Speaker 1: Problem, reaction, solution, cheetah ori, cheta ori, open form, debate.
Speaker 1: The topics are Remember to give it to the topics today, guys.
Speaker 1: You don't have to debate. If you want to, you can't.
Speaker 1: The topics are as listed last time, same topics. Bible,
Speaker 1: Church history, Batristics, councils, Islam, Quran revelation, Protestanism, Calvinism, Evangelicalism,
Speaker 1: Roman Catholicism, papacy, Arianism, cults, Hebrew Roots, Joe's Witnesses, et cetera,
Speaker 1: et cetera, Black Huber, Israelites, Yakube. All of these topics
Speaker 1: are open for discussion today. I see we have people
Speaker 1: who would like to discuss porphyry, neoplatonism. All those topics
Speaker 1: are also welcome. The call in is via Twitter spaces.
Speaker 1: You'll see the link in the show description. It is
Speaker 1: the Twitter space. So if you want to call in
Speaker 1: and ask, you don't have to debate. You can ask
Speaker 1: a question, but if you want a debate, raise your
Speaker 1: hand and you'll go to the front of the line.
Speaker 1: Remember today isn't FAQ questions for Orthodox catechumens. So if
Speaker 1: you're a catechumen and you have those kinds of questions,
Speaker 1: you can take those to your spiritual father. You can
Speaker 1: take those two competent people online who can answer those questions. Really, today,
Speaker 1: we're looking for people who disagree, people who have an argument.
Speaker 1: They want to present a case that they'd like to make.
Speaker 1: Remember the way argumentation works, it's not arguing. Arguments in
Speaker 1: this strict sense. Are some thesis with supporting evidences, syllogisms,
Speaker 1: et cetera to back up what you're what the case is.
Speaker 1: If you come on and say a bunch of stuff
Speaker 1: and talk about me, or if you want to talk
Speaker 1: about drama, none of that is relevant. None of that
Speaker 1: is an argument. We can go ahead and just assert
Speaker 1: and agree from the outset. I'm the worst person ever.
Speaker 1: I am the worst KGB drug lord also working for
Speaker 1: the CIA. So now that we've got that out of
Speaker 1: the way, let's get to the actual argumentation. So we're
Speaker 1: gonna focus on that. If you're a drunk wine mom
Speaker 1: and you call in, we're gonna make fun of you.
Speaker 1: If you're a person who wants to come in and
Speaker 1: spit their bars, you're gonna get made fun of. Two
Speaker 1: If I interrupt you, it's because you're not sticking to
Speaker 1: the topic or to the issue, and that's a fair game.
Speaker 1: Now again, you don't have to debate, but if you
Speaker 1: do want to debate, you can't. So let's make that
Speaker 1: clear for everybody. Remember the topics are listed. You can
Speaker 1: only put a certain number of characters in the topic
Speaker 1: description on the Twitter, so I can't fit everything in
Speaker 1: there that I'd like to, even though it says God, Islam, Catholicism, Protestanism.
Speaker 1: I put Sneaker and Tate in there because that's in
Speaker 1: the news. We just had the impromptu debate with Muslim
Speaker 1: lantern what two nights ago, so I figured that might
Speaker 1: be hot topics. Uh, if the people from that sphere
Speaker 1: want to hop on a debate, I don't mean that
Speaker 1: I don't expect. I don't expect Muslim lantern or Sneaker
Speaker 1: to hop on. I'm saying the people from that sphere
Speaker 1: if they want to hop on. But now, last time,
Speaker 1: we ended up having way more Roman Catholics in this
Speaker 1: last six hour livestream calling in than I expected. So
Speaker 1: you never know what you're gonna get. You think you're
Speaker 1: gonna get more Islamic debates and discussions, and it ends
Speaker 1: up being Protestants or Calvinists or Catholics or whatever, So
Speaker 1: it's open for we never know. It's a roulette wheel
Speaker 1: of feral madness, and I embrace it. We have fun
Speaker 1: with it. So now get your feelings hurt. If you
Speaker 1: come to debate and I start debating and then you
Speaker 1: play victim, what do you come to debate? Well, it
Speaker 1: says debate, and you can specify from the outset whether
Speaker 1: you want to debate or not. Again, the topics are
Speaker 1: listed and the top of the show link. The call
Speaker 1: in is in the description of the show, and of
Speaker 1: course the mods on YouTube will continually be putting it
Speaker 1: in there as well. Also to be clear, because there
Speaker 1: are a lot of multims that are coming over this way.
Speaker 1: I am not an expert in Islam, and I've never
Speaker 1: pretended to be. It is a topic that I devote
Speaker 1: time to studying on the side. So it is not
Speaker 1: my main focus of whatever. It's not my main attention.
Speaker 1: It's not the sort what am I trying to I
Speaker 1: can talk today. It is not the locus of my attention.
Speaker 1: We have had several debates though in the last six years,
Speaker 1: and so it is on my radar. I've read several
Speaker 1: books on Islam. I've read a good portion of the Kuran.
Speaker 1: I've not read the whole thing. I'm familiar with the
Speaker 1: basic ideas of the various schools akida excuse me creeds.
Speaker 1: I know there's a difference between a creed and a
Speaker 1: feak or jurisprudence. I'm aware of those things. So let's
Speaker 1: not haggle over minutia. If you want to debate, let's
Speaker 1: get to the main issues. Yeah, if you want to
Speaker 1: do Trinity Tawheed, that's also a fair game as well.
Speaker 1: We can talk about that. We can talk about anything
Speaker 1: related to Trinity, Christology. Those are the areas I know
Speaker 1: very well. Anything related to Torah, profits, etc. Those are
Speaker 1: the things that are my focus church fathers. I know
Speaker 1: that very well. Now doctor Khalil is here, he and I.
Speaker 1: People are saying, when are you going to have a
Speaker 1: debate with Khalil. We have had multiple discussions on doing
Speaker 1: a stream where we perhaps first have open discussion and
Speaker 1: then later at debate in a timed formal way, or
Speaker 1: we might just have discussions. I'm definitely open to that.
Speaker 1: Of course, he is Shia, so he comes from a
Speaker 1: different perspective than most of who we debated so far.
Speaker 1: I think everybody we've debated so far is Sunni. I
Speaker 1: can't think of any I think one time a Sufi
Speaker 1: guy called in. Now two Sufis have called in to
Speaker 1: debate on the open forms we do here. But for
Speaker 1: the most part, I think we've only debated from within
Speaker 1: the Sunni tradition, and that includes both Salafi and non Salafi.
Speaker 1: So let's see Paul williams Azer she shavera Lee, right,
Speaker 1: we had debates, but then them, and then we had debates
Speaker 1: with Daniel Jake It Jaws and Daniel again, and then
Speaker 1: Muslim Lantern. So I don't know about seven debates now. Anyway,
Speaker 1: you're free to set the topic if you want to
Speaker 1: set the agenda, what topic you want to talk about,
Speaker 1: Just let me know from the outset. If you want
Speaker 1: to make an argument, for say, I want to make
Speaker 1: an argument for three minutes straight, let me talk for
Speaker 1: the Oh yeah, you can do that, fine, Just make
Speaker 1: it clear what you want to do again, keep it
Speaker 1: to the topics. If you don't, I'm immediately just gonna
Speaker 1: boot you and move on. So we'll go ahead and
Speaker 1: open it up. Let's see. First up was black Sufi
Speaker 1: Maleik and we were discussing in replies on Twitter. So
Speaker 1: what's up man, How you doing?
Speaker 2: Hey Jake?
Speaker 3: Can you hear me?
Speaker 1: Sir?
Speaker 3: Okay?
Speaker 4: So, first and foremost, I did see that thing that
Speaker 4: you posted about a seventh century for sure to you
Speaker 4: know that this song is true. On the traditional Islamic narrative,
Speaker 4: it's quite clear that during the time of the Sahaba
Speaker 4: or the companions themselves, there were true prophecies of the
Speaker 4: prophet coming true, for example, in the Quran. On the
Speaker 4: traditional narrative, the Quran openly predicts, or if the prophet
Speaker 4: only openly predicts, that Rome would beat the.
Speaker 3: Persians, the Romans would beat the Persians in their war, that.
Speaker 4: Certain people would die or pass away on top of
Speaker 4: the miraculous elements of Islam.
Speaker 1: But that's not what the dilemma challenges, though it's not
Speaker 1: related to that.
Speaker 4: I am making the point though, that they would have
Speaker 4: evidences to justify their belief in Islam.
Speaker 1: But how does that answer the challenge about the Quran
Speaker 1: saying confirm the Qoran with prior revelation.
Speaker 4: I would say that the Koran doesn't confirm prior revelation,
Speaker 4: so I would just totally reject that premise.
Speaker 1: So these verses are not saying that you can look
Speaker 1: to the Torod and the prophets and all of that.
Speaker 3: You don't need to look to the tour in prophets.
Speaker 1: What I'm saying versus the verses say that, sure.
Speaker 4: Right, and the uncorrupted versions and things like this, we
Speaker 4: would say that you can't. Right, there's possibly stuff within
Speaker 4: the New Testament.
Speaker 1: Okay, so how do you know there's a where is
Speaker 1: the uncorrupted version?
Speaker 3: I don't think there's a whole uncorrupted versions, but we.
Speaker 1: Would say that our snippets, where is that that the
Speaker 1: seventh century christenrds you could look to?
Speaker 4: So, for example, there are tons of verses that somebody
Speaker 4: would say that you can contextually argue, would talk about
Speaker 4: get a message, sorry, would talk about the Muhammadan prophecy
Speaker 4: within the Torah or within the New Testament, right that
Speaker 4: many Muslims are pretty sure you've heard have argued this,
Speaker 4: but they're usually not explicit verses either way.
Speaker 1: So in other words, there is there do you understand
Speaker 1: we have? We have versions of the Torah and the
Speaker 1: Gospels and the prophets that precede, that predate the seventh century?
Speaker 5: Right? I do know that?
Speaker 1: So that refutes this idea that there was this other
Speaker 1: uncorrupted one at the time of the Quran that they
Speaker 1: could have looked to.
Speaker 3: No, So the Quran, okay.
Speaker 4: So the prophet himself, if you read the hideth corpus,
Speaker 4: have you read a lot of hidethur?
Speaker 1: No?
Speaker 5: Some not a lot, okay.
Speaker 4: So the prophet himself clearly tells people that the Torah.
Speaker 4: He says, don't don't believe everything in the Torah, like
Speaker 4: he very clearly says, I believe, don't believe or disbelieve it.
Speaker 3: Right when it comes to certain things that you read
Speaker 3: in the Torah.
Speaker 4: And then you have Umar and Uthman and others that
Speaker 4: clearly say that when it comes to the corruption of
Speaker 4: the New Testament and the Old it's the text that
Speaker 4: is corrupted itself.
Speaker 3: If you read.
Speaker 4: Let's see, I can't remember the number of the hadith
Speaker 4: in particular, but it is.
Speaker 3: In Sahi Muslim and Abukari.
Speaker 4: So these are very authentic haidiz and they're widely transmitted
Speaker 4: as well.
Speaker 1: Well. But what about the other hadith that say that
Speaker 1: it's impossible for the uh Tora to be corrupted or
Speaker 1: God's word to be corrupted. That's also in the Quran
Speaker 1: as well.
Speaker 4: Right, Well, we come to the question of divine speech
Speaker 4: and it's corruptibility, I would say, in relation to the
Speaker 4: divine essence is incorruptible.
Speaker 1: So a minute. So that means then that the that
Speaker 1: the Quran in time and space is also corruptible.
Speaker 4: Right, somebody could have you know, if we didn't have
Speaker 4: an entire empire forging the book basically, you know, putting
Speaker 4: the book together, I would say, it's quite a possibility
Speaker 4: that certain things.
