Speaker 1: S S S S S S S S S S
S S S S S S S S.
Speaker 2: S.
Speaker 3: All right, welcome, hope everybody's sir.
Speaker 4: I woke up today to some fancy, flashy, sassy new
drama from the Internet's.
Speaker 3: Hottest little boats Eie Wearer.
Speaker 4: I'm talking about that predestined as sunny occasionalist, Calvinist Muslim
man James Watt and his little cute little list that
he's got. He's just so in a tizzy today. He's
just sassy today. Something got up under him and got
him all sassed. I don't know what it is, but
if we're gonna go to Roman's nine, honey child, he's
our man. He can exege that perfectly. With that diploma
meal degree that he got down in South Africa, down
there with his little Ubungu friends that he's got. I
wonder what they get up to down there with that
little lisp. He's got it and there's no telling them.
Maybe he did it. Maybe he did his diploma, diploma,
MA degree online. I think they have extension courses up
there for little James wherever he's located inside of his
little RV.
Speaker 3: They might be over here in New Orleans right now.
Speaker 4: If it's Marti Grauls time, I'm over here, about fifty
miles outside of New Orleans. I I could just run
over there and find James if he's over there on
down in the French quarters. If he's down there, Exaget
and Romans nine for some of the some of the
men's over there in the French quarters. But listen, I'll
tell you one thing, honey, you ain't going to find
a better cosmusweater anywhere in the damn us than down
there in that French quarter. Some of them women's down
there that does the tarot reatings, the tarot cards, Honey,
Them tarot readers will sew you a Cosby sweater like
Joseph's technicolor dreamcoat, Honey, out of the doll of the
Book of Genesis, honey. And that's what James White's all about.
I hope James Whites will come over here and I
and just talk to him a little bit. But he's
got that cute little honey. Have you ever seen that
little Colonel Sanders.
Speaker 5: Go to you?
Speaker 4: He's got And it just makes me think all them
chickens that Biden had just killed, all one hundred fifty
billion of them. If I was thinking like James White
and that Colonel Sanders predestination mindset, they was destined for it, honey,
all one hundred fifty millions of them. Let's see, maybe
he'll come in here and tell us about Romans nine.
Romans nine, I'm just joking, being silly. I'm poisoning the well.
Oh wait, if I poison the well, it's on Christ.
Like when James White poisons the well, it's Boomer wisdom.
Speaker 3: I don't know what he was trying to say.
Speaker 4: If he doesn't debate a person with a green profile picture, wow,
those are good reasons. Now, for years, here's the backstory.
We messaged James White to do debates on.
Speaker 3: The Essen Center. You've seen Shin on Absolute to my Simplicity,
Tilly oak Way, all of that stuff.
Speaker 4: And for years he said, in his little sassy tone,
I don't know orthodox stuff. I just don't have tons
of debate I have, and he's just there's just too
much list thing I've.
Speaker 3: Got to do.
Speaker 6: I've got to study the art of the list.
Speaker 3: And I don't have time to study orthodox stuff.
Speaker 4: So he had no time for the last six seven years,
I guess, And now he wants to drive an RV
to debate me a year out, and what I guess
I'm supposed to like arrange this. I don't arrange in
person debates. I mean, I don't mind it. In person debate.
I've done one with Tim Gordon's brother in that ridiculous
Baptist pastor I don't remember his name, but that was
all organized by another podcast to settle that up. So
it's not that I'm completely opposed to it, but like
so William Albrech did this where he was like.
Speaker 3: Oh, debate you, but only.
Speaker 4: In person six months from now, and it's like, okay,
so I'm supposed to establish and set up a public
in person debate for you.
Speaker 3: I'm not doing all that shit, dude. You can hop
on a damn live streaming debate.
Speaker 4: And by the way, all these people usually will debate
other people on live streams. And I think his like
scrawling screed today of boomer nonsense was quite amusing, Like
I'm gonna have fun live streaming about this. So now
he calls into question my comedic capabilities.
Speaker 3: Is he even a comedian?
Speaker 4: Well, I'll have you know that I write for one
of the top comedians out there right now.
Speaker 3: You may have heard the name Amy Schumer.
Speaker 6: Thank you.
Speaker 4: Now we're going to open it up today's topics or
whatever you guys want to talk about. I do not
think we're really going to get many calvin Is in here,
but of course Calvinism gets the priority place today for
discussion topic. So if you'd like to discuss the elements
of Calvinism, that could include predestination, tulip Calvins, institutes, reform theology, Puritans,
it could be any of that.
Speaker 3: But we can also talk about, of course soul, scripturia.
We can talk about.
Speaker 4: The history of the church, councils, authority, you know, creeds
and confessions, church fathers.
Speaker 3: It's all fair game.
Speaker 4: Also, anything else related to the history of Protestantism, the
prosct Church, Classical Reformation, Lutheranism, Baptist theology, whatever, Also Catholicism
is on the table. If you are a papist, you
may call in and make your arguments. If you are
a Muslim, the buddies of the Calvinists, because they believe
in essentially the Divine decree is the cause of all causes.
So Muslims are welcome to call in together with their
about buddy Calvinists and we can have a discussion with
it as well as the atheists.
Speaker 3: It's open form today. First up is balance. You have
time you.
Speaker 7: So, Jay, I wanted to talk to you about Protestism.
Speaker 8: Can you hear me?
Speaker 3: Yep?
Speaker 7: So I've been looking into Catholicism and Orthodoxy for a
little while now. I was born and raised in Protestant Church. Well,
Costolicism never like intrigued me because Swols is gay with
the Pope god Man. But Orthodoxy always intrigued me. And
my question is because I'm I've always thought about conditionalism.
It's being biblical. And my main point is Isaiah. I
guess chapter sixty six, verses twenty two to twenty four
referred by Jesus and Mark when he says he sends
them to the outer room of darkness where the national
teeth and they become objects of content and their corpses
refer to Isaiah. So how is that like not like
them dying in hell? If that's where they go and
they're they become coarse corpses.
Speaker 3: And I didn't hear what you were saying. Conditionalism? What
is that?
Speaker 7: Yeah, it's basically now where people do you know die
in hell? Annihilism they call it.
Speaker 3: You're talking about annihilationism not not yet, my bad, Yeah,
I mean, the Bible doesn't teach annihilationism. It teaches that
both the body and the soul are joined together in
the resurrection for all eternity, and that's based on the
work of Christ. So in One Tear the fifteen Paul
makes it very clear that your resurrection, whoever you are,
is contingent upon Christ's resurrection and defeating death. But that
doesn't mean that you're going to have.
Speaker 4: Necessarily a good experience of the escaton if you're wicked.
The wicked have ever being, but they have ever ill being.
The righteous have ever being as well, but they have
ever well being.
Speaker 7: All right, that makes sense. I just when you look
at like mark and stuff. When Jesus talking about like
them can turn in the outer of darkness and the
national teeth, he says, it's going to be where the
fire doesn't quench and where the worm doesn't die. And
in Isaiah that's where like there are objects of contempt
and their corpses.
Speaker 4: I understand that, but the language is intending to discuss
a spiritual state. It's not literally saying that they have
a worm because the worm, according to the Church Fathers, typically
is the pangs of conscience. So they're tormented by their
conscience for what they did and what they didn't do
in life, they didn't repent, et cetera. But the fire
there is it's not everlasting darkness if it's literal fire, right,
So it's the descriptions of separation from the goodness of God,
not separation from the presence of God. And that's why
in the Orthodox of you, the divine energy that is
the river of life is the same divine energy that
is the lake of fire. It's just contingent upon the
mode of being of each individual person as to how
that's experienced in the afterlife. So if you lived unrighteously
and not according to Christ in this life, you're still
going to get resurrected on the basis of Christ, and
you're still going to experience God and the Eskaton, but
you're going to experience the divine energies as the thing
that torments you because you hated God.
Speaker 7: All right, Yeah, that makes sense.
Speaker 9: Yeah.
Speaker 7: I wasn't trying to like make a correlation of it
being dark. I know it wasn't being literal obviously, because
of the flames. But the analogy whatever you were saying
with the warm that makes sense. I never heard anyone
say that, And trying to like research and see what
other people's thoughts were.
Speaker 4: All thees Gaton Paul says that in One Green Is fifteen,
God becomes all and in all and the extent of
the resurrection. The scope of the resurrection in First Green
Is fifteen is just as expansive and universal as the
scope of Adams Fall. So that means that everyone, even
tiny mustache man like, the only basis for him to be.
Speaker 3: Resurrection resurrected is the worst of Christ.
Speaker 4: So this also, by the way, we're fu's Calvinism, because
Calvinism never really understands or explains why the wicked or
resurrected or the reprobate would be resurrected because they have
no connection to Christ. And so Calvinists just have to
say stuff like, well, God just arbitrarily creates a hell
body for them, Padre Pio, why'd you run away? I'm
about to bring up a Roman Catholic and you literally
just drop out. So it's funny, like, and people love
to just talk Tomac on Twitter all day long. James
White wants to schedule a debate on topics that are
not the topics that I asked them debate for many years,
totally different topics, and then but he can't hop on
his face and have this discussion. So yeah, it's just
really like another thing that people don't know maybe about
Calvinist is I was in that world when I was young,
and Calvinists really like their whole thing. They thrive on
being recognized and being seen as scholars and intellectuals, like
that's the whole religion. It's a it's a kind of
a it's like just a biblical almost Talmudic version of
what you know, papal scholastic people want to be right,
Scholastic nerds have a lot more philosophy. But both the
Calvinists scholastic want to be and the papal scholastic tomist
want to be they're really just worshiping intellect.
Speaker 3: The whole religion is about intellect.
Speaker 4: And being perceived as intellectual and known as intellectual and
given the validation of being an intellectual through debate. So
one of the things that I've learned over the years
that is very important is Calvinists do not at all
enjoy being mocked or made fun of because they take
themselves very seriously. And of course everyone could see that
in all the silly shit that he's posted today, James White,
it's all like, really, like this man, there's not a.
Speaker 3: Scholar.
Speaker 4: He's got a green of photo of himself and he's
got a photo of weird background images. The background images,
for those that don't know, has a bunch of fascinating
lore in it that my buddy and good friend Mark Rowe,
who is a very well known documentary filmmaker and a cinematographer,
just made as a joke. So like a lot of
the stuff, people don't even know what the jokes are.
They don't get it, but that's to be expected. I mean,
it's just like you know, the humor of Sam Hyde,
nobody over age, I don't know, fifty maybe even forty five,
I don't know, Like they don't typically care or get
that kind of humor like that.
Speaker 3: That's the generation gap.
Speaker 4: So although technically James White's probably gen X, I mean,
the whole mindset, the whole ethos here is just like
one hundred percent boomer for sure. But the point being
is like, now, of course he's not gonna they're not
gonna grasp or get like, well, what all we're talking about?
What we're about over here? But also like it's important
not to validate.
Speaker 3: Quote unquote these people's like perception of being quote a scholar.
You notice I don't care about that. I gave up.
I could care less about that shit. I used to
care about.
Speaker 4: That, especially when I was a Roman Catholic Thomas. You know,
when I went from Calvinist to Thomas, I was very
interested in academia, very interesting getting my degree. I want
to be seen as, oh, I'm a scholar. And then
once I realized that all that shits retarded and the
people in these movements are actually just retarded, and that
I actually I would respect a person who could actually
like a guy who actually go out and punch somebody
in the face and have a fight way better than
I would respect any of these so called pastors. I mean,
what did we just see yesterday. One of the biggest
megachurch pastors is basically Reverend Tuttle from true detective like
the literal pedo, like raping kids, you know, Protestant Evangelical
megachurch pastor. So I mean, what does that tell you like,
these people are just like literal trash and scum, and
they want to be seen as like these super intellectuals.
They're not even worth anybody's time. And by the way,
the rest of the Calvinists on the Twitter spaces are
complete trash too, the ones that fake that their wives
are submissive prairie muffins. That other guy the other day,
I think he was a Calvinist that was a fake
saying he was logging in and tweeting at this fake
wife account like.
Speaker 3: That she was submissive.
Speaker 4: And then you got Joel Webbin over here, who's like, uh,
basically wants to be a Salafie Muslim as a Calvinist.
All these Calvinists just need to go be freaking Muslims.
They need to be they need to be Salafie well Hobby,
they need to go be buddies with Jake and Daniel
Hikikachu because that's where they'd fit in. Jamie said, Joel
Webbin believes in Mermaids unironically, which is.
Speaker 3: Kind of funny. And now a bunch of the audience
are going to be.
Speaker 4: Like, oh, actually I like Joel Webbin though, because there's
probably a lot of other mrmaid appreciators in this chat,
there's a lot of there's a lot of people with
their crushes on Ariel over here. But didn't you know
Ariel from Little Mermaid is actually a Jewish plot because
Ariel is the name for Israel.
Speaker 3: I'm just joking as a joke, and.
Speaker 4: I would I'd like to remind you all again I
am one of the top comedy writers.
Speaker 3: Now I did finagle my way into that position.
Speaker 4: James White's questioning my comedic skill sets.
Speaker 3: I'll have you all know I am the.
Speaker 4: Top comedy writer for somebody you might have heard of,
Brendan Shaub.
Speaker 3: Thank you.
Speaker 4: Anybody else wants to come on to the chat. If
you hit request to speak, I'll bring you up. You
can ask questions in regard to Calvinism all the way.
Speaker 3: James White's actually.
Speaker 4: A ridiculous radical proponent of stupid ads. So I want
to debate him about that. Actually initially, and we were
going to talk about Philly Oakuay and all that stuff,
and he said multiple times over the years, I don't
debate orthodox stuff because I don't have time for it.
So he just sort of dismissed it.
Speaker 3: And then I asked again about that sinceni.
Speaker 4: In distinction, And then we asked Jeff Durbin when back
when Durbin was like in the circles or adjacent to
James White was saying at one point, oh, you know,
I don't really have time go out go tobate James Derbin.
So Durbin said, if you would like to debate me,
there's a good in line You're it's at least one
year out. And I'm just like, how, like, how much
first of all, how much prep do you actually need
if you're a damn Calvinist, Like you can't just defend
your position on the spot, Like, how much more prep
do you actually need if you've been at Calvinist for
freaking twenty thirty years? I mean when I was a Calvinist,
like a defendant on the spot, and pretty much really
any position, like if it's a really difficult issue, like
let's say we wanted to have a debate with a
Roman Catholic on We're going to debate, you know, the
geopolitical power of the papacy, which I keep trying to
get Roman Catholics to do, and none the will do it.
Like I would understand somebody requesting time for that because
that's a difficult nuance, a lot of time and effort.
But like if you're a Calvinist, like we all know too,
we all know predestination, we all know you know institutes,
we all know Westminster Confession.
Speaker 3: Like how much real prep you actually need on Ross?
Speaker 10: Yeah?
Speaker 11: Yeah, it's up, Yeah yeah yeah, I say, said, I
am here, so I wanted to speak with you. I
have a friend with the Roman Catholic I am Ortodox,
and I watched your video on iconography on the seventeen
you Manical Concil, and he raped the objection that viality
matter in which style is the icon.
Speaker 3: So I can't understand what you're saying.
Speaker 4: You watched the video I did on the seventh Ecmmenical Council,
and we've done about four of those, so I'm not
sure what.
Speaker 11: Recent one on iconography where you argued that the current style,
like in the fifteenth century the Roman Catholics used is incorrect.
Speaker 10: And I read.
Speaker 11: The seventh Ecumenical councils canons and I couldn't find anything
about that that.
Speaker 3: I already addressed that.
Speaker 4: So the seventh Ecumenical Council has multiple canons that do
address icons, and then one hundred years later almost in
the eight forty three Council, it's called the Triumph of
Orthodoxy where they create the Sonoticon and they restate all
of the canons and the victory or ecume me the
principles of the Seventh Ecumenical Council. So the Sonoticon is
a summary of the Seventh Ecumenical Council and.
Speaker 3: Includes all those principles. So just look up the full
Sonoticon of Orthodoxy which includes all that.
Speaker 11: Okay, thank you. But so if it's wrong to use
a different style of iconography and then.
Speaker 4: What they use, I mean, I literally address that it
has nothing to do with styles. If you watch the
video that you're talking about that I did, that was
like twenty minutes of a live stream. I literally sat
in there. That it's not an issue of the style
of the icon. It's rather an issue in other words,
artistic style. I mean, you could talk I'll talk to
any Orthodox iconographer and they'll tell you that they at times,
you know, utilize their own individual style and creativity. So
there's room for flexibility there. But the point is that
there's norms that you don't, for example, paint a bunch
of boobies and titties and you know, butts and dick
hanging out like the Vatican has.
Speaker 3: Like it's obvious. So like what I'm saying isn't even controversial.
Speaker 4: If you read the Lost Kyalspensky books volume one and two,
they're not even that long.
Speaker 3: It just talks about all the same stuff.
Speaker 10: Okay, yeah, thank you, that's just my quession.
Speaker 4: All right, Yeah, no good questions. I'mpre sire that all right, Dave,
what's up, Dave? You don't want to talk?
Speaker 3: What's going on? And then Dave leaves?
Speaker 4: So Dave the Muslim didn't want to talk, all right,
so it's open for him. Any questions regarding Calvinism, Protestantism, Evangelicalism,
from Catholicism, church history, biblical theology, Islam, Atheism, E request
to speak. I'll bring you up. You can ask a
question or you can offer an argument. You can listen
to your reasons why you think X y Z is wrong.
Just keep it to making arguments. And you know it's
that other Calvinists too, I forget his name, say awful
us or something like.
Speaker 3: He's like you need to do a blog debate with me.
I don't do debates. That's exactly what Lofton said. Lofton's
like Jay Dieks turned down a debate with me, dog,
and then he doesn't tell you that the debate offer
was a blog debate. Like, dude, this is twenty twenty five,
broh Ain't nobody blog except maybe like some substack people.
Speaker 4: But I'm not debating you in an exchange of substacks.
Speaker 3: Anything I write is going into a stupid book. Dude.
Speaker 4: I'm not writing for free anymore. It's going in a book.
So I don't know what what what these people are
that boomers like you want to come debate on Facebook
exchange and like, dude, get the hell out of here,
go back to Facebook. Uh, boomer Land, Today's funny because
it's all like boomer shit too like. And I will
never stop making boomer jokes. I'm the damn grandfather of
boomer jokes. I will proudly tout that as part of
my credit, I wrote a viral article fifteen years ago
making fun of boomers whenever world internet.
Speaker 3: Back of the day.
Speaker 4: And I will keep making fun of boomers even when
I'm a freaking nine year old senior citizen man and
the boomers don't exist. I'm still gonna be telling the
youngsters the lore of Boomer bullshit.
Speaker 3: Where'd that guy go? He drops everybody popping on here?
Drops off? Where you all at? Come on now now,
Oh now, Uncle Baby Billy's Bible bunkers, Come on now,
step up. Somebody got to step up. Oh now, get up, anybody,
it's Uncle Baby Billy's Bible bunkers. Step on up and
be quizzed. Gets your worldview tested, get your worldview put
in check? All right, we got hasani hey, dudekay.
Speaker 12: I don't necessarily, I guess it kind of does apply
to the town topics, but I don't have anything that's
like specific to to one of the individual topics. I
just actually I had a question about something regardless. Obviously
I was in the obviously I was the one that
was sent in the super chests last night, and that
little and the thing with hypocrite and me and me
and a couple of dud we were we were really
going back and forth with a couple of guys in
the in the chat. There were two of them specifically, well,
one that I was going back and forth with like
the entire fucking time. Y'all are alive, Uh, and that
that's actually what I wanted to ask about. And there
was some other dude he was he was literally just there.
We figured out he was just there to troll you specifically.
He I don't know who he is, have no clue
where he came from, but that guy fucking hates you.
I don't know who it is, but yeah, he definitely
hates you.
Speaker 3: Okay, Well what was the profile?
Speaker 12: It was just it was just Joe. It was like
Joe and the last name started with an H. And
he was He's some gnostic, that's the thing he was.
He was being like very very fun. The damn word
the word is escape me. Like we kept on asking
questions about about you know, like his views and ship
like that.
Speaker 8: Uh.
Speaker 12: And the only thing he would specify, like, the only
thing he specified is he tends to lean towards gnostic
beliefs about But then he wouldn't and he just he
would literally say about and dot he wouldn't. He would
not specify anything else. It was the weirdest ever.
Speaker 4: But I mean, you can always tell those dudes to
come to the open open forums and have a debate.
So Joe, H, I think it's welcome to come to
b Andrew, what's up?
Speaker 13: I mean, Andrew mute? Andrew unmute if you want to talk?
Speaker 3: No, what go ahead? Are there? Did you turn your
mind tongue to God? And like? What do people not
ever use spaces? Like? Is my space the first space
for every single person? D D? What's up? Matter? Yeah?
Speaker 14: Hey, how you doing? Been a minute? Have you seen this?
Uh recent article? Candice Owens is reposts it, Jack Posto
is reposting. It's like Reverend Johnny Moore and our good
old guy JP.
Speaker 3: Uh, I haven't seen this article. Who who is this reverend?
Speaker 6: I don't know.
Speaker 3: Is this the guy that was the pedo?
Speaker 14: Uh No, I'm not I'm not sure. But it's just
this whole concept of the I guess the uptick of
Christ is king. Christ is king being co opted by
some I guess ethno nationalist types.
Speaker 3: Well, I don't doubt that the establishment has fed and
people trying to do that. But I've not seen this
article and I'm not sure. So you said with our
buddy who JB P like Jordan Peters.
Speaker 15: Yeah? Yeah.
Speaker 5: Jordan Peterson COT.
Speaker 3: And Jordan Peter Peterson co authored an article about the
co opting of Christ the King dealing with at no
nationalists is ever you're saying.
Speaker 14: Yeah, so if you see Jack Poso posted about it,
Reverend Johnny Moore and Jordan B. Peterson talking about how
anti Semitic movements have hijacked the Christis King and uh,
well they're basically. But I wanted to talk about it
because well, I mean, I think that there's something to it,
and I've I've been struggling.
Speaker 5: With that myself.
Speaker 14: A lot of the guys, even in the Orthodox space,
like that Orthodox Luigi like sometimes he's towing that line,
you know, And.
Speaker 4: Well, I mean I've I've spoken on this topic like
multiple times.
Speaker 3: I did.
Speaker 4: I devoted like the entire week two weeks ago to
this topic. And I don't follow all the Luigi's post
so I don't know everything that he said, but I
know that, you know, Luigi was really into Fuentos for
a while and then they fell a scance on one another,
and he was dealing with Groyper's for a long time.
So now I don't know about Fuentes himself, but I
wouldn't have I would imagine that there's quite a few,
you know, provocateur fed type people absolutely involved in trying
to get individuals involved in and stirring up some kind
of movement like that.
Speaker 3: That's fake.
Speaker 4: In fact, I mentioned that to I hypocrite last night.
A lot of those people, I think try to link
it to Islam, like this is the right wing dudes
that want to link up with Islam. It's like, well, well,
like all, well to see their anti Jew, anti Zionis
so they're all based when Islam is literally the rabbi say,
Islam is the broom of Israel.
Speaker 3: Destroy the Just a lot.
Speaker 5: Of h Man glorification.
Speaker 14: I mean, I'm pretty sure there's a quote by mustache
Man himself about oh, we would have preferred the Mohammedan religion.
Speaker 5: You know, there's a lot of.
Speaker 14: This, yes, he says, like sissification of of Christendom and
and all this kind of stuff.
Speaker 4: And however, it's also true that the people on the
right and some of those spears obviously will not talk
about apac u Zionism and the rabbinical traditions and their methodology.
Speaker 5: Yeah, that's true.
Speaker 14: I'm no judas are like you know, if if you
if you make a nuanced critique of all of a sudden,
you're a massade agent.
Speaker 5: You know, uh, and and it's.
Speaker 4: Almost like I've been called that, dude. I've been called
that for like years because I'm on the Alex Jones Show.
And then when when I devote an entire week and
a half actually to rebindic Judaism, dispensationalism, Zionism, then suddenly, oh,
you're an anti Semitic.
Speaker 3: You know. It's like it doesn't matter what you talk about.
Dealers do this.
Speaker 14: But unfortunately, I think there's this guy that's kind of
a attached at the hip to oh and Shroyer. I
don't I don't think Schroyer's necessarily signed is John Hancock
to it, but he's kind of floating around this guy
who definitely he's got me on the block list on
like three different accounts, calling me massad and you know,
jew lover and this, that and the third.
Speaker 5: But it's just frustrating.
Speaker 14: I guess I wanted to come on and see what
what your position was on it is.
Speaker 5: I do think in a big way it is fake
and gay, as I say, but.
