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