Speaker 1: What the silvers of errors are, because this is all
like classic track as stuff. Now going back to the
Ten Books book, which lists sixteen documents. If you want
the easiest read to show that Vatican one, excuse me,
that Vatican two contradicts pre Vatican two theology, you get
the Ten Books book Popes against the Modern Errors, and
the first one you're gonna read is marri Voss of
Pope Gregor the sixteenth. Then you're gonna read Quantic Kurra
of Pius the ninth, and then you'll see the Silvers
of Errors of Pius the ninth, that's the one we
just looked at. Then you're going to see Leo the
thirteenth dea turnum Ilude, which, by the way, I've read
all of Liela thirteenth and cyclicals, seven hundred page book.
I read them all. Lie the thirteenth on Freemasonry Wjmanum
janis the Nature of Liberty, Lieo the thirteenth, Libertus praise
tantisimos prisetantissimum on the condition of the Working classes by
Little thirteenth Rerem Navarum on Christian Democracy. Lee of the thirteenth,
and then Lamentabile that we just looked at earlier, and
then the famous and cyclical of Pius the tenth Pacindi
dominici grages our apostolic mandate by Pius the tenth. This
is the condemnation of the Selon movement, which, if I recall,
was like a socialist movement, like an equalitarian socialist revolutionary movement.
The oath against modernism that Pius the tenth mandated feast
of Christ the King quas primos, which you've heard me
reference many many times on fostering true unity mortalium animos.
This condemns interfaith gatherings as apostacy, which I've cited into
infinity against Romancholics on atheistic communism by Pious the ninth.
Divini redemntoris whom I jennaris by Pius the twelfth. This
is the one that allows for a theistic evolution. So ironically,
even though it allows for theistic evolution, it is intended
to be a condemnation of certain errors of modernism. So
that's why it's concluded in that book. So again, hopefully
I know that Roman Catholics don't read their books anymore,
but all the way up into the syllabus of errors,
you're still bound by the temporal supremacy of the Roman
bishop doctrine. And I've never heard about a continued person
and teach this anymore. Jonathan Towery twenty bucks. An image
of Jesus is not Jesus, an image created to represent
values and beliefs of a painter. No, that's not our iconography.
So I don't know where you get that idea. Jesus
does not represent God. Well, now you're an aran, so
you just expose yourself as an aerian ac twenty dollars.
What's up, man, Thank you so much. Curse work, one dollar.
I've requested to speak. I don't know who you are.
There's like ten people, eight people in here. Cursed work.
Oh there you are, cursed world. Excuse me? What's up? Dude?
Got on? Mute man?
Speaker 2: Hey, can you hear me?
Speaker 1: Yeah, what's on your mind?
Speaker 3: Hey, Pastor Randy, thanks for taking my call. So I'm
not too long in the Orthodox world. I was brought
into the church a little over a year ago. Well,
my parents, who did a good faithful job of raising
me at least in the Protestant Church to the best
of their ability, the best of their knowledge.
Speaker 2: They're kind of interested.
Speaker 3: Me and my brother both converted, and so one of
these hang ups that my dad has, I'd like to
kind of argue that on his behalf, because I think
he's arguing in good faith or at least trying to
test these waters.
Speaker 2: He's picked up a couple of books. But the thing
that he kind of hits me with and I don't.
Speaker 3: Really feel equipped to respond to it very well, is
kind of a challenge of the Iconoclast period. And his
argument goes something like, Hey, you keep telling me that
the church has uh that the gates of Hell will
not and have not prevailed against the Church, But what
about this period where maybe a large portion or maybe
even a majority of those representing the church in an
official capacity condemned the use of icons And so I
never really know what's I mean.
Speaker 1: No different than so in the fourth century, the majority
of the church became Aryan and semiarian right, and so
Nicia is what helped to solve that. But even after
Nicia it wasn't completely gone. You still had Eunomians even
into the time of Basil and the Cappadocians after Nicea.
So but the majority hold that the Aryans had all
the empire and their heresy was dead and dying after that,
even though they continued on. So the claim about the
church not having the gates fell prevail against it has
nothing to do with numbers and percentages. What it means
is that you will never extinguish the episcopae. There will
always be orthodox bishops continuing the true faith. Okay, there's
no promise to any specific area that the one in
Rome will never fail or the one I mean again
Romans eleven. Paul warns the Church of Rome that they
can be grafted out. Why would he warn them if
they could never fail? So you have these situations where
you know, entire regions can go into schism and leave
the church, And just because the majority of the empire
at a certain time becomes involved in error, whether it's
the airing crisis or the Iconoclass crisis, does not defeat
the meaning of the Gates of Hell will not prevail
because it's not a question of majority. It just means
that you can't stamp out the true faith.
Speaker 2: Okay.
Speaker 3: So when he follows up and is kind of like,
and I know he's being sort of tongue in chicic,
but if he's like well, how do you know that
you're not in one of those periods now where you
know a false How do you know what's.
Speaker 1: Worth Because if I go to every ecumenical council, I
can read the canons and the decrees of those councils.
They're not that long, and every council states and explains
that their intention is to be consistent with the previous council.
So when I read Nicia, and I read Constantinople one,
and I read Ephesis, and I read calcilit on, and
I read Constantinople two and three, and I see A two,
And then when I read the Focian Council, and when
I read the Palmite Synod's like, the theology is the same.
Speaker 4: Okay, all right, appreciate you.
Speaker 2: Yeah.
Speaker 1: And if you read the Seventh Council, for example, if
you read a St. Theodore the Studites book on the
icons or if you read John Damascus's book on Holy Images, like,
you'll notice that the arguments for the iconography is out
of the chrystological pronouncements of the free previous councils. The
energies doctrine and the divine hypostasis doctrine is the pre
subposition and the apologetic basis for the way that Theodore
and Saint John Damascus argue iconography.
Speaker 2: Luther, Hey, can you hear me?
Speaker 4: All right?
Speaker 5: We talked last week about the Philioquay and a little
bit about nominalism and the Protestants.
Speaker 4: I've been doing some research on the.
Speaker 5: Phillyoquay and got to be honest, I don't love the
whole aspiration from the essence of God, isn't Isn't that
what Aquinas proposes?
Speaker 2: Yeah? So not loving that.
Speaker 5: But I wonder is there any any permissibility from the
east an orthodox point of view of procession from the
Father through the son in an ontological sense.
Speaker 1: Yeah, that's the definition of the Council of blacker name.
Speaker 4: Oh all right, I was going to ask your thoughts on.
Speaker 1: But that does not mean that does not mean that
the son is a co cause or a secondary cause.
The Father is the soul Christ.
Speaker 2: Right, It would not fit the more.
Speaker 5: Technical definition of the word for proceeds, correct, not the
kind of Yeah, and if you want the document, if
you want the document that it's not very long to read.
Speaker 1: On that very point. It's called the condemnation, or it's
called the tomos against John Becco's.
Speaker 5: All right, great, yep, well that was That was shorter
than I thought it would be. But I also ordered
that that book you recommended.
Speaker 2: Was it was it o.
Speaker 1: Ye Haiko Oberman's book Harvest of Medieval Theology, where he
points out that Luther relied on William of Oakham and
Gabriel Bile for his nominalist positions. Correct.
Speaker 5: All right, Is that related to a volunteerist view of God?
Speaker 1: Yes, because William of Aukam argues that volunteers theological voluntarism
means that God can just declare natures to be the
opposite of themselves when he's so desires. So what makes
something what it is is simply the divine will or decree.
It's very similar to Islam. And so if God wills,
for example, to suddenly dam the Virgin marry after having
saved her, he can do that because God's will is
what determines nature's. It's not that God creates natures and
lets those natures be self determining. He arbitrarily can change natures.
And this is why Luther found that useful for even
his doctrine of the Lord's Supper.
Speaker 5: All right, well, I'm waiting on that book to show
up because I couldn't find a digital version online.
Speaker 4: So I'll read that and see what I think about it.
Speaker 2: But I would at.
Speaker 5: Least at this point I would push back a bit
on Luther being voluntarist, and I would I would point that,
I would point you to that when he speaks of
God's will, he considers it immutable. So it's not that
God can ever will in a way that is contrary
to his eternal nature.
Speaker 1: And no, that's not what the that's not what that's
that's not what the debate is. The vetas the Beta
is about created natures, whether or not they have their
own natural properties that make them what they are, which
would be a essentialist position versus the nominalist position that
God determines at any instance what the nature of that
thing is by pure divine will. So, in other words,
if God wants to, he can make created things into
their opposite, or he can make created things into uh,
evil things, perhaps because they're not there. Things do not
have natures, is the.
Speaker 5: Point, all right, So it would be like a non
realist that is that another term for essentialists?
Speaker 1: Yes, all right, well, nominalism is denying that creative things
have essences or natures that make them what they are.
It's just simply saying that we when we talk about
essences their natures, those are verbal terms that we give
to those things. That's a hence no name, non nominalism, namism,
not essentialism.
Speaker 4: All right, Well, that book's on the way, so I might.
I might read it, and then I might.
Speaker 1: I don't feel free to come about.
Speaker 5: I'll let you know if I'm convinced by it.
Speaker 1: Okay, come back. I mean, it's just one It's not
like everything hinges on that one book. That's just one
book about Luther's influence from that system. And I'm not
saying that that means that Luther's consistent with it. He's
not like some radical nominalists. He just utilizes it for
these types of issues to help boast vulturous theology. What's up, Jonathan, Jonathan,
you want to I mute Jordan. Guys who want to
support the stream, you can do so by the super
chat function. Superchests are done natively through YouTube or through stream,
and I'll give you guys link stream lives. Link is pinned,
but you can also superjet right here. What's up, Jordan, guys,
you gotta turn your MIC's on. I don't like so
this is not for today. We're looking for disagree, not
all the ortho ros Matt Pete.
Speaker 6: What's up, man, Matt? I'm mute.
Speaker 4: I did can you hear me?
Speaker 2: Now? Yeah? Hey?
Speaker 7: Jay?
Speaker 1: How you doing?
Speaker 2: I'm good? Thank god?
Speaker 8: Jay.
Speaker 2: I wanted to two things.
Speaker 9: The first thing I wanted to mention is I listened
to some of your live streams in the past who
had the UNI on them the other day, and then
prior to that, I listened to some Christian Zionist who
was like intellectually limited. So my first question to you
is do you have a problem getting more substantial people
on to debate, like Scott Hand for instance.
Speaker 1: Yes, I don't think we've had a quality person offer
in a good while. I don't think Scott Hand does
manymore many debates anymore. I don't remember the last prominent
Roman Catholic where I was trying to set up a
discussion with Michael Knowles. I don't think Michael Knowles was
interested in that. So I think it's just going to
be me and Tim Gordon.
Speaker 9: Okay, because it's that so many of them. I remember
another one with Pastor p I think his name was,
But so much of this it almost seems like God
forgive me juvenile delinquency almost like you know, and anyway,
I think you can do better if you can find
you know, it was just cool.
Speaker 1: Well, I definitely think you're right that. Like, ideally, if
we were in you know, more of a normal situation,
we would have better quality opponents. But I think we've
just gotten to a point where everything is just so
kind of crazy and everybody's so emotional reactionary, and you know,
the protest and Catholic worlds. You know, Orthodoxy has his problems,
but the Protests and Catholic worlds are just kind of
like collapsing. So, you know, I asked, I mean, Calvin
Robinson is an intelligent man. He's got four hundred thousand followers.