Speaker 4: Yeah, it's like the only answer to these positions I
think is Christ in the in the traditional Orthodox sense,
because you know, you're not going to have peace between
Arab and jew and all this kind of stuff until
there's a recognition of the Messiah. So uh, you know,
but in the in the meantime, so that's not going
to happen right away most likely.
Speaker 3: I mean there's not. Really. It's like when people say, well,
who's better a Muslim.
Speaker 4: A Calvinist or a papist, and it's like, well, I
mean they're all kind of problematics. It's like it's hard
to it's like hard to pick amongst the wrong positions sometimes.
Speaker 14: Yeah, well, anyway, I think that uh, whoever that that
good old Southern molasses boy was that you're trying to
get on here.
Speaker 5: I think he's kind of racist for not wanting to
debate green people.
Speaker 3: But that's a good way. But like, yeah, why does
James White get to be racist against green people like myself?
You know clearly clearly in that.
Speaker 4: Picture I'm intending to be taken seriously because I'm pictured
with mac and me, And if James White doesn't know
what Macamy is, then that's already uh self refuting for
James White, basically, his career is over.
Speaker 3: Dan, what's up, good evening?
Speaker 16: Can I be?
Speaker 3: He say?
Speaker 9: What?
Speaker 3: Can you hear me? You can hear me, I can
hear you.
Speaker 16: Okay, So I have questions about Calvinism, right, So my
first question, Okay, my first question is on your belief
over God decline all actions, right, so they believe that,
or I'm not very shonable. I know that some people
believe that God decrease all actions and that includes scein.
But at the same time they they hold that man
is responsible for sin. So my first question is how
how how does that work?
Speaker 5: Right?
Speaker 8: Do you understand what I mean?
Speaker 3: Yeah, so that's correct.
Speaker 4: Calvin Is, for the most part, believe that that all
evil and sin are absolutely under the divine decree. Absolutely,
so that's really not even in question in Calvinism. Calvinists
give lip service to secondary causes and human free will
and choice, but even even the secondary causes are still
caused by the first cause, the divine cause.
Speaker 3: So really it's just kind of lip service. And that's
why historically.
Speaker 4: Some Calvinists, amongst the Puritans Jonathan Edwards for example, they
actually end up being occasionalists, just like the Sunni Muslims.
Speaker 3: So let's see Andrew try again at doak pay.
Speaker 17: Hi jak Amy. Yes, Sir Hi, so I was going
through your video the other day. I'm Roman Catholic, by
the way, and you mentioned in your video about icons,
talking about how the Seventh Ecumenical Council actually distributes the
Roman Catholic position, and you basically said that in the
Seventh Council they gave sulf like limitations and criteria for
icons in within church services and all that.
Speaker 3: I was looking.
Speaker 4: Yeah, sorry, I just addressed that it's so in the
Orthodox view the Seventh that Caminical councils, and we don't
view it like the Roman Catholics, that there's this like
strict legalistic thing that, oh, that's only the Seventh. That
chemical Council, the Council of eight forty three is what
we celebrate in the Orthodox Church as the victory of
Orthodoxy is called triumph of Orthodoxy. So yeah, way that
council puts out the Sonotacon, which is from A three,
which is about the Seventh Ecumenical Council. And by the way,
the Seventh that Gundom Council does have multiple canons that
deal with icons. For example, says not to make icons
of God the Father. So that's one example that easily
right there wipes out a whole bunch of Roman Catholic iconography,
because in principle you're not supposed to do that.
Speaker 3: Now, I'm not saying that all.
Speaker 4: Orthodox churches obey this, because sometimes Worthdox churches are not canonical,
but I was pointing out that the principles that you
see even in the canons, even before getting to the
Sonoticon and other documents, the principles already from the outset
exclude things like the extreme accesses that you see all
throughout the Roman cllegtory.
Speaker 17: Yeah, so that's what as a thing I couldn't really like.
So I saw that. I saw them like in two
candids that talked about you can s how to make
the icons bind sea, it's explicitly how to what is
including in acos always excluded from icons except what obviously
Godfather being depicted.
Speaker 4: Now there's a canon about the God the Father, and
it's actually I think even earlier if I recall the
exclusion of God the Father is actually in Trollo, and
then it's restate all the Trello canons, by the way,
are affirmed by and I see it too, by the way,
so there's it's not just the canons, and I see
it two. I see you two, also affirms Trollo.
Speaker 3: Yeah.
Speaker 4: Any and then but if I recall even if you
go to New Advent, if you do control F and
you search icon on the canons under the Seventh Council,
there's I'm going from memory here, there's multiple canons to
talk about the icons, the images and all this kind
of stuff. They do not lay out artistic strictures per se.
That comes later on in the development of what happens
in terms of contrasting the East with the West.
Speaker 17: Oh okay, so that so layout you said that came later.
What's like time period?
Speaker 3: Was that? Was that like after.
Speaker 4: Well, if you read this, look up the sonaticon and
the sonatakon, the full one, like not an abridged one,
like the full one from that or what's believed to
be from that time is pretty lengthy and it all
so you know, it goes into some of.
Speaker 9: The operating Okay, cool, thanks man.
Speaker 3: Yeah no, that's great.
Speaker 4: Questions I put in the in the comments of that
video that I'm referring to eight forty three, and that's
anauticon Andrew, you want to try again, yes, sir.
Speaker 18: Hey, just let you know this actually is my first
time speaking on a Twitter space. Sor right, I know, yeah,
I know you were. Hey, Look, so I converted to
Catholicism in twenty sixteen. I was raised Calvinist Presbyterian. I
was just starting to read a lot of church history
and in some Catholic apologetics that it made sense.
Speaker 8: And then, you know, with the.
Speaker 18: Post Vatican two Catholic Church, I was having some theological issues.
Speaker 3: Yeah, man, you're going through what I went through in
the two thousands.
Speaker 18: Yeah, and uh, then you know, so then I I've
drifted towards traditionalism, and then and then you know, I've
been studying for for a few years, and and then
I'm having other issues. And so lately, you know, I've
been listening to Father Josiah Trinham and in reading some
Orthodox stuff, and there's a lot of stuff that's making
sense to me. But this may seem like a simple question,
but I've been reading this book, The Rise and Fall
of the Papacy. It's uh talking and the guy's talking
about how the ancient church. You know, he's talking about
a lot about the pentarchy, the five patriarchs, and uh,
with the schism, here's my question. With the schism between
you know, the patriarch of the West and the other patriarchs.
Speaker 19: How does.
Speaker 18: How do they come how does the Orthodox Church now
come to like.
Speaker 19: A consensus base, uh like decision like it do they
just like because Rome is in schism just basically ignore
them like no, or like don't.
Speaker 3: Uh yeah.
Speaker 4: So the Orthodox view does not believe that Rome is
still part of the church. That's how a Vatican two
kind of mindset where when they look at us, they
see us as quote the eastern lung of the Church.
Speaker 3: They have this accumenist view.
Speaker 4: Orthodox ecclesiology does not include heretics and schismatics as amongst
the body of Christ. So no, we do not believe
that the papacy continued to be somehow you know, part
of the church or halfway in the church or one
third of the church. No, they left the church. They're
not in the church. That's why they have to convert
to the church. And that's why every Orthodox church traditionally, classically,
historically has made people go through a profession of the.
Speaker 3: Abjuration of heresies.
Speaker 4: So when you join the Orthodox Church, are supposed to
I sure your previous heresies and mistakes, whether Protestant Calvinists Lutheran.
Speaker 3: Or Roman Catholic.
Speaker 4: So that shows you right there that I mean, you
wouldn't be abjuring your previous heresies if they thought it
was the church.
Speaker 18: Yeah. And another question, do you have any like historical
books that would the like in depth stuff recommendations like
on orthodoxy.
Speaker 3: In like.
Speaker 4: Well, I mean, yeah, like there's a bunch, But if
you go to my channel when it comes to the
questions of like Vatican two and the history of the
papacy and those problems. Uh, I mean, I dare say
that I've gone deeper into that topic and more intently
into that topic than the author that you're speaking.
Speaker 3: Of, or Father Josiah.
Speaker 4: Not to knock those guys, but I spent many years
in the world of Roman Catholicism and in those documents,
and I know those documents better than those guys. I
know those documents better than pretty much all the Roman Catholics.
So I could tell you, like you know where it'll
go in Denzinger, I can tell you where to go
and the you know, Roman Catholic dogmatic councils, like I
know all that stuff really well. So find my old
videos about you know, Romancantholisism Vatican.
Speaker 3: You know that kind of stuff.
Speaker 4: Vatican One contradictions, all that stuff is pretty solid, I
would say from my my channel. I mean, if you're
looking for, you know, Orthodox Church history in this regard,
I would say get the Papa Doccus Mayan North book.
Speaker 3: The Papacy in the Middle Ages.
Speaker 4: I think that book is really good because it's about
the period when the East and the West split, and
you'll see very clearly that from one thousand to fourteen
hundred the Roman Church clearly went in a different direction
than the pre existing United Church.
Speaker 18: Hey, thank you so much, and I will check out
your video.
Speaker 3: Yeah, I mean there's a lot.
Speaker 4: There's a lot, but there's also you know, you could
get another You could get Michael Welton's book Two Paths
as kind of a readable, more introductory book. Catholic Father
crab people.
Speaker 10: Hey, there as a Catholic.
Speaker 20: The skive them obviously being nearly a thousand years ago,
seems like a lot of one side.
Speaker 10: Fucked up, the other side fucked up. And then did
the spider man mean, uh, you're out, No, you're out.
But I'm the Church.
Speaker 3: No, you're the Church.
Speaker 20: At what point is or the the disunified Orthodoxy and
that claim to be the true Church and not have
broken apart part of the true Church. At what point
is that fruitful and what part of that is just pride?
And would it not be beneficial?
Speaker 4: Your question assumes that the Roman Catholic Church is unified,
and I can make multiple arguments to demonstrate that it's
not unified. And to accuse the Orthodox Church of pride
is ignoring the papal admissions at the Alexandria Synod and
the t eighty Synod which admit that the Roman Church
engage in a lot of pride. So, uh, it's a
question of which one's right, which one's wrong.
Speaker 3: It's not a question of you know.
Speaker 4: I mean, look at the centuries after the Schism, which
church evolved away from the canonical structure of the Church
of the first thousand years.
Speaker 10: Yeah, I haven't studied this forever.
Speaker 20: So I need you to speak at least in a
way that can be interacted with, you know.
Speaker 4: And so you're here to debate the topic and you're
accusing us of pride, but you're not familiar with the
history that you want to debate.
Speaker 20: I'm not I'm not saying that Orthodoxy is incorrect where
you're claiming that Catholicism you.
Speaker 4: Just said that it was an issue have brought you
said centuries of pride without unity.
Speaker 20: So does the Orthodox claim that Catholics are not Christian.
Speaker 4: Where the traditional Orthodox position is that the papacy is
heterodox for about thirty different reasons.
Speaker 20: Okay, so the baptism in a Catholic baptism is not
valid and only an Orthodox baptism is valid, saying that
everybody else is wrong when the schism went tit for tat.
Speaker 3: This is just an appeal to This is just an appeal.
This is just an appeal to emotion.
Speaker 4: And the appeal is already assuming that the Catholic position
is correct on baptism. So you've not yet demonstrated that
the Catholic ex operary operators position is correct. So your
appeal to that and appeal to emotion doesn't work.
Speaker 10: Okay, have fun, have fun?
Speaker 4: So do you want to Why don't you want to
talk about the changes?
Speaker 3: So he left? So here's what Roman calvics do.
Speaker 4: They sit there and they call me names all day,
say I'm the worst person ever. They hop on here
to debate when we get into the topics. They have
no knowledge of the topics. They act like that and
then they run away. Quay loquay, I me.
Speaker 8: I have two questions.
Speaker 21: So the first one is I attend to a Russian
Orthodox church, like, is are the teachings that they have
in that church the same as if I go to
let's say, a Greek Orthodox church, you know, or other
like that.
Speaker 3: Yeah, it's the same.
Speaker 4: It's the same faith because it's it's called the canonical
Orthodox churches, So it's all the ones.
Speaker 3: That are in communion.
Speaker 4: And even if there's a period when one of the
bishops or the patriarchs are out of communion until there's
an excommunication, you it's still quote the same face, yes.
Speaker 5: All right.
Speaker 22: And then I thinks, and I have my second question,
which is I went to your website, jasonalysis dot com.
I went to the recommended reading section. Are those books
you know? Do I still have to read them?
Speaker 3: Like?
Speaker 22: Are they okay for me to read? The ones that
are about Orthodoxy? I'm the apologetics?
Speaker 3: What do you mean are they okay? Why wouldn't they
be okay?
Speaker 22: No, I'm just asking just out of curiosity, you know,
that's just it.
Speaker 4: I mean, I haven't updated that list in a couple
of years, but I don't recall there being anything weird
or questionable on there.
Speaker 3: I'll take another look at it. Vic.
Speaker 23: Hey, I just had two things I wanted to say,
just a comment and a question. Uh the comments the
article that I mentioned earlier. Uh, just like my opinion
on that is just like it seems to me that
it's a typical like uh, that article. I mean, it's
like a typical like cry bully hall monitor like tone
policing thing where it's like, oh, well, bad people say
Christ is king, So you can't say because if you
say that means you're like one of them, you know,
So I think we should uh just dismiss it in
my in my opinion whatever. And then the question is is, uh,
I'm kind of confused a little bit about Plato's dualism,
and I'm sorry this is if this is a bit
of a basic question, But it seems to me that
he does have like a binary like oppositions in a
system like like uh oh.
Speaker 4: Yeah, of course, I mean that's all that's great, reelectic,
but like.
Speaker 24: For example, like yeah, between material world and the world
of the forms, but like at the same time, there
also seems to be like uh, a hierarchical dualism, if
that's like the right way to put it, in the
sense that he seems to say that the good is
I'm sorry, evil is the privation of the good, as
we would say.
Speaker 3: So I'm not.
Speaker 25: I don't know.
Speaker 23: It just got me a little bit confused that he
just kind of say, Okay, these things are intentioned and
then these things are kind of like structured hierarchically.
Speaker 4: Right, So evil has different senses. Evil can be moral sense, right,
which in Christianity we believe that there's a moral sense
to evil, and that's really what's meant in the Bible
most of the time when it's talking about, you know,
violating the tank commandments and being an evil person. But
the Church Fathers also make use of the platonic and
neoplatonic usage of metaphysically speaking, evils or evil is to
do with privation and non being, and that helps them
explain onto logically that evil doesn't have a substance, it
doesn't have being, and it's not created because everything that.
Speaker 3: Exists is created by God and it's called good.
Speaker 4: And so everything that exists has some nature that makes
it what it is, and evil has no nature. There's
not a nature to evil, otherwise we would be Manichaeans.
But Platonism does not distinguish really the ontological sense from
the moral sense. So there's a lack I would say
in Plato that, like, you're never going to get an
explanation in Platonism as to why the One split into
the diad and into the triad, and why we have
why we have all this multiplicity that's supposed to get
back to the One. So yeah, Christianity is a moral religion.
I mean, it has metaphysics, but morals are first, and
Greek philosophy is a metaphysics religion. It's not primarily concerned
with morals and ethics first. Man's chief problem is metaphysical.
Speaker 3: But of course that doesn't mean that Plato doesn't have
a place for.
Speaker 4: Ethics and virtues. Certainly he does. He thinks they're intimately connected.
But the fact that he thinks that there's a descending
hierarchy of like an ontologically diminished status for the descending
hierarchy of the emanations, like that.
Speaker 3: Doesn't mean that they're not. There's not a dialectical.
Speaker 26: Okay, thank you, that really clears it up.
Speaker 4: Yeah, questions I think that when you get into like Platinus,
he tried to synthesize Plato and Aristotles. He's he's actually
trying to deal with some of those problems in both
Plato and Aristotle.
Speaker 3: It's open for me. You guys want to bring up.
Speaker 4: Philosophy, topics, Calvinism, Protestantism, Becauseolicism, Islam, Atheism, church history, papacy,
biblical theology. It's all on the table. We got a
nice crowd of two and twenty in here. Of course,
I didn't think James White would actually show up, but
I don't know why he wouldn't if we need, like
why does he need a year to prepare to debate
like can calvin is stuff that he's debated for the
last thirty years. I don't know why, but no, he's
of course he's gonna, you know, so he's too good
to come in here and do that. But whatever, Yeah,
I just don't see why I need to do it
in person, debate a year from now on the topics
that are none of the topics that I suggested to
debate with him for the last six seven years. So
how about he debate the topics that I, uh, or
maybe there were if there's some happy medium.
Speaker 3: He debates the Philly OQUI absolutely my suplicity as as
an interestinction and its social contourism like that. But and
then people who say they want to do in.
Speaker 4: Person debates, this is a way to postpone and kind
of you know, throw out there a thing that's really
difficult to set up, and they kind of just hope
that it'll get forgotten. And I also think he loaded
his post with a bunch of blame humor, jobs and
insults so that I would reply with jobs and insults,
which is what I did, so that he could go
and say, well, look this person's not serious. He replies
with jobs and insults. It's like, okay, so when you
do it, it's christ like. And that's what all his
gay followers are like, look at.
Speaker 3: This guy, he's not serious. Look at those jobs and
insults as like, you mean.
Speaker 4: What DA's white said. So it's a weird double standard.
These people are ridiculous.
Speaker 27: Yes, sir, So I don't know if you I didn't
comment on your debate stream, But have you heard of
this guy Naven allegedly Ian.
Speaker 8: Now allegedly ian.
Speaker 27: He's this atheist right now he's so he basically is
trying to argue that God doesn't exist because of slavery
in the Bible, and he basically says that because God
is the perfect lawgiver, therefore it follows that God is
either immoral or does not exist because he sanctioned slavery.
Speaker 3: So how would you that?
Speaker 4: Yeah, Lewis just made a two hour documentary on that topic.
So yeah, there's nothing that necessitates that a lawgiver can't
give people laws that gradually lead them to an end goal.
Speaker 3: So that'd be like.
Speaker 4: Saying a parent is a bad parent because they don't
give to their child the laws and the rules that
are appropriate for a teenager or for an adult. So
it's just an oversimplification fallacy, I would argue, because the
idea that the ancient world and you know, in this
barbaric realm, that they were suddenly expected to have the
norms and the ethics of you know, the twenty first
century is just kind of an unrealistic.
Speaker 3: Unrealistic expectation.
Speaker 4: And also, how does he know that it's more perfect
to immediately give the law of the highest expectations versus
a graduated law giving that leads men over time to
more and more higher standards.
Speaker 3: So he's just assuming that that's what's.
Speaker 4: Entailed in perfection I have, but I have no idea
how he would know, Aufrey or I that that's what's
entailed in a perfect lawgiver.
Speaker 3: And so you could just ask.
Speaker 4: Him, you know, epistemic questions as to on what basis
how do you know that was your justification for that assertion.
Speaker 3: So because of he's going.
Speaker 4: To try to reply on rely on biblical ethics and
the revelation of who God is. Well, God revealed it
such that he gradually, in a graduated way, gave laws
to men to lead them to higher and higher standards.
And then Lewis's documentary gets into the history of slavery
in the history of Christianity. So he just put he put,
like I don't know, a lot of time and effort
into that.
Speaker 3: Lewis was working on that for like the last three
or four years. But away good questions. It's open for him.
If you have a question or a comminent you're you're
welcome to bring it up to the table. If you disagree,
you can make an argument. Please make it an argument.
We don't care what you think about me. You can
already just say I'm the worst person. I don't care.
Speaker 4: You can say I'm tiny mustache man, interbred with Judas,
interbred with saar On, interbred with Jeffrey BADONCA doc Dahmer.
I'm all four of those combined into also being a
KGB Massade.
Speaker 3: Cia operative who worked with Jeff SIMONC. Geffrey.
Speaker 4: So I'm all those guys combined as an operative. So
now we know I'm the worst person, and then now
we can just move on to the actual topics.
Speaker 6: He what's up, Hello, how's it going?
Speaker 5: Jay?
Speaker 28: Doing well? I could bring up tag correct. I just
had one question. So when I brought up tag to
an atheist, he brought up that I was affirming the consequence,
and I was wondering how you'd respond to that.
Speaker 4: Yeah, I mean, it's just it's not assuming the thing
in question. So I think if you go watch my
video addressing the top ten objections to tag, and then
there's another one I did, there's the it's the two
most popular tag videos that I did, and I think
I addressed that that objection in both of those videos,
So go check those out if you want to fuller
it's just misunderstanding what tag is. So first of all,
tag is not the same thing as the transcendental argument itself.
Like transcendent arguments have been used all the way back
to Aristotle, They've been used all the way back to.
Speaker 3: John Damascus and Book one without the knowledge. I mean,
they have a long.
Speaker 9: History.
Speaker 3: Right. So if we look at the claim that if
you I'm looking this up here, so from the consequent
argue for those don't in the audience, the logical fallacy
where someone incorrectly concludes that if a conditional statement consequent
the then part, if that's true, then the antecedent must
also be true. So the difference is that we're not
saying that because God exists, or excuse me, we're not
saying that because there's knowledge therefore God exists.
Speaker 4: In the sense of like a fallacy where you are
dealing with normative claims about day to day type stuff
or day to day type arguments, the difference is that
this is dealing with the notion of grounding for an
entire worldview.
Speaker 3: So a lot of times fallacies are dealing with things
that are not at that level. Right.
Speaker 4: So sometimes when we talk about circularity, right, people say, well,
you're being you know, the tag is a circular argument,
you're committing circularity. And then when we say well, at
the root level, all arguments are circular, they then say
something like, aha, see you're giving yourself some the free
reign to use circular argmentation. That's only when you're dealing
with things not at the level of a paradigm or
a worldview, because part of TAG is already just assumes,
or it's baked into the argument that everybody's worldview bottoms
out is something self referencing.
Speaker 3: Now, it's true that.
Speaker 4: An atheist could could say, well, I take issue with
that claim, right, If TAG is built on that, then
I take issue with that claim that everything is built
on something self referencing. And if they do, then ninety
nine percent of the time they're going to end up
with some kind of classical foundationalism or self evident principles
or axioms.
Speaker 3: Right, And the problem is that that's an even worse route
to take.
Speaker 4: They'd be better off just trying to go after critiquing
TAG rather than to try to affirm their self evident principles.
As you saw in the debate with Trent, that's a
very difficult and impossible task because anytime you try to
argue that something is self evident, you also assume a
standard of self evidence that sets it off from the
things that are not self evident, and thus that standard
becomes more fundamental than the so called self evidence principle.
And also the self evidence principle is relying upon that standard,
and thus if it's relying on something it's not self evident.
Beyond that, there's also the criterion problem, which, if you
believe in classical foundationalism or self evidence, criterion problem becomes
a problem, and resolving that is more difficult than just
as saying, okay, fine, some everybody's world view botom is
out at some point. So what TAG is doing is
arguing not at the normal day to day level of
you know, I know Bill Cosby is a bad person
because you know, let's think, how can we put this
into a firm of the consequent? If I'm trying to
think of a way to let's say, what the let's
find an example of a firm of the consequent, So
you could say something.
Speaker 3: Like the best advice.
Speaker 4: You could give to a first year university student is
to work hard. If you do well at university, you
will do even better once you've graduated. Wait a minute,
that's not It comes an example. Excuse me, if I
have caffeine.
Speaker 3: I will be awake all night. I'm awake all night,
therefore I had caffeine.
Speaker 4: So it's a fallacy because there might be multiple reasons
why you're awake all night, and it doesn't necessitate that
the way that you were awake was through caffeine. But
when we're setting up a transcendental argument that's dealing with
grounding for a worldview, there's not an infinite number of
possibilities for how you could ground a transcendental category. So
you might say something like well, and then a lot
of the atheists do say this, and when we have
the space come up, they'll say something like, well, you know,
if I were to formulate the argument like X is
the necessary condition of why why? Therefore X? You know,
knowledge is a PREAKONDI. God is breedish of knowledge. Knowledge exists,
therefore God. There's not an infinite number of reasons that
you could or ways that you could ground knowledge, right,
So it's a it's a false comparison to the analogy to.
Speaker 3: Sorry, we're trying to drive and I'm trying to give
directions too. At the same time good directions.
Speaker 4: Here, it's a false analogy to the caffeine example, because
there's multiple reasons and explanations for why you might be
up all night. Maybe you're nervous, maybe you ate some
weird food, and it's keeping.
Speaker 3: You up right.
Speaker 4: So it doesn't necessitate that the only reason that you're
uphole all night is.
