Speaker 1: Let's get into a little bit of what Redeemed Zuomer,
who seems to have spiraled out of control since our debate.
For whatever reason, he posted that he was freaking out
that people in his discord were converting to Orthodoxy and
he was going to ban talking about Orthodox stuff because
so many people in his discord we're starting to look
into Orthodoxy. It doesn't seem like since our discussion he's
engaged in any attempts to better understand our positions. It
seems like he's in damage control mode and flipping out constantly.
And he does the thing where he'll say a bunch
of stuff about you personally and then apologize and then
we'll go. So just keep it to the issues. Okay,
I never said anything about him personally, So if you
respond to this, just keep it to the issues, because
I'm not I never said anything about you as an individual.
Redeem Zuomer mastering reform theology? Well, does Redeem Zumer actually
have a master's in theology? Why would we think that
he can teach us master level stuff in theology as
what is he like twenty one? As you?
Speaker 2: But despite the differences between Catholics and Protestants, they're a
lot closer to each other than they are to Eastern Orthodoxy.
The biggest split in Christianity was not the Protestant Reformation,
it was the Great Schism.
Speaker 1: Between Protestants and Romancalities are closer to each other. I'm
not sure about that. I mean, I guess it just
depends on which doctrine we pick. So I'm assuming he's
going to pick original Sin, I.
Speaker 2: Mean, Western and Eastern Christianity. Here's why we Reformed Protestants
side with the West.
Speaker 1: What the heck kind of music is this? I feel
like I'm at Santa's Village and I'm supposed to what
do we picking up? Freaking It's a year round Santa's
Village where I'm picking up ornaments? What kind of weird
keyboard like boomer keyboard Cassio's songs is he playing?
Speaker 2: Eastern Orthodoxy is a beautiful tradition that we can all
be inspired by. But the reason we don't agree with
them is because Eastern theology denies a lot of things
that the Bible teaches.
Speaker 1: So we're going to have the old word concept fallacy
that even though we all agree that the texts have
to be interpreted, I'm just going to say that the
words mean what they say, and they say what they mean.
So this is a common mistake that we see Muslims,
Roman Catholics, Protestants, and even some Orthodox engage in, which
is just the basic idea that there's a plain, simple
meaning of all texts and that other traditions get quote
too philosophical and they don't stick to the plain, perspicuity
meaning of the text. But our texts perspicuous, do they
actually possess perspose? Do they possess viscosity? Breakdown? No, it
really I mean, you could say within a book that
it's possible that certain texts are clearer than other texts.
Certainly within the Bible, certain texts are clearer than other texts,
but that's partly going to depend on who's reading it,
and what their education level is, what their background is,
what they do, and don't know how familiar they are
with the rest of the book. So saying, even admitting
that certain areas of the Bible might be clearer than
other areas still doesn't itself tell us to each individual
which area will be clearer. In other words, something that
an educated person thinks is pretty obvious might not be
obvious to an an educated person. Maybe they're reading about
you know, through the eye of a needle or something
like that, right, and you don't know this rhetorical idiom
or whatever. You don't know this hyperbole. Okay, Well, if
you're an uneducated person, that might be totally ambiguous to you.
An educated person might think, well, this is obviously hyperbole.
So you see that even when we say, or even
if we admit that there are quote clearer passages, it
doesn't itself tell us which passages are themselves universally clear
or unclear. So a lot of times Protestants and we
notice the same thing with Muslims. It's exact move that
Jake did. Have a very naive epistemology and a naive
linguistic theory or semiotic view that the text just mean
what they say, and they say what they mean, and
that typically goes along with word concept fallacy. People who
have that one dimensional view of language and texts typically
fall into the mistake, as I'm sure we're going to
see with Redeemed Zuomer, of thinking that the word that's
used always has the same meaning in the same context
and the same reference. So, for example, logos as it's
used by the this is a common Roman Catholic word
concept fallacy. Well, Marcus Aurelius says logos. John One says logos.
So they mean and refer to the exact same thing.
Maybe they do, maybe they don't. Just because the word
is used. We need to know the intentional context, and
the lexical context, and the entire books context, and perhaps
even the entire religion's context. So you see that individual
words are situated within broader context, the sentence, the paragraph,
the chapter, the book, the book as a whole is
in the case of the Bible, because it's books within books,
and then the tradition as a whole. Perhaps, So, for example,
I can't take a word that is exterior to the
Orthodox tradition or to the Biblical tradition, find that word
in say greekfulilosophy or Platonism, and then interpret that word
within the Christian context as having a one to one
meaning with the Greek term. This happens a lot, for
example with news. Well, the Greek philosophers use the word
news when you Orthodox use it, that must mean the
same thing. So it's just purely the intellect or some
higher faculty of the intellect. According to say Greek philosophers,
it's not what it means an Orthodox. It corresponds to
the Hebrew idea of the heart, which is not the intellect.
