Speaker 1: All right, so we have open for him if anybody
Speaker 1: would like to bring questions or Q and a father,
Speaker 1: Deacon and I and the other mods are here, So
Speaker 1: is anybody in the chat, any challengers, any questions, any topics,
Speaker 1: bring it forward.
Speaker 2: We're here.
Speaker 1: I even have my white boy white board right here,
Speaker 1: got my white board.
Speaker 2: Yeah.
Speaker 3: I had a quick question someone mentioning your last stream
Speaker 3: about God it being pure act in the incarnation, how that.
Speaker 4: It's an issue, it's problematic. And you said that.
Speaker 3: Something along the lines of how if he's always actualizing everything,
Speaker 3: and he's actualizing one hypostace, he's wise and he actualizing
Speaker 3: the other two?
Speaker 4: Right?
Speaker 3: So could a Roman Catholic counter that by saying that
Speaker 3: he can't actualize the other two because it's logically impossible.
Speaker 1: Now, the argument is not that he's actualizing other persons.
Speaker 1: The argument is that a being that is pure act
Speaker 1: has to have something other than himself or itself to actualize.
Speaker 1: That's what in Aristotle the word means. So Aristotle believes
Speaker 1: that the first cause is a first actualizer. He's pure energy,
Speaker 1: pure action, so there's always something other than himself. Now,
Speaker 1: the reason that we don't apply that argument necessarily you
Speaker 1: could make an argument about generating of the sun, right,
Speaker 1: because if God is pure act, then what is the
Speaker 1: distinction between generating and spirating? There would be a real
Speaker 1: distinction in the trinity, right.
Speaker 2: But this is just to speak of.
Speaker 1: God in essence, definitionally God via a substance as pure act.
Speaker 1: And the problem is that in Aristotelian philosophy, pure act
Speaker 1: means that he's eternally pure act. He's always pure act.
Speaker 1: To act means to actualize. He's not actualizing himself, so
Speaker 1: Aristotle said, he's always actualizing the other, something other than himself.
Speaker 1: So the argument is not about other persons. It could be,
Speaker 1: but it's not about that. It's about creation. Aristotle believes
Speaker 1: that there's an eternal prima materia prime matter, that the
Speaker 1: first actualizer is eternally actualizing.
Speaker 3: Does that make sense, yes, because if that's what he is,
Speaker 3: by definition, he is gonna necessity of actualizing something.
Speaker 2: From all eternity.
Speaker 4: Correct.
Speaker 1: Yeah, So there's never a time when he wasn't actualizing
Speaker 1: creation and then he changed to become the actualizer of creation.
Speaker 1: That would mean if that happened, that would mean he
Speaker 1: has potential and in Roman cality theology, in terms of
Speaker 1: especially termism, but generally speaking in Roman caality theology, God
Speaker 1: has absolutely no potentia, no active or passive potential in
Speaker 1: any sense at all period. That's why Basil says in
Speaker 1: hexham On two that Ariostotl's argument is stupid because if
Speaker 1: God is an eternal actualizer as a first principle, then
Speaker 1: he must have a second principle that.
Speaker 2: He always actualizes.
Speaker 1: So there's a necessary relationship between the actualizer and what
Speaker 1: he actualizes, between God and cretient creation that's an eternal creation.
Speaker 1: This is not my argument, it is Basil's argument.
Speaker 2: In hex summer On.
Speaker 1: Two, he says Aristotle is stupid because he has a diad.
Speaker 1: So that's why it's two persons is because the material
Speaker 1: world that the first actualizer is eternal actualizing, is itself
Speaker 1: another eternal principle. So Basil says, well, that's basically a
Speaker 1: two headed God.
Speaker 2: Does that make sense?
Speaker 4: Yeah, that makes sense.
Speaker 3: But I thought that the idea of him being pure
Speaker 3: act causes problems for the incarnation.
Speaker 1: I thought someone it does, because how does one hypostasis
Speaker 1: enter into a mode of being that the other two
Speaker 1: do not?
Speaker 3: Yeah, and that's where I was going to ask could
Speaker 3: counter that by saying that the other two can't enter
Speaker 3: into a motive, be because it's logically impossible or something.
Speaker 1: Why would it be logically impossible for the Father and
Speaker 1: the Spirit to do it but not the son. I mean,
Speaker 1: I don't understand how that's even a coherent argument. It
Speaker 1: just sounds like that. That sounds like an ad hoc rescue.
Speaker 1: The problem is with the doctrine of simplicity and then
Speaker 1: with the doctrine of pure act. They're defining God in
Speaker 1: essence as pure act. Same Aximus does not find define
Speaker 1: God in his essence as pure act. He defines God
Speaker 1: as pure act in contrast to creatures, but in essence
Speaker 1: we do not know what he is. So they collapse
Speaker 1: the two distinctions. They collapse economia into theology proper.
Speaker 2: Do you understand?
Speaker 4: Yes?
Speaker 1: And yes, you could take the look the pure act
Speaker 1: simplicity argument will apply to any level of distinctions in
Speaker 1: God if you wanted to, right, So, in other words,
Speaker 1: we could apply it to the distinction between generating aspirating.
Speaker 1: Is that a real distinction?
Speaker 2: Sure?
Speaker 1: Okay, then is it something that's in the essence? How
Speaker 1: is God pure act? If there's two different things going
Speaker 1: on in God?
Speaker 3: Right, and then their other doctrine of absolute device simplicity
Speaker 3: probably doesn't even allow for distinction.
Speaker 2: What do you mean there other doctrine?
Speaker 3: Well, if God is absolutely simple, how can you have
Speaker 3: distinctions with himself?
Speaker 2: Right? Right?
Speaker 1: So, in other words, modal collapse argument does point out
Speaker 1: problems in any attempt to make distinctions in God that
Speaker 1: are only virtual, nominal, or conceptual. Okay, the distinction between
Speaker 1: generating inspirating is not virtual, it's not nominal.
Speaker 2: It's not conceptual.
Speaker 1: It is, but it's it's you can conceptually distinguish because
Speaker 1: it really distinguished. This is the whole paper cat epinoia
Speaker 1: that Bradshaw has. So can we make a conceptual distinction
Speaker 1: between generating inspirating in our minds?
Speaker 2: Yes? How can we do that?
Speaker 1: Basil says, because it's a real distinction. What your mind
Speaker 1: is predicating is predicating on the basis of what's really distinct.
Speaker 1: Because there is a real distinction between generating inspirating, you
Speaker 1: can really distinguish those things in your mind. And some
Speaker 1: distinctions are purely conceptual. Right, The distinction between a bachelor
Speaker 1: and unmarried man is a conceptual distinction. There's not a
Speaker 1: real distinction and reality between those two things, right, but
Speaker 1: in our mind we can distinguish them linguistically. But there
Speaker 1: is a real distinction between the son and the spirit,
Speaker 1: because there's a real distinction between generating and spirating. Okay,
Speaker 1: So is that an action of the essence or an
Speaker 1: action of the persons? Well, it's an action of the
Speaker 1: person of the Father. That's why you have to begin
Speaker 1: your trinitary theology not with the essence of God, but
Speaker 1: with the person of the Father. And that's what the
Speaker 1: Cappadocians do. So the Rummachotholic just simply don't accept constantinople
Speaker 1: One and the Cappadocian teaching. And they think they do.
Speaker 1: They can say all day long that they do, but
Speaker 1: in fact they don't. I'm almost done with this whole
Speaker 1: PhD thesis on that very topic, right, basil Cesareegravanessa in
Speaker 1: the Transformation of Divine Simplicity. The whole book, the whole
Speaker 1: PhD thesis is about the fact that the Cappadocian doctrine
Speaker 1: of divine simplicity and distinctions in the trinity is different
Speaker 1: from the Augustinian, Latin and Sealmian Thomistic West. Well, yeah,
Speaker 1: I mean, why is this even controversial?
Speaker 2: How many?