Speaker 3: Because you had caffeine. But to apply that to the
critique of acts as a necessary condition of why why
therefore X, it's not the same thing because the argument
is about grounding a paradigm and a worldview in transtional
categories as a whole, and there are not a host
of things that could ground that. So even if you.
Speaker 4: Thought that tag was somehow affirming the consequence, the argue
is actually much more radical than that, because it's actually
arguing that logic itself presupposes God, so you couldn't use
logic as a way to cancel out or disprove God's
existence when the argument is about, well, what grounds logic itself?
So it's actually missing the forest for the trees in
terms of what's prior to the thing in question, namely logic,
if that makes sense. So that was along with an explanation,
but hopefully that's helpful, Like if the question was just
you know, a mundane example, like if I drink coffee,
I will stay up all night. I stayed up all night,
So therefore it was because of coffee. Well maybe, but
maybe there's other reasons. Right, that's a mundane example. That's
not the same thing as saying, well, there's infinite ways
to ground transmit categories and worldviews. There's not like any
any kind of thing you start listing, like even if
you live, even if you thought there was multiple like,
they're not going to work to do the grounding work,
so they're missing what the argument actually is. I think
people get tripped up because it's an argument for a worldview,
and it's an argument that's prior to logic itself, so
it's a metallogical argument. It's open for him. If anybody
wants to hop on, hit the request to speak, and
you can come up to the top. We can talk Calvinism,
tag Protestantism, Catholicism is a long atheism, art history rooms, papacy,
you want to discuss it. You got it, You got it, dude,
it's open for him. We actually got I thought we
had two hundred people. There's three hundred and eight people
in here. I know there's got to be some Calvinist lurkers, y'all.
Calvin is back there, lurking, y'all lurk, And what y'all
afraid of?
Speaker 3: John? Danger? We're in danger and John's here. I'm mute.
Speaker 4: Why did you leave? I don't understand. There's three hundred
people and nobody wants to come up here and talk
about any of these topics listened.
Speaker 3: I don't get it.
Speaker 4: There's over three hundred people, Hi, no problem question.
Speaker 29: I was in a debate yesterday and then I was
listening to what went on afterwards.
Speaker 3: At you dropped out?
Speaker 5: Dude.
Speaker 3: Now he's totally gone. Tell me, dude, is it? Try again?
Try again?
Speaker 26: Coming back there?
Speaker 3: Yep?
Speaker 30: Okay, sorry, but I don't know what happened.
Speaker 26: Okay, so I'll just shorten it up here.
Speaker 31: A gentleman.
Speaker 30: He proclaims to be uh Eastern Orthodox.
Speaker 3: You must have a bad connection, dude. I don't know.
Maybe you can get to a space place where you
got a better connection, but I may not come on now,
y'all got we got three hundred people in here, over
three hundred people, and nobody has any objections. I know
there's a lot of Protestant workers.
Speaker 4: I promise I'll be nice to you unless you want
a debate, if you want, if you want to ask questions,
come on up.
Speaker 6: I'll be sweet.
Speaker 3: I'll talk to you like Youbama happy, your mama for you.
I'll be sweet too. Promise I won't hurt your feelings.
Speaker 6: I love you. I'm your mama on the internet.
Speaker 3: I won't be that thinged bank daddy.
Speaker 6: He's in the dog house.
Speaker 3: He ain't gonna get in tonight.
Speaker 5: I'll be your mama.
Speaker 32: I love you.
Speaker 3: Oh you sweet. Internet boys don't won't get your feelings hood, Trent.
I missed the days of the Internet when.
Speaker 4: Everybody was just uh it was wild West and everybody
just made fun of everybody, and you expected to get
your feelings hurt. Now we're in this atmosphere for like
he should go out ahead, Trent.
Speaker 33: Hey, Jay, Oh, I hope it's all right if I
get can asked an Orthodox question.
Speaker 3: I promise it's not like a basic catechumen one. Okay, Yeah,
I was.
Speaker 33: Wondering if you can explain to me because in my
local parish community I haven't really gotten any succinct answers,
but can you like properly explain if like the Russian
Orthodox Church and Greek Orthodox Church are formerly not in
communion and if so, what is the consequence of that
with the ecumenical patriarch.
Speaker 4: As far as I know, they're still out of canonical communion,
but there has not been a formal excommunication. So church law,
canon law usually proceeds in stages. Whether it's even the
Romancallolic Church or whether it's the Orthodox Church, they both
kind of have some of the same principles about stages
of canonical procedure, and so if there was an excommunication
of the EP, they're out of communion right now. But
for example, we don't rebaptize or quote baptize people who
were to come to us from the Greeks. We would
still accept them as having the faith. That might be
different though, if the situation progressed to a full excommunication,
and then it would be a dependent then it would
be a situation where the other patriarchates would choose sides,
probably whether you know EP or MP.
Speaker 3: So hopefully it doesn't get to that, but we have actually.
Speaker 4: Seen multiple types of things and examples of this in
church history, Like in the first millennium you had patriarchs
and schism many times, and it wasn't the Roman bishop
who just magically solved that in a lot of these cases.
You even had recently, I think the Macedonian Church that
was in schism for like eighty years and they resolved
that conflict last year, so without the pope.
Speaker 3: So anyway, that's where it stands right now.
Speaker 26: Thank you.
Speaker 33: If I can ask a quick follow up, do you
foresee it going that direction that's what you want?
Speaker 3: Okay?
Speaker 33: Do you foresee it going that direction with the Greek
Church based on like your historical understanding.
Speaker 4: I don't know, because you know, it includes a lot
of factors. Obviously, the EP is really close to the
CIA in the State Department, and they're really tied to
what Washington wants, and uh, you know that makes it
difficult because it's not just religious stuff, a lot of
political stuff. So I don't know how that will all
shake out. You know, you could get a situation where
if Trump ends the the war in Ukraine, if things
go in that direction, then that could put an end
to the Ukraine schism, and that could put an end
to a lot of these actions of the EP which
contradict his own statements and actions from prior to the war.
Speaker 26: Okay, that's all I had.
Speaker 33: Thank you very much, Jay, And also I just wanted
to say, really appreciate all your work.
Speaker 8: You helped me a lot fine Orthodoxy.
Speaker 3: Thanks Trent, appreciate that. That's really kind.
Speaker 4: Where As many years to you otis, what's up, man, beam?
You want to try if Otis can't connect, I'm.
Speaker 3: Yeah, what's the matter cracking?
Speaker 34: So for the record, I'm a Calvinist, I'm a reformed Anglican.
That's my specsum coming from. I'm very much aware of
your criticisms of Calvinism, and you know about the whole
like what was it again you say, well, totally means
that we can't know if we're elected and so on.
So I understand a lot of your criticisms.
Speaker 3: But I mean that's a very minor criticism. The majority
of my criticisms are hard.
Speaker 34: Yeah, I know it's one of them, and I know
they are like other like things.
Speaker 4: You think, Oh, well, the majority of the majority are crystological.
So maybe if you want to debate that, you can
address that.
Speaker 25: Well.
Speaker 34: I had a question, if that's fine, just one question
about these Orthodox position. Okay, yeah, so obviously you know
you used to be a Calvinist. You you at least
know what we think is comforting about Calvinism, right like
we think that because we're elect we're in God's hands
and salvation doesn't depend on us, and so on, and
so at least two, maybe the everyday person people can
understand what the comfort is in Calvinism with unconditional election
in particular, even if you think it doesn't make sense,
I get that. But you can see how there is
a comfort there. How do you because the way I
understand it, And if you want to just say, well,
my interpretation's wrong, that's fine. Saint Paul talks of predestination
as a comfort in scripture, and I just don't understand
how that makes sense if you don't hold on conditional election.
How like, is there any comfort in predestination for the
East Orthodox or not?
Speaker 4: Well, I mean comfort in the sense of we view
predestination in those passages as primarily dealing with collectives. And
so if you look at even the statement in Rome's
nine about Jacob and Esau, if you go back and
read it in the original passages talking about the nations,
and so when Paul writes to the Ephesians, for example,
he calls the entire visible church at Ephesus the predestined,
he does not single it out for the invisible church.
Speaker 34: Okay, so would you say that there's any comfort we
can derive as individual Christians.
Speaker 3: Or absolutely, That's what the sacraments are there for, is
to actually provide that's comfort and assurance that well, I.
Speaker 34: Mean specifically for predestination. Like obviously sacraments of you know,
they be assured a little bit.
Speaker 4: Again, I mean, I could even I could even say
with the Augustinian position that, like, like Augustine said, even
if the final persevering elect are the real true quote predestined,
we don't know who has that, and we don't in
other words, we don't know who has the gift of perseverance. So,
for example, even the Augustinian model refutes that idea because
he believes in a collective predestining, so to speak to grace.
But that doesn't ensure that, that doesn't ensure that you
have the gifts of perseverance, because many fall away and apostatize.
Speaker 34: All right, thank you, then have a nice one.
Speaker 35: Yeah, good questions. Hold on one second, team.
Speaker 36: I'll go ahead, Bean, Yeah, I just wanted to add
on to what the guy was seeing, the affirming the
consequent Uh, the way that tag is argued, I wouldn't say, well,
like tag isn't being argued.
Speaker 6: Uh, let's see, let's see.
Speaker 3: How do I see this?
Speaker 8: I hid it in my head and I just kind
of figure, hold on.
Speaker 3: All right, well you can you can think about it.
You can think about it, come back, major danger? What's up?
Got a mute?
Speaker 5: If you want.
Speaker 3: Major danger? Unmute? If you'd like to speak, are you there?
You gotta turn your mic on? If you guys want
to speak. I don't like nobody's used. We've been doing
these spaces for how many years? Are you there?
Speaker 4: Anybody else is open for him? If you'd like to
come up topics that are alvin.
Speaker 3: Isn't protests, but also is the Muslims church, history of
deal politics. We can make it whatever we want. Jen,
what's up? Jen?
Speaker 37: I'm mute, En. Nobody wants to speak. You guys don't
know how to do this? Go ahead?
Speaker 3: Hello, yep, Hey, how are you doing? Jack? Yeah, what's up?
Speaker 5: Man?
Speaker 3: Uh?
Speaker 38: I'm kind of curious if you know this from your
study of Catholicism.
Speaker 3: I was Patholic as well.
Speaker 38: I'm something that's I've been wondering is do you think
there was a theological basis for the Latin Church using
unleavened bread in the uh in the around the fifth
to the seventhde Suries.
Speaker 3: Is there a theological basis? I don't know what they
would have argued.
Speaker 38: I don't know either. I heard theories that because of
the Germanic migrations they were in a state of penitence,
and oh, okay.
Speaker 3: I also heard.
Speaker 38: That because of the cutting off of the Mediterranean they
couldn't receive proper grade for leamon bread from Egypt. So
I was just curious if you knew anything of like
exactly why they did.
Speaker 4: No, I don't know, And you know, that might be
a situation where there could be, you know, some canonical
wiggle room. It's kind of like the Orthodox Church, for example,
in Japan, as I understand it, Japan, the government mandates
that people have to get cremated, and Orthodox can of
law doesn't allow for cremation. But they ruled that it's
better to have the Church in Japan and accept cremation
than to not have the Orthodox Church in Japan.
Speaker 3: Oh Canon's are you know? Chirk law is the spirit
of the law, and that's.
Speaker 5: What's up.
Speaker 35: Alright, Hello, all right, so wasting everyone's time in uh defiance?
Speaker 3: What's up?
Speaker 5: Hey man?
Speaker 39: Hey, So I've been listening to you for quite a bit.
Love your stuff. I kind of am considering myself a
recovering Calvinist. But I have a question about Romans chapter nine. Okay,
So in Romans chapter nine, Paul kind of lays out
his case and then he gets to the point and
I can't I can't cite it exactly, but he gets
to the point where he kind of anticipates the counter argument,
and he says something along the lines of so what like, so,
so what if God did make vessels for wrath and
vessels for glory?
Speaker 4: You go back to the passage where it's originally cited.
It's a passage that's talking collectively about nations. Jacob and
Esau are two nations in the womb. And the point
that I made to the other guy is that we
know that it's collective because the same terminology and language
that Paul uses in Ephesians is used of the collective
visible church at Ephesus and for the for the Calvinist
ex of Jesus. To be correct and to work, Paul
has to then be writing not to the church at
Ephesus that has a bishop named Timothy, but to the
elect at Ephesus, who are the unknown, invisible church, Aaron,
the non binary. So I guess there's like a bunch
of profiles three, now two, and then this will be
the third one calling in to play country music.
Speaker 3: Let's see if this one does it. Fat pussy, please
come play your country music, all right, So guess not
fry guys, yep.
Speaker 40: I just had a couple of questions. I'm actually an
Orthodox catechumen converting from Roman Catholicism, and I've been seeking
out I've been seeking out various Protestant sources and Catholic
sources for you know, during this mass conversion of Orthodoxy.
Maybe why you shouldn't convert, just because I'm curious to
see their arguments, And yeah.
Speaker 3: I think we should be aware of all that. I
think that's a good thing to do.
Speaker 40: I actually had a little conversation with Redeem zo U
in the DMS, and I just wanted to ask. He
mentioned that Oriental Orthodoxy is more quote unchanged than Eastern Orthodoxy,
and he never really elaborated. Do you know what he
might mean by that?
Speaker 4: Uh, he's probably just referring to some thing he heard
somebody say. I don't think he knows anything about any
of that stuff.
Speaker 41: Yeah, that makes sense to me.
Speaker 40: Another thing he mentioned was was Palamism, and I noticed
there's a lot of a lot of people who take
issue with Gregory Palamas. I don't really know why that is.
Do you know why all these different Protestants really don't
like Gregory.
Speaker 4: A lot of people are speaking from ignorance, and they
don't know that the Compadocians teach the essen Sentergi stinction.
They don't know that Althanatius teaches the ssen sentert sinction.
Sat Sterrihal teaches it explicitly. He talks about the energies
that are not the essence. I mean, you can't really
even have the real presence in the Eucharist without the
sentergy sinction, because you're don't necessarily have a created grace,
a created God in the eu Christ which doesn't exist
or doesn't things that created God, or you're going to
be getting the divine esdence if you believe in absolute
divine simplicity, so the only the essence interestinction can make
sense of the Eucharist. Looks like it's going to be
another Taylor Swift song, Michelle, I'm mute. Why are you
raising your hand when I just told you to I'm mute?
Speaker 42: Were you speaking to me?
Speaker 1: Jay?
Speaker 5: Okay?
Speaker 42: Sorry, I think there's a pause between sometimes we request
and when you tell us to speak, So I apologize. Yeah,
I just had thanks for your spaces. I pride myself
in being able to comprehend pretty well, but I usually
have to listen to your recorded spaces and take notes
and kind of go over it again. So thanks for
recording them. I was in Jerusalem last year, long story short.
It was in emphesis and Jerusalem actually left October sixth, believe.
Speaker 6: It or not.
Speaker 42: And while I was there, I just I prayed for
the Lord to really reveal himself and to send people
who were true seekers of the truth to me. Orthodox
priests approached me again, long story short, while I was
in the Holy sepulcher and said, hey, God told me
that you wanted to pray with me, and it was
just wild. Then when I went to Ephesus, almost the
exact same thing happened. To me, so really diving in
and studying all this, but on a side I don't know,
conspiracyal note, do you think or believe that this pope,
being the first Jesuit pope, is the last pope? And
do you have any videos or discuss any of the
Jesuit influence upon the Catholic Church?
Speaker 43: Thank you?
Speaker 4: Oh yeah, this is a topic I love to go
into and I rarely get asked about it. So the
greatest book for this is actually written by a traditional
Roman Catholic. His name is David Wimhoff, and he wrote
nadam page book called John Courtney John Courtney Murray, Timelife
Magazine and the Doctrinal Warfare proposition CIA's influence in the
Cali Church using the Jesuits, particularly John Courtney Murray. That's
obviously more of a twentieth century analysis, particularly Vatican two,
in the post Vatican two era soft power usage of
the Cali Church by the American deep state. It's a
really really well researched, le well referenced. I mean has
I think eight hundred foot notes. So Wemoff's book is
probably the best, absolute perfect book on the topic. I
have lectured about seven or eight hours on that book
on my YouTube channel, and so if you just look
up Jesuits, Cia, OSS wm Off, you'll get all of those.
Another good book on this is Operation Gladio by Paul Williams,
who is also a Catholic who I think is like
a history professor. He wrote on this, and I think
he's kind of pretty much done with Catholicism after he
went deep into the Gladio rabbit hole. But Gladio also
is adjacent to all this through the Jesuits too. It
doesn't it's not explicitly about Jesuits, but it's about the
CIA's connection to the Vatican Bank and all that. Written
by and again another Catholic who's not a quote conspiracy theoristy,
he's a professor. So those are two that deal more
recently with that. In road to the Roman Catholic Church.
I think that there's a lot of kind of low
tier Seven Day Aventists type people that are idiots. They
think that the Jesuits around the world that stuff's really stupid.
But the Jesuits do have a role to play in
kind of influencing the Roman Catholic Church to be what
it is nowadays with this hyper liberalization, especially with Francis.
I think Francis is really the the ultimate example of that.
And you know, he was already kind of allied with
the CIA in Operation Condor, and it's so you know,
if you follow his trajectory, it really makes there's no
surprise there that he would, you know, be friends with
all the people from Davos. You know, his mentor is
one of Klaus's best friends from you know, World Economic Forum.
He promotes the United Nations the World Economic Forum values
and ideas. So I think it's pretty transparent nowadays. If
you talked about this a while back, you know, this
was this is all you're crazy, it's crazy, coup plant.
But all this stuff is actually pretty well documented. It was,
it was in all the geopolitical literature. Just a lot
of people don't know about it. I think that's more
important than even you know, the origins of Ignacious, Loyola
and the Jesuit Order.
Speaker 3: I mean, all that stuff is interesting, it's.
Speaker 4: Fascinating, and they have a curious history. I wouldn't be
surprised if Ignacious' model of spiritual exercises wasn't borrowed from
his esoteric days.
Speaker 3: So for those that don't know.
Speaker 4: Uh, Ignacious Loyol of the before he converted to Catholicism,
was involved in some kind of esoteric group. I don't
They weren't the Illuminati, but they called themselves something like
the Illuminatos or the Enlightened Ones.
Speaker 3: Or something like that.
Speaker 4: And I'm not even saying that that necessarily means his
conversion wasn't genuine. I mean, he could have been fully genuine,
but regardless, he did bring a lot of those spiritual
practices quote unquote into the Jesuit order, and then that
became something that was very useful for cell networks and
intelligence networks.
Speaker 3: So there's a long history to this, Brandon, it was a.
Speaker 44: I did a quick question, well a two part question.
So the first one is given the chaos of the
early Church prior to the Nice Scene Council, and I
suppose I've heard this on Joe Rogan's podcast, but do
you think there's any credibility to this idea that the
early Church might have incorporated psychedelics in their Eucharist? And
as a follow up question, do you think there's any
spiritual value to the use of psychedelics.
Speaker 4: No, I don't think there's anything incredible at all about that.
John Aleegro was kind of rejected and kicked out of
academia when he proposed the theory some decades ago. It's
kind of just seen still as a quack theory. I
don't think there's really anything in Christianity at all amenable
to or consistent with pollucinogenics. I mean, even even Alvis Toxley,
who wrote about superiority of pollucinogens to bread and wine
and the Eucharist, didn't think that there was anything hallucinogenic
about Christianity's notion of the Eucharist. And there could be,
you know, some usage for extreme cases of people with extreme.
Speaker 3: Like I had a friend.
Speaker 4: Who was an extreme alcoholic and drank himself to death,
and I would have said maybe in his case, like,
since he was at the point of almost dying, like,
might as well.
Speaker 3: Try some kind of you know whatever.
Speaker 4: However, they do the therapy with you know, aohuasc or whatever,
which sometimes works for people who have extreme addictions.
Speaker 3: So maybe in extreme cases, but no, I don't think
generally speaking, human beings should be trying to have spiritual
experiences with hallucinogens. Rhodesian chet Hanks, Hey J.
Speaker 45: Sorry, my audio kind of went out. One interesting thing
you mentioned about Huxley, and I think why Orthodox should
always avoid psychedelics is you put your trust in them.
I think Huxley died tripping. He like asked for a
bunch of acid on his deathbed. Yeah, thanks, so yeah,
so I mean that kind of summarizes it well anyway,
thank you.
Speaker 3: Yeah, that's an interesting point.
Speaker 4: I mean, you know, I think when Orthodox saints and
elder's comments on.
Speaker 3: This, they talk about it like, Okay, yeah, you.
Speaker 4: Might be opening your you know, noetic faculties to the
spiritual realm when you do that, but that doesn't mean
that you're ready for the spiritual realm, and that doesn't
mean that it's the approved method for looking into the
spiritual realm either, which is why it can, you know,
terrify you and drive you insane. I'm not saying that everybody.
I've done hallucinogen, so I'm well aware of how it works,
and not everybody who trips goes insane. But it's sort
of like, I don't know, it's like playing spiritual roulette
or something like you could go and say, Henry, what's up?
Speaker 3: Yeah, seth, good, Yes.
Speaker 32: I've got a question.
Speaker 46: So I'm I'm kind of a person, but I'm like
ninety percent of my way to deciding to become an
Eastern Orthodox.
Speaker 32: But I have a question about ikons.
Speaker 46: Sure, I mean, so it's explained as windows to the divine, right, Yeah,
but I'm curious as to like, what do they reveal
that scripture doesn't.
Speaker 4: Well, they're essentially the same type of revelation as scriptures,
So in a sense, what they reveal that scripture doesn't
would be the facts and the history and the lives
of the saints who lived after the scriptures.
Speaker 3: So that's one thing they reveal.
Speaker 4: I mean, Gregory Poulomas is a saint and he's not
in the Bible, So it reveals to us things about
saints after.
Speaker 3: The time of the apostles.
Speaker 4: Even the icons that are, you know, scenes of even
the icons that are the scenes of like biblical imagery,
like the the Theophany or christ Baptism. I mean, those
icons are the same messages and meaning of the Bible.
It's just a different medium or firm because written texts
are not the only way in which God speaks to us.
Because God created the beauty of the natural world. God
wanted his Temple in Jerusalem to be beautiful and full
of iconography, and so God is just also fine with
revealing himself and truths about himself and his people through
icons and through beauty and not just through written texts.
Speaker 46: Yeah, and I know icon veneration is quite like it's
a big thing. But besides polycarphs like bones that could
be considered venerated, like what other examples like in the
early days would they be?
Speaker 3: Well?
Speaker 4: For example, all the early churches, even in the catacombs,
have altars and had.
Speaker 3: The eucharists on the altars.
Speaker 4: So if you go to the catacombs in Rome, you'll
see the altars when the church was persecuted down in
the catacomb, and even when the basilicas began to be
converted after Roman, after Catholicism was no longer persecuted. The basilicas,
which are houses like fancy houses that you know senators
and elite Roman you know senators used to live in
or whatever like, when they converted the houses into churches,
they would set up barriers or communion rails, which means
that not everybody had access to the eucharists. So that
itself tells you that there's a reverence for the euchrost itself.
So the Eucharist is the icon part excellence that Protestants
and people who you know, criticize this point always missed.
They don't understand, well, the euchroust itself is that, but
the altar itself is holy, and the altar itself is
what became a tradition for the Church to put relics in.
So this is an ancient, you know, early church tradition
to put relics in the altar. And then the cross
quite naturally became something that was venerated very early in
the church. The monastics were doing the sign of the
Cross very early in church tradition. So all of these
things show the principle, including holy water two of sacramental theology,
which is the very point and the purpose behind iconography.
So people miss all of that and they don't even
look at It's.
Speaker 3: Like, well, howk them.
Speaker 4: There weren't giant icons put up everywhere in the second
third century. You mean, because the church was in the catacombs.
But guess what, when you go on the catacombs, there's imagery.
I've been to the catacombs in Rome, and I've only
been to one of them there everywhere, and they have imagery,
so they have pictures of Jesus, they have pictures of
Bible scenes. If you go to the Dura Europo Synagogue,
it has images and iconography everywhere on the walls.
Speaker 32: Okay, cool, thanks, that's so logic.
Speaker 3: Yeah.
Speaker 4: I have a video where I discussed this, and I
actually go into a Protestant liturgical historian, Hugh Wiber's book
Byzantine Liturgy. The first chapter of that book refutes all
the Gavin Ortland stuff and the James White stuff. I've
shared that probably twenty times on Twitter. Go watch my
video that's like twenty minutes refuting Gavin Ortland on icons.
I think it's like a twenty minute video. All I
do is cite Protestant liturgical historians. So I don't know
why I'm not dissing you. It's just like it's like
the same.
