
Speaker 1: on there. There's no reason why they can't call in
Speaker 1: here and also stream it on their thing. The same
Speaker 1: thing applies to them, Goober. If they want to call in,
Speaker 1: they can call in on their phone and they can
Speaker 1: continue live streaming do like I'm doing in ghetto style.
Speaker 1: They can hold the phone up to the freaking microphone
Speaker 1: I don't have. I'm not going to hook up the
Speaker 1: stream yard and then hook all of that up into obs.
Speaker 1: I'm just not doing all that. I'm doing my stream
Speaker 1: and I'm not giving these dudes. I don't respect these dudes.
Speaker 1: I'm not giving them the attention that they want on
Speaker 1: their channels. But they can clip anything they want and
Speaker 1: they can call in here and continue their stupid stream. Errol,
Speaker 1: what's up? No, it's not the movie review mall or
Speaker 1: it's a dude that nobody even follows. It's these are
Speaker 1: the lowest tier protests are They're worst things that need God.
Speaker 1: This is all this is is that they want to
Speaker 1: That's why they stream about me every week. And they're
Speaker 1: rouse Lin's bought buddies, so they want to come on.
Speaker 1: They want to make a big stint get attention. That's
Speaker 1: why I'm not doing it. Errol, what's up, hey, j
Speaker 1: how's it going? That was up?
Speaker 18: Yeah?
Speaker 19: I just want to call I really been appreciate your content.
Speaker 19: That actually kind of brought me back into being a
Speaker 19: Christian gunn from being a former atheist, in no small
Speaker 19: part due to your tag formulation. I just wanted to
Speaker 19: run a quick question on the argument by you.
Speaker 2: Okay, sure, so as I understand it, it's.
Speaker 19: Kind of an important premise is the impossibility of the
Speaker 19: contrary world view?
Speaker 2: My question is if you.
Speaker 19: Consider something like platonism, so so say the atheist just
Speaker 19: assumes things like logic or the existence of the external world,
Speaker 19: or the past, all the different transcendental categories as brute facts,
Speaker 19: why would why?
Speaker 2: Why is that?
Speaker 19: Why can't they do that? I guess why is that
Speaker 19: impossible for them to do? The way I think about is,
Speaker 19: you know, a divine mind is a more parsimonious explanation
Speaker 19: because they're all interrelated transcendental categories. But why is it,
Speaker 19: you know, necessarily wrong for the atheists to just, you know,
Speaker 19: assume all these like this grab bag of brute facts.
Speaker 1: Well, first of all, just assuming a grab bag of
Speaker 1: brute facts wouldn't respond to the objections that tag makes.
Speaker 1: I mean, we're not just giving a negative impossibility. The
Speaker 1: contract critique we're also presenting a positive list of our
Speaker 1: beliefs in our worldview that includes a bunch of metaphysical
Speaker 1: and ethical and historical ideas. So there's two world views
Speaker 1: that are in comparison and that are being contrasted in
Speaker 1: the argument. So brute assertions don't give us any kind
Speaker 1: of explanatory power justification. If they can put forward brute
Speaker 1: facts in a debate, then so can you. So just
Speaker 1: saying that there's all these things therefore that's my basis.
Speaker 1: That doesn't tell me that I ought to believe those
Speaker 1: things or why those things are true. That's just saying
Speaker 1: that they are that you're just asserting things. So in
Speaker 1: the same way just saying well, I'm a platonist or whatever, like,
Speaker 1: there's so many problems in platonism in terms of basic
Speaker 1: level contradictions. And you can go look up the critiques
Speaker 1: that we've done a platonism that for an atheist. By
Speaker 1: the way, how could atheist be a platonist? Right? Like
Speaker 1: an atheist atheists aren't platonists typically there could be one,
Speaker 1: I suppose, But now he's going to switch from being
Speaker 1: an atheist as saying, well, but there's all these immaterial
Speaker 1: forms well, in Plato's conception, the immaterial forms really don't
Speaker 1: have or it's very difficult for him to explain what's
Speaker 1: in common between the immaterial eternal ideal form and the
Speaker 1: material changing tempore things that the forms, the things that
Speaker 1: are copied from the forms. Right, So there's a dialectical
Speaker 1: tension between the realm of ideas and perfect stasis versus
Speaker 1: the realm of flux and change. So just saying that
Speaker 1: doesn't justify it. It's not an argument to just assert that,
Speaker 1: to just say that, well, what if it's brute facts,
Speaker 1: then if they do that, you can say, okay, well
Speaker 1: then God's a brute fact. So like you have to understand,
Speaker 1: like in a debate, people have if they can do that,
Speaker 1: you can do that.
Speaker 2: Right.
Speaker 1: That's why fallacies matter. It's pointing out what you what
Speaker 1: you can't do. It's like we're playing chess and somebody
Speaker 1: just knocks over all the piece and says I win. Well,
Speaker 1: then I can knock all over all the piece and
Speaker 1: say I win. It's it's it's defeats the whole purpose
Speaker 1: of a debate. Hank, what's up.
Speaker 2: There?
Speaker 1: These people are not even they're they're not debaters. Did
Speaker 1: These are like low tier need god level people who
Speaker 1: are just looking for some attention because they're in these
Speaker 1: here and they try to are. They stream about me
Speaker 1: every week, bitching and complaining, pearl collectioning about four letter words.
Speaker 1: It's the lowest tier stuff.
Speaker 15: Man.
Speaker 1: You guys are not even You're not missing anything. And
Speaker 1: they're never gonna call in because they can't act. They
Speaker 1: don't know anything. What's up, man, Hank, Hank, what's up?
Speaker 1: And all I hit their dumb audience coming over here,
Speaker 1: trying to bait me to come over. I'm not going
Speaker 1: over there.
Speaker 2: Hey, Jake, can you hear me?
Speaker 20: Hey man, It's been a while since I called in.
Speaker 2: I've been busy.
Speaker 20: I've been getting ready for my tour and my album's dropping. Dude,
Speaker 20: I just wanted to say, Man, I just want to
Speaker 20: call and say I finally found a un orthodox church
Speaker 20: man that you know. I've been attending, man, and it's
Speaker 20: all been things to guys like you, man.
Speaker 2: So I just want to call and say.
Speaker 1: Thank you, man, God Blas, thank you appreciate that. I
Speaker 1: thought he was joking. I thought you meant like you
Speaker 1: you were, you were pretending that you were like Ruslawn.
Speaker 1: But I appreciate it. Yeah, okay, I oh you were joking. Okay,
Speaker 1: never appreciate that, man, Hank. What's up, dude, dude? These
Speaker 1: people are there. It's I'm telling you man, they're just
Speaker 1: coming up with drama to get attention. They couldn't. They
Speaker 1: wouldn't last five minutes in a real discussion. We already
Speaker 1: debated them. We had a forty minute debate on the
Speaker 1: Intercession of the Saints with him a year ago. I'm
Speaker 1: not going on their dumb stream yard stream. They can
Speaker 1: call in here and they can keep streaming, and they
Speaker 1: can clip it all they want. I don't care. I'm
Speaker 1: not going to end my stream and go on their stream.
Speaker 1: What's up, Mandlson, what's up? Go ahead?
Speaker 2: Okay? I have a question from a local Orthodox church.
Speaker 9: How would I were are some key signs to know
Speaker 9: that they're engaging in.
Speaker 2: Any level of pedadoxy I guess.
Speaker 1: I mean the key signs would be like, are they
Speaker 1: teaching a humanism? Are they teaching pro gay stuff? Are
Speaker 1: they teaching I mean, are they teaching anything that's against
Speaker 1: the you know, the creed or basic Christian morals? Usually
Speaker 1: they don't, you know, these kinds of groups don't just
Speaker 1: begin with something like we believe a pollinarianism, and we
Speaker 1: don't believe that Christ is fully human. That they're not
Speaker 1: gonna do it that way. They're gonna, you know, act
Speaker 1: like there's nothing wrong with being skittles, you know, that
Speaker 1: kind of stuff. So, I mean, that's usually the things
Speaker 1: that fall first, and then you get the heresies to
Speaker 1: back that up. Ortho, what's up? Yeah, it's funny how
Speaker 1: no Protestants will even call in a debate anymore, nor
Speaker 1: will the Muslims. What's up?
Speaker 14: Man?
Speaker 1: We're telling you, what's up? My man?
Speaker 7: I think I know exactly why those Protestants don't want.
Speaker 1: To debate you, okay, was that they're racist. They don't
Speaker 1: want to talk to a black man.
Speaker 2: That's what I'm saying.
Speaker 17: And exactly because and I showed what you truly looked
Speaker 17: like as a black man.
Speaker 1: I think they're just scared of you for showing they prejudiced. Right,
Speaker 1: these white boys, these white boys over here, is prejudice
Speaker 1: when it comes to a real bipop queen. They want
Speaker 1: to play games with all these uh, you know, all
Speaker 1: of these phone e mcs. What's up? Uh, yuppie, appreciate that.
Speaker 1: Appreciate that Hello, Yeah, can you hear me?
Speaker 2: All right?
Speaker 1: Yes?
Speaker 2: Are cool? Man?
Speaker 12: I just kind of wanted to come on and say
Speaker 12: thanks man for the content that you make, because a.
Speaker 2: Lot of it is really eye opening.
Speaker 12: So I'm a Roman Catholic and I have been for
Speaker 12: probably I don't know, eight issu years now, and a
Speaker 12: lot of the stuff on the papacy they kind of
Speaker 12: don't really they don't really teach you the primary sources
Speaker 12: when you're getting into this stuff, you.
Speaker 1: Know, yeah, I know I went through that, yeah.
Speaker 12: Man, So it's like having an identity crisis over here,
Speaker 12: you know. And I just kind of wanted to ask, like, when.
Speaker 2: You were a Roman Catholic and you were.
Speaker 12: First getting these little sprinkles and bits of contradictions and
Speaker 12: like you know, Vatican One and Vatican two and actually
Speaker 12: reading the primary sources, Like, how did that make you feel?
Speaker 2: You know what? I mean?
Speaker 1: It was difficult. It was challenging. It was you know,
Speaker 1: paradigm shift shifting. I mean it was you know, because
Speaker 1: I was very serious about rob falsism. I was into
Speaker 1: Catholic apologetics. I was serious about driving hours to go
Speaker 1: to Latin mass I mean it was it was hard. Uh,
Speaker 1: It wasn't easy, but leaving it was best decision ever made.
Speaker 1: I would never go back to that.
Speaker 12: Yeah, I mean it's I'm trying to get there, you know,
Speaker 12: like I'm having trouble sort of letting go.
Speaker 1: Man, Like, what are the are you? Is it like
Speaker 1: part of your heritage and culture usually just that kind
Speaker 1: of stuff.
Speaker 2: Yeah, it is, so, I actually was.
Speaker 12: You know, I had like a break in my family
Speaker 12: from the Catholic Church, from my like through my parents
Speaker 12: because they were Protestants, but like, our heritage is TechEd
Speaker 12: Italian primarily, so you know, all of our ancestors and stuff.
Speaker 2: Were Catholic, so it is like a cultural thing.
Speaker 12: You know, our grandparents all that, we grew up with
Speaker 12: them being Catholic.