Speaker 1: I mean, we had medieval councils called the Palamite councils
Speaker 1: that already told us this one thousand years ago, so
Speaker 1: we shouldn't.
Speaker 2: Even have to debate this ears ago. Anyway. I'm sorry,
Speaker 2: go ahead, Oh I know that was it?
Speaker 4: Thank you?
Speaker 2: All right?
Speaker 5: Uh?
Speaker 1: Anybody else in discord? Anybody else next up?
Speaker 6: Is it cool if I ask Father Deacon a question
Speaker 6: on this interpretation of scripture real quick?
Speaker 2: Or is that not?
Speaker 4: Okay? Father Deacon in I'm inquire, by the way, So
Speaker 4: this is just a question.
Speaker 6: In Mark nine through eleven, it says after the Christ
Speaker 6: is baptized, it says a voice came down from heaven.
Speaker 6: And I was just wondering if Jesus was the word.
Speaker 6: I know that the Father was talking to him because
Speaker 6: this has the spirit also descended upon him like a dove.
Speaker 6: So if Christ is the word, how was the Father
Speaker 6: talking to him?
Speaker 4: If that makes sense?
Speaker 7: So this is mark.
Speaker 6: Mark one nine through eleven. It's right after the Christ
Speaker 6: is baptized or when he's being baptized.
Speaker 7: Well, plan, I actually say, as far as I understood it,
Speaker 7: it was the.
Speaker 8: Father.
Speaker 9: You actually they speaks just because price is the word.
Speaker 9: I don't think that it's God the Father from speaking,
Speaker 9: so it's Mark.
Speaker 4: One nine through eleven.
Speaker 6: That was just kind of my question was the So
Speaker 6: the Father can speak, it's not only Christ who can
Speaker 6: speak from the heavens.
Speaker 10: Divine actions, so it will be from the Father through
Speaker 10: the Son in the Spirit, and that's that's also maybe
Speaker 10: why all of us are present, right.
Speaker 1: So one thing that is important to remember is that
Speaker 1: not every reference to an action is identical to a hypostasis.
Speaker 1: So sometimes the scriptures speak of different actions or that
Speaker 1: will refer to different persons of the Trinity under different
Speaker 1: energies or actions or attributes. For example, in Ezekiel, we
Speaker 1: saw the Son being referred to as the glory of God. Now,
Speaker 1: the person of the Son is not identical to the
Speaker 1: glory of God, because the glory of God is something
Speaker 1: shared between Father, Son, and Spirit. But the Son has
Speaker 1: a unique way or role or mode that he manifests
Speaker 1: the glory of God. And this is the doctrine of
Speaker 1: energetic manifestation or energetic procession. So every energy of God
Speaker 1: is common to all three persons. However, the persons have
Speaker 1: a unique mode or tropos by which they manifest that energy. So,
Speaker 1: for example, in creating, creating of the world is a
Speaker 1: unique trinitarian action. However, each person in the trinity has
Speaker 1: a unique role in actualizing that action. So the Father
Speaker 1: is the origin of creation, the Son is the archae
Speaker 1: or principle through which creation comes to be, and the
Speaker 1: Spirit is the perfector the mover.
Speaker 2: Of the created order.
Speaker 9: And like we have this word perry caesis.
Speaker 7: Literally just it's like a inner dance, but it's as
Speaker 7: the sharing.
Speaker 5: Of these actions of properties within the trinity.
Speaker 6: Okay, so they all have the same will, they just
Speaker 6: have different modes of enacting their will.
Speaker 4: Correct, Okay, thanks guys.
Speaker 1: So just like in redemption, right, redemption is a trinitarian
Speaker 1: work or action, but the persons have unique roles in
Speaker 1: the process or action of redeemings. So, for example, the
Speaker 1: father's role is not to become incarnate. The Father's role
Speaker 1: is to send the son.
Speaker 2: Right.
Speaker 1: Jesus always refers to this, especially in the Gospel John Right,
Speaker 1: the Father sent me blah blah blah. The son's role
Speaker 1: is to take on human nature right to become incarnate.
Speaker 1: And then the spirit's role is to save, sanctify deify,
Speaker 1: et cetera.
Speaker 4: Okay, that makes perfect sense, thank you.
Speaker 2: Yeah.
Speaker 1: So remember that role or mode is very very important
Speaker 1: both to triadology and Christology.
Speaker 2: That's not modalism.
Speaker 1: Modalism is a triadological heresy that unite or that identifies
Speaker 1: all the persons. But tropos or mode is crucial to
Speaker 1: trinitarian and crystological formulations because all mode is is talking
Speaker 1: about how a thing is. So remember that person answers
Speaker 1: the question of who, Nature answers the question of what,
Speaker 1: and mode answers the question of how a thing is.
Speaker 2: So the mode of.
Speaker 1: The trinity is different in theology proper versus economia. This
Speaker 1: is why we don't we don't read economia back into
Speaker 1: Trinitarian theology proper.
Speaker 4: And all the modes just go back to right.
Speaker 6: It was created by the Father through the Son, or
Speaker 6: I forget the saying I'm new to the whole right.
Speaker 1: So this comes from Saint Basil. Basil's dictum is from
Speaker 1: the Father, through the Son and in the Spirit. And
Speaker 1: that's a liturgical refrain that gets adopted and becomes kind
Speaker 1: of the norm for Trinitarian formulations all the way up
Speaker 1: into Saint Gregory Palomas in the Middle Ages, so basically
Speaker 1: nothing in Trinitarian theology. After the Second Ecumenical Council, everything's
Speaker 1: pretty much settled.
Speaker 2: For the East.
Speaker 1: There's a little bit of debate in early Byzantium about
Speaker 1: Trinitarian formulations about the offering of the Sun in the
Speaker 1: liturgy thy know and of thy own. There's actually an
Speaker 1: early Businessine debate about that what that means. But aside
Speaker 1: from that up into the Trinitarian theology doesn't get debated
Speaker 1: again or stated again until the Palamite Synods and the
Speaker 1: Palomite Synods clarify further post constantinople Ie what the meaning
Speaker 1: of the plane of hyposthetic origins is distinct from the
Speaker 1: plane of energetic procession, distinct from the plane of economia.
Speaker 1: So crucial to understanding Orthodox Trinitarian theology is these three
Speaker 1: planes PLA n E. Of Trinitarian existence or reality. This
Speaker 1: is from Saint Gregor Palmos. The first plane is where
Speaker 1: we begin our Trinitarian theology. Hypostatic origin, the person of
Speaker 1: the Father as the sole cause, and the person of
Speaker 1: the Father is the sole cause of the generating of
Speaker 1: the Sun and the inspirating of the spirit. That's the
Speaker 1: only way that we consistently through then a relation of
Speaker 1: origins right, and relation to persons distinguish the trinitarian the
Speaker 1: hypostaces of the Trinity. The second plane of Trinitarian theology,
Speaker 1: which is not really present in Roman Cauviity theology, is
Speaker 1: energetic manifestation. We have a crucial doctrine of the energies
Speaker 1: that is necessary one hundred percent to our trinitarian theology.
Speaker 1: This is one of the reasons why the Tomos and
Speaker 1: the Palmite Synods of the Middle Ages reject philioque is
Speaker 1: because we do not collapse the things that we're saying
Speaker 1: about energetic manifestation into hyposthetic origin. And the Roman Catholics
Speaker 1: do that, and that's why they believe in philli oqui.
Speaker 1: They don't have this level of distinction that we possess
Speaker 1: where we distinguish the eternal energetic procession or manifestation of
Speaker 1: the actions of God or the Holy Spirit from the
Speaker 1: Father through the Son in the spirit. Right, that's distinct
Speaker 1: from hyposthetic origin, and it's distinct. It's related to economic procession,
Speaker 1: but it's distinct from the economia. Then we have economic procession.
Speaker 1: A third level right of the role of the Sun
Speaker 1: in creation and the role of the Holy Spirit in
Speaker 1: creation and economia, trinity in time and space and history
Speaker 1: and redemption.