Speaker 3: This is like stuff like kicks up for whatever reason.
Speaker 4: And if people are like, oh, everybody's arguing over something
that we've been making videos about for like seven years.
Speaker 3: Like go watch all the videos already made on this Darius.
What's up?
Speaker 4: In fact, maybe I can find that video and put
it underneath this for you guys, because I know everyone
is too lazy to actually find a video. No one
knows how to use search functions anymore. So it's about
the fourth one that comes up when I search for it.
So I'm gonna put it under here for you guys.
Speaker 3: Go ahead, did it my churn? Yes, sir.
Speaker 25: Oh, hey, mister Dyer. I just want to say I
appreciate you and your your work. It's been very helpful.
My friend has helped me converting to decent Orthodoxy. I
actually graduated from Master's University, and I've had a lot
of questions and I actually asked John MacArthur at a
Q and A myself, which is, I'll give you permission
to uh not permission to call me on the video
at a Q and A about the Master dem Nada.
So there's a video of it. I don't know if
you can d M me or something. I can't send
you the link, but I wanted to ask more about
the the Nestorianism with the mass uh maskedev nada. I
think that's how you pronounce it. I'm having.
Speaker 3: Notorianism.
Speaker 25: Yeah, yeah, I've watched I've watched videos, a lot of them.
I watched all of them, but I'm still having trouble
like understanding it are like the has to put it
in my own words of.
Speaker 4: Wow, okay, hold on, hold on, So let's let's distinguish
some things.
Speaker 3: So can you mute? It's really loud, so just meet
for a second. Oh, I apologize, It's okay, it's me
for a second. Okay.
Speaker 4: So mass Damnata is an Augustinian teaching based on his
reading of Romans five, that all human beings are in
Adam as in an archetype. He speaks of this explicitly,
for example, in the City of God. I've lectured through
the entirety of the City of God and we covered
the sections where he talks about this.
Speaker 3: The idea is that basically.
Speaker 4: We all not only send in Adam, but we were
also guilty in Adam because we were in his loins
as in an archetype, in him, like in a kind
of neoplatonic way. So that means that when an infant
is born or from sect from the second of conception,
the infant is not only liable to the effects of
original sin, he's also guilty of original sin and thus
liable to full on damnation and torments.
Speaker 3: So that's what mass damnotomys.
Speaker 4: And the only people who get out of that in
the Augustinian system are those who are not just predestined,
but in this life come to the church, come to
the font, get baptized, and persevere until the end, and
thus demonstrate that they were one of the elects. So
you have that's why he wrote a treatise called on
the Gift of Perseverance. But he also wrote other books
on operative and cooperative grace, et cetera, none of which
is consistent with the Calvinist teaching, because Augustine did not
believe ultimately in an invisible church. He believed that the
visible church has a visible structure that is unified, it
is singular, it has the means of grace alone through
the sacraments. He believed in praying for dead, He believed
in all the things that we believe. He doesn't believe
the things that the Calvinists believe, So that's mass damnata.
Nasaurianism is a different situation where the patriarchal Constantinople started
teaching that Mary is not the mother of God, meaning
that the person that she gave birth to was not
the divine person of the word, the second person of
the Godhead, but rather that there's a dual subject going
on in the life of Christ, where at times it
is the subject Jesus of Nazareth, who's a human subject,
and at other times it's the second person that God had,
the logos, who is speaking and revealing himself in the gospels.
And so when Nastorius is condemned at Ephesus, he's condemned
for a dual subject Christology, that saying Cyril writes about extensively.
So those are two separate topics, but I'm happy to
address either one.
Speaker 25: I appreciate that, brother, Thank you.
Speaker 3: So what was the question about mass Dunn and John MacArthur.
Speaker 25: I was Oh, I asked him. Uh, I asked him
back in twenty twenty one. I went to the pulpit,
you know, because I grew up not reform, but whatever.
I asked him, was there a break in the trinity?
Because you know, you just said, Father, Father, why have
you forsaken me? And I was expressing and I asked
him like, how wasn't there a break because it seems
like it and in the video, I don't know. You
can go to my Facebook or something like that if
you search up my name. In the video, he says
basically that yes, there was a separation.
Speaker 3: And then wow, that's awesome. Find that.
Speaker 25: So yeah, if you I don't know, can you DM
on Twitter or something, I can give it to you.
Speaker 4: Well, why don't you just post it underneath this thread here,
put it as a comment and I'll play that on
the live stream or something. But yeah, that's different. So
mauth da'maa is the Augustinian doctrine. The argument that I
make about penal substitutionary atonement is that the Classical Reformation tradition,
when they interpret the text my God, My God, why
have you forsaken me? All the Classical Reformers believe that
Jesus of Nazareth was damned on the cross, and so
if you believe he's a divine person, you split the
trinity because damnation means a severance from the presence, love
and unity of God and divine life. So you're saying
that the second person of the God had was severed
from the divine love, unity and presence of the Father,
which is impossible. It's anti Trinitarians stupid, But Calvinists don't
care about Trinitarian theology. They'd rather do their steriology first,
and if that screws up the.
Speaker 3: Trinity down the road, who cares? Right.
Speaker 4: But in the Orthodox position, seteriology is downstream from triadology.
Speaker 3: It's the other way around. It's the reverse.
Speaker 4: And that's why no Calvinists will ever be able to
win a debate when it comes to the monarchical trinity
versus their stupid heterodox trinity.
Speaker 3: Often. Hey j how are you fine with that?
Speaker 47: Hey?
Speaker 3: So, I just had a quick question about epistemology.
Speaker 48: From some of your videos I've watched, I've seen that
you don't just allow claims, so you want epistemological justification
for things. But also at the same time, i've heard
you say, well a lot of claims kind of have
at the base level, kind of like epistemological circularity.
Speaker 3: Yeah. I literally just addressed this about twenty minutes ago.
Go ahead, okay, I'll tune back in. Fine, you can
ask a question again, Go ahead, okay.
Speaker 48: So, like, if I wanted to say something like, well,
I know I'm a conscious being, like there is consciousness,
I mean I can't in your world. I want to
be able to say that's self evident. And if not, like,
how would I justify something like that.
Speaker 4: Right, So, I mean, the first point is that anybody
who doesn't want to believe in recursive, you know, paradigm
level questions being self referencing, they're going to, most likely
ninety nine percent of the time they're going to be
some form of foundationalist in terms of epistemology. And if
you're a foundationalist, you're gonna have to deal with their
criterion problem. You're gonna have to deal with how we
know what's self evident and why is that self evident?
Which is going to rely on some prior principle that
susses out the non self evident from the self evident.
Speaker 3: And if the self evident things.
Speaker 4: Rely on a principle which teases out the self evident
and non self evident, then it's no longer self evident
because it's relying on another principle because by definition, self
evident principles can't rely on other truths or other things.
If you watch the Trent Horn debate, the whole debate
ended up being about things that were self evident. So yeah,
so a person who disagreed with tag or the way
that we approach epistemology, they could go in the direction
of denying that all world views are at a fundamental
level self referencing or recursive. But they're in an even
more difficult box if they do that, because now they're
going to have to give an account for the criterion
problem and the principles of self evidence, which is.
Speaker 3: Going to be a nightmer.
Speaker 48: Okay, thank you, I'll go back and I'll watch the
Trent Horn debate, and then as so, what was your.
Speaker 3: Question about consciousness? Like what was it? So you just
you're just repeating the cards that you.
Speaker 48: Mean, Well, no, it wouldn't be because I watched you
debate te Dump, and I remember te Dump wanted to
do the whole cartesian I think therefore I am.
Speaker 3: But you put into question that Trent Horn did the
same thing.
Speaker 48: I didn't watch the Trent Horn, but I remember what
you you brought up with Tea Dump is that hey,
Bertrand Russell has a critique of the coquito, which is like,
there's a jump to a being or an eye, but nonetheless,
like Corre, I do think there there there is not
necessarily an eye, but there is experience. And if I
wanted to justify that experience, can I say that it's
self evident or what I need to be more.
Speaker 4: I'll just cut it. I'll just cut it out. Even
easier and even better than version of Russell's critique. If
you look at cons critique of the coke e toe,
he says, if you say I think therefore I am,
I am, or I exist, that's a time determination.
Speaker 3: You have not proven time yet.
Speaker 4: Your argument assumes the existence of time, and so therefore
the cogito is not self evident. By the way, the
coketo has been savage by philosophers ever since. They cart
pointing out how it relies on all kinds of things,
not just time, and not just the false non sequit
or conclusions or eyes. But it also assumes sentences and
propositional meaning, which it hasn't demonstrated yet.
Speaker 48: Interesting, So, I mean, is there not necessarily proving an
eye like an independent self? Is there a way to
epistemologically kind of demonstrate that there is conscious experience outside
of just saying well it's self.
Speaker 4: Well, yeah, I think the strongest argument is const argument
that it's a transcendental category, which he calls the unity
of apperception, which is the self for the knower I mean,
in other words, for the possibility of perception, you have
to have a nowherre or self. But that would be
a transcendental argument, that would not be a Kantian self
evident axiom.
Speaker 48: And that's the unity of ap ap procession.
Speaker 3: You said ap perception.
Speaker 4: That's just Kant's famous terminology for a unified experience that
a self or a knower is having. So basically, Kant
is just saying that in order to have a meaningful world,
or a meaningful life, or a meaningful experience, there must
be some unifying thing or substrate that is connecting all
of these disparate experiences in your daily life. And so
for that to be the case, it's obviously not going
to be proven in since experience since it's not under
the purview of since experience.
Speaker 3: So where is it? How is it? How wo do
we know it?
Speaker 4: It's a perfect example of one of the things that
calls a transcendental category, which is assumed in any act
of knowing. So to have a meaningful experience presupposes a
what he calls a transcendental unity of a perception. That's
just fancy word for a conscious mind of self a knowwhere.
Speaker 48: Okay, cool, Yeah, I'm going to look into that. It's
something I've been thinking about a lot. And then after this,
like little chat log is closed. Can I go back
on Twitter and like rewind it?
Speaker 26: Just so?
Speaker 3: Okay?
Speaker 44: Cool?
Speaker 3: Well, thank you so much. Jay. I appreciate that question.
I appreciate those are good questions. Andre. What's up man, Colin?
I'm you, Hey, Jay, what's up? Man?
Speaker 44: Yeah?
Speaker 49: Go ahead, Hey dude, I had a quick question for you.
It might be fairly simple, but I was thinking about
this the other day. Could you elaborate on the Orthodox
perspective on who Melchizedek is in Genesis fourteen?
Speaker 48: Is he?
Speaker 3: I wrote a buff back article on it.
Speaker 4: Okay, okay, cool, I'm just beating it because it's loud,
but I appreciate your out of the mouth of babes. Yeah,
Melchizedek is an actual Old Testament person.
Speaker 3: He's not Jesus. He's a type of Jesus, and he
is spoken of as the King of Salem.
Speaker 4: He's a priest king of Salem, which makes him a
type of Christ, being the ultimate priest king.
Speaker 3: Maybe we should I'm sorry, We're trying to park and
it's like bad traffic here, so I keep getting distracted.
Speaker 4: So yeah, he was actually the king of Jerusalem, because
Salem is Zion, David explains in the Psalms.
Speaker 3: And so what this means is that if you believe Genesis,
then it's telling you that uh Salem or the city
of Zion, was actually the city of the righteous before
the Jews.
Speaker 4: Existed in the sense of Abraham. So Abraham is beginning
of quote Judaism because he's the first to.
Speaker 3: Be called in that way.
Speaker 4: And God calls Abraham not because no one else in
the world believed in God, but rather Abraham goes to
the righteous gentile priest king Malchisedek and ties to him,
which shows the superiority of the Melchizedekian priesthood over the
Ironic And this is why in Hebrew seven Paul uses
this as a powerful argument for the superiority of Christianity,
which is the Melchizedekian priesthood amongst its bishops, priests.
Speaker 3: And laity.
Speaker 4: That priesthood supersedes and transcends the ironic priesthood because it
is superior, although even the ironic priesthood is also a
type of christ.
Speaker 31: Joseph, go ahead, hey, Jack, you hear me?
Speaker 3: Yeah? Hey.
Speaker 50: First of all, I want to say I've been listening
for a couple of years, and I love just the
way you break things down and your movie your movie reviews,
all that stuff. So I love your debates everything. I
love everything there is. Yeah, no problem, no problem, it's
really good stuff.
Speaker 8: Let me ask you. And I've heard you.
Speaker 3: I've heard you.
Speaker 50: With other people like if someone comes to you who's
who comes from a partisant background, which it is more
on solo sola scripture, and they want to debate you
or have a discussion with you on the Bible, you
kind of cut their legs off. And you I've heard
you do this before. I don't know if you're still
doing this. It's been a couple of months. As i've
heard you, maybe you changed your augmentation, maybe, but I've
heard you say things like, well, who brought the Bible?
Who gave you the Bible? And that's kind of your
way to cut the legs off.
Speaker 4: So I want to know I never see using that
argument because it's a classic one as one of the
ones that helped convert me.
Speaker 50: Now, okay, now, so my next question is because I
have I feel like I have a response to that argument.
So I want to see what you think I want
to see what you're what your answer is? I guess
so wouldn't that be?
Speaker 3: Well, no, that's fine.
Speaker 4: You can always bring you know, challenges and responses like that.
But could you give me just a couple of minutes
because I meant the gas station and I had to
use the bathroom and I got to get a water.
Speaker 3: So can you hold on for maybe a minute or two? Yeah,
so just give me a second? Okay, go ahead. Man,
I'm back on the corner all right, so I think
can you hear me? Yeah?
Speaker 5: All right?
Speaker 50: So, like I said before, when someone comes to you
and it kind of wants to argue the debate what
the Bible says before you you even get into that
conversation with them, and you kind of try and cut
their legs off from the beginning and say, well, who
brought you the Bible?
Speaker 3: This and that X Y Z. Okay?
Speaker 5: Cool?
Speaker 50: And let me ask you, isn't isn't that? Isn't that
technically committing the fallacy of composition where you're saying, okay,
because the Orthodox Church brought this, that means they have
the truth now and everything going forward.
Speaker 10: You see what I'm saying.
Speaker 50: Isn't that the fallacy of composition to assume that the
Orthodox Church, just because they that God used them to
bring the truth of scripture to everybody, that now that
every teaching they have now is true.
Speaker 4: You to say what I'm saying, Well, no, the argument
is not that because the Canon was put together by
the Church that therefore everything that they believe or say
is true.
Speaker 3: I don't. I don't even have to concede that.
Speaker 4: All I have to do is show that the Protestant
epistemic grounds for knowing the Canon and trying to enforce
the Canon doesn't work for Protestantism.
Speaker 3: In other words, and let me let me explain why
that would be the.
Speaker 4: Case, because, for example, a Roman Catholic might make the
same argument, right, so a Protestant. A Protestant might say
back to me, well, okay, so maybe I admit that
you know the church quote unquote of history is indispensable
for the determination and knowledge and decision of the Canon.
Speaker 3: But why Orthodoxy over Rome is ALSOSM. So no, I don't.
Speaker 4: I don't think the argument that argument alone necessarily proves orthodoxy,
except that you have to go deeper into it and
point out that, well, actually, the Roman Catholic arguments is
not much better because they just argue that is whatever
the pope decided at the Council of Rome under Pope Damasis.
Speaker 3: But that just assumes that papalism is true.
Speaker 4: The rest of the Church had a fluctuating and varying
canon for centuries, even up into the Seventh Council.
Speaker 3: So I don't understand.
Speaker 4: So if that, if the church was papal, they weren't
listening to Damasis about what the canon.
Speaker 3: Was, right, I see. So let's so let me ask
you all I all.
Speaker 6: I need to do.
Speaker 4: All I have to do is just demonstrate that tradition
and a living body of people with normative authority are
absolutely necessary even to know what the written Word of
God is, and that undercos Protestancy.
Speaker 50: So so okay, so this okay, So this is another
question happening.
Speaker 3: Okay.
Speaker 50: So if if that's what orthodox theology is claiming, if
the Bible says that the Holy Spirit is able to
if we're able to come to the knowledge of God
without the Orthodox Church proper, what doesn't that defeat that argument?
Speaker 30: Though?
Speaker 50: If I'm able to come to a lot of truth
by reading the scriptures, just me alone with the Lord
wouldn't that doesn't that undercut that argument then?
Speaker 5: Right?
Speaker 4: I say, we're saying, well, there's a difference in scripture
between different types of knowledge.
Speaker 3: So for example, you can have rational.
Speaker 4: Diological knowledge of something, or you could have factual knowledge
of something and not have intimate knowledge of the thing.
Speaker 3: Right.
Speaker 4: So like when the scriptures say that Adam and even
knew Adam knew his wife Eve, Right, that's a different
type of knowing than just having, like I know of
the person. So no, I would say that Protestants can
have a knowledge of Jesus and a knowledge of those things.
If God has his own ways by which he can
reach a Protestant, he can do that. But it's not
because of Protestantism. It's in spite of Protestanism, or it's
in spite of Catholicism, because it's ignoring the fact that
it's ignoring whether or not God set up an institution
by which he wanted people to connect to him, namely
the Church.
Speaker 31: So let me ask you, so what did it?
Speaker 50: That's a good it's a good answer, So let me
ask you what can I give that same answer though
to Orthodox because if all men are if all men
are fallible, right, And I know what the Orthodox teaching
is on, you know, on that type stuff. When they
agree on a certain issue whatever, you would say that's that.
You would say that to God speaking even though infallible
men are making that decision, you would say, the Holy
Spirit is leading the church correct.
Speaker 4: Yeah, like when a council is speaking in an ecumenical
you know, setting with the whole mind of the church
on issues that are you know, universally agreed upon and
received eventually by the entire church. It might be unclear
in that generation what that is, but eventually, but over
time it gets accepted and we know what the mind
of it.
Speaker 3: And we know the mind of the church.
Speaker 4: But yes, that's infallible, but not the individual men, I
see my dutt And by the way, Protestants. Protestants already
admit this if they think the Bible is infallible, because
they think that these fallible men came together to make
at least one infallible decision, namely the Cannon Scripture.
Speaker 3: Or you go with the RC.
Speaker 4: Sproul route of saying that it's a fallible collection of
infallible books, which is self refuting.
Speaker 50: I guess I come from an evangelical background, and I've
been just really reading, reading, reading scripture, reading scripture, watching
a lot of y'all's videos. I mean, I've watched hundreds
and hundreds of debates on various topics, and I personally
find that you are the best debater that i've heard.
I mean, just be honest, yeah, I personally, I mean,
your arguments are even if you're even if you're in
the wrong, I mean, you can debate your out of it,
like it's just that I see.
Speaker 3: I'm not saying you are wrong.
Speaker 8: I'm just saying that that's.
Speaker 3: How good you are, that you know that you can
do that. So let me give you I'm gonna hold on,
so hold on.
Speaker 4: I'm gonna I'm gonna re share a couple screenshots.
Speaker 3: Hopefully I can find the other one here.
Speaker 4: That give you an example from Protestant scholars of how
elaborate the decision of the canon was, and it gives
you a window into this so to where hopefully we
can realize that like the Canon of Scripture wasn't like
it's it's centuries of variations and differences and debates and disputes,
and that alone means that Christians were not operating on
the principle of solar scriptura for all those centuries. So
why would we be accepting a doctrine of quote sola
scriptura when God clearly was saving these people, you know,
during these times without sous.
Speaker 3: Does that make sense?
Speaker 5: Right?
Speaker 3: No, it makes perfect sense.
Speaker 50: And that and that's where what you were saying, God
is using Catholics in spite of themselves. God's using process
in spite of themselves.
Speaker 5: Is it? Can I?
Speaker 50: Can I not make the same critique and say that
God is always working Whenever God's word is shared, It's
never gonna return void no matter who is give.
Speaker 3: Yeah.
Speaker 4: But again, but but to whom much is given, much
is required. And so the more knowledge that you have,
the more culpable you are, as Jesus says. And so
if you do know about these things and have the
ability to, uh, you know, find an orthodox church.
Speaker 3: Let me give you another example, like underneath, then you're
more liable.
Speaker 9: So I just.
Speaker 3: Retweeted right now. Uh.
Speaker 4: This is a page from Lee McDonald's book Formation of
the Christian Biblical Canon, and it's the page where he
talks about how Revelation was not even and considered the
Bible in Rome until affinacious went and convinced the Bishop
of Rome that Revelation and Hebrews and other texts were
actually should be included in the cannon. So what this
shows us is that this is not like they're not
operating on sola scriptura. If they're debating what things go
into it, that proves they were not Protestants. They did
not operate on sola scriptura, and thus sol scriptura is
not true.
Speaker 3: That's one of the key pillars of Protestants.
Speaker 4: Just read this page right here from a Protestant scholar
on how instrumental the fallible human decisions and argumentation of
Afthenacious were about what books went in the Bible.
Speaker 50: So, Jay, how are you sharing these pages so I
can see? I'm sorry, I'm driving, I have the phone.
Speaker 3: I literally just so it should be the top of
my wall. I just sweet at the Regent.
Speaker 4: By the way, I also wrote, if you scroll down
a little bit, I reposted my two essays on the
dude cannon from like ten years ago, fifteen years ago.
Speaker 50: Gotcha love to that. Well, I don't want to take
up too with your time, man, but this, I know
that was a great question.
Speaker 3: Appreciate it, man.
Speaker 4: Just scroll down to uh Reputation of the Protestant Canon
Part one and Reputation of the Protestant Canon Part two.
Maybe I'll scroll down and find him and retweeting or
something superhero.
Speaker 30: Hey, Hello, can you hear me?
Speaker 8: Stir Hey, dear dar.
Speaker 3: I just want to say thank you for the opportunity
to be able to talk.
Speaker 5: Huge supporter man.
Speaker 51: I've been following for quite a while and to love
all your debates, especially as the ones that you do
with Sam Schmann got logic. But I have a I
grew up Protestant, actually Pentecostal, obviously Protestantism.
Speaker 52: I have a like one or two questions real quick.
So my parents are like, you know, like I said,
I grew up Pentecostal. Personally, I feel like the Holy
spiritsmen leading me to the Orthodox Church.
Speaker 3: But like a lot of that, it's just been like,
you know, me doing my own uh my own I
guess devor with Christ and like studying.
Speaker 6: And stuff like that.
Speaker 53: I want to ask you, uh what, like can you
can you give me like biblical uh I guess or
scripture to support like tradition and stuff like that.
Speaker 3: Well, yeah, I mean there's a bunch.
Speaker 4: I have an article that I wrote called the Biblical
case for tradition. So go to my website, Jayson Elsins
dot com and then just look up a Biblical case
for tradition and that will give you multiple texts to
discuss it.
Speaker 54: Uh.
Speaker 4: Oh, it's guys, trying to get over here. We're about
to get crushed by some honest so trying to several lives.
But yeah, I mean there's there's quite a few. I mean,
second Thessalonians too, where Paul talks about, you know, whether
keep the traditions, whether or oral or written. You know,
Jesus in Matthew twenty three refers to the Cathedra the
seat of Moses. There's nothing in the Bible about the
Pharisees sitting in a seat of Moses. That's tradition.
Speaker 5: You know.
Speaker 4: There's traditions in the New Testament cited where you know,
Jesus said it's better to give.
Speaker 3: Than to receive.
Speaker 4: There's no statement where Jesus says that in the Gospels,
so that's some kind of tradition. The Gospels themselves and
their authorship, particularly in the case of Matthew, are known
by tradition. So Matthew doesn't tell you that Matthew the
Disciple is the author of the text. So that's something
that is known by church tradition, and that the various
bishoprics and sees passing down the tradition that Matthew the
Disciple wrote that, and that's very important for canonicity, right.
Speaker 3: So I think Protestants overlook this.
Speaker 4: They think that when I say something like, you can't
you know, know the canon without the Orthodox Church, a
lot of times since misunderstand that and they think that
the argument is just, oh, you're just saying that I
can't understand those books without orthodoxy, or I can't know
what the Bible is without an infallible interpreter.
Speaker 3: No, No, that's the Roman Catholic argument.
Speaker 4: I'm making a different argument, which is that you can't
even know the authorship tradition of the Gospels, which is
crucial to canonicity, without the tradition of the Church.
Speaker 3: And once I saw F. F.
Speaker 4: Bruce, you know, Lee McDonald, all these Protestant evangelical scholars
admitting the role of tradition in the Bible and its
formation in history, It's like, well, obviously this is not
the Protestant model, so.
Speaker 3: This is just not true. Gary, Gary got on you man.
Speaker 30: I can't hear anybody.
Speaker 3: Jay, Yep, are you there?