Speaker 3: Could be nonpropetic in there.
Speaker 4: The actual argument for the preservation of the Quran is
Speaker 4: basically that itself, right, it's not the.
Speaker 1: Uh well, I mean you understand preservation itself doesn't prove anything.
Speaker 4: Yeah, I would agree with that, right, But I'm trying
Speaker 4: to tell you why we believe the Kuran in particular
Speaker 4: is preserved. Right, That's why I'm trying to give you
Speaker 4: that justification for why.
Speaker 3: We do have that belief in whole to it.
Speaker 1: Yeah, but that's not what I asked you was on
Speaker 1: what basis? Then, if if all us speech and time
Speaker 1: and space in the written books can be correct, then
Speaker 1: wouldn't that undercut your view on the Kuran.
Speaker 6: No, it wouldn't because as I just said, Well, you
Speaker 6: just said, but you just said that the prior words
Speaker 6: of a lah can be corrupted in terms of their
Speaker 6: historical instantiations in the Torah, right, yes, okay, but not
Speaker 6: the Quran.
Speaker 4: I'd say, the Quran when it comes to a double standard, Okay,
Speaker 4: it's a totally different justification.
Speaker 1: No, it's not, No, it's not. You literally just admitted
Speaker 1: that Allah's words can be corrupted in terms of their
Speaker 1: physical instantiation, but not in the Quran. That's a double standard.
Speaker 3: Not really.
Speaker 4: I would say that the reason why we hold that
Speaker 4: the Koran is preserved is because of totally different reasons.
Speaker 1: From that, it doesn't matter that you have totally different
Speaker 1: reasons if you've already admitted that that Allah's words can
Speaker 1: be corrupted. Anyway, let's get to the neoplatonism issues. I
Speaker 1: thought that's what you want to talk about.
Speaker 3: That's also true, okay.
Speaker 4: So I would say that when it comes to you're
Speaker 4: a pistemology and your problems with a pistemology, neoplatonic keenology
Speaker 4: can just as easily justify the reliability to faculties.
Speaker 1: As neoplatonic What did you.
Speaker 3: Say, penology? Starting with the monad.
Speaker 1: What but how does that? What does that have to
Speaker 1: do with Islam?
Speaker 4: Within the Sufi and Neoplatonic traditions themselves, they clearly hold
Speaker 4: to neoplatonic theology.
Speaker 1: Okay, why why should I accept neoplatonic metaphysics as an
Speaker 1: epistemic starting point?
Speaker 4: Well, I would say that's necessary for intelligibility.
Speaker 1: Why is that necessary for intelligibility.
Speaker 4: The same reason you hold the news to be necessary
Speaker 4: for intelligbility.
Speaker 1: When you feel, well, that's a that's a faculty. That
Speaker 1: doesn't mean that it provides justification because I believe in
Speaker 1: an element of the worldview existing. So what I'm asking
Speaker 1: is an epistemic justification question.
Speaker 4: Yeah, I know, And you usually use the logos and
Speaker 4: news as a justification for faculty.
Speaker 1: Those aren't justifications. The news is not a justification. It
Speaker 1: happened a faculty be a justification.
Speaker 4: So you don't think that because God exists, that's why
Speaker 4: our factories are reliable, that's all what you believe.
Speaker 1: I do believe that, but I have a basis. But
Speaker 1: I have a basis. I have a basis in terms
Speaker 1: of revelational epistemology, which is not what you're arguing.
Speaker 4: So you don't argue that God himself, in his very
Speaker 4: own essence in nature would entail that your faculties are reliable.
Speaker 1: No, Now, God's essence is unknowable, so we don't believe
Speaker 1: that at all. But I would argue that physics is justification.
Speaker 1: Revelation is the basis for metaphysics.
Speaker 4: Okay, So you hold that because the book says so,
Speaker 4: therefore my faculties are reliable, or the tradition says so
Speaker 4: as well.
Speaker 1: Now I hold that the transcendental argument gives me a
Speaker 1: basis to believe in the reliability not just of my faculties,
Speaker 1: but of the worldview as a whole.
Speaker 3: Let me make this point.
Speaker 4: So you would appeal to the transcendental argument to justify
Speaker 4: from scripture instead, right, not from necessarily your metaphysics.
Speaker 1: Well, the transcendental argument is an argument for an entire worldview,
Speaker 1: so it includes the whole. It includes the pieces of
Speaker 1: the worldview too, such as divine revelations, such as universals,
Speaker 1: such as categories. All of those things are part of
Speaker 1: the world view. So one of the unique things about
Speaker 1: TAG is that it's a worldview specific and holistic argumentation.
Speaker 1: Thank you.
Speaker 2: Okay, So.
Speaker 4: Why couldn't write a Sufi or somebody like that use
Speaker 4: the same justification for the reliability to faculties.
Speaker 1: Because it's not just an argument for the reliability of faculties.
Speaker 1: It's an argument for objectivity, universality, laws of logic, all
Speaker 1: those things which require a deity that is more than
Speaker 1: just a bear unity or a bare monad.
Speaker 3: Why would you say that because this is now going to.
Speaker 1: Metaphysics, because I mean, yeah, we can go into a
Speaker 1: pis and this argument can go in any direction. But
Speaker 1: if you want to take it in the metaphysics direction,
Speaker 1: that's that's fine with me. Because a unit bear unitarian
Speaker 1: deity uh is not. It cannot be of justification for
Speaker 1: why there's multiplicity in the world, how there's temporality in
Speaker 1: the world. If you're a consistent neoplatonist, you have to
Speaker 1: say the world's an emanation and not a temporal creation.
Speaker 1: But everybody who believes the Bible, and I would assume
Speaker 1: the Qur'an too, unless you're some sort of neoplatonists, which
Speaker 1: you may be if you're a Sufi, the world comes
Speaker 1: to be in time and it's not an eternal emanation.
Speaker 4: Well, I think that if you talk to Khalil, for example,
Speaker 4: I think you spoken to him. He thinks that the
Speaker 4: temporal world is actually created. And so almost every other
Speaker 4: play in this that the world, like you know, the
Speaker 4: universe that we're talking about here, is temporally created.
Speaker 1: Well okay, but well some neoplatonists that necessarily do not
Speaker 1: know many neo We go to the history of neoplatonism
Speaker 1: right here, and we can talk about how the world
Speaker 1: that we inhabit isn't created, it's an emanation. Sure, they
Speaker 1: do not believe create. Let me so to make this
Speaker 1: very clear. Creation in our view presupposes an intentional personal god,
Speaker 1: the God of Monad and neoplatonism is not intentional, and
Speaker 1: he does not have a will by which he creates.
Speaker 1: And we can go to the neoplatonic text right here.
Speaker 1: I have the expert on neoplatonism, Martie Wallace. In his
Speaker 1: book he specifically has a chapter on the neoplatonic deity,
Speaker 1: whether it's poor, free, or whether it's any of them,
Speaker 1: does not create. He does not possess a personal will.
Speaker 1: The movement of the emanations is an overflowing of the one.
Speaker 1: It is not a personal, intentional creation.
Speaker 4: Okay, So when we speak about the one. I do
Speaker 4: agree that we only speak respect to intellection. Right, So
Speaker 4: when any ads, for example, kindness says that the One
Speaker 4: willing itself is how we get these types of like
Speaker 4: let's say the first intellect.
Speaker 1: Right, Yeah, but it's not a personal God willing himself.
Speaker 3: Now I have to ask that question, what do you
Speaker 3: mean by.
Speaker 5: Right?
Speaker 1: So this is one again, right. This is why I
Speaker 1: was making that points to you in the comments, is
Speaker 1: that we're not neoplatonists. The God of the Bible is
Speaker 1: the God who reveals himself in time and space. By
Speaker 1: the way, neoplatonic being cannot be in time and space.
Speaker 1: But the God of the Bible, in the Hebrew texts
Speaker 1: of the Torah, steps into time and space. They're Theophanes.
Speaker 1: They're not created angels. They're called Yahweh, they're called God,
Speaker 1: they're worship they're called divine. So again, that's why I
Speaker 1: was arguing to you that Neoplatonism has nothing to do
Speaker 1: with our trinitarian theology whatsoever. It's literally derived from the
Speaker 1: Hebrew texts.
Speaker 4: I actually did agree with you that you guys are
Speaker 4: even though you do adopt certain platonic views and opinion, like,
Speaker 4: let's say, views on inherent hierarchy.
Speaker 1: Okay, you're right, that was you and the other guy.
Speaker 1: That was a replied to the other guy.
Speaker 3: Yeah, I do think that you guys do adopt, sir,
Speaker 3: in platonic views.
Speaker 4: You adopt what you guys saw is like the good
Speaker 4: parts of Platonism, but then left what you guys thought
Speaker 4: contradict Christianity right to a degree.
Speaker 1: But what like I was saying, like every one of
Speaker 1: that ecumenical councils ends up refuting some heresi arc who
Speaker 1: utilizes neoplatonic dialectics to try to prove their position right.
Speaker 1: So another element of this I'm not trying to shift,
Speaker 1: but you could say, you know, in a lot of
Speaker 1: this is not just Neoplatonism and much of the Greek
Speaker 1: philosophical tradition, the One, the absolute God, whatever we call it,
Speaker 1: it's opposite the world. Okay, we rejected dialectics, so we
Speaker 1: have no dialectical philosophy. That's why we believe in a
Speaker 1: trinity that has ultimacy of unity and multiplicity. It's not
Speaker 1: all a bare unity, and God's actions or attributes are
Speaker 1: actually infinite, so there's a balance of the one and
Speaker 1: the many. In our position, I think that also resolves
Speaker 1: other metaphysical problems that other world view have. But it's
Speaker 1: a uniquely trinitarian position where the persons of the triad
Speaker 1: have a mutual exchange of love and other attributes and
Speaker 1: energies such as divine glory. And that's why Jesus says
Speaker 1: in John seventeen one to five that before the foundation
Speaker 1: of the world, he shared with the Father the eternal
Speaker 1: glory amongst the triad. So that means for us, there's
Speaker 1: certain attributes that are natural or necessary, such as glory,
Speaker 1: such as love, such as any attribute that's not contingent
Speaker 1: upon the created order. But for God to actually exercise
Speaker 1: providence or to exercise the power of creating, that's what
Speaker 1: Ariosola referred to a second actuality, that's actualizing the powers
Speaker 1: that he has. So we don't believe that God has
Speaker 1: always exercised necessarily every power that he has. He can
Speaker 1: exercise at will because he's a personal and intentional being.
Speaker 1: That's why when Jesus becomes incarnate person that God had
Speaker 1: steps into time and space, he willingly chooses not to
Speaker 1: actualize all of his powers, to step into a mode
Speaker 1: of being in time and space. That's all absolutely impossible
Speaker 1: in a neoplatonic scheme. And to turn that question to you,
Speaker 1: I would say, if you did have a neoplatonic scheme,
Speaker 1: now I've read some Sufi text, and maybe you would
Speaker 1: agree with this. Do you believe that everything is a
Speaker 1: kind of manifestation of Allah or do you believe that
Speaker 1: Allah is so transcendent that he really can't be revealed
Speaker 1: or manifested in time and space.
Speaker 4: I would say that when it comes to apatheticism, first
Speaker 4: of all, everything in a sense does reflect the divine
Speaker 4: attributes quote unquote right. But I would not say that
Speaker 4: everything in the world is gone. I'm not a pantheist
Speaker 4: or panentheist.
Speaker 3: Right, I reject that type of view. That's what if
Speaker 3: you read almost any Sufi.
Speaker 4: Metaphysician, like let's say Shake f Mettijenny Iven RB.
Speaker 3: They'll all reject pantheon right, very explicitly.
