Speaker 1: So is orthopos considered a derogatory term. You and Sam
have your situation. What was your impression of the debate
you had with him as a debate partner on valutainment?
And then when do you think that devolved to? What
ended up evolving to? Which will get into if.
Speaker 2: We don't make judgments about individuals, and like I don't
know your destiny, I don't know the work of God's
spirit in your heart. I do believe that like the
thief on the cross, and I tried to bring some
philosophical internal critiques to the table, and I think it
was a blowout. If you go to the pressure of
a channel, you can see forty thousand ish comments.
Speaker 3: Ninety eight percent is un lost.
Speaker 1: Some of the folks that I see that are coming
towards Eastern Orthodox seem to have a crippling fear and
anxiety around their own salvation.
Speaker 2: The argument that you're making violates the very thing that
you just said would relativize the positions.
Speaker 3: The argument that I'm making right now, Your.
Speaker 2: Argument is no different than anyone else's argument you're citing.
You're saying I have this position, they have that position.
You have your position. Yeah, of course, but that has
nothing to.
Speaker 3: Do with it. Jay's in his stunner shades.
Speaker 2: I'm going full Jim Jones because I thought I thought
we were going to the Madi, so I was going
to do that cult vibe.
Speaker 3: I better talk the rest of this in the or
show voice.
Speaker 2: Cult lads will also have like a booger whistle, if
you know, it's like, oh show, He's like.
Speaker 1: Okay, so so so is ortho bros considered a derogatory
term the only time. The first time I heard it
was at Jonathan Pago's conference last year, the first one
he did, and so I was like, that's interesting because
it because it it articulated for my vantage point a group.
There's I have two very polar opposite experience with Preist
and Orthodox. Some of them are the sweetest, kindest, friendliest
folks I've ever met, and I would say, I would say,
meeting you in person is like that, like you're very kind.
I think we had a great time hanging out. And
then there's like the online aspect of it and what
they remind me of and I don't want to hypergeneralize,
but it reminded me of the young, Restless and reform movement. Yeah,
that was like we would put them in the cage
stage like you're just like you just became a Calvinist, Like,
let's just put you in a cage so you don't
hurt anybody. And it's like it's one of those two. So,
like every person I've met, whether it's Father Josiah, whether
it's Jonathan Pago, whether it's Neil from der Poor Robbins,
whether it's even Father Harris, who who's a I would
I don't know if it's appropriate, say a bit more radical.
He seems a bit more like dogmatic in some of
his positions are totally different than some of the community
and the chatter online, right like even in you saying, hey,
you're coming on my podcast and people were like, better
better tell him, blah blah blah, you know, and I'm like, oh,
like what the contrast?
Speaker 3: Right? Yeah?
Speaker 1: Nothing? Is it really a song for the anathemist? Okay,
we'll get to the anatherists. So anyway, derogatory term. Are
you kind of coined and viewed as the guy who
kind of built this Ortho Rose community?
Speaker 3: Uh? Or is it? Was it already there and you
just of spoke to it.
Speaker 2: It was a joke that fothered again and nice made
and then for whatever reason, I think, then people started saying, oh,
I'm an Ortho bro, and then the people who wrote
hit pieces used it as a derogatory term, so so
initially as a joke, and then they and then yeah,
and then but I would say, like, yeah, I think
you've got a full spectrum of like people who aren't
Orthodox who just put up profiles. I mean I've even
caught people who we know are not Orthodox creating profiles
to create nonsense that happens.
Speaker 1: I will say, your guys' cross is definitely the coolest
esthetic cross.
Speaker 2: I mean, anybody can create a Twitter profile and say
I'm Orthodox. By the way, I'm ready to go kill people, right,
and I'm just like, I haven't seen that sort of stuff.
There was a dude who do that. Yeah, anyway, I
also think, like you said, if you know, when you're
like eighteen to twenty five, you're really searching and you're
very idealistic, you're very zealous.