Speaker 5: Yeah?
Speaker 30: Wow, Hey, I was just in the neighborhood.
Speaker 3: I'll tell your mind.
Speaker 30: Oh, I just thought i'd say a little something about
your debate on Calvinism. You know what all these religions
have in common? What they all believe in the higher
God or the atheist? Of course, there is no god.
Speaker 3: That's profound, bro.
Speaker 30: And it's interesting that now, Jay, I'm curious you said
you were even jelical. Is that how you were raised?
Speaker 15: What?
Speaker 30: What did you say?
Speaker 5: What?
Speaker 3: I can't take the smack into the your dog? No,
I'm orthodox, Jaron R.
Speaker 4: Jason, excuse me, you'll notice that James's.
Speaker 22: Hey, Ja, I want to ask what's your opinion on
Gregory of Nissa and his teaching of universalism?
Speaker 8: Like, what would you say to that?
Speaker 4: I would say he's wrong about that, and he's wrong
about gender being a reduced a product of the fall.
So yeah, many of the church fathers got many things wrong.
Speaker 26: Thanks, that's it.
Speaker 3: Yeah, the Universal's position is condemned by three councils. Jordan. Hello,
can you hear me?
Speaker 5: Jay?
Speaker 3: Yeah?
Speaker 55: Awesome, awesome? Uh my name is Jordan. So either questions
or you had once sit in one of your lives
or debates that the this is a God is the
energy of God? How does that make How does that
make sense? If God is eternal? How is his existence
and energy?
Speaker 5: If?
Speaker 55: And correct me if I'm wrong? Isn't this the energy
is just the act of God, the acts or the
activities of God.
Speaker 4: Yes, every predicate though, is an energy because they're an
energy that we know that's revealed to us, and that
comes down to us. So God's existence, God's actions, all
of those are in the Orthodox view energies God.
Speaker 3: She's okay, So that that does make sense.
Speaker 4: And yes, he exists from all eternity. His existence is
an eternal, energetic manifestation.
Speaker 55: So I guess from like, I guess from there that
there's something beyond his existence that's in his essence that
we cannot understand.
Speaker 4: But that that's yes, it's not in his essence. It
is the essence that is beyond existence. And that's directly
from Dionysius himself. Oh understood. Awesome, Thank you so much.
That that was that was pretty much great questions.
Speaker 3: Yeah, R.
Speaker 4: Rate plum Off is a debate with the Marline. I awesome,
I'm sorry, you can come back. I thought you were
done balance.
Speaker 56: Can you hear me?
Speaker 3: Yeah, what's up, Jordan? I was inviting you back. I
didn't realize you were still speaking out that you're done.
You can come back if you want.
Speaker 1: I have like a two part question, just a shout out.
I love your work with Alex Jones and stuff like that,
Rachel as well. I see Rachel's here. Her work is nice.
But my first question is do you have like a
specific timeline base of how secularism has infiltrated America and
how that stems from like the UK and in the
big Banks, the Rothchild set up and there, and the
work they've been doing to like promote uh. I guess
you would say degeneracy, but on top of that, like
world government control.
Speaker 4: I don't know if there's a specific timeline for secularism,
because you could argue that the secular realm as an
idea for the state and for state craft goes back
arguably to the Protestant Reformation and then the seeds of
it there and then the French Revolution. So I would
say that the French Revolution is probably the real source
of the notion of a completely secular realm. That's not
touched by ethics, morals, or theology outside of human legislation.
That seems like, I'm pretty sure it's an Enlightenment and
then French Revolution idea. You could track that though with
quickly says that the French Revolution was funded by Protestant, Swiss.
Speaker 3: And Jewish banking elites.
Speaker 4: And I would argue that America, as an offshoot of
the French Revolution already has kind of baked within it
a secularist tendency. But it's, like we were saying on
the podcast last night with High Hypocrite, my view is
that America kind of had kind of competing ideologies in it,
So it kind of had elements of Christianity and it
had elements of Enlightenment secular philosophy. And America was always
just kind of in this journey to see which road
it would take.
Speaker 3: Would it take the path of enlightenment.
Speaker 4: Uh, you know, Masonic secularism, or would it go in
a more Christian direction. And it didn't go into Christian
direction precisely because for well, for many reasons. But one
of the other things that's important that I think people
overlook is that that principle of the free reign of
the of the state, that it's not under the church
or connect to the Church, that there that there should
be a quote secular realm. The Roman callit Church was
condemning that back in the seventeen hundreds and eighteen hundreds
when they condemned the French Revolution. You had Orthodox writers
that were condemning it. When the Bolshevik Revolution happened. Probably
Natiev is a great one about he said that you
don't get an actual secular state, you actually get the
state of God. So if you remove the church, you
don't get this you know, free state, you get this
God state. So quite a few writers have been kind
of pointing that out from any centuries.
Speaker 3: But I would argue that you.
Speaker 4: Could just depend it on French Revolution and then the
influence in the West, and then the Roman Catholic Church
capitulating to the idea of the good of a secular
state at Vatican Two and their rejection of Christian nation states.
Speaker 1: Got to Yeah, I've seen the argument like people have
made with Thomas Jefferson. They're trying to like twist his
words around, saying like he was trying to separate church
from like the country basically, but he was based only
trying to like actually promote the government, not trying to
pick a specific church to represent the government, because I mean, I.
Speaker 3: Think but Jefferson does have those Enlightenment Jacobin ideas.
Speaker 9: Yeah.
Speaker 1: I wasn't trying to like make a case for Thomas Jefferson.
I was just trying to shift out that what's it called.
Speaker 3: Yeah, he's a good example of somebody who.
Speaker 4: Is kind of like got both of those kind of
tensions within him, where yeah there's some there's some quasi
Christian elements there, but also these Jacobin elements. And then
unfortunately America went in the direction of the you know,
the jacob inside.
Speaker 1: Yeah, you could see that with like the Founding Fathers.
I mean, even like George Washington, they were trying to
go to the realm of I think deism, where they
were trying to say, like there's no such thing as
miracles and all that stuff, and they were being like
deists towards Jesus, and I was just I was like
more or less like trying to like archetypes. Is this
like a spiritual like thing that's going on and it
like does it spawn from the Catholic Church or it
just does just spawn from bad men? From the Catholic
Church that wanted to use That's.
Speaker 3: Okay, that's all enlightenment for a Masonic.
Speaker 56: Perfect Yeah.
Speaker 1: And then my second question, I'm sorry if this is
too long, you can boot me if you want. But
I've been writing a book for the past like three
years on this like so called spirit of like whatever
we're talking about. Then this so called narcissism, like enlightenment crap,
and how that's all connected to like demonic forces and stuff.
But when I when I go down to the root
cause of this, it comes down to like the Garden
of Eden and how well you can say per se,
like the devil was the father of all lives, He's
the father of evil. But my question it will stem
from that being the sense of like is evil. Evil
is in the sense of like rejecting God. So with
us being the giving that choice of rejecting God, was
that does that mean that we were since uh, we
were created from nothing, and so when we were created
from nothing and we were given the choice of rejecting
the truth and love and then picking nothing to be
like the and that nothing is what transpires him to
like selfishness and like loving creatures.
Speaker 4: Yeah, actually, none of the Church fathers do like and
the choice of vice over virtue to sort of negating
yourself and choosing non being. So, yeah, I think you
would find that in Saint Athanasius. You would find that
in sant Agusta.
Speaker 3: And that's a that's a pretty common refrain when the
church fathers are kind of talking about, you know, the
metaphysical effects of moral evil. Jordans, do you want to
ask another question?
Speaker 55: Yeah, I had another question, Thank you for having back on. Also,
so in the Letter of Especially it's too the Letter
of Dinitheus that was which is accepted the Council of Jerusalem,
like the sixteen hundreds. He speaks about in that in
one of the chapters where he's he uses the word transfer.
But I've had Protestant friends speak about how he is
asserting that the Orthodox use that use the exact same
terminology of transfer. So my question is if that's canon
or if that's kind of for the entire Orthodox Church?
Would that not this? Would that not mean that we
have the exact same understanding of the eucharists except from
the crease right.
Speaker 4: So, first of all, those are Western translations of texts,
and it's fine if we have texts that have the
word transubstantiation, and if there's no I don't have him
even have a.
Speaker 3: Problem with that word.
Speaker 4: For example, John Damascus in the translations that we have
of on the Orthodox Faith, use the term transfibstantiation. That
just means a change of substance in the Eucharist through
the action of the Church.
Speaker 3: But the Roman Catholic view is not just that. It's
not a minuscule view of just that.
Speaker 4: Like they have a very worked out dogmatic theology of matter, form,
and intention for any sacrament, so for the sacrament of
the Eucharist and trans association their ex opera apparato doctrine
is part of it. Their doctrine of the words of
consecration is what does it. And that's odd because that
is separate from the epiclesis so in the Roman Goalthic position,
they have no notion of an epic liasis that's at
all relevant or necessary for the confecting of the Eucharist.
That's not the Orthodox view. It's foreign to the Orthodox mind.
And for example, that contributes in the Roman Catholic position
to this idea of eucharists not being communal. It can
be something that you can do, you know, like the
Roman Gathic priests can just do like the words of consecration,
and he can always forever. For example, if a Roman
Catholic priests became a Satanist, he can forever confess and
blaspheme the Eucharist because he never ceases to be a priest.
We don't think that that's superstitious. If you leave the faith,
you're not confecting the Eucharists. It doesn't matter how you know,
how much magic Roman hokey pokey you think you have.
And so, for example, that's another area where all of
the metaphysical baggage that Roman Catholicism dogmatizes about transubstantiation is
not necessarily contained in the word transubstantiation, which just means
change of substance.
Speaker 3: So no believe. We believe there is a real change
of the bread and wine, and that change becomes body, blood, soul,
and uncreated energy of Christ. Jason Jason, Yes, sir.
Speaker 29: Awesome.
Speaker 26: Questions more on then?
Speaker 32: I know if you are familiar with that, I guess
what's your opinion on?
Speaker 3: Yeah, so this is an I appreciate, it's not it's
not the topic today. We're not talking to in any fry.
What's up? Go ahead? Hey?
Speaker 40: I had a geopolitics question kind of similar to something
a few callers back was saying, all right, uh, something
you mentioned on the hypercrite stream youuron is the Rothschild
connection to South Africa.
Speaker 8: I was wondering what that was about.
Speaker 4: Yeah, so quickly as a whole section where he talks
about them funding the Bowler War.
Speaker 43: Okay, And I had another related thing.
Speaker 40: Is it anything of note to point out that Musk
and Peter Teel are both South African? Should we be
weary of South African technocrats?
Speaker 4: I don't necessarily think that there's a direct connection between
white people in South Africa and technocracy. I wouldn't think so.
I mean, I don't know exactly why. I mean, Charlie's Thorne,
isn't she from South Africa too? I mean I don't
think she's a technocrat, So.
Speaker 3: I don't know. I mean, I don't know the vibe
and the ethos of the people of South Africa.
Speaker 4: Like it's like I was saying on on that stream,
I'm not really well studied on the history of Africa.
Speaker 3: And I mean I know the A and C is bad.
I know about.
Speaker 4: Oh, what's his face? That was in prison forever. He
was actually working for British intelligence oddly enough, Mandela, Yeah,
Mandela was actually working in British intelligent.
Speaker 3: People don't know that. But so I know about some
of the espionage saft, but like, I don't really.
Speaker 4: Know a lot of the history of the Boers other
than the war and all that. Other than that, the
roth Childs are involved in funding it.
Speaker 40: According to Quickly, Yeah, that doesn't surprise That doesn't surprise
me at all.
Speaker 3: Yeah, I was actually kind of surprised. Well, actually, I
wasn't surprised when you mentioned it, because it's like, well, okay, well.
Speaker 43: What do they not fund exactly?
Speaker 5: That was it? Though?
Speaker 3: That was I think I think he mentioned it in
both books.
Speaker 4: I think it comes up in both Tragy and Hope
and in Anglo American Establishment.
Speaker 3: I think he mentions it in both.
Speaker 8: I'll have to check that out.
Speaker 43: I have the book, I just need to actually sit
down and read it.
Speaker 4: They were also involved in the debacle over the Suez
Canal because Disraeli was.
Speaker 3: Their operative hm hmm. Interesting yep.
Speaker 4: So Disraeli's machinations over the Swiss Canal or at the
past of the rod Jobs.
Speaker 3: Yeah, but thank you for the questioning that guys. Tony.
What's up Tony? Yeah? Help you, yes, sir.
Speaker 30: Yeah.
Speaker 9: So basically, wait, all right, we're.
Speaker 4: Gonna move on open topics for Calvinism, Protestism, Catholicism. Do
you have politics, if you want Islam, atheism. We've still
got a lot of people in here, three or so so,
and we already did your questions. I want to give
some other people some opportunity to come up they want to.
You don't have to debate. If you want to ask
you a question, you can. But if you do want
a debate, you go to the head of line. Uh,
just keep it to those topics. Any atheist, any Muslim,
any church history, Catholicism, Protestants of Calvinism.
Speaker 3: Today's your day. You can even make an argument.
Speaker 4: And presentation as long as you want within reason. If
you want to refute me, here's your chance. I'll give
you the mic. You can talk and talk and talk.
Let me know ahead of time if that's what you'd
like to do. If not, it's it's.
Speaker 3: All on y'all.
Speaker 4: Anybody else any any how are You've got three hundre
people and nobody wants to talk what y'all doing. It's
everybody another some Calvinists in here. So we got three
innre people, Dames White making a big fuss today and
none of y'all Calvinists. Y'all just want to lurk a lark.
Speaker 3: And Joseph again. What's up.
Speaker 5: Now?
Speaker 3: I've got to Jordan again. Nobody else comes?
Speaker 10: Hey, Jack, yummy?
Speaker 5: Hey?
Speaker 3: All right?
Speaker 50: So I had another question. So in the Orthodox Church,
the Eucharist is what saves you. Correct, you guys see
that as that that's the way of salvation. Baptism and
then the Eucharist.
Speaker 3: Well, I mean there's a lot of things that quote
save you. There's not just one thing that saves you.
Speaker 4: All the sacraments are involved in your salvation as well
as you know, the Bible and everything.
Speaker 50: Okay, got because I don't know why. I just heard
another Orthodox guy the other day talking about how the
Eucharist saves you and that.
Speaker 3: Yeah, but I mean we can say that without it
being you know, exclusive, right, So it's still true. But
I mean that doesn't mean it's the only thing. Matt,
what's up? Hey, what's going on?
Speaker 43: Kind of new to the space here, So are you
taking a stance in any particular religion. Are you just
taking questions about any religion?
Speaker 3: Yeah, I defend I defend Orthodox Christianity.
Speaker 4: So but we can debate, you know, any challenge to
that position from any of the other positions.
Speaker 43: Sure, okay, so Orthodox Christianity, that's interesting.
Speaker 15: Uh.
Speaker 43: I guess the first question would be, you know where
exactly does Orthodox Christianity come from? And you know who
gets to decide what is orthodox? What is the original
meaning of the religion?
Speaker 3: Well, I mean the.
Speaker 4: Historic churches that were set up under the Roman Empire
in the first second third century by the Apostles their successors,
who you know, were at the councils of Nicea, Conceptsinople,
et cetera during the first millennium. So that's what defines
and that's who defines the Orthodox Church. The Orthodox Church today,
that's the canonical Orthodox Catholic Church is the same church
as that church.
Speaker 43: Okay, But I guess my point is, how do how
do we know exactly what they believed in and exactly
what they taught all these years later because we can
go read them where.
Speaker 3: What do you mean?
Speaker 4: Where you can read Ignatious Clement Cyprian, you can read
Athenacious Alexander.
Speaker 3: I mean, these are all pre Nicean Church fathers.
Speaker 43: So we all so we're basing our entire belief system
on five guys who we have no idea.
Speaker 3: No, I.
Speaker 4: Listed five people who are very famous, known throughout the
entire world. It's not people that nobody knows who they are.
They're representative bishops of their time. And then I listed
the Council of Nicia, which was all the bishops of
the Roman Empire in three twenty five. So these are
not nobodies, and they're not people that you can't find.
They're not obscure people. So, but we don't have the
original writings of the New Testament.
Speaker 43: We have copies of copies of copies, So how can
we really trust any document from antiquity and from the past.
Speaker 3: Do we just have to put our faith in it?
Speaker 4: Then, well, the New Testament documents are more well attested
to than any other ancient and historical document. There's over
five thousand copies of the New Testament from the first
few centuries of the church.
Speaker 3: That may be true.
Speaker 43: There may be more copies of the New Testament than
any other book, but those other books we don't claim
to be written or inspired by God.
Speaker 3: So I guess that's the big difference.
Speaker 4: Well, that's just that was just a reputation of your
first assertion that it's not well attested to. It is
well attested to better than any other book like Plato
or Aristotle or anyone else from antiquity.
Speaker 3: Yes, no, I'm saying that that may be true.
Speaker 43: But if the Orthodox stance is that it is, again
depending on what you believe, it was inspired by God
or written by God, or however the Orthodox Church says it.
Then if that's the case, well we don't we don't
have that original text. And then if God wrote it
or inspired if God wrote it, or but.
Speaker 4: That's no, that's your correct, and that we do not
have what's called autographa. We have later copies of the
Gospels and Paul's epistles. But that's not how I would
go about arguing whether the religion is true. I would
use a more philosophical argument, which is more of a
more of a worldview level argument than competing claims about
historicity of the text, because the religion is not ultimately
even based on the text, because it's the church, the.
Speaker 3: Community the church that produce the text. So the church
is even prior to the text.
Speaker 43: So does the belief in Jesus being the son of God?
Is that even relevant within Christianity today? Or is Christianity
more just about a lifestyle.
Speaker 3: No, that's absolutely fundamental to Christianity.
Speaker 43: Okay, but how can we know that he was actually God?
Speaker 4: Well, I would use a transcendental argument to prove that
the Christian orthodox Christian paradigm is the only paradigm that
can give an account for knowledge, ethics, and metaphysics.
Speaker 43: I'm not sure how you how you can prove that.
I mean, we have no writings from Jesus. Nobody who
wrote the New Testament actually knew Jesus at all.
Speaker 3: I mean, that's just assuming that.
Speaker 4: That's assuming that Jesus didn't a point. Apostles who are
able to write down what Jesus taught and Jesus did
inspire the Old Testament in our view, so that's not
even true in terms of the Old Testament.
Speaker 3: That's all about Jesus as well.
Speaker 4: From our perspective, what the argument I gave is called
a transcendental argument that only with the Christian worldview in
terms of its metaphysics, ethics, et cetera, can give an
account for things like reason and logic.
Speaker 3: But yeah, possibly, I mean it depends.
Speaker 43: There's obviously thousands of different religions that people believe in,
and you know, I don't claim to understand all of
them because there's so many, and I'm sure they would
make the same statements about their own religions.
Speaker 3: Yeah, but that's a different thing from actually doing it.
So what's your what is your perspective, what's your worldview?
Speaker 5: No?
Speaker 43: My view is I'm a Christian, but I think that
there's a lot of I think there's a lot of issues,
and I think there's a lot of things that people
just need to be honest about in terms of the
text and and what it really means in terms of
how it relates to us all these years later, two
thousand years later.
Speaker 4: Well, how could you be a Christian if you don't
believe that Jesus is the Son of God or that's
a necessary belief, because that's always been a necessary position
for Christian No.
Speaker 43: I didn't state it one way or the other what
I believe. I was just basically stating stating a point
because I think a lot of people consider themselves cultural
Christians now where they don't necessarily believe that, but they
claim Christianity.
Speaker 4: But it sounds like the way you were arguing was
as a cultural Christian or as an atheist.
Speaker 3: So I'm confused about your position. No, I'm just interested.
I'm just interested to get your perspective and what's that.
You won't say your position. No, I'm not going to
say a position.
Speaker 43: I just just just like to, you know, just like
to ask questions and see what people's thoughts are because
it is it is such an interesting topic.
Speaker 4: Okay, So let me give you Let me ask you
a question. What how would you give an account for
logic and reasoning?
Speaker 43: An account for logic and reasoning in terms of what
a specific topic?
Speaker 3: What is logic and what is the faculty of reasoning?
And how do we have it? And how does it work?
And how do you know that.
Speaker 43: Logic would be something that I could prove using my brain?
Deductive reasoning, maybe math science, the environment. You know, reasoning
is the ability to to dissect certain information and create
a specific outcome.
Speaker 4: Uh, well, how does using logic prove it? So we
use all kinds of things that aren't necessarily the case.
I mean I might utilize, uh, you know, unicorns in
my narrative story about fiction realms. That doesn't prove that
unicorns exist. So what why does using a thing mean
that it's the case.
Speaker 3: Or that it's true.
Speaker 43: No, I just if you're trying to if you're trying
to get to the point of using logic, are you
trying to say, how do we use logic to prove
what we're talking about is true or false?
Speaker 4: Well, earlier I made the argument that only Christianity can
give an account for those types of things, and you said, well,
I'm not sure about that. So I'm illustrating how I
would go about making that argument by asking you what
your account is in your worldview for logic as a
thing itself, and then I'm going to contrast it with
my perspective in my account of how logic works.
Speaker 43: Well, quite frankly, I don't think there's anything logical about
the story. I don't think there's anything logical that really
makes sense.
Speaker 4: Well, that's fine, but I'm making a different argument, which
was about the categories themselves and how we account for them. So,
for example, if Jesus is the universal principle of reason
or Logos himself, that's a way to give an account
for universals and logic, And I'm asking you, if you're
going to use logic to argue against Christianity that it's
not logical, what is your account for logic?
Speaker 9: Then?
Speaker 43: Well, I think I think that that's an assumption to
say that he is he is logos or logic.
Speaker 3: Well, now, wait a minute.
Speaker 4: The revelation, which you don't accept, even though you said
you're a Christian, calls.
Speaker 3: Him that in John one.
Speaker 43: Right, yes again, but there are you know, many issues obviously.
Speaker 4: With the new text, So maybe maybe it's all false,
maybe all the Gospels are false.
Speaker 3: How does that help you to give an account for
reason and logic?
Speaker 43: Well, my, my, my reasoning in logic tells me that
out of all the people who have ever lived on
the planet.
Speaker 4: So you're you're just appealing to You're appealing to the
thing I asked you to give a justification for.
Speaker 3: I asked you how logic is the case and how
you know that?
Speaker 4: And you're just saying, well, I use logic, yeah, but
I'm asking you for an account for that.
Speaker 43: No, that the logic is from a it would be
coming coming from a historical perspective. So from a historical perspective,
then you must say then that the miracle of him
being born to virgin and resurrecting from the day you're listening.
Speaker 4: I'm asking you about logic itself, and you keep diverting
away from that and restating an argument based on logic.
I want to know in your worldview, how there's such
a thing as logic and how it works if you're
an agnostic or whatever you are.
Speaker 43: Yeah, but I'm not sure. I'm not sure proving what
the definition of logic is has anything to do with
the using logic to argue against Christianity.
Speaker 3: I'm using logic.
Speaker 43: I'm using logical statements that you must use those.
Speaker 3: Rely on logic. And how does logic work? Well?
Speaker 43: Logic works by using your brain, I would say.
Speaker 4: So again, you're restating the thing that was already disproven
a minute ago. Using a thing or saying that it's
in your brain doesn't make it justified and doesn't show
how it works. How is that universal? Is it just
your brain?
Speaker 3: What about my Is it in my brain too?
Speaker 5: No?
Speaker 43: But it's like it's like, how do you know anything
is real in the world? You use your brain, you know?
Speaker 4: So your answer is a two quote way to ask
me how I know anything is real. When I ask
you for an account for logic and universal categories.
Speaker 3: I'm not sure exactly what you mean by that.
Speaker 4: Then it's how do you give an account for logic
and it's universal, immaterial, invariant nature.
Speaker 3: What does that mean?
Speaker 43: You're using a lot of big words, But what does
that mean? I'm giving you, I'm giving you how.
Speaker 4: These are standard, they're standard philosophical terms. You wanted to
use logic to argue against Christianity, and I'm saying, okay, fine,
maybe Christianity is false. I want you now to give
me an account for the thing that you're relying on
and using, namely.
Speaker 43: Logic, because the claims of the New Testament and the
claims of the Bible.
Speaker 3: Yeah again, I already let's say I can see to
you that the Bible is false. How does that give
an account for the ontological status of logic?
Speaker 5: No?
Speaker 43: But but I'm but I'm I'm using logic and I'm
getting to my point, which.
Speaker 4: Is that they make which is a circle. Because I'm
asking you how you know logic works in the world.
What's your justification for logic? You're using a thing that
you have no justification for that was your original critique
of me, your original critiqus have no critique.
