Speaker 1: It's j Dire Jason j D.
Speaker 2: Jay Diers Days Analysis, Jade Ires Days Nells.
Speaker 1: Welcome, Welcome, Welcome to Jay's Analysis. Today. We're gonna be
Speaker 1: talking about Protestantism and Evangelicalism and how they are refuted.
Speaker 1: And we're gonna do it in eighties Chad shirt an
Speaker 1: eighties boomer hat. This hat is way too big for
Speaker 1: my head. It looks really ridiculous, but I couldn't find
Speaker 1: my good hat. I don't feel like combing my hair,
Speaker 1: So we're gonna be I've got my dry erase pad.
Speaker 1: Now this is pig Martin Luther two demonstrate dry race bad.
Speaker 1: How that's gonna work? So I'll be sketching notes for
Speaker 1: you boys and girls. You can take your notes here.
Speaker 1: The nerds are pleased. And we got one hundred and third.
Speaker 1: Last time I did a weekend stream, I got like
Speaker 1: three hundred people right away. So where is everybody partying tonight?
Speaker 1: What is tonight? Is this party night? Is this fish fry?
Speaker 1: Is this the feast of Saint Booz tonight? Anyway? So
Speaker 1: maybe with the aid of dry erase board, we can
Speaker 1: help you kids get along in the world. Maybe if
Speaker 1: you're good, I'll draw you a bronie all right now,
Speaker 1: will be taking questions. Of course, We've already got a
Speaker 1: couple of super chats. Appreciate that go. We're going to
Speaker 1: talk about I'm gonna I want to try to go
Speaker 1: pretty hardcore. I want to go in depth because I've
Speaker 1: had so many questions about doing, you know, reputation of
Speaker 1: Protestantism over the last few years. So we've covered a
Speaker 1: lot of ground with Catholicism. We've done a lot of
Speaker 1: theological issues related to Rome, but we haven't really done
Speaker 1: a whole lot of protest and apologics. And we're going
Speaker 1: to do some of that tonight, so hopefully we can
Speaker 1: hit all the majors. I've got with me my seven
Speaker 1: Ecumenical Council's book from the Chaft set, so we'll be
Speaker 1: diving into some of that, looking at the councils. And yes,
Speaker 1: we will be doing the papacy very soon. In fact,
Speaker 1: there was going to be a debate and surprise, surprise,
Speaker 1: he wasn't ready to do it, which is what we
Speaker 1: always find. And yes, we will essentially probably work through
Speaker 1: the famous of ab gatea the papacy. This is one
Speaker 1: of the classic critiques of the Roman Papacy by a
Speaker 1: convert from Rome to Orthodoxy, So some of the other
Speaker 1: books that would be relevant in this for newcomers, I
Speaker 1: always recommend The Experience of God to Everybody by Father
Speaker 1: Stunny Lloyd. This is a classic of Orthodoxy, so that's
Speaker 1: a good one to get in terms of what we
Speaker 1: conceive of as a holistic view of salvation, theosis or
Speaker 1: identification in Christ by Paniotis Nellis, so that's another good
Speaker 1: one you can get trying to get the light right,
Speaker 1: so it doesn't there you go, there's a There are
Speaker 1: sermons by Saint Gregory Palamas on Mary why She's stay
Speaker 1: at Tokos, and of course the writings of Saint Cyril
Speaker 1: against this Storius on the Unity of Christ, and John
Speaker 1: mcguckin's book Saint Cyril of Alexander and the Christological controversy
Speaker 1: will will play a central role in the theology that
Speaker 1: we're gonna be talking about tonight, because most Protestantism, whether
Speaker 1: it knows it or not, falls into Nestorianism. So we'll
Speaker 1: get into all that later on. But uh, for other options,
Speaker 1: people going what they think is other routes, I recommend
Speaker 1: the set of a conciesst Delusion by John Pontrello, good book.
Speaker 1: He was influenced by my work. I can't get the
Speaker 1: light right set of a conscious delusion, so that we
Speaker 1: don't go down that road, that mistake. Let's see what
Speaker 1: else have we got here. Michael Welton's book is pretty standard.
Speaker 1: Two Paths Roman Orthodoxy Michael Welton, Two Paths, that's a
Speaker 1: good book, one of the Catholic stuff, because I'm sure
Speaker 1: we're gonna have a wide audience here different theological views.
Speaker 1: And then, of course it's always important to understand the
Speaker 1: cosmic scope of Orthodoxy as opposed to the limiting scope
Speaker 1: of all Western theology, whether Roman, Catholic or Evangelical. And
Speaker 1: to begin to understand the cosmic scope of Eastern theology,
Speaker 1: you need to understand Saint Maximus and to understand that
Speaker 1: Christ is by his incarnation united to all human beings,
Speaker 1: universal human nature. That's why all men are resurrected. That
Speaker 1: is the universal teaching of all the Orthodox fathers. After Augustine,
Speaker 1: the scope of salvation begins to be limited, particularly in
Speaker 1: terms of the elect or the predestined, and Rome certainly
Speaker 1: goes down that route. So then you have the loss
Speaker 1: of the cosmic scope of the redemption. However, Roman's eight
Speaker 1: Paul very clearly says that the scope of redemption is cosmic.
Speaker 1: And then of course you can read Lars Thurnberg's summarize
Speaker 1: work there Man in Cosmos on Saint Maximus as well.
Speaker 1: And then for worship, of course, Orthodox worship, it's a
Speaker 1: big deal for many of the Protestancy evangelicals. Orthodox worship
Speaker 1: is based on the continuity of worship in the Temple
Speaker 1: and the Synagogue. So I would recommend Orthodox Worship a
Speaker 1: live in Continuity with the Synagogue Temple in the Early
Speaker 1: Church by Williams and Anstall. And for maybe something a
Speaker 1: little more on the scholarly side of things, if you're
Speaker 1: interested in just the historic the Orthodox Liturgy by Hugh
Speaker 1: Weybrew the development of Divine Liturgy in the Byzantine era.
Speaker 1: So those are some introductory books that are worth checking
Speaker 1: out if you are because everybody always asks for books.
Speaker 1: I have already linked below the recommended reading section. And
Speaker 1: tonight we're gonna be talking about not just the Bible,
Speaker 1: not just theology. We're also be talking about a lot
Speaker 1: of history. Now I have old essays that everybody could
Speaker 1: read and Jason. Also, I worked all day to day
Speaker 1: basically fixing old articles. So I fixed another thirty or so,
Speaker 1: so you can go and find all those in the archives.
Speaker 1: But I have old articles that deal with the canon
Speaker 1: of Scripture, the septuagent, the use of the Deutero canon
Speaker 1: by the early Church, the Catechism. Get ready, what are
Speaker 1: you talking about? Catechism? Get ready? Yes, microcosmo media, right, yes, exactly.
Speaker 1: So basically in the archives you can find all the
Speaker 1: kind of stuff that I'll be talking about in written form.
Speaker 1: So and no, I'm not referring to them, You'll just
Speaker 1: have to dig them up. We're all going to be
Speaker 1: just going from memory here. So I've put enough time
Speaker 1: into this. I can do all this off the cuff
Speaker 1: over the years. So now I would not do a
Speaker 1: drinking game based on the names I use. All right,
Speaker 1: So where to start with Protestants. Well, it doesn't really
Speaker 1: matter whether we start historically or whether we start biblically.
Speaker 1: Both are going to be problematic. So I think if we,
Speaker 1: let's see, I want to be able to pull up
Speaker 1: the Church fathers to have the quotes ready for you
Speaker 1: when we refer to that. Let's see here, So similar
Speaker 1: to the critique that we had with with Rome. We're
Speaker 1: going to see that there's a different anthropology, there's a
Speaker 1: different theology, a different eschatology, a different ecclesiology, a different
Speaker 1: sacramentology across the board for pretty much all forms of Protestantism.
Speaker 1: And you're going to notice as well that the absolute
Speaker 1: divine simplicity doctrine of Rome will really condition absolute divines,
Speaker 1: will condition the theology and Protestantism as well. The difference
Speaker 1: is that it will condition the theology in a different
Speaker 1: direction than it conditioned the Roman theology. Roman theology, of course,
Speaker 1: was a lot more make sure my volumes levels are
Speaker 1: right here. Roman theology was a lot more philosophical than
Speaker 1: the truck of Protestantism. Of course, Protestanism, seeking to out
Speaker 1: of the humanist tradition of the Late Renaissance, returned to
Speaker 1: the original sources, the idea of being able to just
Speaker 1: go back to the Bible, just go back to supposedly
Speaker 1: the original sources, the original texts, right, the Greek, the Hebrew,
Speaker 1: and then we could we could purge the Church of
Speaker 1: all of its accretions, all of its man made traditions,
Speaker 1: all of its bogus ideas and doctrines that had that
Speaker 1: had crept in over the centuries. Now, as Orthodox, we
Speaker 1: do not believe either the Roman Catholic doctrine or the
Speaker 1: Protestant doctrine, so we will agree that there are problems
Speaker 1: on both sides. And one thing I'm going to recommend
Speaker 1: to you that shows this the same point about basically
Speaker 1: falling on two sides of the same coin, is the
Speaker 1: book by doctor phil Schard Church gives Them a Papacy. Now,
Speaker 1: the best part of this book, which you can still
Speaker 1: get online Amazon, I think has it pretty cheap, is
Speaker 1: the chapter about I think it's the last chapter about
Speaker 1: the Trinity affecting Rome and how the papal doctrines are
Speaker 1: connected to the philioque right, because again, absolute divine simplicity
Speaker 1: conditions the entire Roman scheme. And the reason I recommend
Speaker 1: that on the Protestant stream that we're talking about is
Speaker 1: because it's going to be the same issue in Protestantism,
Speaker 1: except on the other side of the dialectic. So whereas
Speaker 1: in Rome the papacy begins to be viewed as necessary
Speaker 1: because of error on the Holy Spirit and then thus
Speaker 1: basically not understanding the power of the Holy Spirit to
Speaker 1: guide the Church within history Pentecost right because of an
Speaker 1: error quite literally on the doctrine of the Holy Spirit,
Speaker 1: you're going to have a displacement of the doctrine of
Speaker 1: how man understands and perceives doctrine in history. So what
Speaker 1: happens is that Rome sets up this external juridical means
Speaker 1: by which we supposedly know doctrine and theology, and the
Speaker 1: papacy is supposedly the solution to this. We get the
Speaker 1: idea of the great imperial God, Emperor of the Pope,
Speaker 1: who makes the final decisions, supposedly, and that's the only
Speaker 1: way to know what's true or false. Now, if you
Speaker 1: know anything about basic epistemology, you know that this just
Speaker 1: moves the problem back of stuff, doesn't it. There's no
Speaker 1: insurance policy that you know that you're interpreting the papacy correctly.
Speaker 1: In the twentieth century, papacy bears that out perfectly, because
Speaker 1: nobody is sure what to do with Vatican two, and
Speaker 1: there's a million different interpretations of Ettikan two. So so
Speaker 1: much for the easy, simple jurisdictional perfection interpretation of the papacy,
Speaker 1: and wider Catholks believe that because they believe in classical foundationalism.
Speaker 1: This is a view of epistemology that is connected to
Speaker 1: classical apologetics and approaches to anthropology and epistemology, and it's
Speaker 1: connected ultimately as well to tonism. And we're going to
Speaker 1: see that. Of course, in the Protestant tradition, the early Protestants,
Speaker 1: they continue all this, right, they continue classical foundationalism, they
Speaker 1: continue the classical apologetics. They have the same epistemology. Basically,
Speaker 1: there's a good book on this about similarities between Calvin
Speaker 1: and Aquinas, because it's something it's called Calvin and Aquinas.
Speaker 1: I read that many many years ago, back when I
Speaker 1: was a Calvinist. And the point being is that the
Speaker 1: anthropology that you get in Protestantism is not really any
Speaker 1: different than the anthropology that you get in Rome, except
Speaker 1: that they see the fall is basically different and having
Speaker 1: different effects. So you get a little bit more fleshed
Speaker 1: out anthropology and scholastic speculations. I cannot get this right
Speaker 1: without light shine off of it. All. Right, here we go.
Speaker 1: I have to hold it like this down here, right,
Speaker 1: So we're going to see that Orthodoxy has a different
Speaker 1: view here on all these and also has a different
Speaker 1: view of anthropology that is neither Roman nor Protestant. So
Speaker 1: a couple more terms we want to keep in mind here.
Speaker 1: We don't believe in classical foundationalism because that's essentially an
Speaker 1: empirical view that would arise after Aquinas in terms of
Speaker 1: how man knows God and does theology. Hence we get
Speaker 1: natural theology. Hence we get the idea of we can
Speaker 1: look at the natural world and we can reason back
Speaker 1: to a generic first cause a right, the generic creator.
Speaker 1: In Roman theology, we're gonna call this an analogia us
Speaker 1: right now, there's a corollary in Protestantism called analogia fe day. Okay,
Speaker 1: So these are two more terms we want to be
Speaker 1: familiar with because they have a lot of impact on
Speaker 1: the history of Western theology. And what again, I want
Speaker 1: to show you consistently. And the reason I'm bringing up
Speaker 1: both Rome and Protestants here is because it falls on
Speaker 1: two sides of a coin. So the analogy of being,
Speaker 1: this is the tonistic idea again that created order. You
Speaker 1: can reason back through cosmological succession to a first cause. Right,
Speaker 1: this is the whole aerosol first cause stuff. And since
Speaker 1: all things possess all things possessed being, there must have
Speaker 1: been a first being, and it's a supreme being, some
Speaker 1: kind of generic supreme being. This is all the garbage
Speaker 1: traditional classical apologetics of aquinas in the Western tradition, which
Speaker 1: led directly to atheism, because those arguments are bad arguments. Now,
Speaker 1: in contrast to this, the Protestants came up with a
Speaker 1: different idea of how man knows and approaches God, because
Speaker 1: they have a different anthropology, and they have a different
Speaker 1: conception of the fall, they have a different conception of salvation,
Speaker 1: different conception of what grace is and how man is saved,
Speaker 1: and so likewise, knowing God required for them a different approach,
Speaker 1: which they called the analogia fide or the analogy of faith. So,
Speaker 1: because man has fallen, he can't really reason from the
Speaker 1: natural order properly back to some first cause or some
Speaker 1: creator cause. Instead, he needs revelation precisely because of what
Speaker 1: we might call the noetic effects of sin, this is
Speaker 1: the mental right effects of sin upon humankind, and because
Speaker 1: they're so severe in the Protestant tradition, when we speak
Speaker 1: of Luther or Calvin or the Calvinist tradition or the
Speaker 1: Puritan tradition. We have to understand where this theology leads us, right,
Speaker 1: and we're going to see that this doesn't work. So
Speaker 1: what happens in the Protestant view. We're going to speak
Speaker 1: classically here of the Reformed tradition, the Presbyterian tradition, the
Speaker 1: Calvinist tradition, and also by extension, we could apply it
Speaker 1: to the Lutheran tradition as well. The noadic effects of sin,
Speaker 1: this is the mental effects of sin, and they are
Speaker 1: such that human beings cannot properly interpret the natural world
Speaker 1: without revealed information about the natural, namely scripture. So this
Speaker 1: leads to solo scriptura. The effects, the extreme effects of
Speaker 1: sin after the fall, have so damaged human nature, catch
Speaker 1: that human nature, that human nature itself is almost sinful.
Speaker 1: Now you get different approaches to this. Now, Luther writes
Speaker 1: a book called Bondage of the Will, where essentially he
Speaker 1: affirms this. He affirms the Manichean doctrine that human nature
Speaker 1: is inherently sinful. He says, man is an ass that's
Speaker 1: either written by God or the devil. So he explicitly
Speaker 1: denies the power the energy of a natural human will
Speaker 1: in mankind. Likewise, Calvinism, although it affirms the goodness of
Speaker 1: the human will, in most cases, the human will has
Speaker 1: no ability whatsoever to move towards God. It is dead
Speaker 1: in sin. Man has no natural ability at all. It's
Speaker 1: been destroyed as a result of the fall, and hence
Speaker 1: their doctrine of total depravity. Now, total depravity doesn't just
Speaker 1: affect the movement of man's will and conversion, it also
Speaker 1: affects how he interprets scripture. This leads to the doctrine
Speaker 1: of the fallibility of man in interpreting scripture. And what happens,
Speaker 1: of course, is that this is one of the chief
Speaker 1: reasons that they reject the infallibility of the papacy, because
Speaker 1: of the noeedic effects of sin. There's no such thing
Speaker 1: as an infallible interpreter. But now both of these problems
Speaker 1: run into Both of these positions run into a little
Speaker 1: bit of a problem when we consider the fact that
Speaker 1: the noeedic effects of sin also seem to affect the
Speaker 1: believer in interpreting the scripture too, don't they Well, yes
Speaker 1: they do. If the effects of sin are such that,
Speaker 1: as the Westminster Confession of the Calvinists say, even after conversion,
Speaker 1: sin is still affecting you throughout your life daily, right
Speaker 1: the way that even if you try to interpret the scriptures,
Speaker 1: you're still dealing with the noetic effects of sin, even
Speaker 1: if you've been regenerated now. But the problem is that
Speaker 1: you don't ever then get to any potential certitude or
Speaker 1: what we might call infallible certitude. Doesn't matter what you
Speaker 1: put in whatever interchangeable terms you want, The noedic effects
Speaker 1: of sin already conditioned the impossibility of certitude when it
Speaker 1: comes to understanding scriptures or relationship with God, because ultimately
Speaker 1: you don't even know if the psychological subjective belief that
Speaker 1: you have that your quote saved or the one of
Speaker 1: the elect is not a delusion. And many of the
Speaker 1: Puritans suffered with this psychological delusion. And what do the
Speaker 1: Protestants say, Well, they just had to fall back on Well,
Speaker 1: the spirit will assure you if you're elect. Okay, but
Speaker 1: how do I know, Well, if you bear the fruits,
Speaker 1: if you bear the works worthy of repentance. Well, but
Speaker 1: how do I know I'm not bearing dead works that
Speaker 1: I think are true works? Right? You see, So there's
Speaker 1: this never ending sort of introspective pietistic lose yourself in gobbledegook.