Speaker 1: So, yeah, I didn't think you were a pantheist, but
Speaker 1: my question, I guess would be so for us. In
Speaker 1: orthodox metaphysics, number one, the distinction between the attributes that
Speaker 1: are related only to the created order versus the attributes
Speaker 1: that are true from all eternity without whether or without
Speaker 1: a creative order such as love or glory. Those things
Speaker 1: are not contingent upon a world. But the exercise of
Speaker 1: say divine providence doesn't make sense in our view if
Speaker 1: he's not exercising that, if there's no world over which
Speaker 1: he's provident. So this would be the modal collapse point.
Speaker 1: This would be the point to where if God is
Speaker 1: eternally exercising, say providence, then there's an eternal world over
Speaker 1: which he's exercised that providence. And so if there's an
Speaker 1: eternal world, then now we have a second God or
Speaker 1: second deity next to God, a diad, whereby the created
Speaker 1: order is also eternal, just like God's eternal. So I
Speaker 1: would say that might be a problem depending upon how
Speaker 1: you conceive of the distinction between God's essence and his actions,
Speaker 1: if you believe there's a real distinction or not, and
Speaker 1: if there's no real distinctions, then I would say the
Speaker 1: position would fall into motal collapse. And that's why we
Speaker 1: don't believe in a bear unitarian deity. We believe in
Speaker 1: a real personal triad.
Speaker 4: I would say that it's consistent because it's quite obvious
Speaker 4: that if you read Sufi metaphysics, we are necessitarians. Right,
Speaker 4: if you hold to ads, it does entail necessitarianism.
Speaker 5: You'd agree with that, right, I think?
Speaker 2: So?
Speaker 5: Yeah, okay, So we would.
Speaker 4: Say that, let's say the first intellect is a turnal,
Speaker 4: but we wouldn't say that the tip paroal world is eternal, right,
Speaker 4: so you know, like the entire hierarchy of platinism, right, yeah,
Speaker 4: and so we would negate that in relation to the
Speaker 4: temporal world, but in relation to like let's say the
Speaker 4: first intellect or Hakika Muhammadia, we would affirm that eternality.
Speaker 5: So well, I don't really see.
Speaker 1: Is the first intellect a deman in an ontological diminished status?
Speaker 3: Yeah, it's dependent, right, and so have multiple deities? I
Speaker 3: would say that that's an impossibility.
Speaker 1: Right For one, you just said it's dependent.
Speaker 4: Yeah, it's dependent right upon the emanation of the One
Speaker 4: or the monad or God. But I would say, at
Speaker 4: the same time anything that this is like very classical
Speaker 4: plan is that anything that comes from the one is
Speaker 4: subbortinate to the ones.
Speaker 3: So and so they don't have the same essence.
Speaker 1: You can't call them God, right and side question, heret
Speaker 1: do you think that the Quran teaches this? I mean
Speaker 1: does the Koran teach ancient Platonic metaphysics? Is that? Does
Speaker 1: that what's really revealed in the Kuran? Are you there?
Speaker 1: You're muted?
Speaker 3: Oh, okay.
Speaker 4: So I wouldn't say explicitly because you can't have disagreements
Speaker 4: on how to interpret the Quran. But I would say
Speaker 4: that the death corpus and things like this do give
Speaker 4: credence to the view of the suit in particular.
Speaker 1: You know, I'm saying where so all of this is
Speaker 1: obviously Greek metaphysics, right, And you're you don't think this
Speaker 1: is cribbed.
Speaker 3: I don't think it's necessarily.
Speaker 1: Wrong that we know to crib I didn't say right
Speaker 1: or wrong cribbed.
Speaker 3: No, not really.
Speaker 1: Okay, So you literally said her appealing to Plato and
Speaker 1: these texts, and you're saying that when the Qoran is written, right, Muhammad,
Speaker 1: who is illiterate, is not this is not coming from that.
Speaker 2: Yeah.
Speaker 4: I would not say that these ideas are coming from
Speaker 4: strict plainism. I just said revelation and revelation just corresponds
Speaker 4: to reality.
Speaker 1: So so the so the revelation that comes centuries after
Speaker 1: Plato and these people is not getting it from Plato,
Speaker 1: even though it's you're literally sitting here appealing to Plato.
Speaker 3: Yeah, I would say that.
Speaker 1: Okay, okay, yeah, all right, anything else? So okay, so
Speaker 1: what what what if there's what I know you're saying
Speaker 1: that what Plato says, you can't call it god or whatever.
Speaker 1: But you just said that. I mean, there's an eternal
Speaker 1: second principle of intellect? How is that not two different things?
Speaker 1: How are you? How are you?
Speaker 4: Because I think I justified I said why earlier?
Speaker 3: Why in playing?
Speaker 1: No, I'm asking your position.
Speaker 3: Yeah, this is this is the same position.
Speaker 1: Basically, but it's not from Plato. I would not say
Speaker 1: that's what are you appeeling to play?
Speaker 3: I'm not actually appealing. I don't think that you just.
Speaker 1: You just said okay, uh so, how do you believe
Speaker 1: in one God if there's these multiple principles of diminished
Speaker 1: ontological status.
Speaker 3: Because the news is subortinate to the one.
Speaker 5: It's not.
Speaker 1: You just restated your position.
Speaker 3: Yeah, I just stated the position because.
Speaker 1: How is that consistent with How is that consistent with
Speaker 1: the claim that you only worship one God when there's
Speaker 1: multiple principles of dem nos ontological status that you're calling.
Speaker 4: God because they don't have the same essence, like I'm
Speaker 4: only referring to the one, and how is it not
Speaker 4: because these are two distinct entities, like this is.
Speaker 1: Polly is exactly Polly? That means many, Yeah, greetings from
Speaker 1: among something. Yeah, so it's all neo platonic argumentation. It's
Speaker 1: all directly from preda Plato. But it's not from Plato.
Speaker 1: It's not neo platonic. And there's multiple entities that are
Speaker 1: not poly multiple entities. Greetings. What's up?
Speaker 5: Hey? Could you can you hear?
Speaker 1: Uh huh?
Speaker 5: Yeah.
Speaker 7: So my question is about the phot schism. That's like
Speaker 7: my first one, and it's not really an argue. There's
Speaker 7: just a few concerns I've got with decent Orthodox position.
Speaker 1: So, yeah, have you read the Varnick's book? No, I
Speaker 1: hope it actually so. The Varnick is the one of
Speaker 1: the most famous Uni eight scholars who basically goes back
Speaker 1: to excuse me, various Orthodox schisms and sort of regurgitates
Speaker 1: and revises, not regurgitates, revises the position of Rome. And
Speaker 1: that's why now Rome accepts these Eastern fathers as potentially saints.
Speaker 5: Right, okay, yeah, right, well I'll suppose all you for.
Speaker 1: You thought then, yeah, I mean he I would just
Speaker 1: defer to your own your own guys for that.
Speaker 5: Yeah right, yeah, okay, that's enough.
Speaker 1: There's also another book too that Congar wrote after nine
Speaker 1: hundred years, the touches on that from the Roman Catholic perspective,
Speaker 1: basically admitting that uh we we can. I mean, this
Speaker 1: is why Rome has changed their position. I mean, jomp
Speaker 1: All the second says you can revere these people as
Speaker 1: saints when they were heretics for centuries.
Speaker 7: Yeah, yeah, no, that's that's good. I mean, I'll go
Speaker 7: look at that. It's that kind of answers my first question.
Speaker 1: Already before you you can ask the hold on, you
Speaker 1: can ask the second question to the guy in the
Speaker 1: chat was talking a bunch of smack. If you aren't
Speaker 1: gonna come to debate, we're gonna beat you. So Romancaalic,
Speaker 1: dude Jay in the chat, come to bate where you're gone,
Speaker 1: Go ahead, Yeah, all.
Speaker 5: Right, thank you.
Speaker 7: So I've spent a lot of time looking at TAG
Speaker 7: over the last few months, and I think for a
Speaker 7: lot of people it's kind of like a revelation. You know,
Speaker 7: it's almost a Eureka moment because it's a new side
Speaker 7: of things that they haven't considered before, right, I mean,
Speaker 7: I think a lot of people use like natural theology
Speaker 7: straight away and they never even consider this side of things.
Speaker 7: So it's been like interesting to go through this, and
Speaker 7: if I my understanding of it, it's like a REDUCTI
Speaker 7: your argument. So if all the other possibilities of false,
Speaker 7: then the conclusion of the argument must be true because
Speaker 7: only the other arguments or arguments against.
Speaker 5: It can possibly be you know, it couldn't possibly.
Speaker 8: Exist will possibly be true.
Speaker 7: So my question really is like, how can you insert
Speaker 7: gold into this? Because all the other world views are circular? Right,
Speaker 7: So if we use like an empiricis worldview, the impirsis
Speaker 7: worldview doesn't make sense because in order to validate.
Speaker 1: The argument is not that all the other world views
Speaker 1: are circular in ours is not. The argument is that
Speaker 1: every worldview is circular. So it becomes a question of
Speaker 1: who can give a coherent account of the worldview. So,
Speaker 1: in other words, any worldview that posits self evidence or
Speaker 1: foundationalist principles, as any Roman Catholic natural theology based worldview
Speaker 1: would do, we're saying that that's not going to work.
Speaker 1: You're in You're gonna end up in some circularity even
Speaker 1: on your principles of self evidence. So the first point
Speaker 1: we make there is to say that your worldview is
Speaker 1: not actually self evident and not actually foundationalist. You're actually
Speaker 1: violating the principles that you claim to hold to. And
Speaker 1: so if they have two options, there, say a Roman
Speaker 1: Catholic natural theology proponent, And this came up in the
Speaker 1: Trent debate, right Trent said, no, I still believe in
Speaker 1: self evidence. I'll use Descartes cogito. And then what I
Speaker 1: argued in the debate was, well, you don't actually believe
Speaker 1: it's self evident because you made appeals to other things
Speaker 1: to prove it. That means it's not self evident. So, uh,
Speaker 1: if you're in if you don't believe in self evidence,
Speaker 1: then you're in our the And then you're into the
Speaker 1: boat that I want you to to step into. You're
Speaker 1: in the position that I've been arguing, which is that
Speaker 1: at root, all positions will bottom out at ultimately appealing
Speaker 1: to some ultimate authority, and in that sense, at a
Speaker 1: paradigm level, be circular. That's the point. So we're not
Speaker 1: saying that we escape that dilemma, is saying that at
Speaker 1: a paradigm level, every position has some bottoming out final
Speaker 1: authority to appeal to. So that's what TAG is saying.
Speaker 1: And TAG does involve in part or reductio internal critique,
Speaker 1: but it's not just that. You also have to present
Speaker 1: the positive case for our worldview, which is well, our
Speaker 1: worldview is grounded in divine revelation, it's grounded in Christian metaphysics,
Speaker 1: it is grounded in the theology and the view of history,
Speaker 1: and the grounding of the universals of logic and so
Speaker 1: forth in the divine mind. All of those things for
Speaker 1: us would function as the structure of how our web
Speaker 1: of belief works. And then we would say, if you
Speaker 1: compare that to the web of beliefs of any other worldview,
Speaker 1: the other worldviews can't give an account for their systems,
Speaker 1: or they bottom out at something contradictory or absurd, etc.
Speaker 7: Okay, so like every single worldview, including your worldview, is
Speaker 7: a circular one.