So you see that with whether it's news or whether
it's logos. These are just examples, but the same type
of mistake can happen when we're looking at even English
texts or English words like person, Does person mean just
an individual? Nature? Does it mean something distinct from nature?
How we understand person and nature, for example, will have
tremendous implications on our view of the Trinity, in our
view of Christology. So a big part of this mistake,
and a big part of this really rookie sophomore understanding,
and a lot of Internet people engage in very common
amongst Protestants and Muslims, somewhat common amongst Roman Catholics as well,
but maybe less Roman Catholics. The Roman Catholics tend to be,
if they're into these topics, a little more educated than
the average Muslim or the average Protestant, so they can
sometimes avoid some of this issue. But as Saint Basil says,
pretty much every heretic is making some kind of linguistic mistake,
usually right, and he's speaking in that case of eunomious
and the Eunomian heresy kind of giving the idea of
ingeneracy or unngenerate in generate basically identifying that with the
divine essence, and so therefore anything that's not in generate
or ungenerated is therefore not God or less than God.
Hence the son, since he is not ingenerate, and he
is generate or has an origin, or he is not unoriginate,
then he must not be God. That's the Eunomian premise,
or that's the version of the Eunomian argument. And so
Basil argues against this as the arrest of capitations. Do
that not every word is referring to or picking out
the same thing, right, Think about how many times we've
made this argument with the phrase like doctor Branson does
God g Od? Because God can pick out different things,
And many many Muslims since the Jake debate have already
been saying, oh, you lost the debate when you said
you believed in little g three little g gods, and
the argument there is just missing the whole point that
this is a linguistic distinction between what God can pick out,
as in distinct persons, divine nature, and so the one
True God, the one God. Capital typically is picking out
the person of the Father, at least in the Patristic period.
That's always what it is, and that's why the nicing
Creed is a monarchical trinitarian doctrine that says, I believe
in one God, the Father. All the Capitalians speak this way.
So little g God then refers to God from God.
Did you notice the nicing Creed says God from God,
light from light. Okay. So that's a distinction within unity.
That's the way that we account for distinction within unity.
Of course, Muslims, for example, whatever their position, whether they're
a Shari or Salafi, or whether they're whatever Athari, the
different Muslim positions Neil, Platonist, Shia, they're all going to
have different ways and attempts of accounting for unity and
distinction in God. So that's why I typically frame the
debate what the Muslims has. It's not a debate between
multiple who's got the unity position and who's the polytheist.
It's two different positions. Give me an account for unity
and multiplicity. And that's why the counting issue is so
important there because both Muslims and Christians, when they're accounting
for unity and distinction in God, are going to count
by division and by identity. And if you didn't notice,
when the Creed, for example, says undivided God is undivided,
that's counting by division. When al Gazali in his Tenth
Proposition and the Moderation of Belief book talks about being
God being undivided, he's counting by division. Aristotle and category
six metaphysics, I think it's around book ten and metaphysics
counting by division. Now, I didn't say any ancient medieval
world they only counted by the division. That was a
mistake that Jake assumed that because I said they counted
by division, I said they only counted by division. No,
I said first order, second order, and position, two different
types of things even in the medieval philosophers that were
counted in different ways. So it would have actually behooved
Jake to be familiar with some of the responses to
the argument that we only count by identity, because he
just assumed that I was saying, no, we only count
by division, which I didn't say. I said we count
in both ways. And then he set up a false
either or which he didn't realize would trap his own
position that if he's going to count the attributes by identity,
then he's got multiple necessary attributes, which is a makes
his position policyist. So there you go.
Speaker 2: A thousand years ago, Christianity split in half when the
Patriarch of the East got kicked out of the church
by the Pope. Now, a lot of this political, but
it was also theological, meaning it has to do with
what we think about God. Even though Catholics and Protestants
disagree on a lot, they have the exact same view
of God. The Eastern view is slightly different. There's really
six main issues they disagree on, which can be abbreviated
with the acronym Frost.
Speaker 1: Frost and all. Well, this is an interesting, unique approach
to this question. Let's see what is What do we
disagree on? Philioquate reason, maybe original sin, probably simplicity, Yeah,
theasis sacrifice, Well, the Roman Catholic and the Protestant view
of sacrifice are not the same. So I don't know
where he's gonna I don't know if he thinks he's
gonna find commonality with Roman Catholics on quote sacrifice.
Speaker 2: All these issues are connected to each other. For each
of these issues, there's a Western view and an Eastern view,
and the Western view of all these issues is the
biblical one, the biggest.
