Speaker 1: The Bible doesn't say if you're a Protestant or Catholic
or art actually will be saved.
Speaker 2: It says you must be born again.
Speaker 3: Now, But what does that mean because the rest of
the New Testament texts talk about that being baptism.
Speaker 1: Yeah, well, born again is we have three kinds.
Speaker 2: Of death in the Bible.
Speaker 1: When is it physical death, spiritual death, and eternal death
which is also called second death?
Speaker 3: So that what does it have to do with baptism?
Speaker 2: What I just said, baptism is an.
Speaker 3: Outer you're just repeating Protestant Baptist doctrines. And I'm telling
you in Titus three five it's called the washing of
the labor regeneration.
Speaker 2: Yes, but that's in this speed's what happens.
Speaker 3: How do you know that you're just asserting that when
Paul doesn't make that distinction. How do you know that
every time Paul talks about baptism is quote spiritual, Well.
Speaker 1: The baptism was an outer confession.
Speaker 3: You're just restating the question I'm asking you, how do
you know that that's what Paul means and all those
passages about baptism.
Speaker 2: Because it's all over the Bible.
Speaker 3: It's so the answer is it's all over when that's
the thing I'm asking you. So, in other words, so,
why what are you for the third time going to
just tell me your interpretation again?
Speaker 1: No, it's not my Interpretation's what the Bible says.
Speaker 3: That's what you're saying. That's what the Bible says, and
I'm saying no. In John three, I think Jesus is
talking about water baptism, and that's why Acts two Peter says,
repent and be baptized for the remission of sins? Is
it water baptism in Acts two thirty eight thirty nine.
Speaker 2: What the bone again happens that repair?
Speaker 3: Is it water baptism in Acts two thirty eight thirty nine. Yes,
oh it is. But that's where he says, is the
remission of sins?
Speaker 1: No, the remission of sins it doesn't happen with washing.
Speaker 2: In the water.
Speaker 3: It literally says that in X two thirty eight thirty nine.
Speaker 1: No, nobody gets saved by being baptizing the water.
Speaker 3: That's your Yeah, please keep asserting the Protestant doctrine, which
is what I'm challenging, which you said it is water
baptism in actually thirty eight and thirty nine, and he
says that that is the remission of sentence.
Speaker 2: But listen, when I became a believer, I.
Speaker 3: This is your subjective interpretation. I don't. It doesn't matter
what you your personal experience was.
Speaker 1: No, I'm telling you right now there are tens of
thousands of Iranians who have become believers in Jesus and
they are not able to get baptized because in Iran
there's not possibility to get arrested or but they love
the Lord and they're not even baptizing, but they're born again.
Speaker 2: They're full of the Holy space.
Speaker 3: Let's just lag in the question that I mean. They
may be in God's mind and that's fine, but the
normative means by which we do this is said to
be multiple times throughout the New Testament, actual baptism. So
you're just assuming Protestantism, which is the very thing that
I'm questioning about. So how do you prove Protestantism to me?
Speaker 1: Well, as I said, I'm not a Protestant, was a basically.
Speaker 3: You are a Protestant. Why are you acting like you're not? Okay, evangelical?
Is that better?
Speaker 2: Yeah?
Speaker 1: So basically, what happened with the Protestantism Martin Luther. It
was a protest against Catholic system of you know, justification
by works and punaware on faith plus works. And what
all Protestant was was, no, we're justified again.
Speaker 3: I don't need to I know the history of the
pros and Reformation. I'm not trying to be rude to you,
but I'm asking you about evangelicalism, which is what you're
part of, and I'm asking you why should we accept evangelicalism.
Speaker 2: Again, It's not evangelicalism.
Speaker 3: Or being dishonest because you just admitted that you weren't
evangelical like two minutes ago.
Speaker 1: Yeah, evangelical What is evangelical?
Speaker 2: The Christians.
Speaker 3: I'm not going to argue with you over terms. Where
do you get your Bible from?
Speaker 2: What do we? What are we?
Speaker 3: Where do you get the Bible from? Did it just
fall out of the air into Iran?
Speaker 2: No? I actually you run is illegal to a Bible.
So I don't live in your own now.
Speaker 1: I live in Israel. But when I when I became
believer it, I started for a Bible for three months.
Speaker 3: We're moving on.
Speaker 4: So you made a video a while bag talking about
Protestism and criticizing them a bit, and this open debate,
perform plat format you do.
Speaker 2: And three issues you said you.
Speaker 4: Stayed with it was it was a historical, it was
anti sacramental, anti mystical, and.
Speaker 2: Just flat out done.
Speaker 4: Yes, the problem that I have with that is specifically
a historical and the issues I have with that is
and some of the issues you gave for why protestant
is antihistorical was they don't follow the liturgical warship properly,
They don't do certain customs and traditions that were practiced
by the early Church, and don't have the exact same
pieces of scripture or some example.
Speaker 3: Those are some examples. There could be many more listed
for sure.
Speaker 4: And the issue I have with that, if Protestantism.
Speaker 2: Is a historical by those standards, I would say, so
is Orthodoxy.
Speaker 3: And how is that.
Speaker 4: Well for starters Constantinople fell in fourteen fifty three.
Speaker 3: You can't be serious that this is an argument that
you think this is an arguments the start of one. Yeah,
what does this have to do with the theology. This
is why I block this guy, because this is too
too dumb. I mean, are you the synoticon of Orthodoxy?
Speaker 2: Yeah?
Speaker 4: Because I believe in the Sonoticon of Orthodoxy, in one
of the statements you give Thanksgiving, and that is the
glorification and of the defenders of Orthodoxy.
Speaker 3: Might not mistaken, probably I don't remember. It's a giant text.
Speaker 4: It's a giant text that's different among different branches of Orthodoxy.
Speaker 3: Right because different bishops can add their own personal For example,
Metropolitan saraphim A Preas adds the Joe's witnesses to the
condemnation texture.
Speaker 4: And the problem I have with that is the statement
of the defender of Orthodoxy, which originally within the Church.
Speaker 2: Was the Holy Roman Emperor.
Speaker 4: As was stated by Anthony, Patriarch of Constantinople in thirteen
ninety three to a letter of to letter to Basle
the First, the Grand Prince of Moscow, saying, my son,
it is not possible for Christians to have a church
and not have an emperor. Church and Empire have a
great unity and community. It is not possible for them
to be separated from one another. For the Holy Emperor
is not as other rulers and the governors of other regions.
Speaker 2: And this is because the Emperor is from the.
Speaker 4: Beginning establish and confirmed true religion Eustia in all inhabited
world okiomenia, they convolse.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I don't know how to pronounce.
Speaker 3: The word, obviously, And so orthodoxy is false because Byzantium fell,
I mean.
Speaker 4: It's not just that Bonancium fell.
Speaker 2: Puppet.
Speaker 3: Now we see why I booted this guy, and I
was right to boot that guy. This is too stupid
to even entertain. So, guys, I know you want entertainment,
but when you asked me to bring back Banantium and
these kinds of goofballs, it's usually because they're booted for
a reason. So let's get on my banana phone and
let's call up Banantium and let's talk to the Bananantine
emperor and see if we can get any history about
why he's not ruling on an earthly throne to help
ensure Banantium. Hello, Hello, Can anyone else call in the
banana phone and see if they can get the Bananantine Emperor? Hello?
I just hear monkey is chirping. I think I called
the Matt Dila Monkey line accidentally. I got Mount Dila
Monkey on speed dial.
Speaker 5: Does the Eastern or the Church think that Saint Augustine
is a saint?
Speaker 3: Yes, he's called a saint of the Fifth Act Medical Council.
Speaker 2: Okay, did the old heresies.
Speaker 3: He held to errors? An error is not necessarily heresy.
Every church father, in some way has some error that
doesn't make them all heretics.
Speaker 5: Okay, So the philioque absolute divine simplicity or in heresies.
Speaker 3: A heresy is something that's declared to heresy by the
Church eventually in a council. Augustine didn't believe anything erroneous
at his time that he knew was a heresy, so
I philioquay is not condemned until the Middle Ages.
Speaker 5: Okay, So before the nice and kind of the Nicean Council,
if someone held that Jesus was in God or go
substantial with the Father, then they were inhertics, right according.
Speaker 3: To that law. No, No, because some errors are significant
enough that the person that holds them. It's the attitude
that they have and the humility that they have. So
for example, when Augustine writes on the Trinity, he says,
in book three, I am speculating, and I give these
books to the judgment of the Universal Church, and if
there's anything wrong in them, they can be rejected. So
that's the attitude of humility to you. That, for example,
Origin didn't have. Origin was obstinate to the end of
his life in his heresies, and he did not submit
to the judgment of the Church, whereas Augustine did so.
Augustine's humility is what covers the theological speculations and mistakes
that he had, whereas for the people that you're talking about,
it's different.
Speaker 2: Okay, gotcha.
Speaker 5: Was he later corrected though by other bishops and other theologians.
Speaker 3: If he hands his book to the Church for judgment,
and Church that doesn't mean that it happens overnight, if
the Church doesn't in his lifetime judge it, but the
Church judges by the time of the Fifth Acumenical Council
that he's a saint. And by the way, do you
know what book the Fifth Actumdical Council lists as his
pre eminent theological work. No, okay, it's none of those books.
It's against the Manicheans, so it's not on the Trinity
or See of God or any of these other works.
Speaker 2: Okay, gotcha, that was my question. Thank you, all right.
Speaker 3: So, heresy is a sin of will and obstinacy, not
just a sin of mistake or error, and not even
Roman Catholics believe that he got everything right. They think
he made all kinds of theological mistakes, which would mean
that Roman Catholicism is false if that's the criteria. Because
Augustine taught a pretty strict doctrine predestination that the Roman
cally Church eventually doesn't adhere to. So if that's the case,
then the Roman Catholic system he's also a heretic. But
pretty much everybody has a degree of flexibility for saints
in the church, because no saint got everything as an
individual saint correct. Many of them got all kinds of
things wrong. Many of them got the canon of Scripture wrong,
and that's an important thing, But it doesn't make them
all heretics because they made a mistake. Making mistake is
not the essence of a heresy. Obstinacy and pride is
the essence of heresy.