Speaker 1: At base level, Yes, every worldview will bottom out at
Speaker 1: something that is self referencing. For everybody who's a natural
Speaker 1: theology self evidence proponent, their bottomed out ultimate principles are
Speaker 1: whatever they think is self evident. They're axioms, they're dosastically
Speaker 1: basic beliefs, and we're simply saying, well, that's arbitrary, and
Speaker 1: it's also inconsistent. It doesn't work with Chisholm's criterion problem,
Speaker 1: it doesn't work with the I mean, there's multiple critiques. So,
Speaker 1: for example, the Chisolm if you're not familiar, the criterion
Speaker 1: problem says you can't have any knowledge claim without a
Speaker 1: theory of knowledge. But if you have a theory of knowledge,
Speaker 1: by necessity, you also have a knowledge claim because you
Speaker 1: claim to know the theory of knowledge. This is a
Speaker 1: dilemma for any self evidence foundational proponent that they can't
Speaker 1: get out. There's literally no way out of that. You've
Speaker 1: got nerds that think they can solve that or whatever,
Speaker 1: but they're missing the point that you can't have self
Speaker 1: evidence about without some level of arbitrary in us. And
Speaker 1: the other critique you can make, which is I think
Speaker 1: equally is devastating, is if I ask you, okay, well,
Speaker 1: so some things are self evident and some things are not. Yes, Well,
Speaker 1: that presupposes that you have some prior criteria or standard
Speaker 1: by which you list the self evident things versus the
Speaker 1: non self evident things. And if that's the case, then
Speaker 1: there's a more fundamental criteria that undergirds the self evidence criteria.
Speaker 5: Right, yeah, no, that that's a good answer, Thank you
Speaker 5: for that. My question then would.
Speaker 1: Be, by the way, do you have the book before
Speaker 1: you go on.
Speaker 5: The book? Which books are The.
Speaker 1: Epistemology by W. J. Wood. It's a really good readable
Speaker 1: text on this and I recommend that one because the
Speaker 1: chapter on foundationalism is really good, like all the stuff
Speaker 1: that you heard me critiquing Rent in the debate, like
Speaker 1: it's in any standard epistemology text, right.
Speaker 5: I will look at that was up to B. J. Wood.
Speaker 1: Yes, yeah, his book's really good.
Speaker 5: Yeah, thank you.
Speaker 1: That's very.
Speaker 5: Yeah. I mean that's kind of the problem.
Speaker 7: You don't really want to go into the deep end
Speaker 7: and start reading things you don't fully understand, because you can,
Speaker 7: you know, it just kind of you know, it feels district.
Speaker 1: Well, so the Green Bonjeour book on Epistemology is like
Speaker 1: a grad school textbook. So a lot of people who
Speaker 1: buy that find it very difficult. But I would say
Speaker 1: if you read the Wood book first, then you'll do
Speaker 1: better with the Boneour book.
Speaker 5: Right, Yeah, that's that was useful. Yeah.
Speaker 7: So my question then would be Why does your argument
Speaker 7: get kind of like a concession. Why does your circularity
Speaker 7: receive a concession? Is it because yours begins with something
Speaker 7: that grounds the transcendental categories?
Speaker 1: Well, it's not a concession. Whereas we don't have to
Speaker 1: answer this problem. We're saying all worldviews are subject to
Speaker 1: fundamental circularity. So then the question is, well, then how
Speaker 1: would we prove any worldview. That's when it gets into coherence,
Speaker 1: that the worldview as a whole is coherent, has reasons
Speaker 1: for that worldview versus other worldviews. So we're not excluding ourselves.
Speaker 1: We're saying, no, we're also part of the same thing.
Speaker 1: We're all in the same boat. Your self evidence is
Speaker 1: not true, if I foundationals is not true, then we're
Speaker 1: all in the same boat. Well, if we're all in
Speaker 1: the same boat, how are we gonna judge between worldviews?
Speaker 1: The only way to judge between world views would be
Speaker 1: to compare the systems as a whole and see which
Speaker 1: ones are coherent, which ones work, and which ones don't.
Speaker 7: Right, And there must be some worldview because knowledge has
Speaker 7: to exist because.
Speaker 1: Yeah, well everybody necessarily will have some basic beliefs in
Speaker 1: the three elements of a worldview, right, everybody will have
Speaker 1: some basic belief on metaphysics, ethics, and epistemology.
Speaker 7: Yeah, okay, I guess my final point would what would
Speaker 7: you say to someone who would deny the existence of
Speaker 7: truanscendental categories altogether.
Speaker 1: Well, I mean you could go that route, but you
Speaker 1: would be in an even more difficult situation because transcenal
Speaker 1: categories are the things that undergird the possibility of predication
Speaker 1: at all. So if you deny those things, you're in
Speaker 1: an even deeper boat of trying to figure out You're
Speaker 1: into deeper waters trying to figure out how predication is
Speaker 1: possible at all. I mean, in other words, they're not
Speaker 1: things that we're making up. We're saying that transnial categories
Speaker 1: are the preconditions for the possibility of predication or knowledge
Speaker 1: at all. So if you want to deny those things,
Speaker 1: it'd be like saying that you know, in order to
Speaker 1: have a cake, I necessarily need these ingredients, and then
Speaker 1: I say, well, what if I deny the ingredients, Well,
Speaker 1: you're not gonna have a cake.
Speaker 5: Yeah No, that's that's great. Yeah, thank you for answer.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I would say too, I'll try to remember to
Speaker 1: send you a couple of FDA's papers, because he also
Speaker 1: touches on these subjects very well. Let's see now, the
Speaker 1: dude talking smack in the chat? Are you here? I
Speaker 1: don't see who you are. Maybe you're this guy, young Catholic?
Speaker 1: What's up? Hello, so revel. If you're not gonna come chat,
Speaker 1: just get booted. What's up? Man? What's up?
Speaker 8: I just had a question, not like a debate or anything.
Speaker 5: You just wanted to ask.
Speaker 9: I'm Catholic, by the way, but what's the Eastern Orthodox
Speaker 9: position on baptizing non Eastern Orthodox or rebaptizing in a sense?
Speaker 8: Is that allowed?
Speaker 9: Sound of the Catholic position? Is that only certain denominations
Speaker 9: have valid baptisms? What's the what's the Eastern Orthodox position?
Speaker 1: It's a case by case basis on the decision of economya.
Speaker 1: That's up to the local bishops.
Speaker 8: Okay, I mean, like would that be I mean, wouldn't
Speaker 8: that be like a contradiction that certain bishops?
Speaker 2: Is it?
Speaker 5: Under?
Speaker 8: Is it the Eastern Orthodox disposition.
Speaker 9: That the bishops have the authority to make the decision?
Speaker 1: Yeah? The ultimate interpreters of the cannons and their application
Speaker 1: are the local episcopate.
Speaker 8: Okay, I mean, I only had one question, So.
Speaker 1: Okay, that's one. Appreciate it. Let's see, I don't know
Speaker 1: where so how can you join the The link is
Speaker 1: in the show description and it has literally been linked
Speaker 1: in the chat a million times. So where's the romancality?
Speaker 1: People are talking smack like they're the ones that I
Speaker 1: want them to come? Where are they at? So you'll
Speaker 1: have to tell me who you are because there's like
Speaker 1: twenty people, fourteen people requesting to speak, So I don't
Speaker 1: know who you are. Peter, what's up? Peter?
Speaker 3: Can you hear me?
Speaker 10: Man?
Speaker 11: Hey, I have a question about John six forty. Okay, basically,
Speaker 11: I had a moment where I was looking at a
Speaker 11: picture of Jesus, and while I was looking at the picture,
Speaker 11: my spiritual eyes were open and I came to the
Speaker 11: realization that he was God, and I believe that he
Speaker 11: was God in that moment while looking at him. Is
Speaker 11: that in accordance with John six forty?
Speaker 1: Well, I think John six forty is a text that
Speaker 1: obviously shows the deity of Christ. So but I mean
Speaker 1: an orthodox view, we don't typically rely on mystical experiences
Speaker 1: because we can fall into prelass so we always guard
Speaker 1: people against trusting in those kinds of things, not to
Speaker 1: say that they can't happen. But I wouldn't rest my
Speaker 1: dogmas or my beliefs on a personal experience like that.
Speaker 1: I would rather say that The text itself says that
Speaker 1: rather than trying to, you know, fall fall back on
Speaker 1: some sort of of a mystical experience.
Speaker 11: I see you're saying, then, what would you what would
Speaker 11: your be a idea of what John six forty means.
Speaker 1: Yeah, it means that Christ, in our nature, even though
Speaker 1: he's already by nature equal to the Father and has
Speaker 1: all the same powers as the Father. As he says
Speaker 1: in John five, he's saying that also in his status
Speaker 1: as human being, that he also is granted power in
Speaker 1: our nature. So essentially, the son of God, who is
Speaker 1: also the son of Man, now has in our nature
Speaker 1: the ability to raise everyone up and give them eternal life.
Speaker 1: So shows the deedy of Christ. It shows that Christ
Speaker 1: is the one that will, by his divine power, raise
Speaker 1: everyone from the dead at the resurrection, and that he
Speaker 1: will judge the living and the dead, which he could
Speaker 1: only do if he were divine.
Speaker 11: It says that everyone who looks to or looks on
Speaker 11: the sun.
Speaker 2: What does that mean to you?
Speaker 1: I mean's look in faith. I don't think it's necessarily
Speaker 1: literally saying that the physical movement of the eyes. It's
Speaker 1: saying look in the sense of look in faith. Ali Malik,
Speaker 1: you gotta unmute man, Ali Ali?
Speaker 5: What's up?
Speaker 1: Dude?
Speaker 9: Kay?
Speaker 1: Did you turn your mic on? We can't hear you. Uh,
Speaker 1: turn your mic on and come back and I'll let
Speaker 1: you back in. Uh fazlan Ahmad? What's up?
Speaker 9: Yah h.
Speaker 2: H Hello, I'm lord of it.
Speaker 5: Be there.
Speaker 1: So I can't hear you, man, what's up?
Speaker 2: Yeah? Yeah? So I am fine. So so I have
Speaker 2: a doubt. So recently you.
Speaker 10: Had a dibate to the Muslim So yeah, I have
Speaker 10: a doubt in Christianity, a doubt so yeah, doubt mean
Speaker 10: so so when you say the attribute of good, attribute
Speaker 10: of Elohim, So, what do you say about that one?
Speaker 10: Are they eternal like you talk about ISLAMO when it
Speaker 10: comes to Allah.
Speaker 2: You took about that attribute of Almah.
Speaker 10: So what do you say the attribute of Elohim the
Speaker 10: good of old New Testament?
Speaker 1: I mean we say it's always been the Trinity. Alohim
Speaker 1: is a reference to the Trinity.
Speaker 10: Okay, But what about the attribute of Aloheim like his speech,
Speaker 10: his system, his power, his love.
Speaker 1: Yeah, that's what I was explaining in the beginning was
Speaker 1: that there's different actions in different attributes. So some of
Speaker 1: them are actualized or done from all eternity, like love
Speaker 1: or glory. Other attributes are attributes or actions particular and
Speaker 1: relevant only to the created orders, such as divine providence.
Speaker 1: God does not actualized divine providence from all eternity because
Speaker 1: that would require an eternal world. However, he has always
Speaker 1: had the power of divine providence or of creating, even
Speaker 1: though he didn't eternally.
Speaker 10: Create, Okay, but simply put together, like, are they created
Speaker 10: or are they uncreated?
Speaker 2: His attribute?
Speaker 1: Now, God has no created parts or attributes okay.
Speaker 2: The uncreated. So like in Islam he said the empty
Speaker 2: the uncreated?
Speaker 1: Correct, Okay, So.
Speaker 10: That they are part of him or they are separate
Speaker 10: from him.
Speaker 1: We don't believe that distinctions entail parts, composition, or division.
Speaker 2: No, I'm asking they are within himself or a.
Speaker 5: Well.
Speaker 1: We believe in what's called the essence sentergy distinction. So
Speaker 1: they're distinct, but they're really him. It's a both and
Speaker 1: not an either or.
Speaker 2: Okay.
Speaker 10: But like as an example, when it come to Jesus,
Speaker 10: his attribute of court.