Speaker 2: So I mean we are I am kind of bound
Speaker 2: up in that.
Speaker 1: But man, well listen, you're gonna find if you go
Speaker 1: visit Orthodox Church and Orthodox Divine Liturgy, you're gonna find
Speaker 1: a new family that will help replace what you feel
Speaker 1: like might be missing family wise. I can guarantee you
Speaker 1: that as long as you find a decent church, which
Speaker 1: you know it's not too hard. But you know, when
Speaker 1: I left Rome in two thousand and eight nine, somewhere
Speaker 1: in there. You know, I had several Roman Catholic friends,
Speaker 1: and I think I've maintained maybe one or two of those,
Speaker 1: but I've gotten much better friends. So you'll find better friends.
Speaker 1: So just go check out the community icono what's up?
Speaker 1: And then I'll go to the Protestant person here, mister
Speaker 1: s or whatever. Hey man.
Speaker 12: And I was just wondering if the cult meeting got
Speaker 12: postponed for tonight?
Speaker 1: The cult meeting? It did? Did you you? If you
Speaker 1: didn't wear your Hawaiian shirt vestiments, you're not allowed to
Speaker 1: come back to the cult anymore, because, as Rouselan says, right,
Speaker 1: Miamivice is cult aesthetics.
Speaker 2: I got you and one more thing.
Speaker 14: Someone told me that in order to get a debate
Speaker 14: with Ruslan, first, you've got a bot five.
Speaker 2: Of his prayer journals.
Speaker 16: Apparently there's just thousands of them sitting in a storage
Speaker 16: of being in California.
Speaker 1: So there's a lot and a bunch of Blessed God
Speaker 1: T shirts too. So if you don't get a T
Speaker 1: shirt and a prayer journal, the T shirt you saw
Speaker 1: him preaching in, uh, he won't have anything to do
Speaker 1: with you. So yeah, you got to get that merch
Speaker 1: dog mister s or should I say missus?
Speaker 2: Hell?
Speaker 13: Well, m yeah, so do you have a valid argument
Speaker 13: for pros as falls?
Speaker 1: Sure? It's uh not taught in the New Testament or
Speaker 1: by the Church fathers.
Speaker 2: Wait, what do you think about it?
Speaker 1: Argument has I guess I don't know. I don't I've
Speaker 1: never had any logic class. I don't know anything about validity.
Speaker 1: You'll have to teach me.
Speaker 2: You don't know.
Speaker 1: No, I don't tell me if.
Speaker 21: The premises necessarily and tell the conclusions that.
Speaker 2: You have that.
Speaker 1: Yeah, so Protestanism is false because it's not taught the
Speaker 1: New Testament. It's not taught by the Church fathers. There
Speaker 1: you go, Okay, what Sanfranchie, you tell me why Protestantism
Speaker 1: is true.
Speaker 2: These guys are plundering already.
Speaker 1: Well, there's nothing. I don't have to put it.
Speaker 13: If it's the case that it necessarily doesn't follow from
Speaker 13: the premises.
Speaker 1: Valid do you have an argument or you're just gonna
Speaker 1: talk bullshit? So you don't have an argument? Yeah, the
Speaker 1: argument I don't have to put I don't have to
Speaker 1: put it into I'm not putting it into a syllogism
Speaker 1: because I don't want it. I don't have to for you.
Speaker 1: So Protestantism is protestant is, Protestantism is not taught in
Speaker 1: the Yeah, Protestantism is not. Protestantism is not taught in
Speaker 1: the New Testament. Protestantism is not taught in the New Testament.
Speaker 1: Therefore it's false. Wow, that's the argument.
Speaker 2: That's a claim.
Speaker 1: No, it's an argument. You can dispute it now, that
Speaker 1: actually is an argument.
Speaker 18: No.
Speaker 1: No, we all agree that we have to we have
Speaker 1: to stop interrupting me. Stop interrupting me. We all agree,
Speaker 1: we all we all agree that we have to follow
Speaker 1: the New Testament. The New Testament does not teach Protestanism. Therefore,
Speaker 1: protestist is false. There's your there's your syllogism. No, that's
Speaker 1: a syllogism. The Protestant is the New Testament is true.
Speaker 1: Here's here. Here is the syllogism. Protestantism is true. Excuse mean,
Speaker 1: the New Testament is true. Protestanism is not taught in
Speaker 1: the New Testament, therefore it's false. Okay, what's the I
Speaker 1: don't All I have to do is give you a syllogism.
Speaker 1: Understandogisms need like infant is the syllogism invalid? Is the
Speaker 1: syllogism invalid? Yeah, how is it invalid? How is it invalid?
Speaker 1: Given that it doesn't have what? How is this? That
Speaker 1: doesn't tell me that it's invalid? No, it doesn't. It's
Speaker 1: a it's a valid syllogism. You don't agree, so you're
Speaker 1: just trolling. You don't even have an argument. You don't
Speaker 1: have an argument. I gave you a syllogism. I gave
Speaker 1: you the very thing you asked for. How is it
Speaker 1: not valid? What is it violate? What does it value?
Speaker 1: What does it violate? What does it violate?
Speaker 2: Good?
Speaker 11: Good?
Speaker 1: Good? What law does it violate?
Speaker 4: What law?
Speaker 21: He can't about.
Speaker 1: The syllogism is valid. You wanted a syllogistic form of it,
Speaker 1: so that was nothing. The New Testament is true. Protestantism
Speaker 1: is not taught in the New Testament. Therefore Protestants is false.
Speaker 1: That's the argument. Now you can disagree with it. That's
Speaker 1: not invalid. What's up, man?
Speaker 2: Hello?
Speaker 1: What's up?
Speaker 2: Hey?
Speaker 22: Jay?
Speaker 23: I just wanted to say I appreciate what you do
Speaker 23: so much.
Speaker 1: My brother is super chatted earlier.
Speaker 2: I'm a CD of human in the Orthodox Church.
Speaker 23: And Cliff Connectel is coming to my school tomorrow.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I answered that super chat earlier today.
Speaker 23: Yeah, I just wanted to follow up on like specific
Speaker 23: question and if there's anything you would add and how
Speaker 23: you think you'd respond if solo scripture is true, how
Speaker 23: do you know which books are scripture without appealing to
Speaker 23: the authority of the early Church that you don't accept
Speaker 23: as binding.
Speaker 1: Sure, I mean there's a lot of different ways you
Speaker 1: could go about that line of argument. That would be fine.
Speaker 2: Okay, sweet, let's go.
Speaker 1: Thanks j Yeah, by the way, I don't even think
Speaker 1: that guy. I think that that sounds like an atheist.
Speaker 1: That's an atheist trying to pretend that he is a Protestant,
Speaker 1: because no Protestant would argue some stupid line of argument
Speaker 1: like that key tone.
Speaker 2: Hello, what's up? Hey?
Speaker 1: What's up?
Speaker 4: Jay?
Speaker 24: So you know, some of my friends came up to
Speaker 24: speak to Malert and they were like pressing him, and
Speaker 24: this guy Mallard just wants to keep saying you blocked him,
Speaker 24: and you.
Speaker 1: Know that, Yeah, he's unblocked right now, so he can
Speaker 1: come in here. He's running right, He is unblocked, so
Speaker 1: that he could come if he wants to. But I
Speaker 1: knew he's not gonna come.
Speaker 2: Okay, because pretty much.
Speaker 24: I went on as like you know Panel of twice
Speaker 24: and you know he just won't come up. Is it unbelievable?
Speaker 1: Wait? What won't come up? What do you mean it's panel?
Speaker 15: Uh?
Speaker 24: He keeps saying, like you know, it's like you know
Speaker 24: him is a roving guy in Christian King JP, and
Speaker 24: they're just like talking about like, oh they're help me, Jada,
Speaker 24: I won't come way here, like and then talking about
Speaker 24: you're just scared of them, like J.
Speaker 1: I already debated their idiot, their idiot, but buddy JP uncut,
Speaker 1: Why would I be scared of them if I already
Speaker 1: debated the dude? They did the exact same thing a
Speaker 1: year ago. They're just doing this to get attention, and
Speaker 1: they there's no reason why they can't call in right
Speaker 1: here and continue streaming and clip farm whatever they want.
Speaker 24: No, I agree, you destroy them, but like why is
Speaker 24: calling like on your phone or something?
Speaker 2: Just make them look embarrassing.
Speaker 1: Because I'm on my phone right here with you. What
Speaker 1: are you talking about?
Speaker 24: No, but you can just like switch over and destroy
Speaker 24: and we'll quick right.
Speaker 1: I don't want to. They can call in here. I've
Speaker 1: already given them a platform.
Speaker 2: Just keep asking them all right, see jack.
Speaker 1: Uh not going on their stream for one, I'm not
Speaker 1: giving them what they want. I don't bow to them.
Speaker 1: They don't. It's like Rouselan say, you don't summon me,
Speaker 1: You don't summon me. Listen. I don't go on all
Speaker 1: the other streams. I do an open callin stream where
Speaker 1: you can call into me for people who have no following.
Speaker 1: A bunch of low tier need god level goobers. I
Speaker 1: don't have to go, and I'm not giving you a
Speaker 1: formal debate. You can call in here.
Speaker 25: Ye uh huh.
Speaker 21: You know I have a question about I know you're
Speaker 21: keep eating questions.
Speaker 1: But why why are you always sound like you're about
Speaker 1: to laugh? Why why are you acting like you? Why
Speaker 1: are you always about to laugh? Questions you? Okay, why
Speaker 1: are you about to laugh? What's funny that you were
Speaker 1: getting blocked?
Speaker 21: But can you can you keep singer and boss telling.
Speaker 1: You he's unblocked to come here, That's what I'm saying.
Speaker 2: So I'm asking why does he keep the building? When
Speaker 2: did that happen?
Speaker 1: I always blocked these gobers, and then I unblocked them
Speaker 1: if I want them to come to debate, which I
Speaker 1: know they're not going to do, but I unblock them
Speaker 1: so that they can come to Bate. I block all
Speaker 1: the people that won't come to Bate. That's always been
Speaker 1: that's always been my mode of operation, and I'm gonna
Speaker 1: keep doing it and I don't care whether you'll like
Speaker 1: it or not. All right, smart uh huhm hm ek,
Speaker 1: what's up? These call her as? This is all his
Speaker 1: dumb audience. And you see the level of his audience.
Speaker 1: This is what you get in these people's audience. This
Speaker 1: is the this is the orbiters of Ruslan. Okay, they're
Speaker 1: even lower tier than Ruslan, which is hard to imagine,
Speaker 1: but that's who these people are. They're trying to get
Speaker 1: me to go. I'm not going on there, so you're
Speaker 1: just wasting your time.
Speaker 4: E K.
Speaker 1: What's up? Hey, man?
Speaker 2: I don't know if you saw it.
Speaker 26: Yesterday, Rachel Wilson posted on x it's like compilation of Ruslan,
Speaker 26: basically like saying he's it was like early on in
Speaker 26: his career, and he's like, I'm trying to monetize my audience, man,
Speaker 26: trying to make like seven figures.