Speaker 6: Just had a couple of questions, like about Eastern Orthodox relationships.
Speaker 2: I guess to the Reforms, Okay, so.
Speaker 6: I guess for starters, the main condemnation of the Reformed
would be their relationship to Roman Catholicism.
Speaker 3: Correct, the Orthodox condemnation of the Reformed would be the
relation to Roman Catholicism. I don't know they even know
what that means.
Speaker 2: Like I suppose I can qualify the question.
Speaker 6: So the Reformed are going to try to make some
claim about their Apostolic succession, at least the High Reformed, right,
and they're going to trace that through Roman Catholicism. They're
not going to trace it through like either the East Split.
Speaker 3: I've never heard of a Reform person who believes in
Apostolic succession, so I don't even know what that means.
Speaker 6: Oh interesting, all right, maybe this is some niche view.
I guess the second question, I mean.
Speaker 3: Maybe an Anglican Calvinist High Church Anglican Calvinists would try
to claim that's why.
Speaker 6: I mean, yeah, yeah, I've heard that from High Church
Anglicans through Reformed Anglicans even, but I've heard it from
like OPC guys, right, Orthodox Presbyterians.
Speaker 2: No.
Speaker 3: I mean, well, I mean, if they want to redefine
what the word a succession means, then that's what they're doing.
Because there's no Protestants who are Classical Reformation Protestants that
believe that there's a transmission of the gift of the
Holy Spirit in the laying on of hands.
Speaker 6: Kind of in the same way that a Lutheran is
going to argue for the historicity and apolasticity of the
Lutheran Church.
Speaker 3: But that's not what I just said.
Speaker 2: Right, No, I'm recognizing the distinction.
Speaker 3: Then it's not apostolic accession. It's redefining the terms to
make Protestantism and continuity with some made up traditions, just
like they do the same thing with Niceno Constantapolitan Creed,
where it says one Holy Catholic Apostolic and they redefine
that to me an the invisible Church.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I'll just can see that. It's like redefining No
problem there. So the second question would be.
Speaker 6: I've seen maybe I obviously need to read more about
Eastern Orthodox resources on the sovereignty of God, but it
seems to me that like certain historic views within the
Eastern Orthodox can be consistent with like maybe four point
or three point five, you know, tool of affirming Calvinists.
Speaker 2: Do you agree or disagree? No?
Speaker 6: Okay, which of the points, like, do you flat out
reject on all of them?
Speaker 2: Fair enough?
Speaker 6: All right, I'm not gonna take up too much time
if you ever want to have like a formal debate.
Speaker 7: I DM.
Speaker 2: Do you so? Thanks for the space?
Speaker 3: Well how about right now?
Speaker 2: No with me, I'm not good enough of this. I
have other people that I can talk to you or
link you up again I do. I mean what their names?
Is it?
Speaker 3: Somebody with an audience over a few hundred followers?
Speaker 2: Uh? Yeah, a couple of them. Jonathan Speaks would be
one of them.
Speaker 3: And how big is his audience.
Speaker 6: I'd probably guess around five six hundred?
Speaker 2: No, thanks, thanks for your time.
Speaker 3: Again. The Twitter spaces are for four or five hundred
two three five thousand. I'm not doing any formal debates
unless you have a large following. I didn't work my
butt off debating a thousand goobers to debate all the
top atheists and Muslims, to spend all my time debating
a bunch of five hundred follower people who want to
chase clout and grow their audience. So that's why you
get the Twitter space and they don't come here because
all they want is a big audience. Jud are you there?
Speaker 8: Yeah?
Speaker 2: I can hear you. It's real quiet, can you hear me?
Speaker 3: Yeah?
Speaker 9: Hey, I don't know why your volume is super long
on my phone, but I'm here, Okay.
Speaker 2: I had a question for you.
Speaker 9: So I'm a Protestant, I'm an Evangelical and I've been
inquiring it too Orthodoxy and it's really fascinating stuff.
Speaker 2: I'm trying to learn as much as I can.
Speaker 9: The thing that I am having a hard time really
understanding is your guys view on christ sacrifice and it
comes to the shedding of blood and the Old Testament
sacrificial system. You know, that's really deep be ingrained in
Protestant view of salvation and.
Speaker 3: Literally, so what I'm gonna say is, I'm gonna what
I'm gonna say is go watch the video Protestant Penal
Substitution Jay Dyer. So we've literally covered this probably five
hundred times. It comes up in every open space. So
if you look at my clips channel, you'll find multiple
things on PSA. I try to be rude. I'm just like,
it's like probably a thousand times we've responded to that.
Go ahead, hello, yep.
Speaker 10: Hey, So also Protestant here, very disgruntled Protestant.
Speaker 2: Uh.
Speaker 10: I would like to go east Orthodoxy, but my wife
has voice and concerns about y'all's mariology of Holy and
do y'all see her as totally sinless, like she has.
Speaker 2: Never once in her life?
Speaker 10: Or is that she is the most pure, most blessed
and and like, I get all that part, but y'all
can make the contention that she's never sinned ever.
Speaker 3: Yeah, she's a spatless virgin and God's grace preserved her
from sinning.
Speaker 2: Gotcha. And so that would be a.
Speaker 10: Stumbling block for my wife is that she would not
be comfortable saying that Mary only is sinless.
Speaker 2: She would say that she's most.
Speaker 10: Pure if that's fine, but she would have the issue
of making the jumpsy sinless.
Speaker 2: What do you what do you recommend?
Speaker 3: I mean, I made a whole video on the importance
of Mary, and I would say that, you know, I
like if if all the other doctrines are true an Orthodox, see,
it doesn't make any sense to say, but I'm not
going to submit to this one that I don't like
or disagree with, like if it's a package deal. So
to me, it's perfectly befitting that if she's the new Eve,
she would be like Eve, and instead of being a
fallen creature in the sense of actual sin, she would
be preserved from that like Eve would have been had
she not sinned. So I think it's a consequence of
her as the mother of God, that she was preserved
from that so that she could be in that intimate,
special role of being the one that gave birth to
the Son of God and gave to him his human
nature and so forth. But if we think about sin
as a specific act and not as a state of being,
as most Calvinists and reform people do. They think of
sin as a state of being. It's not find is James,
excuse me by James, as an action of the will.
That's another reason why infants aren't quote sinners, because infants
don't commit actual sins. They don't commit sins of the will.
The only sense in which an infant is a quote
center is that they are deprived of the grace of
Eden and they are fallen, and so they feel the
effects of the sin. And sometimes Paul speaks of that
whole class of human beings under the descent of Adam
as in sin. That does not equate to them being
actual sinners. It equates to them having the effects of sin.
So this is and literally no one believes this anymore,
that infants are damned except Calvinists. Roman Catholics don't believe
that infants are have inherited guilt. Maybe Lutherans do, I'm
not sure, but there's literally no one else that believes
this except for Calvinists. So you're not gonna be Orthodox
or Catholic if you believe that infants have actual sin,
which is kind of stupid if you think about it.
Speaker 2: My first point is when we look at Jesus, did
Jesus use tradition in the way that you would envision
it in your definition of tradition?
Speaker 3: Yes? Could you show us that well, he specifically.
Speaker 2: Could you give us the Eastern Orthodox definition and then show.
Speaker 3: Us he specifically said that the Word of God was
himself and not the books to the Pharisees.
Speaker 2: No, you're not listening to me.
Speaker 11: Right here we go, I'm asking you to give me
the definition of Eastern Orthodox.
Speaker 2: You understanding of tradition?
Speaker 3: Yeah, it's the full revelation, whether containing the written text
or the oral preaching of the apostles. How's that okay?
The faith once we're all committed to the saints.
Speaker 2: Yeah, no, I think you're still don't give it a.
Speaker 3: Full definition, right, and so you go make more YouTube videos.
Speaker 2: I don't want to know your thoughts are fully ocal. Okay,
go ahead, yeah, so yeah, so do you what's the
Orthodox position? Do y'all?
Speaker 12: Do y'all deny that there's any procession of the Holy
Spirit through the Sun.
Speaker 3: No, there is a procession through the sun, but it
is not his existential hypostatic origin.
Speaker 2: Okay.
Speaker 12: But if it's the case that the Holy Spirit, if
it's the case that the Holy Spirit proceeds through the sun, right,
then then what really is any difference between the Orthodox
position of philioko are.
Speaker 3: Not because that's not the position that's laid out of
the Council of Lions in Florence. That position says that
there's a double eternal hyposthetic principle from the Father and
the Son, who function as a single principle of the
origin of the Holy Spirit. And that's something that we
can never accept because it gets to the sun, the
unique property that identifies the Father.
Speaker 12: Well, you would you would agree that there's going to
be a distinction between being begonton and being preceded.
Speaker 3: Right, that has nothing to do with what I just said.
Speaker 12: Well, yes it does, because the Catholic like like you said,
the Catholic position is going to be that the Father
and the Son is the one principle that the Holy
Spirit spir rates from.
Speaker 3: There's nothing that two persons in the Trinity share, as
the Cappadocians say that one lacks. And so you've created
a diad. So you reject you created because the Father
and the Son are a united principle of power and
causation that the Spirit does not have. So that's an imbalance,
that's a diad.
Speaker 12: Well, but that but that's that's what distinguishes being forgotten
or the Son being forgotten, and the and the Spirit
being preceded. Right, because of the amount of people that
takes that that takes part are not the amount of
persons that take parts in preceding the Holy Spirit, at
least in the Catholic view, right, we can make the
case that the Holy Spirit truly is proceeded and not
just be gotten right from the Father.
Speaker 3: So you're repeating Roman Catholic apologetic apologetics that doesn't even
address like the level of which we're talking about this question.
So can you repeat to me what my argument was?