Speaker 3: I was that way when I was in my twenties.
Speaker 2: I was a calvalc should have been caged Calvinists right
when you.
Speaker 1: Were Calvinists before the young, restless reform. Yes, right, yeah,
it was a couple of years before that. I'm just
saying that I have Do you remember that era though,
like as you were I guess Catholic or wherever you
were at. Do you remember how like scorching hot like
the John Piper.
Speaker 3: Yeah, I was really into both of those.
Speaker 1: Okay, Yeah, but what I'm saying, like twenty not twenty
two thousand and six to two thousand and yeah, ten
eleven is like Calvinism.
Speaker 2: Well I moved past those guys before that time, but
I was really into John Piper and Paul Washer back
in the late nineties and early two thousands.
Speaker 3: They made me Calvinist.
Speaker 1: You were early on that, Okay, Okay, So anyway, Ortho bros.
Speaker 3: Yeah, I mean it's I think.
Speaker 2: You're gonna have a lot of young people searching who
are zealous and who immediately want to start debating. And
this is something that FDAFO again and Nice has tried
to like warn about, and in fact, he does an
Orthodox conference and the last two conferences he's done in
Montana were geared towards trying to calm dudes down. And
because people don't understand that, like because you see me
or anybody else doing a debate, like they think, oh,
I got to go debate, Like the orthodoxy is about debating,
not necessarily right, Like you have to go through the
process of like changing. It has to change you, right,
And I'm not saying it's perfectly changed me. But not
everybody has the skill set or the call to to
do debates. It takes a certain temperament and sometimes I
lose my temper If you do this for twenty years
plus I've done debates since I was I don't know,
twenty five years, you're going to have times where you
lose your temper and it's going to be hard. So
it's not for everybody. But I think a lot of
young people, you know, they just sort of assume that
I got to do what he's doing, and that's not
necessarily the case. And then I think you've got people
who are serious and who do convert. And I think
there's also a contingent of people who are just not
happy with the idea of debating at all. They think
that debate is bad. If you debate, it's bad, and
so they'll just sort of lump everybody who debates into
a category.
Speaker 3: Of bad people. Right. That's not fair either. No, I
mean Paul goes out and debates.
Speaker 1: You know, so yeah, Act seven seen, Yeah, Paul Nathan's
one of my favorite chapters. So would you say the
current you've talked about losing your temper is that something
you go to confession for or is that just something
you personally?
Speaker 3: Yeah?
Speaker 2: No, I mean I've had to confess that probably ten times,
ten times in yeah, ten years or seven years years.
Speaker 1: Would you say the general debate culture online is a
net positive or a net negative? Because I get I
get a lot of this asked in our Patreon community
of like, hey, what do you think of this? And
we'll get to the Sam Chamoun and all that. Yeah, crazy,
Like I think that's way out there, right, But net positive?
What do you make of just an overall debate scene.
Speaker 2: I would guess that from my perspective, and like when
we go to our live events, and I would say
in the last five to seven years, we've probably met
a few thousand people in person, just from traveling coast
to coast many times and going to as churches and whatnot.
I would say it's overall in that positive because we've
met so many people who said I came out of atheism.
I came out of Islam, I came out of you know,
all these things.
Speaker 1: To Christ because of a debate, and you're seeing these
people in church. Now, yeah, that's that's I would say,
that's good. I mean, one of the things that I
do appreciate about Orthodoxy is that there seems to be
an emphasis on the practice of the faith, right, which
I think faith should be something that would work out, right,
we work out what God has worked in and so
I do appreciate that, And that's my conversations with Jonathan
and Neil are always like, yeah, there's there's an emphasis
on practice.
Speaker 3: It's not just a proposition online. It can just be online.
Speaker 1: It can't just be an agreement to said facts, because
then that's just gnosticism, you know, it's just knowledge and information.