Speaker 1: When this is all because of the errors of Protestantism
Speaker 1: based around faulty human anthropology. They have the wrong anthropology
Speaker 1: and they have the wrong anthropology because they departed from
Speaker 1: what the Church had already established in terms of the
Speaker 1: medical councils. In terms of Christology. You cannot have proper
Speaker 1: Biblical orthodox anthropology without the right Christology, because that's how
Speaker 1: we are. That's how the Church has fleshed out what
Speaker 1: proper anthropology is through the centuries of the council's debating
Speaker 1: and settling christological disputes. And because and the reason for
Speaker 1: that is because the christological disputes solidify the Biblical revealed
Speaker 1: tradition about what it is to be human and what
Speaker 1: the fall is and what Christ did in the incarnation.
Speaker 1: That's why we're going to see, for example, that the
Speaker 1: Council of Ephesus, we'll talk about the deifying flesh of
Speaker 1: the Eucharist. Christ deified his flesh and the incarnation, and
Speaker 1: then by extension in the Lord Supper, the Eucharist, we
Speaker 1: participate in that deified humanity. Now that's not at all
Speaker 1: believed by any Protestant sect out there, and I don't
Speaker 1: care about Anglicans and all their speculation. That doesn't matter
Speaker 1: because it's all the same nonsense. It's all the same gobbledygoog.
Speaker 1: But we want to start there because we already see
Speaker 1: from the outset that the systems of whatever form of
Speaker 1: Protestantism right, or whatever form of Catholicism it's contrasted to,
Speaker 1: they really exist. Prot exists as a kind of negation
Speaker 1: of Rome. It doesn't exist as a historical phenomenon that
Speaker 1: has a lineage that it can trace back, because as
Speaker 1: soon as we start going into the ecumenical councils, all
Speaker 1: those ecumenical councils refute every aspect of protestantsm across the board.
Speaker 1: They believe in tradition, they believe in the real presence
Speaker 1: of the Eucharists. They believe in icons, they believe in
Speaker 1: relics of the Saints. They believe in confession to a priest.
Speaker 1: They believe in the visible body of the Church. They
Speaker 1: believe in they believe in a historical succession of the Church.
Speaker 1: They believe in oral tradition, they believe in the episcopate, uh,
Speaker 1: they believe in basically any anything but Protestantism. There's there's
Speaker 1: nothing about the first millennium of the Church that is
Speaker 1: Protestant except for the heresies. And this is what's amazing
Speaker 1: and why everybody, for the most part who really delves
Speaker 1: into church history in the first thousand years of the
Speaker 1: Church Fathers will usually convert either to Roman orthodoxy is
Speaker 1: because they realize that, uh, they didn't teach Protestanism, and
Speaker 1: in fact, the same heresies that the early Church Fathers
Speaker 1: battled pop up in Protestantism. For example, example, Jerome wrote
Speaker 1: against heretics who devaught, denied the relics, right, who denied
Speaker 1: the goodness of the sacramental aspects of creative, creative creation
Speaker 1: and the created order. Right. Jerome has multiple treatises against this.
Speaker 1: Jerome has treatises defending the perpetual virginity of Mary. All right,
Speaker 1: So if you're new to the Church Fathers and you
Speaker 1: start reading that, you're like, WHOA, You know, I wasn't
Speaker 1: really expecting this. I myself was Calvinist, and Calvinists all
Speaker 1: hold Augustine in high regard because they thought he taught
Speaker 1: the doctrines of grace. Right, Apparently that's all that matters
Speaker 1: is as long as you get this doctrine, this generic
Speaker 1: idea of the doctrine of grace correctly, that's true salvation
Speaker 1: is actually having a proper understanding. So it's like a
Speaker 1: rational mental state that is true faith, which is defined
Speaker 1: as a proper understanding of salvation by faith alone, through grace,
Speaker 1: by faith through grace, etcetera. Exactly what that means, well,
Speaker 1: that requires a whole bunch of scholastic litigation and reading
Speaker 1: giant Puritan tones to try to figure this out. And
Speaker 1: then hopefully you're not deceiving yourself by thinking that you're
Speaker 1: one of the elect when you're not. So again, it's
Speaker 1: not hard to figure out when you do begin to
Speaker 1: delve into the Church Fathers that although these so called
Speaker 1: Protestant Reformers wanted to maintain Orthodoxy so called, they end
Speaker 1: up messing up on the doctrines of christology and human
Speaker 1: nature and they don't even know it. And that's because
Speaker 1: Protestantism essentially arose out of an attempt to go back
Speaker 1: to Augustine. And it's that simple. But that only works
Speaker 1: if Augustine was fundamentally correct on most of his points,
Speaker 1: and he wasn't right. That's why orthodoxy is universal. Orthodoxy
Speaker 1: believes in the common ideas of the Church fathers. We
Speaker 1: don't exalt one guy. We don't exalt the Bishop of Rome,
Speaker 1: we don't exalt Augustine, we don't exalt one guy over
Speaker 1: there acquit us to be our so called pre eminent theologians.
Speaker 1: That's not universal, that is local, that is that is
Speaker 1: not that is fundamentally contradictory to what we would say
Speaker 1: about the Catholicity of the Church, which is ironic because
Speaker 1: both Protestantism and Romanism to try to somehow claim Catholicity anyway.
Speaker 1: So we start with the notion of how do we
Speaker 1: know what's true? And we mentioned solo scriptura. Well, it's
Speaker 1: not very difficult to break apart the idea of solo scriptura,
Speaker 1: even from scripture itself. Scripture itself does not tell us
Speaker 1: which texts were supposed to be in the canon. And
Speaker 1: anybody who's read anything about the history of canonicity or
Speaker 1: the compiling of the text into what would become the
Speaker 1: Bible knows that this was done over many centuries in
Speaker 1: the early Church. Now we don't have, for example, a
Speaker 1: statement that the Gospel of Matthew was written by Matthew.
Speaker 1: The apostle there's no biblical statement to prove that. It's
Speaker 1: a aspect of tradition that went into the decision of
Speaker 1: the Church fathers to include Matthew's Gospel in the can Now,
Speaker 1: that wasn't the only reason that Matthew was included in
Speaker 1: the canon. It was included because it was handed down
Speaker 1: in certain bishoprics and known to be authentic. So there's
Speaker 1: a liturgical aspect of canonicity which no Protestant knows or understands,
Speaker 1: which is that if they were going to have these
Speaker 1: synods and councils to determine which text would make it
Speaker 1: into the canon, it would require more than just some
Speaker 1: guy reading it and saying, I feel like this was
Speaker 1: written by the apostles and it aligns with the Restroscripture
Speaker 1: because I read the other parts of scripture. That's presupposing
Speaker 1: what the scripture is, and that's what's in question, right.
Speaker 1: So there's multiple synods that are happening throughout the first
Speaker 1: several centuries of the Church. We don't have to just
Speaker 1: point out Roman Catholics always say the Bible was the
Speaker 1: decision was made by the fourth and fifth centuries by
Speaker 1: the Roman Church. No it wasn't. It was longer than that,
Speaker 1: and there was not even a definite canon by the
Speaker 1: fourth and fifth centuries in the entire imperi. So it's many, many,
Speaker 1: many centuries debating when the normative canon would be settled.
Speaker 1: And even still when you factor in the idea of
Speaker 1: tradition oral tradition, there's still minor variances. Even amongst Apostolic
Speaker 1: churches to this day, there are still divergences. You know,
Speaker 1: the Slavonic canon is a little bit different than other canons,
Speaker 1: and that's because we don't have the sole scripture review.
Speaker 1: That's not a problem in our church and our tradition,
Speaker 1: but it is a problem in Protestantism. So the more
Speaker 1: uneducated versions of Protestantism, in response to these kinds of issues,
Speaker 1: they'll fall back on stuff like King James only, which
Speaker 1: you know, is really really absurd, but it doesn't even
Speaker 1: really deserve to be to be dealt with. But sticking
Speaker 1: to the main point, one of the things that would
Speaker 1: go into, for example, the decision of canonicity would be
Speaker 1: whether it had Apostolic pedigree, whether whether the church fathers
Speaker 1: felt like it could be attached to one of the
Speaker 1: apostles like Matthew, whether it had been read in the electionaries.
Speaker 1: This is something Protestants don't anything about. But from the
Speaker 1: early stays of the church, because the church comes out
Speaker 1: of temple slash synagogue worship, they had what were called
Speaker 1: electionaries and electionaries or old collections of texts to be
Speaker 1: read in the church services, essentially a liturgical type document,
Speaker 1: and a lot of those electionaries had ancient readings in them. Okay,
Speaker 1: So it's not just a question of let's go back
Speaker 1: to the ancient church and see who had the most
Speaker 1: copies of Matthew's Gospel. Right. There wasn't just written copies
Speaker 1: of Matthew's Gospel. It was also in the electionaries. It
Speaker 1: was also in the liturgy, the daily readings. It was
Speaker 1: also in church fathers. Church fathers would copy, you know,
Speaker 1: proof texts in their writings. Okay. So all of this
Speaker 1: goes into the decisions of canonicity over many centuries. And
Speaker 1: I will give you for example, there's a Protestant scholar
Speaker 1: named Lee MacDonald who is a Baptist who wrote a
Speaker 1: book about the formation of the Canon. And at the
Speaker 1: back of Lee McDonald's Baptist book on the Formation of
Speaker 1: the Canon, he is a Baptist liberal I should admit.
Speaker 1: And I'm not signing him because I think he is
Speaker 1: a reliable person. I'm signing it because here is a Protestant.
Speaker 1: Let me let's see here, let me pull it up
Speaker 1: for you. Yeah, who charts all this out for you?
Speaker 1: And he's like, well, you know what, I guess if
Speaker 1: this is true, then we've got to be liberal, right,
Speaker 1: So in other words, he in order to maintain the
Speaker 1: Baptist nonsense, where else could you go but be liberal
Speaker 1: since this is true? Right, because there's no solo scriptura
Speaker 1: for centuries right now, we haven't answered this. Not just
Speaker 1: be liberal. It's the orthodox tradition, right. Tradition is a
Speaker 1: big part of how this canon is brought to be,
Speaker 1: how it comes to be over many centuries, and you
Speaker 1: can't divorce it from the oral tradition, the liturgy and
Speaker 1: the decision of the church in terms of the bishops.
Speaker 1: Wasn't a decision that the Bishop of Rome said if
Speaker 1: this was all, if the early Church fathers had the
Speaker 1: Vatican One view of papal infallibility, all anyone needed to
Speaker 1: do was just ask Peter's magical Church of Rome, which
Speaker 1: one is the true canon, and they would know. But
Speaker 1: guess what they didn't know. Did you know Athanasius had
Speaker 1: to go to Rome and argue with them about the
Speaker 1: inclusion of the Book of Revelation. Yep. And Lee McDonald's
Speaker 1: book in amazingly in the back includes all of the
Speaker 1: differing canons of the church fathers. Right. So Origin had
Speaker 1: a list, Athanasius has a list. Other church fathers have
Speaker 1: a list. Right, So you can't just treat the church
Speaker 1: fathers like solar scripturia, which is what Protestants do. They'll
Speaker 1: try to like mine the church fathers as if the
Speaker 1: writings of the church fathers in just another version of
Speaker 1: solar scripturial, like a very Talmudic type thing. No, because
Speaker 1: they didn't have the same canon. So there's absolutely no
Speaker 1: way for the Protestants to get out of this or
Speaker 1: to figure this out. And I spent a long time
Speaker 1: as a Protestant on this very question. I've read probably
Speaker 1: fifteen books on this question from Protestant scholars and academics.
Speaker 1: Another one I can recommend that will illustrate all of
Speaker 1: this is the famous evangelical scholar F. F. Bruce's book
Speaker 1: The Canon of Scripture. Now. Elf FF Bruce is a
Speaker 1: scholar who is a conservative evangelical. So we had Lee
Speaker 1: McDonald with his sort of liberal leanings because he couldn't
Speaker 1: figure out how to make sense of this. And here
Speaker 1: is a conservative evangelical and guess what his book makes
Speaker 1: all the same points I'm making to you. These are
Speaker 1: Protestant evangelicals who are realizing, Oh, the retard Baptist answer
Speaker 1: as to how we got the Bible is retarded. It's
Speaker 1: not true. So what do they do, Well, they just
Speaker 1: presuppose that the spirit guided the church. Oh no, wait
Speaker 1: a minute. Now, if the spirit can guide the church
Speaker 1: in the decision of the canon, maybe the spirit can
Speaker 1: guide the church in other decisions. Has it ever occurred
Speaker 1: to you as a Protestant that maybe that's the case. Well,
Speaker 1: it is, okay, So there's no there's absolutely no solution
Speaker 1: to this as a product. And in fact, when we
Speaker 1: read Second Thessalonians two what is it thirteen fifteen? Yeah, fifteen. Therefore, brethren,
Speaker 1: stand fast and the traditions that I delivered to you,
Speaker 1: whether oral or written. So Paul and Second thessaloni Is
Speaker 1: two fifteen commands the church to continue to keep the
Speaker 1: orld traditions because there was no Bible at this point.
Speaker 1: Do you understand that there was not a Bible. They
Speaker 1: were using the most of the time, the Septuagint, the
Speaker 1: Old Testament Greek. Most of the quotations of the New
Speaker 1: Testament from the Old Testament are from the Septusient, not all,
Speaker 1: but most, and there are many dudo canonical citations. By
Speaker 1: the way, the New Testament references the Deuial Kennon. Did
Speaker 1: you know that Protestants, Yes, it does in many places,
Speaker 1: and so do all the Church Fathers. Now, I remember
Speaker 1: when I really dove into the Church Fathers back when
Speaker 1: I was about twenty three twenty four, and I started
Speaker 1: noticing all this this. It really shook me because you know,
Speaker 1: I had spent many many years in and apologetics as
Speaker 1: a Protestant, you know, really trying to hammer down this stuff,
Speaker 1: and realizing that if we base our belief system as
Speaker 1: a Protestant on the Bible, it also requires that there
Speaker 1: be some kind of guidance or certitude about knowing that
Speaker 1: we have the right canon, because guess what, not everybody has.
Speaker 1: Everybody has the same canon of scripture, do they. The
Speaker 1: Protestant canon is different from the Catholic The Protestant canon
Speaker 1: is different from the Orthodox canon. So if the Bible
Speaker 1: alone is true, then it requires that we be certain
Speaker 1: about which Bible, don't we right? So how do we
Speaker 1: know that we have the right Bible? Well, we assume
Speaker 1: that the Holy Spirit properly guided the Church to collect
Speaker 1: these documents together. But guess what. This decision, as everybody knows,
Speaker 1: was made hundreds of centuries after the time of the Apostles. Now,
Speaker 1: if you read my essay The Biblical Nature of Sacred
Speaker 1: Tradition and jas Analysis, you will see where I go
Speaker 1: into extensive detail about numerous examples of tradition, not just
Speaker 1: in the New Testament or in Paul's you know, admonitions
Speaker 1: or whatever. For example, if we think about the fact
Speaker 1: that from Genesis to the time of Moses, nothing that
Speaker 1: we know of was written down. It was an oral
Speaker 1: tradition that was handed on from the patriarchs through the
Speaker 1: Family of God. Essentially at that time that was in
Speaker 1: covenant with God. The other nations, pagan nations, as far
Speaker 1: as we know, did not have the revelation of the
Speaker 1: covenant of God except for maybe a couple examples of
Speaker 1: Melchizedic or job. So from the time of you know, Adam,
Speaker 1: eve Seth Noah down through the patriarchs Joseph, Abraham. We
Speaker 1: don't know that any of that was necessarily written because
Speaker 1: the Torah is from the time of Moses, which is
Speaker 1: a significant number of millennia right after Adam. So for
Speaker 1: all of these centuries God can preserve the revelation. Orally,
Speaker 1: that means we know that there's nothing that's inherently flawed
Speaker 1: or there's nothing outside of the power of God keeping
Speaker 1: him from preserving oral tradition. God can do anything he wants.
Speaker 1: You know, what does the Angel say, is there anything
Speaker 1: impossible for God? No, of course not. So there's nothing
Speaker 1: inherently wrong about oral revelation being preserved from Adam to
Speaker 1: Moses and Joshua. So when we serve at the Old Testament,
Speaker 1: we realized that all the patriarchs operated through this kind
Speaker 1: of infallible oral tradition, that they maintained a right. So that,
Speaker 1: by the way, shows that they weren't purely infallible, totally
Speaker 1: depraved human beings because they were able to preserve this
Speaker 1: revelation they were certain about it. Now we also when
Speaker 1: we read about for example, Abraham building an altar, we
Speaker 1: know that he wasn't given a written textbook to instruct
Speaker 1: him how to do this. But he had at least
Speaker 1: some sense of direct revelation with God or something of
Speaker 1: that nature, or he knew in terms of the oral
Speaker 1: tradition that had been passed on him how to do this.