Speaker 1: Okay, yeah, good one good argument there, Just at that
the quote West is right on all of these issues
and the East is wrong. I'm sure he's going to
give some kind of argument, but I'm not sure that you.
I'm not sure that actually this is I mean Roman
Catholics on the Philly oquay. I mean, they have a
lot more of a nuanced position. But this is kind
of assuming that Reformed and Protestants themselves have a unified position.
Where does he get the idea that quote Protestantism is
a unified position on any of these issues at all.
There's no Protestant unity. Maybe you could say there's unity
on like a couple super generic positions, like we follow
the Bible over tradition. Okay, maybe that's one of the
quote unifying things of Protestants. Roman Catholics and Protestants don't
have the same view of sacrifice. I don't know what
he thinks the Western view of Theosis's that's different from
I mean, do protests don't even teach Theosis? So I
mean this is again I'm predicting this is going to
all be a bunch of word concept.
Speaker 2: Felt disagreement is the villioque. As we said in the
first video, all Christians believe in the Trinity, which is
that the three persons, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit
are all God, which means they all have everything that
makes God God.
Speaker 1: So he doesn't even know what monarchical trinitarianism is. He
doesn't even know that that's the view that's established at
the Second Ecumenical Council, which is the official Church's Trinity Council.
So he didn't even know that.
Speaker 2: But if they all have the same.
Speaker 1: I think I brought all this up in our debate
by look.
Speaker 2: In properties, then what makes them different from each other?
Speaker 1: The free person, Hey, Jamie, could you make me a coffee?
Could you put a little Manuka honey in it? Thank you?
I got a cup in here.
Speaker 2: Those are only different from each other in their relations
to each other.
Speaker 1: So what are these yeah? And so if they're only
different by relation, then the thing that makes them distinct
isn't anything unique. And so this is one of the
crit that Lasky has of Western trinitarianism so called, which
is that person reduces to a relation. But Eastern theology
is premised on the idea that persona is persona at
relatio is false. Person cannot be identified with a relation,
person is subject or agent. And and I brought this
up in our debate, and he was completely lost, by
the way, so none of what I said apparently stuck
sunk in from our debate. And he's just sort of
look at and what does all this? It looks like
a freaking football team's you know, is he like Rudy
over here? He's drawing the plays of the West, you know,
Like I don't know, I mean, I hate football movies,
but the Rudy is the only one I can even
think of that I've ever watched. Right, So he's over
here like Rudy, trying to trying to rally his team, drawing,
drawing the Trinity and the philioquis someone of confused ass
gibberish football play relations.
Speaker 2: According to the West, the Son is eternally generated from
the Father, and the Holy Spirit eternally proceeds from the
Father and the Son or philioque in Latin.
Speaker 1: Notice we haven't had any so far as just saying positions,
no arguments yet.
Speaker 2: But according to the East, the Holy Spirit only proceeds
from the Father and not the Son. The first question
should be what does the Bible say. The Bible very
clearly says the Holy Spirit or the Spirit of the
Father is also the spirit of the.
Speaker 1: Son or so level one mistakes. He doesn't understand the
difference between economia and theology proper, or the intratrinitarian life
versus the economia. So doesn't even know that, not even
a level one understanding of what the Phillioquay issue is.
Speaker 2: The spirit of Christ. Many many times it says the
Holy Spirit is from the Son or of the Son.
Speaker 1: Yeah, nobody in the Orthodox Church disagrees with that. That
was never even part of the debate.
Speaker 2: That should settle it.
Speaker 1: But still the East, I mean literally doesn't even know
the issue it.
Speaker 2: This is the West of adding the Opate to the
Nicene Creed when it wasn't there before.
Speaker 1: And we don't accuse the West of doing it. The
West admits to doing it, and pote Leo the third
forbade it from being added. So that's again, it doesn't
even know basic history.
Speaker 2: This is technically true, but it kind of doesn't matter
because neither of them use the original version of the
Nicene Creed.
Speaker 1: Yeah, but the argument isn't that we only follow the
creed as it's produced at Nicea. The argument is that
Constantinapolitan creed, the Niceno concept of Politan creed is forbidden
at Ephesus from being added to. So the clause that
you and then Chalcedon, right, So Ephysis and Chalcedon are
the ones that say that you can't alter the creed.
It's not nicea one that says the creed can't be changed.
So this is misunderstanding. This is an old, a stupid
old argument to Bara made that he didn't even realize
that it's not Nicea that forbids the change the changes
forbidden after it's already been.
Speaker 2: Changed, which didn't have the paragraph about the Holy Spirit.
Speaker 1: All of this is like level literally level one oh
one mistakes.
Speaker 2: So both of them use an updated version. It's just
that the Western version is slightly more updated. And just
because the original Creed didn't have the philioquay doesn't mean
people didn't believe in the philioquay back then.