Speaker 2: Jesus is the word of Court, so that is an attribute.
Speaker 2: So in the sense that Jesus should be.
Speaker 1: We do not believe that it's an attribute. We believe
Speaker 1: that he's a distinct person or hypostasis. So he's the
Speaker 1: second person of the trinity, not an attribute.
Speaker 10: But his speech is attribute. Right to the word of
Speaker 10: God is attribute of guoth. The wisdom of God is
Speaker 10: attribute of good.
Speaker 1: Right, it is both an attribute and in this case
Speaker 1: a person as well, because in our view, the attributes
Speaker 1: have a manifestation that happens in each person in a
Speaker 1: unique way, in a unique mode. So the speech of
Speaker 1: God is not just an attribute. In this case, it
Speaker 1: is also a person.
Speaker 10: Okay, then how about the wisdom of Gurt.
Speaker 2: It is an attribute to right.
Speaker 1: The scriptures identify Christ as the wisdom of God as
Speaker 1: well as both an attribute and a manifest and a person.
Speaker 10: But there are so many attribuments, like the counsel of Gurth,
Speaker 10: the glory of.
Speaker 1: Gurth right, and so my basis is what divine revelation
Speaker 1: tells us, not can I make every attribute a person?
Speaker 1: We don't believe every attribute is a person. What I'm
Speaker 1: saying is there are two different things going on here.
Speaker 1: One is the Trinity and then the movement of those
Speaker 1: attributes or energies in the way that they manifest or
Speaker 1: the way that they move. So, uh, you could say,
Speaker 1: for example, the Holy Spirit is the law of the
Speaker 1: manifestation of the Love of God. I am not identifying
Speaker 1: the Holy Spirit as the Love of God because love
Speaker 1: is an attribute common to Father's Son and Holy Spirit,
Speaker 1: but he's uniquely manifested by the person of the Spirit.
Speaker 2: Okay, So what is your criteria? And so what is
Speaker 2: the criteria to attribute to become a person? Yeah? What
Speaker 2: what is the criteria?
Speaker 1: Divine revelation is the criteria?
Speaker 2: Yeah, the religion.
Speaker 10: But as an example of you all, if I go
Speaker 10: to the word of court, so use a word of
Speaker 10: courde is a person also a no?
Speaker 1: No? So the divine revelation, I mean, what's in it?
Speaker 1: For example, the Torah and the prophets. That's where we
Speaker 1: get the Doctor and the Trinity from. It doesn't come
Speaker 1: from Greek philosopher, It's not invented by Constantin or Paul.
Speaker 1: It's in the Torah.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I got to that point.
Speaker 10: But as an example of the same Bible talk about
Speaker 10: the wisdom of the glory of Court. So when it
Speaker 10: come to glory of quote, how you say that is
Speaker 10: not a person. How you get to that conclusion. The
Speaker 10: glory of God is not a person, but the right.
Speaker 1: So if you read it, I understand what your question is.
Speaker 1: If you read Ezekiel one to ten, glory is a
Speaker 1: attribute but is also manifested as the person of the Son.
Speaker 1: So our starting point is not ninety nine names or
Speaker 1: all of God's attributes. We start with the person of
Speaker 1: the Father, the generation of the Son, and the procession
Speaker 1: of the Spirit. Those three persons uniquely manifest every attribute
Speaker 1: in a unique way. That's what I'm saying. So there
Speaker 1: could never be new persons. We can't come up with
Speaker 1: a fourth There's not ninety nine persons or whatever. Each
Speaker 1: attribute moves in a certain way from the Father through
Speaker 1: the Son and in the Spirit. That movement is eternal.
Speaker 1: That's our trinitarian doctrine.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I got that point, But what is your criteria like?
Speaker 2: Have an example?
Speaker 1: I to the criteria is that divine revelation states and
Speaker 1: gives me the grounding first and foremost to begin the
Speaker 1: theology with the theology of the persons of the Trinity.
Speaker 1: So if there's let me let me explain that. So
Speaker 1: in the Old Testament, for example, we have Yahweh. We
Speaker 1: have his Angel messenger who comes in time and space,
Speaker 1: who manifests as his messenger, as his angel, as his face,
Speaker 1: as his glory, as his wisdom, as his word. We
Speaker 1: think that's the son, that's Jesus in the Old Testament,
Speaker 1: and his spirit is present all throughout. So these three
Speaker 1: persons or hypostases are manifested all throughout the Torah and
Speaker 1: the prophets. That's our criteria and starting point for where
Speaker 1: we would then look to. Well, then what are these
Speaker 1: attributes and how are they manifested?
Speaker 10: Okay, but when it comes to the Spirit of Gurt
Speaker 10: Bible just moment, the seven.
Speaker 2: Separate spirit trift.
Speaker 10: So if the seven spirit of Court, then how can
Speaker 10: you end up in Trinity?
Speaker 1: Now, the seventh spirits are said to be attributes or
Speaker 1: operations w are common to all three. That's not the
Speaker 1: same thing as the Holy Spirit. Two different things. Because
Speaker 1: when you look at the seven spirits, they're listed in Isaiah.
Speaker 1: So Isaiah says the spirit of Wisdom, the spirit of knowledge,
Speaker 1: the spirit of fear of the Lord. All those are
Speaker 1: on the person of Christ because that passage in Isaiah
Speaker 1: eleven is about the incarnation. Those are common attributes that
Speaker 1: are called the seven spirits of God. It doesn't mean
Speaker 1: that God literally has seven holy spirits. That's distinct from
Speaker 1: the person of the Holy Spirit.
Speaker 10: But in the seven is spirit is spirit of Cody
Speaker 10: is mentioned the same spirit in Genesis, right, So you
Speaker 10: identify that as a separate person.
Speaker 1: Right, But that's not right. So it's from Isaiah eleven
Speaker 1: and it says that the spirit of the Lord will
Speaker 1: rest upon him. That's the Holy Spirit, because the Holy
Speaker 1: Spirit in the Baptism of Christ rests upon him. I
Speaker 1: know you don't believe this, but I'm saying that it's
Speaker 1: not inconsistent within our texts. So what Isaiah eleven is
Speaker 1: predicting is a Messianic prediction. Right, there shall come forth
Speaker 1: a rod from the stem of Jesse. That's David. Jesse's
Speaker 1: David's dad. So this is talking about the Thevidic lineage
Speaker 1: of the Messiah. We think that this branch is Christ.
Speaker 1: The spirit of the Lord will rest upon him, that's
Speaker 1: the Holy Spirit. That's what happens in Christ baptism, the
Speaker 1: spirit of wisdom, understanding, counsel, might, knowledge, and fear of
Speaker 1: the Lord. Right, So these the seven here is just
Speaker 1: a symbolic number of both the Holy Spirit and the
Speaker 1: attributes that are common to all all three persons of
Speaker 1: the Trinity.
Speaker 2: Oh yeah, I got that.
Speaker 10: But what I'm telling you, so the it's mentioned seven spirit,
Speaker 10: but the second spirit is the Holy Spirit, the spirit
Speaker 10: of court.
Speaker 1: Right, It's just it's just a symbolic right, there's not
Speaker 1: seven attributes. It's just a symbolic number of perfection. There's
Speaker 1: there's other attributes that are common.
Speaker 2: Like uh, okay, okay, okay.
Speaker 10: So, but when it comes to the endle of courte,
Speaker 10: like I think in the Full of dismentioned angel Gabriel
Speaker 10: is the endle of code.
Speaker 1: Angel. Angel is a word that just means messenger.
Speaker 5: Right.
Speaker 1: So in the Old Testament, when it's used, sometimes it's Gabriel,
Speaker 1: like in Daniel, and it specifies that Daniel came to
Speaker 1: Gabriel came to Daniel. Other times it's specified that it's
Speaker 1: Michael at the end of Daniel, for example, Michael the
Speaker 1: arch angel defends the nation of Israel. But in other
Speaker 1: places the Angel messenger and again it just means messenger
Speaker 1: that can be a created or an uncreated messenger. And
Speaker 1: that's why we say in so many places that the
Speaker 1: angel is called God, called Yahweh, and worshiped in the
Speaker 1: Old Testament.
Speaker 10: Okay, but just on explicit evidence side the angle of
Speaker 10: courde is Jesus.
Speaker 1: I can say that again. I can hear you say
Speaker 1: that again.
Speaker 10: Yeah, do we have an explicit evidence the New Testament say,
Speaker 10: Jesus is the angle of court?
Speaker 1: Yeah, absolutely, Jesus and John five through nine identifies himself
Speaker 1: as an angel. In those chapters. He says that he's
Speaker 1: the one that appeared on Mount Sinai and the Burning
Speaker 1: Bush and Extodu three where the angel says I am
Speaker 1: that I am. Exos twenty three, he says that the
Speaker 1: name of Yahweh is in that angel messenger, so he's
Speaker 1: called Yahweh. And remember God doesn't give his glory to another.
Speaker 1: And yet here he is saying that this angel messenger
Speaker 1: is is Yahweh. So Jesus also says that Abraham looked
Speaker 1: forward to believe in him.
Speaker 10: Johnny, they're explicit, right, No.
Speaker 1: It's explicit. He explicitly says that he's the one that
Speaker 1: talked face to face with Moses. He says, no one
Speaker 1: sees the Father in any time. This is John five
Speaker 1: through nine. Right, John five, he says no one sees
Speaker 1: the Father at any time, and yet Moses talked face
Speaker 1: to face with God. Who was Moses talking to If
Speaker 1: no one sees the Father, Jesus is saying that he
Speaker 1: is the one talking face to face with Moses. And
Speaker 1: that's why he tells the Pharisees that you have to
Speaker 1: honor and worship the Son as you honor and worship
Speaker 1: the Father. And that's why the Pharisees then went to
Speaker 1: stone Jesus in John five.
Speaker 10: But when it comes like Moses to quote that the
Speaker 10: it is he did not talk with the glory quote.
Speaker 1: Well, it says right. It says in Exodus both that
Speaker 1: Moses talked face to face with God. It says that
Speaker 1: no one can see God face to face. So the
Speaker 1: resolution to this dilemma is that Jesus is the face
Speaker 1: of God that talked to Moses face to face. And
Speaker 1: that's the argument used to making in John five.
Speaker 2: You can't have the opinion, but.
Speaker 1: I'm gonna move on. I'm not trying to be rude.
Speaker 1: It is really hard to hear what you're saying. So
Speaker 1: we're gonna move on to the next but thank you
Speaker 1: for those questions. With the next one, Uh, Welsh papist,
Speaker 1: what's up faith alone? Protestants call in If you the
Speaker 1: chat is not for you to spam to British ca enter,
Speaker 1: you're booted.
Speaker 8: Amy Jay, Yes.
Speaker 12: Sir, I just kind of just a few questions in
Speaker 12: regards to Orthodox biology.
Speaker 13: I'm a Catholic.
Speaker 14: I'm just curious about a couple of things.
Speaker 12: Obviously, you would reject sort of the Augustinian view of
Speaker 12: original sin. The Eastern tradition always did, and I'm just
Speaker 12: curious as to why that is, because you know, like
Speaker 12: say passages like.
Speaker 14: Psalm fifty where David.
Speaker 12: Talks about you know, my mother, you know, bought me
Speaker 12: in sin, or say Roman spy for example. I'm just
Speaker 12: curious what is the Eastern perspective on passages.
Speaker 2: Such as that.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Right, the Augustinian view has bound up with his doctrine,
Speaker 1: which he's very explicit on. I give you all the
Speaker 1: references where he says that all men were in Adam
Speaker 1: as in an archetype. He says this in the City
Speaker 1: of God explicitly that means for him that not only
Speaker 1: are we in Adam in potentia, but we're also guiltilty
Speaker 1: of adam sin because we are in him as an archetype.