I asked him, in a very simple civil way, would
you like to do a formal debate? And he lost it.
So it's like people are just not able to handle
this stuff anymore. Jonathan M. Hello, yeah, what something man?
Speaker 10: Oh?
Speaker 11: Sorry, the uh for some reason exbooted me out for
some reason after I you the So I gotta.
Speaker 4: Question about something. I want to see if my argument.
Speaker 11: Is good or not because I've never really tested it yet.
Speaker 2: But the uh, the.
Speaker 11: Question of icons and the paintings of Jesus and things
like that, So.
Speaker 2: What is it? Let's see, So like, would.
Speaker 11: You agree that when you see a picture of Jesus
that's obviously not Jesus, correct.
Speaker 4: Right, So so then who would that be then in
your opinion.
Speaker 1: Well, it's an image of Jesus, it's a type prototype relationship.
Speaker 11: Yeah, so he's My argument is that, like the painter
is not creating a picture of Jesus, He's creating a
picture of the values of the of the time period
and of the commissioner and what he's trying to draw across.
Speaker 4: It's kind of like how Buddha.
Speaker 11: The statue of Buddha is like fat in one country.
Speaker 1: Yeah, but that's not how Orthodox iconography works. Like, we're
not like Jesuits who paint Chinese Jesus and black Jesus.
If you look at most Orthodox icons, there's a pretty
unified standard as to what Jesus looks like.
Speaker 11: So then would you be against Roman Catholic depictions of
Jesus versus Orthodox depictions or does it matter?
Speaker 1: I mean, I just mentioned the Roman Catholic tradition of
deviating by making Asian Jesus black Jesus. I just said that,
are you there? Are you there? I guess maybe you've
got a bad signal. So I mean, look, anybody. You
can't stop people from doing paintings, right, But in Orthodox
iconographic tradition there's rules and there's strictures on this. We
don't do like Jesuits do historically and famously, and then
many other Roman Catholics, Chinese Jesus and black Jesus. It's
not done because it's not true. Jesus was a Hebrew.
He's of a certain lineage. The Gospels make it very clear,
and it's very important as to who his descent was from.
He has to be from the line of David. So
he can't be a black dude. He can't be an
Asian dude. It's a lie, even if it's good intentioned,
because it's gnostic. It denies his Ethnos via his real
incarnate state, his lineage, which the Gospels make very and stress,
and the Orthodox tradition has almost always imaged Jesus in
this same way. So you can't do black Jesus. There's
no Aborigine Jesus. That is a lie to do, So Pat,
what's up? Job five dollars? Can you do a Pastor
Randy Balls larp stream where you are against Protestants using
their own system like Jim Bob did with Christos his
new age persona. I'll think about that. I might do
a a Brandy ballstream could be funny. Maximum nine one
one gifts a membership. What's up? Shout out to the
new members and I think that that was the same
guy that's left the super chat. So I appreciate your
super chat, Jonathan. I wasn't trying to be rude, but
it looks like you have a bad connection, so you
dropped out, Pat. What's upthing is white Jesus? Ali uh,
Jesus is this person that you see here? So people
from the levant, people from that area can have light skin,
or they can have more olive skin. So you're deflecting
into something that doesn't even matter. White Jesus. Orthodox icnography
pictures him as a Hebrew person. He's not a black person.
What's up?
Speaker 2: Pat?
Speaker 1: A mute Heisenberg Mormon sasquatch? One dollar? We need you
to give a take on doctor Michael Cook Cheney he's
a Protestant who called out Sam Chamun. He makes interesting
biblical points. It's it's never ending of when you're going
to respond to this Protestant dude. You under said there's
an infinite like there's an infinity of Protestants and they
all make the same arguments. So how about we just
use the same refutation videos? Why don't you guty to
go clip them? I'm trying to make sure I didn't
miss any super chests. What's up?
Speaker 7: Man?
Speaker 1: Are you there? Heisenberg?
Speaker 2: Hey?
Speaker 12: Jay?
Speaker 4: What's up?
Speaker 6: Hey?
Speaker 13: Two very quick questions and I'll be out of here.
I watching your lives and I've seen like a lot
of your book recommendations on like theology, but I was
wondering if you have any on like philosophy and like
towards atheism per se.
Speaker 1: There's a couple of good books like Paul Davies's book
Mind of God. That's a good if you're an atheist,
that would be a good challenge. Yeah, like that, human,
what's up? When are you going to refuse Joel Ostin? Exactly?
It's like when are you going to review the Righteous Gemstones?
What's up?
Speaker 8: Man?
Speaker 1: Human? Unmute? Can nobody work Twitter today, King anime, what's up?
I think Twitter was was having trouble today. Maybe it's
not working right? You want to unmute hey?
Speaker 4: All right?
Speaker 7: So about the gain cover of Jesus and I don't
think it actually matters, but I'm curious because you make.
Speaker 4: It seem like he's factual with that.
Speaker 7: He looked the way he does in the Orthodox pictures, right,
So I'm curious what this one.
Speaker 1: That it's an Orthodox tradition, So is it.
Speaker 7: Like the So you're saying there's no like Biblical takes
back that upward.
Speaker 1: Well, if it's an or our tradition, then it's not
explicitly in the Bible now, so we don't believe that
the only guide for the church is what's written in
the Bible.
Speaker 2: Okay.
Speaker 7: And on the death penalty, I heard you talk about
the death penalty before. Not just sure about your position
on it, but what do you think about the situation
where the woman calling adultry Jesus, you know, basically said
he who hasn't saying it can be the first one
that goes the storm. Do you think that's like against
the death penalty?
Speaker 2: No?
Speaker 1: Because in Romans thirteen, Paul pretty clearly advocates explicitly for
the death penalty, that the state has the right of
the sword. So, and there's other places where Paul talks
about the death penalty that he says in Romans won
that certain people they deserve death for these actions. So
the death penalty is taught in the New te The
woman caught in adultery was a setup to try to
trap Jesus, and Jesus, being the ultimate judge of the universe,
can also commit someone's commute someone's sentence, and forgive them
as he did with the woman. So there's nothing in
that instance that reverses or does away with the rest
of the New Testament and Old Testament passages that legitimate
the death penalty. And in fact, many of the early
Church Fathers also continue the teaching of the death penalty.
It's really not until much later and then certain sort
of Protestant pacifist circles that you even get people saying
that it's wrong to have the death penalty.
Speaker 7: Okay, and last question, I think I heard you say
and when you were debating Nicko Fointez or I'm not
sure exactly what debated was, but about certain like counsels
Orthodox counsels, being like, there is a possibility that some
of them can be wrong and you reject those Is
that true?
Speaker 1: Well, they wouldn't be Orthodox counsels if we reject them.
So no, an Orthodox council by definition is going to
be Orthodox. It's going to be teaching what's true. But
there have been false counsels. But everybody admits that, whether
you're Protestant, Roman, Catholic Orthodox, everybody agrees that there are
false counsels. So the question is, well, how do we
know and what sort of validates a true council? And
that's going to be different whether you're Protestant, Catholic, Orthodox.
All right, thanks, yeah, good questions. Ed, what's up? Man?
What's up? Ed Griffon nice Strom five dollars. I love
your stuff. I only click away when the person that
you debate is annoying to listen to. Well, thanks man,
I appreciate that. I think today has been pretty much
solid people. We didn't have any crazy wackos. Everybody was
pretty cool. I'm pretty chill. Patrick two five dollars. I
don't understand something. And the lecture that you did on Daniel,
you said that part of John's Apocalypse is warning about Nero.
In a later stream, you said it was about ninety
five AD. No, I don't believe that. I've always believed
that the Apocalypse was written prior to seventy a D.
Because I believed since two thousand and one in a
partial prederres view. So I'm not sure where you're saying
that I said in a later stream the Apocalypse is
about ninety five a D. I mean, I may have
misspoke or said something like saying that the latest date
that people give to John's apocalypse is towards the end
of the first century. But I don't believe that John.
What's up, man, somebody was fussing about some other minor
thing that I misspoke the other day. And it's like, guys,
if you do like multiple four or five hour live
streams or debates all the time, like you're gonna misstate stuff.
And I sometimes I hear if I listen back to
a podcast, Yeah, every now and then I'll misstate something, Okay,
but like that's not the end of the world, And
it's if you tell me or if you have a question,
I can explain it or how I perhaps misstated it.
But in most of these cases it's actually people misunderstood
what I said. But I do sometimes misstate things, sure,
everybody does. I mean that's part of being a fallible
human is that you're gonna misstate something. But I don't
remember believing in a late date for the Apocalypse. The
last time I believe that was like two thousand and two,
because once I read or no, even before that, I
read Gentry's book, and I read Chiltern's book, and I
read the four or five other partial preadorist books in
probably two thousand, So I've been partial predist before nine eleven.
Speaker 2: Dogs.
Speaker 1: So if I said that John's apartoss was written in
ninety five, ad oh, I know what you're talking about.
I know what you're saying. What I said was in
the Daniel lecture. I said, even the latest dating of
Daniel or the Apocalypse still has things that would be
admitted to be prophetic because of what happens in the
Roman Empire becoming christian for example, you know all that
the empire under which the Messiah is born becomes Christianized, Right,
that's the vision of Daniel and Daniel two. Even if
you date Daniel to Maccabee's time, which is the liberal dating,
it's still prophetic. So maybe you misunderstood the argument I
was making, and I said, even if you date the
Revelation of John to the late date, it's still prophetic
for elements of things like the Christianizing of the Roman
Empire and what Christianity would achieve in history. I was
not saying I believe the ninety five eighty dating. What's up, John?
Speaker 10: Hey are you doing?
Speaker 14: I guess you can hear me?
Speaker 1: Okay, huh, all right.
Speaker 14: I wanted to get your position on Christian nationalism.
Speaker 4: I don't know if that's something you hold, but my.
Speaker 14: Question regarding that would be, how would if such a
Christian nationalist type scenario were to come about with an
Orthodox type leadership, how would the Catholic and Protestant church's
fair under that.
Speaker 1: I mean, that only exists when you have a majority
of the population being Orthodox, so it's not even really
a relevant question. I mean, I do believe that nation
states when the vast majority of the people are Orthodox,
the state, through what's called symphonia, should reflect those values.
And that's what Roman Catholics and even some Protestants used
to believe. At least Classical Reformation people believe that the
state had a duty to God as well, even in
Protestant Nation States. So yes, the traditional teaching of the church,
whether you're Roman, Catholic, Protestant, or Orthodox, is some type
of Christian nationalism and or Christian Orthodox imperium that was
the norm throughout the Byzantine period.
Speaker 14: Okay, I was just curious to see what you thought
about that. There's been a lot of that on Twitter
x recently, and so his for you to ask.
Speaker 4: Thanks for having me on man.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I mean it's there's a lot of traps I
think going on with that stuff too, because we're not
at a period when this is really a viable thing.
And so I don't agree with James Lindsay on his
Enlightenment stuff, but I do think that there are people
who could conceivably conceivably be entrapped through some kind of
wild Christian nationalism. This could just not even relevant to now.
That could be breeding grounds for fed stuff. But that
does not mean that I believe that there's some sort
of pacifism or No. No, there ought to be a
Christian imperium when the majority of the people are Christian.
We don't live in that right now, So if that
ever happens that's like way down the road, Jonathan, what's up?
I mean, Christianity is not a go after the state
and enforce the type of thing. It's a bottom up.