Speaker 1: So even ceremonial aspects of the way Abraham acted or
Speaker 1: keeping of the Sabbath, for example, even that preceded the
Speaker 1: written text of the Mosaic Law. So when we keep
Speaker 1: that in mind, then we can move into like the
Speaker 1: historical period, for example, and we see second second Chronicles
Speaker 1: twenty nine or Hezekyah talks about stationing the leevites in
Speaker 1: the house of the Lord with symbols, string instrument, harps,
Speaker 1: according to the commandment of David, Goad, the Goad, the
Speaker 1: king seer, and Nathan the prophet. For thus was the
Speaker 1: commandment of the Lord by his prophets. The leevites stood
Speaker 1: with the instruments of David, and the priests with the trumpets.
Speaker 1: We do not have a written record of what David
Speaker 1: commanded concerning these things. Furthermore, it is also clear that
Speaker 1: King David flourished some two hundred fifty years before the
Speaker 1: time of King has Akiah, so it might be argued
Speaker 1: that this was David's opinion concerning worship, but we know
Speaker 1: that God doesn't typically tolerate human opinions in worship. So
Speaker 1: this is the irony of kind of the regulative principle
Speaker 1: of many Protestants is that the way that has Akaia
Speaker 1: knew this was because of the world tradition. So again
Speaker 1: I'm not saying that that means we just make up stuff.
Speaker 1: It's rather that there was a body of doctrines handed
Speaker 1: down even at this time, which was being passed on.
Speaker 1: And yes, it does get corrupted. Jeremiah talks about the
Speaker 1: corruption of human opinions being added on, and it's the
Speaker 1: same thing that Jesus rebukes in his day about the
Speaker 1: scribes and the Pharisees. But the fact that there were
Speaker 1: corruptions does not mean that there wasn't still a solid,
Speaker 1: true revelation from God. The mere fact that we have
Speaker 1: the Old Testament in our scriptures shows that. So the
Speaker 1: point here is that for the Protestants, for the Evangelicals
Speaker 1: who aren't aware of this, we start to realize that
Speaker 1: out the Old Testament, there's many examples of traditions that
Speaker 1: are cited in what Protestants believe is the word of
Speaker 1: God that are not part of the canon. We read
Speaker 1: in numbers twenty one, there's a citation of the books
Speaker 1: of the Wars of the Lord. We read in Joshua ten,
Speaker 1: the Book of the Just, we read in Second Kings
Speaker 1: about the Book of the Just, we read about, the
Speaker 1: Book of Nathan the Prophet, we read about Let's see,
Speaker 1: there's a whole bunch of these, the books of Ohias
Speaker 1: the seal Anite, the Book of Ido the Seer, They're
Speaker 1: all quoted throughout the Old Testament. And nobody knows what
Speaker 1: these books are. They're lost to history, but they were
Speaker 1: not viewed and at that time as lost to history, right,
Speaker 1: they were cited. So those books had true tradition that,
Speaker 1: in God's providence, did not make it into the canon.
Speaker 1: But the point is that there was oral tradition, were
Speaker 1: extra canonical traditions that were true. And this is the
Speaker 1: same attitude of the Church today. So this is why,
Speaker 1: for example, in John twenty it says Jesus did many things,
Speaker 1: and he did countless signs in the presence of his disciples,
Speaker 1: which are not written in this book John's Gospel, but
Speaker 1: the ones that I have written for you are written
Speaker 1: that you might believe that Jesus is the son of God.
Speaker 1: And he says later in John twenty one, if there
Speaker 1: are many other things that if Jesus did, if they
Speaker 1: were already written down, I would suppose that the world
Speaker 1: itself could not contain the books that could be written.
Speaker 1: So the point being is that you'll see examples of this.
Speaker 1: For example, Paul in Acts will quote Jesus in a
Speaker 1: sex in a text that we don't have any reference
Speaker 1: to Jesus saying it is more blessed to give than
Speaker 1: to receive, but Paul quotes our Lord as saying this.
Speaker 1: Now we'll see other examples like, for exa, a protest
Speaker 1: will cite Acts twenty twenty seven about the full Council
Speaker 1: of God, which they assume means only written texts. But
Speaker 1: it doesn't because when Paul preached, for example, an Acts,
Speaker 1: we read about the story where he preached all night long,
Speaker 1: and you know, somebody fell asleep and fell out of
Speaker 1: the window and broke their neck basically, and Paul healed them.
Speaker 1: That entire sermon is the Council of God. We don't
Speaker 1: have that sermon, but he preached an entire sermon. You see.
Speaker 1: So the Apostolic preaching was authoritative and it was inspired.
Speaker 1: It wasn't just the written text of Paul. It was
Speaker 1: anything Paul taught, because Paul had the Holy Spirit. Now
Speaker 1: this is I'm making these points because these are points
Speaker 1: that Protestants don't usually think about. That's why we read,
Speaker 1: for example, for this reason, without ceasing, Paul says, because
Speaker 1: when you receive the Word of God, you heard it
Speaker 1: from us, and you welcomed it not as the word
Speaker 1: of man, but as it is the word of truth,
Speaker 1: which effectively works in you who believe. That's first Essaloni's
Speaker 1: two thirteen. So paul oral preaching, he calls the word
Speaker 1: of God. You see, because Protestants have all these dumb
Speaker 1: things where they try to say, oh, it's only the
Speaker 1: written thing Paul was only reciting. Was he just reciting
Speaker 1: the Bible? Of course not. No, he was preaching orally
Speaker 1: for hours from the Old Testament, right and whatever gospel
Speaker 1: he might have had. And here specifically and for Assonians
Speaker 1: two thirteen, he identifies his oral teaching with the Word
Speaker 1: of God. So, in other words, the oral teaching of
Speaker 1: the apostles was also infallible. And this is why he
Speaker 1: commands the Thessalonians to continue the oral traditions. He says
Speaker 1: this also to Timothy. He says to Timothy, hold fast
Speaker 1: to the pattern of sound words which you heard from
Speaker 1: me oral that the good thing which was committed to
Speaker 1: you will be kept by the Holy Spirit dwells in us.
Speaker 1: So Paul believes that the passing on and he ordained
Speaker 1: Timothy right by laying his hands on him Apostolic succession.
Speaker 1: And then he tells Timothy, lay hands on men after you,
Speaker 1: but not hastily. Apostolic succession. And he says that the
Speaker 1: Holy Spirit will keep that inheritance, that will keep that tradition.
Speaker 1: That's Apostolic succession. Second Timothy one thirteen. He also says
Speaker 1: to Timothy and Second Timothy two, you, therefore, my son,
Speaker 1: be strong in the grace of Christ. And the things
Speaker 1: that you have heard from me, these commit to faithful
Speaker 1: men who will teach others. Did you hear that the
Speaker 1: things you heard, the oral teaching that I gave you,
Speaker 1: commit that to other men, and then they'll pass it down.
Speaker 1: That's apostoltics succession. And that's the oral tradition being passed down.
Speaker 1: That's what all the church fathers teach. They do not
Speaker 1: teach sola scriptureup and even if they did, which they don't,
Speaker 1: but even if they did, you don't have the right canon.
Speaker 1: No Protestant believes in the Deutero canon. They all follow
Speaker 1: Luther and Calvin and rejecting it. So, by the way,
Speaker 1: you wonder why there's higher criticism in Protestant churches across
Speaker 1: the whole world, Well, maybe because your founders saw fit
Speaker 1: to toss out books they didn't like.
Speaker 3: Me.
Speaker 1: It's not too far to go from that to denying
Speaker 1: the rest of the canon. Therefore, brethren, hold faster the
Speaker 1: traditions that you were taught by me, whether oral or
Speaker 1: by my epistle seking this on. He's two fifteen. Now.
Speaker 1: The command then is for both to be passed on,
Speaker 1: and both are the word of God. Peter also says this.
Speaker 1: He says, you have been born again, not a corruptible seed,
Speaker 1: but through the word of God, a person which lives
Speaker 1: and abides in you forever. And he says the word
Speaker 1: of God is that which was preached to you. And again,
Speaker 1: that wasn't just reciting Bible texts, right, because they weren't
Speaker 1: sol scriptura. They didn't have a canon. Yet this is
Speaker 1: how stupid it is for Protestants to use all these
Speaker 1: texts as if it presupposed soul scriptura. There wasn't a
Speaker 1: canon yet when they were writing this. John hadn't even
Speaker 1: written The Apocalypse. So Peter understands that the oral preaching
Speaker 1: he did was infallible and it was aspired revelation from
Speaker 1: God just as much as the written texts were. So
Speaker 1: you'll get Protestant. Even James White will admit this, and
Speaker 1: some of the debates that he does. But this is
Speaker 1: when you count. When you factor in the fact that
Speaker 1: other texts of the Bible had not been written yet,
Speaker 1: then the whole Council of God doesn't make any sense
Speaker 1: on their Protestant argument, How could it be the whole
Speaker 1: Council of God that Paul is instructing them to follow,
Speaker 1: namely solo scriptura, when the whole Council of God had
Speaker 1: not been revealed yet it's retarded. We read in Colossians four,
Speaker 1: salute the brethren who are at Laodicea Nymphis and the
Speaker 1: church that is in his house. And when the epistle
Speaker 1: shall have been read with you read the Epistle to
Speaker 1: the Laodoceans We don't have Paul's Epistle to the Laodioceans. Okay,
Speaker 1: so even aspects of what Paul taught or wrote have
Speaker 1: been lost to history in God's providence, Now is that
Speaker 1: part of the whole council of the Word of God.
Speaker 1: Protestant now say why he got lost? It doesn't matter.
Speaker 1: But again, the point is that there was no canon.
Speaker 1: They didn't have a canon. Right. You can't read into
Speaker 1: the mind of the first century Church five hundred years,
Speaker 1: six hundred and seve hundred years before canon came about
Speaker 1: and assume that they're teaching sol scriptura. They're not. Jesus
Speaker 1: doesn't teach script Jesus refers in many cases to oral tradition,
Speaker 1: and in many cases in the New Testament, the deteral
Speaker 1: Canon is cited. Now, these basic facts completely destroy the
Speaker 1: Protestant position of sola scriptura, like there's no refuge for
Speaker 1: any of it, because the entire thing is erected on
Speaker 1: stupid assumptions, namely the assumption that anytime I read something
Speaker 1: in the New Testament is talking about sola scriptura, which
Speaker 1: is the sixty six books of the Protestant Canon that
Speaker 1: I presuppose. I mean, that's so stupid now we have,
Speaker 1: let's say, one example from the Early Church, which is
Speaker 1: the Council of Gangra. And I believe the council it's
Speaker 1: a local syna, but it just it gives you an
Speaker 1: example of the Early Church in the three hundreds. And
Speaker 1: I believe the Council of Gangra is reaffirmed at later
Speaker 1: ecumenical synods if I'm going for memory. But this is
Speaker 1: a local synod of many bishops of the Early Church,
Speaker 1: and again about three twenty five. And it goes on
Speaker 1: to talk about the necessity of keeping the oral traditions,
Speaker 1: of keeping all of what was handed down, and it
Speaker 1: talks about discipline in the church and the tradition of
Speaker 1: discipline in the Church. It was already, by the way
Speaker 1: the Apostolic Canons. If you read the Church Fathers, or
Speaker 1: if you have the Church Fathers say, you'll see that
Speaker 1: the volume on the Apostolic Canons, this is the normative
Speaker 1: approach of the Early Church to doctrinal questions that came up.
Speaker 1: By the way, it excludes effeminate dresses, for men don't
Speaker 1: dress eminently, but it says, make sure in all things
Speaker 1: that what we've been delivered in the Holy Scriptures and
Speaker 1: in the APIs traditions are observed in the churches. Now
Speaker 1: you can go with the stupid you know, seven day
Speaker 1: av in this type nonsense of saying, oh, well that's
Speaker 1: three hundred. That's around when Constantine he messed the church up.
Speaker 1: That's when it got messed up. I s when the
Speaker 1: system of Antichrist entered the church. Well, Jesus says, the
Speaker 1: gates of Hell will not prevail against the Church. And
Speaker 1: there were no Baptists in the third third century, There
Speaker 1: were no Baptists in the fourth century, there were no
Speaker 1: Baptists in the fifth century. There were no Baptists in
Speaker 1: the sixth century, except for heretics who had very similar
Speaker 1: views to the Baptists, right, the Rebaptizers as they originally
Speaker 1: called the Anabaptists. Right. So the early Church in countless examples,
Speaker 1: and again you can read my essay just for a
Speaker 1: few examples will affirm the necessity of keeping the Apostolic traditions. Now,
Speaker 1: if we look at for example, Nicea, which as an
Speaker 1: important canon excuse me, counsel, when it came to determining
Speaker 1: the canon, it would it would be important. We do
Speaker 1: not find anything resembling Protestantism in the many Canons of Nicea.
Speaker 1: We find Constantine making Nicia civil law. According to page
Speaker 1: eight of the chef set, we find baptismal regeneration taught.
Speaker 1: In Canon two, we're told that there's no immediate episcopacy
Speaker 1: allowed for converts. Episcopacy that's bishoprics. Now, every Baptist, by
Speaker 1: the way, it will affirm that they believe in the Niceno,
Speaker 1: constant and Apolitan creed because it teaches the deity of Christ.
Speaker 1: But now wait a minute, all these people who they
Speaker 1: believe teach the deed of Christ, they teach all this
Speaker 1: Catholic stuff that I'm talking about, and Athletic can be Orthodox, right,
Speaker 1: we are Orthodox Catholics. Canon three talks about clerical celibacy,
Speaker 1: that there was a widely established practice of clerical celibacy.
Speaker 1: It also wasn't enforced by the way Roman Catholics. Canon
Speaker 1: five talks about lynt and it talks about the Eucharist
Speaker 1: as an offering. Canon six talks about the major Metropolitans
Speaker 1: and the raising and lowering of certain jurisdictions, and how
Speaker 1: it is a custom for the Bishop of Rome to
Speaker 1: have the first among equals status. So, by the way,
Speaker 1: every Orthodox person, for a thousand years knew what Canon
Speaker 1: six of Nicia says and has nothing to do with
Speaker 1: papal supremacy. What does it say is the reason for
Speaker 1: Rome being mentioned a custom, a tradition. It doesn't say
Speaker 1: anything about magical petrine supremacy. It says that Rome because
Speaker 1: it's doubly apostolic. If you look at every Orthodox icon
Speaker 1: of Rome, it's the Church of Rome, it's Peter and Paul,
Speaker 1: and they're both equal holding of the church. That's why
Speaker 1: Santa Renas calls it doubly apostolic. And he says it's
Speaker 1: to be followed because they teach rightly. He doesn't say
Speaker 1: it's magically delicious. He doesn't say that has a magical
Speaker 1: terrorism of Matthew sixteen. No, it's called in Canon six
Speaker 1: of Nicea a tradition. It's a tradition to have the
Speaker 1: honor given to the Roman bishop and then after him. Likewise,
Speaker 1: it says, did you know likewise, so listen to this.
Speaker 1: The Bishop of Rome is to have jurisdiction like Alexandria,
Speaker 1: and likewise Antioch and the other provinces retain their traditional privileges.
Speaker 1: It's customary they have limited jurisdictions. The jurisdiction of Rome
Speaker 1: is likewise a limited jurisdiction of Antioch and the others.
Speaker 1: And everybody who's honest with Nicia knows that they didn't
Speaker 1: think Rome was what Vatican one says. Do you think
Speaker 1: that at Vatican one, the exact same mindset of what's
Speaker 1: going on at Nicia was that it translates. Of course
Speaker 1: it doesn't. Do you think that, Nicea they thought that
Speaker 1: the Bishop of Rome could depose anyone in the world.
Speaker 1: Of course not. That's because he's a Roman patriarch. And
Speaker 1: the Canon seven makes this clear. When Canon seven and
Speaker 1: Icia says that it is a custom about the Bishop
Speaker 1: of Jerusalem, these are customs. Canon eight is about the
Speaker 1: ordination of novations being valid. In other words, all of
Speaker 1: this is a million miles away from anything Protestant or Baptist.
Speaker 1: Canon eleven is about the sacrifice of the Eucharist. Canon
Speaker 1: twelve says that you can be in the military. There's
Speaker 1: nothing Unchristian about being in the military, which disproves pacifists.
Speaker 1: By the way. Canon thirteen is about ancient canon laws
Speaker 1: that retain to the reception of the Eucharist from the
Speaker 1: bishop at death. You know, any Baptists to do that.
Speaker 1: I don't never heard of that. Let's see Canon eighteen
Speaker 1: is about the offering of the body and blood of
Speaker 1: Christ on the altar. Wow. Anyway, there's more canons, but
Speaker 1: you get the point here. The point is that every
Speaker 1: Baptist on the one hand, or Protestant or whoever, doesn't
Speaker 1: have to be out to somebody's using them as an example.