Speaker 12: Yeah, yeah, yeah, the argument was that, well, you pretty
much just laid out of our position. Then you said that, oh,
I've created a diead because it's going to be like
the two persons, the fathering son being the one principle
in which, right, the Holy Spirit pretty much originates from
or essence from that.
Speaker 2: Is that your position?
Speaker 3: And why is that a problem?
Speaker 2: Yeah? I don't see the problem.
Speaker 3: Why did I Why did I say that's a problem.
Speaker 12: Well, you said, you said those are problems because I
created a diead, right.
Speaker 3: And why is that? I said specifically, there's a reason why.
Speaker 2: Yeah, because the father and the son is the one principle.
Speaker 3: And why is that a problem?
Speaker 2: You tell me?
Speaker 3: Okay, I mean, I'm trying really hard to be patient
with you guys, but like I literally stated explicitly what
the problem is, and you've come with like level one
understanding and you want to debate it, which is fine.
I don't mind doing it. But did it ever occur
to you, Did it ever occur to you to maybe
read some of the arguments on this before you went
to debate it?
Speaker 12: Yeah, yeah, I know, so I I but you.
Speaker 3: Can't restate my argument, So you're not Are you not
listening to what I said or you just didn't catch it.
You want me stated again.
Speaker 12: Well, will your position on the matter would be that
the father is the only principle?
Speaker 2: Right?
Speaker 3: And who said that? Anybody in church history?
Speaker 2: Well, I mean I'm asking you, do.
Speaker 3: You know of any famous church fathers that were involved
in any ecumenical councils that maybe said that.
Speaker 12: I know church fathers that believing Philly Opy. Do you, yeah, Augustine?
Speaker 2: Mm hmm? Do you accept that or do you deny that?
Speaker 3: No? I mean I don't accept his teaching. No, it's wrong.
Speaker 2: Oh oh so he does, so he does accept absolutely,
But he's a saint in your church.
Speaker 3: Do you really think that these are owns that we
haven't addressed these arguments probably five hundred times. I mean.
Speaker 12: No, I mean that's I know the copium that you
guys use.
Speaker 3: So let's let's get into that. All right, you want
to do this, let's do it. What council confirmed the
Doctor of the Trinity for the Universal Church?
Speaker 2: The council? Did I see that? No?
Speaker 3: So you see, you don't even know the first of this.
You don't even know level one of this debate. It's
the second Ecaemical Council. Who are the three fathers that
are the most important of the second ecamical Council?
Speaker 2: The second was the second?
Speaker 3: So you don't know anything, and you're trying to debate.
Speaker 12: Are you talking about what is all the go with
Philio boy?
Speaker 3: Exactly? So you don't even know the Cappadocian doctrine of
the trinity that's outlined at constant double one.
Speaker 2: I don't know, I mean I is it like correct?
Speaker 13: Yes?
Speaker 2: Yeah?
Speaker 3: Yeah, And that's not a filioquated doctrine because tell me
what the hypostatic property of the.
Speaker 2: Father is the hypostatic property, So.
Speaker 3: You don't even know the basic Cappadocian terms. You don't
even know our basic position, and you're trying to argue
with me and call it you call it code.
Speaker 12: Tell you, yeah, the hyposthetic property of the father is
that he's the one that again he's he's the one principal.
Speaker 3: Oh, he's the one principal. But you just said a
minute ago that you agree that the son is also
a co principal with him, so he's not the one principal.
How many principles are how many principles are there?
Speaker 2: There's one principle?
Speaker 3: No, you don't you believe there's one, And you contradicted
by saying that the father and the son together are
a principle that's two.
Speaker 2: Yeah, that's that's the one principle. It's not gonna be
two principles.
Speaker 3: You just said the father is the principal, and then
you said the father and the son are a principle.
That's two. Can you count the father?
Speaker 2: And what do you this dowel argument?
Speaker 3: Are you this dumb? You don't even know our position?
You said, you said the father is the principal, right.
Speaker 2: The father and the son are the one principle.
Speaker 3: At first you said the father is the principle. I
asked you his hypothetic property. You said it was to
be the principal. That's just hype. Well, yeah, you said that,
don't lie. You said that, Yeah I know.
Speaker 12: Yeah, yeah, I understand that the mother is going to
be the principal.
Speaker 3: Oh then there you go. Now you've contradicted because the
father and the son together are now a principal. That's
the problem. So that's two principles.
Speaker 2: I never negated that the son is a principal.
Speaker 3: If the father is the principal and the son also
with him, is also a principal, that's two.
Speaker 2: Well, I don't know, they're both the same principle.
Speaker 3: Okay, now you're a modal Now you're a modalist because
now you've said the Father and the Son together are
a principle. That's modalism.
Speaker 2: How does that follow.
Speaker 3: Because that's the argument that the Gappatoians made against the Eunomians.
You're confusing hyposthetic properties with common powers and energies.
Speaker 2: Where are you getting this notion from?
Speaker 3: Have you read Basil on the Holy Spirit? Have you
read Basil against Unomious?
Speaker 12: Oh, Basil against the Basil is what you would be.
Speaker 3: I thought you knew all this stuff. You're not familiar
with those works?
Speaker 2: Can you repeat? Can you repeat what you say?
Speaker 3: Basil on the Holy Spirit and Basil against Unomious?
Speaker 2: Have you read those iusunomious?
Speaker 3: Don't even know the words?
Speaker 2: What does.
Speaker 3: Nonymious? Anonymious? So you're not even familiar with this. You're
not familiar with it? Is you're a clown that because
it shows that you're not familiar with the literature, and
you're trying to debate it.
Speaker 2: Why that's not true?
Speaker 3: True? You don't know the terms. You're demonstrating your ignorance
of the whole scope of this.
Speaker 2: Oh, because I pronounce.
Speaker 3: No, it means that you're not familiar with the literature.
You couldn't even tell me to works.
Speaker 2: This is no no, have you read this?
Speaker 3: Have you read this literature? Have you read this literature?
Speaker 2: Uh? The literature? Ons? Why does that matter? Can you
show me where?
Speaker 3: Because it shows that you don't. It shows that you're
not familiar with the topic. You don't know to pronounce
the basic terms.
Speaker 2: Right.
Speaker 3: No, No, you're about to cry, dude, like, Look, it
would be whove you to go and understand this stuff
before you try to debate it, and you did come
here to debate.
Speaker 2: Can you please just show me where Saint Basil.
Speaker 3: Argues against who's the Who's the soul cause? Who do
they argue is the sole cause?
Speaker 2: The soul cause? What do you mean by soul calls?
Speaker 3: So you're not, again, not familiar with common terminology throughout
all the cappadtions soul cause, soul cause, father is the
sole cause? The cap dictum? Shut up? Shut up? All right,
you're gone.
Speaker 2: He's running.
Speaker 3: No, you made it a fool of yourself. I'm not
running from you. You have no idea what you're talking about.
I'm trying to explain it to you. You won't shut up,
Shut up, and I'll tell you that's fine sole cause
their dictum is anything that is a hypostatic property is
unique to the person's and non communicable or shareable. Anything
that is not a hypostatic property is common to all three.
That's a Cappadocian dictum. That's why the philioko is wrong,
according to the Cappadocians, because the father's principle what picks
him out his hypostatic property is to be sole sol
e cause rka fount principle. It does because it means
that what he has that marks him out cannot be shared.
That's the Cappadocian dictum.
Speaker 2: Well yeah, well.
Speaker 3: No, it does not relation itself is a predicate, not
a subject. Persons are subjects, not relations.
Speaker 2: Yeah, but that's the thing that so you would.
Speaker 3: Know that if you've read the Cappadocian. So you have
no knowledge of this topic and you're trying to debate,
I'm asking, what does persona at rolatio mean?
Speaker 2: Oh, now he wants Now he wants to speak Greek.
Speaker 3: Persona at Rolatio's Latin, you idiot. Oh and I don't
know Latin, I don't care about Latin. But this guy
just showed this is the arrogance of these people no
knowledge of these topics. They want to debate it. Persona
at rolatio is Aquinas's dictum person is relation. So the
first person to say that is that I'm aware of
is perhaps Augustine, but at least for sure Aquinas.
Speaker 7: I think most Orthodoxy or Catholics don't believe that salvation
is by grace through faith, and I make the I'm
gonna make the claim that it is.
Speaker 2: On the scriptures.
Speaker 3: Well, we believe that it is, but we believe that
those words mean different things from you. So it's not
that we reject the scriptures or don't believe in salvation
by faith or by grace, but we don't believe that
it's a legal standing that's imputational, which is based on
a heretical trinitarian theology, like.
Speaker 2: A legal standing. The word justified is a legal term,
is it not?
Speaker 3: Yeah, But it's not a purely fictional imputational legal standing.
That's what I'm saying is impossible because nobody in the
ancient medieval world were nominalists, and you need nominalism to
have that position.
Speaker 2: What do you mean by nominalists?
Speaker 13: Sorry?
Speaker 3: Right, So the reformers like Luther relied on medieval nominalists
like Akham and Bile to figure out how it was
possible for God to declare people to be a legal
state that they weren't ontologically that thing. So that's nominalism,
that it's a name only position, a legal standing position
that doesn't reflect an actual ontological change in being. And
since nobody in the ancient Imita the world were nominalists
until Aukham, that means Paul didn't teach your.
Speaker 2: View, doesn't it say everyone's four to five? That's let's see,
let me pull it up here.
Speaker 3: So you're not gonna address what I said. You're gonna blow.
Speaker 14: Past you know.
Speaker 2: I'm trying to understand what you're saying. I'm not trying
to ignore it.
Speaker 3: Have you read Alistair McGrath? No, what is that funny?
I don't understand.
Speaker 2: No, I'm just I'm not laughing at you.
Speaker 3: I'm just saying, no, I haven't well, but you laughed,
so I don't understand why it's funny.
Speaker 2: I don't.
Speaker 9: I don't know.