Speaker 1: Yeah I should I played it yesterday. Yeah we should
Speaker 1: go back to that. Let's see, and everybody's like, no,
Speaker 1: that ain't fair to him?
Speaker 14: Do that?
Speaker 1: Ain't fear to him? Why is it not fair to him?
Speaker 1: If he's still doing what he said he was gonna
Speaker 1: do it, no fear of him. Y'all just dumb and
Speaker 1: you fell for a grifter and you don't want to
Speaker 1: admit it. Sunken calls fallacy. I know I shared that.
Speaker 1: Where's it at? Oh?
Speaker 4: Here here?
Speaker 1: I think uh Alex Soren shared it too. Let's see.
Speaker 1: This is it who believes is dumb wigger grifter? Right here?
Speaker 1: This is so stupid O way, I've never seen this
Speaker 1: stuff until recently.
Speaker 22: I got the following.
Speaker 15: I got twenty eight two hundred thousand on TikTok two.
Speaker 1: Listen to this, bro, I got that following, dog, I
Speaker 1: got twenty eight k, Bro, I.
Speaker 15: Got the following, I got twenty eight thousand. I got
Speaker 15: two hundred thousand on TikTok that five hundred thousand. How
Speaker 15: do I monetize these people?
Speaker 22: You know what I mean? How do I monetize these people?
Speaker 27: And through covetousness, shall they with feigned words make merchandise
Speaker 27: of money?
Speaker 4: I like shoes and I like money.
Speaker 15: And you got to figure out what what is your
Speaker 15: product going to be what can you sell people?
Speaker 4: That's the actual question, right.
Speaker 15: So we can puts the foot around and we can say, oh,
Speaker 15: like I want to have a ministry and I want
Speaker 15: to do this and I want to do that, right,
Speaker 15: But what we're really asking is like, how do I
Speaker 15: build a business?
Speaker 1: I don't really care, damn Son, this is so amazing.
Speaker 1: I would have thought it.
Speaker 15: AI care about how many followers I have. I need
Speaker 15: those metrics to an extent for the for the credibility
Speaker 15: of them. But I'm more thinking, what is my bank
Speaker 15: account going to look like in the next two to
Speaker 15: three years.
Speaker 22: I need I need seven figures. I need I need,
Speaker 22: I need seven figures.
Speaker 5: I would love to be in a position someday where
Speaker 5: I just have fu money.
Speaker 4: Bro.
Speaker 15: I got the following, I got twenty eight thousand. I
Speaker 15: got two hundred thousand on TikTok.
Speaker 1: It's with Griff Maxon over here. And it's amazing because
Speaker 1: he ain't even shy about it. He just opened lots
Speaker 1: of Back in the day, you know, TV preachers will
Speaker 1: be a little more covert about it, you know what
Speaker 1: I'm saying. They was now It's just like no, I
Speaker 1: just I'm straight up. Just here, get that get paid doll,
Speaker 1: the stack stacks doll. Yes, this is real. I mean
Speaker 1: unless somebody made an AI short, this is real.
Speaker 22: How do I monetize these people? You know what I mean?
Speaker 22: How do I monetize these people?
Speaker 27: And through covetousness, shall they, with feigned words make meschandise
Speaker 27: of you whose judgment now have a long time linger
Speaker 27: with not.
Speaker 2: I like shoes.
Speaker 1: I like shoes, freaking gay as hell, dude shoes. The
Speaker 1: women like shoes. That's a feminine thing, Toby, what's up
Speaker 1: those that I like shoes? I like heels, I like
Speaker 1: my slip on Jordan's what.
Speaker 2: Uh?
Speaker 21: Just before I ask my question asman, thank you because
Speaker 21: similar to the guy a couple of guys before, I
Speaker 21: used to be a heavy atheist, like an anti theist,
Speaker 21: and then I started watching your stuff and you've helped me. Uh,
Speaker 21: definitely convert to Christianity.
Speaker 27: Cool.
Speaker 2: My question was on the on tag? Could I run
Speaker 2: it byke?
Speaker 1: I mean we're not really doing tag tonight. I mean,
Speaker 1: can you just come that back next time with that
Speaker 1: tonight's topics or Catholicism and Protestantism. So I'm not trying
Speaker 1: to be a douchebag. It's just I want to sit
Speaker 1: here for twenty minutes explaining philosophical stuff. I'm not being rude,
Speaker 1: it's just it's Protestant, Catholic, Mormon stuff tonight. I'm just
Speaker 1: I don't have the energy for tag tonight, Stallion. What's up?
Speaker 1: As soon as I start explaining a bunch of philosophical stuff,
Speaker 1: it's going to go from seventeen hundred to eight hundred?
Speaker 1: What's up? Man? And you?
Speaker 2: That was good.
Speaker 13: I was just appear to ask when looking at Eastern Catholics,
Speaker 13: and by the way, I'm like, I'm with you. I'm
Speaker 13: round and more Certism, you know, I'm more Orthodox sympathetic,
Speaker 13: you know, so when looking at us, I live in
Speaker 13: an area with a lot of Eastern Catholics, and so
Speaker 13: they try to pos it like, you know that they
Speaker 13: are I mean they, I mean they are essentially Eastern
Speaker 13: Orthodox by communion with Rome.
Speaker 2: But isn't that just the catchlin two? Like, is isn't
Speaker 2: that just the double amy on them? You know?
Speaker 1: It is? It's an even worse uh position to be in.
Speaker 1: And it's also an obvious refutation of the Roman Catholic system,
Speaker 1: because how can you have competing theologies and confessions of
Speaker 1: faith when everybody admits that the church has one confession
Speaker 1: of faith, so how can there be too? How can
Speaker 1: you be in a church that believes in the phillyoquay
Speaker 1: and also rejects it.
Speaker 13: Yeah, and I just want to confirm if I'm to
Speaker 13: be baptized Orthodox, what's the stance on marrying an Unorthodox,
Speaker 13: marrying a Catholic or marrying and you know, what is
Speaker 13: the stance on that?
Speaker 1: You know, that's a decision that you will suss out
Speaker 1: with your spiritual father, that will be decided canonically. That's
Speaker 1: not something I can really tell you. I mean, there
Speaker 1: is there are allowances through economia for marriage to people
Speaker 1: who are not well Orthodox, but it's not wise, it's
Speaker 1: not recommended. But that's something that you know, you'd have
Speaker 1: to take that up with them, with the people that
Speaker 1: will bring you in. Drake, what's up? Yeah, I'm trying
Speaker 1: to monetize them. People don't following.
Speaker 15: I got twenty eight thousand, I got two hundred thousand
Speaker 15: on TikTok hundred thousand.
Speaker 22: How do I monetize these people?
Speaker 4: You know what I mean?
Speaker 22: How do I monetize these people?
Speaker 27: And through covetousness, shall they with feigned?
Speaker 23: What?
Speaker 1: By the way, where are the Protestants calling out Ruslan
Speaker 1: for this stuff? And uh? People are saying in the chat,
Speaker 1: which I still haven't gone and sussed this out, but
Speaker 1: they were saying that Rouslan was a leftist or leftist
Speaker 1: sympathetic for many years calling out people like Bryson Gray.
Speaker 1: So I imagine that. Imagine those two idiots in a
Speaker 1: room together right calling out Bryson Gay. Uh, because Bryson
Speaker 1: Gay was too political. I mean, I'm not in a
Speaker 1: maga cult either. I don't have a problem criticizing and
Speaker 1: rejecting all kinds of things from Trump, which we've done
Speaker 1: consistently for the whole time. But I mean, wasn't it
Speaker 1: funny in Rousselan's video He's like, I don't care about
Speaker 1: Epstein and what all he's up to. Well, you ought
Speaker 1: to care about Epstein because it has to do with
Speaker 1: the stranglehold that evangelical Zionism has on the entire country.
Speaker 1: So it doesn't matter what's up man, Yo.
Speaker 2: Jay appreciate you.
Speaker 28: And I see alex Is in the voice chat debating,
Speaker 28: I think it's important. I'm a Baptist background acquiring the
Speaker 28: Orthodoxy through the arguments you presented and Alex had presented.
Speaker 2: I just want to call it real quick because I'm.
Speaker 28: Sure you have a video about it. But do you
Speaker 28: have any recommendations on books about worship, how the Early
Speaker 28: Church worship, how it's connected to Old Testament worship.
Speaker 1: We have a whole documentary that we made. It's called
Speaker 1: Christian Worship and the Old Testament at Orthodox Shahada channel.
Speaker 1: The documentary recommends several books like Williams and Anstall's book
Speaker 1: on the Temple and the Synagogue Liturgy being the basis
Speaker 1: for the Orthodox Liturgy, and Hugh Weybrew's book Byzantine Liturgy.
Speaker 1: But thank you for the call, Austin. What's up? Austin?
Speaker 1: What's up you over there? R? And B Church? He
Speaker 1: dropped off Taylor, child of the Most High. Whenever I
Speaker 1: see that, I know I'm in trouble. I'm a child
Speaker 1: of the Most High. What's up?
Speaker 11: Man?
Speaker 1: Are you a woman?
Speaker 12: Yeah?
Speaker 2: I'm a woman.
Speaker 29: I was wondering when you think about women in apologetics
Speaker 29: because the multiple women like Phoebe in the propheta Sannah
Speaker 29: who I share the Gospel in the Bible.
Speaker 2: What do you think.
Speaker 1: About that, Well, that was during a time when there
Speaker 1: was ongoing divine revelation. So if the Holy Spirit shows
Speaker 1: to speak through a woman or a prophet to us,
Speaker 1: he can do that. But that doesn't mean that women
Speaker 1: are called to that in the history of the church,
Speaker 1: and that's why women are typically not in that role.
Speaker 29: But they share the good news with Paul.
Speaker 1: Did you not hear what I said? I mean, you
Speaker 1: can share the Gospel and you can convert people. That
Speaker 1: doesn't mean you're called to be an apologist.
Speaker 2: Okay.
Speaker 29: And when you issue with Bryson, why'd you call him gay?
Speaker 1: He's an anti trinitarian, insane, heretic. What are you talking about?
Speaker 1: You don't think that trinity is a fundamental deed of
Speaker 1: Christ or fundamental doctions of Christianity.
Speaker 2: I do, But I.
Speaker 29: Think that's like, you know, going beyond what's written and
Speaker 29: causes division.
Speaker 1: You know, how could it be?
Speaker 29: He says, do not feel beyond what's written and divide?
Speaker 29: You know, basically have divisions, So.
Speaker 1: How can I doesn't John saying one, John two that
Speaker 1: if you deny Christ, you're anti Christ. Absolutely, So it's
Speaker 1: not going beyond what's written to say that denying the
Speaker 1: deity of Christ makes your Antichrist.
Speaker 29: But you cannot deny deity without accepting trinity because one thing, like,
Speaker 29: for example, to say Christ is eternal.
Speaker 1: With the Father, you can, yes, it is. What are
Speaker 1: you talking about? So you're not a child? You're not
Speaker 1: even that does? How does that mean? He's not divine?
Speaker 1: I mean does my does? Are you a polytheist? How
Speaker 1: many divinities you worship?
Speaker 2: No?
Speaker 29: But he said, like, why is it even a father
Speaker 29: and a son? If the father didn't create the son?