Speaker 1: They will refer to Nicea as something that is the
Speaker 1: you know, the great pinnacle of church fathers, defending the
Speaker 1: deity of Christ against arias right. And every Baptist believes
Speaker 1: that Jesus is divine. Well, they're supposed to, and they
Speaker 1: tend to believe in the creed of Nicea and Constantinople One,
Speaker 1: hence the Niceno Constantinopolitan creed. But in fact, when we
Speaker 1: read what the mindset of all of these Orthodox Catholics was,
Speaker 1: they would not hesitate to call these people lunatics, idolators,
Speaker 1: and pagans, which the early Reformers did. So there's nothing
Speaker 1: at all about this council and these canons that is
Speaker 1: all favorable to anything Protestant whatsoever. Now, in response to this,
Speaker 1: most of the time the protests say, yes, we know
Speaker 1: that We don't care about your man made councils. Dude.
Speaker 1: Now wait a minute, you don't care about man made councils.
Speaker 1: But how the canon of Scripture come to be? Where
Speaker 1: did it come from? It came from these councils, and
Speaker 1: not just one of them, many centuries. Well, I'm going
Speaker 1: to trust that God led these men to put the
Speaker 1: can Wait wait a minute, you believe they're all idolators
Speaker 1: and and and phonies. They're apostates, they're the Church of
Speaker 1: Anti crash. But they put the Bible together. This is
Speaker 1: other utterly retarded. This is nonsense. Now I want to
Speaker 1: look here briefly at a couple more points on the
Speaker 1: canon here. Uh, and I have reputation of the prostant
Speaker 1: Canona Scripture, which is a very scholarly work that I
Speaker 1: did about twelve years ago, ten years ago somewhere in there. Uh,
Speaker 1: and we look through you know, if if let's tell
Speaker 1: what I did in this this uh. This article was
Speaker 1: a Protestant, famous Protestant Ian Paisley who says that the
Speaker 1: Jews did not accept the dudoconical books. Let's go with
Speaker 1: his first argument, they were not part of the oracles
Speaker 1: committed unto them Romans three to two. Therefore they are
Speaker 1: not written in Hebrew. This is false. Paisley makes no
Speaker 1: distinction between Jews of the Diaspora and Palestinian Jews. Palsinian
Speaker 1: Jews eventually rejected the Septuagent, which is the Greek version
Speaker 1: of the Old Testament composed in the second third century
Speaker 1: b c. At Alexandria. It is well known that the
Speaker 1: Septuagent was the Bible of the Diaspora Jews of and
Speaker 1: the Bible of all the early Church, the Old Testament Bible. Furthermore,
Speaker 1: it's also a fact that the Septuagent contained the Dudoconical books. So,
Speaker 1: for example, if you look at Oxford Church historian Paul
Speaker 1: Johnson in his book History of Christianity quote, there was
Speaker 1: already in the first century a huge Jewish diaspora in
Speaker 1: the Mediterranean, and they utilized the Greek adaptation of the
Speaker 1: Old Testament, the Septugent, which was composed in Alexandria and
Speaker 1: used amongst the diaspora. Lee McDonald that are referenced earlier
Speaker 1: says in the formation of the Christian Biblical canon, it
Speaker 1: is most likely that these dud Chonical books were considered
Speaker 1: by the Jewish community holy or sacred well before the
Speaker 1: time of Christ, and they were thus inherited from Judaism.
Speaker 1: There is evidence that at least some of the non
Speaker 1: canonical books of Protestantism had their origin in the land
Speaker 1: of Israel, and were translated and transported there from Israel
Speaker 1: to Alexandria. Probably whether the Jews lived in significant numbers
Speaker 1: where they lived in Roman Empire. The grandson of Ben Syak,
Speaker 1: that is, the writer of the book Ecclesiasticus, lets us
Speaker 1: know that he was translating for Jews in Alexandria. The
Speaker 1: New Testament also has countless allusions to the judo canonical books.
Speaker 1: Did you hear that the New Testament has countless Of
Speaker 1: course it does. Anybody who reads about it knows that
Speaker 1: the oldest collections of the Old Testament scriptures by the
Speaker 1: early Church contain the Duchonic literature. Of course it does.
Speaker 1: Fassett's Bible Dictionary the Protestant Text. Protestant Dictionary says apocrypha
Speaker 1: the writings in the Septuagent first and second Ezra Tobad,
Speaker 1: Judith Esther Wisdom, Ecclesiaskus, Barrack, Song of the Children, Susannah Bell,
Speaker 1: and the Dragon. The Protestant in Nelson's Christian Dictionary says
Speaker 1: the Septuagiant incorporates all of the Dudo chronical books, with
Speaker 1: the exception of Second Esdras, and they are not differentiated
Speaker 1: from any of the other Old Testament books in the
Speaker 1: Septuagent I mentioned F. F. Bruce earlier in his book
Speaker 1: Kenneth Scripture, he writes, whatever wording of Stephen's defense in
Speaker 1: Acts seven may owe to the narrator, the cons consistency
Speaker 1: with which the biblical quotations are read from Stephen in
Speaker 1: Act seven are from the septuagent. As soon as the
Speaker 1: Gospel was carried into the Greek speaking world, the Septuagint
Speaker 1: came into its own as the sacred text to which
Speaker 1: the preachers would appeal. It was used in the Greek
Speaker 1: speaking synagogues throughout the Roman Empire. Protestant patristics scholar J. N. D. Kelly,
Speaker 1: Anglican writes in his famous Early Christian Doctor's Book, it
Speaker 1: should be of the Old Testament, thus admitted authoritative in
Speaker 1: the Church, a different canon from the masoretic Palestinian Jewish canon.
Speaker 1: Of course, it did, and the Protestants all follow the
Speaker 1: Palestinian Jewish canon. It was always included with varying degrees
Speaker 1: in the so called apocrypha or the dudocononical books. This
Speaker 1: is the reason for this is that the Old Testament
Speaker 1: which passed into the hands of the Early Church was
Speaker 1: not the masoretic Hebrew text, but the Greek text known
Speaker 1: as the Subtuagin. There you go. F. F. Bruce writes,
Speaker 1: Yeshua bin Syra was in Egypt in one thirty two BC,
Speaker 1: and he translated his book The Wisdom of Ecclesiasticus or Syric,
Speaker 1: from Hebrew into Greek. Lee MacDonald again writes that the
Speaker 1: dudochroonical books were transported from Israel into from Hebrew and
Speaker 1: into Greek at Alexandria, on and on and on and
Speaker 1: on and on. Charles Pfiffer's book in the Dead Sea
Speaker 1: Scrolls on pages sixteen seventeen says all the same stuff. Now,
Speaker 1: Ian Paisley, who I've chosen as just one Goufus evangelical
Speaker 1: example of why he thinks he has the right Protestant canon.
Speaker 1: His next argument was, the New Testament never quotes the
Speaker 1: Deutero canon, and the Early Church never used it. This
Speaker 1: is utterly retarded in idiotic. Ecclesiasticus is cited in John
Speaker 1: Second John ten Ecclesiasticus eleven thirty one. Ecclesiasticus eleven eighteen
Speaker 1: through twenty is cited as in Jesus's Parable of the
Speaker 1: Wealthy Farmer Luke twelve nineteen. Jesus' statements about the I
Speaker 1: making the whole body dark in Matthew six twenty two
Speaker 1: are a reference to ecclesiastic As fourteen eight through eleven.
Speaker 1: This is my article I wrote ten years ago. Wisdom
Speaker 1: twelve and thirteen are exact parallels to Roma's one Do
Speaker 1: you hear me? Wisdom twelve and thirteen exact parallels to
Speaker 1: Roma's one. Wisdom two contains a lengthy prophecy of Christ. Wisdom, too,
Speaker 1: is a lengthy prophecy of Christ, and the Church fathers
Speaker 1: all used it of Christ. Wh I think the Jews
Speaker 1: rejected the Judo canon because the Church fathers were using
Speaker 1: it and the apostles were using it to prove Jesus.
Speaker 1: In the Old Testament, Hebrews eleven five eleven thirty five
Speaker 1: refers to women and children who refused to be delivered
Speaker 1: from death and accepted martyrdom to achieve a better resurrection.
Speaker 1: This is second Maccabe's Seven Dummies. Now there's a whole
Speaker 1: bunch of more examples, but that should suffice. Let's see
Speaker 1: from Protestant Jan D. Kelly again, it should be observed
Speaker 1: that the Old Testament, thus admitted as authoritative in the Church,
Speaker 1: was bulkier and more comprehensive than the Hebrew Canon. It
Speaker 1: was the Septuition. And let's see Nelson's Christian Dictionary once again. Protestant.
Speaker 1: The early Church fathers Clement of Rome, Clement of Alexandria,
Speaker 1: Origin consistently cite the dudoconical books. Christians made extensive use
Speaker 1: of them for apologetic purposes because of the text referred here.
Speaker 1: They utilize them for the incarnation the logos the Son
Speaker 1: of God. However, the Reformation leaders were instrumental in completely
Speaker 1: rejecting the duo deudro canon and thus refuse to ascribe
Speaker 1: to them the status of Word of God. Now, anyone
Speaker 1: who spent any time in the post Apostolic Fathers, whether
Speaker 1: it's Clement Ignacious Origin, Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, Cyprian,
Speaker 1: they know you will know that they frequently cite the
Speaker 1: decononical books. So it is athenacious. And these are all
Speaker 1: the church fathers who determined the canon. Right, So if
Speaker 1: some Guphas says, well who cares what the church father said, Well,
Speaker 1: these are the people who determine the canon Guphus. That's
Speaker 1: why final Paisley argument. Ian Paisley says, the Synod of Laodicea,
Speaker 1: the local synod which many Roman Catholics will refer to,
Speaker 1: and the Ecumenical Council of Chalcedon do not accept the
Speaker 1: dudo canon. Once again, Ian Paisley is completely idiotic and
Speaker 1: knows nothing about what he's speaking. Laodicea was a regional synod,
Speaker 1: and it was actually a series of synods over many years.
Speaker 1: And again, the canons, as we saw from Lee McDonald's
Speaker 1: if you read his appendix in his book, there's a
Speaker 1: whole list of all the different canon. There's canon, there's
Speaker 1: all kinds of different canons. There's not one canon. So
Speaker 1: there are some people who doubted the Book of Revelation.
Speaker 1: There are people who doubted the Gospel of John. Many
Speaker 1: thought the Gospel of John was gnostic, not universally, but
Speaker 1: some thought this is dubious. Now we all know today
Speaker 1: that This is ridiculous. The Gospel John is not gnostic.
Speaker 1: But there were some areas of the church in the
Speaker 1: early Church period where people doubted it. People doubted the
Speaker 1: Book of Revelation. They thought it was too crazy, too wild. Again,
Speaker 1: Athanasius had to convince Rome to include Revelation. So it
Speaker 1: really doesn't matter that Ian Paisley finds a list of
Speaker 1: a canon in Laodicea where they're not mentioning the Duro canon. Secondly,
Speaker 1: the fact that it's not mentioned in the normal list
Speaker 1: doesn't mean that they didn't cite from it. That's why
Speaker 1: it's called the Duduro canon, right. It doesn't even in
Speaker 1: our churches. It's not accorded the same status as the
Speaker 1: rest of the text, but it is part of the Bible.
Speaker 1: By the way, you have to read first and second
Speaker 1: Maccabees to properly understand preterism. If you don't read Versts
Speaker 1: Second Macabees, you can't understand the Book of Daniel and
Speaker 1: Ezra Ezra also Verst and second Asdris. That helps vindicate
Speaker 1: the timeline of what Daniel talks about in his prophecies.
Speaker 1: So it's only shooting yourself in the foot and doing
Speaker 1: damage to your own religion when you toss these books out,
Speaker 1: because those books actually help vindicate preterism and the destruction
Speaker 1: of the temple in seventy eight. And by the way,
Speaker 1: if you read the Orthodox Study Bible, you get all that.
Speaker 1: All of that is in the study notes under the
Speaker 1: deduoconomical books. If you read through the entire Orthodox Study Bible,
Speaker 1: you will get all this. You will understand why it
Speaker 1: is the Deudero Canon is there. It's there for historical
Speaker 1: testimony to the theological points and timeline of things like Daniel,
Speaker 1: the prophecies of Daniel. Now this is look at let's
Speaker 1: look at how stupid this is. Leo, the Great Pope,
Speaker 1: Saint Leo at Chalcedon frequently cites the dudoconical books as scripture.
Speaker 1: And this is one of the key arguments that Ian
Speaker 1: Paisley thinks proves the Dudero Canon isn't scripture. By the way,
Speaker 1: why is he citing Catholic Orthodox Catholic synods to prove
Speaker 1: his point that itself disproves him because he doesn't accept
Speaker 1: their authority. Another point, too, is that the Senator of
Speaker 1: Leo Deicia is one of these many synods that does
Speaker 1: not accept the Book of Revelation at scripture. Oops, So
Speaker 1: that doesn't work, does it? No, Because we don't go
Speaker 1: by what one local synod you know, in the year
Speaker 1: three point forty one decided about the scripture in the Canon,
Speaker 1: and nor does Ian Paisley and his goofy examples here.
Speaker 1: And when we think about the Council of Chalcedon, why
Speaker 1: would we cite Chalcedon. Calcedon speaks of the Bishop of
Speaker 1: Rome as the first patriarchate along with Alexandria. It speaks
Speaker 1: of apostolic succession, It speaks of the canons and councils
Speaker 1: that teach apostolic succession. It speaks of hierarchy, it speaks
Speaker 1: of monasticism, tradition, et cetera, et cetera. There's nothing Protestant
Speaker 1: about that. How are you going to use that in
Speaker 1: your dumb arguments? So thus, and much more could be
Speaker 1: said on this, but the point is that it's easy
Speaker 1: to operate on assumptions and think that you're right and
Speaker 1: think that you know what you're talking about about the
Speaker 1: church fathers or the history or how this happened. But
Speaker 1: that's very different from when you actually go and you
Speaker 1: read the Church fathers. When you spend thirteen years reading them,
Speaker 1: then you start to realize that not only were they
Speaker 1: not Protestant, teach anything anything Protestant, anything approaching close to Protestantism.
Speaker 1: And if we just let's if we consider this historically.
Speaker 1: I'll show you this very boring book by Alistair McGrath,
Speaker 1: which I did read a long time ago, back when
Speaker 1: I was still Protestant. I think it was right around
Speaker 1: the time I was leaving Protestantism. This came out somewhere
Speaker 1: in there. But this very boring book is funny because
Speaker 1: here you have a Protestant basically doing historical theology, Alster
Speaker 1: McGrath's Eustacia Day, and it's about how nobody taught justification
Speaker 1: by faith alone. Oops, no orthodox father, no Western Church father,
Speaker 1: no far Church writer, no liturgy, nobody. Now, goofy evangelicals say,
Speaker 1: so what the church? The church went into a blackout?
Speaker 1: Excuse me? I thought, the gates of Hell can't Preveilicans
Speaker 1: the church. Uh. And by the way, so where was
Speaker 1: this doctrine? Who who was there that taught this? Well
Speaker 1: some of them will say, well, they were there, We
Speaker 1: just we don't have any evidence of the true Baptist
Speaker 1: believers of you know, first Baptist Church of Laodicea and
Speaker 1: two hundred a d. But they were there. There, there
Speaker 1: was a Blood River Baptist Church in Rome, and they
Speaker 1: were hidden, and they were in the catacombs. It was
Speaker 1: a secret church because they were being persecuted. Now, wait
Speaker 1: a minute, No, in the first three hundred years of
Speaker 1: the church, all the people who were the Orthodox Church
Speaker 1: fathers were being persecuted. The Baptist gufuss were not being persecuted,
Speaker 1: namely because they didn't hardly exist if you want to
Speaker 1: link them to heretical group. So the point is is
Speaker 1: that this has been well documented amongst the Orthodox Church
Speaker 1: fathers and amongst Protestant scholars and academics of the history
Speaker 1: of the Church and history of theology, that the early
Speaker 1: Church doctrines are not the Protestant doctrines. So we know
Speaker 1: that they didn't have solo scriptura. We know they didn't
Speaker 1: have solo fide, which are the hallmarks of the prostant Reformation. Also,
Speaker 1: by the way, I want to there's a series that
Speaker 1: I would recommend if you want to go down the
Speaker 1: route of getting deeper into this. I have I think
Speaker 1: I've read almost all of Pelican's books pelican Yuros of Pelicon,
Speaker 1: but his the best history of theology is probably you know,
Speaker 1: if you don't want to immediately dive into all the
Speaker 1: writings of the Church Fathers, which I would actually recommend
Speaker 1: that above, most people just start reading secondhand scholars. Why
Speaker 1: aren't you reading the actual Church fathers? You know, same
Speaker 1: idea of the Bible. You read the actual Bible and
Speaker 1: the Church Fathers for yourself. That's not Protestant. It's not
Speaker 1: any more Protestant than when Roman Catholics go read the
Speaker 1: posts for themselves. Is that Protestant? So Pelicon series is
Speaker 1: a classic. I read this ten years ago, the Formation
Speaker 1: of the Catholic Tradition volume one, and then you can't
Speaker 1: see volume two on here. But then it goes up
Speaker 1: to medieval and then Reformation and then modern is Jesus book. Sorry,
Speaker 1: he has a book on the Canon two that's not bad.
Speaker 1: Shows that, you know, the Protestant conception of how the
Speaker 1: Canon came about is nonsense. But Pelicana eventually ended up Orthodox. Actually,
Speaker 1: if I recall, he was a Lutheran who converted to Orthodoxy.