Speaker 7: It's just chuckle, dude. Okay, I'm a little I've never
done one of these before, so it's a bit new
to me. Maybe more of a nervous laughter.
Speaker 3: Okay. Well, McGrath is one of the most famous modern
Oxford Protestant scholars. He wrote a book called Eustacia Day
and in that book he admits that nobody in the
ancient a medieval world until about fifteen hundreds had the
idea of justification by faith alone.
Speaker 7: Okay, here, let me pull up some quotes here then,
didn't uh, let me fall some quotes with some church fathers.
Speaker 3: Okay, church fathers who believed in apisodic succession and the
real presence you think they taught justification.
Speaker 2: Let me pull on.
Speaker 3: You're going to pull up a bunch of quote minds
that don't say what I'm saying. They say what you
think they're saying. So you're going to read into these
church fathers who also teach the necessity of works and
then use the real presence. You're going to try to
quote mind then to prove the Protestant doctrines. Okay, I
used to be a Protestant, Dude, I did all this.
Don't you think I know what you're gonna do?
Speaker 2: What do you put you mean?
Speaker 7: I'm just trying to put out a position here and
I don't.
Speaker 2: I don't know, like I'm not particularly the.
Speaker 3: Romans for let's go to Romans for when Paul, who
does Paul? Where does Paul cite? In Genesis and Romans for.
Speaker 2: Okay, let's just read it here Romans for three four.
Speaker 7: What's say at the scripture Abraham believed God and it
was kind.
Speaker 2: Of him for righteous? Yes?
Speaker 3: Where is he citing a.
Speaker 2: Roman's death Genesis chapter fifteen, verses three six?
Speaker 3: Right? Now, tell me this in the Protestant view in
terms of the transition from rath to grace, as the
reformer spoke of, when was that in Abraham's.
Speaker 7: Life Genesis chapter fifteen when it says he believed God?
Speaker 3: Thank you for refuting? Yes, thank you for reputing. Thank
you for refuting Protestantism, because it's just it's Genesis twelve
where Abraham first believes and does several chapters of good
works before Genesis fifteen. So you just refuted Protestantism in
Romans four.
Speaker 7: No, because you read, you read the rest of the chapter.
It's talking about Genesis chapter fifteen or so.
Speaker 3: You literally heard nothing I said, and you're not addressing area.
You don't even understand the argument. You're you're blowing past
the argument.
Speaker 2: Maybe maybe I'm just not quite getting with you.
Speaker 3: Right, You're not correct. Do you want me to state
it again? Sure, the transition from wrath to grace should
be Genesis twelve, not fifteen. So by Paul citing Genesis fifteen,
you refute the Protestant position.
Speaker 7: I'm sorry, I don't follow that because, oh my god,
hold on, hold on, dude, hold on, because in Genesis twelve,
the command was just get out of your country. It
wasn't that he'd be a father of many nations or
if it was, like he didn't completely comprehend that, and
it records.
Speaker 3: Did he believe in faith and general So this is
this is let me present my position. You're you're you're
ignoring the argument.
Speaker 2: I'm not trying. I'm not trying to.
Speaker 3: Yes, you are. You're inventing a bunch of bull crap
about No, he wasn't so he wasn't justified in no,
you're not. You don't even know what the word of
God is. You don't even know what. So he does
three chapters of good works, but he's not justified yet.
This is how silly your position is.
Speaker 2: Okay, yeah, yeah, so.
Speaker 3: God didn't make a covenant with him.
Speaker 2: Now to him, that worketh is the reward not right.
Speaker 3: So you're not going to listen to the argument. You're
just gonna starting.
Speaker 2: You're not listening to me. You're not letting me get.
Speaker 3: Did Abraham believe God in Genesis twelve?
Speaker 2: He believed? Okay, let's just let's just quote that. Let's
go to Genesis twelve.
Speaker 7: Let's just go there, yess twelve, that's in Genesis twelve.
Speaker 2: Three.
Speaker 3: Does he build an altar in verse eight and call
upon the name of the Lord and worship him?
Speaker 7: Oh, all right, Genesis twelve, Get the out.
Speaker 2: Of that country, and from my kindred and from my
father's house onto a land that I will kill thee.
Speaker 7: I will make of the a great nation that will
bless thee, and make thy name great, that thou and
thou shalt be a blessing.
Speaker 2: And I will bless them the blessed being curse and
the curse of thee. Oh, sorry about that? That will
bless them, the blessed being curse and the kirsty. And
then these shall all families with the earth to bless.
So Abraham departed, as the Lord had spoken about him.
Speaker 3: Does he build an altar in versus seven eight nine,
worship God.
Speaker 2: I'm getting there. I'm getting there, all right, all right,
I'll just go to verse eight.
Speaker 7: And he removed from thence onto a mountain on the
east of Bethel, and pitched his tent, having Bethel on
the west verse.
Speaker 3: Seven, eight and nine. Seven.
Speaker 2: Excuse me, I didn't I didn't hear, so.
Speaker 3: I said, seven eight nine, he builds an altar.
Speaker 7: Dude, I didn't hear you, so my mistake. And the
Lord appeared onto Abraham and said, unto the sea, but
I give this land. And there he built an altar,
unto the Lord who appeared unto him.
Speaker 3: Okay, yeah, oh, but he's not saved yet.
Speaker 2: Well listen, well, when was he declared righteous? My God?
You tell me when? When does the.
Speaker 7: Bible say that he was declared righteous by God? When
did it count for it?
Speaker 3: For right now, I'm showing the stupidity of your interpretation
of Roman school.
Speaker 2: Okay, that's an assertion. That's an assertion that you're making.
You're not really backing it up, though, So I'm.
Speaker 3: It up by the fact that shut up, shut up,
shut up, or you're gone. In verse in verse in
verses seven and eight, he worships the Lord God. Obviously
accepts this worship. He acts in faith for the next
several chapters until Genesis fifteen. So this refutes your stupid
argument that he was saved in fifteen. So Romans four
doesn't teach the Protestant view. It's just your assumption that
it taught the Protestant view.
Speaker 2: Okay, let me ask you this Roman.
Speaker 3: Now you're going to change the subject.
Speaker 2: I am not. I am not going to change the subject.
Speaker 3: So was he not saved for three chapters of good works?
Speaker 2: And I asked a question.
Speaker 3: You're not No, was he not saved?
Speaker 2: No? Because it doesn't say he was declared.
Speaker 3: Okay, so yeah, you're an idiot, so so so God.
So he does all these good works and he's not
saved until to just save your stupid position it is.
It's nonsense, you're so he's not He's not lauded for
his faith when he goes into Egypt in fourteen.
Speaker 2: W are you talking about specific thirteen?
Speaker 3: So when he fourteen, when he when he after the
Battle of the Kings, when he tithes to Malkisa deck,
he's not even saved yet for his he's lauded as
a faith champion in Hebrews eleven when he's not even saved.
This is how stupid your position is.
Speaker 2: Okay, so that's that's what you're just gonna do, just
like I just dunk on somebody who's never done this before.
Speaker 3: So now you're playing victim when you're ad a bunch
of bad arguments. Well, you're dead about me. I've never
done this before. No you're not. No, you're not. No,
you're not. It is retarded because so and so you're
saying that he's an enemy of God when he's lauded
for tithing to makiz dec in fourteen.
Speaker 2: No, no, no, okay, yes you are saying that.
Speaker 3: Why are you lying if he's if it's not, if
he's not saved, you are because if he's not saved
until Genesis fifteen, then he's still undergo wrath and an
enemy of God in the protest position. What are you saying?
On my goodness, that's your position?
Speaker 7: Can I at least state what I was going to say?
Speaker 3: Or you said that he's not saved until fifteen? That
means in this story? That is that not what it
means to be saved in the Protestant view? Okay, all right,
you're e're a liar You're so dishonest, man, You are
being dishonest. Why are you even here doing this? It's
just ridiculous, dude. So there you go. So Abraham is
over here tithing. He's lauded in Genesis in Hebrews eleven
as a model of faith. After he goes to battle
to save Lot in Genesis thirteen and he's lost in
all of this. How stupid the Protestant position is. And
then he plays victim. I've never done this. So he's
lauded as a model of faith in Hebrews eleven for
what he does in Genesis fourteen, but according to this
guy's idiot Protestant argument, he's still not saved until Genesis fifteen.
Speaker 15: Okay, I'm trying to understand some of the issues that
you have with the.
Speaker 2: Reformed or the Protestant world.
Speaker 15: And am I right in understanding that your view is
specifically a rooted in epistemology, that the Church has determined
the canon or I guess I'm trying to figure out
how the ontological aspect.
Speaker 2: Relates to that. If there's a.
Speaker 15: If the Church determined scripture via the Holy Spirit, or
if the church is recognizing the canon in a passive sense,
and it so much seems to hinge on that, and
I'm just looking for some clarify.
Speaker 3: I mean, it sounds like a lot of speculation, Like
you don't think we can go and read the people
who determine the canon. So you're talking about active and passive,
and like, so what the six Ecumentical Council, the people
that wrote the Abstaltic Canons were passive? I mean that
doesn't make any sense. What are you talking about?
Speaker 2: Okay, so.
Speaker 15: If you would recognize me as such, I was a
convert out of atheism. However, I wouldn't be recognized as Orthodox,
so you might dispute that. So when I come into it,
I've already come into a place where people are saying
here's the canon, and then later I discovered the Orthodox
are saying, well, actually it's this. There's a few other
books involved, And so would I kind of come into it.
I'm looking, Okay, why do the Protestants say this is
their canon?
Speaker 2: Why do the Catholics say X this?
Speaker 3: In likewise, what are you talking about active and passive?
I mean, I'm not trying to be mean, but like
this whole history go.
Speaker 15: Ahead, yes, because I what I was hearing from the
reform position. That is, it sounds like they assert the
ontological distinction first, that God determines scripture.