You convert people the way that we do it, and
if from the majority of the people are Orthodox, then
you get a Christian state. What's up?
Speaker 2: Man?
Speaker 4: Hey can hear me? Okay?
Speaker 6: Yeah, all right, Hey, I had a question.
Speaker 15: So I am promisant, but I have listened to you,
so I'm curious.
Speaker 16: You know, haven't read anything, so pretty much just taktok
brain rot here.
Speaker 15: What do you think about the gates of Hell referring
to an actual physical location.
Speaker 1: I don't find that very convincing, because you know a
lot of times that you have a patristic exegesis and
the church fathers refer to the gates of Hell as
the mouths of the heretics.
Speaker 10: Okay, got it?
Speaker 16: And then what about how God.
Speaker 4: Interfaces with the culture over time?
Speaker 15: Does is it necessary to be orthomous to be saved?
Or you know, I mean I heard you earlier state
that to MUCHO much is given, much is required.
Speaker 4: But I now have heard.
Speaker 16: Written office requirements and am not inclined to pursue it.
You know, probably because I just enjoy the freedom that
I think Protestants in grants week, I recognize there's a
lot of cognitive dissonance.
Speaker 2: Within it from hearing your arguments.
Speaker 1: Your thoughts on that. Well, I mean, I think that's
a bad reason to remain Protestant because of quote freedom.
I mean, I don't even know what that means, because
that could mean to live a skittles lifestyle, that could
mean all kinds of things. I'm not saying I'm being serious.
I mean, I'm not saying that's what you mean. I'm
just saying, like, I don't know what that means. And
so I don't think just an appeal to some sort
of amorphous, abstracted notion of freedom is any kind of
coherent justification from why Orthodoxy isn't the true Church. I
think what you need to look at is what church
put the bubble together? What did the Christians of the
first thousand years believe? And if you're wanting to card
do for a sort of a you know, tailor made
buffet style approach, well that's the definition of a heritic
or schismatic.
Speaker 2: Joe Ed.
Speaker 1: Jay one dollar. Is there a prophecy that Rome will
return to orthodoxy. I don't know that's I don't I
don't know. There could be I'm not aware of that.
What's up man? Did you turn your mic on? Hey?
Speaker 2: You're there?
Speaker 1: Ye, what's on your mind?
Speaker 4: So? I know it's a little off topic.
Speaker 17: But the Christian nationalism thing, like if you had a
magic wand then you had the choice between having separation
of church and state in America or in the West
in general, versus a orthodox based nationalist country, what would
you choose?
Speaker 2: And have to quick follow up on that.
Speaker 1: Well, again, it would only work when the majority of
the population follows and believes the religion.
Speaker 2: So if.
Speaker 17: Yeah, okay, cool, I'm glad to hear that. And then
those on like Project twenty twenty.
Speaker 1: Five and.
Speaker 17: The the budget director I think his name is Islamic
last names like Vault. He was caught on a undercover camera.
I'm talking about how he's trying to slide in a
lot of like evangelical fundamentalist type of policies.
Speaker 2: And kind of like not maybe.
Speaker 17: Hijack or secretly hijack Trump's administration with some of his policies,
and you're seeing some of that actually come true.
Speaker 4: What's your thoughts on five and the cur administration.
Speaker 1: I've heard people talk about this. I haven't put much
thought into it. I don't think that you're actually going
to get an evangelical theocracy. I mean, I think that's
kind of crazy, but I mean it sounds like something
that the left is just sort of creating into a
giant bugaboo. It's probably a nothing burger. So, but I
haven't like read through it or whatever. I doubt that
that would go very far. So I'm looking for people
who disagree it's our last chance. I see a lot
of people who agree. We're not taking orthodox calls right now. Walter,
what's up? Gonna on? Mute? Walt Walter on you?
Speaker 17: Oh why?
Speaker 16: Why?
Speaker 2: What's up?
Speaker 4: So?
Speaker 18: I've been watching your debate with Alex Malpass on the
Losso logic. I think it's a very interesting topic. So
I was wondering if I could ask a couple of
questions about it.
Speaker 1: That was six seven years ago, but I'll try to
remember as much as I can. Go ahead.
Speaker 2: Oh yeah, it's a basic question.
Speaker 18: So what At one point he said that I can't
talk us about a priori truths and things that are
truth according to the definition of words and gives the
example of the truth a square.
Speaker 4: Is a polygon.
Speaker 18: That's just truth by bility of the definition of the
square and polygon. So my question is, could it be that,
for example, I think it's identical to itself.
Speaker 2: Could it be that it's just true.
Speaker 18: By built by the definition of the war identical.
Speaker 1: I didn't hear the last part. Why now, I mean, for.
Speaker 18: Example, or let's take law, the law of identity, I
think is identical with itself? Right, maybe that I think
this is a trivial truth from the definition of identical,
and it recall is no grounding.
Speaker 1: What would you say about this, Well, it's missing the
point about what grounding is. I mean, saying that something
is true by definition still doesn't ground it, because well,
how do we know that it's a true proposition just
because it appears to be self referencing or true. I mean,
that's really just missing the point of what self evidence is. Like,
it's not a question of so if you say A
equals A, is it self evident? Yeah, in a limited sense,
but it's still not solving the criteria problem, right, So
it's not addressing the epistemic question of justification. When you
say stuff like okay, well, A equals A seems self evident.
Speaker 18: Okay, I see, Okay, Well I have a second question.
So when atheists ask Christians, okay, why can't God make
a stone so heavy that he cannot lift it? What
Christians usually say is, oh, he cannot do it, because
this is this contracts the loss of logic. But this
implies that the loss of logic govern God. They limit
gods of nipoptance, So I mean, how could they be
granted in him if they actually go earned him?
Speaker 1: They covert him just like the That's not the route
I would take. It's a question of the word omnipotence,
and so they're importing a definition for the term that's
alien to and not what the system would determine. So,
if Christianity is true, if God exists, then what omnipotence
is is going to be conditioned by who he is,
his nature, his character, and so in the Christian definition,
God doesn't contradict himself and doesn't lie. Paul says, is
impossible for God to lie. So God cannot create a
rock that's bigger than he is, or impossible to lift
or whatever, because it's a outside of the nature of
God's determination.
Speaker 18: Okay, I see maybe one just one last question. What
if someone say that the fucks that logic also logic,
but facts.
Speaker 1: Well, just asserting that they are the case doesn't tell
me that that that's the case. That's an assertion. So
how does that solve the criteria problem? So we have
this question come up at the beginning. Criteria problem is
if you assert that you have knowledge, that assumes there's
some criteria of knowledge or what counts as knowledge. But
to say that you have a criteria knowledge before having
knowledge is itself a knowledge claim. So the criteria problem
is never addressed by people who just assert that, well,
that's just self evident, says who how do we know why?
Speaker 2: Okay, thanks here.
Speaker 1: So they're just sort of like ad hoc arbitrary assertions,
and you can't do that in philosophy. Eric, what's up, guys?
In remind you head on over to chalk dot com.
He's from Jay forty. You get forty percent off all
those great products over at chalk dot com. You can
unsubscribe at any time if you don't like the product.
I think you will, though it is a recurring subscription.
It gets you forty four percent off all those great
products over at chalk dot com. If you just want
to test it out, like the Tone Catiale, like the
Seven Wonders, like the Chad Mode, like the Action two
point zero, you can do so by using j Y forty.
That's j Y four zero, and you can buy these
individual You don't have to buy the whole stack. You
can get the individual products over at chalk dot com.
What's up, man, Hey, how are you good? What's on
your mind?
Speaker 2: Okay, so this is.
Speaker 19: In the realm of disagreement, but with an open mind,
trying to understand the Eastern Orthodox slash Catholic position.
Speaker 2: On the Eucharist.
Speaker 4: Okay, And so I know they're probably.
Speaker 19: Slightly different, but it's somewhat similar in just in layman
terms that you guys believe that the Eucharist becomes the
actual body of Christ and the blood.
Speaker 4: The actual blood.
Speaker 10: Right, So.
Speaker 19: It's just I know, it's kind of a basic question,
and you're probably tired of going over this.
Speaker 4: No.
Speaker 1: I like this question because it's a very clear way
to demonstrate the necessity of the essence entergy distinction, because
if you don't have it, then you don't have the
real presence, and any Roman Catholic that you talk to
will agree that the Eucharist is not the essence of God.
Nobody's eating the essence of God. And if you read
Cyril in the two Letters to sixth Census, and if
you read the decree the Anathemas of Ephesus, you'll see
that the argument about the Eucharist is a pretty strong
clincher argument. And if you read Cyril, it's only sensible
if you believe in the essenceyenter distinction, which Rome doesn't.
So I would like to ask you, how is the
real presence if the grace that's there is a created reality?
Speaker 2: Uh?
Speaker 4: Can you ask a question one more time?
Speaker 1: How is it a real presence if what you're getting
in terms of the grace is a created reality? I
don't know exactly. So either there's multiple gods, because there's
created God and uncreated God, or there's an essence energy
distinction by which we participate in the uncreated life, light
and immortality of Christ through his deified flesh.
Speaker 4: So I guess does it become his actual flesh.
Speaker 1: Or what is I would?
Speaker 2: I don't like.
Speaker 1: So the Roman Catholic dictum is body, blood, soul and divinity.
I don't have a problem agreeing with a Roman outlic
about that. But the question is, Okay, what do you
mean when you say divinity, because it's if you don't
have the energies, you don't have the divinity.
Speaker 19: I guess I'm just confused on whether or not it's
symbolic because when you're taking the Eucharist, it still is
the bread, right, and when you're drinking the wine, it
still is the wine.
Speaker 1: I thought, so, I thought, you're arguing in the Catholic position.
Speaker 4: No, I'm you know, I No, I'm not. I'm not
a Catholic, Okay, no, No, So like I'm more of
an inquirer.
Speaker 19: I see, But I was raised Protestant, and so I'm
sort of, like I said, I'm disagreeing, but I'm open
minded to you know, like hearing.
Speaker 4: I'm open to being convinced of your position.
Speaker 1: Basically, yeah, I mean, visibly speaking, it has the appearance
of bread and wine, but we believe that it really
is changed during the uh you know, Epiclesis and the
priestly prayer, so it really is the real presence.
Speaker 19: And you're you're getting that from the passages in the
Gospel where Jesus is saying drink of my blood and
eating my body.
Speaker 2: Is that where that comes?
Speaker 1: I mean, I think there's a whole bunch of passages
that contribute to this, as well as Revelation five through nine.
The lamb is slain in heaven, John is seeing a
heavenly worship service, which is the same worship service as
what we see in the liturgy. I think it's also
in First Corinthians when Paul talks about the dangers of
partaking unworthily, which wouldn't make sense of his only symbolic
but he says that if you eat of this in
unworthy way, you can die. Hebrews thirteen has a significant
section when it talks about the altar that we eat from.
That's where Paul uses the terminology of eucharistic altar. So
I think a lot of passages, not just John six,
but a lot of passages contribute to the real presence doctrine,
as well as the tradition in every one of the
ancient seas having a liturgical service that is a eucharistic
offering sacrifice and mentioning the real presence. So the ancient
liturgies themselves also prove this.
Speaker 8: Right.
Speaker 4: So the Okay, to the real presence. I guess I
would need help with how I maybe I can go
do some homework as to like.
Speaker 19: Understanding what that means, because in the context of the
English language it literal means like very literal.