Speaker 2: You can't read that back into.
Speaker 1: Trinity proper, meaning the first two layers, the first two planes.
Speaker 1: Palamas uses the phrase planes of existence in the trinity.
Speaker 1: It's not saying that there's different trinities. It's just making
Speaker 1: distinctions in the trinity.
Speaker 10: But it's a super stupid augment that economia needs to
Speaker 10: perfectly reflect theology, because otherwise it wouldn't be no economy
Speaker 10: and theology and inter thing. You said, like, it's actually
Speaker 10: straight from here and there. So that's from the second century.
Speaker 2: Yeah, a good point.
Speaker 9: That was the idea of the.
Speaker 10: Spirit, you know, being perfected and stuff. This is this
Speaker 10: is very early.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I should add it. I wouldn't want to give
Speaker 1: the impression that Basil invented it. Basil just made it
Speaker 1: basically part of the liturgy.
Speaker 6: So so, and then the philioquay just undercuts all three
Speaker 6: planes that power must present it.
Speaker 4: That's why we know that the philioquay.
Speaker 1: Is well, it doesn't undercut all of the three planes,
Speaker 1: because most Roman Catholics at least make a distinction between
Speaker 1: theology proper and economia. But they don't understand or typically
Speaker 1: see why we make a distinction between hyposthetic origin and
Speaker 1: energetic manifest So they will say, look, Philly oak Way
Speaker 1: when when Basil or when John Damascus when they talk
Speaker 1: or Athanacious when they talk about the manifestation of the
Speaker 1: spirit through the sun, that's no different than Philly Okuay,
Speaker 1: it all means the same thing. No, it doesn't, because
Speaker 1: Roman Catholic theology does not have a clear energies doctrine.
Speaker 2: We do.
Speaker 1: You can see this in Athanacious. This is why I
Speaker 1: tell people ad nauseum to read the Fluorofsky paper on
Speaker 1: Athenacious and Creation, because Fluorofsky shows that Athanasius teaches the
Speaker 1: us and synergistinction. And one way he does that is
Speaker 1: to distinguish between things that God does in the intratrinitarian
Speaker 1: life right, like generating a son or manifesting his glory,
Speaker 1: and those are distinct from the actions that relate to
Speaker 1: the created order, like providence or creating right. God is
Speaker 1: not eternally provident. He's eternally provident in the sense of
Speaker 1: having the potentiality or the power, but he's not internally
Speaker 1: actualizing providence. This is again we go back to the
Speaker 1: motial collapse problem. Right, if God is pure act, then
Speaker 1: it is he eternally purely actualizing providence. Oh okay, well
Speaker 1: then there's an eternal creation over which is provident. But
Speaker 1: no Roman Catholk actually professes that, right, so again it's
Speaker 1: not it's a little more nuanced than then. They're collapsing
Speaker 1: all of the three planes of existence in the trendy
Speaker 1: into one. But they're confusing the first and second plane,
Speaker 1: and they don't see why there's a problem or why
Speaker 1: you need an energy's doctrine. And they simply depart from
Speaker 1: the first seven councils because the seven councils hinge multiple
Speaker 1: arguments on the essenceenter distinction. So their theology, their trinitarian theology,
Speaker 1: is all jacked up.
Speaker 2: That's the point.
Speaker 4: Perfect, Thank you so much man. Yes, sir, we do
Speaker 4: have a Muslim who said they asked to go so whon.
Speaker 9: He had two quick questions he wanted to ask if
Speaker 9: we have time for that.
Speaker 1: Okay, we'll do the Muslim and then we'll do a
Speaker 1: reform stoic who's ready here to expose this all a
Speaker 1: s KGB.
Speaker 2: So go ahead, and mister.
Speaker 1: Muslim, that's fight Douglas, a Muslim named President Douglas.
Speaker 10: My question is, real quick, just can you come to
Speaker 10: the conclusion that God, a God exists without using the Bible.
Speaker 4: That's one of my questions.
Speaker 1: In one sense, we would say that there is an
Speaker 1: inner intuitive sense that all men have, according to Romans one,
Speaker 1: in their heart of hearts or their news, that there
Speaker 1: is a God and that we have offended against him
Speaker 1: and that we're guilty because we have the law of
Speaker 1: God on our heart. So that's what I think Paul
Speaker 1: is saying in Romans one. But if you mean through
Speaker 1: rational deduction of looking at the natural world, do we
Speaker 1: do this natural theology exercise to getting back to a
Speaker 1: first cause? Some people might do that, but whether they
Speaker 1: can give an account for that is a different question,
Speaker 1: and I don't think they can.
Speaker 4: Okay, thank you.
Speaker 11: My second question is can you gain salvation without full
Speaker 11: knowledge of the Trinity in this day and age?
Speaker 2: Well, we don't believe that. Quote.
Speaker 1: Full knowledge of the Trinity is a purely rational exercise,
Speaker 1: So it's not like you've got to go get a
Speaker 1: thhd to be saved. Because you know, we believe that
Speaker 1: there's infants who are going to be saved, right, And
Speaker 1: this is partly why we baptize infants, and we don't
Speaker 1: think that everybody who is in the church has to attain,
Speaker 1: you know, a high level of intellectual capacity to be saved.
Speaker 1: I mean, you can have slow boys that get saved.
Speaker 1: I'm sure there will be plenty of slow boys who
Speaker 1: are saved and plenty of theologians who are damned. So
Speaker 1: there is, at least from God's perspective, I mean, and
Speaker 1: God knows this, you know, some degree of knowledge that
Speaker 1: is applicable to to whom much is given much is required,
Speaker 1: is what the way I would put it. So when
Speaker 1: Jesus has asked this question of the Gospels, he kind
Speaker 1: of says, to the degree that you have been gifted,
Speaker 1: that is the degree to which you will have. You know,
Speaker 1: you will be judged on the basis of that requirement.
Speaker 1: Does that make sense?
Speaker 2: Yeah?
Speaker 4: Okay, the mike, here we go.
Speaker 2: My MIC's broken.
Speaker 1: Our discord has the amazing power to completely obliterate every microphone.
Speaker 1: Have you noticed that literally nobody's microphone works in our
Speaker 1: discord And it's purely a touch.
Speaker 11: Uh oh, here you're here, let's gold.
Speaker 9: Let's get it. Jay, I'm a big fan.
Speaker 2: By the way, first of all, oh yeah, I bet
Speaker 2: you are sure.
Speaker 1: And second of all, I never said anything about KGB.
Speaker 9: I just said CIA bro. Yeah, that was You're trying
Speaker 9: to group me in with other people. I'm a I'm
Speaker 9: a lone wolf.
Speaker 2: That was my joke.
Speaker 9: You ever heard of a tripid corp Lance Cantrell? I
Speaker 9: exposed them on my channel.
Speaker 2: Man, he was.
Speaker 12: Dressed up like a Maleman in my neighborhood.
Speaker 9: Isn't that nuts?
Speaker 2: Right? Are you a troll? Are you? Are you a troll?
Speaker 2: Are you here to debate.
Speaker 5: You?
Speaker 1: Remember, I don't know I have no idea who you're
Speaker 1: talking I don't know who you are.
Speaker 2: I don't know who you are. I don't know what
Speaker 2: you're talking about.
Speaker 1: You you can have the Well, even so the Israeli debated, correct,
Speaker 1: you do remember that?
Speaker 2: Right? Yeah?
Speaker 9: Oh okay, Well I exposed him as a.
Speaker 2: I don't care who you've exposed. Do you have a
Speaker 2: topic to that, dude?
Speaker 1: Nobody cares about your channel and your ex Nobody cares
Speaker 1: about your channel and your expos is.
Speaker 2: Do you have an argument?
Speaker 9: Well, that's not an argument.
Speaker 2: Do you have an argument?
Speaker 13: Let's talk about CIA handlers Jay?
Speaker 9: My argument is that you have CIA handlers.