Speaker 3: How do they know that these are assertions? I mean,
I can cite you in church history specifically when and
where the canon was discussed, debated, and determined. For example,
the Apostolic Canons, which most Protests don't even know what
that is. The eighty fifth Apostolic Canon, for example, mentions
Maccabees and sirrric And when the QUINTESESX Council of six
ninety two, which is affirmed at the Seventh Medical Council
in seven eighty seven, mentions the canonical scriptures, It mentions
the Apostholic Canons. Protestants don't know anything about that, and
they never talk about that, almost never. So all of
this assertion of active passive determined, I mean, this is
all Protestant gibberish. I can tell you the exact places
where in the history of the Church these decisions were made.
Speaker 15: Right right, and I wouldn't dispute that. But what seems
to be have taken place is that heterodox pressures seem
to back the historical Church into a position of saying
we must formally make this declaration.
Speaker 3: And yeah, which means that they weren't operating on solar
scripture prior to that, right, right.
Speaker 15: From what I understand is that Protestants are arguing that
solar scripture is the recognized is the primary documents on
apostolic authority, and so it almost sounds like it's just
a matter of method that these are the primary documents
by which we judge all subsequent tradition and dogma or
anything based off of it.
Speaker 2: And so they're always referring to.
Speaker 15: This specific canon as the means by which we judge
all this. And so what I've come to learn is
that a lot of books that other traditions are saying
should be included in the canon.
Speaker 2: I've come to.
Speaker 15: It later as an understanding through Protestants that these are
important documents, but that the canon is basically man's recognition
of something that's already onto logically prior so that the
authority of God.
Speaker 3: Yeah. Point, So nobody is denying that the texts were
inspired and they have authority from God. The point is
that it's a post apostolic decision that's very late, that
involves human beings that Protestants think were fallen, fallible and
didn't have the Gospel that made the decision of what
makes up that canon. And it's not just that, it's
also you don't have a time machine to go back
and get Paul's AUTOGRAPHA. You're trusting that those Apostolic sees
and churches with absolute succession, those bishoprics preserved those Pauline
or gospel texts, which sometimes don't have their author listed,
like Matthew doesn't tell you who that is. How do
you know this is Matthew the Apostle. So you're relying
on the tradition of those churches to preserve and hand
them down as part of canonicity, as well as things
like liturgical inclusion. So it's missing the point to say that, well,
the church is just recognizing what God inspired. Yeah, was
that recognition decision inspired or not? And this is why
Arci spol for example, says, oh, well, the Bible is
a fallible collection of infallible documents. And when we had
a Protestant here the other day when we were demanding this,
he says, oh, yeah, it could be changed, it could
be wrong. Oh, so the Word of God is subject
to new discoveries as to what can be taken out
or perhaps added to, which means that the whole position
is nonsense.
Speaker 15: Yes, And I think what you're saying is I largely
agree with everything that you're saying. I guess I'm trying
to just narrow the scope of the disagreement and I'm
trying to figure it out because when I hear you
discuss it, it sounds good. It sounds like, yes, there's
this epistemological concern that that takes precedent, and I don't
know if that provides a certain psychological.
Speaker 2: Security well okay, or or if if.
Speaker 15: There's a an ontological priority and we're just not sure,
but we know that they're has to be this higher
divine recognition or is it impossible that we would have
failed to grasp the canon?
Speaker 3: I mean all of this, I mean the whole point
has just become orthodox, Like what's all of this yappin
and speculation about all this and that? Like what are
you talking about? Like it's the church historically determined the canon,
and it is the Orthodox Church, and you can go
read those people.
Speaker 2: And so you would equate all of the.
Speaker 15: All of the church history because when I when I
read church history, I hate to say this, but it
almost seems a bit messy.
Speaker 2: Uh.
Speaker 15: There's guys that are saying this guy was a heretic
on that position. And and so it seems to be
that the community is pretty broad. But the one thing
that seems to be central is they all have a
deep reverence for scripture, even prior to a a complete
it can and a formal recognize.
Speaker 3: Yeah, but that has nothing to doe in no way
does that prove the Protestant doctrine of sa scripture.
Speaker 15: So maybe I'm misunderstanding the Protestant doctrine because it seemed.
Speaker 3: To be do you believe that it's a fallible collection
of infallible books?
Speaker 2: Yeah? You know.
Speaker 15: To be honest, I'm not sure if it's a fallible collection.
I seem to agree with the way it developed in
church history.
Speaker 3: So it's an infallible collection. So you would assign infallibility
to a decision of the church post apostles. That's not Protestant.
Speaker 15: Well, I'm not a I don't know how to make
that declaration of that firm commitment as to whether I
think it was fallible or infallible collect.
Speaker 3: Well, if it's not fallible, it must be infallible. There's
not a whole lot of options there is there between
those two.
Speaker 15: They're mutually exclu I'm just not yeah, and I just
don't feel comfortable saying one way or the other.
Speaker 2: It seems like.
Speaker 15: I don't see any reason how how are I don't
have any.
Speaker 3: Okay, so uh to how it forms. If you don't
have an objection, then you don't have a problem with
the Apostolic canons.
Speaker 2: They are are.
Speaker 15: I'm sorry, I would have to familiarize myself specifically with
Apostolic canons.
Speaker 3: So you're not familiar with that.
Speaker 15: Are you talking about a specific recognition like uh, a
collection of documents? Yes, okay, unless maybe I'm misunderstanding the
name or something.
Speaker 3: Cannons are some of the earliest forms the collections of
church law. Canon law. Are not arguing that they're infallible
because they're called Apostolic canons. I'm just pointing out that
Canon eighty five is a list of the canonical texts
that the ancient Church in the fourth century considered canonical.
That list is what's cited at Trollo in six point
ninety two, which is normative for the Orthodox Church, and
then Trollo is affirmed at the Seventh Ecumenical Council in
seven eighty seven. So this is the basis for the
canon of scriptures according to the Universal Ecumenical Catholic Church
in the first eight centuries. This right here, So perhaps
we should familiarize ourselves with the Apostolic canons, because as
I read through these, oh, it turns out this is
all orthodox stuff. Presbyter bishop, deacon, episcopate, Eucharist, heretics, excommunicated Eucharist,
on and on and on, nothing to do with protestantsm
And what's the eighty fifth canon? The list of the
canonical scriptures, including the Dudro Canon, not the Protestant Canon.
Speaker 16: Where talking to a Protestant and they are like very
adamant that like every single thing that we need to
know about the Christian life and faith is in scripture
and that we don't need like con traditions and stuff
like that. How do you responded, at.
Speaker 3: Well, if everything that we knew was in scripture, then
the list of the canonical books would be in scripture.
If everything that we needed to know was in scripture,
then we would have, you know, all of the later
necessary doctrines that are formulated at like at Nica about
the Trinity, the Dear Christ. They would have also been
explicit in the scriptures, but they're not. So where was that,
for example, where's the New Testament statement on how we
worship explicitly in the church. We know from Leviticus when
Nate and Abayehir are killed that God takes the worship
very seriously. Uh so did he not tell us an
actual pattern of liturgical worship in the New Testament? If
protestant Ism is true, that would be the first thing
that we have in the New Testament is a clear
list of how we're supposed to worship. And yet there
is no liturgical pattern explicitly given in the New Testament.
Has never occurred to a Protestant. God's willing to kill
Nate and Abahu over this question, but he doesn't even
give the church an actual pattern of worship. Were no, dude.
Speaker 13: They were supposed to go into the church, the house
church bro and they were supposed to make it up
and get a smoke machine in the laser lights, and
did a Paul the apostle went and got a bunch
of the laser lights, and he put it into the
house church. And they was doing whatever they wanted dude.
Speaker 3: That was my boomer evangelical voice.
Speaker 17: There, so hi ja hey, I wanted to ask a
couple of questions. So I was taught by my prof
that in Saint John of Vaskin's work on Holy images,
he states that the saints are present inside the icons.
This so implied that the saints are actually omni present,
because you could have like multiple images of Saint Luke
and he would be in all of these icons. So
my question would be, can only holy beings or I
guess like elohem is probably the best word to describe it,
be omni present.
Speaker 3: So the saints are deified, and so they're present via
the divine energies because they're divide. So they're not present
because they're God in a natural in a sense of
divine nature, but they participate in the divine energies, which
allows them to be deified, which allows them to be
in a mystical way present. And that's why if you
read Revelation five through nine, when John seas into heaven
on the Lord's Day, he's on earth, but he's in
the presence of the heavenly liturgy. So we believe that
the liturgy is heaven on Earth literally, and God is
able to do that because he's God and he can
bring heaven down to earth and the incarnation. So no,
it's not omnipresence to be in the outside of time
and space.
Speaker 17: So what do you mean by I'm just confused by
what you mean by deified? Like they they're given like
a not a godhood necessarily.
Speaker 3: But like well, Jesus says in Jesus says in John
seventeen that he came to give us a share, a
real participation in the glory that he had with the
Father before the foundation of the world. Jesus says, I
have said ye are gods to the Pharisees, and Peter
says that we've become partakers of the divine nature. So
that's deification. Thats theosis you really do become immortal.
Speaker 2: Okay, I guess I'm just confused between what you mean by.
Speaker 17: Like immortal versus like the understanding of like being in
multiple places at once.
Speaker 2: For me, I guess would confuse me.
Speaker 3: So again, are the saints in heaven on earth or not?
In Revelation five to nine, Huh, they're not.
Speaker 6: They're not on earth.
Speaker 3: I don't remember. Well, how is there an altar on
earth in Hebrews thirteen.
Speaker 2: So they're in heaven.
Speaker 3: Heaven comes down to earth in the liturgy. That's what
I'm trying to say. Oh, okay, When John in Revelations
five to nine is praying in the spirit on the
Lord's Day, he's doing the liturgy and he sees into
heaven and he sees the heavenly liturgy opened up. That
he's in heaven. So Heaven comes down to us in
the liturgy, and that's how the saints are present.
Speaker 17: Okay, that makes a bit more sense. I'm still kind
of confused, but it's okay.
Speaker 2: I have to read more.