Speaker 1: Right, Like there's a change. And I'll tell you that.
If you want a great Orthodox statement, read what Cyril
writes to the two letters to six Census, Saint Cyril
of Alexandria. You can find those letters online. And the
way that he talks about the deified flesh of Christ
in the Resurrection, he says, that's the exact same deified
flesh that we eat in the Eucharist. Hence, read those
two letters and then read Cyril's anathemas that the twelve
anathemas against the story said ephesis, and you will see
the connection between christology in the Eucharist says that we
eat his deified flesh. That's what deifies us. Okay, And
the Walman Catholic Church is crazy because they don't have
this clear teaching.
Speaker 4: What's the difference between Orthodox.
Speaker 1: And Catholic Because they don't have the essence energy distinction,
and so they don't have a notion of the flesh
of Christ in the incarnation, being deified by the uncreated energy,
energies and immortality of Christ who took it on and
thus by extension brought the bread and the wine, becoming
the deified flesh in the Eucharist. That's only possible with
the essence energy distinction, because there's there's limited options here.
Are we eating the essence of God or are we
partaking of the energies when we eat His flesh and blood?
There's only two options. If you are Roman Catholic, you're
not gonna say we eat the essence of Gud. Nobody
says that. Okay, So what's the divinity that we're eating body, blood, soul, divinity?
What is the divinity in that phrase? Roman Catholics have
to say, it's a created supernatural reality. Okay, Well, that's
not deification if it's just another creature. Jesus says he
came to gave us, give us a share of the
glory and immortality that he has with the Father John seventeen.
That's not created. God's glory is not a creature, it's
uncreated glory. Well, how are we partaken of that? If
the If we don't particure of the essence. It's the
essence energy distinction.
Speaker 2: Okay, I'm going need.
Speaker 19: To study up more on that, and I'm really interested
to learn more and not to be too autistic, but
like when you're in the liturgy and you're about to
take the sacraments, are you about to take the Eucharist?
Speaker 4: How is it facilitated that.
Speaker 1: The essence of Christ is in the ukras that I
just said, it's not the essence of God. And that's
the Roman Catholic would have to be. The Roman Countis
have to be in that position if they believe that
you're eating the divinity. Okay, so we're eating body, blood, soul,
and divinity. The Orthodox position is the only one that
can make sense of this by having the essence entered distinction,
because that's what deifies Christ's human nature. What we are
partaking of in the Eucharist is identical to the human
nature that he assumed his body. Ephesus teaches this as
clear as day in the anathemis. I'm not fussing at you,
I'm just saying, like you would think people could just
go read the two Letters to six Census, where he
says that Christ's body is not deified by the essence,
it's deified by the uncreated gifts of grace and immortality,
and the same principle is applied to the Eucharist. It's
very clear. I'm not fussing at you, but just saying, like,
Roman Catholics cannot get this, even though every Roman Catholic
who's worth assault believes in the real presence. The only
way to have the real presence doctrine is if you
believe in the essence inergy section and it's I.
Speaker 19: Think I'm coming at it from more of a Protestant position,
even though I'm not Protestant.
Speaker 4: Is how it's raised.
Speaker 19: So it's more of like trying to grasp the real
presence like versus the symbolic.
Speaker 4: But no, I mean, I'm going to read up on
what you what you mentioned.
Speaker 19: And then I was also just curious, like, during the liturgy,
is it when the priest blesses the Eucharist.
Speaker 1: Is that one called the epiclesis, which is the calling
down to the Holy Spirit and the words of Institution. Right,
so Roman Catholics believe, for whatever reason, that it's literally
just the words of Institution when the priest says the
magic words. The Orthodox view doesn't have this weird legalistic
attitude as if you could, as if the Epiclesis, which
is the calling down the Holy Spirit, is not part
of it. So you're just gonna get too that they're
just hyper rigid legalists. They're silly. I mean, I don't
It's like, I'm not trying to be rude to you,
it's just I don't understand why this is so confusing
to these people, not you, but to the Roman Catholics.
It's actually not that confusing if you're a Protestant coming
to this, believe it or not. And I've been making
this argument for years now. Oh, I mean, I've never
heard Roman Kelly address this. But you know why, because
they don't care what Ephesus says. They don't read ephesis.
Remember Voice of Reasons says Ephesus aired, And he doesn't
even realize how stupid and damning that is to his
own position. When he says that Ephesus aired and condemning
the Storius because the Storius wasn't actually heterodox. You understand
that means that the acts and the anathemas are also
therefore erroneous, because the acts and the anathemas are all
about Nestorius. Okay, let's go down to the anathemas. Don't
talking about the canons. About the anathemas. Okay, every one
of these anathemas is about what Nestorius teaches. They're about
him by name. And he makes an argument about the Eucharist.
If anyone does not confess that the flesh of the
Lord is life giving and belongs to the Word, but
maintains that it belongs to another beside him, a mere man,
let him be anathema. That's talking about the Eucharist. If
you read Cyril's writings, he argues this argument against Nastorius
about the Eucharist. But when did Roman Catholics ever care
about the context and the actual theologians arguments. They just
care about what the documents themselves say that supports the
papal position. But I've read Cyril at length of Alexandria.
You could just read, for example, a small work like
on the Unity of Christ, where he will make these
types of arguments, and it's not that hard, you would
think to understand this. But there's a veil over their minds.
They are their minds are cloud. They cannot grasp this
because they don't understand the basics. They don't even understand
the Trinity. They think the Trinity is some weird diad
of an absolute essence, and it's like, that's not even
the right starting point for the triad. Starting point is
the person of the Father, as the Creed says. So
you're dealing with a weird philosophy cult when you're talking
about most Roman Catholics. And again it's funny because no
Roman Catholic will say that you're eating the Essence in
the Eucharist. Okay, well what are you eating? The only
other option for them is to say that it's a created,
supernatural reality. Well, that means that it's a created God,
and that means that you're under the anathema of Ephesis
Anathema eleven because what you get is not life giving.
If it's a creature, this is life giving, because Cyril
says in the Two Letters to six Census, it's the
uncreated immortality, life, light and grace that deifies the flesh.
If any Roman Catholic actually understood this argument, this alone
would refute Rome. This refutes them, and it's not even
that difficult of an argument. Jaden, twenty seven, Canadian Jay
dow or the goat please to offer you some shuckles
keeping me entertained. Keep up the work, good work. I
figure out stream labs this next time, this money is
going straight to you. Well, yeah, you could just click
over if you want to the next time, the stream
labs link will take you over to a different page
and then you just have to put the information in there.
But of course stream labs is all given to the creators.
If you use YouTube, you know they take thirty percent.
Lower score golf with Ryan five dollars. I would argue
against your eucharistic view. Yeah, please come back on where
you're at. Oh are you that Roman Kelly did? It's
super annoying. Again, you're not even listening to what I'm arguing.
I know that you think as a Roman Catholic you're
partaking of divine life. But the argument is that it's
not a consistent position because it's not the essence of God.
What's your other option? Your only other option as a
Roman Catholic is a created reality. Ryan, what is your
profile name? I need to know your profile name. This
is going to be challenging. Let me see if I
can find his Tell me your handle and I can
unblock you. If you go into blocks like there's just
tons of people, I'll never find you in there. So
what's your actual handle? Ryan? I need your handle? Okay? Ryan?
Speaker 2: K here?
Speaker 1: All right, Ron, I'm sending you in DMS the link. Yeah,
I got him. I unblocked him and sent him a link.
So we're just waiting on Ryan to show up. Hit
request to speak Ryan. Where you're at?
Speaker 17: Ryan?
Speaker 1: I thought you were about to pop up. We'll go
to Wizzy while while we're waiting on Ryan. What's up, Wizzy?
I'm you got I'm mute Wizzy. Yeah.
Speaker 4: So I'm just currently Roman Catholic.
Speaker 20: I'm kind of on my way out, and I'm just
wondering about the limbo of the Fathers and if the
Orthodox hold to this.
Speaker 1: Well, we believe in the heroling of Hades, so there's
some overlap with the Roman Catholic idea. But look up
the you know, heroling of Hades, that's a universal Orthodox teaching.
Speaker 20: Oh yeah, and then just a second question. I've been
kind of focused on more of the papers, see, but
I kind of neglected a lot of the theological differences.
It's just there any good beginner resources for things like essence, energy,
distinction and theosis.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I would start with something like mystical theology of
the Eastern Church, and then I would move on to
something like Professor Manseritis's both deification of Man. Those would
be places to start, uh, and then you can kind
of work on from there. Where's Ryan? At Ryan? We're
waiting on you? Where you at.
Speaker 4: Ed?
Speaker 1: What's up? While we're waiting on Here's Ryan? So we'll
go to add and then we'll go to Ryn. What's up?
Speaker 4: Ed?
Speaker 1: I'm you.
Speaker 2: Let me help this time.
Speaker 4: Yeah, I think there is something bugging with it.
Speaker 14: How you doing?
Speaker 2: Man?
Speaker 1: What's up?
Speaker 2: I wanted to pick your brain.
Speaker 8: I know before we kind of talked and came to
a consensus of like, secularism is a mistake just as
a whole right. But I feel like maybe there is
an argument to we had about misinterpreting religious freedoms in
the United States. Do you think it's just wholesale religious
freedom or do you think maybe it is specific to
what I would think is like the context of the time,
not wanting to be persecuted by state church, not wanting
the benefits to be denominational specifically the Anglicans, and you
know quotes from John Adams about like the Constitution is
made for a moral and religious people, it is wholly
inadequate for any other right.
Speaker 4: I would then kind of.
Speaker 8: Be led to this idea that if the state and
the nation are separate, I don't know if this is
just semantics right the right then if a nation is
a group of people's and not necessarily the state, right
is it would it then be I guess on target
to say the state was meant to be secular, but
the nation was not.
Speaker 10: The peoples was not.
Speaker 1: No, I mean Romans thirteen says that the state is
a diaconos, a minister of God. So it's never been secular.
Speaker 8: Sure, But I'm talking about in the in the context
of the Framers.
Speaker 4: In the United States.
Speaker 1: Are you so you're saying they said it was secular.
I don't have any opinion on that. Maybe they did,
maybe they thought it was a quasi Christian.
Speaker 8: Well, no, I'm saying as they wanted to set it
up here, right, not in relation to.
Speaker 4: The Church as a whole.
Speaker 1: I'm saying that I understand that there are traditional American
debates about how quote Christian the Framers and Founders thought
that the church and state relationships were supposed to be.
I'm just saying I don't really care about I'm not
being rude. I just don't really have any set opinion
on it because some of them were Christians, some of
them were Deists.
Speaker 8: I mean, okay, I guess uh. The only thing I
would have left for you is if I could follow
up with a question about a tag position. I think
tag is a strong argument. I've you know, done my
due diligence and trying to understand the position, and you
know the.
Speaker 4: I read a bit of the Emmanuel.
Speaker 8: Kent but.
Speaker 1: But I mean Kant is not TAG, so but go ahead.
Speaker 8: Well right, yeah, But the in trying to understand transidentals
show My question then is how does it only lead
to the Christian God.
Speaker 1: I mean, I've got old talks that address this, but
to go into it, just in brief, I would say
that the reason that it points in the direction of Christianity,
or specifically Orthodox triad is that really only the Orthodox
worldview gives you the metaphysical toolkit to do the grounding
work is and that takes quite a bit of argument
and time to flesh all that out. But I want
our Rouman Catholic buddy to come back and argue about
the Eucharist. Ryan, you want to, I'm mute, hey.