Speaker 3: You're relying on you. Yes you did. You said, we're
relying on a book that we can't know.
Speaker 43: Yeah, but that's not a mira because you didn't write it.
It's not a critique on you.
Speaker 3: It's a critique of my position. And stop playing word games.
I'm asking you to justify your use of logic because
that's what you're relying on through a few Christianity. So
you're in you're in a terrible position. No, not really,
because okay, so why should we believe logic? How is it?
Speaker 5: What is it?
Speaker 3: Where is logic?
Speaker 6: Is what you live every day?
Speaker 3: And so for instance, you don't say how that is.
It's just what you live, Okay, I live as a degenerate.
Speaker 25: Is that?
Speaker 3: No?
Speaker 43: No, No, there's there's certain there's certain laws of physics. Right,
for instance, there's not one person on this planet.
Speaker 3: So the laws of logic or the laws of physics
in a way, you use logic. Can you observe can
you can you observe a law of logic under a
Microsoft No?
Speaker 43: But you use logic in order to figure out what
the laws of physics are.
Speaker 3: You think things, doesn't tell me that it's true or
that it should be used.
Speaker 4: I gave the example earlier of a unicorn in a
story that doesn't tell me unicorns are true.
Speaker 43: No, But for instance, there's not one person on this
planet who can walk on uh in a pool of
lukewarm water. Right, But in the Bible they make the
claim that Jesus walked on water. So that's an extraordinary event.
Speaker 3: Yeah, but I already conceded. Yeah, but I concede it
to you. Let's say that the Bible is false. That's fine,
So it's all it's all made up stories. How does
that work for? You? Give an account for logic, the
very thing that you're using. I don't know that I
have to make that connection. Oh so you don't have
to give an account for the things that you rely on,
but I do. No, no, no, another fallacy.
Speaker 43: I'm not relying on anything but logic and reasoning.
Speaker 3: You and you don't have to give an account.
Speaker 6: No, no what I am, because no you're not.
Speaker 3: You just keep stating that it's the case and that
you use it. That's not giving an.
Speaker 43: Account for it or explaining how it is or where
it is or what it is yeah, but your your
stance is that you're you're believing every word of that
book as if it is you.
Speaker 3: Want me to accept.
Speaker 4: You want me to accept an immaterial, invariant, unchanging, unseeable
thing that you can't give an account for.
Speaker 3: You just say it just is. Now, I imagine if
I came to this debate and I said, God just is,
you would laugh at that. That's literally what you're doing
with the thing that you're using to try to argue
against God's existence.
Speaker 43: No, that's not what I'm doing, and I'm not arguing
against God's existence.
Speaker 3: It's not what you're doing. What you literally said about
ten times that logic is just what it is, and
it's what we do with our brain. It just is.
Speaker 43: No, I mean, my argument is that it's a book
full of mistakes, contradictions, it's not inerranive.
Speaker 3: How does that tell you?
Speaker 11: What?
Speaker 3: Can you not repeat? You don't even understand what my
argument is? You couldn't Could you restate my argument? You're
all over the place. I don't know exactly. I don't
know that. I'm not all over the place. I'm very
precise for the last twenty minutes exactly what my argument is.
How am I all over the place when I've asked you,
like twenty times to give a justification for what logic
is or how you use it.
Speaker 43: Well, you're asking me to use logic and reasoning, and
I'm using logical examples of why there might be a problem.
Speaker 3: No, I'm asking you a higher order question. I'm asking
you what it is? Not do you use it? What?
Speaker 26: Is it?
Speaker 5: What? What? What?
Speaker 43: Does what your definition of logic have anything to do
with what we're talking about. You're trying to confuse every
body in here with your.
Speaker 3: Laughing at you. They're laughing at you because you can't
give an account for the thing that you're using. No,
I don't think so. I don't think so. No, you're
not you're not actually giving I assure you. And then
when it goes on YouTube, everyone's gonna be laughing to it,
So I assure you that you will be laughed at.
Speaker 43: No, I don't actually think that, because you haven't given
me one explanation for why.
Speaker 3: You can't even restate what? Can you restate? Can you
restate what my argument is?
Speaker 43: You can restate it. Well, you can restate it if
you'd like.
Speaker 3: I've done it about ten times, and I want to
see if you're able to do it.
Speaker 43: You're you're not giving an argument at all, all right,
you're not even giving an argument for what a sarge.
Speaker 3: I gave him multiple arguments in production.
Speaker 4: Stone, Stone, Stone, It's amazing, like he couldn't even grasp
or restate twenty times me asking him, well, what is
the thing that you're relying on when you call the
Bible illogical and Christianity irrational? I literally ask him twenty
I mean, all you have to do is just restate.
You know, you're asking me to give an account for logic.
It's like talking to like a five year old. They
just keep being totulant.
Speaker 3: Stone.
Speaker 57: I'm mute, man, Hello, sir, I'm sorry, I just joined
your space. Can then I ask your religion?
Speaker 5: First? Are you Christian?
Speaker 9: Okay?
Speaker 3: Very good?
Speaker 6: I am a Muslim?
Speaker 9: Very good, very good, very good.
Speaker 43: I'm Muslim, oh, very good, very yes.
Speaker 3: So what is the debate today?
Speaker 4: Anything relating to Islam, Christianity, Atheism, Protestantism, you name it?
Speaker 9: Okay?
Speaker 57: So can I start?
Speaker 3: Yeah?
Speaker 57: Okay, So I personally believe the Quran is the word
of God, the direct words of God, because it came
to correct what came before to Moses and to Jesus.
So the current tell us.
Speaker 3: On why would all words be corrupted to Moses and Jesus?
Speaker 57: What do you mean corrupted?
Speaker 3: Well, you're arguing that he came to fix what was given.
Speaker 57: Before, right, Yes, because he claimed that people changed it
with their own hands.
Speaker 25: Uh.
Speaker 3: No, it says that they changed it with their it.
Speaker 4: It says they spoke against it with their tongues and
that they wrote false versions. It doesn't say that the
in ngeal or that the Torah was changed.
Speaker 5: Hm.
Speaker 57: It says that descriptures before was changed, and descriptures.
Speaker 4: Before that in chapter and five, five forty seven and on,
it says that you can check what is new with
what came before.
Speaker 3: How could you do that if it was changed?
Speaker 57: Okay, so easy, we can do it even easier. So
the current tells us it's the direct words of God.
And to know that it's the word of God, you
have to challenge it.
Speaker 3: You have to look for mistake.
Speaker 4: And that's exactly what I'm doing. Because if if that
you can check it before? No, why would I with
something corrupted?
Speaker 3: How could I check it?
Speaker 5: Jim?
Speaker 57: Please let me speak one by one?
Speaker 9: Brother?
Speaker 3: How can I check it if it's corrupted.
Speaker 57: I'm just saying it's easy.
Speaker 9: Brother.
Speaker 57: If you find the Quran, say that. If you find
a single mistakes and contradiction into Quran.
Speaker 3: No, you don't even understand what I'm saying.
Speaker 57: Brother, I'm listening.
Speaker 5: You'll just look.
Speaker 4: The Quran says you checked the Quran according to prior revelation.
You just said the prior revelation is corrupted. Why would
I check it against the thing that's corrupted?
Speaker 3: Brandon? What's up?
Speaker 30: Jack?
Speaker 5: Can you hear me?
Speaker 25: Man?
Speaker 58: First, I just want to say I am an inquirer
and thanks for helping me come back to the church.
Speaker 12: Uh.
Speaker 58: When you are critiquing Islam, and specifically the problem of
the one and the many, can you run that argument,
you know, the relation of a law to his essence
or to his attributes rather, can you help me pick
that argument apart?
Speaker 4: Well, it really depends on which akida of Islam you're
talking to, can you mute?
Speaker 30: Yeah?
Speaker 4: So that argument is really going to have to be
tweaked depending upon whether you're talking to Ashia or whether
you're talking to an Ashari, or whether you're talking to
an AUTHORI. I mean, it really just depends because they
have different accounts of the attributes and the relationship of
the attributes, the essence and the relationship of Allah to
the Quran, whether it's uncreated in the sense of, I
mean they believe in uncreated Koran, but then whether the
Koran is able to be translated into the various languages,
and whether the words of Allah themselves to Gabriel are
then created or uncreated.
Speaker 3: So they just move the problem, move the problem back
and stuff. So it really depends upon which school of Islam.
Speaker 4: You're talking about when it comes to the attributes. So
if you're talking to like a Daniel or Jake, who
are Wahabi Salafi, like, their approach is going to say that, like,
the attributes are really distinct from Allah and that they
exist in and of themselves in some kind of Well, actually,
when doctor Branson asked Jake this, he says, do you
think that the attributes are self existing? Because Jake is
trying to say that anything that is self existing, like
the father, is higher in status than the son, because
the son, if he requires the father for his existence,
does not possess the attribute of self existence. And so
the same argument is just applicable to the attributes, But
it depends upon how that Muslim is going to give
an account of the attributes. So, for example, against doctor Khalil,
you couldn't make that argument the way that you would
make the argument against Jake, because doctor Khalil is not
going to speak of the attributes as really distinct the
way that Jake will. And so if you ask him,
ask Jake like, is Allah identical to his essence, I mean,
to his attributes?
Speaker 9: No?
Speaker 3: Are the attributes fully Allah and fully divine? Yes?
Speaker 4: Then how do you not have a composite do it?
In regard to your argument for how heap doctor Kalil
make the same argument, the platonic argument, a new simplicity
position that he doesn't even have an account for actual differentiation,
the same way we'd argue against Ads, because ADS is
ultimately a neoplatonic position. So again, it just depends up
on which Muslims you're talking to.
Speaker 3: And how their school gives an account for or Allah
and his attributes.
Speaker 43: Got it?
Speaker 58: Thanks man?
Speaker 3: Yeah, So it's not really the one in the many problem.
It's more like the attributes.
Speaker 4: In their relationship to Allah, and whether a lat really
is many or not? Is I mean, I guess it's
a kind of a one in many kind of argument,
but it's more so the ontological status of the attributes
and the majority, like the Sunnies, they believe there's an
uncreated Koran. You could just ask them like, okay, is
the uncreated Koran identical to Allah?
Speaker 5: No?
Speaker 4: Oh, okay, then there's two uncreated eternal things, and the
same with the attributes. Like that's a really easy way
to put it.
Speaker 3: They'll go, No, it is the speech of a lot. Okay,
I don't care whether you call it the speech of
a law. Is it eternal?
Speaker 32: Yes?
Speaker 3: Is it allah? No, it is the speech of a
lat Okay. How many is that allah? Speech of a law?
I'm counting too, how many do you count?
Speaker 59: No?
Speaker 60: It is.
Speaker 3: It's like they just it's like talking to five year
old robots.
Speaker 61: They Vincent, Hey, jay, uh, I don't want to disappoint.
My name is actually not Vincent van Gogh, and I
am a woman. Are you able to hear me?
Speaker 5: Okay?
Speaker 3: Yes?
Speaker 31: Okay?
Speaker 61: Uh So I'm Catholic. My friend whose orthodox got me
under your videos, especially when we're discussing the the occult
and love your roots videos, So thanks for taking allowing
me to speak.
Speaker 3: Thank you.
Speaker 61: I have one comment in one question, uh, and I
think I could throw them together. The one comment is
I recently saw your I don't want to call it
a debate, but that buffoon called misfit Patriot appeared on
your live feed. Yeah, and you know it was embarrassing. Honestly,
is a Catholic like those type of people that's not
the people that go to Mass every week?
Speaker 3: That that's not you know, I used to be a Catholic,
so I understand.
Speaker 61: Yeah, and so that's kind of like my thread, So
I mean, that's really it was so embarrassing. But I
do see a lot of that now, especially on the
online stuff where people I think someone mentioned I don't
know the two speakers ago, the guy that said he
was Catholic but was arguing against Christianity.
Speaker 4: I don't think he I don't even know if he
knows what he is or if he's just a grifter.
I mean, he went on Twitter immediately after the debate
and he's like, no, I'm not really Catholic, but I
was raised Catholic, So I don't think.
Speaker 61: Yeah, I think think I was just a complete moron.
So I would love any more insight you have on that,
because like I couldn't get enough of it. How what
a moron he was. But unfortunately it's like a stain
on Catholics. And I was wondering if my question is,
and it might be too broad of a question, but
is there a point you can say that really was
a tipping point from you go into Catholicism to Orthodoxy.
I mean I love learning about Orthodoxy, and I love
listening to your shows and your podcasts or your kid.
Speaker 4: Well, if you look up my old podcasts where I
just contrast, there's one called Vatican one refutes Catholicism, and
then Vatican one for his Orthodoxy, Vatican one versus Vatican two.
Like some of those really just lay out the things
that led me out of Roman Catholicism. But I mean
for me, that was a really long process throughout my twenties.
So I became Roman Catholic in twenty three when I
was like twenty one, two thousand and three, when I
was like twenty one, and then maybe maybe twenty three
somewhere in there, and then for most of my twenties
I was like, you know, hardcore Tomas Catholic tradcat going
to Latin Mass, and then the Vatican two issues were
a big thing, and then I just kept you know,
going deeper and deeper into reading Danzinger, reading the papal documents,
reading the encyclicals. And I left Rome I would say
about two thousand and seven or eight. I was still
iffy about you know, I wasn't ready to go to Orthodoxy.
I wasn't ready. I didn't want to go back to Protestanism.
So I was just kind of in a limbo state
for a while for a few years. But it was
a process of you know, reading and reading and reading
and also seeing Rome on the ground and you know, seeing.
Speaker 3: Like in person, like just constant gay priests, gay orders.
The Dominicans are all gay.
Speaker 4: I mean, it's just like when you see it on
the ground, it's way worse like going to you go
to hip hop masses, you go to like clown masses,
and you see it's just like you got to see
it on the ground. Sometimes people don't believe until they
go see it and then and then you know, contrast
just just the worship I think was a huge one too,
because you know, Francis has been persecuting the Latin Mass.
It was even under rat singer. It was so hard
to find Latin masses to go to, so I was
going to the SSPX Mass and then you go to
an Orthodox Church service and it's like, well, this is
like reveren, Why can't the Roman Calloy Church even maintain
their liturgy? If they're like, if this is the true church,
they should at least be able to maintain just the
basic divine liturgy.
Speaker 25: Yeah.
Speaker 61: Yeah, I go to Latin Mass on Sundays, but then
during the week I perish near me. It's a very
good parish. I somewhat insulated. I understand what you're saying
about getting on the ground and like the gay priests,
and I guess like when I get online, I see
some of that stuff and it just.
Speaker 47: Makes my stomach turn.
Speaker 61: So I really appreciate you.
Speaker 4: Well, I don't mean to say that like the decision
was based on like who has more gay priests, because
there's corrupt, evil priests and bishops and the Orthodox Church too.
Now for me, the decision was literally all based on
the theology and the argumentation. I'm just saying that when
I was roaming cats, like, I really was, you know,
committed to it. But the on the ground world of
Roman Catholicism really eventually beats you down and you get
really dejected about it, and that was part of what
got me looking into other options. But I'm not saying that,
oh I converted because there's gaybris No, that's not my argument.
Speaker 61: Yeah, no, that's interesting. I mean I'm committed.
Speaker 5: I'm not.
Speaker 61: I don't have plans to good Orthodoxy, though it seems
that very cool right now, but I just like learning about,
you know, Orthodoxy, all religions.
Speaker 4: But uh, well, look, I would say here's three easy contradictions.
And I mean Roman Catholicism is premise that on the
idea that dogma can't contradict. And I can give you
three explicit dogmatic contradictions. Number one, unam Sanctum teaches that
you have to submit to and believe in the temporal
supremacy of the Roman bishops, which means that he is
also a world rule and can call standing armies.
Speaker 3: Et cetera.
Speaker 4: That belief was necessary up until Vatican two, and it's
no longer a necessary, but that to me is a
dogmatic contradiction. Number two, Francis has changed the Roman Cathoity
churches teaching on the death penalty, not just to get
away with it, but he actually says that it is
contrary to the Gospel. Yeah, the Roman catholt Church saw
the death penalty for you know, countless from the beginning
pretty much.
Speaker 3: So those are contradictions. I would also argue that.
Speaker 4: Even within Catholicism, like the giving of a blessing to
gay couples, and I know that it's not gay marriage,
but the blessing of a gay couple is the opposite
directive that the Holy Office gave in two thousand and
three under rat Singer.
Speaker 3: So those are direct contradictions.
Speaker 56: Yeah, I do get that.
Speaker 61: And I have some friends who are actually way more
traditional than I am, and they basically just say, like, look,
Vatican two is invalid, and also Francis is the anti pope,
so we're just gonna wait it out, like we are
the ones your church.
Speaker 4: Yeah, I have a talk on that. It's called a
set of a contism for his orthodoxy.
Speaker 3: So I look it up. I would say, watch watch
that talk because I deal with that whole.
Speaker 44: Look it up.
Speaker 61: Thank you so much for your time.
Speaker 3: Yes, thank you. Great questions, Doctor Thomas Raspberry Gotta I'm mute.
Speaker 62: You had a quick question in regards to the previous
caller and trying to figure out what the temporal nature
of the paper is. He so claimed was at the
beginning of the first near the beginning of the first millennia,
I know that the papal states were a thing, and
I was wondering maybe if that statement from that particular
pope was in regards to his control over the papal
states and his getting the Holy Roman Emperor in line.
Speaker 10: And you know how he says, as the.
Speaker 62: Moon reflects the light of the sun, so too, there's
a Holy Roman Emperor reflect you know, the divine light, Yeah,
shown on the pope or something like that. I don't
know exactly what the words are, but it's something similar
to that. So is that particular to the time when
the papal states existed?
Speaker 4: Yeah, I mean the papal states that have an existence
prior to when I'm signed them. But the issue is
not you know, and the Church, you know, have large
elements of property in this kind of stuff. If you
look at the Canons of Chalcidon, it's forbidden in the
canons for a cleric to have a civil role, and
so this is a fissure of a separation between Church
and state, even in the situation of Symphonia. And the
problem is that if you read the Papadocus Mayandorf book
on the rise of the papacy from one thousand to
fourteen hundred in the West, they argue that there's a
whole bunch of things that pop off in under the
Gregorian reforms that are distinct even beyond.
Speaker 3: The notion of a papal state.
Speaker 4: It's one of those, for example, is the military monastic
orders that fight for the pope.
Speaker 3: That's something that's completely new.
Speaker 4: It never existed, and they rightly point out that clearly
there was a geopolitical motivation for the papacy to do
this under the Gregoing reforms and to approve those orders. Now,
I understand that there they would argue, well, this is
part of the to Holy Land and all that.
Speaker 3: Yeah.
Speaker 4: But the problem is that even if there might have
been extenuating circumstances, it goes against canon law in terms
of what monastics are allowed to do. Monastics do not
engage in fighting in battle. And then beyond that, the
Dictatus pope document is the first explicit extreme statement about
the pope being a world ruler. No, this is not
just large scale property or even defense of his property.
This is the papacy being able to call standing armies,
go to war and excommunicate princes that don't fight in
his defense. That's all totally foreign to the first millennium.
And it was also backed up, by the way, with
some of the forgeries, so you had the usage of
the donation of Constantine to back up some of this.
And if you read when I'm Sanctum, the argumentation is, actually,
it's not even so much about like warfare and battles.
Speaker 3: It's really absurd.
Speaker 4: It's like it just cites Jeremiah about I have set
you above all kingdoms to read out and to destroy,
and the papacy says, that's about us, because we're the
head of the world, and if we're the head of
the church, and if the church is superior to the rulers,
then we're the head of all rulers, right, So it's
just preposterous, you know, logic there. And the argument is
that even if you could justify that like historically, and
even if we gave the papacy an excuse for all that,
Vatican too has like discarded that. So that means there's
a change in dogma. If you read it when I'm sunktum.
It's not just saying no salvationals the church. It's saying
you must also believe.
Speaker 3: In the temporal supremacy of the Roman Bishop to be saved.
Speaker 62: Right, all right, thanks so much.
Speaker 3: I appreciate it. Thank you, doctor Thomas. Appreciate your your
presence and your good question.
Speaker 4: Emmanuel, Adrian Emanual whoever can connect, I guess nobody can connect. Balance.
We've already done your questions. Is not trying to be
rude to you, but we want to move on to
some other people.
Speaker 3: We've got a long drive, so I mean, do a
little bit more. We've been going for a good while.
Speaker 4: Any questions, challenges, discussions regarding Calvinism, processes with Catholicism, Islam, atheism.
I mean, if you're a Muslim coming up, know that
we already kind of are aware of the arguments, so
you don't have to walk us through saying we know
that you think the Koran is the word of all lot.
Speaker 3: We know all that. And I'm going to ask you
about the Islamic dilemma, so know that ahead of time.
And if you can't restate what the Islamic dilemma is
just don't even come up.
Speaker 4: It's not worth anybody's time because we don't want to
go through this whole process of like explaining it to
you and then you don't know what it is, and
then you just keep repeating what the Koran.
Speaker 3: Says, which is not a debate. If you can restate
the Islamic dilemma, even if you disagree with it, if
you have the capabilities to restate it, I will welcome you.
Speaker 4: Up to the microphone. You can come and be first.
We still got what well, we got more people than earlier.
We got over three hundred, three hundred and thirteen people.
And that atheist guy was something else. And it's always
like the thing that it's annoying too when people won't
debate their actual position.
Speaker 3: That's annoying when they're like, oh, well, I'm not going
to say what my position is, but I'm going to
argue in bad faith from all these other positions.
Speaker 4: Well, I mean, it is a debate room, but kind
of the assumption here is that you're going to debate
the actual position you have, not pretending to have a
bunch of positions. And atheists love to do that too,
because they can like jump between positions. When they get refuted,
they can just switch to another position that they don't
actually have.
Speaker 3: So it's a kind of a classic bad faith tactic.
By the way, Muslims are doing this too.
Speaker 4: When we were on the God Logic extreme debating, all
the Muslims, a bunch of them were doing this too,
where they act like they're Orthodoxic inquirers or they're interested
in some position, or they'll say they're atheists, and then
they start arguing Islam just to get in there to
argue their stupid positions. It's like, it's just a weird
thing to want to bad faith argue a position that
you don't have. But it's actually a tactic because it's
a way to just change your position mid debate. Well,
I don't know actually believe that. And that's exactly what
that guy did. You notice how snaky that was, right?
He was like he was all cordial and it's like, oh, well,
I'm a Christian, but is the Son of God really
essential to Christianity. It's like, well, wait a minute, I
thought you were a Christian, so you were an atheist
like ten minutes ago. Well, I am a Christian, but
I'm not going to argue much field, Well you sound
like an atheist, so like what so see, this is
a this is a thing where we were kind of
ahead of the game when you know, people were saying
we were being quote mean and really heavy handed on
this stuff.
Speaker 3: Like it doesn't take long to figure out when people
are not really being a good faith debater and to
god logics credit Like he spotted that Muslim dude within
like ten seconds, He's like, no, he's not.
Speaker 4: He's not really atheists. He's a Muslim. So this kind
of stuff doesn't really work.
Speaker 3: At least not with us.
Speaker 4: I think we can like sniff this stuff out within
no time. But if you have an actual position that
you'd like to discuss or defend, you're.
Speaker 3: Welcome to come up. I will bring you up. We've
got over three hundred people in here, and that's great.
These spaces used to get a hundred. Now they get
sometimes four hundred, five hundred.
Speaker 4: So anybody want to discuss Calvin hasn't protestism with alicism,
Islam atheist them.
Speaker 3: We have a shout out to Father Degan and Ias.
Speaker 4: We have a beautiful Tristanna, our favorite trans individual on
the chat. Some people think that she's the Antichrist. I
think that's a little overboard. A lot of vegans are beginning.
Speaker 3: To think this.
Speaker 4: Uh, there's not really hard evidence for this, but I
support her. Even if she is the Antichrist, she would
be the first female trans antichrist. Trans transit transity christ
and Shout out to Rachel's in the chat. Shout out
to slowboly white Board. Shout out to Jubb, Shout out
to Melkite, Shout out to not Chase Haggard, who I'm
sure is all is literally not Chase Haggard. Shout out
to Vaklav, Shout out to ac. We've got a bunch
of our friends in the chat. What's up, Father Degan,
and I as what's on your mind?
Speaker 3: You got to unmute. I'm mute, dude, FDA, you gotta
ut if you want to talk.
Speaker 8: Oh, I didn't really want to talk, but just your
ummute dude, I'm unmuted.
Speaker 3: Oh, I thought you wanted to You requested to speak,
You requested to speak to not speak? Yeah, that you
got me.