Speaker 1: Actually it does. Because number one, he doesn't even understand
what the issue is. It's about the hypostatic properties, and
whether the father is the sole cause hence monarchical trinitarianism
as taught by the Cappadocians, and whether or not the
hypesech property of the father can be shared, given to,
or in any way participated in by the son.
Speaker 2: That's the issue, especially because so many of the most
important people that we talked about in the previous videos
did believe in it. Some of the greatest defenders of
true teaching, like Saint Athanasius sant.
Speaker 1: Anthonasia doesn't believe in the Philioquay. This is easily debunked
in Sishchensky's book. Really the only there's one quote in
Ambrose that could be read as Philioquay and then Saint Augustine.
So for the West, that's it. We did a whole
live stream with doctor Branson who did his dissertation on
the cab of Doceans and uh, there's one phrase in
Nissa's against Eunomius that's used as a proof text. But
as doctor Branson points out, that one phrase in against
Eunomius goes against the rest of the thrust of the text,
and because it's an ambiguous passage, it makes more sense
to interpret the one phrase in Nissa's text in harmony
with the rest of the texts that are a lot clearer,
where he specifies that there's only one sole cause, and
that is the hypostasis of the Father. It's not the
divine nature. So you can refer back to the three
hour livestream that we did going through the entire Skshensky
book on the Philly oquay, which is the most up
to date academic text on it from a person who
was rom Macalo that became Orthodox, And you can also
go watch the recent Doctor Branson stream that we did
where we dove deep into these topics as well, leaving
essentially no argumentation for the Philly equali other than Augustine.
That's it.
Speaker 2: The spirit is from the son.
Speaker 1: Oh wait, we don't go by one guy, So for
perfectly a Protestant mindset that, oh, where do I get
my canon? I'll pick Jerome one guy. Where do I
get my trinity doctrine? All Augustine? One guy? Yeah, it's
the Constantinopolitan council, the second echemical council that trumps any
single dude way.
Speaker 2: The son is from the Father or Saint Cyril of Alexandria,
explicitly saying the Holy Spirit.
Speaker 1: Yeah, if you read the rest of Cyril, and if
you read the treatment that Sashinsky says, this is not
what he's talking about. The procession is what he's talking about.
Just because the word proceeds is used, that just means
come forth, So it's not always in the English translation
identical to hypostatic origin. So we agree that the manifestation
of the spirit and the energies is through the son, right,
and that's taught by gregor Cyprus. That's at the the
later Palomize synods. You could read Crisis and Byzantium by
Papadoccus on that. But just because you see the word proceeds,
you notice that he did the same thing with the
biblical texts right, comes from the Sun, Yeah, but in
what sense comes from the sun in terms of manifestation,
proceeding forth through manifestation or a proceeding forth as hypostetic origin.
You see, those are two different things.
Speaker 2: Ads from the Father and the son. Or Pope Leo
also saying the spirit proceeds from the Father, and he's
saying the Holy Spirit.
Speaker 1: By the way, if you notice that text right there,
the Holy Spirit when he is in us right comes
from father and son. That's economium. So even the text
that he's got right, there is an economic relation and
not a eternal hyposthetic origin.
Speaker 2: Relation proceeds from the father and the son, or Pope
Leo also saying the spirit proceeds from the father and
the son.
Speaker 1: Yeah, this is also dealt with in the Sashensky books.
So this is why it doesn't work to do quote
minds to prove this kind of stuff. It's basically just
ignoring all of the scholarship that ex lanes to you
the difference between hyposthetic origin and manifestation, which is necessary
to have a coherent doctrine eternity. By the way, Romancolics
typically don't even know this or understand this unless they
happen to be kind of brainiac uniates. Really, brainiac uniates
are the only ones that are even kind of aware
of this. But it's actually brought up by the way
in the Vatican clarificational.
Speaker 2: Opilioqui both sides recognize these people as the heroes of
the early Church. Now the East response to this by
saying the Bible and the Church fathers are only talking
about energetic procession, not hypostatic procession.
Speaker 1: No, actually, you already confused economia with intratrinitarian life and origin,
so we don't just say that it's that.
Speaker 2: So you misunderstood that partly because they think there's a
difference between God's essence and God's energies. But that creates
a whole.
Speaker 1: Yeah, that actually comes from the Bible. Right, So Paul
makes this distinction when he talks about the energies of
the spirit. Right, we have this when we talk when
we read about the seven spirits of God. Okay, do
you think God's knowledge, God's wisdom, et cetera. Are they
creatures or are they really distinct things. I'm pretty sure
foreign knowledge is different from the divine essence. I'm pretty
sure the act of creating is different from the act
of destroying the world.
Speaker 2: New set of problems that we're going to talk about later. Also,
in the Eastern view, you can't really tell what the
difference between the son and the spirit is because they're
both just from the Father.