Speaker 29: He said, I proceeded from the Father.
Speaker 1: Yeah, that's it, said, I came from That's eternal generation.
Speaker 1: It's not a where do you get creation? It says
Speaker 1: probably fifty times a New Testament. The son is not
Speaker 1: a creature. Where do you get that? He's a creature?
Speaker 29: It talks about in Psalms two seven, like I will proclaim.
Speaker 2: The words decree on.
Speaker 1: This day I have forgotten the Yeah, that's any that's
Speaker 1: an eternal begotten. That's an eternal begetting. Because John one
Speaker 1: says he's the only begotten God monoganies theos but begotten
Speaker 1: at what point eternally begotten? Do you think that if
Speaker 1: I had a son? Would he said, have the same
Speaker 1: nature as me. Yeah, okay, okay. Is God uncreated the Father?
Speaker 30: Yes?
Speaker 1: Okay. So if he, if he has a son, wouldn't
Speaker 1: the son have the same nature? Yes, But but he's yes,
Speaker 1: but he's what.
Speaker 2: But he's not the prime mover.
Speaker 29: A logic would say, there must be a prime mover.
Speaker 2: And I'll be the father.
Speaker 1: Right, What does that have to do with eternal generation?
Speaker 1: He could be the prime mover and eternally prime move
Speaker 1: a son as his offspring.
Speaker 2: Is there multiple prime movers?
Speaker 1: The father is in this argument the prime mover. The
Speaker 1: son is what's moved. But it's an eternal moving.
Speaker 29: But it says in this day, on this day, I
Speaker 29: have begotten.
Speaker 1: That means eternal generation. And the way that we know
Speaker 1: that is John One where he says in the beginning
Speaker 1: was the word the word was good with God, the
Speaker 1: word was God.
Speaker 2: Yeah.
Speaker 1: I mean you already admitted this when you said that
Speaker 1: the father's nature is uncreated and the son has the
Speaker 1: same nature. So there you go. You you yourself said it.
Speaker 29: Okay, I just think the words device of like transarianism.
Speaker 1: But that's well, who even put the Bible together? So
Speaker 1: what do you what do you you don't. I don't
Speaker 1: even grant that you.
Speaker 2: Have the.
Speaker 1: We don't necessarily we don't know who put the Bible together.
Speaker 1: We don't know who put the Bible together.
Speaker 29: Yeah, who put the Code Exeneticus together?
Speaker 1: I mean, that's not the Bible. That's one textual tradition.
Speaker 1: That's not the Bible. Who put the New Testament together
Speaker 1: with the Old Testament in the first thousand years of
Speaker 1: the church. You don't know who created the Why are
Speaker 1: you asking me a different question? How does that ask?
Speaker 1: That's not an answer. That's a textual tradition. You don't
Speaker 1: know the difference beween a textual tradition.
Speaker 29: They can in a scripture, but the Code Exeneticus has
Speaker 29: all the books.
Speaker 1: That is a textual tradition. It's not a canon.
Speaker 29: Well then, I mean, what if you don't subscribe to
Speaker 29: a canon, you subscribe to the textual tradition.
Speaker 1: How do you know that's the right textual tradition?
Speaker 29: The same reason that the squirrels preserve the Old Testament.
Speaker 1: Totally irrelevant, nothing to do, irrelevant. Okay, you don't even
Speaker 1: understand this isn't irrelevant. It doesn't even relate to what
Speaker 1: I'm talking about. How do you know what the books
Speaker 1: are in the Bible is appealing to the dec He's
Speaker 1: WROA has nothing to do with that, Austin, what's up?
Speaker 1: That's why women shouldn't be in an apologetics? You, you, yourself,
Speaker 1: are the argument for why women can't do apologetics. You're
Speaker 1: not made for that. What's up? Conn, I've what's up?
Speaker 1: This other guy can't get in here? Hello?
Speaker 2: Can you hear me? M hm?
Speaker 16: So I was a Catholic seminarian for two years and
Speaker 16: one of my Greek Orthodox friends brought up Luminingen Tim's
Speaker 16: sixteen to me, and as a Catholic in good faith,
Speaker 16: I'm willing to admit I can't argue it and say
Speaker 16: that Muslims and Catholics worship the same God.
Speaker 1: Good, So you have some discernment. So yeah, So.
Speaker 16: I've asked various priests and other theologians that I know,
Speaker 16: and the main arguments I hear are like it's like
Speaker 16: these cope arguments, like I'm usually told Christians, Jews, and
Speaker 16: Muslims all worship the same God.
Speaker 2: You know that's not true, or I'll hear.
Speaker 16: It doesn't matter what the church father said here in
Speaker 16: this portion, because it was a different time period, and
Speaker 16: it's like, that's not true. So I'm writing a letter
Speaker 16: to a Catholic theologian and apologist that I personally know.
Speaker 16: He's like, he's actually gonna know about it. So I'm
Speaker 16: just curious if there's any resources that you would recommend.
Speaker 2: Yeah.
Speaker 1: Yes, it's called First John okay and chapter yeah, chapter two,
Speaker 1: which says that if you deny the Son, you're Antichrist.
Speaker 1: Now again, remember in the watch the debate that we
Speaker 1: did with Trent Doherty h and whatever that other guber's
Speaker 1: name is. And you'll notice in that debate, I asked
Speaker 1: Trent Doherty, I say, so, you're telling me that Jake
Speaker 1: and the Muslim metaphysician who has explicitly rejected the Trinity,
Speaker 1: that he still worships the same God even though Muslim
Speaker 1: explicitly say Allah is not a father. That right there
Speaker 1: will show you. And I think that shows everybody how
Speaker 1: absurd the line of argumentation is for these guys, because
Speaker 1: they will actually still stress, no, he still worships the
Speaker 1: same God. Keep in mind, too, there's ambiguity about the
Speaker 1: term worship and if Atican two had restricted their language
Speaker 1: to saying something like Muslims Christians and Jews all perhaps
Speaker 1: reference or intend to reference the same entity or object
Speaker 1: that could be one thing, but they mistakenly use or
Speaker 1: perhaps not mistakenly use the word worship. Worship is not
Speaker 1: the same thing as mental, notional recognition, or reference. Worship
Speaker 1: has to do with what God lays down to what
Speaker 1: he accepts. God does not accept Muslim and Jewish worship.
Speaker 1: And that's something that we're told multiple times in New
Speaker 1: Testament when Paul writes the Book of Hebrews and says
Speaker 1: that it's a dead religion, and Judaism is not going
Speaker 1: to commend you to God through dead rituals and things
Speaker 1: that are fulfilled in the Church and in Christ. So
Speaker 1: Rabbinic judaism is not the worship of the One True God.
Speaker 1: And you can read the Gospel of John two, of
Speaker 1: John five through nine where Jesus argues with the Pharisees
Speaker 1: that he is the I Am of Exodus and that
Speaker 1: the only that no one comes to the Father but
Speaker 1: through him, and you do not have the Father because
Speaker 1: they do not have him. So Jesus himself repeats the
Speaker 1: same message of first John two. Yeah, that's what I
Speaker 1: that's what I was writing about. So I mean I
Speaker 1: found some things from Chrysostom. Yeah, Chrystm says Muslim.
Speaker 16: I don't want to make a context error by in
Speaker 16: putting Muslims where Jews are, but I feel like it
Speaker 16: kind of makes sense.
Speaker 1: It's the same line of argumentation. I mean, in fact,
Speaker 1: it's even worse for the Muslim argument because Muslims explicitly
Speaker 1: reject that God is a father. Yeah, and Jews at
Speaker 1: least admit God as a father. So, and I'm not
Speaker 1: saying that that makes it the same reference. I'm just
Speaker 1: saying it's even more removed from the Jewish position because
Speaker 1: of an explicit rejection of father and son in Islam.
Speaker 1: So it's just preposterous to still say, oh, but it's
Speaker 1: still the same Why, well, it's the same word again.
Speaker 1: It's all just terrible arguments. Zaiah, what's up? You crowed
Speaker 1: a move? Mary on Friday? You marry what's up? I'm
Speaker 1: mute three? What's up? Three clocks? I mute three clocks?
Speaker 2: Hey, Jay, thanks for taking the question.
Speaker 14: I was curious if you could provide what you think
Speaker 14: the best steel man.
Speaker 2: For the papacy is and how you would refute it.
Speaker 1: I mean, I don't maybe supposedly the papacy would give
Speaker 1: you decisions on disputed matters. Maybe that's the strongest argument
Speaker 1: that they have, and the reputation would be that that
Speaker 1: doesn't actually seem to be the case. I mean, we
Speaker 1: have massive lack of clarity for the last seventy years
Speaker 1: in the Roman Catholic world on theology and morals. So
Speaker 1: the supposed you know, sales pitch that the papacy will
Speaker 1: give us unity, certitude, clarity, and preservation of the faith
Speaker 1: falls apart in the last seventy years. So Zio, what's up?
Speaker 1: What's us?
Speaker 2: Hey?
Speaker 25: Thanks for taking a question.
Speaker 17: I had a few questions. You know, I've been watching
Speaker 17: you debate for a while. I haven't really seen you
Speaker 17: lose a theological debate. Really haven't seen you lose a
Speaker 17: debate at all.
Speaker 2: I am an Eastern.
Speaker 21: Orthodoge Christian, and I mean I just had like a
Speaker 21: few questions.
Speaker 2: One of them is personal.
Speaker 17: I don't know if you're cool with answer and answering that.
Speaker 2: I don't care, okay, And I have.
Speaker 1: Also had a theological question.
Speaker 17: Do you think that saying the N word is holy
Speaker 17: and rooted in good faith?
Speaker 1: Can you tell me why? They tell me why? The
Speaker 1: N word is a bad word. Well for me, now
Speaker 1: why is it bad? Now for you? I don't ask you.
Speaker 1: For you, why is it bad? What are the bad words?
Speaker 1: And how do we know what they are?
Speaker 15: Well?
Speaker 2: I think it can be.
Speaker 17: Like I guess, it can be kind of defined as
Speaker 17: an idol or careless way of speaking.
Speaker 1: So all idol speech includes what every joke is also
Speaker 1: part of that? No, definitely not. Well why would a
Speaker 1: joke not be part of idle speech?
Speaker 17: Because I think that a joke is coming from a
Speaker 17: different place in heart.
Speaker 1: So now it's motives that didn't that determine it? Well,
Speaker 1: but you said that you said the in word. Now
Speaker 1: you said the in word itself was bad.
Speaker 17: My marguement would be that it's not building you up
Speaker 17: in your spirit, coming from the Eastern Orthodox perspective.
Speaker 1: So and my question again is exact same question, because
Speaker 1: you moved the goalpost to say that it's the word itself,
Speaker 1: the in word, because you said, well, it's idle speech. Well,
Speaker 1: jokes are idle speech And you're like, no, it has
Speaker 1: to do with the motives. Well, how do you know
Speaker 1: the motives? So which one you're you keep shifting as
Speaker 1: to what makes it bad by the way. You don't
Speaker 1: you understand like twenty different black people gave me inward passes.
Speaker 2: Right, that's cool, that's cool.
Speaker 1: How is it?
Speaker 2: Well? So?