Speaker 1: So that is a good series if you want a
Speaker 1: scholarly approach to the history of theology. Right, So there's
Speaker 1: different kinds of theology. Right. There's patristics, which is the
Speaker 1: writings of the church fathers themselves, or the lives of
Speaker 1: the Church fathers or will it really lives of the
Speaker 1: Church fathers would be hagiography, lives of the saints. There's
Speaker 1: also church history, which is not necessarily the history of theology.
Speaker 1: But you know the Ecumenical Councils book that I have
Speaker 1: here with me. This would be like you know, canonics
Speaker 1: or that would be like studying church history basically, and
Speaker 1: obviously there's some overlap. But then there's also the history
Speaker 1: historical theology, and that would be what Pelican's series is
Speaker 1: historical theology. So if you want a theological overview of
Speaker 1: the history of the Church, then I would read his
Speaker 1: five volume series. Now, the point here was to show
Speaker 1: essentially that just in the in the terms of the
Speaker 1: Solas in Sola Scripture, was to show that the Bible
Speaker 1: doesn't operate in a vacuum. It does it doesn't come
Speaker 1: to you outside of a historical context and outside of
Speaker 1: the liturgy. The Bible is actually a liturgical document, and
Speaker 1: it was meant to be read. This is why all
Speaker 1: of the church fathers, or excuse me, that's why the
Speaker 1: apostles talk about the Word of God, which you heard
Speaker 1: from us, right, So it's it's a it's an oral proclamation.
Speaker 1: Certainly the texts are written, and certainly they should be
Speaker 1: read and must be read, but they cannot be divorced
Speaker 1: from the church. This is why Paul says to Timothy,
Speaker 1: the Church is the pillar and ground of truth. He
Speaker 1: does not say the Bible is the pillar and ground
Speaker 1: of truth. He says the institutional historical church. And this
Speaker 1: is why when we begin to move into reading the
Speaker 1: church fathers, when we read Ignatius, when we read Aaronaeus,
Speaker 1: when we read Clement, when we read Ambrose, when we
Speaker 1: read Augusta, and when we read Jerome, we find that
Speaker 1: they don't teach anything approaching Protestantism, none of them at all.
Speaker 1: They all teach Apostolic succession, They all teach Abstock tradition,
Speaker 1: they all cite the Dudo Canon. They all believe in
Speaker 1: synodal church government and ecumenical councils. Eventually, on and on
Speaker 1: and on the point being the fathers of our church, right,
Speaker 1: they do not teach Protestantism. They don't teach any aspect
Speaker 1: the Protestantism. Now, one thing they do teach is that
Speaker 1: you can, in the context of the Church read the Bible.
Speaker 1: And there were periods in the post Tridentine era of
Speaker 1: Roman Catholicism where Rome did try to forbid people reading
Speaker 1: the Bible, mainly because they wanted to be fair to Rome.
Speaker 1: They were trying to protect protect against faulty Protestant translations,
Speaker 1: which there were actually many Protestant translations of the Bible
Speaker 1: after the first Bible translated into English. By the way,
Speaker 1: it was a Catholic Bible, but the Tyndale Bible and
Speaker 1: other others were fairly notorious for not being very good. Yes,
Speaker 1: Calvin does the Judoo canon I've read, I've read the
Speaker 1: entire Calvin's Institutes fifty fifteen, fifty nine whatever. The later
Speaker 1: one is, the two volume one, but Calvin does not
Speaker 1: rank them as canonical. All right, now we're going to
Speaker 1: move on to the point here was that what this
Speaker 1: is how we have to approach the questions of how
Speaker 1: the Bible came to be before we can try to
Speaker 1: just assume and claim that we have the right Bible.
Speaker 1: Because if the Protestants don't have the right canon, then
Speaker 1: sol scripture doesn't work, and they don't and if, for example, Wisdom.
Speaker 1: I remember having a Protestant friend I used to argue
Speaker 1: with old Time and you finally got furious because, well,
Speaker 1: you believe that if something is prophetic and preaches Christ,
Speaker 1: then it's inspired, right And he said yeah. And I said, well,
Speaker 1: do you think Wisdom predicts Christ in the text that
Speaker 1: I mentioned earlier? He said, yeah, it does seem like
Speaker 1: that's predicting Christ. And everybody admits that was written before
Speaker 1: the birth of Christ. I was like, well, how come
Speaker 1: that's not in your canon? He said, well, the providence
Speaker 1: of God determined that it would not be in the canon.
Speaker 1: I said, well, who were the instruments of the providence
Speaker 1: of God? Well it was the historic Church. But that
Speaker 1: doesn't mean that they're right about everything. Oh okay, so
Speaker 1: I will follow the Church in the selection of the
Speaker 1: book that I think is inspired on everything else. However, though,
Speaker 1: I'm going to go to the book that they gave
Speaker 1: me to determine that I don't think that they are
Speaker 1: the church. It really makes no sense at all. But
Speaker 1: if this guy were to admit that I was right.
Speaker 1: Guess what. He couldn't be getting his Protestant pastor paycheck anymore,
Speaker 1: could he. No, he would be kicked out of his
Speaker 1: made up Protestant sect, which was quite literally a denomination
Speaker 1: invented within the last ten years. So Luthor didn't convert
Speaker 1: to Orthodoxy because he wasn't Orthodox. He was a man
Speaker 1: of Quean and he did not believe in the Orthodox
Speaker 1: inception of salvation. That's one Luther didn't become Orthodox, all right.
Speaker 1: So before we move on to the next section, here
Speaker 1: we mentioned a couple solas here, let's talk about let's
Speaker 1: do some of these super chazz while they're here. Anthony
Speaker 1: Cavalho ten dollars? Are you too white to grab early shekels?
Speaker 1: Or do you have enough in you to go for
Speaker 1: the gold? Ha ha haha, Thank you, Anthony, appreciate that.
Speaker 1: Benjamin and Green on Angry Gnostic five New Zealand dollars,
Speaker 1: Process House Sola, Scripture Calxi of Magisterium. What is the
Speaker 1: bonding authority in Orthodoxy? Well, this is why Orthodoxy doesn't
Speaker 1: attempt to create a single external juridical authority, because that
Speaker 1: doesn't work as a In other words, our worldview is
Speaker 1: based on transcendent truths, right, And when you talk to
Speaker 1: a Protestant or when you talk to Roman Catholic, they're both,
Speaker 1: as we said earlier, trying to essentially erect some kind
Speaker 1: of public juridical thing that everybody could point to to say,
Speaker 1: there it is. That's the final deciding factor there. And
Speaker 1: we know because it's public and everybody can see it.
Speaker 1: But as we said, all that does is move the
Speaker 1: problem back a step. Right, And having spent ten years
Speaker 1: in Rome, I know how it works. I can attest
Speaker 1: to that fact because as soon as you start trying
Speaker 1: to figure out who's interpreting the popes or the councils
Speaker 1: correctly in Rome, there's a million different debates and nobody
Speaker 1: can know, nobody can decide for sure. And it doesn't
Speaker 1: matter how many times the pope reaffirms something or restates something.
Speaker 1: You have to still assume that you are properly reading
Speaker 1: the pope. You see. So this is a problem of
Speaker 1: circularity that the Roman Catholic epistemology thought it could solve
Speaker 1: by just adhering to classical foundationalism, right. And this is
Speaker 1: the older medieval entomistic way of viewing human anthropology in
Speaker 1: human nature. It's called classical foundationalism. That's why I mentioned
Speaker 1: it a minute ago. I'm getting a echo here. Let
Speaker 1: me fix that. So I mean, let's draw some come
Speaker 1: on now, okay, so we have I'm drum a little
Speaker 1: pope figure. So here's our here's our little pope figure
Speaker 1: here with his xis. Okay, all right, make sure my
Speaker 1: he's getting some feedback there. Had to fix that. So
Speaker 1: here's our little pope figure. And here's a little We're
Speaker 1: gonna put a little lowly normy Roman Catholic guy here. Now,
Speaker 1: Pope figure just decides one day that it is time
Speaker 1: for an infallible declaration. Now he doesn't just simply cite
Speaker 1: in the document that it is infallible, which would make
Speaker 1: it pretty easy for everybody wouldn't know. What he does
Speaker 1: is he says that with full apostolic authority, uh, from
Speaker 1: the chair right here, he's gonna be proclaiming it in
Speaker 1: his proclamation bubble, I decree blah blah blah blah blah
Speaker 1: blahlah blah blah blah blah blah blah. And then later
Speaker 1: he issues an encyclical that helps interpret this. And then
Speaker 1: later there's I don't know another, the Congregation for the
Speaker 1: Doctrine of the Faith issues a proclamation that helps interpret this,
Speaker 1: and then later there's another I don't know, papal whatever,
Speaker 1: it doesn't matter. Just come up with all the different
Speaker 1: layers and levels PC papal claim clarification, papal claim clarification.
Speaker 1: Now let's say this is how because also works. I'm
Speaker 1: not I'm not joking, right, this is really how it works. Okay, Now,
Speaker 1: what is what is necessary for something to be ex
Speaker 1: cathedral from the chair? Well, it's for the whole universal Church.
Speaker 1: It's proclaim a full Apostolic authority right from the chair
Speaker 1: and supposedly or I'll put an inverted cross on him here,
Speaker 1: since they they love those inverted crosses in Rome just
Speaker 1: because of Peter. Ye're right. Now, here's mister lowly little
Speaker 1: Catholic guy here, And I'm not joking. This is how
Speaker 1: comical it is in the world of Rome. About Now,
Speaker 1: how are you going to understand this miasma, which, by
Speaker 1: the way, cannot actually be understood without being situated within
Speaker 1: the last two thousand years of supposed Roman dogma? Right,
Speaker 1: this is on the Catholic view, right, So you need
Speaker 1: a little bit of context of the last two thousand years,
Speaker 1: don't you to understand from the Apostolic seat chair Proclamation xxxx,
Speaker 1: which is also clarified in encyclical BCD, which is also
Speaker 1: clarified by the Congregation of the Doctrine of Faith with
Speaker 1: Ratzinger as its head supposedly years ago. With all so
Speaker 1: then the papal clarification that comes later down the road,
Speaker 1: and here's a you lowly little Roman guy, and you
Speaker 1: think we just need the pope to solve these questions
Speaker 1: of theology. It solves it, does it? Really? But see
Speaker 1: what we've already done is we've introduced the mysterious chair
Speaker 1: of authority that isn't always made clear when and yes,
Speaker 1: Roman Catholics will debate ad nauseum which statements are ex
Speaker 1: cathedral and which ones aren't, which shows us that this
Speaker 1: whole nonsense doesn't really do anything like it's supposed to.
Speaker 1: It doesn't solve the problems it's supposed to. If we're
Speaker 1: all sitting around for decades debating which ones are the
Speaker 1: ex cathedral pronouncements, that's because it just moves the problem
Speaker 1: back a step? Can you not see that? So here's
Speaker 1: lowly Roman Catholic, Now what does he do. He says,
Speaker 1: all right, I'm gonna interpret this, so in his mind,
Speaker 1: he's got to be sure that the interpretation of all
Speaker 1: this layers of gobbledinggook is proper, properly entering into his
Speaker 1: mind and interpreted correctly. Now, guess what every Roman Catholic
Speaker 1: will tell you to do in this process. Oh, you
Speaker 1: can't just do this. This is kind of this is
Speaker 1: kind of Protestant, bro, it's kind of Protestant going directly
Speaker 1: to these papal proclamations. Assuming that you can figure this out,
Speaker 1: Oh you also need to Before you can do that,
Speaker 1: you need to go talk to your local priest, because
Speaker 1: your priest is there, Father so and so, Father Brute,
Speaker 1: father breath, father Bruce is there to help you. No, no, no,
Speaker 1: you need to go first to Father Bruce, who will
Speaker 1: then interpret this for you to help you. That's not
Speaker 1: really works, right, But now wait a minute. Father Bruce
Speaker 1: is less than Orthodox, right, He's less in the romancallic sense.
Speaker 1: He's less than orthodox. We've all been complaining about Father
Speaker 1: Bruce for so long for having X Y Z heresy. Right,
Speaker 1: So how do we know that Father Bruce is going
Speaker 1: to help us with us? Well, he's probably not. So
Speaker 1: now we're gonna have to ex out Father Bruce because
Speaker 1: we've decided he's not Orthodox. We're gonna have to go
Speaker 1: over here to Bishop Williamson in the SSPX, who's over
Speaker 1: here with his rival group. Maybe Bishop Williamson can help
Speaker 1: us out because he's faithful to tradition and he's not
Speaker 1: afraid to talk about conspiracy subjects. So now we're going
Speaker 1: to ex out Father Bruth and we're going to go
Speaker 1: over here to Bishop Williamson. And Bishop Williamson is going
Speaker 1: to help us interpret this, and he tells us don't
Speaker 1: worry about any of this because this is not faithful
Speaker 1: to tradition. Now wait a minute. You see what we've
Speaker 1: done here is just a vicious, nonsense gobbledegook circle of
Speaker 1: trying to figure out the very thing that this was
Speaker 1: supposed to solve for us. But it doesn't, does it.
Speaker 1: And Vatican two makes that abundantly clear that you are
Speaker 1: in no better spot than the person that you make
Speaker 1: fun of as Orthodox. Yeah, you don't have a pope,
Speaker 1: you don't have a way to determine what the infallible
Speaker 1: dog is. Have you actually been in Rome for any
Speaker 1: number of years neither do you. So that's how Rome
Speaker 1: Catholicism really works, and that's why Orthodoxy says it's a scam.
Speaker 1: It's a big heresy, and it doesn't solve for you
Speaker 1: the problems that it pretends to solve, and it doesn't
Speaker 1: grant the unity that it pretends to grant. I can
Speaker 1: go to a Novus Orto chapel that is in full
Speaker 1: communion with Rome, that has never been excommunicated or rebuked,
Speaker 1: that will teach me freemasonry is good, that will teach
Speaker 1: against Roman Catholic classic doctrines. They'll have a liturgy that's
Speaker 1: worse than an Anglican liturgy. They'll have Zen meditation services,
Speaker 1: and that's perfectly okay. And then I can go across
Speaker 1: the street to a Fraternal Society of Saint Peter Church,
Speaker 1: which is supposed to be the same faith, also in
Speaker 1: communion with Rome, that has a completely different liturgy in Ethos,
Speaker 1: to Zen Buddhist Novasorto Church. And then I can go
Speaker 1: down the road to the set of a contiest chapel
Speaker 1: that says that the other two are complete lunatic heretics. Now,
Speaker 1: who's right out of all these? And guess what you
Speaker 1: can't just say the pope. The pope decides. Now, does
Speaker 1: that mean that we're in Protestant land. No, because when
Speaker 1: you read the church in its first thousand years, when
Speaker 1: they had all the same problems that we have today,
Speaker 1: what do they do do? They just say, hey, Bishop
Speaker 1: of Rome, what do we do? And then the Bishop
Speaker 1: of Rome just basically said do this, do that, do that,
Speaker 1: do that, that that, and then everybody was happy. No,
Speaker 1: they called councils. Did the Bishop of Rome convoke the
Speaker 1: Ecumenical council? No, he did not. The emperor is called
Speaker 1: the ecumenical councils. The emperors called every one of the
Speaker 1: argumenical councils, not the Bishop of Rome. Now, anyway, we're
Speaker 1: not here to talk Rome here today, but we're trying
Speaker 1: to illustrate a point here about the problem of both
Speaker 1: Protestant and Roman Catholic anthropology and epistemology. Now, what's the answer, Well,
Speaker 1: specifically on knowing God in Orthodox theology, the key here
Speaker 1: is that we don't set up dialectics. Okay, so how
Speaker 1: is it is a Christian going to know God or
Speaker 1: no truth? Well, first of all, that can't be divorced
Speaker 1: from the action of the Holy Spirit, right, So in
Speaker 1: that regard, a Protestant would say something like the Holy
Speaker 1: Spirit has to enlighten a person to know God, and
Speaker 1: we would agree. So in that regard we sound like
Speaker 1: we wel might agree with a Protestant, but we're not Protestants.
Speaker 1: Why well, because we know that in the history of
Speaker 1: the Church there are synods and councils that have been
Speaker 1: set up by God to ferret out truth from falsehood,
Speaker 1: to excommunicate people, and so forth. So there we start
Speaker 1: to sound like we're Catholics, right, but we're not. We're
Speaker 1: not either one because we believe the historical formation of
Speaker 1: the Church was always sinodal and that Christ set it
Speaker 1: up that way. And the reason that we don't need
Speaker 1: the super bishop is because Christ directly is the super
Speaker 1: bishop of his church. He doesn't need a vicar on
Speaker 1: earth with a giant palace and a bunch of castrated
Speaker 1: boys singing gay songs to him, which is quite literally
Speaker 1: what the Renaissance popes did, especially when there are three
Speaker 1: of them, two antipopes and one supposedly valid pope, living
Speaker 1: in giant French palaces castrating boys to sing pretty songs
Speaker 1: to them. No who in the right mind could think
Speaker 1: that that is the legiti, I'm a succession of the Apostles.