Speaker 8: Yeah, I'm just waiting for some good questions and debates.
And uh, I'm sorry I missed the atheist guy.
Speaker 63: I don't know what his argument was, well, uh, it's
actually something you pointed out before, where you know a
lot of atheists will kind of like not say their
position so that they can hop into a bunch of
different positions.
Speaker 3: Oh interesting, have you noticed that?
Speaker 8: Well don't they actually even say to you, I don't
have a position? Atheism is not a position? Yeah, pretty
much the onus is on you. Remember that was even
uh Stein tried that move on Bonnson in the famous debate.
Speaker 3: Oh yeah, he did.
Speaker 8: You're right, Yeah, which is fine.
Speaker 25: I mean.
Speaker 8: That you could say atheism itself is not position, but
it entails positions. So let's look at those, like, you're
not positionless, So what's what's your position?
Speaker 4: Do you think that goes along with assumed neutrality like
they actually think, no, I'm just actually super neutral.
Speaker 3: I have no position, no.
Speaker 8: Com Yeah, well I think Stein pointed that out too,
because he made a bunch of positions about what qualifies
as evidence and proof and stuff like that, and uh.
Speaker 3: That.
Speaker 8: Boson's response was, yeah, well it depends the way that
you verify history versus you know, that was the crackers
in the pantry fallacy. But you obviously do have pre
commitments and certainly your atheist worldview will inform that. I mean,
that's crazy to Actually it's it's not crazy, it's disingenuous.
Speaker 6: Actually, well the.
Speaker 3: Guy, that guy was pretty pretty honest about being disingenuous. Yeah,
I'm not going to debate my position. I'm going to
debate a bunch of other posiness. No, we don't really
do that.
Speaker 4: Yeah, I mean if you take debate class, you know
they'll make you, as part of your course, argue the
positions that you don't hold and so that you learned
to Steelman. Well, that's not really what we're doing here.
Do you ever do you ever do that with students
where you tell them like, Okay, you're gonna argue for
the sake of argument a position that you don't hold,
so that you learn you know their position and how
to steal man.
Speaker 3: It sort of.
Speaker 8: I mean, we don't really have that much time in
the semester to actually do like debates itself. But what
I what I do try to do when we steal
man an argument, we're just going over a queus and
it's harder for the first year like freshmen, they're just
they're just blank stares, like they don't know how I
think a lot of it's they're insecure, they're afraid to
say something. But what I try to get them do
is like, well, what would you say, Like, let's what
would a counter argument be to this? And how would
you respond to I try to give them to do that.
It's like you don't actually have to believe that, but
you should be thinking like, well, if I was the opponent,
I would say this.
Speaker 3: And occasionally.
Speaker 8: Students like freshmens will get you know, upperclassmen get that
real well, they've taken philosophy classes and stuff, and so
they'll try to formulate counterposition and then a response to
that and stuff like that. But I mean, that's philosophy.
Even when you're writing papers, right, you try to think like, okay,
we would be the best objection to this, and how
would I formulate that? Yeah, it's just dialectics.
Speaker 4: Yeah, this is a but it's a really difficult skill
or thing for a lot of people. A lot of people,
I guess just maybe out of laziness, like they don't
want to actually deal with the other positions best argument.
It's just a lot easier to straw man it or
you know, make it sound like it's something that is
not to knock down, you know, a fake thing, farm boy?
Speaker 3: What's that meant? I'm you.
Speaker 56: About the word theosis and where that word from, as
in the etymology, how did the Greek and Eastern Church
arrive at that word versus our English word sanctification. Curious
about that, particularly if that word's in the Greek New
Testament and where it ultimately comes from.
Speaker 5: Thank you.
Speaker 3: It's a good question. Off the top of my head.
Speaker 4: I'm not sure if the New Testament ever uses the
word theosis. It does talk about us partaking of the
divine nature. It talks about us being like God. We
will be transformed into His into the likeness of his
glorious body.
Speaker 3: You know, we will partake of his glory. Paul talks about.
Speaker 4: Dunamus and inner gaya, But I don't know if Tom
had a p if the I mean, you can just look.
You could google it really quick and see if the
New Testament ever uses the word.
Speaker 3: I don't think it does. Says that it does not, Yeah,
just checked it.
Speaker 4: Yeah, I'm not sure which Greek father would have been
the first to use it, maybe Theophilis or Athanacious something
like that. But it just became a term that sort
of encapsulates the participation in divine life that we undergo.
And I mean that, you know, you'll find the terminology
of sanctification use sanctified, made holy set apart.
Speaker 3: In the patriistic writings. But I think probably by the
by the.
Speaker 4: Controversies relating to first Ephesis and the nature of Christ
at Ephesus and the Eucharist, because Cyril uses the Euchrist.
Speaker 3: As an argument against Nestorians, and then.
Speaker 4: By the time of the Sixth Council, when Maximus is
debating about the deification of christ human body, the Sixth
Council uses that terminology where they say that in the incarnation,
the human nature of Christ is fully deified. That in
the six Council, so it becomes kind of concilier dogma
by that time, although it's pretty pretty normal even prior
to that time.
Speaker 3: So, but I don't know the I'm not a you know,
a linguist, so I'm not sure.
Speaker 8: Yeah, I don't know. I mean, apotheosis was used, and
obviously we distinguish theosis from that. But in Greek antiquity,
obviously they had a concept becoming divine. It just was
heretical because they didn't have the energies doctrine, so obviously
I'm imagining the use of it derives, you know, from
antiquity and the concept from apathiosis.
Speaker 56: Okay, thank you, And you said apathiosis that word is
in the Greek New Testament.
Speaker 3: No it's not.
Speaker 56: Okay, I'm misunderstand you.
Speaker 8: Sorry, it's in antiquity. I'm trying to remember how far back,
if maybe even in Homer.
Speaker 5: I'll have to look.
Speaker 8: But it's not a foreign concept, is what I'm saying.
Speaker 44: And so.
Speaker 8: Just like when Saint Paul on the arapegis speaking to
the philosophers, uses their language and says, well, you know,
this is whom your poets even speak of, and whom
we live and have our being, I imagine the fathers
use those kinds of concepts, like say Gregory theologian says,
when speaking to philosophers, speak philosophy, they may win the
philosopher over. So they probably what I'm saying is the
concept obviously existed back then, and so they pulled from
that and showed the Christian version. But like Jay said,
this is probably not fully articulat until you get kind
of more of these controversies. When you get to the
power might sends, and you might have it in Saint Basil.
I'm gonna have to look, like Jay said, I don't
know off the top of my head.
Speaker 3: I got you could I ask a follow up question, Yeah, sure,
what's up?
Speaker 46: Do you.
Speaker 56: Do you feel like the English word sanctification misses some
meaning or doctrine understanding or anything like that when dealing
with the Orthodox.
Speaker 3: Well, the problem really is just that it's kind of
like the word transferstantiation. When we were discussing that in
it earlier. You might not have heard that. But it's
not a problem with the word itself. It's just that,
like if the.
Speaker 4: Translation of John Demouscus that we use from the Catholics
uses the word transubstantiation, it's not a problem. It just
doesn't require us to bring along all the metaphysical baggage
of the Scholastics and exoperate operato and all that other stuff,
because the word just means a change of substance, which
is fine in the same way like sanctification usually has
this Protestant connotation where Protestants when they hear that word
just like penal or just like substitution, like they import
all this theological baggage to it. That they have and
they hear sanctification, they think, oh, that's the distinguished from
glorification and distinguished from justification. These are the three stages
that are clearly distinguished in scripture. When they're not right,
so Protestants will read into that the Protestant doctrine of sanctification,
which is strictly distinct from justification and glorification, and that
would immediately be in contradiction to like Orthodox ideas because Paul,
for example, says the glorification is something that we can
have even in this life. When he talks about Second
Prithian's three that we see Christ face to face now
and we see that saying glory and we pass from
glory to glory. Well, I'm sorry, that means that we
have glorification now and that violates the uh, you know,
ordo salutis of the Reformation tradition. So the problem is
not the words. It's just sometimes people bring a lot
of baggage, and I mean it's kind of inescapable. I
think everybody kind of brings an interpretation to the text.
It's inescapable. But it's more so a question of you know,
to put it in the words of Jordan Peterson. Depends
on much to me, Right, it's not the word transpnentiation
or the word sanctification, the word justification.
Speaker 3: It depends on what you mean.
Speaker 8: Yeah, I think that there's probably some rhetorical wisdom when
to use it, because, like you said, a lot of
these words they're contaminated from other heresies and stuff like that.
So your audience may think that you're meaning something different
when you use the word or oh, they're like us,
they believe Mormons are famous.
Speaker 5: For doing this.
Speaker 8: Oh yeah, oh yeah, yeah, well we believe the same thing.
I mean, they they know you don't mean the same thing,
and you know that they don't. And so you're playing
this stupid game for an hour, like and so sometimes
you just got to choose, like, Okay, depending on my audience,
what sort of words would I use? But yeah, the
word itself is not problematic.
Speaker 56: Okay, thank you guys.
Speaker 64: Hey, Jay, I just wanted to piggyback off of something
that you said earlier. I'm Orthodox now, but I grew
up Protestant. And it's interesting when you talked about earlier
about steelmanning somebody's position, I was immediately reminded of not
too long ago when all those performed Protestants were coming
out and they were so adamant that Orthodoxy was wrong.
But when you saw what they thought, we believe they
didn't even know the basics of Orthodox theology. And that's
what I was reminded of today when James White was
sending his tweets saying that he didn't want to debate
you r whatever. In some guy in his comments was like, oh,
Jay didn't show the fruit to the spirit, And I'm like, okay, anyway,
that I just thought it was really funny, just how
the irony in that.
Speaker 4: Yeah, they'll they'll debate all day about tone policing, they'll
debate about debating and not actually debate the topics. It's
really it's kind of just it's like a passive, aggressive, weird, effeminent.
Speaker 64: Thing, right anyway, thanks for bringing me up, Yeah.
Speaker 3: Thank you. I agree. I mean it's weird too because
back in the day, like in the two thousands, like
Calvinists and Catholics were way more like intellectual about the debates.
Speaker 4: And this is something because I remember, like I was
in Messing that you know, from two thousand and one
two three, I was all about internet. Catholic Protestant debates, right,
because I was Calvinists and I was arguing with the
Catholics all the time.
Speaker 3: On the internet.
Speaker 4: There wasn't really an Orthodox presence much on the Internet
in terms of apologetics or websites, so it's kind of
like just default Protestant versus Catholic. And one thing that's
interesting is like back when it was the blog wars
of those two thousands era, you know, exchanges and even Facebook, like,
it was a lot more you know, because you have
to write out stuff, So those are a lot more
I think thought that went into it. And now that
everything is audio, video and speech oriented, it's less intellectual
and it's a lot more. I mean, it's not that
oral debate is inherently deficient or anti intellectual. It's just
that the loss of the tendency to debate in a
written form has allowed a lot more goobers and goofballs
to just you know, whine and fuss and act like idiots.
And people don't even know how to have like a
formal debate, so people bitch about me like being quote mean, well,
if I'm interrupting people on an informal, open debate space,
that's not a formal debate. If I'm doing a formal debate,
most of the time, I'm pretty reserved. There's been a
couple of times, yes, where I will interrupt. I interrupted
the Muslim Lantern debate because he was being dishonest and
not representing what I said. He was misp I think,
intentionally misrepresenting what I said. But I mean, in most
of the formal debates, I'm pretty much abide by the rules.
And even if you don't quote abide by the rules, like,
that's the job of the moderator to.
Speaker 3: Call you out.
Speaker 4: Most people don't know how to moderate a debate, so
they suck at moderating debates and they don't ever call anybody.
Speaker 3: Out when they violate the rules.
Speaker 4: But even if you violate the rules a little bit
and interrupt, I mean, it's not the end of the world.
It's just the moderator calls you out, and you know,
like muti or whatever. That's the way it ought to operate.
But on these open spaces here like this, like when
we had you guys heard the atheist guy in here
right totally arguing it in bad faith being a sophist, Like, no,
I'm going to interrupt that person this is not a
formal debate.
Speaker 3: I don't owe anyone a formal debate. I don't owe
some rando dude a formal debate.
Speaker 4: And again, in the case of James White, I tried
to debate him for years, and I offered to debate
him on the trinity and that he had a faulty
concept of trinity as any indistinction, and he for years said,
you know, no, I don't have time to learn Orthodoxy.
Speaker 3: I'm not interested in any of that.
Speaker 4: And then here we are, like six years later, and he,
you know, tweets about how he doesn't understand my profile,
which is super boomer, which is funny, and then he says,
I want a debate when I drive my RV in
a year. I mean, to me, it just sous like
It's like, I'm kind.
Speaker 3: Of surprised that he sounds like a comedian.
Speaker 4: And he was saying, I'm I'm a comedian, but he
doesn't think I'm a comedian, but he's actually an unintentional
comedian because it just sounds like this just sounds like
a bunch.
Speaker 3: Of like made up clown stuff. It's just weird.
Speaker 17: Uh.
Speaker 4: And then he said, why would I debate a person
who has a green picture on their profile of themselves?
Speaker 3: Is he a green person? That was his retort.
Speaker 8: Like, what, by the way, I just following up you
said back in the day, like you said, debating online
wasn't really a big thing. There weren't that many people
there went a bunch of goobers.
Speaker 3: Yeah.
Speaker 8: Right, This is probably prior to even like Facebook. You
didn't have Twitter acts and all this stuff, and so
you could kind of people knew what they were doing.
For the most part, you can kind of get it,
and there was kind of reputation within those circles. Now
everybody and their moms online can just challenge you, know you,
and so it's a matter of like wasting time, Like
sure the person might be right, but there's a million
people all challenge you. There's no way that you're going
to waste your time writing out a formal debate and
written format for every single person who's challenging you. So
the best thing is to it's a different Yeah, the
best thing is just to open up a space where
there's a dedicated time. And I think that's even better
if people got you know, get upset when they get
the block on X. But the fact of The matter is,
if you don't block people, these stupid arguments will go
on forever endeavor you can't get on with your life.
So isn't it better just to say whatever your criticism is,
whatever your argument, Well, here's a space dedicated you can
come on and make your argument, but you're not owed anything.
You're not owed and on not to be blocked and
an endless back and forth of stupid tweets.
Speaker 3: Yeah, I mean, the positives of debate are oral.
Speaker 4: Debate is that people don't get the trick of relying
on AI, which is what a lot of them want
to do when they say I only do written debates, Well,
you didn't have AI back in two thousand and five
when you were doing written blog debates and now you do.
So No, it's not going to work to let you
just like sit there and type out and who has
the time to do this.
Speaker 3: Anyway.
Speaker 4: I'm not going to type out twenty pages argument with
some random dude. That's what was going on today. There
was a Calvinist guy saying I will only debate you
in a written blog format. I'm like, dude, it's not
two thousand and three, man, what are you talking about.
Speaker 8: The other thing you figured out there was another group
of people that were challenging tag the kind of the
pseudo intellectuals. Most of them would never come into a
voice chat debate, and what we figured out is basically
what they were doing is they were taking these into
other servers and working them out and taking them to
philosophy professors.
Speaker 3: Yea like Appy and Right, So you're not actually debating
that guy. You're debating like a buddy, You're a debating.
Speaker 8: Yeah, grad students And two of the best atheist philosophers
are Appy and what's the other guy with my blanking on.
Speaker 3: Oz and Ozzy.
Speaker 4: Yeah, he's the guy that coaches Della Hunty when Della
Hunty gets scared.
Speaker 8: Yeah, So they just take it and they work these things.
So it's like, well, just no, I'm not going to
waste my time going back and forth and text with
a whole crew of.
Speaker 4: Yeah, you're supposed to debate like, uh, you know, a
discord of fifty atheists.
Speaker 3: Or you're scared? Right, ultravol kool Aid?
Speaker 41: What's up, hey, Jerry Camyred.
Speaker 2: Yeah, So I'm actually local in Phoenix and I used
to go to Apologia Studios and I've studied under James
White for a while before I started learning about Orthodoxy,
and I just wanted to say that when he promised it, saying.
Speaker 38: Like, oh is this him?
Speaker 30: I don't know.
Speaker 2: He knows full well who you are. He made responses,
he's talked about it. Yeah, he's talked about you, So
I don't know how he was trying to start that with.
Speaker 8: Like, Oh, who's this guy.
Speaker 2: He's made claims about you before and he knows farewell
who you were, so like, I think it was just
dishonest how he started the interaction trying to claim like, oh,
is this the guy people who have been talking about.
Speaker 3: Yeah, he was being silly, so I agree. But yeah, again,
let's like.
Speaker 4: It's the same kind of thing that William Aulbrick would do,
where it'd be like you'd be trying to set up
a debate for years and he would say, Okay, in
six months it'll be live. And then it's like he's
expecting you to set up a live venue and you're like, well, now,
let's just do it on the internet.
Speaker 3: I don't do that. I do it live. Do it
live right, like O'Reilly or something.
Speaker 4: It's like everybody in the world nowadays does internet debates.
What do you mean setting it up in person in
six months and then six months goes by and it's like, oh, yeah,
a lot going on, let's do it live in another
six months. It's just so stupid. It's like you could
literally hop on this stream. And by the way, haven't
you been told defending Calvinism for thirty years? Why do
you need a year of preparation to debate and defend
your Calvinist stuff. You've been debating for like thirty your
whole life.
Speaker 3: It's just it's just stupid. Eli, I went's up by
the way.
Speaker 4: By the way, I don't know if maybe Wes Wes
Hoff might be more popular than James White now right.
So it's like we're already trying to set up a
debate on tim cast with me versus I don't I
don't know if I'll have a companion or not, but
me versus. It was supposed to be Michael Knowles originally
and Tim Poole, and then I don't think Michael Knowles
will do it, so I was like, well, you better
get Tim Gordon because Michael Knowles will rely on Tim Gordon.
Speaker 3: And then they were like, oh, we need Protestants too,
and so I can't stand.
Speaker 4: I don't know who's I guess James White's worse than
Doug Wilson. So I have less distaste for Doug Wilson
than James White. But I mean, isn't Wes Huff kind
of the hot topic right now? So what did he
be better than all these boom Boomer gen z old
fogies that nobody really cares about.
Speaker 3: So I'd prefer it be like west Off.
Speaker 6: But I don't know.
Speaker 5: You.
Speaker 65: Oh hey, Jay, I had a quick question on the
topic of confession. I don't know if you don't want
to answer that or well.
Speaker 3: Father Diacon probably be able to better answer that than me.
Speaker 9: Okay, perfect, perfect.
Speaker 65: Uh So the reason why I'm asking is because I
was talking to a Protestant family member of mine and
we were talking about confession, and she was saying, why
would why would she go confess to a priest when
she can just guess confess it between her and God?
Because if the idea and I'm not fully well versed
on confession yet, but basically saying, wouldn't you be constricting
God's power of forgiveness if you have to go to
a priest? Chester forgiveness for even like the smallest things,
or like what would be considered a small sin.
Speaker 6: I guess in her words, well, I think that in.
Speaker 4: The Old Testament it was already kind of an element
of this, because you brought your sacrifice to the temple
based on in many cases the type of sin that
you had committed.
Speaker 3: So that was kind of an implicit confession. And then
sometimes we see this.
Speaker 4: We even see the tradition with John the Baptists, where
it says that they came to him repenting and confessing
their sins and being baptized.
Speaker 3: So even with John the Baptist, that occurs.
Speaker 4: Jesus says in the Gospel John that he breathes on
the disciples, and he says, whoever sins you, they're remitted.
Whoever sins you retained, they're retained. And so we think
that there really is this principle of the notion of
the Body of Christ having the ability through the ministers
to actually remit and retain sins. So there's a real
power that's there that you know, is not in the
Protestant world.
Speaker 3: But it's not a bad thing. It's actually a good thing.
Speaker 4: And because we're bodily creatures who are not just you know,
minds floating around or ghosts floating around. We have a body,
and our body then interacts with another body, which here's
our confession, and which then pronounces, you know, absolution. So
that bodily aspect to absolution I think is a mercy
from God that allows us to actually feel and sense
that we have been forgiven, beyond just praying to God,
which of course you can do, but I think it's
a lot it's better if we understand and see oral
confession as a gift rather than some sort of punishment.
Speaker 3: It's it's better understood in my view. Oh okay, that
makes sense.
Speaker 65: So I guess from what I understand is while technically
you could still be forgiven of your sense if you
were to confess it to God, it would be best
to document.
Speaker 3: Of confession helps us have an assurance of forgiveness, and
that's the positive part of it. So that's a good
thing in my view, I mean especially.
Speaker 8: Yeah, so Christ establishes the way to confess, the way
to pray, a lot of these different things, and you
can always say, like, well, couldn't we do it? Apart
from that, Yeah, but he didn't prescribe. He didn't prescribe that. Now,
of course we do in our prayers we confess to God.
But we're told it's a both and that. But you
need to to pray this way, you need to confess
this way. You need to do these things. And like
Jay said, it has both spiritual and practical benefits. As
a Protestant, when I confessed just to God, I didn't
get better. I still did the same sense.
Speaker 3: Because I wasn't.
Speaker 8: Accountable to anybody. And so we learn accountability to God.
Speaker 3: Yeah, a good point.
Speaker 8: By making ourselves accountable to other people. The way that
we practice obedience to God is obedience to our hierarchs
and our elders and stuff like that. In this case,
the priests.
Speaker 3: The way that we.
Speaker 8: Practice all these things is here and now, so God
knows that this works. And the other way if it
was just well, I can just go straight to God.
It doesn't do anything practically and psychologically, one typically continues
in their sin. But and also to have like a
real relationship with a priest who's counseling you, well, why
do you think that you did this? Let's talk about
this and let's go forward on how to make you better.
You don't get that in Protestantism.
Speaker 43: Mm hmm.
Speaker 8: And also it follows on the scriptural thing having a witness,
like you're required to have a witness in these things
like where's your witness? And oh, I confess to God?
So the priest acts as a witness. You're confessing to
God in the confession, and the priest is the witness
to that and has given the power to then as
being the witness also to announce the absolution or retaining
the sins.
Speaker 3: What's up? Are you there? We can't hear you, dude,
Are you there? I don't know. Your microphone doesn't work.
Then sounds like static, So it's open for him. We're
still here. I've still got a little more energy. If
anybody wants to hop up on the panel.
Speaker 4: Topics, So are Calvinism, Protestantism, Catholicism, islam, atheism. If you
would like to discuss, if you would like to debate,
if you would like to offer an argument, Alexander, go ahead, yes.
Speaker 3: Sir, all right? Cool.
Speaker 54: I had a question when talking to Calvinists and they
start playing the that's not what we actually believe game.
Speaker 3: What do you go to look at?
Speaker 54: Because a couple of times I've talked some and they've said, oh,
that's not what we actually believe, that's not what Calvin Todd,
and I look it up and that is what Calvin
Todd kind of like how I went and sat down
and read all the Vatican two after getting tired of
Catholics doing the same thing.
Speaker 3: What do you recommend?
Speaker 54: What do you recommend reading as far as refuting Calvinists
when they start doing that.
Speaker 3: Well, I mean, I mean, well there's there's different, you know,
groups of Calvinists, so they're all going to kind of
have their pay their favorite sort of peteologians. I mean,
you can't go wrong in Calvinism with the fifteen to
fifty nine institutes, the Westminster Confession, Charles Hodge, John Murray,
I mean, those are all kind of the you know Luminaries,
Francis Puritan. I mean, those are all pretty well known
representatives of Calvinism. Okay, you know, put that on the
reading list. There's also Bavving systematic theology as a classic.
Speaker 54: Okay, yeah, I'll get around to it eventually, but mostly
I'm just going to try not to talk to Calvinists.
Speaker 4: Well, i mean, the Westminster Confession itself, might be the most,
you know, because it's intended to kind of be their
confession of faith and.
Speaker 3: It's not that long. It's just like, I don't know,
twenty nine or thirty paragraphs. But it does have a
catechism with it, so you could have the Westminster Confession
or the Westminster Catechism would be the classical Calvinist confession.
What's up, job, Yes, sir, Yeah.
Speaker 4: When I was a Calvinist, we used the Westminster Confession
and Catechism all the time. That was kind of our
If people converted that they would use that as catechism.
Speaker 3: Go ahead, man, what's up?
Speaker 26: I wanted to ask a question about vicious circularity and
how if you or Father Deacon could help define it
for me.
Speaker 3: He's probably the best for this.
Speaker 26: So I've heard like vicious circularity as opposed to or
being virtuously circular as opposed to vicious circularity, and I've
been trying to like study this just to give like
a clear definition on it.