Speaker 1: How so? How am I bad? If it's cool?
Speaker 2: Now, it's cool, it's cool.
Speaker 17: I was really just asking you, what like if you
Speaker 17: think that saying the N word is holy and rooted
Speaker 17: in good faith?
Speaker 1: That was my original. Okay, sure, I just wanted to
Speaker 1: get your goodbye. Yeah, you go point out and show
Speaker 1: how holy you are. Everybody else somewhere else, Mendoza, what's up?
Speaker 1: Go ask h Brosi why he gave me so many
Speaker 1: inward passes? What's up? Man? Mendoza?
Speaker 11: A J.
Speaker 30: Doyer, this is Ruth Blawn's bar bro I mean hair
Speaker 30: dresser and all the broccoli cook king.
Speaker 1: Hey, y'o yo, you got a little bit of cheese
Speaker 1: to add to that broccoli.
Speaker 10: My brother Paum was on a shadow.
Speaker 14: What's you want?
Speaker 31: Bro?
Speaker 1: I just we know Rouselan is all about that cheddar.
Speaker 1: That's that money, dog, that's that money, bro J Doyer?
Speaker 20: Can you put it to a syllogistic Sylogilly with the
Speaker 20: why Protestantism and Ruthlan and faking.
Speaker 1: Great I can't, bro, I guess I gotta retuire. Yeah,
Speaker 1: what can you explain how using the in word is holy?
Speaker 1: I guess I'm not holy.
Speaker 25: So there we go, exposed.
Speaker 1: Dude, nobody cares about this shit anymore. People don't care
Speaker 1: about the four letter words and grandstanding and pearl clutching
Speaker 1: about all of that. That's just so gay, dude, and
Speaker 1: I don't care anymore. I don't care at a certain point, man,
Speaker 1: after years and people just attack you NonStop over everything.
Speaker 1: And I said, again, this is the same stuff. Remember
Speaker 1: when Sam Shamoun and his buck buddy William Albrick tried
Speaker 1: to get me because somebody went in his chat calling
Speaker 1: scam Shamou a sand inward and they tried to say
Speaker 1: it was me, which is probably them a bunch of snakes,
Speaker 1: just some random ass dude in Streamyard, like I'm on
Speaker 1: stream Yard while I'm on my live stream and I'm
Speaker 1: in I mean, it's just retarded, like I'm not ever
Speaker 1: going on their streams. And meanwhile, then then scam Shamou,
Speaker 1: now he doesn't have a problem saying all these words, right,
Speaker 1: I mean, imagine Sam Shamun trying to call people out
Speaker 1: for words that's crazy. I'm the emperor of Xantheum. I
Speaker 1: have at least twenty four inward passes, which I use
Speaker 1: is very selectively in choice situations. And I don't care
Speaker 1: whether you're like or not. I don't care what you think.
Speaker 1: What's up? Man? Listen? The only way to do media,
Speaker 1: The only way to handle this stuff is to not care.
Speaker 1: You have to not care. You can't hand look at
Speaker 1: what happens when you do freak out, You have a
Speaker 1: meltdown like Rusline. What's up, man, Hey, Jake and Hearn.
Speaker 32: I listened to your debate a long time ago, but
Speaker 32: I listened to it recently again yesterday with erky.
Speaker 25: Bar that you had uh huh.
Speaker 32: And one of the points that you had to keeat
Speaker 32: over and over again because he didn't understand it was
Speaker 32: your rejection of classical foundationalism and how he kept on
Speaker 32: asking you what does he have to point towards in
Speaker 32: history in order to prove like people infallibility or people
Speaker 32: jurisdiction and stuff like that. I guess, how are we
Speaker 32: supposed to look at history? And how do we use
Speaker 32: that coherence type of argmentation to look at historical data?
Speaker 1: That well, the main point The main point of that
Speaker 1: response was, you know, Eric's whole approach was, let me
Speaker 1: stack up all of these supposed evidences for a strong
Speaker 1: papal perspective, and then isn't it likely that this would
Speaker 1: tip over into Vatican one? And I said, I don't
Speaker 1: even grant that, because at a systemic level, if there's
Speaker 1: one dogmatic contradiction that disproves the whole system. So it's
Speaker 1: just an easier, quicker way to go about the apologetics
Speaker 1: because the old way apologetics was done back when, you know,
Speaker 1: it was like the last decade or so of Roman
Speaker 1: Catholics versus protest It was always this quote mind war
Speaker 1: back and forth of well, here's all my quotes that
Speaker 1: the church fathers don't think that it's Peter and Matthew sixteen,
Speaker 1: and here's this over here, the exegesis of this passage.
Speaker 1: And it was just endless throwing quotes back and forth,
Speaker 1: which never gets you anywhere. So how about a quicker way.
Speaker 1: Just like if we're debating an atheist, I'm gonna tear
Speaker 1: the whole foundation out from under them by going after
Speaker 1: the presubpositions and assumptions. I do the same thing with
Speaker 1: the Roman Catholic. If there's one dogmatic contradiction, the entire
Speaker 1: system fails, and they never understand this because they don't
Speaker 1: think systemically. Then once they get it, it clicks. And ironically,
Speaker 1: in that very debate, I think I'm going for a memory,
Speaker 1: but I think Abara said something like, if you could
Speaker 1: show a dogmatic contradiction, I'd have to admit that is false. Well,
Speaker 1: that's what I'm That's the whole point of why we're
Speaker 1: not going to argue. Look, because if you go that approach,
Speaker 1: it never goes anywhere. You're going to be throwing scholars
Speaker 1: back and forth. It's the same debate that's a stupid,
Speaker 1: a debate about who's got the right miracles. It's never
Speaker 1: going to prove anything. The Protestant's going to sit there
Speaker 1: forever and not believe Fatima, and you're gonna sit there
Speaker 1: forever trying to prove Fatima as a miracle, and it's
Speaker 1: not going to go anywhere. So what's really at root
Speaker 1: is our interpretive frameworks about how we understand the world,
Speaker 1: and thus miracles, for example, whether they're even possible is
Speaker 1: determined by your presuppositions. So the whole debate is always
Speaker 1: presuppositional unless you're specifically debating some topic that's more political
Speaker 1: or you know, ethical, like is abortion wrong or something
Speaker 1: like that, But even that's going to probably go back
Speaker 1: to presupposition. So because I was in the Roman Catholic
Speaker 1: system for a long time and I lived it and
Speaker 1: I tried to argue for it, I understand how they think,
Speaker 1: and I've identified the specific mistake, which is foundationalism, and
Speaker 1: they're always going to go back to that, whether it's
Speaker 1: Tomism or whether it's the way they approach apologetics and
Speaker 1: the papacy and stacking up all these evidences supposedly because
Speaker 1: they have a very naive approach. They have a pre
Speaker 1: modern approach to metaphysics, and evidence is in brute facts. Well,
Speaker 1: if there's not brew facts, then that whole thing fails.
Speaker 1: And you'll notice they actually already kind of believe that.
Speaker 1: When it comes to their debates with Protestants about the
Speaker 1: persepecuted scripture, they'll all argue that scripture actually isn't perspicuous.
Speaker 1: Scripture actually has to be interpreted, and sometimes it's very complex,
Speaker 1: it's very difficult and requires systemic level thinking. Oh okay, well,
Speaker 1: then guess what the rest of other things are that way.
Speaker 1: The rest of the worldview is that way. Metaphysics is
Speaker 1: that way, history is that way. There aren't brute facts
Speaker 1: in history that we just all will, I guess we
Speaker 1: all agree that. You know, Council of Constructinople three said this.
Speaker 1: Now everybody's debating the Council of concept a Noble three
Speaker 1: and what it means. There's gigantic decades long, perhaps centuries long.
Speaker 1: Who's that, Martin Jugi. Martin Jugi spent years arguing that
Speaker 1: Constantinople three teaches tomism. It's a prototomistic interpretation of Jesus
Speaker 1: to deny the energies. So again, at every angle, what's
Speaker 1: the root assumption here? Route factuality, evidentialism, and foundationalism. So
Speaker 1: if I undercut all of that, and that was part
Speaker 1: of what the whole Trent Hornaby was about when I
Speaker 1: debated him on natural theology, I'm like, this whole system
Speaker 1: is built on a very naive you know, ancient medieval
Speaker 1: perspective on metaphysics and laws of logic is just givens.
Speaker 1: But we live in a modern world that doesn't grant
Speaker 1: that anymore. So I'm just going to say to Ericabar
Speaker 1: or anybody else, like, why should I build up a
Speaker 1: thousand stacks of evidences? Look at his whole papacy book.
Speaker 1: It's like five hundred boring ass pages trying to build
Speaker 1: up a bunch of evidences when all I need is
Speaker 1: one contradiction in dogma and the whole system is false.
Speaker 1: I don't think they understand systemic thinking, which is ironic
Speaker 1: because they believe in systems like the Tomistics system. But
Speaker 1: the Tomistic system is essentially a foundationalist system. It's built
Speaker 1: on natural theology and a form of foundationalism, and you know,
Speaker 1: Aristilian just sort of givens Well, people don't believe that anymore.
Speaker 1: The whole world has moved on past that, So you're
Speaker 1: gonna need an apologetic that answers the modern world. You
Speaker 1: can't just reassert Tomism as if it's a given. I mean,
Speaker 1: it's this is like, duh, dude, Christ Seeker, what's up? Man?
Speaker 1: I'm you hey?
Speaker 2: Can you hear me?
Speaker 1: Hey?
Speaker 33: Why is Protestantism false in your opinion?
Speaker 1: Well, I'll say what I said to the guy a
Speaker 1: minutor ago. Protestantism is not taught in the New Testament,
Speaker 1: and it's not taught by the people who put the
Speaker 1: New Testament together. Therefore, it's false.
Speaker 33: Did Apostolic succession cease great schism or did that continue
Speaker 33: in the.
Speaker 2: Roman Catholic Church?
Speaker 1: Well, as an Orthodox person, no, we don't believe it
Speaker 1: continued in the Roman Catholic Church. They schismed.
Speaker 2: Oh really, I didn't know that. Huh.
Speaker 1: I mean Apostolic succession presupposes the Apostolic Faith. Rome departed
Speaker 1: on multiple counts from the Apostolic Faith, and the Orthodox
Speaker 1: Church believes that it has Apisolic succession and not Rome.
Speaker 1: Any heresy or schism makes you no longer a part
Speaker 1: of Apostolic succession. Doesn't matter how many hands you had
Speaker 1: laid on you. It's not some mechanical thing like a
Speaker 1: some sort of ritual magic. If you lose the faith,
Speaker 1: then you're not an Apostolic succeed succeed or I see.
Speaker 2: So what allows us to access God's energies?
Speaker 1: God himself? God himself has condescended to be present and
Speaker 1: imminent in the world in various modes. Whether it's the
Speaker 1: incarnation the second person that God had becoming a child,
Speaker 1: growing up defeating death, or whether it's the divine energies
Speaker 1: that are ever present throughout the world. Those are all
Speaker 1: condescensions of God to meet us. As Basil says in
Speaker 1: the letter two thirty four.
Speaker 33: Okay, you answered who, but like what gift does God?
Speaker 2: Oh?