Speaker 1: Yeah, maybe you should read the Cappadocians who actually address that.
Youuno me an argument directly because you know meus Again,
he was talking about reducing hypostidic properties to essence, and
Basil's response is that that there is a distinction between
procession and generation. We know what the distinction is, we
do not know. That's a Cappadocian quote. Those are the
guys who gave us the doction of the Trinity at
the Second Acimunical Council. So this guy's no knowledge of
any of this.
Speaker 2: We'll say the difference is because the sun is from them,
not even aware of the basics, other by be getting
in the spirit by procession. And if you ask what
the difference between those two things are, they'll say, we
know there is a difference, but it's a mystery.
Speaker 1: That's Basil's quote. There is the guy who's like the
daddy of the Trinity, next s Athanasius and the other
Capitotion's so he doesn't even know he's like. What he's
arguing against is what Basil says of mystery.
Speaker 2: Another thing they disagree on is reason the Bible calls
Christ the Logos or the Wisdom of God. Both sides
agree on that. Both sides also agree that all Christians
have the Holy Spirit, but because the West believes the
Holy Spirit proceeds from Christ, therefore proceeds from the wisdom
of God. That implies that Christians have access to the
wisdom of God and therefore can gain knowledge of God.
This is why Western Christianity is more intellect.
Speaker 1: Cat that makes no sense. So he thinks that because
Christ is the logos, that this somehow translates to the
huge He doesn't even know what faculties are like. He
doesn't know that reason can be spoken of as a
faculty that we possess as part of our human nature,
and that the divine mind possesses reason as well, the
church fathers argue, so he's equivocating on reason as if
this is somehow necessary and connected to phillyoque literally no idea.
What this is a ridiculous Sorry, I've never heard. This
makes no sense. It's just equivocating on terms.
Speaker 2: That implies that Christians have access to the wisdom of
God and therefore can gain knowledge of God. This is
why Western Christianity is more intellectual and Eastern Christianity is
more But.
Speaker 1: It's not though, And if you read Singeria Palomas, the
point of intellect and concepts is fine as far as
it goes. But God is not in your intellect and
God is not your concept. God is beyond all intellect
and concepts, and so the direct experience of God transcends
the creaturely things. That doesn't mean the creaturely things are bad.
It just means that they're limited. In the West you
get this idealization and idolatry of intellect and ideas because
they actually identify the soul with the intellect. So again,
I don't even think I don't think he really understands
what he doesn't know the difference between reasoning as a faculty,
reasoning as an action or a function, and what it
even means to call reason a property or a faculty of.
Speaker 2: Nature mystical because they have different views of reason. This
is not an insult. Prominent Orthodox priests will agree with
this right after the fact.
Speaker 1: That reasoning can lead us away from God does not
mean that reasoning is bad or that we're anti intellectual.
So this is another straw man, as if because Father
Josiah Trendum is talking about rationalism that he doesn't does
redeem him or not know the difference between reason as
a faculty or a function and rationalism as an intellectual
movement of the Enlightenment. No, he doesn't even know that.
Speaker 2: The split the West started doing scholasticism, which is where
they study theology academically and try to learn the mysteries
about God. Saint Anselm was one of the most important
Western saints after the split, and he started medieval scholasticism.
He said that theology.
Speaker 1: He's not actually started by Anselm, it's actually Augustine and Boethius.
But the problem is not So there's another word, concept fallacy,
Like the problem is not being scholastic. The problem is scholasticism,
which is built on a bunch of faulty presuppositions. So
another word concept fallacy. That he doesn't know the difference.
He doesn't know the difference between reason and rationalism. He
doesn't know the difference between being scholastic and scholasticism, because
if he were to read the medieval Byzantine theologians, they
were super scholastic.
Speaker 2: His faith seeking understanding, and he started to find out
new ways to prove that God exists. The medieval scholastics
spent centuries trying to figure out everything, like how do
we define what God is? Anselm says, God is the thing.
You can't think of anything greater than Thomas Aquina says,
God is pure being. Dun Scotis says God is the
infinite and these ideas don't necessarily contradict each other, and
Reform theology was greatly.
Speaker 1: I don't understand why he's apt to point out people
that he thinks are actually heretics. I mean, these are
people that number one reject him un totally think he's heretical.
He thinks these people are heretical. But leave it to
the Reform to be inconsistent and roll these people out
when they think they're useful for optics reasons.
Speaker 2: Influenced by these theologians, All these people thought the philioque
is necessary for understanding God.