Speaker 1: This leads Augustine to his massive damn Nata doctrine that
Speaker 1: all men are damned as a damned mass, a damn
Speaker 1: ball of damnation in Adam, and thus he thinks that
Speaker 1: there's inherited guilt for infants. Roman Catholic theology in the
Speaker 1: Late Middle Ages softens this with the limbo of infants
Speaker 1: and so forth, but I think they still retain some
Speaker 1: of these principles. This is what leads Roman Catholicism to
Speaker 1: things like the immaculate conception doctrine. They think that for
Speaker 1: Mary to be pure, she would also have to have
Speaker 1: been conceived immaculately. We don't believe any of that. We
Speaker 1: do think she's a spotless virgencyt in committee the actual sins.
Speaker 1: But many, all of these fron church fathers are almost
Speaker 1: unanimous in saying that infants do not bear personal guilt.
Speaker 1: So how do it Does that mean they're Pallagian? No, They,
Speaker 1: just as you said, simply didn't accept or didn't believe
Speaker 1: in the Augustinian doctrine. Of inherited guilt, and it's also
Speaker 1: bound up with Augustine's collapsing of person into nature, both
Speaker 1: in the trinity and in humanity. In Orthodox theology, for
Speaker 1: Saint Maximus, for example, guilt is only something that can
Speaker 1: be had as by an individual person. So the mode
Speaker 1: of willing that you do as an individual hypostasis, is
Speaker 1: the only way that you could ever be guilty of something.
Speaker 1: This is why Ezekiel, for example, says that the son
Speaker 1: shall not bear the sins of the father. Well, how
Speaker 1: do we explain this? Well in Romans five the text
Speaker 1: that you mention if you read Mayandorf's critique of Augustine,
Speaker 1: and this is also in Pameazanski's book too, by the way,
Speaker 1: as a whole section about the Augustinian doctrin of original sin.
Speaker 1: This is the standard rokor dogmatic theology book. He says
Speaker 1: that the mistake that Augustine made was assuming that all
Speaker 1: men sin in Adam, when the text in the Greek
Speaker 1: reads all men sin because of Adam sin. So it
Speaker 1: doesn't mean that we're guilty of adam sin. It means
Speaker 1: the effects of Adam's sin pass on to us, and
Speaker 1: so in that sense, yes, we have the contagion, we
Speaker 1: have the deprivation of grace. We agree with all those things,
Speaker 1: which is why we baptize infants, but we do not
Speaker 1: believe that infants are guilty of personal actual sin.
Speaker 12: Thanks for that answers. So the next one would be
Speaker 12: when you by the way, by.
Speaker 1: The way, before you, before you go to that. I
Speaker 1: just remembered I do have a three hour talk on
Speaker 1: this topic, going through the text of Augustine and others.
Speaker 1: If you're interested in in a longer version of this.
Speaker 14: I was sure looking to terms sort of new to
Speaker 14: your stuff. So anyway, what was.
Speaker 13: I ready to say?
Speaker 10: Oh?
Speaker 12: Yes, you had a discussion with the slimilantin yesday and
Speaker 12: you made a case for monarcical trinitarianism, which I've come
Speaker 12: across in say Saint Basil and the two Saint Gregor Cappadocian.
Speaker 5: Yeah.
Speaker 12: Yeah, I'm just curious before them because just from my
Speaker 12: own personal reading of the Church Harvest so far, you
Speaker 12: just say, if you were to go before them, who
Speaker 12: else would you say?
Speaker 14: Hell to the monarcicle?
Speaker 1: Well, I think I think Ireon As teaches it. I
Speaker 1: think you can see an ignacious where he talks about
Speaker 1: the threefold structure in the church, mirroring father and Son.
Speaker 1: I think it's it's pretty consistent.
Speaker 7: Uh.
Speaker 1: The only the only time I can think of this
Speaker 1: really becoming confused is in the argument. So after Origin,
Speaker 1: if you look in First Principles, he starts arguing that
Speaker 1: what divine simplicity means is what Neoplatonists mean, and so
Speaker 1: after Origin you get a tendency. Even Augustine when he
Speaker 1: argues for philly Oquah, for example, he's basically cribs, you know,
Speaker 1: on the Trinity, certain passages from the Aeneids. So this
Speaker 1: idea of simplicity that passes into Plotinus and others really
Speaker 1: gets regurgitated in Origin in Augustine and becomes more and
Speaker 1: more popular in the West. To start your trend turn
Speaker 1: theology with the simplicity of the essence based on quite
Speaker 1: literally a plutonium definition from Origin's First Principles, Chapter one.
Speaker 1: I think it's around fourteen, but it's book one of
Speaker 1: First Principles, and then it becomes pretty standard for people
Speaker 1: to utilize that as the working definition of what simplicity
Speaker 1: has to be. And if you read Bradshaw's book Arizola
Speaker 1: East and West as well as Rodigalwitz's book on Divine
Speaker 1: Simplicity in the Cappadoceans Day points out that the Cappadocians
Speaker 1: don't first and foremost utilize this Plutonian definition of simplicity.
Speaker 1: For them, simplicity first and foremost is whether God is,
Speaker 1: whether God acts or is acted upon. So that's a
Speaker 1: reference to simplicity, that's a reference to what characterizes the
Speaker 1: divine nature. It's impassibility, it's it's not changeable. But when
Speaker 1: we speak of God acting in the world, that's the
Speaker 1: essence centergy distinction, which characterizes the Cappadocians as well. And
Speaker 1: so they begin with distinctions in the trinity, not with
Speaker 1: the essence and the Trinity.
Speaker 14: Thank you.
Speaker 12: I just got two more questions. Whether the next one
Speaker 12: would be in regards to the ic and creed i e.
Speaker 14: The video quay. Obviously, the videokre was rejected in.
Speaker 12: The East because of the manner and how it was
Speaker 12: placed into the creed. So obviously the one reason was
Speaker 12: part of the ecclesiology, obviously, but what was more the
Speaker 12: theological reasons for the rejection of the video qui as well.
Speaker 1: Well. The classic text on this is the Mysticgology of
Speaker 1: Saint Photius. And then another I highly recommend even more
Speaker 1: than that one is the reprinting of Saint gregor At
Speaker 1: Palomas's book Apidictic Treatise on the Holy Spirit, because what
Speaker 1: Palamas does is really build on the argumentation in Photius's
Speaker 1: Critique of the Philioquay and take it to the next level,
Speaker 1: so he gets way more in depth with Apidictic logic
Speaker 1: and argumentation, and those two books I think are essential.
Speaker 1: So I would recommend reading those two to see what
Speaker 1: what they were arguing in Photius's day, in Palamas's day.
Speaker 8: Thank you.
Speaker 14: Last question would be punny it up about Palomas in a.
Speaker 12: Sense, Palamas is obviously the first won't be the right
Speaker 12: way to put it, the first person to really put
Speaker 12: forward the essence energy distinction.
Speaker 1: No, I don't think that's true at all.
Speaker 12: Well, I mean it is any right, I mean, is
Speaker 12: in a full disclosure, in full writing, so speA.
Speaker 1: I mean that it's all throughout on the Orthodox faith.
Speaker 1: I mean John Damascus is Christology is all premised on
Speaker 1: the essen center distinction. Saint Maximus is a dispute with
Speaker 1: Paris is all premised on the essencenary. That whole book
Speaker 1: is based on the argument the s sentaristinction.
Speaker 14: Did you say, what's his name name? Saint John and Damascus.
Speaker 5: Yeah.
Speaker 1: The third book of On the Orthodox Faith, chapter fifteen
Speaker 1: and on is all essencenrigy distinction applied to Christology. Say,
Speaker 1: Maximus's entire book Disputation with Piris is all based on
Speaker 1: essenceentarty distinction. So another what I'm arguing, what I'm pointing
Speaker 1: out is that essenceentary astinction is way more clear and
Speaker 1: perceptible in Christology even than it is in Trinitarian theology.
Speaker 12: Just as well as small caveat question for yourself from
Speaker 12: ja bec as I'm aware that you were. You were
Speaker 12: Roman Catholic once upon a time.
Speaker 14: Obviously what.
Speaker 12: Convinced you of the essence energy distinction over say, divine
Speaker 12: simplicity is taught by the tomis like a quietness and such.
Speaker 1: Going through a lot of essays and articles debating it.
Speaker 1: In Ergetic Procession had a about a forty page comment
Speaker 1: debate many many years ago where they were debating this
Speaker 1: back and forth. That was one of the first things
Speaker 1: that got me questioning it. I read Philip Schard's book
Speaker 1: Greek East, Latin West and the essay in there on
Speaker 1: the energies was really another thing that was moving me
Speaker 1: in that direction. I started reading the Cappadocians at length,
Speaker 1: and I noticed that it's not just Letter two thirty four.
Speaker 1: It's pretty consistent in all the Cappadocians to argue on
Speaker 1: the basis of the essen centeris stinction, including basils on
Speaker 1: the Holy Spirit, including basils against Eunomius. And then when
Speaker 1: I moved into reading a lot of Saint Cyril, noticing
Speaker 1: that Saint Cyril makes use of the essence centertys sinction
Speaker 1: all the time. It's fundamental to his argumentation about how
Speaker 1: the Eucharus is the real presence it. Then moving into
Speaker 1: reading a lot of Saint Maximus and seeing that Maximus
Speaker 1: clearly teaches the essenceinerti stinction all over the place John
Speaker 1: Damascus teaches it. When I noticed the debate between when
Speaker 1: Aquinas rejects John Damascus on the essenceinnies stinction explicitly. This
Speaker 1: is in his work de Veritate Aquinas cites mymonities is
Speaker 1: the reason why he rejects the essenceneries stinction of John
Speaker 1: the Masaca. So that was very telling to me where
Speaker 1: this idea was coming from. Classical theism, Mymonides, Plotinus, et cetera.
Speaker 1: It really has nothing to do with what's argued in
Speaker 1: terms of the Old Testament, and that's where the real
Speaker 1: clincher was. I read Bradshaw's essay on essence energy what
Speaker 1: kind of distinction? And then I read his book ariosol
Speaker 1: aasim Last and then all of his other essays where
Speaker 1: he talks about the manifestation of divine glory, and then
Speaker 1: I think the main final clincher was the Theophanes. The
Speaker 1: Theophanes are clear as day God in time and space.
Speaker 1: It's literally rejected and not possible on a Tomistic, Roman,
Speaker 1: Catholic ads schema, and that's why they all teach that
Speaker 1: the Theophanes are created angelic beings, just like Muslims, just
Speaker 1: like Jews.
Speaker 14: Thanks for your time, Jage, Absolutely.
Speaker 1: Yeah, well a remember this guy is when we had
Speaker 1: the two Thomas the other day, Colin, and we had
Speaker 1: this argument, what do we get Jewish Muslim ex to Jesus,
Speaker 1: They're worshiping an angel. The glory of God is an angel,
Speaker 1: a created being. There's no created God, there's no created glory.
Speaker 1: You can't worship creatures, you can't worship angels, and by angels,
Speaker 1: I mean created angelic beings. Can't worship Michael and Gabriel.
Speaker 1: You can worship the Angel of the Covenant, who's Jesus,
Speaker 1: because he's not a creature, He's the eternal son of God.
Speaker 1: Aaron lifted up his hand towards the people, and he
Speaker 1: blessed them. He came down from the sin offering and
Speaker 1: the burnt offering and the peace offering. Moses and Aaron
Speaker 1: wentner the tabernacle came out and blessed the people, and
Speaker 1: the glory of Leahweh appeared to all. Fire came out
Speaker 1: from before the Lord consume the burnt offering. What is
Speaker 1: Paul sayd hebrews Our God is a consuming fire. This
Speaker 1: is not a created fire. God has no created fire.