Speaker 2: And where is the proof? Where's the proof of that?
Speaker 11: Talk about people giving like a little bit of information
Speaker 11: and not really giving anything relevant to right now, that's
Speaker 11: exactly what your.
Speaker 2: Channel does, Jake, Because so how is that a proof that?
Speaker 2: How is that a proof that's Jedy?
Speaker 9: Well, well here's a proof. You do not have to
Speaker 9: be orthodox to get saved. That's for sure. You just
Speaker 9: got to accept Jesus Christ is your Lord and savior.
Speaker 2: This guy is a set or a troll.
Speaker 1: This guy's not even let's just this guy's a troll.
Speaker 2: Just delete this guy. So total was about John.
Speaker 9: Three sixteen Christian Jay.
Speaker 1: Let's get he's laughing because he knows that what he's
Speaker 1: saying is disingenuous. Is he can't even make an argument
Speaker 1: the total waste of time.
Speaker 2: So there you go. That's the quality.
Speaker 1: The quality of our opponents is so low tier that all.
Speaker 2: He can do is like, I don't even know what
Speaker 2: that was? Fed speak?
Speaker 4: What was Did anybody hear what church he was in?
Speaker 1: He's probably not even in a church, dude, that's probably
Speaker 1: not even total.
Speaker 14: No, he said in my DMS he said he's invisible church.
Speaker 2: So just a total clown.
Speaker 1: Anyway, let's move on. Anybody have any good actual arguments
Speaker 1: or positions that they want to.
Speaker 2: Put for.
Speaker 1: We got a couple of super chats. Bantu says, I
Speaker 1: just have a question.
Speaker 9: You know how you said there was a debate over.
Speaker 2: Uh huh?
Speaker 15: Could you say what the position was settled on?
Speaker 9: What that means?
Speaker 1: I brought it up with Seraphim. It's like the end
Speaker 1: of the second chapter in Mind or.
Speaker 4: So.
Speaker 1: It's kind of a confusing thing. I'll get the book
Speaker 1: here in a second, but do you guys want to
Speaker 1: take over? I'm going to run to the little boys room.
Speaker 9: Maybe we should just explain to people what that is.
Speaker 7: There's a part of the liturgy where the priests or
Speaker 7: the deacon the holds up the chalice and plate holy plate.
Speaker 9: It says, thine own of.
Speaker 4: We offer to the Are you guys familiar with that part?
Speaker 9: Unbelpable and formal?
Speaker 5: Yeah, what's the I'm not familiar about? Like what the
Speaker 5: I have the mind or book, but what the debate
Speaker 5: is over?
Speaker 9: Lewis you know?
Speaker 15: No, But I've always found it kind of like you
Speaker 15: could interpret that in so many different ways, Like it
Speaker 15: could just be about the elements, but it could also
Speaker 15: be about Christ. Like so the son being the father's
Speaker 15: own being offered to the father.
Speaker 9: That's probably what.
Speaker 4: They settled on.
Speaker 9: But it's yeah, it's kind of like, it's kind of ambiguous.
Speaker 9: So I wanted to know what the.
Speaker 7: Few elements as far as the bread.
Speaker 2: And wine or like, I got it right here.
Speaker 15: So yeah, as in like it's God's creation that we're
Speaker 15: offering back to him kind of thing.
Speaker 9: Like that's that's the other thought I had.
Speaker 1: Means, it's the offering of the other son. So let
Speaker 1: me here, here's the debate, and you'll see how it
Speaker 1: applies to refuting the Protestant purely juridical notion. So it's
Speaker 1: pages thirty nine and forty of the mind or book.
Speaker 1: So let me read this. It gets a little confusing,
Speaker 1: so let's see if we can parse this out.
Speaker 2: He says.
Speaker 1: The very Kurellian conclusion of the Council against Eustrasias led
Speaker 1: to further christological debates, which this time concerned the meaning
Speaker 1: of the eucharistic sacrifice. The deacon so Tykos Pantugenos, the
Speaker 1: patriarch elect of Antioch, affirmed that the sacrifice could not
Speaker 1: be offered to the Holy Trinity, for this would imply
Speaker 1: that the one Christ performs two opposing actions, the human
Speaker 1: action of offering the divine action of receiving. And this
Speaker 1: would mean an historian separation and personalization of two natures.
Speaker 2: Okay, so we got that point that far right interesting.
Speaker 1: And then it goes on to say Nicholas, the Bishop
Speaker 1: of Methone in Peloponnese, was a major Byzantine theologian of
Speaker 1: the twelfth century, and he responded to Staticos with an
Speaker 1: elaboration on the notion of hypostasis, based on Leontius of
Speaker 1: Byzantium and Maximus the Confessor. The hypostatic union is precisely
Speaker 1: what permits one to consider God as performing humanly the
Speaker 1: act of offering, while maintaining that God by nature and
Speaker 1: therefore receiving the sacrifice. To so Tyrkos. Nicholas opposed the
Speaker 1: conclusion of the prayer of the Cherubicon, whose author, as
Speaker 1: modern research shows, is another other than Cyril of Alexander himself.
Speaker 1: But what is part of both Byzantine liturgies and attributed
Speaker 1: to Basil on Christistom is the words, For it is
Speaker 1: thou who offerest and who art offered, who receivest and
Speaker 1: art thyself received. Nicholas, whose views were endorsed by the
Speaker 1: Council of eleven fifty six to fifty seven, shows that
Speaker 1: neither the Eucharist nor the work of Christ in general
Speaker 1: can be reduced to a purely juridical notion of sacrificed
Speaker 1: conceived as an exchange. God does not have to receive
Speaker 1: anything from us. We do not go to him to
Speaker 1: make an offering. Rather, he condescends towards us, assumes our
Speaker 1: nature not as a condition of reconciliation, but in order
Speaker 1: to meet us openly in the flesh.
Speaker 2: Thus you can see how.
Speaker 1: This refutes the Protestant doctrine of the juridical, purely juridical.
Speaker 2: Transaction. Does that make sense?
Speaker 9: It's quite complicated.
Speaker 1: I must say you're right, And then it goes on
Speaker 1: to say the very technical christological discussions of the twelfth
Speaker 1: century reconsider all the major issues which have been debated
Speaker 1: in the fifth and seven The Byzantine Church remained fundamentally
Speaker 1: faithful to what Father Fluorosky calls asymmetrical Christology, the union
Speaker 1: of God and man in Christ, the hypos, the hyposthetic
Speaker 1: source of all life is divine, the mankind is not
Speaker 1: diminished diminished, but in fact becomes fully human. The notion
Speaker 1: of asymmetrical Christology is thus expressed in the Eucharistic sacrifice,
Speaker 1: which is a unique act in which no single action
Speaker 1: of Christ is represented in isolation or reduced to any
Speaker 1: purely human concepts, such as a purely juridical He's saying
Speaker 1: exchange or satisfaction. Christ, as the Sonoticon says every Sunday, Orthodoxy,
Speaker 1: reconciles us to himself by means of the whole mystery
Speaker 1: of the economy, by himself in himself, and thus reconciles
Speaker 1: us to his God and Father, and of course to
Speaker 1: the most holy, life giving Spirit. So, in other words,
Speaker 1: there's no sense at all in which there's a human
Speaker 1: subject that is offering something to the Son.
Speaker 2: Or to the Trinity. That's the key here.
Speaker 1: In other words, this dispute is a further reaffirmation of
Speaker 1: asymmetrical Christology, that Christ is a divine hypostasis, and there's
Speaker 1: no human subject that is part of this transaction and change.
Speaker 2: In offering.
Speaker 1: The humanity is the humanity of the divine person of
Speaker 1: the Word that he offers to the Father you see,
Speaker 1: Does that make sense?
Speaker 15: Stood sided with the first Antiochian deacon. It's not referring
Speaker 15: to offering to the whole trinity.
Speaker 4: Is that right?