Speaker 1: That is preposterous. It's it's what the f dude, And
Speaker 1: yes they did that. So, by the way, the abuse
Speaker 1: probably wasn't just in this twentieth cent the twentieth century,
Speaker 1: was it? If they were castrating little boys to sing
Speaker 1: pretty pretty little girl songs to them, something tells me
Speaker 1: those Medici, you know, Borgia characters were pretty degenerate. I
Speaker 1: don't know how Christ in their minds could have anything
Speaker 1: to do with that nonsense. But if you're a Roman Catholic, oh,
Speaker 1: I was way. It was so way it was, and
Speaker 1: that's you know, the pope is the The pope is
Speaker 1: the the bridge between heaven and Earth. And as Unum
Speaker 1: Sanctum calls him like, it's almost like he's like another
Speaker 1: He's like a bridge between the Trinity and man. It's
Speaker 1: the pope utterly blasphemous stuff. So this is why we
Speaker 1: what you have to see is that the doctrine of
Speaker 1: the papacy evolves, and even the Roman Catholics admit it evolved.
Speaker 1: This is why Cardinal Newman had to write a whole
Speaker 1: treatise defending the evolution of doctrine to explain how the
Speaker 1: early Church didn't believe in the Vatican One definitions of
Speaker 1: the papacy. Well, because doctrine evolved to that, that's preposterous,
Speaker 1: doesn't evolve, and only Orthodoxy strives to adhere to the
Speaker 1: ecumenical formation of the Church. Now you say, but there
Speaker 1: haven't been ecumenical councils for Orthodoxy. Correct, There doesn't have
Speaker 1: to be. There's no promise of Christ that there will
Speaker 1: be an ecumenical council every century. There were no ecumenical
Speaker 1: councils for the first three hundred years of the church,
Speaker 1: and Orthodoxy does hold to binding doctrinal councils after the
Speaker 1: Eighth Council, and yes, there are eight ecumenical councils if
Speaker 1: you're Orthodox. Ecumenical only pertained to the Empire, and once
Speaker 1: the Empire was gone, there weren't ecumenical councils. There were
Speaker 1: still binding councils, and every Orthodox person still has to
Speaker 1: follow binding medieval councils. Now you say, how do you
Speaker 1: know which ones are true? Well, that's why there's no
Speaker 1: simple answer to anybody's position about how you know what's
Speaker 1: true and what's false. First of all, the Church we
Speaker 1: know from Christ's words will always be guided into the truth,
Speaker 1: and we won't be let into error when it comes
Speaker 1: to major doctrinal issues. Right. That relies on understanding the scriptures.
Speaker 1: My understanding the scriptures relies on the testimony the Church.
Speaker 1: Me understanding the testimony to the Church, and the scriptures relies
Speaker 1: on my having the spirit hopefully right. And so, in
Speaker 1: other words, there is no classical foundationalists public juridical thing
Speaker 1: that you can set up that is the public proof
Speaker 1: of truth, because truth can't be had by mere empiricism.
Speaker 1: It's not a merely empirical thing. It also requires the spirit,
Speaker 1: and the spirit's only had in the Church. So, in
Speaker 1: other words, there's not an easy answer to that question.
Speaker 1: And it's also not answerable on the phony answers of
Speaker 1: Protestantism and Romanism. Now Protonism and Romanism, if you remember
Speaker 1: earlier we talked about them having Here's how we're going
Speaker 1: to answer the question for you. By the way, the
Speaker 1: answer is direct knowledge of God. That's how. Now you said, now,
Speaker 1: wait a minute, if you believe that you can know
Speaker 1: God directly, now you're starting to sound like a Protestant. Again,
Speaker 1: what do we always talk about avoiding in Orthodoxy dialectics? Right,
Speaker 1: So this is key to understand here, and this is
Speaker 1: what all the Protestants and Roman Catholics don't understand, is
Speaker 1: that you don't need any dialectics. You want to throw
Speaker 1: them all out because you don't want to set the
Speaker 1: one against the many. This is what Protestants do. Roman
Speaker 1: Catholics do it by setting the pope over the church.
Speaker 1: They don't have a harmony of equality in the church.
Speaker 1: They don't have every bishop having essentially the same power
Speaker 1: and function of the rest of the apostles. No, they
Speaker 1: think that Peter is somehow some galactic emperor. Did Peter
Speaker 1: act like a galactic emperor in the New Testament? Did
Speaker 1: he have a giant palace in France with castrated boys
Speaker 1: under him and zillions of dollars? No? No, that's not
Speaker 1: how the church operated. The church is not to be
Speaker 1: set against scripture. Scripture is not to be set against
Speaker 1: the church. That would be a dialectic. The individual believer
Speaker 1: is not set against the rest of the church. The
Speaker 1: rest of the church is not swallowing up the believer. So,
Speaker 1: in other words, the direct knowledge of God that we
Speaker 1: read about in so many Orthodox fathers. The direct experience
Speaker 1: of God via the noos and knowing God is not
Speaker 1: set against church or tradition or community, the community of
Speaker 1: the church, and it's not set against the scriptures. It's
Speaker 1: not a dialectical either war. It all works in harmony.
Speaker 1: The direct knowledge of you that you have of God
Speaker 1: comes through your direct knowledge of God, or it comes
Speaker 1: through the scriptures. Right. We experience these things in all
Speaker 1: of these ways. So in this this is why many
Speaker 1: people speak of Orthodoxy as experiential as existential. That's not
Speaker 1: to equate it with the lunacy of modern existentialist philosophy,
Speaker 1: but rather to say that there really is no external proof,
Speaker 1: just in the same way as in apologetics. We can't
Speaker 1: set up some external earthworm proof that's going to convince
Speaker 1: all the unbelievers of creation, because it's a system wide thing, right,
Speaker 1: and it's all it all kind of coheres together, So
Speaker 1: you can't like take one thing out of it and
Speaker 1: set it up over here and say, look at I'll
Speaker 1: just prove to you the Bible. And if I can
Speaker 1: just prove to you the Bible, then you're gonna then
Speaker 1: you're gonna believe the Bible can't be divorced from the Church. Right.
Speaker 1: The Bible can't be divorced from tradition, the Bible can't
Speaker 1: be divorced from liturgy. None of these things can be
Speaker 1: divorced or taken out of the context of the rest
Speaker 1: of them. And you can't divorce the church from the
Speaker 1: historical experience of the Church. You see, So there's no mental,
Speaker 1: calvinistic spiritual church. That's not the historic church. Okay, there's
Speaker 1: no invisible mystical spiritual church that's not the actual visible
Speaker 1: church of history. All of God's covenants and history were
Speaker 1: visible bodies of people. There's no invisible church. There's only
Speaker 1: one church. That's why Jesus says there's one shepherd and
Speaker 1: one flock. Anyway, so I went way off on that question,
Speaker 1: but hopefully that answers your question there. The answer is
Speaker 1: that Protestants don't know the faith from sola scriptura or
Speaker 1: analogia fide any better than Catholics and their magisterium. Those
Speaker 1: both of those just moved the problem back of stuff, because,
Speaker 1: as we saw in the Protestant tradition, the noetic effects
Speaker 1: of sin have so damaged you that you really can't
Speaker 1: interpret scripture at all properly because you never escape the
Speaker 1: noetic effects of sin. In classical Protestantism, you are always
Speaker 1: under the noetic effects of sin, and they are always
Speaker 1: it's always skewing your interpretition. So you can never have
Speaker 1: infallible certitude about any of the doctrines. So, how, by
Speaker 1: the way, does any Protestant argue for the transcendental argument?
Speaker 1: How does he argue that God's existence is certain when
Speaker 1: he also confesses the noetic effects of sin? Exactly? Yeah,
Speaker 1: so much for certitude and consistency there. Now, what is
Speaker 1: missing in all of these views, Well, both Roman Catholicism
Speaker 1: and Protestantism long ago dumped the doctrine of the news.
Speaker 1: Only orthodoxeology holds to the essence energy distinction, and only
Speaker 1: orthodoxology holds to proper Christology, And only orthodoxeology holds to
Speaker 1: the news. The doctrine of the news is the faculty
Speaker 1: that man has for knowing God directly. It is the
Speaker 1: eye of the soul, It is the eye of the heart.
Speaker 1: Right the church, fathers and elders and many spiritual writers
Speaker 1: will speak of it in different ways, but they're essentially
Speaker 1: speaking of the same thing. And the news is not
Speaker 1: the same thing as intellect. It's not the same thing
Speaker 1: as ratiocination. Merely rationalizing things are merely having a psyche,
Speaker 1: the soul and the heart functioning in unison with repentance
Speaker 1: and turning to God is what cleanses the news to
Speaker 1: see the world correctly. So man cannot properly interpret his
Speaker 1: world without repentance. Now, this is why you might say, well,
Speaker 1: annoying it, you sound like a Protestant. No, no, we're not
Speaker 1: Protestants because we do not believe in total depravity. We
Speaker 1: do not believe in any of the Protestant doctrines, and
Speaker 1: so we do believe that grace raises man's nature. Oh no,
Speaker 1: wait of it. Now you sound like a Roman Catholic.
Speaker 1: Now we don't. We're not Roman Catholics because we don't
Speaker 1: believe in natural theology. Right, if you read Father's stun
Speaker 1: Eloys book, you will see the first chapter rebukes natural
Speaker 1: theology and critiques Tomism. So we are neither Protestant nor Catholic.
Speaker 1: We have a different view on all of these things,
Speaker 1: and they have different views on all these things. Now,
Speaker 1: the News, as we said, requires a ceasis ascetic practice
Speaker 1: to control the passion, so that the passions don't cloud
Speaker 1: or nows the fall clouded the news, and the news
Speaker 1: is not what Plato talked about. That's something different. We
Speaker 1: just simply believe that when Paul says, and this is
Speaker 1: what Saint Gregory Palamos when he quotes Paul, that man's
Speaker 1: faculties are body, soul, and spirit. That's noos. Man's spirit
Speaker 1: is his noos. Not exactly the same thing as the
Speaker 1: Holy Spirit. Obviously, because we participate in the energy of
Speaker 1: the Holy Spirit, we are not merged with the person
Speaker 1: of the Holy Spirit. That would be heretical. So what
Speaker 1: I'm getting at is that we don't believe in analogia
Speaker 1: fe day, and we don't believe in analogia, neither the
Speaker 1: Protestant nor the Catholic view of knowing God and knowing
Speaker 1: the world and knowing the scriptures. We believe in the
Speaker 1: power of the news. And you will find at Orthodox
Speaker 1: Info good site. There are multiple essays there on the news.
Speaker 1: Let's see if this is the one I'm looking for here. Yeah, well,
Speaker 1: there's one at Ortho Christian by Father Whitford that's pretty good.
Speaker 1: But this is this is important because this is a
Speaker 1: different anthropology, you see, and it is nowhere in Rome
Speaker 1: and is nowhere in Protestanism. So again I'm stressing the
Speaker 1: fact that we have unique different approaches to anthropology, which
Speaker 1: condition why we believe what we do about man and
Speaker 1: man understanding the world and understanding God. So the point
Speaker 1: is that it's neither Protestant nor Catholic, and we don't
Speaker 1: believe in analogia entus or analogia fide. Both positions are
Speaker 1: problematic and essentially corruptions. And the reason that the West
Speaker 1: went with that was because of Augustine. Augustine has essentially
Speaker 1: a dual view of man body and soul, or soul
Speaker 1: essentially becomes equated with intellect. To my knowledge, he does
Speaker 1: not at all teach news that man has a news,
Speaker 1: and that's because he was very influenced by this sort
Speaker 1: of dualistic anthropology of Platanism, the body and soul, right,
Speaker 1: the soul is always fighting against the body, this kind
Speaker 1: of a thing. So anyway, so that's why we don't
Speaker 1: We can't believe in either. So it wouldn't make sense
Speaker 1: to talk about solo scriptura because number one, God is
Speaker 1: not equated with the text Jesus says you follow the
Speaker 1: scriptures because you think that in them you have salvation.
Speaker 1: What it is then that testify of me? Right? The
Speaker 1: scriptures are a letter, They're a text, They're not a person.
Speaker 1: They testify to the relationship that you should have with
Speaker 1: the divine person. That does not mean that they have
Speaker 1: errors to go against the modernists here. All right, let's
Speaker 1: move on to the next question here, Damon Paffen Wrath,
Speaker 1: my grandfather isn't a weird Armstrong at church? He argues
Speaker 1: for worship on Saturday. Yeah, I'm familiar with the garner
Speaker 1: Ted Armstrong cult Worldwide Church of God. They believe they're
Speaker 1: one of the preachers of British Israelite theory. This is
Speaker 1: all just really goofy stuff, and anybody who has any
Speaker 1: knowledge of church history would avoid that nonsense. And in fact,
Speaker 1: I think very recently though they were converted. I think
Speaker 1: James White supposedly converted or helped convert the Armstrong Church
Speaker 1: to his version of the Trinity, which is funny, it's
Speaker 1: not worthodox at all, but it's ironic that I think
Speaker 1: James White claims or he claimed that many years ago,
Speaker 1: ten years ago, so, that he converted the Armstrong Ends
Speaker 1: to because they used to be anti Trinitarian or something
Speaker 1: to that effect. But the reason that we do worship
Speaker 1: on Sunday is because when Jesus resurrected is called the
Speaker 1: Lord's Day, and it's called the first day of the week.
Speaker 1: And in the Book of Acts, the church gathers together
Speaker 1: to break bread, which we believe is the Eucharist. It's
Speaker 1: not just eating cracker snacks. It's not just eating crackers
Speaker 1: and drinking Welch's grape juice like Baptists think. It's actually
Speaker 1: the Eucharist. So that's why we meet on Sunday, and
Speaker 1: it shows the supersession of the Mosaic administration. By the way,
Speaker 1: the Orthodox Church, though, does still reverence the Seventh Day Sabbath.
Speaker 1: We do still in the liturgy. There is still reverence
Speaker 1: and honor on every Saturday, because there's a liturgy every Saturday.
Speaker 1: Best way, there is still reverence paid to the Sabbath.
Speaker 1: So we technically speaking, we actually don't completely reject the Sabbath.
Speaker 1: So anyway, but as for the Armstrong Church, I mean,
Speaker 1: I'm sure you could find plenty of instances of online
Speaker 1: stuff refuting the rest of their gifty nonsense. I mean,
Speaker 1: it's just a cult started by some businessman. Any church
Speaker 1: started by some businessman, come on, that's come on, there's
Speaker 1: no businessman church. That's the true church. I'm gonna start
Speaker 1: my Shawnees Church. I'm gonna start up Shawnee's big boy Church.
Speaker 1: I'm gonna start up. Actually, all all the Protestants they
Speaker 1: look like businessmen. So I guess technically every Protestant church
Speaker 1: is businessman church, isn't it? And they act they act
Speaker 1: like businesses. Right, it is like a business So I
Speaker 1: should I'm wrong there. Actually most churches are businessman churches exactly.
Speaker 1: What's that one goofball? Businessman church isn't funny? How that?
Speaker 1: Like the Protestant churches evolved from Luther and Calvin. And
Speaker 1: let's look at what do we get in the Protestant world. Now, yeah,
Speaker 1: you get like female trans bishop, you know what I mean?
Speaker 1: So I guess I should say the megachurch. Megachurch pastors
Speaker 1: are like businessman pastor. Come to business church.
Speaker 3: We will teach you the techniques of time saving and
Speaker 3: learn learn time share, learn how to sell your time
Speaker 3: share at business church.
Speaker 1: Anyway, cracking up over here at business church. But that's
Speaker 1: what Protestants is just business church, businessman church and Garner
Speaker 1: Ted Armstrong that was like, he's just like some business
Speaker 1: dude starting a racket. Dude. Thank you Anthony Cavolo for
Speaker 1: ten bucks. Eric, what does the Orthodox take on near
Speaker 1: death experiences? Uh? Well, Father Rose has a book on it.
Speaker 1: I'm not saying that endorse every story and Father serafrom
Speaker 1: roses Soul after Death book, but that is the first
Speaker 1: one that comes to mind. There's some kind of weird
Speaker 1: stories in there which nobody has to believe every story
Speaker 1: in a book like that. But Eric, I would say,
Speaker 1: read The Soul after Death by Father Rose Hans Lah
Speaker 1: five dollars seriously. Looking at Orthodoxy, do they consider mary sinless? Well,
Speaker 1: there's some debate actually in the history of Orthodoxy about
Speaker 1: this question, and there's not really a simple answer to it,
Speaker 1: because we don't view sin in the same way that
Speaker 1: Roman Catholic or Protests do. By the way, so for example,
Speaker 1: in Protestant tradition, humanity after the Fall basically takes on
Speaker 1: a sin nature, which ninety five percent of Protestantism actually
Speaker 1: confuses into like Manicheanism, where they think that human nature
Speaker 1: itself has somehow become inherently evil. That is Manicheanism. There's
Speaker 1: nothing that God creates that actually possesses evil. So evil
Speaker 1: isn't part of human nature or inherent to human nature.
Speaker 1: Evil is, as the Church fathers say, only the move
Speaker 1: of the will away from the good. That's it. So
Speaker 1: we do inherit something. We do pass on something which
Speaker 1: is in the Orthodox tradition called ancestral sin from Adam.
Speaker 1: But it's not a thing that immediately puts us under
Speaker 1: the hell fire status that most of the Church believes.
Speaker 1: And this is why the Eastern Fathers consistently don't teach this.