Speaker 3: So we'll read Revelation five through nine and think about
that as the heavenly worship service being also on earth.
We are raised up into heaven. This incarnation, the incarnation,
brings Heaven to earth and us into heaven. Heaven is
already here, so it's now the Kingdom of God is
on earth. It's the church, it's the liturgy. So when
Paul says, and he was thirteen, that we have an
altar that we eat from, that the people who serve
the tabernacle have no right to eat, he's saying that's
the same altar. What I'm arguing is that that's the
same altar that John sees in heaven when he sees
the Lamb slain in heaven. Why is there a lamb
slain in heaven? When John sees that if Protestantism is true,
the sacrifice is already complete. Bro there's no continuation of
that or perpetuation of that. But yet John sees into
heaven and he sees the Lamb slain in heaven, and
he sees an altar, and he sees saints praying for
the Church on earth. There's saints under the altar praying
for the saints, the offering the prayers of the saints
on earth to God. Do you understand when I'm talking
about or not?
Speaker 15: Uh?
Speaker 2: Oh yeah?
Speaker 17: Kind of, it's I don't know.
Speaker 3: What I'm saying is that in Hebrews thirteen, Paul talks
about there being an alter on earth where we eat,
and I'm saying that that's the same alter that's in
heaven in the Book of Revelation that John sees. You're
not you don't understand what I'm saying.
Speaker 17: I mean, kind of the thing that I'm kind of
fogging on is whether, like heaven is on earth right now,
because when you hear like, oh, he will wipe every
tear from their eye, people still weep today, and so
how can.
Speaker 3: We That doesn't mean that, right, And that's why Paul
says that even though he ascended, we do not yet
see all things subjected to him. In Corinthians, so there's
a process of working this out in history even though
the work is already complete.
Speaker 2: Okay, Or does Paul say that.
Speaker 3: Right now our first Corinthian. I'm going for a memory
of first Corinthians. Right now we see we do not
yet see all things subjected to him even though he
is ascended. Is it first Greendi is fifteen Okay?
Speaker 17: Yeah, I was just wondering because my prophet is basically
talking first.
Speaker 3: Is fifteen twenty eight. We all now when all things
are made subject to him. Excuse me, it's Hebrews too,
where he says that even though all things are subject
to him, we do not yet see all things in
history subjected to him. But all things are subjected to
him when he rose on the cross instead of the
right hand of the father, so he began to reign
when he ascended, right.
Speaker 17: Yeah, Okay, that makes a bit more sense. I think
my prop was just really throwing me off because we
were learning about how basically in Mesopotamia they believe that
God would reside.
Speaker 2: In an idol that you made, and then she made.
Speaker 17: The illusion that the Orthodox believe the same thing, and
therefore it's like incongruent because of the fact that you
can't have like multiple idols of a human, and then
there would be the human would literally be inside the idol,
and then that would cause that made me a little
confused because it was like what the heck.
Speaker 3: So well, even in the Old Testament, if you read
the Benjamin Summer book, he admits that the Old Testament
shows that there's a fluidity to the bodies and the
embodiment of God throughout the Old Testament, in terms of
the Theophanes, even to the point of multiple objects in
the Old Testament like the oak of Mammary or like
the stone that's anointed that Jacob Laze's head on, like
all of these are examples of sacramental things even in
the Old Testament, so that's preposterous. And even in terms
of the Old Covenant.
Speaker 17: Well, basically the argument was that God, although he was
kind of omnipresent. In the beginning, he began to reside
in the tabernacle, and now he resides in the uchurs,
which I don't necessarily fully believe because I think he's
entirely omnipresent.
Speaker 2: But he's also literally inside the euchurs as well. So
it's just.
Speaker 3: Really this is false either oars. So yeah, I mean,
I'll let you talk. Just second, father Digon, so false either, oars,
Because Jesus didn't cease to be omniscient if you read
Philippians too, when he engaged in the canosis, right, So
the Philippins, who's the canosis passes where he willfully limits
himself to be in a mode of being born as
a humans, as a man. Right, So he's in the
form of God, Paul says in Philippins, Who's he never
ceases to be divine or loses on the presence, but
he's in a special mode of his presence in the incarnation.
And it's the same with the church or the sacraments.
Go ahead, father.
Speaker 2: Digon, Well, I was gonna say.
Speaker 11: Even just kind of Greek metaphysics, he can get an idea.
For example, there's one form of triangle writing triangle or
something like that that transcends space and times, let's say it.
But there's many instances of that one form in particular
material in stantiations, which is kind of like you were saying,
like the mode.
Speaker 2: So this is why it's really important.
Speaker 11: It's not completely analogous, but this is why it's really important,
whether it's what you were talking with the individual prior
or this a notion of kind of Greek metaphysics and
philosophy kind of.
Speaker 2: It breaks up and clears the way from these things
being kind of hang ups. Do you see what I'm saying.
Speaker 11: So what I'm saying is that that particular triangle, even
though there's one form of triangle, doesn't mean that the
triangle itself.
Speaker 2: Is omni present. Does that make sense?
Speaker 16: Uh?
Speaker 2: Yeah, sort of.
Speaker 3: So there's many triangles, right, they're all triangles. That doesn't
mean triangle is omnipresence, right yeah.
Speaker 17: Okay, Well, because I believe that christis in the Eucharist,
and also God can be outside of the eu Christ.
Speaker 2: At the same time too, But like obviously.
Speaker 17: My prophe is kind of out to lunch on some things,
which is okay, but yeah, that was just what really
confused me about it. Because saints, at the end of
the day are human and not God.
Speaker 18: So I want to.
Speaker 2: Another either or jam.
Speaker 11: I always bring this up that Christ is God in
one sense, is on the presence, right, he transcends all
space and time, is the divine person and having the
divine essence. But Christ walking on the road to in
Jerusalem is not.
Speaker 2: In essence. Do you see what I mean? Yeah? Yeah, yeah,
So it's it makes this kind of either or it's like, well,
he has a special mode in.
Speaker 11: The physical person of Jesus of Nazareth such that he
is actually in Jerusalem and not in athletes well, at
the same time, in a different respect, because he's divined,
he is omnipresent, and so likewise with the saints too,
is that yeah, there's a physical but they're also united
with with God, and so they have properties that would
transcend normal physical properties.
Speaker 2: Being in the particular icon or when they were living,
et cetera.
Speaker 3: Yeah, again, Revelation five through nine, you'll see that the
saints on earth are aware of and know what's going
on with the Church militant the Church on earth, and
they pray for them. So again it's the Bible itself
that's telling us that the saints in heaven are involved
in the earthly worship of the Church and know what's
going on, and so Protestants yourself typically think of the
Book of Revelation as a liturgical book or that is,
describing an actual heavenly worship service.
Speaker 19: I was raised Protestant, and I've gone to some Orthodox churches,
and the most difficult thing for me to logically reconcile
is the involvement of Mary or the Theotokos and the
principle of intercession. I guess my feeling about it, or
the way that I interpret that, is that it seems
like it implies a kind of lackadaisicalness about God, or
that his judgment or decisions to you know, affect somebody's
life could be changed through the kind of like willful
suggestion of this other being.
Speaker 3: I mean, does that not happen in the Old Testament
when God tells Amos that had you not interceded for Israel,
I would have destroyed them. But because you're my friend
and I respect you, you interceded for Israel. I choose
to answer your prayers. So it's that God wills to
descend to or seem me to condescend to respond reciprocally
to our prayers. And I just pointed out to the
previous girl. Revelation five or nine shows the saints in
heaven praying for the Church on earth. God wills to
hear their prayers their incense offered in heaven up to him.
The angels are offering the incense of the prayers. So
it's a false assumption that it's either or, as if
God could only do it through direct causal action, like
he can't will to interact with human beings. I mean,
God could have chosen to not have any apostles and
just sent down a book like Muslims think or something.
But he chose and said to have apostles. And Paul
says that he's a co worker with Christ. Is that
Paul detracting from God's glory because he's a coworker.
Speaker 19: If that were the case, I guess I'm just curious
when it says that no one comes to the Father
except through me, I guess that's somewhat in reference to
salvation or something like that.
Speaker 3: But it well, all the all the saints are part
of the Communion of Saints, and so they're coming to
God through Christ. As well, So it's not apart from Christ.
Speaker 19: What do you mean, I guess I mean, like us
as people who are not saints, just regular people.
Speaker 2: It seems odd to have like.
Speaker 19: A alternative route to have your life, like again improved
upon or something, given that one particular verse like no
one comes to the Father except through me.
Speaker 3: So does that verse exclude all the other verses? I mean?
And when in Revelation eight, when the angels are offering
the prayers of the saints, is that contradicting the verse
in John fourteen six?
Speaker 2: I mean, I don't know. That's why I called in,
Like I said, this is this is a.
Speaker 3: Little we don't take one verse and we don't. So
it's a Protestant heretical approach to take one verse and
squeeze all the other texts into that one. You have
to harmonize all the texts.
Speaker 2: Right, Okay? Because salvation's the source of salvation, is the
Trinity a triadic.
Speaker 11: That that's going to that that notion of community is
going to be played.
Speaker 2: Out in the world too.
Speaker 11: You're going to see salvation triadically within a community in
people too, and not just two people or you know,
one or one cause let's say, well, it's just it's
just God.
Speaker 2: So I would I would say, it's this.
Speaker 11: Notion of just me and Jesus is actually anti trinitarian.
Speaker 3: Yeah, and that's a great point, is it's not trinitarian. Also,
it's like when Paul says to Timothy, you know, if
you act well, you will save those around you.
Speaker 17: All.
Speaker 3: I guess he's distracting from the salvation in Christ. Paul's
telling that that Timothy is an idol because he saves
people and Christ doesn't. No, it's obviously it means through Christ,
your co workers with God, Paul says. Paul even says
that he fills up in his body the measure of
what is lacking in the suffering of Christ.