Speaker 2: Excorry about that. I didn't realize the transition over you
might you might be disappointed.
Speaker 21: I don't necessarily have a full blown argument for this
yet because it's one of the distinct arguments of the
Eastern Orthodox that is sort of on the list.
Speaker 2: And you be actually is kind of giving me articles
here and there and STU have to read. But I
think I have like four categories of like potential pushback
on it.
Speaker 21: One uh yeah, yeah, yeah, ok, so as ince and energies,
and it basically falls into like it compromises the divine
simplicity of God.
Speaker 1: So man, I mean, I'm not trying to be rude too, dude,
but like this is like, do you not think that
we've dealt without objection? I mean, I thought you want
to debate the Eucharist, and now you're saying you want
to talk about like the number like the number one
objections about sincerean distinction.
Speaker 8: Well do you?
Speaker 21: I mean, when you were just talking about the uchars
in that Protestant or non precedent, you know what whatever
he was called, in the way you articulated the argument
I actually have never I don't think I've ever read
it or heard it.
Speaker 2: That way, and it sparked interesting me. So that's why
I commented.
Speaker 21: It was like, hey, I would actually like to formulate
an argument against this potentially and bring it to you.
Speaker 2: I didn't mean now.
Speaker 21: Once I'm able to, but I did want to get
some clarification on it because I think I might have
some misrepresentations of it.
Speaker 1: So first of all, if you read the debate between
Pola Moss and the Barley Mind, which is an eighty
page debate, the debate actually goes into what we partake
of and how do we partake of God without compromising
his simplicity. So I can tell you from the outset
the idea that a strong real distinction in God compromising
his simplicity is itself a problem in the Romancalolic position,
because you believe that the persons are really distinct in
the trinity. So if real distinctions compromise it, you're already
compromising it by being a sanitarian.
Speaker 2: Okay, So yeah, that the composition issue. The other part
of it was the.
Speaker 21: Like the cappit Docians in Dionysius, they used to use language,
and I could be wrong. I'm going out the top
of my head processions, right, and like operations.
Speaker 1: The word is still in the Greek inner gaea. I mean,
you know that's in the New Testament, right.
Speaker 21: Yeah, yeah, yeah, But did they ever posit a real
metaphysical like divide from God?
Speaker 1: Not a divide. It's a distinction, is not division. Just
like when Basil makes the same argument about the persons,
he says that the distinction between God and his energies
or operations is no different than the distinction between the
persons or the person and the nature and the triad.
Speaker 2: Okay, what was the what was the the poalmus? And
what was the other person?
Speaker 1: Dialogue with the Barley of Mind is an eighty page
book that is a debate on this very topic between
a can Dinos and Barlem.
Speaker 2: Okay.
Speaker 21: And I think part of the problem is I'm not
like I don't I'm not scholastic and full in the
sense of like Aquinas and stuff, So like I had
more Ciscotus on that side, So that might be some
of my confusion.
Speaker 1: Well, I mean, but Scotis doesn't really help the case,
because a formal distinction doesn't really tell us anything about
what we participate in. So in the dialogue that I'm
recommending to you, the course of the argument proceeds from
originally questions about composition and simplicity, and it eventually moves
into Palamas, arguing, well, what do you think we participate
in if there's not actual energies that are different from
the essence, The Paloma synods end up using the terminology
of a different reality. The reality of foreknowledge cannot be
identical to the reality of providence and the reality of
the divine essence, because, for example, God does different things
and does different works. So if for example, he creates
a world over which he's provident, the exercising of the
attribute of providence requires a world. But God did not
eternally have a world over which he was provident.
Speaker 2: You see.
Speaker 1: So there has to be some distinction in God between
energies that are potential or that are powers versus those
that are actualized. And this is part of what the
essence sentity distinction does to make the note that God
does different things. God wrested from the work of creating,
so he's not eternally creating.
Speaker 2: Right.
Speaker 1: Likewise, it says in Scripture and Zechari and in Isaiah
and in the Book of Revelation that there are seven
spirits of God and it lists those spirits as being
upon the son of God. Does that mean there's seven
holy spirits? Is God's wisdom? Knowledge?
Speaker 2: Fear? Is that?
Speaker 1: Are those things creatures?
Speaker 4: So?
Speaker 1: Well, did you hear what I said though, the seven
spirits of God?
Speaker 2: Well? No, obviously the have of not say that. That's
I don't think I would.
Speaker 1: Agree with that obviously, Okay, so are they? Are they
the essence of going?
Speaker 21: Well, that that's kind of that's my I think that's
my next obvious question then, is like how do you
have like are the energies actual ontological distinctions in God
or conceptual distinctions?
Speaker 1: Now, they're really different realities, not mere conceptual distinctions, because
the reality of the divine essence cannot be identical to
the reality of providence, because if the divine essence is
necessary and eternal, then Providence is necessary and eternal. Then
there's a world over which God is providential for all
eternity necessarily.
Speaker 2: So it is multiple realities.
Speaker 1: That's the terminology that the palmit sonods used. Different distinct realities.
Speaker 2: Okay, all right, that makes it and if you.
Speaker 1: Look at one hundred fifty chapters, it's like ninety eight
till like one oh three where palm moss E gauges
in and reductio arguments to prove that there are different realities.
And one of the arguments that he uses in those
reductios is what you just heard me.
Speaker 21: Use, okay, And you would probably believe that, like the
entire Latin tradition fell into heresy because Palamas teachings were
pretty much condemned in entirety, right, correct, So you would
agree that the Latin tradition fell into heresy from that
point or some point, Yes.
Speaker 1: But particularly during the period of twelve seventy four alliance
with the dogmatic definition of a double eternal hypostite procession.
The response Council Blackerne, the Palomite Synods and the Council
of Florence is the official departure. And there's a great
orange book here called Palamas's Readings by Norman Russell, and
it has all the Palomite Synods in it.
Speaker 4: Is there.
Speaker 2: Like pre schismatic language for the essence of energies.
Speaker 1: Yes, letter two thirty four Basil says that we do
not know or experience God's essence, but the energies or
operations the energeia come down to us. You could look
at Basils on the Holy Spirit, where he argues that
one way that we know that the Holy Spirit is
fully divined is that he has the same energy as
the Father and the Son. To have the same energy
signifies the same nature. You could look at Sat Maximus,
a confessor who uses the energies all the time in
his polemics. In his dispute with Paris, he uses the energies.
Saint Cyril of Alexandri uses the energies to help explain
what it is that's going on in the Eucharist and
what's going on in Christology. The Six Ecumenical Council, even
in the Latins with Pope Agatho, says that Christ has
two wills and two energies. That means he does different things.
So to have Theophanes, for example, requires the essence energy stinction.
There's no other way. There's no other toolkit or system
that explains or allows for the Theophanes to be real
other than the orthodox theological system. And that's why all
the Thomas have been openly denying it. In the last
month on Twitter.
Speaker 21: Interesting, Okay, And for the sake of sounding like reducing
this to such a ridiculously simple.
Speaker 2: Degree, what is like?
Speaker 21: Uh So, in Eastern Orthodoxy, you guys believe that you
guys are consuming the the divinity.
Speaker 2: Obviously, obviously both sides believe that.
Speaker 21: But what's the what would be the term that you
would distinctly say is different between what we're consuming.
Speaker 1: We believe that we're partaking of a deified flesh that
is deified by the uncreated energies of Christ, and a
Roman Catholic must believe in some way that it is
a created reality that is the grace, the grace itself.
We're not talking about the elements. We all know the
elements are created. We're not talking about Christ's physical body, Okay,
we know that's created. The grace itself in the Roman
college system must be a created reality because it is
not the essence of God.
Speaker 2: Okay, So that's what I was going to, the essence,
not the energy. Okay.
Speaker 1: Well, no, I'm saying the Roman Catholic position it doesn't
have the toolkit to explain it or to agree with
Ephesus and Cyril, because they say, well, we're not eating
the essence, So what is the divinity?
Speaker 22: Then?
Speaker 1: Well, if you read the polemight the debate between pallem
Aus and Barlamite Barley ends up I said, I can
I know something Barlin. Barlin ends up arguing, or maybe
as Ichonis for you, but he ends up arguing that
it's a created reality and he says, so there's created
God and he says, yes, well that's polytheism.
Speaker 2: Right, yeah, clearly, Okay, you might have asked one more question.
Speaker 21: Sure, so if God, uh, obviously I think you'd agree, like,
God's not subject to time or potentiality, right or would
you disagree with that?
Speaker 1: So the if you look at the Cappadocian teaching on
first and second actuality, they point out that God has
powers that he doesn't have to actualize. So from all
eternity he has the power of creating. That does not
mean that he has always been creating, you see. So
that's the difference between the dunamis or the power and
doing and acting on the power. Okay, so in that sense,
there's first and second actuality in God. But no Tomas
would ever say that, because they would say that that
necessarily means God undergoes change and that he's a creature.
But the only way to maintain free will is to
believe and to point to what we're talking about.
Speaker 2: Yeah, and I don't know that Scotus would agree with
the Thomas on that one.
Speaker 1: But well hold on.
Speaker 2: So uh.
Speaker 1: Even so, the formal distinction of the attributes, the only
analogy that it shares with quote pallemism is that it's
a stronger level of a distinction between the attributes and
the divine essence. But Scotism does not in any way
help answer the dilemma of the Eucharist and what you
partake of and whether the grace that we partake of
is uncreated. It doesn't even really go there. It's only
a position about a quote formal distinction, which is really,
according to critics, and I would even agree with the Thomas,
it's kind of unclear as to what exactly that is.
And you know, in the Patristic tradition, when you have
the six Council or Maximus against Peuris at the sixth Council.
In his book, like he's not using these Scotist ideas,
he's just simply saying that now it's a real participation
in uncreated energies okay.
Speaker 21: And that leads to me just one more question, sorry,
motion with God? Like would are you okay with God?
Because you said I agree with the potentials. Actually they've
always agreed with that. It always bugged me that the
West kind of had issues with God's potentials.
Speaker 2: I think the.
Speaker 21: Protestant view actually, if you remember Calvinism, like the decreed
will and the permissive will, that kind of think.
Speaker 1: A line of thinking, well, this is more to do
with what's possible for God to do in time and space.
And so the ultimate difficulty here is number one, the Theophanes.
But when Roman Catholics struggle with or deny a Theophanes,
they don't even realize they're already negating the incarnation. Because
the incarnation is the second hypostasis of the Godhead becoming
incarnate in time and space. He's self limiting. So the
Philippians two passage, the Kenosis passage, means that the second
hypostasis is willfully limiting himself in time and space. The
Father is not becoming incarnate, the Spirit is not becoming incarnate.
So you need a metaphysics and a toolkit that allows
for one hypostasis to enter into a motive being that
the other two do not. But in Catholic absolute divine simplicity,
reducing God to actus purists and so forth negates already
the possibility of one hypostasis entering the time of space
that the other two don't, because in their view, if
God's reducible to essence, then it's the essence of God
that became incarnate. It's just stupid, yeah, and that is.
Speaker 2: It is something I've always had an issue.
Speaker 21: I think the adoption of the Thomas view in such
a grand sweep has been a problem with that. But
so then you would say, like, if I wanted to
argue against this, right, obviously I got to go do
Like I've been working on the people and fallibility stuff
for so long, I've been looking at your arguments for that.
