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