Speaker 1: Let me rephrase, let me restate that part. It's a deacon,
Speaker 1: Deacon Sotykos, who affirmed the sacrifice could not be offered
Speaker 1: to the Trinity, for this would imply that the one
Speaker 1: Christ performs too opposing actions, a human action of offering
Speaker 1: and a divine action of.
Speaker 2: Receiving, and this would be an Nestorian. Uh.
Speaker 1: But the response is that the hyposthetic union is precisely
Speaker 1: what permits one to consider God as performing humanly the
Speaker 1: action of offering. So it's that he entered into the
Speaker 1: mode of humanity. It's not a human person offering, it's
Speaker 1: the divine Son offering the humanity.
Speaker 2: Does that make sense?
Speaker 1: So, in other words, he is the offerer and the receiver. Yeah,
Speaker 1: that's that's why it cites the Sonoticon of saying that
Speaker 1: he proclaims that Christ reconciles us to himself by means
Speaker 1: of the whole mystery of the economia, by himself in himself,
Speaker 1: to his God and our Father and to the Spirit.
Speaker 9: Oh yeah, because this is a hypostatonin him in the
Speaker 9: unique mode exactly.
Speaker 1: This is where mode becomes crucial. But if you look
Speaker 1: at it, this is the point I was making to
Speaker 1: to sorry from Hamilton in our discussion, which is that
Speaker 1: even the liturgy, if you were to follow it out,
Speaker 1: the theology of the liturgy, you would see that it
Speaker 1: refutes the Protestant reductionist notion of making it a juridical
Speaker 1: theoretical bank account transaction. It's impossible with correct Trinitarian theology
Speaker 1: to have that view. That's the point here.
Speaker 8: Perfect, Thanks, yes, sir, go ahead, who's next?
Speaker 2: It's me?
Speaker 16: Okay, yeah, I almost seem by there. Well, I interacted
Speaker 16: mainly with Orienteds on this coord so then like I
Speaker 16: might get a different answer from you. But would you
Speaker 16: say that being on cause is a property of the
Speaker 16: essence or if other.
Speaker 2: Ady, it's a hyposthetic property. The Father is uncaused.
Speaker 17: I think this is a better position than what I've
Speaker 17: heard from Orientals.
Speaker 2: Yeah, well, Oriental theology is jacked up.
Speaker 17: So yeah, because of imply contradiction, design cannot be both
Speaker 17: uncaused and caused.
Speaker 1: You have forgotten, correct, he is not auto theos right,
Speaker 1: he is of the Father and the original nice scene
Speaker 1: creed and nice scene teaching is that he is divine
Speaker 1: because he has begotten.
Speaker 14: Yeah.
Speaker 16: Also another question, do you affirm that God has one act?
Speaker 1: No, the only time that that's us it's used by
Speaker 1: Saint Maximus and it's used by John Damascus. And Maximus
Speaker 1: is very clear in the two in the Tuner chapters
Speaker 1: that the only time that we say God is quote
Speaker 1: pure act is in contrast to creatures in himself in
Speaker 1: his essence in the Innertrinitarian life, God is not pure act.
Speaker 2: He's clear as day.
Speaker 1: The first five pages of the two innerd chapters says this,
Speaker 1: and John Damascus is not saying anything different. And again,
Speaker 1: I did a whole talk in Montana on the absurdities
Speaker 1: of saying that God is pure act in himself.
Speaker 9: Okay, can you which video in particular? Because I want
Speaker 9: to watch.
Speaker 1: It the lecture in Montana.
Speaker 9: Okay, I'm going to So it's anyway, it's available for
Speaker 9: purchase through Jays.
Speaker 2: So you can watch the first half. It's Oh, that's right,
Speaker 2: that's right.
Speaker 14: Uh.
Speaker 1: It's called Roman Catholicism, Islam and Greek philosophical presuppositions Montana
Speaker 1: lecture Jay Dyer So it's like, I don't know, five
Speaker 1: or six videos back.
Speaker 9: Thank you for gest pumps.
Speaker 2: Sure my pleasure. Thank you. Hello discords.
Speaker 1: Hello, Hello, is there anybody in there?
Speaker 2: Just not have you?
Speaker 9: Hey?
Speaker 8: Ja uh huh.
Speaker 13: My name is Odin Benitez, and I just this isn't
Speaker 13: a challenge or anything. I just want to thank you
Speaker 13: for really kind of bringing me to Orthodoxy.
Speaker 9: I'm in the in the process of doing it. I was.
Speaker 13: I'm a supervising sound editor in Hollywood, and I've been
Speaker 13: working in the industry for thirty years.
Speaker 9: I may have some insights.
Speaker 13: And uh, you know into Hollywood and.
Speaker 9: And you know their ideology.
Speaker 2: Oh cool.
Speaker 13: Yeah, It's like, I mean, the whole you know, everybody
Speaker 13: kind of grows up with this.
Speaker 9: It's it's a huge echo chamber. But I'm sort of
Speaker 9: like you. I I was.
Speaker 13: Baptized Catholic, I went to a Baptist high school, I
Speaker 13: went to college, became a liberal Christian, got introduced to Gnosticism,
Speaker 13: was really fascinated by that, by the Gospel of Thomas,
Speaker 13: and read a bunch of books until I realized it
Speaker 13: was Satanism basically, and I kind of went back then
Speaker 13: to Roman Catholicism just because I did a lot of
Speaker 13: investigation on the historical Jesus, and I thought that that
Speaker 13: that the.
Speaker 9: Catholic scholars were the best of at that point.
Speaker 13: But I wasn't really introduced to any of the Eastern fathers.
Speaker 13: And it's really odd because I did a lot of
Speaker 13: studying of Byzantium, because I wrote a script about the
Speaker 13: fall of Constantinople. Cool and yeah, and I you know,
Speaker 13: I read like four different contemporary accounts, and I read
Speaker 13: all the John.
Speaker 9: Julius Norwich books.
Speaker 13: The interesting thing is, though, that I never was really
Speaker 13: exposed to any of the theology.
Speaker 9: You know, even I think even even Norwich.
Speaker 13: Just said something along the lines about I don't he
Speaker 13: didn't really understand what the differences between Orthodoxy and Catholicism is,
Speaker 13: something about the energies of Christ and uh, you know,
Speaker 13: and so I I so for me, this is really
Speaker 13: illuminating because I'm somewhat of an amateur scholar about Byzantem.
Speaker 13: I even wrote two chapters in military history book about
Speaker 13: some battles that.
Speaker 9: That occurred with the Byzantine.
Speaker 18: At Party, which yeah, so I it's so for me,
Speaker 18: this is sort of like it's almost like providence.
Speaker 13: You know I've been I've studied so much of the
Speaker 13: Byzantine history, never really understanding the theology. And it's so
Speaker 13: I'm making my way through Byzantine theology in that book
Speaker 13: and also some Father Seraphone books read Nihilism, which is
Speaker 13: just it was like it's a short book, but it
Speaker 13: took me forever to get through because each sentence is
Speaker 13: a thought provoking.
Speaker 9: But I just wanted to thank you, and and you.
Speaker 13: Know, I've found a church out here and I'm in
Speaker 13: the process of you know, once I get through this
Speaker 13: business and theology, you want to contact the priest.
Speaker 9: And I've been to Vespers already.
Speaker 2: Awesome. Yeah, that's great to hear. I know that.
Speaker 1: We are in the process right now of converting Hugh
Speaker 1: Jackman Mel Gibson.
Speaker 2: I'm joking. I'm just joking.
Speaker 18: Yeah, I mean what my my my cousin actually drove
Speaker 18: with He was Mel Gibson's driver, and you know, before
Speaker 18: the whole thing, his idea about the resurrection that he
Speaker 18: and Mel were partying and Mel.
Speaker 13: Got kind of close to him and said, you know,
Speaker 13: I've got this idea about making a movie about the resurrection.
Speaker 13: I think that's the next film.
Speaker 2: Cool I'm looking forward to that.
Speaker 1: I think that's going to be.
