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