Speaker 1: I mean, I guess you're asking grace? I guess is
Speaker 1: the answer to your question. Grace is the uncreated energies
Speaker 1: that we participate in.
Speaker 2: And what allows us tax has that grace.
Speaker 1: God allows us to I don't understand your question.
Speaker 2: Well with the whole like.
Speaker 33: Faith alone, doctrine and Protestantism, I'm seen it as the
Speaker 33: gift of faith is what allows us to add access
Speaker 33: God's grace, his uncreated love, glory, all of it.
Speaker 1: Yeah, but Jesus says, this is the work of God
Speaker 1: that you believe on him whom he has sent. So
Speaker 1: faith is a work too according to Jesus.
Speaker 2: Faith is a work by Jesus. Is that what Sheesus said, This.
Speaker 1: Is the work of God that you believe in Him
Speaker 1: whom he has sent. Thus faith is also a work
Speaker 1: according to Jesus. Yeah, not of our own, well, not
Speaker 1: of your own in the sense of being only from you.
Speaker 1: But you do work with God at all points. Paul says,
Speaker 1: I'm a co worker with Christ. It is God's power
Speaker 1: at work in me and through me. So that doesn't
Speaker 1: mean that you lose your own will because God is
Speaker 1: at work in you. It's a both and it's ay synergy.
Speaker 2: Right.
Speaker 33: Do you think there's a harmonization between synergism and monogism?
Speaker 1: There? No monarchism is a monothelite heresy literally elaborate on that. Yeah.
Speaker 1: The fifth and sixth Ecumenical Councils ended up producing disputes
Speaker 1: with the Oriental Churches, which led to a debate about
Speaker 1: whether in Christ there's one energy that has to overcome
Speaker 1: and supplant or take over the human will and energy
Speaker 1: in Christ, or whether there's a synergy between the two
Speaker 1: wills at all times. And the Orthodox Church teaches, according
Speaker 1: to the six Secumentical Council that in Christ there's a
Speaker 1: perfect synergy between the natural will and energy in Christ's
Speaker 1: humanity and the natural will and energy in Christ's divinity.
Speaker 1: So that affects our view of anthropology and sateriology to
Speaker 1: mean then that human beings at all points and times
Speaker 1: still have a natural human will and energy proper to
Speaker 1: their nature. That at every point, whether it's beginning to
Speaker 1: believe repenting the whole life of sanctification. All of those
Speaker 1: phases include a human will and energy.
Speaker 27: Gotcha.
Speaker 33: But at the end of the day and humility it's
Speaker 33: all by God.
Speaker 2: That like monarchistic element.
Speaker 1: Where is where? Where is the monogism there?
Speaker 2: Well, it's all God at the end of the day.
Speaker 2: And humility.
Speaker 1: Okay, all right, you win. You're humble. Guapo? What's up? Gapo?
Speaker 1: What's up?
Speaker 15: What up?
Speaker 2: J How are you doing?
Speaker 1: You notice that guy as already asked, Oh, he must
Speaker 1: die or must be a fed because I don't concede
Speaker 1: his moral high ground. It's about the black dude talking
Speaker 1: about the N word. What's up? Man?
Speaker 2: Can you hear me?
Speaker 15: Hello?
Speaker 1: Yeah?
Speaker 2: Well, first of all was I was.
Speaker 9: Inquired about worthotoxy for two years and I recently converted
Speaker 9: this Easter. I wanted to ask you, do you have
Speaker 9: any advice on helping parents convert? Because my mom is
Speaker 9: a non denominational and she really doesn't get the whole
Speaker 9: gist of Orthodoxy even if I were to explain it
Speaker 9: to her.
Speaker 1: I mean, I wouldn't try to debate and explain it
Speaker 1: to my parents. I would try to be a good
Speaker 1: son and become a responsible adult, and that will be
Speaker 1: some of the best type of evidence and argumentation to
Speaker 1: help convince your mom. You're never going to convince your
Speaker 1: your parents by debating them. Don't try it. It's a
Speaker 1: huge mistake I made in my twenties. Don't even waste
Speaker 1: your time trying it. You're going to convert them through
Speaker 1: whether they're proud of you becoming immature adult electric? What's up?
Speaker 1: Have you forgiven on mobile electric?
Speaker 34: I'm you, Hey, Jay, it's an honor.
Speaker 2: Thanks a lot for having the MIC. I've seen your work.
Speaker 6: Super excited to talk to you. Thanks a lot for
Speaker 6: your time. I wanted to ask you a couple of questions.
Speaker 6: What would you advise for someone who has a belief
Speaker 6: in God?
Speaker 2: But how do you cross that bridge to face?
Speaker 6: And what do you think about death and dying and
Speaker 6: like what happens to you in the afterlife?
Speaker 1: I would say, go visit an Orthodox church and experience
Speaker 1: all of that in the first person. And I believe
Speaker 1: that when we die, we have a particular judgment and
Speaker 1: then we have a return of the soul to God
Speaker 1: sometimes called the toll houses, and we don't know the
Speaker 1: specifics of all that. We may kind of be around
Speaker 1: the grave and so forth. His father sur from Rose
Speaker 1: says in his book Soul after Death, Life, the soul
Speaker 1: after death, and then we return to God. So how
Speaker 1: that works out, we don't know the specifics. But and
Speaker 1: then at the resurrection we are all rejoined to our
Speaker 1: bodies at the end of time, at the general resurrection
Speaker 1: for the Great White Throne judgment. So those are the
Speaker 1: and then we enter into the eternal resurrected new heavens
Speaker 1: and new Earth. Or we have rejected God and we
Speaker 1: experience God as torment. Not that God torments people, but
Speaker 1: they God has experienced as torment. Ethan, what's up?
Speaker 2: What's that dogth?
Speaker 1: You owe me a COUCHI suit Ethan? Hey, So I
Speaker 1: have an agnostic and.
Speaker 14: Eastern Orthodox inquiring background, and as fate happened, I also
Speaker 14: inquired at a foreign Baptist church recently made mistake because well,
Speaker 14: maybe not a mistake.
Speaker 2: But once I learned a little bit more.
Speaker 14: About the theology, I was horrified, frankly, and I think
Speaker 14: I've absorbed some of the assumptions of Eastern.
Speaker 30: Theology, which is why I reacted so negatively to reform theology.
Speaker 30: And I was wondering if you could kind of steal
Speaker 30: man A couple of positions and present how that could
Speaker 30: possibly gel with the Gospel and adjust.
Speaker 14: God, namely that God would only elect certain humans and
Speaker 14: not give us proper free will or give us a
Speaker 14: fake free will in which we can't actually choose him
Speaker 14: until He regenerates us through grace. I can't understand how
Speaker 14: these Calvinists can believe that a just God would create
Speaker 14: certain humans just to be condemned, which is the extension
Speaker 14: of that view.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I can tell you how. It's called theological voluntarism,
Speaker 1: and it's one of the sort of attendant ideas to
Speaker 1: absolute divine simplicity. So when I was a Calvinist, the
Speaker 1: reason I thought this was because I just sort of
Speaker 1: defaulted to thinking, well, God is the ultimate creator and
Speaker 1: sovereign being, and so that must mean then that he's
Speaker 1: also the ultimate determiner of what is right and wrong. Right,
Speaker 1: so that would mean that, well, if God did create
Speaker 1: somebody to damn them, you can't say God can't do that,
Speaker 1: because God can do anything that he wants. So because
Speaker 1: I was kind of a without knowing that, you know,
Speaker 1: when I first became a Calvinist, I didn't know what
Speaker 1: theological voluntarism was. I didn't realize that. Well, that's a
Speaker 1: position that's kind of goes back to William of Auckham.
Speaker 1: Even though he wasn't a Calvinist, he had this voluntaristic
Speaker 1: position and Calvindary states it explicitly, which is that but
Speaker 1: God's will is his essence, and this God can will
Speaker 1: whatever he wants. And so there's not a nature that
Speaker 1: corresponds or of the good, or created natures that correspond
Speaker 1: to the divine nature. Right, So, because there's no created
Speaker 1: natures that reflect the divine nature, God's nature thus has
Speaker 1: no things or categories that restrict or bind it, and
Speaker 1: so it has to be completely unbounded. The divine will
Speaker 1: has to be completely unbounded. And that was my presubposition
Speaker 1: about what divine sovereignty had to mean. So, because I
Speaker 1: had that perspective, that under was underlying my readings of
Speaker 1: all the texts. Right, so when I would read Ephesians
Speaker 1: one two, or when I would read Romans nine, or
Speaker 1: you know, various other passages to talk about divine sovereignty, like,
Speaker 1: my assumption is, oh, well, then that must mean that
Speaker 1: you know, the elect are the fixed number of people
Speaker 1: that were chosen forth the foundational world because God's all knowing, right.
Speaker 1: But as you you learn more, and as you get
Speaker 1: a little more sophisticated, I think, with understanding philosophical distinctions
Speaker 1: that end up being pretty necessary for theology, you realize
Speaker 1: that there's some pretty big problems with theological voluntarism, and
Speaker 1: you realize, well, wait a minute, you know what I
Speaker 1: thought was a Reformation debate. They already had this debate
Speaker 1: in the Middle Ages, right, and this was the debate
Speaker 1: over how many angels can dance on the head of
Speaker 1: a pen. That was a real theological debate because it
Speaker 1: related to the question of which I think Aukham raised,
Speaker 1: which was if God wanted to, could he immediately just
Speaker 1: damn all the blessed that are in heaven? And if
Speaker 1: you're a theological voluntariers, you have to say, well, yeah,
Speaker 1: because God's will is the ultimate determiner of good, and
Speaker 1: so God willed too he could actually change what the
Speaker 1: good is. Right, you can begin to see how well
Speaker 1: actually this is moving more than more in the direction
Speaker 1: of like Islam. And then again you get more sophisticated,
Speaker 1: you learn more, you realize, oh, wait a minute, why
Speaker 1: does sovereignty have to mean a absolute divine simplicity level
Speaker 1: position that equates the divine will to the divine essence,
Speaker 1: and thus the divine will becomes an essential determining cause. So,
Speaker 1: for example, it didn't occur to me that God could
Speaker 1: create a world where there are multiple secondary causes, right,
Speaker 1: And if you think I think about Islam, Islam has
Speaker 1: the exact same position with what's called occasionalism. And if
Speaker 1: you're a Calvinist and you're looking into why Calvinism is wrong,
Speaker 1: I highly recommend, at least if you want to approach
Speaker 1: from a philosophical perspective. Our good buddy Lewis over at
Speaker 1: Orthodox Shahada made a very overlooked video that really flew
Speaker 1: under the radar. It was a very I think it's
Speaker 1: because it was so kind of metaphysically oriented that most
Speaker 1: people kind of found it difficult. But I think if
Speaker 1: you have a little bit of philosophical knowledge, it won't
Speaker 1: be too difficult. And it's uh. When we were doing
Speaker 1: a lot of Muslim debates, we were encountering and dealing
Speaker 1: with the sunny argumentation about occasionalism where's it at? And
Speaker 1: it actually ends up being another excellent way to refute Calvinism.
Speaker 1: Am I said, did I misspell occasionalism? I know what's
Speaker 1: on here.