Speaker 2: Right.
Speaker 1: Well, just look at Leviticus nine. It says that the
glory of the Lord appeared visibly to all the people.
Fire came down from God and consumed the burnt offering
on the altar. When the people saw it, they shouted
and fell in their faces. So here is a manifestation
of divine glory. Nobody believes divine glory as a creature,
as far as I've heard that would be idolatry just
to assign to a created thing divine glory. I mean,
that's definition of idea culture.
Speaker 2: You would say that, like humans never see the God's essence.
Speaker 1: Then correct, this is an energetic manifestation, a divine theophany,
which is the divine energies in time and space.
Speaker 21: This might be such a stupid question, but how would
you reconcile that with Like, first John, what specific sorry
specifically like we shall see him as he is.
Speaker 1: Well? But in Tewo Corinthians three he ascribes that aschotological
reality to the here and the now. He says, Moses
saw Christ's face to face, and what was unique and
rare in the Old Testament seeing Christ's face to face
on the mountain of Mount Sinai is now available to
the Orthodox in this life because glorification is here and now.
That's Paul's argument in St. Corinthiy's three, what was unique
in the Old Testament is now the norm for the
Christian of the New Testament. We see Christ face to face,
he says. He says, moving from glory to glory, that's
glorification here and now. So that's a reputation, by the way,
of beatific vision.
Speaker 21: So like First John three then and Red twenty two
is like, for you guys, it's Jesus in that specifically
Jesus in that view the incarnate face rather.
Speaker 2: Than the it would be no essence of the Father
or anything.
Speaker 1: Well, John saying eschatologically that we will all see him
as he is, does not deny it or negate that
in this life we also see him as he is.
For example, Stephen, when he's being stoned, he looks up
into heaven and he sees the uncreated light shining off
the face of Christ. He sees the uncreated glory here
and now. So even the Book of Acts was Stephen's martyrdom,
refutes the idea that First John is excluding anybody from
seeing that until the escatone.
Speaker 21: Okay, so just one last thing, just so, way, make
sure I'm headed down the right pathway here as I
try to, you know, engage this and hopefully come back
with an actual argument.
Speaker 2: Okay, that you would say that the main pinnacle of
this thing is like that, I.
Speaker 21: Would have to prove that we don't believe that the
U Christ is a created and created energy.
Speaker 1: I'm sorry, h Well, I mean it's already in Roman
Catholic dogma that it is a creature. So you can
look at Luluigot when he talks about sanctifying grace, he says,
it is a It is not God himself, It is
a supernatural created accident. So I think you're gonna have
to unless you can show that aught is wrong there
or something, I think you're going to have to go
down the route of saying that's a created God.
Speaker 2: So what would.
Speaker 21: If you could articulate, like like what I was trying
to do just now, which is like articulate the thing
that I need to refute but object to.
Speaker 1: Or rather, I guess, explain to me what the divinity
is that you're partaking of in the Eucharist.
Speaker 2: Okay, all right, that would be cool.
Speaker 1: All Right, I'm gonna while while while I have you,
let me show you exactly where, because we've already got
Roman Catholics or people that are saying they're Roman Catholic.
I don't know if they actually are.
Speaker 2: Or not, but because I know that, I mean obviously like.
Speaker 21: We we are partaking in the divine, like I understood
that very basic essence or essence that's rock words for
right now at a very basic level like that is
with the Yuchs alvias Is and coming from Protestant theology,
I for me, getting to the real presence point of
view took you know, a while or whatever, blah blah blah.
So now engaging this is just like it seems like
a whole nother hill. But I mean, I think it's necessary.
It's probably I would say, one of the pinnacles screwed
people and failability and stuff.
Speaker 2: This is more important.
Speaker 1: Actually, I agree with you because you know, when I
was back in two thousand and seven eight, when I
was kind of struggling between being Uniate or being Tradcat
or being Orthodox, you know, I'll put a lot of
time into papal stuff and I kept I found I
found that I kept going just in circles with papal
quotes and quote minds. And then then you find out
about forgeries, and it's like, how am I I'm never
getting anywhere with an infinite stream of papal quote minds.
And uh, that's when I started looking at the theological
issues more specifically versus the ecclesiastical and ultimately that's what
made me never go back to the Roman Catholic Church now. Uh,
in this arguent article that I wrote many years ago,
Roman Catholic absolute divine simplicity refuted. If you scroll down
past a lot of the refuge references, eventually I get
to the section on created grace. And my argument is
that created grace is solidified in a few different places,
one of which is the Council of Trent, which talks
about the fact that in baptism, when you're baptized, the
grace that you're getting and the righteousness that you're getting
is quote not God himself. It is not the righteousness
or justice of God, but it is a created reality
that makes you just That's in Trent Canon's ten and eleven.
And then if you go down to literally God, he says,
this is the sections in the funnels of Catholic dogma
on grace. Proposition number one is sanctifying grace is a created,
supernatural gift really distinct from God. So there you go
right there, and then literally contradicting that is proposition five.
Supernatural grace is a participation in the divine nature.
Speaker 2: Can you can you expand on that just a little
bit in terms of like what the contradiction.
Speaker 1: The divine nature is not a create your creature. So
if sanctifying grace is a creation distinct from God, then
it's not a part in the divine nature. But proposition
five says that it's a participation in the divine nature.
Speaker 2: Okay.
Speaker 21: My immediate thought is the sanctifying grace as a created
supernatural gift?
Speaker 2: Is it has less to do with the.
Speaker 21: I mean this is again the wrong word to use,
but the material or essence of the euchris and rather
the fact that.
Speaker 2: We are partaking in it, which would allow for supernatural grace. No,
that it actually doesn't work near mine? Okay. And this
articles on.
Speaker 1: Your site right, Yes, it's called Roman Catholic absolute divine
simplicity refuted. And okay, the towards the bottom is the
section on created grace.
Speaker 2: Okay, yeah, I'll get this. And then you said Columbus
the eighty chapter.
Speaker 1: Yeah, the look, it's an eighty pages, it's not very long.
It's called Dialogue with a barleyon Mite. Okay, And you
can get that from NYU Press. It may be on Amazon.
I'm not sure what why is this not a matter
of debate more, We've been bringing it up for ten years.
Speaker 2: What do you mean?
Speaker 21: Like I keep seeing everyone debate again papal and fallibility.
Speaker 2: Like, I feel pretty confident in arguing for that.
Speaker 21: I feel pretty confident in arguing for the unity of
the Church and all that stuff against the Eastern. But
like this, I don't think I've ever seen an actual
debate on this. Is there anything you can point me
to that are remotely recent or now?
Speaker 1: There's no Roman Catholics that are smart enough to debate it.
They're stupid. I'm not being mean, it's just the fact
the last time there was an attempted debate on this
was just a conversation between me and Lofton eight years ago. Okay,
so there's a conversation between me and Michael Lofton. You
can still find it where I go through this book
right here, dialogue between Orthodox and borlow Man. By the way,
it's free online. I don't even realize it's on. You
could go to archive and just download it and print
it out if you don't want to say it's only
like twenty bucks.
Speaker 2: Though, yeah, I'll probably do that, and I'll go through
your article.
Speaker 1: You will see, by the way, if you read this book,
everything that you hear me, like the stuff that I argue,
it's all just from this.
Speaker 21: So does anything from Palamise like outside of this in
his theology, you know, raise questions for you at all
or no or it or you like is it? Do
you think he was articulated as a heretic in those things,
those that were done because they strictly flew in the
face of the West.
Speaker 1: Yeah, okay, yeah, I know. He's one of our pillars
of worthotoxy so.
Speaker 2: Right, okay, awesome, Yeah, dude, I appreciate your time, precio.
I'm blocking it. I know we last time we had
a fucking yeah.
Speaker 1: Fat well that s there's a lot more civil conversations.
I appreciate it.
Speaker 2: Yeah, not me too, for sure.
Speaker 21: So I'll hopefully come back and throw throw an argument
together and you can shoot on it, so we'll see.
Speaker 1: No appreciate it. And I think we've got another one here.
Here's our other uni eate guy who's always wanted to
throw in the uniate stuff. Oh, I just took a
bunch of uniate argument notes. Go ahead, what's up? Are
you there, Jim?
Speaker 2: Jim?
Speaker 1: Are you there? Bond? Since twenty five, he says, is
Mount Tabor the only time that God the Father speaks
to man. Well, God of every action or every theophany
is triaddic. So no, but I think you're saying, like,
is that the only time that we hear an energetic
manifestation proper to the Father? Well, at christ Baptism, this
is my beloved Son. So even though that's an energy
proper to the Father, it is still triadic, right, just
like the Theophanes in the Old Testament, those are proper
to the Son. They're still triadic. And there's still a
sense in which it's the trinity as well. Now it's
not the whole triad or the divine essence in time
and space, but you never have, for example, the presence
of the Son without the Father and the Spirit with him,
because they endwell one another.
Speaker 2: Right, So.
Speaker 1: Where'd that gotta go? Jim? Where are you at?
Speaker 4: Man?
Speaker 1: Thought you're coming about? Here you go, Let's try again.
I think Jim's a union.
Speaker 10: Hey can you hear me?
Speaker 1: Yep?
Speaker 2: Hey can you hear me?
Speaker 10: Oh?
Speaker 4: Sorry, yeah, I was watching.
Speaker 2: My question is on natural theology.
Speaker 4: I was watching.
Speaker 2: An interview with Richard Swinberg and Bradshaw.
Speaker 23: And the thing to be advocating for natural theology in
a certain way, and my experience with it is the
Eastern northernox Church over the past century is kind of
skeptical of natural theology that we don't really advocate for it,
particularly would your.
Speaker 1: Yeah. I mean I think doctor Bradshaw, like most academics,
as probably being as charitable and as amenable as possible.
The book that they put out about natural theology doesn't
really even address the Orthodox critique until a very late chapter,
and it basically just admits that. Yeah, some of the
you know, famous Greek theologians have been critical of it,
like Losky, some other Russian theologians too. I think I
mentioned about Britn's school. I forget who it says, but
the point being is that, yeah, well of course we
critique it. Losquit has many critiques of it. Stanielou has
critiques of it.
Speaker 23: Yeah, And is swin Bird an advocate of social trina
pairing Trinny and Terroanism because a good question.
Speaker 1: I don't actually know. I've read one critique of him.
He's a He's a Thomist, so I don't understand why
anybody wants to follow a Thomas and the Romanelly Church,
but I mean Northup Church.
Speaker 23: Yeah, he's so he's kind of a weird cat because
he is Orthodox. He says he's Orthodox, but then he's
like way off on some something.
Speaker 1: I know exactly. Yeah, the best critique of the best
critique of swinburn on this point is have you read
Theistic Fallacies?
Speaker 4: No?
Speaker 1: Oh, you got to read this. So this is an
article written by doctor Gariby and it's right here.
Speaker 7: Uh.
Speaker 1: He takes Swinburne as his chief example of someone to critique,
and he just takes him to wich Wood Shed. Basically,
all right, I'll check that out for doctor Gariby Theistic fallacies.
Speaker 4: As I'll check that out.
Speaker 23: And another thing is, you know, I don't I don't
know if you realize, but the guys like you and
let's say Joside trying to like uh, converts who started
in you know, as as Protestants.
Speaker 24: And major way all the way to Eastern Orthodoxy over
the you know, just the vast amount of communications and
information that's been available on the internet.