Speaker 1: So what we also don't think that those people are
saints in our church. So what would this have to
do with disproving the Orthodox position unless you're just trying
to score points on the ideas that there's a generic
Western theology of God that's correct. Do you think that
John Calvin's theology is anywhere close to Thomas Aquinas? Do
you think that Anselm's theology is anywhere close to I
don't know, Zwingli. I mean, give me a break, right,
So this is all optics and like ignoring the big
issues that these people killed each other. They're not in agreement. Literally,
Protestants killed themselves amongst other Protestants over baptism. Roman Catholics
killed Protestants obviously, So this idea that there's a generic
commonality between them that he could somehow utilize against Orthodoxiology
is just like super low dear.
Speaker 2: And studying God led to studying God's creation by doing science.
That's why it was the Western Church that created modern science,
modern universities, classical.
Speaker 1: Music, and actually universities come out of Byzantium. Okay, it's
not a creation of the West, so ignorant of Byzantium
modern science, I don't mean modern scientism. I mean that
seems like a double edged sword there, so I'm not sure.
But to attribute this to I mean, is this admitting
then that Roman Catholicism is the real So I mean,
if he's gonna argue that Western that all this Western
stuff comes out of the Middle Ages, then this is
actually undercutting his dumb reform position. So uh oh, it
looks like modern science universities come out of Rome and
not the Protestant world. So that's actually an own against himself.
And by the way, university has come out of Byzantium,
not whatever he thinks to come out.
Speaker 2: Of Western civilization itself the most successful civilization to ever exist.
Speaker 1: Well, how do you measure success? Right? I mean, is
the success of Western civilization quote unquote measured by bodily comforts?
Is it measured by nuclear weapons? Is it measured by
how apostate and atheist it is? Now, so you see
how arbitrary and ridiculous this kind of argumentation is.
Speaker 2: Western theology is whether they like Augustin, who was one
of the most important Church fathers, and it shouldn't surprise
you that he very strongly believed in the philiop way.
Speaker 1: He also Yeah, but nobody, not even you as a Protestant,
follows one dude, right, I mean, nobody consistently follows one dude. Now,
the Romancalolic Church supposedly follows one dude aka Francis, but
they don't consistently do that. As we'll see here in
a second. You don't follow one dude. So when you
try to find evidence for your positions in the Church fathers,
it's completely arbitrary. Oh, I want the canon that Jerome has.
Oh I want the theology of Jesus that Athanasius has
and then you think the rest of his beliefs are heretical.
By the way, no Roman Catholic person wouldever accept your
belief that Augustine is a Protestant. Have you read Augustine.
I don't just mean your quote minds. I mean I've
read thousands of pages of Augustine. He was a Catholic bishop. Now,
for us, we think that individual theologians can make mistakes.
Gregor Nissa made mistakes, Saint Maximus made mistakes, Augustine made mistakes.
Tertullian made mistakes. Some mistakes can be so severe that
eventually the church determines that you're outside the church. Like
in the case of Turtullian, he left the church. Right,
You could argue that Justin Marty made a mistake in
the way he phrased things here and there. Sure, but
he could also be read in an Orthodox way. Now
I want tomind everybody too that IP is inspiring. Philosophy
is doing a stream. Later, addressing one of Jake's claims
about Tertolian being not a Trinitarian, Sam Schmun also addressed this,
it's a dumb argument. It's actually missing the whole point.
But anyway, let's get back.
Speaker 2: To this believed in original sin, which says that because
of the fall, all of us are dead in sin
from the moment of conception. Now our default state is
guilty before God.
Speaker 1: That mean, now, I guess redeem Zoomer is not even
aware of the Roman Catholic position, is not the Augustinian position?
Does he not know this? And you could go read
the for example, well you'd read the Catholic Catechism where
it makes a distinction between original guilt and actual guilt.
Roman Catholics no longer affirm original guilt. Infants are not
guilty because of adam sin. So that's actually something that
we agree with in terms of Rome in the Orthodox. Now,
at the time of Augustine, up until Gregory the Great,
the West did believe that infants were guilty and that
all men were guilty in Adam as in an archetype.
And that's the argumentation that Augustin uses in the City
of God, for example, in one place where he makes
this argument. And so he has a neoplatonic idea that
everyone is guilty because we're all in potentia in Adam
as in an archetype, and so we are all already
guilty because we exist in potentia in him. Eventually, when
the Romancolic Church defines and explains the doctrine of infant limbo,
this is precisely to get around the fact that infants
are not guilty of Adam's sin itself. So actually Rome
eventually softens their position and moves away from original guilt.
Now you could argue that Romancalolay Church is inconsistent with
which I do argue that in my essay against Taylor
Marshall on this position. But the modern day Roman Catholic
Church does not agree with the reformed Calvinist position that
infants are automatically damned merely by being children about him.
So the only people today that still hold to the
Augustinian position are Calvinists. So if he wants to claim Augustine,
he could claim him just in that specific area and
maybe on absolute predestination. But he doesn't even know that
the Roman Catholic position is not his position on inherited guilt.