Speaker 25: Let's see.
Speaker 1: So for those that don't know, the classic Sunny position
Speaker 1: is the idea that that God all law cannot allow
Speaker 1: for secondary causes, so there can be creaturely causes. Right,
Speaker 1: So when we say that God is the original cause,
Speaker 1: the first cause, the direct cause, et cetera of the
Speaker 1: creation of the world or whatever. In the Islamic conception,
Speaker 1: they would say that if you allow for secondary causes,
Speaker 1: you're actually detracting from Allah's all powerfulness or his sovereignty.
Speaker 1: And why that is I don't know, Like why could
Speaker 1: it not be? It's just an arbitrary assumption, right, Like
Speaker 1: why could it not be the case that maybe being
Speaker 1: all powerful also includes a being that can create secondary causes,
Speaker 1: you see, So it's just sort of an assumption. Where
Speaker 1: is Lewis's here, It is classical Islam's unusual metaphysics. And
Speaker 1: this is Lewis's excellent documentary. It only got ten thousand
Speaker 1: views and Lewis put like a million hours into this
Speaker 1: poor video. But this also refuse it's calvinism. If you
Speaker 1: watch this video and you understand it, it actually refutes
Speaker 1: Calvinism too. So here we are. We had twenty two
Speaker 1: hundred live and then we dropped to fifteen hundred as
Speaker 1: soon as I started talking about metaphysics. So notice how
Speaker 1: people just flee like the mirror mention of metaphysics. Do
Speaker 1: people just run, dude, They're just run for the hills.
Speaker 1: I don't understand why so many people just have no
Speaker 1: attention span and they're so just freaked out or like
Speaker 1: they're just like you mentioned a philosophical term and your
Speaker 1: your audience literally just immediately cuts in half. It's always
Speaker 1: been that way. It's crazy. You mentioned mention, a book
Speaker 1: mentioned literary analysis. Boom, two thirds are gone. Doe, they
Speaker 1: hit the freaking door. They out this mother, So there
Speaker 1: you go. This refutes Calvinism as well, because these are
Speaker 1: the metaphysical assumptions of Calvinism, absolutely identical to Sunni Islam.
Speaker 1: And I remember when I was to read the Puritans, right,
Speaker 1: I remember reading one time Jonathan Edwards in his sermons
Speaker 1: actually making occasionalist arguments. He said that for God to
Speaker 1: be all powerful, he actually must at every millisecond destroy
Speaker 1: and recreate the world, otherwise there would be other causes,
Speaker 1: and thus God would not be the immediate direct cause. Right,
Speaker 1: So even though Calvinists give, as this guy said when
Speaker 1: he called in a verbal credence to quote free will,
Speaker 1: it's not really free will because it's all still the
Speaker 1: direct divine decree that is the cause of every event.
Speaker 1: Well that's the Muslim position, dude, That's literally the Islamic
Speaker 1: sunny occasionalist position. And it's really absurd if you think
Speaker 1: about it. So it's like, I'm not even the same
Speaker 1: Jay from two seconds ago. Right, And by the way,
Speaker 1: why is it one second or why is it one millisecond?
Speaker 1: I mean, wouldn't it also be every nanosecond? It's just absurd.
Speaker 1: It's like just stupid stuff. And I mean you're not
Speaker 1: even going to find Muslims who even understand this, like
Speaker 1: maybe Jake, Like Jake is probably the only Muslim that
Speaker 1: can even talk about metaphysics. So so yeah, so that
Speaker 1: also works for a few Calvinism and the assumptions that
Speaker 1: underlie the reading of a text. So notice right there,
Speaker 1: you see that texts aren't self interpreting, like Calvinists and
Speaker 1: Protestants think, texts are replete with ambiguity and their theory
Speaker 1: laden and if texts are theory laden, then so are miracles,
Speaker 1: so are evidences. So we need a paradigm, and we
Speaker 1: all have a paradigm through which we interpret the evidence
Speaker 1: is the facts, the texts, the miracles, the events, et cetera.
Speaker 1: Hopefully that's a helpful explanation. And that was my thinking
Speaker 1: when I was a Calvinist. I was like, well, I'm
Speaker 1: just trying to follow the clear meaning of the scriptures.
Speaker 1: And I wanted to say, you know, I may not
Speaker 1: like the idea that God creates people for damnation, but
Speaker 1: who am I to challenge God? Right? And I thought
Speaker 1: that was the line of argument that Paul had in
Speaker 1: Romans nine. But then later on I remember being challenged.
Speaker 1: Even this was even during the when the Presbyterians were,
Speaker 1: when Doug Wilson was first having his sect, when he
Speaker 1: first created his CREC. I was in the Presbyterian circles
Speaker 1: at that time, and the schism happened because Doug Wilson,
Speaker 1: By the way, it wasn't because he was Orthodox, but
Speaker 1: they started posing points that would actually lead eventually lead
Speaker 1: a lot of people into Orthodox here Catholicism. What they
Speaker 1: started saying things, well, wait a minute, Paul's letters and
Speaker 1: Ephesians are not written to the elect They're written to
Speaker 1: an actual visible community at Ephesus. And when that clicked
Speaker 1: with me, I was like, wait a minute, well, that
Speaker 1: would mean he's calling the whole visible community the predestined.
Speaker 1: So then my visible invisible split a Nestorian ecclesiology started
Speaker 1: falling apart. Even way back then when I was listening
Speaker 1: to Doug Wilson and what was called the Auburn Avenue Conference, right,
Speaker 1: a bunch of these Presbyterian OPC and PCA pastors did
Speaker 1: this conference under this I forget the guy's name who
Speaker 1: hosted the conference, but they argued for collective identity of
Speaker 1: the church with those types of texts, and they already
Speaker 1: for paido communion. And this was a huge deal in
Speaker 1: the Presbyterian world because Presbyterianism was so adamant about you know,
Speaker 1: paido baptism but not paido communion, just a really bizarre,
Speaker 1: sort of arbitrary position. And they started challenging that and
Speaker 1: arguing that, hey, maybe there's actually a biblical case for
Speaker 1: paido communion. And then you start saying you start moving
Speaker 1: into thinking, well, wait a minute, if there's a biblical
Speaker 1: case for that, and a historical case. Then is there
Speaker 1: a biblical historical case for baptismal regeneration? You see how
Speaker 1: the dominoes begin to fall. So those were all definitely
Speaker 1: elements that led me out of Calvinism a long time ago,
Speaker 1: and I wasn't ready for Orthodox yet. I just went,
Speaker 1: you know, straight into Rome because I thought, I thought,
Speaker 1: back in two thousand and three, it was just sort
Speaker 1: of you're either Protestant or your Orthodox, I mean, or
Speaker 1: your Catholic. Right, there was that for most people even
Speaker 1: at that time. You know, you had Bonson debating Jerry Madditis,
Speaker 1: you had Scott Hahnd debating James White and Protestant people.
Speaker 1: You had Catholic apologists like Dave Armstrong and whoever else,
Speaker 1: and that was really all there was. Right. Nobody knew
Speaker 1: about Orthodox apologists, you know, Perry Robinson wasn't known yet.
Speaker 1: He was blogging perhaps, but there wasn't a big visible
Speaker 1: presence like there was for the Catholic Protestant debate, which
Speaker 1: had been going on for centuries obviously. So anyway, I'm rambling,
Speaker 1: but Elijah was something.
Speaker 2: Yell, hey, gil uh.
Speaker 11: So I had a I had a question that I
Speaker 11: was really hoping that Paul deacon In and I should
Speaker 11: be on here for.
Speaker 10: A bit, but i'll i'll just shoo shoot the shot.
Speaker 1: Anyways, So is it a dense tag question, because we've
Speaker 1: had several people trying to get like I'm trying to
Speaker 1: do Protestant versus Orthodox mainly here. Is it a tag question? No,
Speaker 1: it's not.
Speaker 2: It's a it's a scism great skills in question.
Speaker 1: Okay.
Speaker 11: So now I'm going to preface my my question with
Speaker 11: saying that I am about the furthest person from an ecumenist.
Speaker 2: Okay, I am like it's the opposite of that.
Speaker 1: Okay.
Speaker 34: But there's one little thing that I'm kind of just
Speaker 34: like wondering about, and I'm kind of confused about, which
Speaker 34: is in the history of the Great Schism, It's it's
Speaker 34: pretty evident that the schism isn't actually like a clean overnight.
Speaker 1: Yeah. I've made this argument for ten years, right, it
Speaker 1: takes a few centuries for this to really like work
Speaker 1: its way out, right.
Speaker 11: So one of the things that I'm you know, one
Speaker 11: of the things I'm kind of saying is that with
Speaker 11: the other patriarchates besides Constantinople, it took even them kind
Speaker 11: of a little bit of time to recognize a schism,
Speaker 11: you know, push away to Rome saying they're not part
Speaker 11: of the church.
Speaker 2: Right, So, so I guess my question is that some of.
Speaker 10: The post schism Roman Catholic saints that are like immediately
Speaker 10: after the schism. I guess I'm just kind of wondering, like,
Speaker 10: is there a reason why even if the other Patriarchids
Speaker 10: are still communion with Rome for a long time after
Speaker 10: that schism, Like, why wouldn't some of those.
Speaker 2: Roman Catholic saints right afterwards not be.
Speaker 11: People that would have some grace or maybe they would
Speaker 11: be recognized as a saint.
Speaker 2: Like I'm just kind of curious on how that would work.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I don't think we don't know. I mean, I
Speaker 1: think the one thing about Orthodoxy is that we're happy
Speaker 1: at times to say, you know, we leave that up
Speaker 1: to God. We don't have to make judgments about every
Speaker 1: single post schism saint. Obviously, I want to hope that
Speaker 1: everybody makes it, you know what I mean. But you
Speaker 1: know there's ambiguity too because we don't exactly know their
Speaker 1: status or how much they did and didn't know. Right.
Speaker 1: So for example, you know, Thomas Beckett, right like was
Speaker 1: Thomas Beckett believing in the double eternal hypostetic procession while
Speaker 1: he was a famous you know, Roman Catholic martyr in England,
Speaker 1: and I think he's post schism. I want to say,
Speaker 1: what is he?
Speaker 14: Like?