Speaker 8: So I've got an argument with a couple of scriptures,
an analogy to illustrate the point, a specific relevant historical event,
and a follow up question and a bonus question. So
if I could, I like to go through all of
that and then get your feedback. So the argument would
be that the normative authority of the churches has limits. Specifically,
the churches do not have the authority to remove other
churches from the church. The analogy would be the churches
are parts of the body. Christ is the head of
the body. The right arm cannot decide to remove the
left arm. Only the head can decide to remove a
part of the body. A couple of scriptures Matthew sixteen eighteen,
I will build my church Revelation two five. If you
do not repent, I will come to you and remove
your landscane. Specific historical event that's relevant be the counsel
of Chalcedon. So, with regards to being in or out
of the body, what is the condition of the Coptic
Christians immediately after Chalcedon? Specifically, are Christians who have no
idea of this meeting impacted by way of their bishop?
And are Christians who do not understand the distinction impacted
by their ignorance?
Speaker 2: I could do follow up question or keep going, all right.
Speaker 3: First of all, it's a false analogy that because Paul
says to the Corinthians that the hand can't say to
the arm or eyes or whatever. I don't need you
to equate that to no normative authority excommunicating anybody in
the universal Church. That doesn't follow from that. The only
ways by which people would be excommunicated is by living authorities.
Who have the ability to excommunicate, which actually Paul says
to the Corinthians put out of the church those who
are disobedient and act unruly. So Paul actually tells the
Church of corinth that they can and should excommunicate certain people.
The Church consistently does excommunicate people from the first century
to the third century, including local synods that talk about excommunication,
including the Apostolic Canons which mentioned multiple things which are
liable to excommunicate people. So it would really make no
sense with all that data to take the text about
the hands saying to the arm I don't need you,
and to apply that to there's no such thing as
excommunication in terms of normative authority. The Council of Nicea
certainly thought that they had normative authority to excommunicate the Arians.
So again, I don't think that follows from Nicia. You
raise a question about whether or not God would hold
everybody accountable who didn't know what their bishops were up
to or never heard of calciton. No, I don't think
that everybody who the day the calclon happened, like it's
a blackout and suddenly they all are without grace and
damned because they had no idea what was going on.
God's not a being counter He's not a weird legalist
like that. I think that just like, for example, with
the Roman Catholic Church, I don't believe that everybody in
the Latin West is automatically damned in ten fifty four.
They had no idea what was going on. They didn't
immediately all adopt a double eternal hypostatic procession that takes
many centuries to actually filter out into the totality of
the Roman Catholic West. So no, I think that even
up into very late there were probably many people during
those time periods in the West who are saints and
who are in heaven. We may not necessarily have them
as part of our Orthodox liturgical calendar, but that doesn't
mean that they're not in heaven. So multiple different questions
and sort of positions that are I think a little
conflated going on that argument. So I'm not sure what
that had to do with Postcalcidon.
Speaker 8: Yeah, that was just, you know, an analogy to maybe
illustrate the point, but you definitely got the point. Follow
up question, if I may are there limits to normitive
authority regarding ex communication of any kind based.
Speaker 2: On what you just said.
Speaker 3: Sure, yeah, I mean did John Crystalson was an he
sent out of Oak? He was falsely excommunicated. So yeah,
that doesn't mean that everything a local bishop does is
going to be right or authoritative, I mean right or infallible, should.
Speaker 2: Say, I guess I'm thinking more like.
Speaker 8: Not specific ex communications, but more like wholesale.
Speaker 2: You know, what do you mean this this whole church?
Speaker 8: Like you mentioned the Arian thing, but specifically like Chalcedon.
It's a disagreement about Christology, I guess. And so I
guess is there a principle in play? Where is there
a principle that guides what's valid excommunication and what would
be invalid excommunication? Like things Christology is definitely grounds for
ex communication, practice of ordination is not grounds like is
there kind of a guiding principle there of things that
escalate to that level.
Speaker 3: I don't know what you mean by practice of ordination?
What I mean just.
Speaker 2: A random example? I mean it could be. So.
Speaker 3: I think that the way it's supposed to work is
that an Orthodox bishop is the highest authority strictly speaking,
and he interprets the canons for the churches under his
jurisdiction and applies those rules in an informed, wise way,
not an illegalistic, rigid way, but in a way that
is for the best of the flock and for their salvation.
So could he abuse it? Yes, there could be an
abusive bishop, but I think the idea is that eventually
it would be rectified in time, that God would vindicate
those who were wrong. For example, Chrysostom's erroneous condemnation by
the Senate of the Oak or whatever. Eventually he gets vindicated.
So beyond that, I don't know how to answer the
question of like, how what the extents of a bishop's
errors could be. I mean they could be anything from
heresy to incorrectly you know, interpreting the cannons. I mean,
all those things are Father, Deacon, you're you're a deacon.
How would you how would you answer this question about
the limits to normative authority amongst bishops and synods?
Speaker 2: Could you say, dis repeat it against her?
Speaker 11: I was writing that, I was writing three different arguments
to three different people, three different times.
Speaker 2: My quantum.
Speaker 3: Ask Father Dicon. He's had much more involvement with bishops
and clergy than I have, so he would be much
better for this question. Than me.
Speaker 2: I think, I think, I think I know what you're
saying about. Go ahead, So yeah, it would just be
limits to normative authority. I think I understand.
Speaker 8: You know, within a jurisdiction, the bishop is the authority
that decide what happens.
Speaker 2: And then your local bishop. Yeah. If if a whole.
Speaker 8: Congregation under a bishop is collectively an error, then the
only other place to refer to is a collection of bishops,
which would be a council.
Speaker 2: Yeah. I mean, just just think about it. We do
have a secular.
Speaker 11: Notion normative authority, which interesting enough, is based off a
Byzantine law, So our legal system traces back to principles
and Byzantine law. But you certainly have a nor normative authority,
and that just means legally binding. So at what at
a county level, I guess you have judges, and then
your state has a supreme court, a state supreme court.
Speaker 2: And then your nation has a then at the highest
level is scotus. This is the United States.
Speaker 8: Yeah, So to take to take that analogy, I guess
it comes down to interpretation. Because you could argue that
the Constitution lays out the Bill of rights, those things
are not up for debate under the normative authority of.
Speaker 2: Well, it's a different issue, so.
Speaker 11: Of course the Constitution's open to uh interpretation with a
separate issue. The difference is my interpretation isn't law. So
I might get it right, I might get it wrong.
The judge might get a right or wrong. But the
difference is it's binding on me. Now there's an appeals. Well,
what happens when the judge does bad law? It's still law.
You can't just say, well, that's not what the the
law says that I don't have to obey it. You're
under the law of that judge. There's an appeals and
it goes higher up. So likewise in the church, of course,
in some like we're all in the same epistemic situation,
and you could make yourself more privileged or underprivileged depending
on certain concepts and lack of evidence or looking at stuff.
I mean, you get the idea that one could be
in a better position to make a correct interpretation or worse.
Speaker 2: But the issue is, yeah, is there anybody that can
lay this out as law?
Speaker 11: That's what normative authority needs. So if a bishop get
something wrong and they have let's even think the priest
in some sense is has a normative legal authority over you.
Speaker 2: They can get it right do you where do you
go to settle this?
Speaker 11: So there's a different issue like what's how do I
know the right answer? Versus how is it legally or
coleasily settled? And you go up a court of appeals,
like you go to the bishop.
Speaker 2: What happens when the bishop.
Speaker 3: Is getting the way he would be subject to the right.
Speaker 11: He's subject to the synop So that's a local senate.
What happens if you know the synops it eventually would
go to the A largers right eventually all the way
up to Boy Commendment right all of all the entire church,
in which case, there we see through scripture the Holy
Spirit is present.
Speaker 2: And works, and.
Speaker 11: We would say it that level there's an infallibility. But
there's a separate issue going on, like how do we
resolve disputes?
Speaker 2: How does the legal.
Speaker 11: Structure work within the church. Well, it's a court of appeals.
It goes up, but it doesn't mean that it's not
it's not law. It's just we have different levels of normal,
Like some things are more binding right you can keep
going up, and things at lower levels can be challenged
and ecumenical council cannot because it's the entire Church and
that is the Holy Theirs Christ.
Speaker 3: Or nowadays it would be some type of pan Orthodox synod,
but that cannot easily be done given the geopolitical situation
of the time. And there's been situations in the history
of the Church where geopolitical situations prevented ecumenical councils as well,
so that's not unprecedented. But theoretically there could definitely be
a pan Orthodox Synoon, or there could be some You
could even have a synod that does something or states something,
and then if the rest of the Orthodox world eventually
accepts it, it could be normal.
Speaker 2: Because I want to make it clear that it's not
just simply a mechanical or robotic life. W If I
just do these things and say these words or put.
Speaker 11: These people together, then it makes the magic happen.
Speaker 2: Right, then that's the Holy Spirit, it's Jay's wright.
Speaker 11: Obviously, it cannot be an ecumenical council if it's not
in line with theology of the Church.
Speaker 2: If it's not received by the church, if.
Speaker 11: The capital Holos is not working as cata Holos, it
can't be capta holos.
Speaker 3: Yeah, like the Palamite Synods were Byzantine councils, which the
entire Orthodox world basically I'm as far as unaware of firms.
So for all intents and purposes, we can call those
ecumenical councils the eighth and the Ninth, even though they
may not technically be Waitumena based councils in terms of
the whole imperium. The rest of the world over the
centuries has adopted those for all intentsive purposes, they're infallible
pan Orthodox councils.
Speaker 2: Yeah, thanks, appreciate your time.
Speaker 8: Last question, I wrote a small book on symbolism and film.
Speaker 2: I'd like to send you a copy if you'd like.
What's the best way to send you.
Speaker 3: Something like that? You could send me a DM and
I'll give you a po box if you want to
send me a book. Appreciate that.
Speaker 2: Thanks.
Speaker 3: I want to remind you guys too, that coming up
in uh let's see six days, we're under a week
big awesome live event January nineteenth here in Florida, Tampa.