Speaker 2: It's from the moment we were conceived, we deserve to
go to hell. It's not a pretty truth, but it's
what the Bible teaches.
Speaker 1: It doesn't teach that that's your misinterpretation and Meandorff has
a good essay pointing out where because Augustine didn't know
the Greek, he misunderstood Romans five.
Speaker 2: It's very important to recognize how serious sin.
Speaker 1: By the way, if you want to go deeper into that,
I have an entire three hour discussion from Augustine proving
all these points. Okay, so I'm sure a lot of
people are gonna be like, ooh, ooh, look, I will
walk you through Augustine's errors and his texts in great
detail in this open Q and A that we did
right here. It's called Augustine Calvin Original Sin Orthodox Theology.
So you can go watch this stream. I'll put it
in the chat right here. And this addresses in detail
the basic mistakes and fundamental errors that reform Zoomer is
not even aware of in it that he's engaging in.
Speaker 2: And it is so we recognize how much we depend
on God.
Speaker 1: I'm must get past this part to the next point.
Speaker 2: Well, Eastern Orthodox, he tends to lean a bit more
in the direction of Pelagius, which is why the West has.
Speaker 1: Do not even Palagianism. It's like, so, if he understood
the Roman Calolk position. He would call it Pelagian or
semi pelagius. He doesn't even he doesn't even know what
he thinks that. The only position that's not semi palagian
is if you believe in here to guilt the sinner.
Speaker 2: But the East doesn't really believe that. Here's another on
the East and West disagree on God. The West has
a more strict monotheism because it believes that what God
is is one thing. Yes, God is three persons, but
here we're talking about God's essence absolute divine. Simplicity means
God's essence or what God is is the same as
God's attributes or the things about God, and simplicity just
means that God is not made of parts. So God's power,
in God's mind and God's love are not parts of God.
They are the same as God. So when the Bible
says God is love, we take that literally, meaning that
God is the same as infinite love. The Eastern view
is completely different. The East believes that the things about God,
like love and power and justice are just energies that
come from God, and God could.
Speaker 1: Refer to Of course, I'm not going to rehearse that.
We probably respond to this five hundred times. So I've
been making videos about the energies for over ten years.
And here is the doctor bo Branson's lectures right here.
If you want to learn what monarchical trinitarianism is from
doctor Branson, who we just had on discussing this not
too long ago. Here's a great link right there for
his lectures. So doctor Branson gives you one, two, three, four, five,
five lectures on what monarchical trinitarianism is, and then it's
the only real consistent way to rebut the Islamic argument
of monotheism, especially when we look at the text where
Jesus is referring to the Father is greater than I.
Of course it doesn't mean ontologically greater, it means greater
in role. So there is doctor avail yourself of doctor
Branson's lectures. I highly recommend it. And again he should
have he should have looked at some of this stuff
before making this video, because it really just comes out
looking like a shoddy, corny like level one attempt to
explain the differences without even understanding really what the other
positions are. So there's brand doctor Branson's talks. Uh did
I put my talk on Augustine in there. I can't
remember if I did it here it is if I didn't.
So because we've refuted and because we've answered the energies
stuff probably literally five hundred times, I'm not going to
repeat all of that. Let's see what he says about theosis.
Speaker 2: Of God's energies. And because God's energies are also called
God in some sense, we become God in the end. Now,
the West also believes in theosis. The West also believes
that we receive love and immortality from God when we
have eternal life. The difference is the West knows that
these are gifts that God created for us.
Speaker 1: But yeah, so as Paloma says, if we just get
another creature, then we are no different than the Arians.
So here he's admitting that his position of created grace
is where it is created grace, and so therefore the
arguments of Athenasius. He claims to really like Athenasianus. But
Athenasius said that if we're getting in salvation just another creature,
then the Arians are correct. So he doesn't even understand
that he should go read a dialogue between Orthodox and
a barling mine to to understand.
Speaker 2: From God whereas the East thinks of salvation.
Speaker 1: Salvation is a gift of God's grace. He thinks that's Augustinianism. Actually,
Augustine teaches a cooperative grace. So even Augustine believes that
the will is still present in the human being, and
the will is still cooperating. Augustin believes in merits. Right,
if you read his books, he actually writes about merit. Okay,
he has works on grace and merit, and he doesn't
deny merit. He wouldn't be a Roman Catholic saint if
he completely denied all merit. And he says, well, the
merits are still gifts of God's grace. Okay, Well I
can agree with that. My mouse just died. So again
it's word concept fallacies because it depends on what you mean, right,
I mean, I can I can believe that my own,
my own human energy and will that I have by nature,
that i'd cooperate with grace in is also a gift. Sure,
So again it's a lot of equivocating that he's in God.