Speaker 1: This is the uncreated light and fire of God. John one,
Speaker 1: uncreated light, John one versus created light Genesis one, Matthew seventeen.
Speaker 1: Uncreated light emanates from the resurrect or from the transfigured Christ.
Speaker 1: That same uncreated light is the same uncreated light and
Speaker 1: glory here. What do the Israelites do? Do they say
Speaker 1: thank you Yahweh for a created image of angelic glory? No,
Speaker 1: they say fall down their face and worship God. This
Speaker 1: passage is so adamantly clear to refute the stupidity of
Speaker 1: the Roman Catholic Thomas. And that's why I again shared
Speaker 1: this paper the other day, Bodies of God. I'll just
Speaker 1: get the quotes up for you because I have it
Speaker 1: on my desktop. All right, hopefully you can see this
Speaker 1: if you're looking on YouTube. Summary and conclusion a Quitnas
Speaker 1: deals with anthromomorphic descriptions and images. More directly, whether God
Speaker 1: is depicted in dimensions, hands, eyes, et cetera, standing or
Speaker 1: in the case of Isaiah, it is not God himself
Speaker 1: because God is absolutely simple and God is spirit. God
Speaker 1: cannot manifest in time and space. And again they're so silly,
Speaker 1: these Tomas. They don't even realize that this undercuts the incarnation.
Speaker 1: And what is a Quitas's view, well, contrasted to Summers,
Speaker 1: it is the opposite of Summers. Hence why we always
Speaker 1: reference the Summer's book. So hopefully you can see that. Now,
Speaker 1: let me find you the actual full paper here, had
Speaker 1: it pulled up the other day. Let me see if
Speaker 1: I can find it. Bodies of God.
Speaker 2: Let the bodies, the flu let the bodies.
Speaker 1: No, that's not it. Here it does Aquinas and Sohmer
Speaker 1: on Bodies of God the paper by Richard Wilson here,
Speaker 1: that's a necessary read for illustrating this principle, this point,
Speaker 1: which is that the atomistic ads doctrine in terms of
Speaker 1: denying the Theophanes, which is explicit. Remember that guy that
Speaker 1: called him the other day that said, I don't think
Speaker 1: Aquinas denies the Theophanes. Yeah, he does. So no idea
Speaker 1: where you have no idea what you're talking about. This
Speaker 1: paper is good in contrasting these two views. Now again,
Speaker 1: Sohmer is not orthodox. Why are we recommending a Jewish guy?
Speaker 1: Because Sohmer is arguing that Hebrew Revelation, contrary to his
Speaker 1: own revenge traditions, is admitting that there's distinct type of
Speaker 1: stacees in God. There is a real multiplicity that is
Speaker 1: not just conceptual or distinction or virtual, but that whether
Speaker 1: it's the Old Testament Theophanes, or whether it's the unique
Speaker 1: doctrine of divine eminence and transcendence in the Jewish Hebrew revelation,
Speaker 1: God is not a sole, unitary being. In fact, the
Speaker 1: notion that distinction necessarily entails composition of division, and that
Speaker 1: God must be a generic unity is more characteristic of
Speaker 1: the Maimonides period of Judaism. So while I'm not saying
Speaker 1: that there are no Jews prior to Mammonides who believed
Speaker 1: in a unitary perspective, the point of all of these books,
Speaker 1: and of the opening statement in the Daniel Hikikichu debate
Speaker 1: my first debate with him, not the one with Sam
Speaker 1: schmun The first debate was to simply demonstrate that modern
Speaker 1: Jewish scholarship is admitting that at the time of Christ,
Speaker 1: Judaism did not believe in a soul, generic, unitarian God.
Speaker 1: The Hebrew Revelation believed based on all of these they
Speaker 1: ofteny texts. This is what Sohmer goes through. For example,
Speaker 1: Yahweh turned his face to Gideon in the Book of Judges.
Speaker 1: If God can't be in time and space, how the
Speaker 1: heck is he going to turn his face to Gideon?
Speaker 1: How the heck is Jacob going to wrestle with Yahweh?
Speaker 1: Jesus and John two identifies himself as the one wrestling
Speaker 1: with Jacob. So the point is, I know that Muslims
Speaker 1: don't accept any of these texts, but Muslims often make
Speaker 1: the argument that Jews are Unitarians, and they don't believe
Speaker 1: in Jesus, and if they, if Jesus was a Messiah,
Speaker 1: they would have accepted it. Well, first of all, it's
Speaker 1: fallacy because you can be hardhearted and not accept him. Secondly,
Speaker 1: it's not true that the Jews all rejected him, because
Speaker 1: the entire first foundation of the Church, in the first
Speaker 1: ten books, ten chapters of Acts, is all thousands of Jews.
Speaker 1: All the apostles are Jews, so that's also not true. Secondly,
Speaker 1: second Temple Judaism was not monolithic in its Unitarian teaching.
Speaker 1: And this is not just somewhere that admits this. It's
Speaker 1: all these other Jewish texts as well that admit this. Okay,
Speaker 1: you see how this is why this argument is so powerful.
Speaker 1: Alan Siegel's two Powers in Heaven, Boyarin's borderlines Schaeffer's two Books,
Speaker 1: or he's got another one, but two Gods in Heaven
Speaker 1: the Jewish Gospels, this one deals largely with Daniel seven.
Speaker 1: I think, yeah, Daniel seven, where the Messiah Son of
Speaker 1: Man comes and presents himself before the Ancient of days.
Speaker 1: That's clearly two distinct persons. Now, to be clear, because
Speaker 1: then we have a lot of slow boys the word
Speaker 1: god is not a proper noun. It can refer to
Speaker 1: different things. So when it says two gods are two powers,
Speaker 1: it's just noting that Jews at the time of Christ,
Speaker 1: many of them acknowledge and recognized that the Old Testament
Speaker 1: revelation is not a strict Unitarian deity. It does not
Speaker 1: mean polytheism in the sense of many many gods. We
Speaker 1: do not believe that. We believe that there's only one God,
Speaker 1: the Father, and that he has shared that divine nature
Speaker 1: with the Son and with the Spirit. So in terms
Speaker 1: of the divine nature, in terms of the indwelling of
Speaker 1: the persons, there are not many gods. There is only
Speaker 1: one God. Hence the Nicene creet says we believe one God,
Speaker 1: the Father Almighty. Now there's a lot of people in
Speaker 1: the chat yippin and yappin. Are these people coming to debate? Guys,
Speaker 1: if there's any mods, if the people keep yapping and
Speaker 1: they won't come to bate, just to boot them. Next up,
Speaker 1: let's see, we've got some people have been waiting for
Speaker 1: a long time. So let's see he's been waiting for
Speaker 1: a long time. Thorn thorn, or they get on mute man.
Speaker 14: Hi, can you hear me?
Speaker 2: Jay? Hi?
Speaker 5: Thank you for having me.
Speaker 15: I recently discovered you and I've been waiting for this.
Speaker 15: I just have a question regarding predestination. I'm trying to
Speaker 15: piece it all together in terms of predestination.
Speaker 5: God's knowledge, God's will.
Speaker 15: And how does it come into play in our free will?
Speaker 5: Right?
Speaker 1: So the Orthodox view Orthodox view I believe right. So
Speaker 1: Orthodox Christianity does not believe in Calvinism, does not believe
Speaker 1: in a hard determinism. We believe that God is sovereign,
Speaker 1: He does know all things. But God has also created
Speaker 1: a world where there are secondary causes. So you can
Speaker 1: read book one of John Damascus on this where he
Speaker 1: talks about foreign knowledge. He talks about God creating a
Speaker 1: world where there are secondary causes. Many Muslims don't believe
Speaker 1: that they believe in a form of occasionalism because they
Speaker 1: think that their secondary causes this would detract from God's
Speaker 1: power and causality. But we do believe that creatures do
Speaker 1: have the ability to have real causal powers, real causation
Speaker 1: in the world. Now, in contrast to Calvinism, we look
Speaker 1: at text like Ephesians IE, and we note that that
Speaker 1: was written to a visible community is not written to
Speaker 1: the invisible elect. If it's written to a visible community,
Speaker 1: then Paul is calling that whole group, quite literally, the predestined.
Speaker 1: So this whole idea of Calvinism that ultimately these verses
Speaker 1: are written only to the secret elect is just simply
Speaker 1: not true. And also it violates a lot of Christology.
Speaker 1: So if Christ has two wills to natures and two energies,
Speaker 1: then the fullness of humanity requires that human nature have
Speaker 1: its own will and energy. So the fall and depravity
Speaker 1: cannot mean that man lost its natural will and natural energy.
Speaker 1: So that's the Orthodoxy and Catholics, I'm excuse mean Calvinists
Speaker 1: typically begin their theology from the divine determination, the Divine decree,
Speaker 1: and then they do seteriology, and Trinity and thea and
Speaker 1: Christology are all downstream from that. We think that's all
Speaker 1: wrong headed. Trinity and Christology comes first, That then determines sateriology,
Speaker 1: and that's why the predestined is seeing through largely a
Speaker 1: chrystological lens armor.
Speaker 5: Mm hm.
Speaker 13: So I wanted to speak to you about what you
Speaker 13: said to Black Sufie.
Speaker 16: If you remember him, he was on a couple of
Speaker 16: minutes ago he was talking about his neoplatonic view emanation
Speaker 16: from the one. So I heard you say that if
Speaker 16: the first Intellect or the Muhammed and reality, if it's eternal,
Speaker 16: that would make it a second God. But I just
Speaker 16: wanted to say, for Islamic philosophers and for Sufi's, we
Speaker 16: don't identify divinity with eternality or accidental necessity. For us,
Speaker 16: divinity is only identified with essential necessity. And if that's
Speaker 16: the case, then the first Intellect being eternal or necessary
Speaker 16: in existence in terms of good logical necessity, that doesn't
Speaker 16: make it divine.
Speaker 13: It still makes it a creature. So we don't have
Speaker 13: multiple goods.
Speaker 1: So now, but what you're doing is you're taking things
Speaker 1: that are elements of the created order, like multiplicity, temporality,
Speaker 1: and you're giving it divine attributes.
Speaker 16: No, because, for example, necessity in the in the first
Speaker 16: cause in God is essential, right, but in the first
Speaker 16: Intellect is accidental, So that you know that shared necessariy.
Speaker 1: Okay, let's let's get more basic than this.
Speaker 5: How do you know that?
Speaker 1: How do you know that it's accidental and versus necessary?
Speaker 13: Well, we have knowledge of the essence existence distinction, right, So.
Speaker 1: But where did you derive this knowledge? Is it from play?
Speaker 15: Now?
Speaker 1: Remember he said Plato, Plato, Plato, But it's not from Plato.
Speaker 16: No, I don't believe it's from Plato. For me, I
Speaker 16: get my views from Evansino.
Speaker 1: Where did he get them?
Speaker 16: Well, we believe the essence existence distinction is the self
Speaker 16: evident truth because.
Speaker 1: You can Oh, how do you know that's self evident?
Speaker 2: Yeah?
Speaker 16: I know you're going to run the criterion problem, but
Speaker 16: I don't accept that because.
Speaker 1: Oh, you don't accept it, so your answers you don't
Speaker 1: accept it, Yeah.
Speaker 13: Because I just argue for epistemic finitism.
Speaker 1: Okay, how does that resolve the fact? How does that
Speaker 1: resolve the criterion problem?
Speaker 16: Because the criterion problem assumes that there is a criterion
Speaker 16: prior to the first principles of knowledge, but epistemic finitism.
Speaker 13: Shows that they cannot be a criterion player to the
Speaker 13: first principle.
Speaker 1: Okay, how do you know that there can How do
Speaker 1: you know that there cannot be that?
Speaker 13: Because epistemic finishism is true, so.