It'll be our first movie convention. We're going to this
horror convention. I'm invited to speak on the dark Secrets
of Horror Movies. So I will be given us a
Terry Hollywood presentation the first thirty ticket holders. It may
be sold out. If it's not, I'm not sure exactly
where we are on tickets. First thirty get a free
copy of Vessel Tay Hollywood Signed. If you don't get that,
you can always get another copy. We will be at
the convention, which is all day long. That's a separate
event from this dinner packaged event. So if you want
tickets to my lecture and my talk that night, and
I think there's a panel discussion, there's a bunch of
fun stuff going on. BG Comby. I have rumor that
BG Comby will be there, so you can also come
meet some of the other cool dudes. BG is a
very cool dude. So there's the tickets, all right, I'm
about spent, dude. We've been We went for six hours. Man,
I don't know if I can. I gotta go eat man. Father,
you can thank you so much. I'll give some of
the super chip I'll give you some of the super chats.
And thank you to Rachel and Andrew for sending so
many people today, and thank you to Rachel for that
big that super chat and Elias five. Wait we read
that Potus three dollars. Does the Moscow patriarch have less
problems than other churches? I don't even know how to
count up. Every jurisdiction has unique problems and issues, so
I don't know. Would you put problems in MP on
par with ro Corps. I've never been to an MP church.
I don't follow. I don't know that much about what's
going on in the MP. I'm in a row Court church,
so I know about more localized Uh. You know, we
had an issue of a person in ro Corps in
Miami going to the EP. I mean that was a
huge scandal. I don't know, man' I don't follow a
lot of church drama, so I have no idea North
Country Nard one dollar. The Oriental has a channel. It's
nothing but misinformation. Yeah, I'm familiar with those guys. Ronnie
Howard five dollars. I love your content. I got an
OCA church, my family in Mexico or Joe's witnesses. Oh
how am I supposed to reconcile the religious differences with
the threat of being excommunicated by them? Well, Jesus says,
you know, he that loves family, mother or father more
than me is not worthy. So I think at a
certain point, you know, you might be called to that.
I'm not saying that you're necessarily going to get what
do they call it, shunned by them? I don't know,
but I mean, I just.
Speaker 2: Get dirt on my family. I'm like, you go that way.
Speaker 3: Get some dirt and blackmail and brot. And I'm just joking.
I mean, you know, if they're if they shun you,
then you can't control that. You know, if they shun
you for believing the deed of Christ, I mean, then
you know, count that as a blessing. Jesus says. But
I don't think we have to work to try to
get people to be mad at us. I think you know,
if you just affirm the deed of Christ, they're going
to be mad at you no matter what. Nick Bond
five dollars, How do I locate the link about Anglicanism?
I mean, it's the video on my channel about Anglinism.
I put it in the chat MKG five dollars. Did
you do? Have you done any full videos of krawl young?
Speaker 13: Uh?
Speaker 3: I've not done full videos. There was a crazy dude
who lost his marbles. And like went ape on me
for he was a Jungian dude. It's funny because I
bring up aon, which is what you're talking about, because
in aon, Carl Jung says that Jesus is anti Christ
and they're the same their flip sides of the same coin.
So this Jungian gnostic dude has a meltdown when we
start debating this, and he's like, you've never even read Young,
and I'm like, I'm quoting you from aon. His it's
a aio n and I think it's an actual book,
and this dude just has a complete meltdown. But now, actually,
the other day, because I'm writing Esoter Hollywood three, I
needed to I'm rewriting the Donnie Darko chapter and the
Box chapter the Richard Kelly movies, and I needed to
reference a bunch of Carl Young. So I actually went
and read a bunch of Carl Young that I hadn't read.
So I have read Carl Young in the past, but
now I've read even more Carl Young. And in the
chapter on Anima, he says, I'm just talking about a
bunch of ancient gnostic stuff. So yeah, of course, of
course it's gnostic stuff, and of course he gives evil
substance absolutely damas five dollars? What are the church father
Why is it the church fathers never really execute the
Book of Revelation that every preacher feels like they have
it down to a science pride and delusion, curie las
one dollar. Pres Positionalism is guilty of a lodge goal Howler.
It commits the petitio principii or begging the question policy,
because Avoca is presupposing the Christian theism to prove the
Christian theism. Do you have any thoughts on this? Yeah,
We've heard this many times. So the point is that
it's not saying that Christian's true Christianity is true because
I presuppose it. It's saying that every position presupposes. And
so the way that we would prove or disprove an
argument is by comparing paradigms as a whole to see
which ones are coherent, which ones have explanatory power, et cetera.
So it's not doing what these people think it's doing.
Last guy, Christian, It does sound like a trend horn quote,
doesn't it. What's up man? Your own hi?
Speaker 2: Jay?
Speaker 18: I was trying to make the argument for compatibilism in
terms of when it comes to communism and predestination or knowledge.
Speaker 2: I guess my argument for that would be that.
Speaker 18: As a Christian, I realized that I don't have the
knowledge God has in determining who's are his and who's
are not, But.
Speaker 2: Based on the doctrine, I do trust.
Speaker 14: The the faith I have in knowing that whoever I
want to, you know, work.
Speaker 2: With as far as like a brother in Christ.
Speaker 18: I feel like compatibilism, which would argue against Armenianism, would
be a better argument because I feel like with our minionism,
you have this ah.
Speaker 2: You.
Speaker 18: It's based on what your instincts think tell you who
you can or can't trust, and so that's that's why
I feel.
Speaker 3: Like, I mean, I don't know what. None of this
has anything to with proving or distriving Calvinism because Calvinism
is disproven by Christology. Calvinism relies on a soteriology doctrine
that's ahead of Christology. Christology is an afterthought and it
ends up saying that Christ has to be damned for
you to be saved. Do you believe that? No?
Speaker 20: I In terms of Calvinism, it's it's more of this
has to do with eternal, eternal elections, so it's obviously
is salvation.
Speaker 2: It's metaphysical.
Speaker 18: Uh, it's more of a you determining whether or not
you're part of God's elect and in terms of like
our interactions with each other on earth.
Speaker 2: You know, it's it's difficult to are.
Speaker 3: You arguing for Calvinism, I don't understand.
Speaker 18: Yeah, I'm arguing for Calvinism in the sense that you know,
in my in my experience, you know, I've gone through,
you know, especially during the pandemic, I had a lot
of you know, betrayal and just.
Speaker 2: A lot of people that abandoned me.
Speaker 18: But you know, grasping on my faith in Christ, I
realized that those things were predetermined and that moving forward,
in order to.
Speaker 2: In order to display works that go.
Speaker 18: Along with faith, I have to trust my Christian brothers.
Speaker 3: Okay, but that sounds more like a personal issue, and
I would just say, go check out my theological critiques
of Calvinism. So I'm sorry that you have betrayal, but
I don't see how personal betrayal and then accepting that
God was the direct cause of all those events somehow
pers Calvinism. It seems like a very subjective to take,
but I'm arguing that Calvinism has many, many mistakes that
are more severe than whether there's free will versus predestination.
I'm talking about like trinitarian errors. I'm talking about calvin
teaching that Christ was damned in our place. Okay, that's
anti trinitarian. That's way more serious than you know, the
other things. And I'm not trying to be mean to you.
I'm sorry that you had those bad experiences, but hey,
look everybody has bad experiences, so but we can't let
that determine our theological stances m KG five dollars. I
saw the clip. This is what actually sparked my interest.
What clip? Oh the Carl Young guy? Would you consider
a full deep dive on the subject of kral Young
on Christ? Well, i'd have to read more. I don't.
I mean, I don't know when I'm gonna have ton
to read, tons and tons of crawl young maybe, But
I mean it's like if he thinks Jesus and Antichrist
are the same principle, flip sides of the same coin,
Like I don't, I don't even I mean, like, how
much refutation do we need, like how much reading of
Carl Young do I have to read to know that's nonsense?
I mean, like, so in this chapter on Animal, for example,
he says, kid you not. He says, oh, the early
Church banished the mother principle from the Trinity, and it's
time to recover that. In my psychoanalysis, the mother principle
that when was there ever a mother in the trinity.
It's literally Bogokov sociology stuff, like what are you talking
about the mother in the Trinity? Then he says, I
kid you not. He said in the Animal chapter, he says, uh,
let's take some medieval monks that had visions of God
as a woman. Why are we why should I follow
medieval crazy Roman Catholic creeps talking about God as a woman? Literally,
That's what he argues. So, like, does it didn't that
kind of from the outset raise some red flags like
maybe I'm not maybe this is not like this most
profound stuff now I know. Jordan Peterson says, oh, he's
like the most profound thinker of the twentieth century, or
at least Peterson said that a long time ago, and
in those personality lectures. But I mean, I'm not saying
that there's not interesting things in Crawl Young, because there are.
I mean, I think there are archetypes, and there's some
neat stuff going on, but it's not all this wacko crazy,
Like this is crazy stuff, and you don't have to
go very far in Crawl Young before he literally just
says a bunch of crazy stuff. And by the way,
Carl Young is an OSS spy informant, Like, how about
that calling into question his credibility. Oh you didn't know that, Yeah, absolutely,
his agent four eight eight. Look it up. It's in
by the way, I have that necessarily with three. By
the way, but maybe down the road if I read
more Carl Young. I did get the the text, by
the way, it's he has a bunch of works, but
I have the volume that is his archetypes of the
Collective Unconscious. And so there's a chapter on the Anima,
chapter on Trickster, there's a chapter on the mother, there's
a chapter on the father archetype, I think the son.
It's like all it's all the essential Carl Young stuff
is in that book. So maybe that will prove to
be something. Actually, we probably probably should just read that
whole book and do a talk on it all right,
thank you guys. My mind is mush. I'm starting to
get a headache. So this is just way too much
Live Strength tonight. But hey, it was a lot of fun.
We had some wild, feral individuals. It was pretty crazy. Guys,
chill out and the chat. Please don't spam, but everybody,
have a good night. Get your tickets, get your