Speaker 13: He's a what as a pre Vatican or as a
Speaker 13: Vatican one Catholic.
Speaker 1: I think, uh, well, he's a side of a contest.
Speaker 9: Yeah right right.
Speaker 1: So yeah, and they're they're they're the the we are
Speaker 1: the original set of a contest is Orthodox. So maybe
Speaker 1: eventually we can convert mel Gibson. So pray for the
Speaker 1: converted mel Gibson. But yeah, I think that the Resurrection
Speaker 1: movie does sound like a good idea.
Speaker 9: I was bummed to here so him and.
Speaker 7: Mark Wahlberg doing a movie about a Roman Catholic priest
Speaker 7: in my town, and I was like, this is my chance,
Speaker 7: because you know, my castick just gets me into anything.
Speaker 9: I just introduced myself.
Speaker 7: Then I found out they're filming.
Speaker 9: They're not filming them on Tana. They're not going to
Speaker 9: be up, so I know I could have got them.
Speaker 13: Well, you know, I still have another contact and in
Speaker 13: just to my cousin, there's another coworker who actually works
Speaker 13: for his assistant, so you know there is a chance
Speaker 13: to tell them I'm looking for him.
Speaker 9: I will.
Speaker 2: Anybody else.
Speaker 1: We got full room here, open chat.
Speaker 4: Yeah, Jay, how's it going, bro? I'm gonna. Oh, it's.
Speaker 1: You had that tone of like you have that tone
Speaker 1: of you that you have that tone of like I
Speaker 1: love you, but I hate you.
Speaker 2: Right like I'm about to destroy you.
Speaker 11: Dah right, I'm gonna I'm gonna roast you.
Speaker 1: I love you and I love your content, but like,
Speaker 1: let me explain why you're the worst human being on
Speaker 1: the planet right now.
Speaker 11: It's like, you know, you could win debates, Jay if
Speaker 11: you could figure out your boomer tech and.
Speaker 9: Unmute your mic.
Speaker 11: Anyways, Uh, this actually this question.
Speaker 4: Is from uh Jao.
Speaker 11: He says, how would you refute postmodernist thinkers like Umberto
Speaker 11: Echo and dared A and their theories of semiotics theories
Speaker 11: of semiotics against metaphysics.
Speaker 1: I did a whole video on Echo, and Echo has
Speaker 1: a whole essay where he basically argues that the.
Speaker 2: Goal of.
Speaker 1: The true leftist, and he's speaking in a general sense
Speaker 1: of like classical what he sees as the history of
Speaker 1: all leftism. He says it's not a battle of liberals against.
Speaker 2: A fascist regime.
Speaker 1: He says that the real battle and goal of the
Speaker 1: leftist is against truth, which is fascism in essence. So
Speaker 1: any notion that there's truth, Echo says, is fascism, and
Speaker 1: he says that's the real battle of the liberal is
Speaker 1: against truth itself. Can't make this up. That's it's a
Speaker 1: famous essay. It's like the Earth Fascist or something like
Speaker 1: that by Echo. I highly recommend reading that essay because
Speaker 1: it really gives you an insight into the mindset of
Speaker 1: a person who was a committed, rabid Thomist who at
Speaker 1: some point in college or when it was grad school,
Speaker 1: he realized that Thomism doesn't work. Thomism is a broken,
Speaker 1: dead end system, and instead of going towards Orthodoxy or
Speaker 1: something like that, Echo said, now I'm going to be
Speaker 1: like the uber liberal. I'm going to go the demon
Speaker 1: Satanic route, like literal Satanism. I mean, I think Echo
Speaker 1: was probably a totally into Luciferian say. I mean, I've
Speaker 1: read most of his books, so I'm not saying this
Speaker 1: out of speculation. I mean, he fills his books with
Speaker 1: Gnostic Satanic, Luciferian esoteric themes, especially if you read fucos Pendulum.
Speaker 1: He's basically defending the idea of, you know, a Satanic
Speaker 1: elite more or less, and ultimately, of course he's critiquing
Speaker 1: all of these things. He says too, like, oh, you know,
Speaker 1: the idea of any kind of elite is absurd, So
Speaker 1: he kind of adopts this nihilistic, absurdist view that whether
Speaker 1: you're a Christian who believes in truth or whether you're
Speaker 1: the sort of luciferian gnostic, cobblist elitist, it's all absurdity,
Speaker 1: it's all nihilism, it's all just nothing.
Speaker 2: So you could read his books in that.
Speaker 1: Way as if it's like cosmic nihilism. Maybe he's like
Speaker 1: that final stage of Father surfrom.
Speaker 2: Rose's book on nihilism.
Speaker 1: But regardless, Echo is a great example of the mature spiritually,
Speaker 1: like I'm saying, darkly matured, like self conscious evil.
Speaker 2: That is like our battle is against.
Speaker 1: Truth itself, any notion that there's such a thing as
Speaker 1: truth is the real battle of the liberal. So you
Speaker 1: get that rare honesty in Umberto Eco's famous essay. So
Speaker 1: when we understand that that's the real motivation of a
Speaker 1: dairy da, of a fucuot, of a echo of the deconstructionists,
Speaker 1: now we understand that that's that's really what's going on here,
Speaker 1: and quite obviously it's self refuting. I mean, why are
Speaker 1: we we're writing books using words and meaning to say
Speaker 1: books and words have no meaning.
Speaker 2: It's just fundamentally stupid.
Speaker 1: And they're okay with that, right, So postmodernists are okay
Speaker 1: with accepting nonsense, contradictions. There's no grand narratives, okay, but
Speaker 1: that's a grand narrative, okay.
Speaker 2: And if we're if we're.
Speaker 1: Accepting contradictions and nonsense and chaos and meaninglessness, then you
Speaker 1: can't make arguments that nonsense and chaos and meaninglessness is true.
Speaker 1: So you've done your job as an apologist. And at
Speaker 1: a certain point there's nothing that you can do with
Speaker 1: people like that, Like you can't if people are self consciously,
Speaker 1: wilfully wanting that level of evil, all you can do.
Speaker 2: Is pray for their repentance.
Speaker 1: I mean, there's like that's self conscious evil, right. So
Speaker 1: I hope that answers the qui about echo.
Speaker 2: Anybody else?
Speaker 19: Hey, Jay, you have a question when Philosky talks about
Speaker 19: separated brethren who who? And I wonder what you think
Speaker 19: about that and what what does that mean with relation
Speaker 19: to you know, heterodoxs or people outside the church.
Speaker 1: Right, So sometimes that word is used, I don't think
Speaker 1: it's necessarily always wrong. I mean, because you can have
Speaker 1: people who don't know all the issues, right, I mean,
Speaker 1: who aren't hardened in their heresy. They're not formal heretics, right.
Speaker 1: So I do agree that there is a patristic idea
Speaker 1: of somebody who is not a formal heretic, but is
Speaker 1: a material heretic, a heretic in potentia, you could say.
Speaker 1: And that's because heresy is usually defined as not a
Speaker 1: sin of just merely being.
Speaker 2: Wrong, but a sin of obstinacy.
Speaker 1: So a heretic is not somebody just just wrong because
Speaker 1: we're all wrong, right, So are we all heretics, because
Speaker 1: I'm sure everybody's got some point in their theology wrong.
Speaker 2: Right.
Speaker 1: So, but the sin of heresy and the sin of
Speaker 1: schism are sins of obstinacy.
Speaker 2: Will and knowledge.
Speaker 1: So you're knowingly obstinately persisting in the error in the heresy.
Speaker 1: There's not a you know, always a clear cut like
Speaker 1: black and white in terms of every individual when a
Speaker 1: person's obstinately a heretic. So what we do from our
Speaker 1: vantage point is we don't try to go, you know,
Speaker 1: person by person.
Speaker 2: Making specific judgments.