Speaker 3: So he.
Speaker 4: Argues that circularity is just a loaded term, and that's confusing.
So he argues that at a paradigm level, at the
base level, worldviews are self referencing, are recursive, and that
that might help avoid the confusion over the fallacy of
circular reasonings.
Speaker 10: Yeah, that's exactly right.
Speaker 8: Yeah, obviously, so it's typically vicious circularity. And I don't
even use virtuous circularity because it's confusing, so but yeah,
typically vicious circularity is where the the argument's conclusion is
basically one of the premises. So what supports the conclusion
the premises. The premises support the conclusion. And this can
be done in a different way where you slightly reword it,
or you go through a chain of reasoning that goes back, well,
this is true. If this is true, this is true,
which goes back to the first stuff like that is
is typically what's considered premise circularity or vicious circularity. But
obviously not all circularity is bad. I mean, if you
draw a circle on a paper, it's is that a fallacy,
right right?
Speaker 26: I heard an atheist talk about tag like, oh, this
is viciously circular because premise one God's the necessary condition
for knowledge is basically just being restated and the conclusion
therefore God exists. And my understanding is that, no, that's
not viciously circular because premise one is in fact not
identical to the conclusion, right, and so vicious circularity would
it be that it would be viciously circular if God
is the necessary condition for knowledge, we have knowledge. Therefore
God is the necessary condition for knowledge.
Speaker 8: And that's not the only art. I mean, I could
just plug whatever I want it in and it's like, well,
it makes it true. God's true because I assume He
must be the necessary conditions. If it was simply that,
obviously that is vicious circularity. But the support for that
is twofold one is impossibility of the contrary and number
two which is the indirect account, and number two is
the positive account that for the entire paradigm. So it's
not simply we're playing in a word, we mean something
very specific by the term God, which includes the conception
of the Trinity, is articulated in the Orthodox Faith, and
so it's God's revelation to mankind is preserved in the
Orthodox Faith, and that the Orthodox Faith provides all the
sufficient conditions for the necessary conditions for the possibility of knowledge,
and nothing else does that. So I mean, if it
was just while I plug the terman and therefore I
assume God to prove God, I mean, yeah, that's vicious circular.
So there's straw man in the arguments, but that's not
the argument, right. I mean there's a series of kind
of different arguments that even when I put it in
the most opponents, there's kind of steps, like, first of all,
do you even understand what a transcendental deduction is at
the so we're kind of the logical, metapistemological level, and
you put it in a form and then there's further
arguments and support for that. Otherwise, Yeah, it would be
simply PREMI circularity. I assume God to prove God, and
I prove God because I assumed him, Like nobody makes
as far as I know, that argument.
Speaker 3: Thank you for that question, Joe. Appreciate all the time
stamping and hard work that you do. Wi Fi. What's up?
Speaker 5: Man?
Speaker 31: Hey?
Speaker 5: Jay?
Speaker 3: What's up? So?
Speaker 66: I'm pretty new to the debate scene, and I've been
debating some atheists, so I've been eager to take more debates,
and i've kind of I've taken them maybe a little
too hastily. I'm debating some guys who may be bad
faith or sophistry maybe the right term.
Speaker 8: I think he debated one of them.
Speaker 66: His name is Korn's and I just I guess wanted
your opinion on how to deal with these types of
people in debate.
Speaker 3: Well, honestly, I would have waste my time with debating
bad faith debaters.
Speaker 4: I just think it's a massive drain. And a lot
of people are a lot of people internet a board
and they're just kind of like wandering around looking for
something to do, and they'll just debate for the hell
of it, adopting positions that they don't hold.
Speaker 3: So I would just not waste my time.
Speaker 4: I would be catechized in Orthodoxy before debating, and and
to go that rout peep the sheep.
Speaker 3: What's up? Hello? Yeah?
Speaker 5: What's up? Man?
Speaker 3: Wait? Am I on?
Speaker 6: You are?
Speaker 3: Okay?
Speaker 67: I didn't expect to get on this early, kind of
trying to think about what I want to say, but
I just want to say I'm a big fan. I
just tuned in, so I read the topics and I
guess you're debating, you know, the different denominations and whatever.
Speaker 30: So where up again?
Speaker 5: Uh?
Speaker 67: Yeah, So I'm a Protestant. I grew up in the
South and basically discovering your content, uh just made me
realize that it was a bunch of you know byes honestly,
and it was di y and kind of just being
stuck in that circle and then hearing all about all
the solo fide and so like solo scriptore and all
that stuff, Like I never heard about any of that
stuff in my life, and then you introduced me to that,
and I bought an Orthodox study Bible, and I've been
watching a lot of your content for years. Actually found
you on f wars. But basically, okay, so yeah, I
know you want a debate. You don't really like people,
ah coming on here asking you questions about Catechism and
all that stuff. Uh So, a couple of things I
was thinking of that I've heard you mentioned before, but
I'd never really felt where fleshed out completely is.
Speaker 3: Let's see, so.
Speaker 67: The it's kind of ambiguous because of uh I forget
the terms that you said, but you said that basically
scripture can be described and is it three or four
different ways like ontological. I'm a bit of a slow boy.
Speaker 3: So bear with you.
Speaker 4: But no, no, no, that's that's not that. It's called
the fourth senses of scripture. Yeah, talking about the literal,
the literal, the spiritual, allegorical, the tropological.
Speaker 67: And the anagogical Yes, yes, yes, and that's the first time,
Like I said, like, you open my eyes to a
lot of that stuff.
Speaker 8: And because growing up Baptist, you know, you got.
Speaker 67: To remember a couple of verses and go to church
every now and then and say that you're you know,
you're moral and this and that and that's pretty much it.
But I do believe what you say is true, you know,
like there's a history to it and there's a reason
you follow certain canons and scriptures and all that stuff.
Speaker 3: So I do agree with that.
Speaker 8: But oh yeah, So the the question I have is
how do you know when to apply one of those.
Speaker 5: What was it again?
Speaker 3: I forget?
Speaker 4: I'm sorry, right, So these are this is called hermanudicts,
which is the interpretation of the scriptures. Okay, so hermanudicts
is not like there's principles and rules, but there's no
hard and fast uh way or science necessarily that's going
to tell you automatically when to interpret which text, just
on the basis of that principle of the fourth senses.
So for example, exa Jesus means reading the text, looking
at the language, the context, and figuring out what the
original language means and what the writers were intending to convey.
So actually Jesus is just understanding the meanings of the
words and the texts in a raw sense, but hermeneuticts
is interpreting the text and looking at the different deeper
senses and meanings that might.
Speaker 3: Also be there.
Speaker 4: So you can kind of go crazy with this like
Origin did, where he over allegorized everything. But you can
also be too extreme in the other direction of being
a literalist or focusing on only the grammatical historical context,
which is just the first layer or level of scripture.
But it doesn't necessaridate that every single verse has quote
four senses.
Speaker 3: It's a little more nuanced.
Speaker 4: Than that because some, you know, passages of scripture are
just straightforward. They're just meant to be, for example, proverbs,
although some proverbs do have a deeper spiritual significance, like
you know, in the first few chapters of Proverbs, when
it talks about lady Wisdom and the seven pillars that
she's built her house and she brings bread and wine.
That's obviously a type of the church. But a lot
of the proverbs are just you know, basic wisdom, avoid wickedness,
be righteous, you know what I mean, it's like, there's
not four sensits of that, it's just kind of what
it is. But you have to, I think, be very
familiar with the Biblical literature and also different types of
literature in the scriptures, such as if you're reading you know,
poetic literature, prophetic literature, liturgical literature like the Psalms, historical
accounts like the Book of Kings like so you got
to understand the different types of literature in the Bible
as well. And if you if you go to seminary,
if you go to Bible school, you'll learn all this stuff.
This is all just kind of basic and and all
that stuff's not even unique to like Orthodoxy, Like every Protestant,
Catholic Orthodox seminary will teach you all that same stuff.
Speaker 3: Job, what's up? And just had to show, I mean
to boot you out how you were done?
Speaker 26: Oh no words. And this is different from about the
vicious quilarity thing. It's just kind of about the first
order verse second order thing. I wanted to refresh my
memory on. So is it correct to say that first
order statements are constitutive of second order statements?
Speaker 3: So like.
Speaker 26: If someone says God does not exist, right, like this
is the whole like old j Mike thing. He likes
to ask people like, does the proposition God does not
exist entail a contradiction? And I was thinking about this
and I think it absolutely does, because in the light
of the Christian paradigm, if God does not exist, then
that would destroy the possibility of knowledge to make any
second order statements about first order?
Speaker 3: Yeah, is that correct?
Speaker 8: And first order is usually it's the second order our statements.
First orders are Jim believes the tree is green, then
Jim makes a statement I know the tree is green,
or the Jim makes a statement the tree is green,
which implies those are second order statements. So typically the
first order is just being in the mental state of
knowing something.
Speaker 3: Does that make sense? Right?
Speaker 26: First order is a knowledge claim, right, Yeah.
Speaker 8: But I want to make the difference that it's really
statements are usually it's a second order beliefs that you
believe something and it qualifies as knowledge as a first order.
Does that make sense? So not your statement about what
you believe? Those are second order?
Speaker 26: Okay, Okay, I didn't.
Speaker 3: I didn't get that, but.
Speaker 8: I would add, yes, it does entail contradiction because once
you prove that God's a necessary condition uniquely, so the
possibility of knowledge. They already assume the a necessary condition
for the possibility knowledge because they're making knowledge statements. Then
you show that it's God, but they deny God. So
they're both affirming and denying the necessary condition for the
possibility knowledge, which is a contradiction.
Speaker 26: Correct. Yeah, that's that makes sense.
Speaker 3: All right, thank you job. I want to go on
next to Isaiah. What's up?
Speaker 5: Hey?
Speaker 3: Can you assume me? Yes, ma'am?
Speaker 44: All right.
Speaker 60: So I'm new here and lovely rooms.
Speaker 8: Hello everyone.
Speaker 60: So I had two things I'll try to be quick.
The first, so the father was speaking about the freshmen
being hesitant. I guess you'd say, to deal with a
quinas and have those arguments. And I had the same
experience myself when I was a freshman dealing with a quinas.
And we were given an exercise which was interesting, where
we all came up with our own arguments, and then
the room was split to where half of us steelmanned,
and then half of us would argue against it, and
it took away like the fear of dealing with such
a seminal work. And then after that no one was
like deer in the headlights anymore, so maybe helpful, I
don't know, but yeah, so just the thought and then yeah,
in terms of you mentioned ex of Jesus, and my
question for you gentlemen, as you seem to be well
versed on the Greek and I've just begun getting into Greek,
what do you guys think are the most interesting or relevant.
I don't want to say mistranslations, but mistranslations where like
things don't translate exactly into English that kind of stick
out to you.
Speaker 4: I'm not a linguist and I'm not a Greek scholar,
not a textual scholar, so I'm not familiar really with
textual issues in translating certain terms. I mean, I know
that does exist, but I don't think it really is
detrimental to the overall message. I think God is able
to communicate in every language the basics of the message.
But there are certain languages like Greek, for example, that
allow for philosophical metaphysical distinctions that languages like Latin don't have.
Doctor Bradshaw, for example, argues that the essence entergiesstinction did
it make sense even in the Latin language, whereas in
Greek theology and philosophy.
Speaker 3: It made perfect sense.
Speaker 4: And so that's one of the reasons why the Western
Latin Church fathers did not develop in the sense of
explication being the center distinction that theology that the Eastern
Church did. But I'm not a linguist and a scholar
of texts.
Speaker 60: Okay, Yeah, I was just curious. Again, I've heard you
speak of a few Greek phrases in your knowledge of them.
You know, like the word sin, for example, is like
the actual verb to sin is you know, it means
to throw a spear and miss the target, and like
that is a big difference, you know, just in the
actual meaning. And so I think I think you're correct,
and you know, the the application of the metaphor is
obviously the same. But yeah, I was just scurious. Thanks
thanks for letting me speak.
Speaker 3: Sure.
Speaker 4: I mean, a lot of the Orthodox world uses a
lot of terminology from the heritage of the Church and
from the New Testament, but I don't know the Greek.
I know the Greek alphabet, and I know a lot
of the theology terms and their usage of meaning, but
I do not know uh.
Speaker 3: E elect elect electorum, I Q.
Speaker 43: Are you there?
Speaker 3: Illustrationist yep, and that's me.
Speaker 5: I had.
Speaker 68: Let's see, at first, I had a few questions about predestination,
but I think the orthodox understanding of predestination is pretty straightforward. Actually,
you know what, I'd need some clarification because I've always
had a Calvinist predisposition. So what would your the orthodox
understanding of predestination be.
Speaker 4: Alright, so we already addressed this pretty extensively in the
first I don't know hour, so I would just say,
this is a recorded space, so you can go back
and rewatch that.
Speaker 3: I don't have the energy to rehearse all that. Do
you have another question, Yeah?
Speaker 9: Sure.
Speaker 68: My other question would be about essence energy distinction. I
saw a clip of you being interviewed by Michael Lofton
and you said something to the extent of the essence
of God subsists within his energies.
Speaker 3: What's that all about? I didn't.
Speaker 4: Yeah, so the energies proceed from the essence, I said.
God is fully present in his energies because his actions.
Speaker 3: So just like if I build a.
Speaker 4: House, I'm fully present in my action of building a house.
The action of building a house is an action proper
to my nature as a human being. It's a human act.
It's an act by my will. But my will and
my act of building a house are not identical to
or reducible to the person Jay nor my nature. So
the action proceeds from my nature, but it's a personal
act that I engage in in terms of the mode.
So does that make sense that the person, the nature,
the will, the energy, and the effect are all distinct?
And if you read John of Damascus on the Orthodox
Faith Book three, chapter fifteen, the very first thing he
says is nature, person, will, energy and effect are all distinct.
Speaker 3: Literally the opposite of chemism.
Speaker 9: Got it?
Speaker 68: And one last thing, I know there are a lot
of Protestants out there, and with the Internet, a lot
of people are looking towards the Apostolic faith.
Speaker 8: Do you have any advice for anyone who's.
Speaker 3: I'll be blunt.
Speaker 68: I'm kind of attending a church that doesn't believe that
the Communion is the real body and blood of Jesus,
and I've had doubts about that, and as a result,
i haven't been partaking of the symbolic Communion, and frankly,
I don't know how to put my faith into practice.
Speaker 3: I'm kind of in this gray zone. Any advice to
the Orthodox Church is only true church, so where you're
at not a church. That's my advice. All right, appreciate it,
thank you. Yeah, I would go check, you.
Speaker 4: Know, go visit Orthodox church and you will see that,
you know, the liturgy at least is reverent and organized
such that they believe that it is.
Speaker 3: The real presidence, or at least that's the profession of
the faith.
Speaker 4: Hence the reverence and the beauty there, which does not
exist in the Protestant world.
Speaker 59: Actually, jam, yeah, hey, is it all right to ask
a question about the Divine Light and Saint Simeon the
New Theologian.
Speaker 3: I've read two of the volumes. I haven't read all four,
but I can comment on.
Speaker 59: What I know, Alrighty, So I was reading. I wasn't
actually reading Saint Simeon. I planned to do that later,
but I came across a quotation that where he seemed
to be saying that unless one has seen the Divine Light,
he can't presume to think that he knows Christ, or
that he has Christ within him, or that he will
be saved. And so this was concerning because I don't
think anyone I know has ever seen the Divine Light,
nor could I imagine myself becoming holy enough to actually
receive the physical, sensory perception of the divine light.
Speaker 3: Yeah, I think that.
Speaker 4: I mean, I need to say the contact, because first
of all, he was thrown out of his monastery because
he said that this was available to everyone, and then
that it was not a thing that was only for
a chiritual elite. So this doesn't this would this would
seem to contrast with his arguments because he argued that
if you argue that the the parlemism was for a
spiritual elite, he said it was a return of the
heresy of the missallions. So the comment sounds like it
would be contrary to the very thing that he dealt
with in his life, and he seems to speak otherwise
in the in the books. But and there also might
be a situation where he's saying that something like, well,
if you think you have assurance of your salvation, you
would only be assured of that if you've seen the
divine light.
Speaker 3: And you know hardly anybody has seen the divine light.
And so I would need to I would need to
see the.
Speaker 4: Context to see like what he's saying, because it doesn't
sound like because I mean he he railed against Missallianism,
and what you're saying sounds like Missallianism.
Speaker 59: Okay, okay, yeah, I I need to get him and
read some more of him, but thank you, and I'll
probably come.
Speaker 18: Back after i've read something.
Speaker 3: Do you know where that quote is?
Speaker 59: If I'm not mistaken, I think it might have been
in the Saint Vladimir's publish publishing of the of his
h Now that's the that's.
Speaker 3: The four volumes. But do you know which are the
four volumes?
Speaker 5: Now?
Speaker 59: I'm gonna have to read it because I came across
it all nine but I don't have the money to
buy it right now.
Speaker 18: But once I do, I'm gonna give it a read.
Speaker 3: Okay, Well, DM me about it, because I'd be curious
to go and look it up. But like I said,
I only have two of the four volumes. I ever
read them all?
Speaker 59: Alrighty, sure thing, I'll get back with you.
Speaker 3: I mean, And also, I might just not know what
he's talking about, so I know some of you might
doubt this, but like I've not read all the books.
So what's up, Brian?
Speaker 9: Up?
Speaker 5: What up?
Speaker 3: Just real quick?
Speaker 69: I just wanted to add something regarding the communion. Jesus
said very clearly in the Bible, if you read in
the King James.
Speaker 6: Or the older versions.
Speaker 69: On top of that, that you're to receive food and
water and wine, and I guess beer and other things.
With Thanksgiving supposed to pray over your food. You're supposed
to pray over your water. My kids they pray over
you know, certain law enforcement officials or politicians, or kids
or teachers in their lives, and they earnestly and honestly
before they receive their food or their drink, you know,
they put blessings on it.
Speaker 41: And I think that's what communion it really is about.
I am a Protestant, but I'm a non church going Protestant.
I used to be in Christian ministry very college, and
I realized real quick how corrupt these buildings are. So yeah,
pray over your food, thank you for your time, appreciate
you guys.
Speaker 4: Well, I think it's way more than that, because it's
the institution of the Lord's Supper. Even in Paul's epistles,
it's more than merely praying over food. If you read
the Book of Hebrews, it's the fulfillment of the Old Testament,
alter and temple sacrifice, and Paul says in Hebrews thirteen
that we have an altar from which the people who
serve at the tabernacle have.
Speaker 3: No right to eat.
Speaker 4: So right away you have a sacrificial element. You have
a ministerial element of the Melchizedekian priesthood from Hebrews seven,
all of which suggests that this low church idea of Protestantism,
that it's some mere meal, misses the whole point of
what was established, which is a feast that deifies us.
Speaker 3: A wolf.
Speaker 14: God.
Speaker 29: I'm you, thanks for taking my call. Yeah, I wanted
to talk about atheism. I'm not an atheist, but I
think atheists are kind of weak with their arguments, and
I kind of want to help them because they don't
seem to want to tell the truth about being an atheist.
Let's say I was an atheist and I wanted to,
you know, little mind exercise. Why would I even care
about anybody's morals? Why would I just not care about
just planning my seat and my children and then letting
them take off and do whatever they're going to do
and make sure that they live to take over. It's
like murder, rape or whatever. It seems like they don't
have the guts to admit the truth.
Speaker 3: Yeah.
Speaker 4: I think that's actually a very for set the point
about atheists that atheism is a intellectual pretended position, but
they don't really usually live it out.
Speaker 29: Yeah, not to say that I feel that way, but
I just can't understand if I did, I can't understand
why they wouldn't just tell the truth like the books
done and stuff. I would want to guarantee my seed
rules the world, you know, if if I.
Speaker 3: Had exactly wandven what's up, Caleb?
Speaker 15: Oh, sorry, I've this is the first time I've done this.
I was muted, so I am Pentecostal. I even went
to Bible College for a little bit, but I found
it to be very disorderly. And I've been interested in
Orthodoxy for a long time because everything seems to be
pretty ordered out on what we need to do for
every specific thing.
Speaker 3: And I went to a.
Speaker 15: Orthodox church in my town recently, just a couple months back,
to see how things were. And I'm not exactly a
total iconoclast, but I was. I was a little bit like, WHOA,
this is real different. But none of that is exactly
why I was confused. I just talked to a priest
in training. I don't know if his official title was
a deacon or something like that. I'm not familiar with
a lot of the language, but he told me, and
I don't know if this is the official outlook of
the Orthodox Church, that the Book of Revelation, due to
some historical issue or something that I don't understand or
can't remember, isn't treated as total canon. Or maybe it
was canon and they just don't use it often. I
just don't remember.
Speaker 3: I just what is that about. I'm not quite sure
I understand that.
Speaker 5: No.
Speaker 4: I think that's just simply he was just simply incorrect.
Some of the old, older lists do not list the
Book of Revelation, and so he might be just looking
at one of the older lists, to say, from the Canons,
the Apostolic Canons Canon eighty five, but eventually by the
the Ecumenical Council, when it lists the canon, it does
include the Book of Revelation. So some people just look
at different lists that are older, and I think he
was just misinformed.
Speaker 15: Okay, well, thanks, I'll go ahead and try it again
and just see how it is. Because I was very interested.
I was just real put off because it was like, well,
if we can't trust the Bible, what are we doing?
Speaker 5: Man?
Speaker 3: I didn't it was yeah, thank you. I don't think
it's an issue of not trusting the Bible.
Speaker 4: It's just that the Book of Revelation was a very
hotly debated text for many centuries. If you look on
my wall right now, you can see the I retweeted
the Baptist scholar Lee McDonald where he's talking about Athanasians
having to convinced the bishops in Rome that Revelation was canonical.
Speaker 3: So it has a debated history. But some people might
just think that the Apostolic canon eighty five, which is
from about the three hundreds, they might think that that's
the quote right list, but actually the Ecumenical Council is
the right list, which later does include Revelation.
Speaker 15: Okay, all right, well, thank you very much. I appreciate
your time. Thanks again, have a good day.
Speaker 3: Yeah, anytime. Last one, mkg.
Speaker 47: Heja and pray all as well. I had a question
actually about something you touched on two calls ago regarding
an counterargument. So when I'm explained the monarchy of the
Father and essentially saying that the word and the Spirit
come from him, that is his word, his spirit. What
do I do when someone accuses me of modalism.
Speaker 4: Well, when you've had early church fathers like Turtullian, and
I think even the Cappadocians, when they use the analogy
of word and spirit, it's just an analogy. It's not
equated to intended to give you, like the full meaning
of hypostasis and nature.
Speaker 3: So it's like an analogy. So in other words, people
can read too much into the analogies. That makes sense, Yeah,
I guess, I just.
Speaker 47: I guess I had a good structure in my mind
for how to relate to the Trinity, and when I
explain it, that's the only counter that I'm having a
hard time justifying.
Speaker 4: Well, I mean even word in spirit though, Like the
analogy is used to explain how something can be one
and many at the same time. Right, So I'm a
person and I have you know, a word that I speak,
and then there's a breath that accompanies the word, and
so it's a limited analogy that's intended to explain an
eternal action of spiration and generation. It's not an analogy
intended to explain that there's only one person in God
and that word and spirit are actions, so the analogy
would be confusing action or energy with person or hypostasis.
So do you see how these these kinds of analogies
are very limited?
Speaker 47: Yeah, no, that makes sense that the final point that
you made that click for me. Can I ask one
more question? So I'm actually writing a paper and I
wanted to know if you had some primary sources in
mind regarding the schism and specifically regarding the whole philioque thing,
if you knew of any primary sources, not secondary, that
I could look to.
Speaker 4: I don't know what the primary sources would be, Like
ancient excommunication documents between Rome and the East.
Speaker 47: What do you mean like of the time you know,
of the time of the schism basically you know, Father's
writing about it and their issues with it, and the
counter arguments of the West. Basically, not a secondary source
if you had any mind.
Speaker 4: I don't know off the top of my head what
the primary source would be. I'm sure there's ancient Vatican,
you know, excommunication documents or something like that.
Speaker 47: All right, well, I appreciate it.
Speaker 3: Yeah, Oh that's it. Thanks, Yeah, it's all good. Yeah,
what's up? Pedro? You gotta arm youre man? What's up, hey, Pedro?
You gotta ut man? All right?
Speaker 4: Well, Pedro's not gonna say anything, so I guess we'll
just call it a night. Thank you, guys, a lot
of fun, good conversations. I didn't think James White would
show up, but that's okay.
Speaker 3: Oh here he is just right behind you. Look out,
he's behind me in person here in New Orleans.