Speaker 1: It's self evident because this other thing which is self evident,
Speaker 1: So you can just tack on all the things that
Speaker 1: are self evident.
Speaker 13: Right, Well, eventually.
Speaker 2: Do you have a response to.
Speaker 1: So No, So, now what that exactly? I just critiqued it.
Speaker 13: No, do you have a response to it?
Speaker 2: No?
Speaker 1: No, now you're changing it. Yeah. The response is that
Speaker 1: you just tacked on another self evident principle. You've missed.
Speaker 1: You missed the whole point of the critique. Yeah, you did.
Speaker 1: You just said no, because this other thing is self evident,
Speaker 1: because that is what you said.
Speaker 5: Can I speak?
Speaker 1: That is what you said, can I speak? Is that
Speaker 1: not what you said? This other thing is also self evident?
Speaker 14: No, ethostemic phanatism has arguments for it.
Speaker 1: And the argument was this other thing is self evident. No, No,
Speaker 1: that is what you argued, memorable, that is what you said.
Speaker 16: The argument formic phanatism is that if we have knowledge
Speaker 16: of something, that knowledge can either be dependent.
Speaker 1: And I said, how do you know that that's the case?
Speaker 1: And you said, because of self evident.
Speaker 13: Well, we certainly do have knowledge of things, right.
Speaker 1: I said, how do you know that that second principle
Speaker 1: is the case? And you said, it's self evident that principle.
Speaker 1: The second the proposition you just say You said, we
Speaker 1: know it because of this, And I said, how do
Speaker 1: you know that second thing you just said. And you said,
Speaker 1: because it's self evident.
Speaker 14: Yeah, we know what.
Speaker 1: Uh yeah, so the second thing is also the self
Speaker 1: evident thing is true because this other self evident thing
Speaker 1: is true. You did You're a selfist. You just said that.
Speaker 14: Can I speak if we have knowledge of anything? Any
Speaker 14: given proposition?
Speaker 1: Say X, right, how do you know that that's true?
Speaker 1: I know, I'm saying that proposition. How do you know
Speaker 1: that proposition is true?
Speaker 14: Well, for example, tortological statements?
Speaker 8: Are those not true?
Speaker 1: Well, tautology doesn't tell me anything about reality and how
Speaker 1: it works in the world. So you can say it's true,
Speaker 1: but you can say it's true by definition. But I'm saying,
Speaker 1: how do you know that something true by definition is applicable? Okay,
Speaker 1: how do you know.
Speaker 13: Because of epistemic finitism.
Speaker 1: Because it's self evident. Yeah, so it's a circle. Good
Speaker 1: circle circle.
Speaker 14: Epistemic phinitism is not circular.
Speaker 1: You're telling me that, And I said, how do you
Speaker 1: know that? Then you gave this other principle, and I said,
Speaker 1: how is that principle? How do you know that principle?
Speaker 1: And you said it's self.
Speaker 13: Evident because I don't.
Speaker 1: My pestiology doesn't matter. I'm asking yours, forget my epistemology.
Speaker 13: Yours because you just pre suppose.
Speaker 7: No.
Speaker 1: Yeah, so here he goes. He deflects away from the
Speaker 1: epistemic critigue to because you're a religion you think it's true. No,
Speaker 1: you didn't. You didn't answer. You said this other thing,
Speaker 1: which is self evident, falling into the very thing that
Speaker 1: it doesn't the very thing you think it answers, it
Speaker 1: doesn't answer, and then you deflect. Do you think your
Speaker 1: a position and self evident? I don't think my position
Speaker 1: is self evident. I don't believe in self evidence. So
Speaker 1: get out of here with that selfistruy. You don't solve
Speaker 1: the criterion problem by saying that, well, I have this
Speaker 1: finitude position that relies on this thing. And then when
Speaker 1: I ask you, well, then how do you know that
Speaker 1: position is true from that thing? And then you say
Speaker 1: it's that thing is self evident. That's a circle. So
Speaker 1: it doesn't resolve. And there's a lot of these people
Speaker 1: out there that think there was resolving the criterion problem
Speaker 1: by saying this other thing, and they're missing the point
Speaker 1: of the criterion problem. I mean, you might think that
Speaker 1: resolves it, but the thing that you appealed to. You
Speaker 1: just said again is self evident. And by the way,
Speaker 1: beyond the criterion problem is the other problem I mentioned,
Speaker 1: which is just as evitat devastating, which is that how
Speaker 1: do you know the things that are self evident versus
Speaker 1: the things that are not? That's a more prior principle. Okay,
Speaker 1: we lost that other dude, Marcel, I'm you, Joe, you
Speaker 1: can hear me.
Speaker 17: All right, So I just kind of question this is
Speaker 17: a question that I just won't like, you know, I
Speaker 17: just want to give the benefit of the delt. You
Speaker 17: do know that the Sunnis do believe that the is uncreated, right, correct,
Speaker 17: So I just want to know, like they believe that
Speaker 17: Jibriel or Gabriel is a created being. So I just
Speaker 17: want to know, like how the uncreated words is like
Speaker 17: able to be comprehended by a creative bee and give
Speaker 17: to the mohamments.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I mean I've asked that question many times, Like
Speaker 1: how do you escape this question when you say, like
Speaker 1: forty two and what is it? One to ten? Alla
Speaker 1: has nothing like the created order? Okay? Well, if all
Speaker 1: is nothing like it and Allah does not enter into
Speaker 1: time and space as many of them believe, then how
Speaker 1: does this message or these words of a law translate
Speaker 1: into the created form of the crime.
Speaker 17: Yeah, so that's that's about argument, right, I can make
Speaker 17: that argument.
Speaker 12: Right.
Speaker 5: I just just want to get the benefit of the telt,
Speaker 5: That's what.
Speaker 17: I just want to get the benefit of the delt
Speaker 17: because I just you know, I just have this you know,
Speaker 17: this argument. But again they say, like, you know, like
Speaker 17: you have this kind of ability to you know, you.
Speaker 13: Know calmber Head the words the full line givee to
Speaker 13: my heart.
Speaker 1: Okay, Well, saying that he had the ability to do it,
Speaker 1: it doesn't tell us how it's possible given their metaphysical scheme.
Speaker 1: So that's an ad hoc rescue.
Speaker 5: They'll be all right.
Speaker 17: And there was almost one other thing that I won't
Speaker 17: want to ask you that you know that the I
Speaker 17: think he's also been even like something called like fatalism. Right,
Speaker 17: everything is just like pre written by an angel.
Speaker 1: Yeah. They believe in a hard determinism correct.
Speaker 17: Yeah, So if that is the case, then why someone
Speaker 17: has to be a Muslim because one day suddenly I
Speaker 17: like him just like take over your mind, body and just.
Speaker 5: Like you know, make you do whatever you like.
Speaker 1: So I mean many of them are Yeah, many of
Speaker 1: them are occasionalists, which is even more extreme position that
Speaker 1: at every second Allah is destroying and recreating the world
Speaker 1: because there cannot be secondary causes. There cannot be creaturely causes,
Speaker 1: because for creatures to have causal power would detract from
Speaker 1: all a sovereignty. That's how silly this position is. But
Speaker 1: and it's also just goes back to like pagan fatalism.
Speaker 1: Now keep in mind, like what we're talking about is
Speaker 1: not hidden, it's not new. They've been critiquing each other
Speaker 1: on these issues, where for example, here critique of the
Speaker 1: Palmerian creed. This whole book is about how all the
Speaker 1: Salafi argumentation about parts and attribute shes and all this
Speaker 1: stuff hands that it's anthropomorphic heresy. They are making an
Speaker 1: analogy between God and Allah in the created order, and
Speaker 1: this whole book is about in what degree you can
Speaker 1: and can't do that, and how it's shirk. So, in
Speaker 1: other words, it been to me has a doctrine of concurrence.
Speaker 1: Right where Allah has a hand. We don't know the
Speaker 1: modality of a hand, but it's a real hand in
Speaker 1: some way, but it's nothing like the created hand of
Speaker 1: the world that the people have in the world. So
Speaker 1: how is that? I mean, it's silly, right. All this
Speaker 1: stuff is so silly, but it's given this air of, like,
Speaker 1: you know, sophistication.
Speaker 13: Try again, So going just taking me off this time
Speaker 13: because I disagree with you.
Speaker 1: No, I I removed you because you're not answering the question.
Speaker 1: You're just talking to circles.
Speaker 13: Okay, but can I just say something at this time?
Speaker 14: Justification isn't necessary because I'm.
Speaker 13: Just giving an account.
Speaker 1: How do you know what you're saying all this?
Speaker 13: Okay, I'm giving an account. I don't need to justify it.
Speaker 1: So you don't have to justify your account. That's why
Speaker 1: you're a sophist. So if you can you understand how
Speaker 1: silly this is. If you can do that, I can
Speaker 1: do that. This is so silly. I can give an account.
Speaker 1: I don't have to justify it. You do have to
Speaker 1: justify it because we're arguing in pistemology. Get out here
Speaker 1: with all the sophistry. Get on my nerves. It's crazy
Speaker 1: to do my back out. If you don't have to
Speaker 1: justify your account, I don't have to justify an account.
Speaker 1: You see how silly this is? Packy John? So you
Speaker 1: understand that they missed the whole point of the criterion problem,
Speaker 1: and they come back and say that, Well, the solution
Speaker 1: to the criterion problem is I give an account. I
Speaker 1: tell a story that I don't have to give a
Speaker 1: justification for.
Speaker 5: Yeah, what's up, Jake, yep? Yeah.
Speaker 18: I wanted to ask you some questions, some problems that
Speaker 18: I have with Christiana that I'm.
Speaker 8: Looking into it.
Speaker 18: So I wanted to ask you about like Christology, So
Speaker 18: the human nature and the divine nature, how do you
Speaker 18: even reconcile those? Like, for example, the divine nature is
Speaker 18: eternal and then the human nature is created, So how
Speaker 18: do you reconcile Jesus being eternal and then also created
Speaker 18: at the same.
Speaker 1: Time because of two natures? So he's a divine person
Speaker 1: who becomes incarnate. Is not a divine nature that becomes incarnated.
Speaker 1: It's a divine person with a divine nature who steps
Speaker 1: into time and space. How do we know that's possible
Speaker 1: because he'd already been doing it for all of the
Speaker 1: Old Testaments, stepping into time and space. So we believe
Speaker 1: it not on the basis the first of all of metaphysics,
Speaker 1: but on the basis of the divine revelation that it
Speaker 1: tells us that the second person, Yahweh's son has stepped
Speaker 1: into time and space many many times because he's not
Speaker 1: bound by the logic and the principles of the created order.
Speaker 1: God created the created order, He created logic. Logic is
Speaker 1: a created thing in our view, it's not something that
Speaker 1: binds God. God is the ground of logic, he is
Speaker 1: not submitting to and the slave of logic. Logic is
Speaker 1: a created principle based on principles in the divine mind,
Speaker 1: and He transcends it. So there's nothing impossible or out
Speaker 1: of hand for God to choose not to actualize every
Speaker 1: one of his properties or powers and to step into
Speaker 1: time and space, just like the Muslims or the Jews
Speaker 1: believe that God was in time and space in various
Speaker 1: ways and various capacities, unless they're the Muslims who reject
Speaker 1: this and think that God is only transcendent, which if
Speaker 1: He's only transcendent, then you have the problem with the
Speaker 1: previous caller that how do we know what Allah's uncreated
Speaker 1: Kuran is telling us? Because how could there be any
Speaker 1: similarity between the uncreated Koran and the created Korans and
Speaker 1: time and space so this problem, this bridge is, this gap,
Speaker 1: is never bridged in that position if you stress and
Speaker 1: only believe in transcendence. The Orthodox view following Hebrew Revelation