Speaker 1: We just do a judgment call on the group as
Speaker 1: a whole, and there's nothing wrong with that, because we're
Speaker 1: not condemning everybody as if we know their inner state
Speaker 1: or their heart. But what we do know is that
Speaker 1: at least before the end of a person's life, they
Speaker 1: have to be Orthodox. They have to believe and be
Speaker 1: united to the Orthodox faith. So if God somehow makes
Speaker 1: up for that, if God gives them a special means
Speaker 1: of the point of.
Speaker 2: Death or something like that, we don't know.
Speaker 1: But our job, our duty is just like infants who
Speaker 1: die without baptism or outside the church, do.
Speaker 2: We know that they go to hell?
Speaker 1: Know, we simply commend them to God, and we don't
Speaker 1: know their total in fate. But our job is to
Speaker 1: tell them and call them to Orthodoxy. So at the
Speaker 1: time when the phrase separated brethren was used at Florence,
Speaker 1: that's used by Saint Mark of Emphasis at the beginning
Speaker 1: of the council. There's a great an article over at
Speaker 1: Orthodox Ethos that points out that by the end of
Speaker 1: the council, Saint Mark of Ephesis realize that they're not
Speaker 1: separated brethren, they're Heterodox, And you get the exact same
Speaker 1: expression in Saint Gregor Paloma's He says that the Latins
Speaker 1: are heterodox, they listen to Satan. They're wrong, they're heresy,
Speaker 1: they're in heresy. But that doesn't mean that we have
Speaker 1: to go by every single person one by one and
Speaker 1: say you're an amn heretic, you're an Amneritic, you're an
Speaker 1: aamn heretic. We don't have to do that because it's
Speaker 1: not our job to judge every individual person. It's rather
Speaker 1: a collective public judgment that we make about what they
Speaker 1: profess to believe, which is in error in his heresy,
Speaker 1: and if and and God.
Speaker 2: Will deal with them on an individual level. We don't
Speaker 2: have to do that.
Speaker 1: That's why Paul says, what have we to do with
Speaker 1: judging those who are without? We judge those within. So
Speaker 1: it's much more pertinent to us to assess in the Orthodox.
Speaker 2: Church who is and isn't Orthodox. We don't have We're not.
Speaker 1: It's not we don't have to worry about what does
Speaker 1: brother Billyba believe, what does Michael often believe?
Speaker 2: What does? So there, they're heterodox and God will deal
Speaker 2: with them. We don't have to.
Speaker 1: But it's it's but it's important to point out that
Speaker 1: ecumeniusts misuse the phrase separated brethren, because after the Council,
Speaker 1: Saint Mark of Ephesus says, they are not anymore separated brethren.
Speaker 1: They are obstinate Latins and they're stupid and their in heresy.
Speaker 19: Okay, So like whoever, So God deals with each person
Speaker 19: according to.
Speaker 9: What they've been given.
Speaker 19: And so if they haven't had the full revelation and
Speaker 19: the full truth, like God will, you know, lead them
Speaker 19: into truth in all possible means.
Speaker 9: And we don't have to worry about that.
Speaker 2: That's what I would say.
Speaker 1: But we do have the duty, right, But it's just
Speaker 1: like like evangelism, right, like we have the duty to
Speaker 1: tell people that you have to, you know, come into
Speaker 1: the church, repent and believe, baptize all the nations.
Speaker 2: Right, and Jesus says the Great Commission.
Speaker 1: Now we're not told like what happens to people that
Speaker 1: die that never hear the Gospel. We don't know, I mean,
Speaker 1: we're not told that what we know is what we're
Speaker 1: told to do.
Speaker 2: That's all we know. I don't know.
Speaker 1: And one thing that is I think orthodoxy helps you
Speaker 1: accept as you get older, is that there's a reason.
Speaker 2: Why God doesn't tell us everything.
Speaker 1: So I'm perfectly fine with like, I don't know what
Speaker 1: happens to the guy who dies in you know, the
Speaker 1: Pagan island who never heard the gospel. Well, I mean
Speaker 1: unless God has a special means by which he joins
Speaker 1: that person to the church at the point of death
Speaker 1: or something like that. I mean, then we don't know.
Speaker 1: We're not told. But what we are told is that
Speaker 1: we have to preach and tell them to come into
Speaker 1: the kingdom.
Speaker 19: Okay, great, thank you?
Speaker 2: Sure anybody there? Hello? Are you in there?
Speaker 1: It's not if you can hear me.
Speaker 2: It's like the wall up in the discord bro.
Speaker 4: I have a question, yes, sir.
Speaker 20: So it's a question about like veganism, Like so I
Speaker 20: just want to make it I'm not a vegan like
Speaker 20: eat mate and stuff, but to have a question about it,
Speaker 20: just like you know about arguments against vegans. Okay, so
Speaker 20: I know, like there's a lot of examples in throughout
Speaker 20: the Bible that eating meat is fine and.
Speaker 14: Stuff, the lamb slain and stuff, like there's plenty of examples,
Speaker 14: but like, was it I don't know if you know
Speaker 14: the answer to this, but what is it the case
Speaker 14: that a pre full state like the dentic state eating
Speaker 14: animals or meat was seen. Is it just like the
Speaker 14: post for uh.
Speaker 1: So there's a lot of people misunderstand this. Actually you're
Speaker 1: correct in eating nobody ate meat that we know of exactly.
Speaker 1: There's some debate over what the you know, making skins means,
Speaker 1: but regardless, humans don't eat meat until Noah. So it's
Speaker 1: at Noah that God says you may now eat meat.
Speaker 1: So presumably we don't know what the wicked were up to.
Speaker 1: They might have been engaging in cannibalism for all we know,
Speaker 1: that might have been part of the reason why there
Speaker 1: was a flood.
Speaker 2: That's a lot of speculation.
Speaker 1: But for God's people, they're not told until Noah Genesis
Speaker 1: eight nine, right, that now you may eat meat. So
Speaker 1: that's an allowance after the flood. And then if you
Speaker 1: read Acts fifteen, when the gentiles are brought into the church,
Speaker 1: what happens is that the apostles have their council and
Speaker 1: Acts fifteen they say, okay, we're not going to require
Speaker 1: of gentile converts anything more than was required in the
Speaker 1: Covenant of Noah, because if Noah, who was obviously by
Speaker 1: knows a gentile, if he could be made righteous at
Speaker 1: that time, then we are not going to require anything
Speaker 1: more than was required of Noah for entering the covenant,
Speaker 1: so to speak. So all Acts fifteen is is a
Speaker 1: restatement of the noea covenant which says, don't eat strangled meat,
Speaker 1: cook your food right, just basic principles like that. So yes,
Speaker 1: meat eating is allowable, not just because of Noah but
Speaker 1: also in the New Testament. And then we get Paul
Speaker 1: saying to Timothy that false teachers will come along and
Speaker 1: they'll try to erect a fake morality, in a fake
Speaker 1: ethical code, by which they say that it's wrong to
Speaker 1: marry and it's wrong to eat flesh. So Gnostics Ebionites right,
Speaker 1: And within a few centuries the early church fathers, the
Speaker 1: first of which is Saint Hipolitis. He has a treatise
Speaker 1: on heresies and he mentions the Brahmins. He says, the
Speaker 1: Brahmins taught a doctrine of vegetarianism and not meeting eat,
Speaker 1: and so they would ethically enforce that it's morally wrong
Speaker 1: to eat meat. They are condemned. They're not just condemned there,
Speaker 1: they're condemned again in totality in some of the early councils,
Speaker 1: but also in Saint Johnamascus's book on Heresies, where he
Speaker 1: lists three or four heretical sects, the Ebionites, the Pythagoreans,
Speaker 1: in one or two other groups, the Tatianites, Gnostics, Marcianites,
Speaker 1: different groups that would enforce vegetarianism. And it's unanimously distantly
Speaker 1: condemned by the church fathers across the board. And a
Speaker 1: lot of people don't know this too. Remember, everybody, Veganism
Speaker 1: is an ethical position.
Speaker 2: It is not a diet based position.