And so I think that's that's cool. So you say
it's a it positive. Now can I add one point
to that. The other thing too, is like I come
out of academic philosophy. So when I was in college,
like you're expected to debate. I think maybe a lot
of universities have moved away from this because but like
back in the two thousands, when I was doing undergrad
like we had debate clubs.
Speaker 3: Yep.
Speaker 2: And when I was a sophomore, I did a public
debate with one of our professors, like it was just
sophomore college college. Wow, I debated my philosophy science professor's atheists. Well,
I did TAG and I think he lost. So, I mean,
I don't think any atheists who doesn't know TAG right
is going to do very.
Speaker 3: Well against the presubsisitional argument.
Speaker 2: But so I'm just saying, I come out of the
milieu of it's expected that you debate if you're a
philosophy student. And I mean I think in my in
my university, it was one of our like you know,
they have like those corny tag lines like achieving excellence,
analyzing ideas. You know, we're going to produce the perfect
student in this person who can critically think. Well, I
come out of the athos of critically thinking and the
expectation of you got to defend your ideas. That's what
academic of it was about. For example, even still, if
you do a master's thesis or a PhD, you have
to defend your thesis. That's a degree of debating and apologetic.
So you know, when Socrates goes out in the apology.
He's doing an apologia. He's questioning people's paradigms and assumptions.
That's the essence of philosophy, even back to Plato and Socrates.
So that's also I think an element of this that
I think a lot of people are not I don't
mean this in an arrogant way, but a lot of
people are not educated about what philosophy is and what
it is to question paradigms and to critically think, and
so they just assume that that's arguing. You just want
to argue. A debate is not arguing, and that's why
we do formal and informal debates. So I let people
call in, ask whatever questions they want, have what are
kind of informal debate they want. But I also do
formal academic Yeah, yeah, no, that's good. I'm with you.
I think.
Speaker 1: I mean, one of my favorite classes that I've taken
was a logic and reasoning class. Yeah, you know, philosoph
and philosophy or religion and how do you come to
what your systemology is, like, how do you come to
conclusions of truth? I think that stuff is good and
I think it's good for us to critically think about
these things and how do we come to these conclusions?
Speaker 3: You know?
Speaker 1: So I think that's a listening to your stuff. It
seems like there's always you're even in your debates that
are informal, you're still reminding people and infusing people of
those elements of philosophy, which I think is helpful. You
are presuppositional in your apologetics. Is there a reason why
or do you just not like the classical apologetics approach?
Or is it because you're so connected to philosophy and
logic and reason that you don't use the classical apologetics lane,
or so just that's just not your will.
Speaker 3: I just think that they're not the best arguments.
Speaker 2: So I do agree with Vantilhum made a really good
argument that you could take all the classical arguments and
make a transtal version of those. So you can make
a transfial argument for telos tell us, you can make
a transfill argument for causation or cosmology, the cosmological argument.
So I just think it's a superior argument. Also, resurrection,
could you for the classical resurrection? The resurrection happened because
the New Testament is reliable. New Testament's reliable, you know,
like that?
Speaker 3: I would do. Yeah, I would actually argue a transitional
version of that too.
Speaker 1: Okay, Yeah, I'll be honest, Like, I wasn't the biggest
presuppositional guy because I would always hear like, kind of
fundamentalists type Christians use it, And then I started hearing
you and Andrew use it, and I was like, and
then Jordan Peterson is very much so he's pretty close
to that. Yeah, presupposent, And I'm like, Okay, I appreciate
it more here than you guys use it. Well.
Speaker 2: One thing I would say too, is like presupposition is
not against evidence. A lot of people have this assumption that, oh,
if you are a pre supt guy, you don't do evidences.
It's rather that we're opposed to evidentialism, as if that's
like a superior epistemic approach. We absolutely believe in it evidences.
You have to use evidences. For example, somebody comes along
and says there's no historical evidence for the person of Christ.
Speaker 3: In that case, it would I.