Speaker 23: You know, I was born into Greek Greek Orthodoxy in
the seventies and we had converts coming in and you know,
they just couldn't assimilate. Now, as we've become second and
third generation, it's changed and it said, you know, you
go to your Russian Orthodox Church and there's not just Russians.
Speaker 10: There's Americans, there's you know, Africans, there's Asians.
Speaker 4: It's all the stuff. But dude, keep going because you don't.
Speaker 23: I don't think you realize how like, really effective.
Speaker 4: It is when you have someone from with you know,
out like you or.
Speaker 23: Josiah Trump coming in and like communicating to the Massis.
And I'm surprised you're not like a lawyer for the
ecumenical patriarchy or something like that, because you'd be awesome.
Speaker 1: At well it'd have to be the CIA to do that,
So I'm not I thank you for your appreciate your compliments.
But stuff on DV fifteen dollars. The debate with Dasha
was pretty cool. People don't understand how the internet works. Anyway.
You see Islam taking over Western Europe. I'm in Switzerland,
so our turn is coming soon. How is it in
the USA? Is it a good option to move there? Well,
I've not been to Switzerland, so I can't speak to that,
but I mean, as far as I can tell, the
Nordic countries are being you know, islamicized as the rest
of Europe America is definitely way behind on Islamisization. It
has grown in the last few decades, for sure, So
there are more Muslims in America than there ever have been.
I think, you know, we drove to Vegas a few
months ago, and I noted that I saw, you know,
mosques on Indian reservations, so you know, moss are popping up.
But you don't see Muslims everywhere, you know, Like if
you go to London, it's londona's dan right. I went
in twenty nineteen. I give a talk there, and I mean,
it's just Muslims everywhere, so it's not like that, but
there's definitely more, so it would probably be a better experience.
I'm guessing depending upon where you move. Now, there's some
places in the US that have been like flooded with Muslims,
certain areas, so you might want to avoid those areas.
But I thought I missed somebody super traid. Let me
see Brandon Brands stutter for two dollars. Have you seen
Michael Horton's video on soul scripture? Now, I don't I
mean people, I think people think I keep up with
all these Protestant dudes, like I don't keep up with
an these people. In fact, people were asking me questions
about did you what about Dasha and Hurricane connections to
Bronze Age pervert and this and that and the Bronze Age.
I don't know anything about any of that. I mean,
I know who Bronze Age pervert is. I don't track
and keep up with who's attending what event and who's
part of Oh, that's part of the Peter Teele network
and this and that. I don't just don't know this stuff,
Like if you create your own content and do this
stuff all the time. By the way, I've been writing
Esa Clay with three of the last six months one year.
I don't have time to keep up with who's attending
damn socialite events. I just don't have time for him.
Speaker 10: Bro Us and.
Speaker 1: Scott Horton Sola script Solo solo Solar panel, Solar Scripture.
I don't even know what Scott Horton looks like. Is
that this boomer do here solo media? Is this him?
So ten thousand views? This is pitiful, dude. Like when
I hear the name Michael Horton, I think I thought
it was like a young guy. This is Michael Horton.
He looks like he looks like somebody's like dying uncle.
I didn't realize he was that old, but whatever, Look
he's me and he's me right, raife Ralph Silky ten
dollars Jay explain Calvin Robinson's version of Catholicism. It's very unusual.
I don't know what his view is. I mean, I
don't like I just asked him to come to a
debate twice and he just flipped out, so like he's
got this weird like superiority condescension complex that how dare
you ask me to debate you and your This just
shows you know how bad you are and this is
your stick and this and that, and I'm like, did
all I did was send you a DM saying would
you like to have a debate about the Philly oquay
or orthodoxy? Gethalsis? I mean, he sends me this big,
nasty like this is why you're such a piece of trash,
why you're so evil. It's like this is what people like,
Why would you post dms? Because people think that they
think that I'm just like this randomly just rude person,
like I'm just going around being rude. Well, you publicly
said that he was scared. Yeah, after I DMed him
twice over several months to see if you'd like to
have a conversation. And now, oh, he's now becoming a
branch of old Catholics. Well guess what. Old Catholics are.
A bunch of skittles and spooks if you didn't know,
and a bunch of occultist. So that's even worse that
he thinks he's an old Catholic. By the way, there
was an old Catholic weirdo guy following me and tweeting
at me, and I'm pretty sure he was Skittles and
I ended up blocking that dude. We had a meltdown.
By the way, why again, as I said at the
very beginning of the stream, like educated people are supposed
to expect to have people pushing back and asking to
do a formal debate. All you have to do is
say no. But he acts like, oh my gosh, look
at the audacity that someone would ask me to do
a public formal debate about the Philly OK, what's up, hello, Jake?
Speaker 22: Uh My question is more gear towards how would you
convince someone that is a theist of Christianity in particular
as somebody that's gotten to the point where I am
convinced generally of the existence of a God.
Speaker 1: How would you get me to the point of Well,
I'm not trying to be read to you, but like today,
the topics are very specific. They're specified as Protestant, Calic Orthodox,
So we're not doing deism today, we're not doing atheism.
If you do want to talk about that, definitely look
for another situation, Scott Grace, This looks like a Protestant
man here, he's got Protestant pastor vibes.
Speaker 10: What's up, Scott, Hey, j how's it going. So?
Speaker 25: I was calling in today because I wanted to debate perseverance.
Speaker 10: Of the Saints.
Speaker 1: Well, okay, that goes along with the rest of Tulip right,
So are you a full on Calvinist or you just want.
Speaker 2: To do that one?
Speaker 25: Uh, that one in particular, although I would be totally
open to doing more in the future. So there's a
lot of different ways that we can go with this debate.
I know it's very nebulous.
Speaker 1: Well let me ask you this question for it, like
do you so? I mean, for for example, a person
could be an Augustinian and believe in the perseverance that
gifts of the perseverance and also believe that you fall
away and apostotize. So are you are you defending a
full Calvinists position or Augustinian position or what.
Speaker 25: I would say the position would be more Calvinist in nature,
because I believe that if someone is truly saved that
they will persevere to the end.
Speaker 10: I don't know if that clears anything up, but well.
Speaker 1: I mean, this seems like no true Scotsman fallacy to
just read state what it means to quote be truly saved,
because for example, in Hebrew six people partake of the
Holy Spirit. They eat of the you know, a good
word of God and the powers of the age to come,
and then they can apostatize.
Speaker 25: So when we're talking about this topic, I would refer
to Versus in John for example. Within the context of
the verses, you know, they talk about that they were
with us, they participated in church, they were believers, but
since they left, it proved that they were never really
with us.
Speaker 1: Well, that's one class of people who might have been
subverters or infiltrators. But there's another class of people in Hebrews,
say who partake of the gift of the Holy Spirit
and the life to come, and who fall away.
Speaker 25: So with the first verse, we don't exactly know if
they were infiltrators, I think, and it's okay to read
into the text. You may be right on that, but
we don't exactly know. Just looking at the verse in itself,
I think it's easy to come away with some underlying principle.
Speaker 10: But even in John ten it talks about it.
Speaker 1: You're missing the point. You're missing the point.
Speaker 10: Well not Paris, and no one will snatch them out
of my hand.
Speaker 1: You're missing the point. So I understand what you're saying
about first John, but I'm saying that it doesn't matter
if in that situation those people were never amongst us
or whatever. When you go to Hebrew six, there is
clearly another class of people who do have a partaking
of the heavenly gift and the Holy Spirit and taste
of the word of the Word of God and the
age to come, and they fall away.
Speaker 10: Yes, So I want to address that now as well.
So with that verse, I don't think.
Speaker 25: That that's necessarily a concrete example, because we also see
that in the end times when people come to Christ
and he says I never knew you. Their response is
that we prophesied in your name, We cast out demons
in your name.
Speaker 1: Sir, assuming that there's one senseil knowing.
Speaker 10: Hold on, hold on, clearly you can have gifts of
the spirit. I mean, Judas was a part of the
Twelve Apostles. He was out there healing people.
Speaker 1: What does it mean to be enlightened in the New Testament?
Speaker 10: Explain what it means to me.
Speaker 25: I would say, to have an understanding of Christ, have
an understanding that the God had nobody.
Speaker 1: And what does it mean to become a partaker of
the spirit, That you.
Speaker 25: Are participating in things of the Holy Spirit. So you're
going to church, you're partaking in the sacraments.
Speaker 10: Things like that.
Speaker 1: Okay, so you just redefine it to be everything external
and nothing internal, because enlightenment is not external.
Speaker 10: I would agree it's internal as well.
Speaker 1: Just wait a minute, so now it's internal.
Speaker 10: Internally, Okay, that doesn't necessarily.
Speaker 1: Can they can they spring up? Can it be a
springing up to new life? Like the Parable talks about
the Parable of the Sower.
Speaker 25: Well, I would say, if you have if you're reborn,
if you're reborn in Christ, then I would say that
you were saved individual.
Speaker 1: Does the parable of the sewer? Does the parable of
the sower mention a new life that springs forth and dies? Yes,
but you just said if new life springs forth, you
can't die.
Speaker 10: I would have to study the context of that verse.
Speaker 1: For sure, child papist. Can you explain Calvin Robbins Catholicism.
I don't know. It's the lowest common de nominator. Anglican
branch theory is kind of the proto Ecumenism. It's the
origins of Ecumenism. So Calvin Robinson's version of it seems
to go from Anglican to old Catholic to who knows,
So it's not Catholicism. It's lowest common de nominator proto ecumenism,
child papist, I'm you.
Speaker 26: I had a question on a actus purist and divine
simplicity and stuff. It just sounds like a repeat. Feel
free to like cut me off and directly to like
a source where you've already explained it. But I'm in
this medieval philosophy class and I'm trying to write against
actus purists, and one argument that they use is that
I try to say that, well, actus purists can't work
because then guy would have to be eternally acting. And
they say, oh, well he could have willed eternally to
act at that particular time, Like what, I don't know
how to respond to that.
Speaker 1: Well, I mean, the Vine revelation says that he ceased
from the work of creating, so that alone should be
enough to refute God as identical to act as peers.
If you watch the debate between Bradshaw and Toomashevsky, the
Tomas this comes up and Tom Bradshaw says, well, when
it says God rested from creating, it seems like he's
not doing something that he was doing. And Thomas says, hmm,
good point.
Speaker 2: Yeah, what's what's that called? Bradshaw?
Speaker 1: I think it was on Sue on Sona's channel, and
it's like Bradshaw and I don't even know how to
spell that guy's name, Tomas. But if you look up
Sue on Sona's channel, I forget to do it's something
like intellectual conservatism or I don't forget, I remember his
channel is.
Speaker 26: So it couldn't be the case that if he ceases
from creating, like, it couldn't be the case that he
could have just willed to stop creating at that point
in time eternally.
Speaker 1: Well, the point is that his will is identical to
his essence intumism.
Speaker 4: Oh right, yeah, I guess that's true.
Speaker 1: Okay, So his channel is intellectual Catholicism.
Speaker 2: Excuse me, and welcome to this episode of intellectual If
you go to.
Speaker 1: His channel, you can search for Bradshaw actual catholicismshaw Okay,
and it's the second one that comes up. It's Palmism
and Thomism Bradshaw and Christopher Tomaszewski.
Speaker 2: Okay, I see it. Thanks. Yeah.
Speaker 1: So they actually have a pretty extended discussion on this
specific topic that would be perfect for you.
Speaker 2: All right, thank you.