Speaker 2: So according to the West, all you have to do
to be saved is accept God's grace, even though different westnes.
Speaker 1: So he just refuted his own position here by the way,
he didn't even understand that this would be a created
This would be a crystological heresy too, because if Christ,
in assuming human nature, didn't do anything but make another
created human nature, or that the grace that he gave
to his human nature and the incarnation a lah the
Sixth Council, If it's just another creature, then and again
he's back at Arianism. So he doesn't even Understandsians.
Speaker 2: Might disagree on how to receive God's grace, but in
the East, there's no way to know if you're united
enough to God have assurance of salvation. We can know
that we are in Christ.
Speaker 1: Okay, so you can pause it that there is theoretically
an assurance of salvation like once Saved always said or whatever.
But the funny thing about all that is that none
of that actually because even in his position as a Calvinist, right,
if there's self deception and Calvinists believe that you're self
deceiving yourself all the time because the no edic effects
of sin are affecting you at all times, then there's
no way for him as an individual to know that
he's not being self deceived into thinking that he's want
of the elects. This alone refutes the notion of assurance
of salvation amongst Calvinists.
Speaker 2: But the East prefers to say things, our iniquities, the
punishment that brought us peace was on him.
Speaker 1: Yeah, this is all again word concept fallacy, assuming that
post Enlightenment ideas about not nominalism and legal standing and
divorcing ontology from legality and from propositions, which is a
post Enlightenment development, that that's all read back into Isaiah
and ancient text. Now, the ancient world and the medieval
world never separated ontology from nominalism from naming. Okay, So
there's no such thing as a purely legal status that
doesn't affect your ontology. But if that, if that goes away,
then all Reformation theology goes away, because that's what p
s A is built on. Penal substitution or tone is
built on the post Enlightenment noomalist idea that you can
divorce metaphysics from uh naming and legal status. So he's
just reading in post Enlightenment presubsositions, posts Reformation and presubsitions
back into Isaiah.
Speaker 2: And by his wounds we are healed. We all like
sheep have gone astray. Jesus's sacrifice takes away our legal penalty.
Speaker 1: So again, what does that mean? Okay, it's not a
question of can you find a quote, because this is
the same goofy debate that every reform person, for example,
engages when engaged them when they say, for example, oh, well,
the church fathers talk about the importance of scripture, therefore
solo scriptura. Oh Athanasia is talking about sacrifice, so therefore
he means the post Enlightenment ideas of nominalism and pure
legal status. No, he doesn't, And if you were to
read Athenasius you would actually know that. By the way,
Protestant scholars already written books on this Eustacia Day by
Alisterroir McGrath points out that nobody prior to Luthor had
Luther's ideal of justification by faith alone. So even your
own Protestant scholars admit this. But he's what twenty one
twenty two, He doesn't even.
Speaker 2: Know the East rejects original guilt. The Reform tradition is
very intellectual, so we're not a bit But.
Speaker 1: I guess what, let's just cut this out right away.
We could just really emphasize let's use philosophy to make
this really simple. If total depravity is true, and if
the noetic effects of sin are affecting you at all times,
and that includes in or rational theological discourse and your
interpretation of scripture, then you're also in every case denying
the possibility of having the certitude that you claim to have.
So every time you're reading the Bible, every time you're
reading the text, reading the Church Fathers, the noetic effects
of sin are distorting what you're doing, and every act
you're actually engaging in some degree of sin on your
own view, right, every act is in some way affected
by noetically in total depravity, the effects of sin. So
that would actually undercut and cancel out the possibility for
him to have the certitude that he has, not just
on his supposed doctrine of assurance of salvation, but also
on every text that he reads. Every time he tries
to go to the Bible, the noedic effects of sin
are messing with his interpretation, and so he could never
get to the true meaning of the text itself, which
is what his whole religion is based on. Solar scripture,
that alone is enough to cut out all of this
word concept felacy, goofy position so as we expected. I
had not seen this video before playing it with you guys.
It was actually worse than I expected. Super low tier
multiple word concept fallacies. Lack of familiarity with basic distinctions
between the intratrinitarian life and economyia when it came to
Philly Oquay. Lack of basic understanding of the actual debate
of the history of Philioquay. Lack of familiarity with the
basic academic sources on the Philly Oquay A. La Sashensky
and others. Lack of basic understanding of what the disputes
were between Roman Catholics and Protestants, assuming that Augustine is
somehow a useful person for Protestants, which is preposterous, assuming
that Roman Catholics and Protestants have the same doctrine of
original guilt. They don't. So again, multiple fundamental mistakes. And
you know, Redeemed Zuomer got really upset over our debate
for whatever reason, and so it looks like he's just
spiraling and doing damage control.