Speaker 1: Eleven hundreds? I mean, but maybe we don't have enough
Speaker 1: writings to know did he one h a percent understand
Speaker 1: or even know what the Council b Lion said. So
Speaker 1: that's why many cases it's just sort of ambergurity, as
Speaker 1: jesse Lei Peterson was saying, I mean to me, that
Speaker 1: makes sense, right, It's like for us, like you know,
Speaker 1: there was that ambigurity period where Saint Isaac the Syrian
Speaker 1: his group ended up being in communion with the Orthodox
Speaker 1: Church at that certain point, and thus we can say
Speaker 1: he was a saint. But you know, unless there's like
Speaker 1: some sort of like explicit evidence where okay, well they're
Speaker 1: actually saying And there's another point to make too. When
Speaker 1: all the Coptics got mad at me because I was
Speaker 1: saying that we can't add their martyrs to our calendar,
Speaker 1: It's like we're not saying that God can't you know,
Speaker 1: extend grace to them and make them part of the
Speaker 1: mystical body. We don't know that. In fact, I hope
Speaker 1: that he does. I hope that all those people are
Speaker 1: in heaven. We don't want anybody to be damned. But
Speaker 1: it doesn't mean that we have to accept them in
Speaker 1: the calendar, right, And that's I think the confusion here
Speaker 1: is that people leave this element out and they just
Speaker 1: assume that, oh, well, you know, you got to say
Speaker 1: that the Coptic martyrs are saints. Well, saint for us
Speaker 1: means that they're going to be in the calendar. And
Speaker 1: that's not something that we want to extend to everybody,
Speaker 1: and we don't want to have, you know, angles by
Speaker 1: which people could exploit this for acumenism. So hopefully that
Speaker 1: makes sense. But I think when you read the literature,
Speaker 1: for example, about the the course of the debate from
Speaker 1: the time of say Maximus all the way up to Florence,
Speaker 1: that's like almost that's eight hundred years of figuring out, Okay,
Speaker 1: what do you guys mean, Well, here's what we mean, right, so,
Speaker 1: and it doesn't get dogmatized in the West until Lyons
Speaker 1: in Florence. So I'm happy to extend as much a
Speaker 1: charity throughout that period. So let's say, when was so
Speaker 1: Thomas Beckett was martyred like a century after the schism right,
Speaker 1: and he died before even the council Lions, So you know,
Speaker 1: and I would say even if he was recy a
Speaker 1: Phillyoquay Creed, you know, the same Aximus says, there's ambiguity
Speaker 1: in what they mean by that. Now, I think it's
Speaker 1: wrong to recite a Philioquay Creed. But do we have
Speaker 1: to say that this guy didn't give his life for Christ. No,
Speaker 1: because there's no explicit, identifiable means by which we can say, Okay,
Speaker 1: this guy was actually a heretic. Right, unless there is
Speaker 1: some unknown treatise that I don't know about where Thomas
Speaker 1: Beckett is defending, you know, the phillyoquay or so maybe
Speaker 1: there is. I don't know, but I'm just giving an
Speaker 1: example from somebody that pops into my head. So but
Speaker 1: I could be wrong about that. I'm not a I'm
Speaker 1: not an expert in this period of the twelfth century.
Speaker 1: So Kevin, what's something? Man?
Speaker 2: All right? Dad?
Speaker 14: That work?
Speaker 1: I just have myself, ag did you have a question.
Speaker 31: I just want to respond to the guy who asked
Speaker 31: about the cannon question, who said he was going to
Speaker 31: debate protest.
Speaker 35: That is a great I learned.
Speaker 31: A lot from you on that one, though, promise it
Speaker 31: has been able to answer.
Speaker 1: That for me yet, like how do we know you
Speaker 1: know who wrote the books or who gave us the cannon?
Speaker 35: But I also thoroughly agree with what you said about
Speaker 35: not debating.
Speaker 31: Your parents because my dad were a non denom.
Speaker 35: Pastor and I've tried it to and dude, it's just yeah,
Speaker 35: at least, uh, just terrible stuff in the family and
Speaker 35: it's not what Christ wants.
Speaker 1: I don't think no, and your parents, You're never going
Speaker 1: to convert your family members that way. They're the people
Speaker 1: that cleaned your diapers up. They're not going to listen
Speaker 1: to your theological you know, gibbering and jabbering for hours.
Speaker 1: They don't. They don't care about that. Toby, what's up?
Speaker 2: Uh?
Speaker 1: I would say there are some, you know, exceptions to
Speaker 1: that rule. I mean, if they ask you specifically, hold
Speaker 1: on a second, If your parents ask you specifically, you know, hey,
Speaker 1: what is the theological understanding the Orthodox Church on the filial?
Speaker 1: Then yeah, you got to answer them when you shouldn't
Speaker 1: give give an answer. But you know, just don't debate
Speaker 1: your parents. Don't try to get everybody at you know,
Speaker 1: Thanksgiving dinner, you know, arguing over essence, inergy station or
Speaker 1: something like that. What's that?
Speaker 2: Man? Hi, how are you?
Speaker 1: I'm Golod, what's up?
Speaker 22: Uh?
Speaker 18: Yeah?
Speaker 21: My question is so I'm a like just inquiring into
Speaker 21: Catholicism and Orthodoxy. And my question was I'm slightly leading
Speaker 21: towards Orthodoxy and I was just wondering what is probably
Speaker 21: the best church father to go through straightaway to read
Speaker 21: to become more knowledgeable about Orthodoxy.
Speaker 1: Well, I think one of the best routes you could
Speaker 1: take patristically is to read the Cappadocians, and you'll see
Speaker 1: that it's very different from what you get in Augustine. So, uh,
Speaker 1: the capital and the reason the capp Dotions matter so
Speaker 1: much is that for the Orthodox we hold an ecumenical
Speaker 1: council above any individual church father. Right, So as Augustin,
Speaker 1: as good as he was, like, if his theology is
Speaker 1: not accepted at the ecumenical council that defines the Trinity,
Speaker 1: then he's not going to have the same status for
Speaker 1: us as the Cappadocians would. So if Cappadocian theology is
Speaker 1: accepted at Constantinople one and It is then clearly Basil
Speaker 1: in the Holy Spirit, the theological orations of Saint Gregory
Speaker 1: nazian Zeus and Saint Gregorissa's of various rieties, particularly you know,
Speaker 1: against Eunomius. But I'm not going to tell you to
Speaker 1: read Against Eunomius because it's going to be one of
Speaker 1: the most difficult books that you'll read. I would say
Speaker 1: focus on Basil and the Holy Spirit, Basils against Eunomius
Speaker 1: and Sant Gregor not sianzras Is theological Orations, because they
Speaker 1: will give you the best introduction to the Orthodox Catholic
Speaker 1: mindset on the Trinity and the hyposthetic property, the Father
Speaker 1: being the sole cause, all of which is really just
Speaker 1: very different from the speculative ideas that Augustin comes up
Speaker 1: with from Neo Plaianism and from Plotinus's and neod It's
Speaker 1: about how to try to defend phillyoquay and that kind
Speaker 1: of stuff. So and again, people who are the Latinizers
Speaker 1: like they act like the latinizing is just this issue
Speaker 1: that deals with like psa or something latinizing. It also
Speaker 1: includes things like Augustine literally cribbing multiple sections of the
Speaker 1: fourth or fifth in ead to prove the phillyoquay. So
Speaker 1: it's like they don't even realize how deep that that goes.
Speaker 1: And that's just not part of what we do, Like
Speaker 1: we're not into that. And Augustin himself said he would
Speaker 1: submit his book to the judgment of the Universal Church.
Speaker 1: By the way, he didn't say I'm going to send
Speaker 1: it to Rome, because Rome is the final arbiter. He said,
Speaker 1: the Universal Church can decide, and the Universal Church said,
Speaker 1: we affirm the Cappudocian teaching. So there you and the
Speaker 1: Cappudocan teaching is clearly not the same as the Augustinian teaching.
Speaker 1: You don't have to go very far in on the
Speaker 1: Trinity and the Cappadocians to see that. Well, Emmanuel says,
Speaker 1: this may not be hambergurity, but it might cover it.
Speaker 1: Thank you. He sends fifty Mexican pesos for ambiguity, Anthony
Speaker 1: or something. I thought it was like three in the morning.
Speaker 1: It's only midnight, so we're doing good. What's up man, Hey.
Speaker 2: Jay, thanks for posting this.
Speaker 7: Kurt Kurt Mormon inquiring into Orthodoxy, Good and Divine Liturgy,
Speaker 7: pamful of Times, and a couple of services during Holy Week,
Speaker 7: So well, one.
Speaker 2: I just love your your prayers and prayers from your community.
Speaker 7: I got a wife and five kids that are all
Speaker 7: very very Mormon still and not interested at all.
Speaker 2: Uh and uh, you.
Speaker 7: Know and exploring anything outside of it.
Speaker 2: And UH for me right now, what.
Speaker 7: I'm struggling with because you know, coming from the paradigm
Speaker 7: of Mormonism and praying about you know what's true and
Speaker 7: getting the indigestion and you know, burning the bosom and
Speaker 7: you know that being the confirmation, all the confirmation you
Speaker 7: need to know something is true. As I study Orthodoxy
Speaker 7: and attend, I'm really really skeptical of my feelings. I've
Speaker 7: kind of gone, you know, almost a complete other direction
Speaker 7: where I'm so afraid of preless that I don't I
Speaker 7: don't want to trust that you know, I'm having a
Speaker 7: good experience or I'm feeling peaceful here because I don't
Speaker 7: want to be deceived by by any of those feelings.
Speaker 7: So how what what advice can you give me on
Speaker 7: council that how to guess how to navigate that? And
Speaker 7: you know, I'm not necessarily looking for how do I
Speaker 7: know it's true? I think that probably just maybe comes
Speaker 7: to me over a long experience and you know, going
Speaker 7: to divine edery and doing more study.
Speaker 2: But how do I not shut off?
Speaker 7: I guess those good you know, feelings and things that
Speaker 7: might be coming from from God versus you know.
Speaker 1: Yeah, yeah, I think again, like the experience. You just
Speaker 1: have to judge the feelings and the experiences by the
Speaker 1: Orthodox theological tradition and also in concert with your spiritual father. Right,
Speaker 1: So when you've got Orthodox, you'll have a person that
Speaker 1: will be kind of like the person that you bounce
Speaker 1: those kinds of questions off.
Speaker 2: Right.
Speaker 1: So if you feel like, oh, you know, I had
Speaker 1: this dream and I feel like God's moved me to
Speaker 1: do this, and that you'll bounce that off of other people.
Speaker 1: And you know, Orthodoxy has those checks and balances at
Speaker 1: the firewall, which you know, like these evangelical charismatic sects
Speaker 1: and groups they don't have that. So they're very very
Speaker 1: much prime, uh you know, candidates for the creation of
Speaker 1: cults because people start thinking like, you know, and Lee
Speaker 1: does that, Oh, Jesus and Mary are talking to me,
Speaker 1: and I'm actually the new Mary because I had this
Speaker 1: vision in the infirmary and all this kind of stuff,
Speaker 1: and I'm the new female savior. Feminist Jesus and all
Speaker 1: this insanity. Right, that's all an extreme example of her delusions.
Speaker 1: But it's exactly what I'm saying. It's like, there's no
Speaker 1: guard rails for that type of an attitude. And even
Speaker 1: though she's an extreme version of the charismatic stuff, it's
Speaker 1: a it's a it's the point is it still stands.
Speaker 2: Right.
Speaker 1: It's like in Mormonism, people forget Mormonism is also a
Speaker 1: charismatic faith that they believe in ongoing public revelation. Some
Speaker 1: of the Mormon schisms and sex believe in like glossalalia
Speaker 1: and and new interpreting of tongues and all kinds of nonsense.
Speaker 1: So so I think if as long as you're bouncing
Speaker 1: it off of your spiritual Father and you're within the
Speaker 1: the guard rails that are established, you don't have to
Speaker 1: worry about you know, I'm not going to be sieved
Speaker 1: or something like that, Right, I think I think we're
Speaker 1: the most sort of