Speaker 1: Yeah, that's a great question. Also, if you really want
to get into it, you can to get uh doctor
tikon Pino's dissertation book right here. It's Essence and Energies,
Being and Naming God in Secretary pemas.
Speaker 7: Uh.
Speaker 1: I think we're gonna do last one. I'm getting pretty tired, Hawsani,
what's up?
Speaker 20: Dog m?
Speaker 1: What's on your mind?
Speaker 2: You that it's a little bit off topic, so of you.
Speaker 1: You there, you're cutting out, man, We can't heard you.
Last one. Nico Damus.
Speaker 27: What's up, Dudek. Good on you, Niko Davis, you want
to I'm you?
Speaker 12: Hello, Jay, thanks for taking me on. Glad I got
these in. I got some questions that are kind of
threw me off a bit. I heard another content creator
who is identified as Orthodox make some claims that I've.
Speaker 4: Heard for the first time.
Speaker 2: So would you mind telling what.
Speaker 12: You believe the official Orthodox stances on these two things?
I greatly appreciate it, sure, thanks sir. The first one
is about John the Baptist being the last prophet.
Speaker 2: That's the first time I ever heard of that.
Speaker 1: Well, I think Jesus says that in Luke sixteen sixteen,
so he says that the law and the prophets were
until John, and since that time the Kingdom of Heaven
has preached. So it's definitely the term profit is used
for appalls and people in the New Testament, but I
think it's a different sense from what we think of
as the office of an Old Testament prophet, because Christ
is the final prophet, priestinc king. So you do see
people like Agabus and you know others in the Book
of Acts who have the gift of prophecy, and we
would agree that you know, saints have clairvoyance or the
gift of prophesying, and prophesying, by the way, is also
just preaching, it's not just predicting the future. So but
in this in the Old Testament sense, yes, I think
Luke sixteen sixteen is saying that.
Speaker 2: I see.
Speaker 12: So in other words, a prophet and prophet and prophecy
is not exactly one and the same two separate things
as well. All right, my god, thanks, Well, I just.
Speaker 1: Think there's a difference in like the what we think
of as an Old Testament prophet like Ezekiel or Malachi,
and you know what they're looking forward to versus what
Jesus says is the end of that era, that age, right,
he says that the law and the profit if it's
work until John and since that time the Kingdom of
Heaven has preached. And that's Luke sixteen sixteen.
Speaker 12: Okay, all right, So the gifts that we get, like
you're saying, the clearvoyants and so on, that's a little
different than.
Speaker 2: Than than that. Okay, all right.
Speaker 12: So the second thing was the Theodore was being sinless. Again,
that's a new one to me too. Is that an
official orthodox belief that the.
Speaker 1: Yeah, so I have a video that you could do
that's it's a lengthier take on this because we have
a much more fleshed out, sort of holistic view that
Mary was also predicted in the Old Testament, and so
she's the new Eve. She's what is the Temple of
Ezekiel forty four? She has the door that opens and
never that the Messiah goes through, but it's never opened,
so she's ever virgin. So there's a lot of things
that go into this, as well as Revelation twelve Queen
of Heaven. So our dog of the Spotless version, which
is not the same thing as the Roman Catholic Immaculate
conception teaching our doctrine is derived from a lot of passages,
interpreting those passages as well as church tradition. So now
there's not an explicit text that says Mary is the
Simleus version. But thank you for that question. We'll go
to Hasani and a couple of other other people getting
I'm just getting really tired, so you guys can call
back in next time. Last supper.
Speaker 2: What's up?
Speaker 1: If you go to YouTube my video and Mary. The
longer video it's called Veneration of Mary in the Bible
or something like that. What's up last day, last.
Speaker 28: Supper on your whistle, Jake Hey, So I was reading
up on sing Guria Poulamas, and in the section the
Philolia in the defense of those who devoutly practice the
life of Stillness, if you're going down to section eleven,
he mentioned Saint Nilos of Italy.
Speaker 2: St.
Speaker 28: Nilos of Italy and then and Elias, which I believe
they're both from Colabrio. But the interesting thing about Nilos
is that he founded the monastery of Gratto Ferrada, and
after this schism they still remained a Byzantine Greek monastery,
but they were they were in communion with Rome.
Speaker 29: So it's it's really interesting because Saint Nilos is mentioned
by Saint Gregory Palamas, and then the nearest saint to
him was after the schism, I believe in ten sixty,
which is Saint Peter of Gratto Ferrada. So if they
never accepted the created grace, which is uh, is that
totalistic the created grace?
Speaker 1: Ultimately? I mean, I think it's in Augustine, but yes,
Tim Bose of them.
Speaker 2: Oh gotcha?
Speaker 10: Okay?
Speaker 30: Well either way though, I was just kind of like
wondering like what would make their or taking in the
communion become in vain or like not Orthodox if they
were sticking to the teaching of Nilos, who who founded
the monastery.
Speaker 1: Because yeah, I mean, I don't I don't have a
I don't have a problem saying that, you know, I
want to have as much flexibility during that period as possible.
So I mean it's not like I think that the
severance comes not so much when things are unclear, but
when people affirm like lions or something like that.
Speaker 2: Gotcha. So it's a little bit later.
Speaker 1: Than that, I would say. So, yeah, I mean, I'm
sure that probably a lot of people in the in
those places at that time probably had an Orthodox conception.
Speaker 28: It's interesting because that monastery is still there today.
Speaker 2: So if they never accepted the.
Speaker 4: The kind of Western claims, but they still stayed in
community with Rome.
Speaker 1: Well it's not I mean it's like eventually though, like
being quote in community with Rome means that you are
also by you know, by default accepting the Roman Catholic
cumenical councils and the things that they reject. So you know,
when exactly that is, I don't know where is this,
Where is this.
Speaker 4: Can you tell me what it's see? I was listening
to it on on audio then I had to find it.
So it's in in the defense of those who.
Speaker 1: Developed No, no, no, where's the monster. I'm just curious
because we were.
Speaker 2: In it all. It's called it's in. I don't think
it's in collaborate it's in. Uh, it's a it's near Roome.
Speaker 1: Okay, because we went to a lot of places. I'm
trying to see if we Oh, I don't think we
went here.
Speaker 4: Grotto Ferrata, it might be the town actually, Okay.
Speaker 1: That's a metropolitan city of the Roman capital and founded
by Saint Nihiles the Younger.
Speaker 4: Yeah, I believe that's the same. Uh.
Speaker 28: Nilis that Saint Gregory Palamas mentioned Nilas of Italy Rosano.
It's crazy because Barlin comes from Calabria too, but obviously
that's much later. He doesn't have ties to this this
Nilus who is from Calabria as well, and is from
Calabria as well too.
Speaker 1: I'm just trying to remember if we went here, because
it looks kind of familiar, but like there's one million churches.
Speaker 4: Would you go last year?
Speaker 1: Yeah?
Speaker 2: Yeah, I wasn't a last year too.
Speaker 1: You were you on our coverage? No, No, I wasn't, okay, gotcha?
All right? Well, thanks man, I appreciate your comments. I
just can't remember if we went to this place or not.
We went to so many places. How Sonny? What something?
Speaker 2: Man?
Speaker 1: Try again?
Speaker 31: Hey, Jake, you hear me better?
Speaker 10: Now?
Speaker 2: All right?
Speaker 10: Cool?
Speaker 31: Yeah, it's a little bit off topic, but since I'm
like the last one, I thought it would be cool.
Speaker 2: Did you take a question?
Speaker 31: It's actually like kind of two questions, like kind of
about feminism.
Speaker 1: Is that fine? Yeah?
Speaker 2: All right?
Speaker 10: Cool.
Speaker 2: I wanted to see if you if.
Speaker 31: You saw what Andrew the whole Andrew and you know,
Tommy learning thing on Perris Morgan.
Speaker 1: I'm not seen that yet, but I did watch all
of the Jake Rattlesnake Jim Bob debate last night, gotcha?
Speaker 8: I did.
Speaker 31: Well, see it's the other way around for me. I
didn't get to watch that yet, but I'm gonna watch.
Speaker 1: It's the dullest I've ever seen in my life.
Speaker 2: God, I know, uh that not so aarondyke chick was
up there.
Speaker 31: She's she's one of the most pretentious, annoying motherfuckers on
the internet.
Speaker 1: Man, So well, the the guy, the vet guy is
just as bad as hers.
Speaker 31: So yeah, from from what I saw in the comments,
he's like a like was he just simping and saying.
Speaker 1: Like what was he doing? Well, he was a perfect
feminist because he let her talk most of the time.
Speaker 31: So yeah, yeah, then that checks out. She and she
does like the talk, so that that definitely checks out.
But the whole Andrew thing was it boiled down to
one question.
Speaker 2: He literally just because obviously, you know, she started off.
Speaker 31: Saying how men, how men today? Or this or that
we femin and blah blah blah, and his rebuttal was
was one simple question, and she spurreed, she spurred out,
and a pissed off Peers didn't allow Andrew to press
it on it.
Speaker 4: He literally just asked, through, what are women's duties?
Speaker 2: Two men? And obviously and obviously the application not.
Speaker 31: Just not just men, but to society at large, and
her her immediate response was and then well, when he
asked her specifically, the first thing she said was I'm
a successfully independent woman. And then she she said that
her husband's a fucking baseball manager or some it's just
some some brain dead it's hard at like covert feminist takes.
Speaker 1: Let me pull it up. We'll say, hello, how long
is yeah?
Speaker 2: As short as like?
Speaker 31: If you just find the clip where it's him asking
her and then her giving her immediate response, it should
be less than a minute and a half, so you
will you'll probably be able to.
Speaker 2: Pull it up real quickly.
Speaker 1: All right, yeah, I'm looking here. Let's see. Appreciate that
I don't want a thirty minute explanation of it. Let's
see if this is it. Everyone knows you need a
lawyer after a car accident injury. But what if I
told you there's a better way.
Speaker 10: One look at.
Speaker 6: The conservative check We all she is in some closet.
Speaker 1: I don't want his commentary. I just want the clip.
Speaker 2: I don't know.
Speaker 1: Maybe we'll try to find it tomorrow. Some my mind
as much. JB three two dollars. Have you been to Greece? No,
I've only been to Italy, Rome, a lot of places
in Italy and London. Actually was gonna go degrees and
then koof happened, so that never happened. Snapping like UFA
boy two one who is a genius, best thinker in Orthodoxy.
I mean we've got quite a few, you know, really
accomplished scholars, doctor Branson, doctor Bradshaw, Uh, doctor Tikon Pino.
I'm sure there's many more, doctor Vinnie Ahman Larshay. I
mean there's there's a bunch ed faith before fortune five dollars.
I love what you do, brother, pull me out of
the mid with madness. I hope you're willing to form
an opinion on the religious freedom socck I brought up. Uh,
you mean the Church, you're the founding Fathers. I mean,
I just I don't. I mean, I don't know what
to say, Like, I don't know if there is a
real consistent position. Again, I've said many times I think
that the Founding Fathers are a mix of Enlightenment, Deism, Masonry, Episcopalianism, Catholicism.
Even with the Carrol family, I mean there's a lot
of things going in Baptists, so it's somewhat Christian. But anyway,
that's about it. Everybody have a good night, and I
got to work on the new Sam Heights, So look
forward to uh Sam Hides episode five and six. That's
gonna be fun, or wait, episode four and five, forget
which one we're on. Really relentless twenty bucks