Speaker 1: Now that's a little abtuse, but if you read the
Speaker 1: Orthdox Study Bible page on ancestral sin, it's a very
Speaker 1: good explanation of that. So I would recommend that in
Speaker 1: the Orthodox Study Bible. But there's different debates, and there
Speaker 1: were debates in late Middle Ages between the East and
Speaker 1: the West over Mary and Mary status. And so sometimes
Speaker 1: if you had fathers that were more influenced by Western theology,
Speaker 1: and if they use the term original sin in a
Speaker 1: more Augustinian sense, it just depends on what you mean
Speaker 1: by these terms. Right, It's not like the terms are
Speaker 1: inherently bad, but for example, we do believe that Semipalagianism
Speaker 1: is wrong. It's actually condemned the councils of the Orange.
Speaker 1: The sinods of Orange are reaffirmed in the Ecumenical councils.
Speaker 1: So so no, we don't believe that in the sense
Speaker 1: that Mary somehow had to be immaculately conceived for Jesus
Speaker 1: to be who Jesus is. But there have been certain
Speaker 1: Orthodox theologians who have believed that God preserved Eve from
Speaker 1: the taint of ancestral or original sin. And it's a
Speaker 1: very difficult debate at times. But if we think about
Speaker 1: the fact that there is a seminal transmission an aspect
Speaker 1: to original sin, that is there hence the virgin births right,
Speaker 1: and we when we understand that Jesus this is a
Speaker 1: very difficult doctrine that actually I was corrected on a
Speaker 1: couple of years ago because I was mistaken on this.
Speaker 1: But Jesus did not take on fallen human nature. And
Speaker 1: that's not because of a sin nature, but it's because,
Speaker 1: as Saint John Damascus and other Church Fathers teach, he
Speaker 1: actually assumed the humanity of Adams as it was in Eden.
Speaker 1: So Jesus's humanity is not fallen. And that's why Saint
Speaker 1: Maximus teaches that Jesus did not possess a nomic will,
Speaker 1: that is, he did not possess a discursive will of Oh,
Speaker 1: I don't know what I should do today. Maybe I
Speaker 1: should do this, maybe I should do that. And you
Speaker 1: can read Saint Maximus on why Jesus did not have
Speaker 1: a nomic will, and that's because he wasn't fallen. Now
Speaker 1: he did, however, will undergo death. But that's not because
Speaker 1: he was a son of Adam in the sense of
Speaker 1: this a corruptible nature. He was not corruptible. His flesh
Speaker 1: was incorruptible. So what I will say on the Mother
Speaker 1: of God is to read Saint Gregory Palamas's Little book,
Speaker 1: Married the Mother of God. So that's the answer to
Speaker 1: that for you. But we don't have this is not
Speaker 1: the space to really go into the into depth on
Speaker 1: the difference between ancestral sin and original sin. So what
Speaker 1: she sinless, Well, she could be preserved from sin by
Speaker 1: God's grace because of it being like Eden, right, and
Speaker 1: there's nothing preventing grace from doing that. And that would
Speaker 1: not mean that she wasn't saved. It would mean that
Speaker 1: she was saved. She wouldn't just saved from following, she
Speaker 1: was saved throughout her whole life. And again this has
Speaker 1: been debated. Just read read Saint Gregory on it. Please
Speaker 1: post YouTube videos on your website and make NB three
Speaker 1: I do for everything, so thank you, Nigel, Nigel. But
Speaker 1: every YouTube video goes on the website, would you talk
Speaker 1: about Guruism and Orthodoxy and how to avoid it for example,
Speaker 1: Romanidies Disciples Bulgakov Disciples. Yeah, I mean there's you know,
Speaker 1: this is no there's no easy answer to anything like this,
Speaker 1: because any group that you're in, there's going to be
Speaker 1: Guruism and there's going to be weird, weird ideas, so
Speaker 1: there's going to be you know, I mean I have
Speaker 1: friends that like Bulgakov. I think that Lawsky is correct
Speaker 1: that Bulgakov is just basically bringing German idealism into Orthodoxy
Speaker 1: and we don't need that. We don't need German idealism.
Speaker 1: And he's also an ecumenist and was rebuked for being
Speaker 1: a humanist. I'm not going to go into the old
Speaker 1: calendar stuff that's used to divide people. That doesn't mean
Speaker 1: that they don't have a point about ecumenism. They do
Speaker 1: but the old calendars are all divided amongst themselves. Anyway,
Speaker 1: So Romanites read my giant essay about Romanites and they
Speaker 1: are cultic. One of my good friends, we're not really
Speaker 1: friends anymore because he is a cultic Romanites follower. And
Speaker 1: there's plenty of stuff in Romanites that's just ridiculous. Anyway,
Speaker 1: I don't know what to say. I mean, you know,
Speaker 1: the way to avoid it is to the more conscious
Speaker 1: you can be of the totality of the of the
Speaker 1: Church's tradition east and west, right. I mean, one of
Speaker 1: the things that really brought me out of the cult
Speaker 1: of roman Now, I was never in the Cult of Romanites,
Speaker 1: but was reading the Church Fathers and the fact that
Speaker 1: the Church Fathers talking about the logoy being archetypes and patterns,
Speaker 1: and that there is an analogia in Romanites, says there's not.
Speaker 1: So do I go with the common mind of countless
Speaker 1: Church Fathers or the weird ideas of Romanites himself. But
Speaker 1: so many people don't read the Church Fathers. They just
Speaker 1: read one guy, just read Romanites. Here's my guy, right,
Speaker 1: I'll just follow him for the next ten years. So
Speaker 1: the best way to do that is to not get
Speaker 1: stuck reading one guy, Timothy Rainfield five dollars, what is
Speaker 1: your refutation of soul scripture and solo feede. Well, we
Speaker 1: cover that in the first hour. So the refutation is that,
Speaker 1: first of all, sol scriptura is not biblical. You cannot
Speaker 1: find a list of the books of the Bible, and
Speaker 1: the Bible and the history of the formation of the Canon,
Speaker 1: even from all the Protestant scholars liberal to conservative, confirms
Speaker 1: the fact that the Church created the Canon, it put
Speaker 1: it together. And if you want to believe in sol scripture,
Speaker 1: it logically follows that the decision of the books that
Speaker 1: went into the Canon are also infallible. That leads to
Speaker 1: the infallibility of the Church. So lafide, Well, this is
Speaker 1: a little bit of a more involved question which will
Speaker 1: probably be in the talk for subscribers. So we're already
Speaker 1: going on two hours here and this is also going
Speaker 1: to be a half and half, so subscribers to Jay's
Speaker 1: analysis will get the full talk on this. So I'll
Speaker 1: answer sola fide in depth probably by tomorrow in the
Speaker 1: subscribers talk, but we went into a little bit of
Speaker 1: it earlier, but I'll go into more detail with how
Speaker 1: all of the covenants in scripture always have covenant requirements.
Speaker 1: And when Abraham, for example, was required in the Covenant
Speaker 1: to follow God and to be moral, you can't. We
Speaker 1: don't set that over against the fact that he was
Speaker 1: saved by grace. Okay. So in other words, grace and
Speaker 1: works are not antithetical when you understand that grace can
Speaker 1: move or impel or not impel. That's not the word
Speaker 1: grace can can bring about good works? How's that? And
Speaker 1: this is actually actually Augustine has insights on this when
Speaker 1: he's writing against the Donatis and against the Palladians. He
Speaker 1: does have insights on this, which is fine because actually,
Speaker 1: as we said, the Synative Orange, which is ratified by
Speaker 1: later ecumenical councils Orange one and Orange two, condemned semi Pelagianism.
Speaker 1: So Orthodoxy has to also condemn semi Plagianism. Anyway, I
Speaker 1: will go into that as I said, solofide as not
Speaker 1: being sensical in the Reformation sense, the prison sense when
Speaker 1: we get to the second hour. Another point too about
Speaker 1: solo fide is that it rests on Asaurianism, and the
Speaker 1: way it rests on Assorianism is that you have this
Speaker 1: penal de claration in Protestant and Calvinist theology, where this
Speaker 1: is the classic reformers, they all teach this. Now modern
Speaker 1: some of the modern Protestants and Calvinists and so forth
Speaker 1: might shy away from this because it's obviously retarded and blasphemous,
Speaker 1: but the older ones do and they teach the luther
Speaker 1: even teaches us calvin that the Father damned the son
Speaker 1: as the payment right, so we owe God an infinite
Speaker 1: payment of hell, and so God damned the son to
Speaker 1: pay for the debt or whatever. That either requires that
Speaker 1: Jesus be a human person who got damned, which is
Speaker 1: an Astorianism, or the Father damned the son, which splits
Speaker 1: the trinity. So that is the chief most blasphemous, wicked
Speaker 1: doctrine of all Calvinism and Protestantism is the splitting of
Speaker 1: the trinity in the idea, the stupid idea of the
Speaker 1: Father damning the son. And that is absolutely historic Protestant theology.
Speaker 1: It's a historic Lutheran and Calvinist theology. It's the it's
Speaker 1: taught by Charles Hodge, just taught by the Puritans. Yeah,
Speaker 1: the Father didn't damn the son. It's completely stupid and
Speaker 1: the only way you could come to that conclusion is
Speaker 1: if you have a historian Jesus, a Jesus who could
Speaker 1: be damned while the son of God remains in the Godhead.
Speaker 1: That's an Astorianism. To a Jesus who's the son of
Speaker 1: God and then a human Jesus who's damned. That's I mean,
Speaker 1: come on, Anybody who knows what Nestorianism is and knows
Speaker 1: that it's condemned and why it's condemned is because it
Speaker 1: leads back to Arianism, knows that this is retarded. And
Speaker 1: yet how many of the classical reformers teach this stupid doctrine.
Speaker 1: Let's see Troy Sampson two dollars, Thank you, Troy Sampson again,
Speaker 1: ten dollars. What's the difference between Oriental and East Orthodoxy. Well,
Speaker 1: Oriental Orthodoxy be two different branches. You could be the
Speaker 1: Nestorian Syrian Church which still maintains a Nestorianism which I
Speaker 1: just talked about in Syria, which they do still exist.
Speaker 1: Or it could be the Orthodox so called who are
Speaker 1: Monophysite or Monothelite right, Coptic Church of Egypt or Egyptian
Speaker 1: Tawahido Church right or excuse me not Egyptian. The I
Speaker 1: just went blank. Who's the Tewahido? You know what I'm
Speaker 1: talking about? Anyway, they are not with us because they
Speaker 1: essentially followed Ay. There were two ways to read the
Speaker 1: Council of Chalcidon. One way was the Kirillian way and
Speaker 1: the other way was in a Nestorian way. So what
Speaker 1: happened was the tragedy was that after the Council of Calcidon,
Speaker 1: in the West, by the way, still kind of did this.
Speaker 1: They will the West will erroneously at times view the
Speaker 1: incarnation as an addition formula. So they'll view it like
Speaker 1: like who is who is Jesus after the incarnation? And
Speaker 1: this is why this is the problem's too. This is
Speaker 1: why there were later councils is because there's two different
Speaker 1: ways to read the tone of Pope Leo at the council.
Speaker 1: So there's this is the wrong way to do it,
Speaker 1: which many, many, many Western and Protestants read it this way,
Speaker 1: and this is Jesus is basically an addition formula, and
Speaker 1: they'll read it like this. They'll read it like Pope
Speaker 1: Leo's ton teaches that Jesus is a human nature plus
Speaker 1: his divine nature and this equals divine person Jesus. Now,
Speaker 1: everybody who's Orthodox and who is familiar with Nestorianism knows
Speaker 1: that that is wrong. That is the wrong way to
Speaker 1: read pop Leo's tone. But many of the Monophysites did
Speaker 1: read it this way and they were correct. They're not correct,
Speaker 1: but I'm saying they were correct when they said, if
Speaker 1: that's what Leo means, this is wrong because this is
Speaker 1: not right. Jesus is not the product of some addition
Speaker 1: formula to give us a divine person Jesus. Right, that's
Speaker 1: not right because it's not a divine nature that smushes
Speaker 1: with a human nature. Or the divine nature did not
Speaker 1: become incarnate, did it. No, it did not. It's a
Speaker 1: divine person from all eternity who assumes an impersonal human nature. Right.
Speaker 1: So this is the correct formula. This is the correct
Speaker 1: way to read it. Jesus is a divine person from
Speaker 1: all eternity, right, second person of the Godhead, and he
Speaker 1: assumed an impersonal human nature. So this is why Saint
Speaker 1: Cyril was correct against Nestorias to say that the sole
Speaker 1: subject of all the actions of Christ. There's only one
Speaker 1: subject present for every action of Christ. Whether it's being crucified,
Speaker 1: whether it's walking on water, whether it's the breaking of
Speaker 1: the bread the loaves. The only person, the only person
Speaker 1: present is the divine person. That's why we're not in historians, right.
Speaker 1: So this is Saint Cyril's basic model here. So now
Speaker 1: one could read then the tone of Pope Leo at
Speaker 1: Councildon in either the Karellian way or in the addition
Speaker 1: formula way, which is dumb and Nestorian. So that's why
Speaker 1: there's later councils which came along to say, no, it's
Speaker 1: not we're not talking about an addition formula where a
Speaker 1: divine nature plus a human nature equals the Jesus, the
Speaker 1: divine Jesus. That's not that's not that's not right. So
Speaker 1: that's why they got mad. They said, that's what that
Speaker 1: council means. We don't want any of that. That's an historian.
Speaker 1: Leo is basically reaffirming Astorianism. So then we get the
Speaker 1: monofusus that Jesus essentially is one incarnate nature of this
Speaker 1: of there's one incarnate nature of the logos. And the
Speaker 1: preason for that is also because unfortunately Cyril did use
Speaker 1: that phrase, but he used that phrase when he was
Speaker 1: trying to stress what he talked about as in hypostatized.
Speaker 1: This is an important term in Eastern theology, okay, And
Speaker 1: what he means is that it's the same point he
Speaker 1: was making when he talked about Jesus as the sole
Speaker 1: subject of all of the actions of Christ being a
Speaker 1: divine person. There is no human person in Jesus at all.
Speaker 1: There's a fully human nature, but no human person, And
Speaker 1: we do that to guard the salvation as a whole.
Speaker 1: Everything hinges on this. Why, because the only person present
Speaker 1: for all of those actions is a divine person who's
Speaker 1: in hypostatized in a human nature. So, in other words,
Speaker 1: when Cyril says there's one incarnate nature, he's talking about
Speaker 1: the fact that when Jesus is walking around doing what
Speaker 1: he's doing, there's only one Jesus there. And any of
Speaker 1: the actions of God, the energies of God, whatever, they're
Speaker 1: all personal, they're all in hypostatized. In other words, there's
Speaker 1: no abstract divine nature. There's no abstracted Jesus. The only
Speaker 1: Jesus is the one who came in the mode of
Speaker 1: human nature. The sole subject of all the actions of
Speaker 1: Christ is one divine person, the eternal logos. And this
Speaker 1: is why we're not a Nestorian. This is why Jesus
Speaker 1: is not a human person. This is why he's an
Speaker 1: eternal person. He's the logos, he's divine. This is why
Speaker 1: there's no hippie Jesus, there's no buddy Jesus, because he
Speaker 1: is the pantocrater, the eternal Lord. Now he's fully human.
Speaker 1: He cries, he hungers, he experiences and has and possesses
Speaker 1: full humanity as a human soul. He has a human will,
Speaker 1: he has a human body, flesh right. But his humanity
Speaker 1: is human. I mean, excuse me. It's not fallen, it's incorruptible.
Speaker 1: It's essentially the new atom. So when we understand that,
Speaker 1: then we understand that any other scheme even and this
Speaker 1: is really bad. In the Protestants, they don't even know
Speaker 1: that they're a Nestorian because they don't know this whole debate.
Speaker 1: They don't realize that in order for their their redemption
Speaker 1: theory to be true, penal redemption theory, the penal atonement
Speaker 1: view of Protestantism, they need to have the father essentially
Speaker 1: condemn the son right. So if the father damns the
Speaker 1: son in the in the Crucifixion. How is this possible, Well,
Speaker 1: he either has to be a human person who gets
Speaker 1: damn and then we're back to the Nestorianism, or it's
Speaker 1: the father splitting the son and damning him and that
Speaker 1: the Trinity gets severed, which is completely retarded. So penal
Speaker 1: substitutionary atonement theory in the reformed classical Lutheran sense is
Speaker 1: utterly blasphemous and not true. So that's the That is
Speaker 1: the easiest way, by the way, through refute Protestantism. But
Speaker 1: most Protestants don't even they're not even they're not anywhere
Speaker 1: near this. They have no idea when you start talking
Speaker 1: about in hypostatized and they don't know what you're talking about.
Speaker 1: And this is in the theology of Saint Cyril, is
Speaker 1: called hindosis henotic theology. So I'm going to tell you
Speaker 1: the book for this, all right, So this is important
Speaker 1: for understanding Saint Cyril hinnosis henotic theology. And the best
Speaker 1: book for this is this book. Well, actually there's two,
Speaker 1: but John mcguckin's book is really good because, Yeah, when
Speaker 1: I became orthodox, I kind of struggle with this issue,
Speaker 1: or when I was first reading orthodox I should say, well,
Speaker 1: what about the Oriental ord. Maybe they're right. If you
Speaker 1: read mcguccan's book, Saint Cyril of Alexander and the Christological Controversy,
Speaker 1: it will settle this issue. There's also right here the
Speaker 1: Unity of Christ by Saint Cyril, and anybody who reads
Speaker 1: these will completely leave Protestanism. That alone is enough to
Speaker 1: annihilate all forms of Calvinism and Protestanism when you understand
Speaker 1: their penal substitution moment nonsense, because it's not trinitarian. You
Speaker 1: have to be anti trinitarian to be consistent with their
Speaker 1: penal substitution view of what happens to the Father and
Speaker 1: the Son and the crucifixion. It's just it's completely retarded. Also,
Speaker 1: you want to read Saint Maximus, his small work, his
Speaker 1: Dispute with Paris, because the Monophysite problem becomes the Monothelite problem.