Speaker 1: So when the vegans are telling you that you have
Speaker 1: to be vegan, it's not about your diet.
Speaker 2: In fact, they know that.
Speaker 1: It is not advantageous most of the time for humans
Speaker 1: to eat that goober's stupid diet, and they tell you
Speaker 1: that it doesn't matter. Yes, it may be bad for
Speaker 1: your health, but you have a duty ethically to accept
Speaker 1: bad for your health things because veganism is an ethical position,
Speaker 1: not a dietary position. Yes, sir, hey jes.
Speaker 9: Okay, I'm want to ask.
Speaker 2: So again, Tristan.
Speaker 1: The attitude is that the food should be cooked. I'm
Speaker 1: not saying that it's always wrong to eat sushi. It's
Speaker 1: a it's I think the attitude of why the food
Speaker 1: is to be cooked is because of the ancient world's
Speaker 1: attitude towards what might make you sick. So yes, I'm
Speaker 1: sure that plenty of people eat rare food or eat sushi.
Speaker 1: I don't think that Acts fifteen is implying that it's
Speaker 1: always wrong to eat sushi.
Speaker 10: But blood if you look at the prescription, for example,
Speaker 10: of the Council of Gangra which you mentioned against these people,
Speaker 10: it's more about blood. And there's this thing, you know,
Speaker 10: blood putting blood saucers on many parts of orthox food
Speaker 10: would not be permitted.
Speaker 9: And it's this link.
Speaker 10: If you know, Saint James is a very is a
Speaker 10: president of the Consult FACTI feel, and is a very
Speaker 10: sussdotal figure. So it might also be referring to the
Speaker 10: ideas that since you know, we are becoming divine in
Speaker 10: a sense by consuming divine blood, as a recognition of
Speaker 10: for consumption of divine blood, we would give exclusivity of
Speaker 10: a blood conception to.
Speaker 9: Christ to give blood.
Speaker 2: Yeah, that's an interesting was.
Speaker 10: Mentioned specifically, like like when they talk about like cooked
Speaker 10: foo is always about blood, right.
Speaker 1: So Tristan, I'm not trying to counter signal you, but
Speaker 1: I would disagree that I think that the implication is
Speaker 1: that it is supposed to be cooked, because there is
Speaker 1: in levitical law the prohibiting of eating raw flesh. So yes,
Speaker 1: it's true that Acts fifteen doesn't specifically say you must
Speaker 1: cook the meat, but it's already presupposed in the way
Speaker 1: they're approaching the question. So and again, it's not a
Speaker 1: legalistic thing that you can never have something like sushi.
Speaker 2: I don't think.
Speaker 1: I don't think it's that big of a deal, but
Speaker 1: like Snack said, it has oftentimes been understood in that way,
Speaker 1: so quick call.
Speaker 6: I was just wondering, what is some of the base terminology,
Speaker 6: like in general for that you need to know for
Speaker 6: Christology and Trinitarian theology.
Speaker 1: Uh, well, there's a good book by Vladimir Lowsky called
Speaker 1: Dogmatic Theology, and he has basically a pretty u useful
Speaker 1: glossary at the back of the book where he defines
Speaker 1: kind of the basic ideas of hypostasis and nature and
Speaker 1: energies and.
Speaker 2: This kind of stuff.
Speaker 1: So that would be a good kind of rough book,
Speaker 1: but the basics would be I think David has some
Speaker 1: videos to David real Medwhite on the basic terms that
Speaker 1: you want to know. But uh, you know person, nature, energy, will,
Speaker 1: tropos mode right in hyposthetize. Those are all key words
Speaker 1: that we want to know.
Speaker 2: Okay, thanks, sure.
Speaker 7: Jay.
Speaker 12: I had a quick one with something that came up
Speaker 12: on Twitter. It's about saying Basil. I just want you
Speaker 12: to comment real quick, because now the Reformed, in their
Speaker 12: terrible arguments against this, are now trying to claim several
Speaker 12: same Basil's letters we have, like letter three sixty or forgeries.
Speaker 1: I don't know at the top of my head what
Speaker 1: the three sixty is. Now some of Basil's letters have
Speaker 1: been fought to be Gregora Nissa, Like letter thirty eight
Speaker 1: is on nature in person is now believed to be
Speaker 1: Gregora Nissa. But I don't like what is What exactly
Speaker 1: does that? I mean, who cares what a reform person thinks?
Speaker 1: And what is letter number three hundred sixty. I don't
Speaker 1: know if the top my head what it is.
Speaker 2: Are you there excuse me?
Speaker 12: Oh, it's it's the letter from Saint Basils talking about iconography,
Speaker 12: because you know they're iconoclass, so they're trying to argue
Speaker 12: that any patristic evidence for venerating icons has to be forger.
Speaker 1: Okay, well, everybody doubts the I mean, there's plenty of
Speaker 1: people who doubt the authenticity of the epithet any US
Speaker 1: essay against the iconography, So it doesn't really matter if they.
Speaker 1: I mean, our argument for and belief and iconography doesn't
Speaker 1: hinge on a letter from Basil. I mean it hinges
Speaker 1: on the principle behind the incarnation, the real presence in
Speaker 1: the Eucharist, Sacramentalism. I mean, that's the basis for why
Speaker 1: we believe that icons, you know, do what they do.
Speaker 1: It's not it's not all hinging on you know, a
Speaker 1: letter from Basil.
Speaker 9: And just chime in.
Speaker 10: So, yeah, if you're looking for a critical perspective, there's
Speaker 10: always going to be some level of criticism. Now, this
Speaker 10: letter is really on its face in terms of iconography
Speaker 10: because it literally says that he venerates icons. If you
Speaker 10: want to prove econography from Saint Basil, I would maybe
Speaker 10: be a bit careful. I would not use stuff that
Speaker 10: you know they might refuse, as they might debate, because
Speaker 10: you know, there's always some level if you're in a
Speaker 10: critical mindset, this is a always a way in which
Speaker 10: would you wouldn't use it. So if you want to
Speaker 10: pry iconography from Saint Basil, you can you can use
Speaker 10: many of his letters when he refers to glory given
Speaker 10: to the type in transfer to the prototype, and you've
Speaker 10: got all of these ideas. So it's the trinity, but
Speaker 10: you can show that there's a principle here. And I
Speaker 10: think there's also there's also something from him talking about
Speaker 10: the image of the emperor, you know, in order.
Speaker 4: To to Theians.
Speaker 10: And so I think that instead of using this one,
Speaker 10: which can be debated, and I understand why it can
Speaker 10: be debated, because it's it seems very obvious, and as
Speaker 10: there are some that are you know, there are some
Speaker 10: actually I know there's a fake quote by Athenatius on icons.
Speaker 10: But instead of using this one, you can you can
Speaker 10: show that actually Saint Basil already understood the principle of
Speaker 10: iconography and actually applied it to strinitary and theology and
Speaker 10: all which and all the sudden councils just doing that
Speaker 10: in reverse, which is just return to source.
Speaker 9: But if you want to go from a.
Speaker 10: Full truant perspective, then you'll be a bit less critical.
Speaker 10: But if you're talking to press, and please accept that
Speaker 10: they can have some criticism. You know, we also have
Speaker 10: some criticism of some documents in another context, you know.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I mean they always pick it.
Speaker 1: They just do this game where they like quote mine
Speaker 1: to find a church father who disagreed at some point. Okay,
Speaker 1: but so what like what does that prove because nobody
Speaker 1: is hinging the position on every church father having a
Speaker 1: unanimous agreement at every stage. I mean, there wouldn't be
Speaker 1: councils if everybody agreed, right, So it.
Speaker 2: Really doesn't matter.
Speaker 1: And snackt right that I wouldn't hinge the argument on
Speaker 1: a dubious letter. I would just point out the principles
Speaker 1: that the Seventh Council uses. If you read Saint Theodore's
Speaker 1: book on the Holy Icons, he uses the argument like
Speaker 1: like type prototype that Snag just mentioned