Speaker 1: There's one will and energy in Christ. Right, well, maybe
Speaker 1: there's not one nature, but there's one will and energy
Speaker 1: in Christ the disputations with Puris. So what those two
Speaker 1: works will show you is the how it's based on dialectics.
Speaker 1: The Monothelites, like the Monophysites, had a dialectical theology, where
Speaker 1: they felt like human nature was essentially in natural tension
Speaker 1: with God and God's grace. And by the way, guess what,
Speaker 1: that's what Calvinists teach, right, So the Monothelites also taught
Speaker 1: that there was one energy in Christ, one energy in
Speaker 1: one will. Well, one energy in Christ means that in
Speaker 1: the incarnation, the divine energy, the divine nature, the divine power,
Speaker 1: overcomes and in a way supplants the human and that
Speaker 1: means that in salvation. Right, you can see how this
Speaker 1: leads to Calvinism, the divine energy, divine work supplants and
Speaker 1: basically replaces the human will and energy. Why because humans
Speaker 1: are so fallen that their natural state is always in
Speaker 1: perpetual tension with God. Total de pravity. Well no, the
Speaker 1: as Saint Maximus says, grace is completely natural to man.
Speaker 1: There's nothing more natural to man than grace. And that's
Speaker 1: because we don't believe in total pravity anyway, Thank you,
Speaker 1: Ron Park. Also, if Free Choice in Maximus Confessor is
Speaker 1: still available, it also highlights these but it has been
Speaker 1: It looks like there's a paperback for fifty bucks. Okay, yeah,
Speaker 1: so this was out of print forever and ever and ever.
Speaker 1: But it also now that's not it. It also makes
Speaker 1: the same points yeah by doctor Farrell back when he
Speaker 1: was Orthodox, free choice and maximous confessor also makes all
Speaker 1: these same points. So there is that and that that
Speaker 1: solves the issues with Oriental Orthodoxy and uh, Coptic stuff.
Speaker 1: By the way, Coptics are so goofous. Uh if you
Speaker 1: read Pope this is how dumb Coptic stuff is. Pope Shanalda,
Speaker 1: who is the I think I mentioned this on one
Speaker 1: of the other streams. Oh crap, I think I said,
Speaker 1: hold on, it's gonna take me a second to find it.
Speaker 1: He doesn't believe in deification. He thinks that he thinks
Speaker 1: dedification is a pagan So let's see. I think this
Speaker 1: is it. It sounds like a Baptist wrote this, like
Speaker 1: this is the degree of theology that you get in
Speaker 1: the I mean, these Coptic churches are. It's kind of sad. Actually,
Speaker 1: I shouldn't be, because they have cut themselves off for
Speaker 1: all these centuries and they basically just became a kind
Speaker 1: of a state church. I'm not saying that the church
Speaker 1: and state shouldn't have a relationship. I'm just saying, when
Speaker 1: you consider. All right, let me dig it up because
Speaker 1: this is important to see. All right, where did I
Speaker 1: say that to you? I'll see he's got an essay
Speaker 1: about against deification. Could you imagine this an Orthodox so
Speaker 1: called writer against deification? Oh? Here it is.
Speaker 4: Yeah, Uh, I guess I'll put the link here.
Speaker 1: This is how silly. Yeah, I'll put it in the
Speaker 1: in the description here. All right. He thinks deification literally
Speaker 1: is pagan like. It's almost like you're supposed to be
Speaker 1: the successor. You think you're the successor of Saint Athanasius,
Speaker 1: and you have a treatise that sounds like it was
Speaker 1: written by a landmark Baptist against deification. I mean it's
Speaker 1: like what so yeah, I mean there's little to nothing
Speaker 1: in these Coptic groups. And by the way, Ancient Faith
Speaker 1: and all those clowns, they act like Coptics are all Orthodox. No,
Speaker 1: I'm sorry, but somebody who argues against dedification is not Orthodox,
Speaker 1: so thought audit. I don't know what that is. I'm
Speaker 1: guessing it's a kind of a funny thing against thoughts.
Speaker 1: Karl Marx there, thank you, child of Grace five dollars.
Speaker 1: What happened to the Jerusalem Church? Do you mean the
Speaker 1: Patriarchate of Jerusalem or do you mean the church in
Speaker 1: Acts fifteen? So sorry, I'm not sure what Jerusalem Church
Speaker 1: you mean. Joline Kay, ten dollars. Thank you, Matthew Kitchen.
Speaker 1: Have a blessed liturgy tomorrow. Everyone. Thank you, Matthew. You two.
Speaker 1: David Daily own ten dollars. Any thoughts on Eastern Right Catholics,
Speaker 1: in particular the Melchite Catholic Church, Greek Caeloic Church that
Speaker 1: hold the first seven councils, Well, okay, well that doesn't
Speaker 1: make any sense because you can't be a Roman Catholic
Speaker 1: and only hold to seven councils as orthodoxy. This is
Speaker 1: why the stupidity of Eastern Rite Catholicism, because the Tridentine
Speaker 1: doctrines are binding on the entire church. You can't be
Speaker 1: a Melchite or Eastern Right Catholic and reject purgatory. You
Speaker 1: can't reject, you know, the definitions of Trent. They're binding
Speaker 1: on the entire church. That's the point of the papacy.
Speaker 1: So it's a position that is completely double minded and
Speaker 1: makes no sense. Two dollars Doorman three to sixty Galactic
Speaker 1: Emperor sound something from DBZ, Yeah, it does. I guess,
Speaker 1: so five dollars. Greetings from the Schofield Belt, that is
Speaker 1: the Bible belt. But the Schofield Bible Belt. I guess
Speaker 1: that's a good one, white top high speed drifter two dollars.
Speaker 1: Is Orthodox Faith tied to ethnicity? No, it's not, because
Speaker 1: the church is Catholic but is also ethnic. If you
Speaker 1: read the Canons of Chalcedon, you'll see its exact same way.
Speaker 1: They all meet together, and there are ethnic bishops talking
Speaker 1: about their respective ethnicities and metropolitans and groups and areas.
Speaker 1: But that does not mean that we identify the church
Speaker 1: with ethnicity, even though ethnicity is an important component of
Speaker 1: the church, just like gender. Gender is an important component
Speaker 1: in the church. It can't be wiped away or thrown away.
Speaker 1: But we also wouldn't identify the Church with gender. But
Speaker 1: the reason that the Orthodox faith has historically been tied
Speaker 1: to ethnicity is because the kings of various countries converted.
Speaker 1: If natural theology is bunk, how did an aristotol or
Speaker 1: reason to the uncaused cause? Well, the question here is
Speaker 1: what is the deity that he calls the uncaused caused?
Speaker 1: Did you have you looked at the fact that Aristotle
Speaker 1: caused the uncaused cause multiple gods in certain sections of
Speaker 1: his writings, and in other sections he calls it one God.
Speaker 1: So Aristotle's uncaused cause is thought thinking itself. God is
Speaker 1: not thought thinking itself. God is not the monad of Plato.
Speaker 1: God is not any of the stupid demonic doctrines of
Speaker 1: the Greek philosophers period. He's not any of them. So
Speaker 1: those arguments don't work, and they're not any good. Now
Speaker 1: is it true to say there's a first cause? Correct?
Speaker 1: There is, because I can, as an Orthodox person interpret
Speaker 1: that according to revelation, according to tradition, to scripture, as
Speaker 1: God is the first cause. Right, But who is that God? Well,
Speaker 1: if you're Orthodox, he has a believe it's the Trinity.
Speaker 1: None of these other groups believe it is. So I
Speaker 1: do not have common cause with a Muslim and a
Speaker 1: Jehovah's witness and a whatever other goofy sect in proving God,
Speaker 1: because we don't believe in the same God. So you
Speaker 1: can't have an apologetic argument on the side of a
Speaker 1: Jehovah's witness and a Muslim and an Orthodox person altogether
Speaker 1: arguing against an atheist, because it doesn't work because the
Speaker 1: arguments that you're trying to prove, you're trying to convert
Speaker 1: the atheists too, are not to generic theism, but to
Speaker 1: the theism of revelation. The god of Exodus three fourteen,
Speaker 1: who says I am that I am, is not the
Speaker 1: uncaused cause of Aristotle. So there you go. And if
Speaker 1: you read Saint Maximus, and if you read Father stan
Speaker 1: Eloy's book, you'll see why natural theology is not true.
Speaker 1: And natural theology leads to the atheism of Rome. That's
Speaker 1: why Rome is a perennial Vatican to ecumenicist organization because
Speaker 1: it's based on natural theology, which is which is faulty.
Speaker 1: So how did Aristotle reason to the uncaused cause? Well,
Speaker 1: because not everything the unbeliever says is false, right, Paul
Speaker 1: says in Romans one, everybody knows that there's a god.
Speaker 1: But hey, by the way, you may show here's the
Speaker 1: easiest way to show you natural theology is bunk. Hey,
Speaker 1: I believe in natural theology. There's one divine cause and
Speaker 1: he's Satan. Yeah. See, Can I join with a Satanist
Speaker 1: who believes that there's one cause for the universe? Of
Speaker 1: course not. So that's retarded, and any smart atheist will
Speaker 1: completely dissect natural theology and reasoning back to an uncaused
Speaker 1: cause to show how stupid it is, and they should.
Speaker 1: They should one more quick question. All wait, let's see
Speaker 1: slav k thank you for good stuff. Why are accumenists
Speaker 1: against proselytizing and less than enthusiastic about mission work because
Speaker 1: they're not Orthodox? Because you can't accept We should say
Speaker 1: too that there are different senses to ecumenism. So originally
Speaker 1: ecumenism meant ecumenical councils, right, the word ecumenism comes from
Speaker 1: acumenical councils. The acumenical councils were all called to reconcile
Speaker 1: the church right in terms of debates and disputes. Now,
Speaker 1: the ecumenists believe that the church is not one though,
Speaker 1: so they essentially err on the doctor of the Church,
Speaker 1: and they don't believe that there's historically one Orthodox church.
Speaker 1: That's why it doesn't work with Orthodoxy or any group
Speaker 1: that claims to be the true church. Now, original ecumenism,
Speaker 1: what they even call the Acumenism of return, is what
Speaker 1: the modern ecumenists have rejected. So there have been periods
Speaker 1: when Orthodox theologians went into ecumenism many decades ago, with
Speaker 1: the intent of the Ecumenism of Return, which was to
Speaker 1: convert people. And that's not wrong. That's what it's for.
Speaker 1: When I go on shows with atheists or with Roman
Speaker 1: Catholics and I engage in or an evangelical in a
Speaker 1: position of agreement and then we talk about other issues.
Speaker 1: I'm interested in the ecumenism of return. That's why I
Speaker 1: do apologetics. The ecumenists do not do apologetics because they
Speaker 1: don't believe in the ecumenism of return, and in fact
Speaker 1: it's a stumbling block. So the churches, like middle of
Speaker 1: the road type groups that will, on the one hand,
Speaker 1: will do apologetics and try to convert Protestants and people
Speaker 1: like that and atheists. Right, they're correct in that regard,
Speaker 1: but they also want to placate the ecumenists and not
Speaker 1: convert people. Now, many of the handbook of that, for example,
Speaker 1: the Greek Orthodox Archidiocese of America, it's handbooks says do
Speaker 1: not convert people. That is not true. You cannot tell
Speaker 1: people not to convert people. That is apostasy. So they're wrong.
Speaker 1: So the ecumenism of I'm okay, You're okay is different
Speaker 1: from the ecumenism of return, that is, convert become you must.
Speaker 1: So that's why they don't do mission work, is because
Speaker 1: they don't believe the gospel. Jesus says, go out and
Speaker 1: convert the nations, and they are essentially apostate. So it
Speaker 1: depends on which acumenism you mean. If you mean the
Speaker 1: ones that are against proselytizing, they're wrong, and the fact
Speaker 1: that they don't proselytize, and the entire church, entire history
Speaker 1: of the church is proselytizing. Church fathers debating with heretics
Speaker 1: to convert them proves them wrong their phonies. One more
Speaker 1: quick question is the shroud of turn legit. I don't don't.
Speaker 1: I don't follow that. I've never found that. Plus it's
Speaker 1: not so what if it was, like, what does that prove?
Speaker 1: I mean that kind of I'm not saying there aren't miracles,
Speaker 1: but you know, what does Jesus say. Jesus says, a
Speaker 1: wicked generation first after miracles, and no miracle will be
Speaker 1: given to it of getting feedback again here, So I
Speaker 1: don't pay attention to the shroud of Turin or any
Speaker 1: of that because it's not gonna. I mean, if you
Speaker 1: if you already believe and have faith, then you're going
Speaker 1: to interpret it as something vindicating Christianity. I don't know.
Speaker 1: I don't know. I'm not I'm not into the shroud
Speaker 1: of turn stuff. So could it be legit? I guess
Speaker 1: it could be, but I mean I don't. It's like
Speaker 1: with the people who argue to me, it just it
Speaker 1: just gives too much credence to bad argumentation because it's
Speaker 1: not a good apologetic argument because you're never going to
Speaker 1: get people to do DNA analysis on some blanket in
Speaker 1: a church in fr Answer or wherever it is. I mean,
Speaker 1: how is that gonna get That's not going to convince
Speaker 1: anybody anyway. But does that mean that I think it's
Speaker 1: not legit. I don't have any opinion on it. I've
Speaker 1: never really paid attention to it. Benjamincollins One pound advice
Speaker 1: on avoiding false information? False? What kind of false information?
Speaker 1: I mean, there's not really an easy answer to a
Speaker 1: really broad question. So it depends. I guess it depends
Speaker 1: on if you mean false theological information. You know, there's
Speaker 1: just not an easy example except to you know, trust
Speaker 1: God and seek the truth, and you know, Jesus says
Speaker 1: my sheep will hear my voice, and I know them,
Speaker 1: they know me, and they will be let into truth.
Speaker 1: So God is good and he's not going to lead
Speaker 1: you astray if you seek him out with all your heart.
Speaker 1: So when it comes to ferreting out trimp false information,
Speaker 1: I mean God gave us logic and reason for a reason,
Speaker 1: and you know, knowing basic logic, knowing basic facts about
Speaker 1: how to reason and argue, that's one of the things
Speaker 1: that we promote here. That's a big way to not
Speaker 1: be duped and to be able to sift through true
Speaker 1: and false information. Right, So logic is not antithetical to God.
Speaker 1: It's not an enemy of God. It's not That's is
Speaker 1: all modern pietistic nonsense that scientism promotes and that purveyors
Speaker 1: of Protestantism promote, or Pietism. They say that the faith
Speaker 1: is not logical, it's incoherent. Just take a leap again,
Speaker 1: How contrary is that to what we read in Saint
Speaker 1: John Damascus when he writes very lengthy philosophical and apologetic treatises.
Speaker 1: That's the tradition that we follow here. We're not interested
Speaker 1: in Pietism. So I would say just try to ground
Speaker 1: yourself in the church. Fathers. Try to ground yourself in scripture,
Speaker 1: read your Orthodox, study Bible every day, try to pray
Speaker 1: every day, go to the liturgy, and you will know.
Speaker 1: You will know when people are telling you false information.
Speaker 1: But now if you're talking about analyzing geopolitics or the
Speaker 1: news media, that's a little more you know, that takes
Speaker 1: a little more practice. You know, I've been doing that
Speaker 1: for a long time, so I can pretty well spot,
Speaker 1: you know, fake news, fake information, false reports, because I've
Speaker 1: studied psyops and I know how a lot of that
Speaker 1: stuff works. So it comes a little easier to me
Speaker 1: just because I'm I have a pretty good trained eye
Speaker 1: at spotting nonsense in the news or or propaganda. How
Speaker 1: to spot propaganda and spotting phonies in terms of you know,
Speaker 1: different organizations like you know, why won't you go on
Speaker 1: this or that show? Well, maybe I can spot phonies.
Speaker 1: That's why I'm not saying that everybody has told no
Speaker 1: to the phony. I'm just saying that I have a
Speaker 1: pretty good track record of people that I'm not associated
Speaker 1: with being phonies, so I make the decision who I
Speaker 1: want to associate with. So I would say you gotta
Speaker 1: do the same thing. Can just use basic common sense
Speaker 1: most of the time. It'll be fine again. God gave
Speaker 1: us common sense for reason. It's not antithetical to theology.
Speaker 1: Randy Churchill fifty dollars, Thank you. Randy. Did the term
Speaker 1: federal referring to Adam's headship as a term come to
Speaker 1: existence after Calvin? Is there a historical understanding of federal
Speaker 1: headship or is it just a way to refer to
Speaker 1: the juridical understanding of protest servation. That's a good question.
Speaker 1: I mean, I don't think the term federal itself would
Speaker 1: be necessarily excluded from patristic discourse. I mean, you know,
Speaker 1: the way athanacious and on the incarnation, the way he
Speaker 1: speaks of the role of Adam and the fall in
Speaker 1: Christ is there's nothing wrong with legal language. I mean,
Speaker 1: paul Us this legal legal language. It's just that we
Speaker 1: can't understand