Speaker 2: Would be absolutely going to historical evidences because I want
to disprove that. But I think the strength of tag
is that I want to come along also with a
nuclear level argument to undercut that person's entire paradigm to
give them no room to even make an argument. I
think that's just a stronger process.
Speaker 1: I agree, and I think it exhausts people, like I
know Destiny is like, was like, hey, you're not one
of those presuppositional guys when we were on No Jumper,
and I was like, I'm not going to I'm not
going to do that with you. Like we could just
talk just the basics, I would he would have debate
me on that. I want to.
Speaker 3: We try for years, and Destiny would not. He doesn't
want to debate it. He explicitly says he will not
do that. He would only debate me on politics, and
I'm not really interested in politics.
Speaker 1: Yeah, he wouldn't even he didn't even want to engage
with anyone that was presupposition. Yeah, exactly, Which is interesting.
Your conversation with myth Vision, I don't know if you
remember that randomly came up in my thing and that
was one of those same thing, like you kind of
chopped the legs from underneath him with the presuppositional portrait,
Like how do you even come to know anything?
Speaker 3: Right?
Speaker 2: We did the same with Matt Dilloney with stuff on moloney,
it was all the same type of stuff. Yeah, I'm
sure there's been other atheists, but yeah, I think it's
just a really strong argument for atheists. It can, in
an indirect, roundabout way, work with unitarian Muslim type positions,
but it's harder to get to that end goal. So
I think with Muslims and other theistic positions, it's better
to just kind of go for the internal contradictions like
Islamic dilemma of that kind of stuff. But yeah, I
just think tag is a superior philosophical argmentation, and I
come out of philosophic background.
Speaker 1: So yeah, you talk about debating Muslims. I loved you
and Sam Schamoun debating on value tayment for the Christian position.
Speaker 3: I was like, y'all coming.
Speaker 1: Together, the Catholic and the Orthodox together united, and they
even try to throw out some bait. They try to
get you guys to kind of turn on each other
a couple of times, and you guys didn't take debate.
Speaker 3: I thought it was a great debate. I thought it
was I thought it was fantastic. And then.
Speaker 1: You and Sam have your situation. What was your impression
of the debate you had with him? As a debate
partner on valutainment and then when do you think that
devolved to what ended up devolving to which you will
get into.
Speaker 3: Yeah.
Speaker 2: So, I mean we had been on pretty good terms
for five years ish, six years.
Speaker 3: I mean, wasn't he kind of flirting with.
Speaker 1: It?
Speaker 3: Yeah? And then I think he decided to go the
you know, the paybal route. Yeah.
Speaker 1: So, and his thing is like generally like I just
want people to go to high church. I just want
people to go to Apostolic succession church, you know, which
is which is really interesting because I don't think it
works that way.
Speaker 3: But I don't know, you could enlighten me, no, I mean, yeah,
we just did a.
Speaker 2: Stream with my buddy Kai from worthwox sh Hot of
critiquing that position of the idea of a sort of
a generic Apostolic Christianity, which yeah, yeah, it.
Speaker 3: Doesn't really make sense.
Speaker 2: I mean, but the that debate happened because they were
really looking for on freshman fit. They wanted like a
high profile Muslim Christian debate.
Speaker 3: It was bad, said right, but I mean I just
want to give you know, because I appreciate Myrin setting
that up. That was cool for him to do that.
Speaker 2: And they were like, you know, we want really kind
of aggressive debaters because we're going to put aggressive Muslims
on and it was going to be Daniel Hakikachu and Jake,
and Jake canceled for whatever reason because he didn't want
to do it. But so then they brought in Ijaz,
who's I don't think a very good debater. But uh,
I was happy to like do the you know, step
back because Shimoon definitely knows Islam very well and he
knows the Hadiths, you.
Speaker 3: Know, infinitely better than I do and all that. So yeah,
I thought it was a perfect team up for that situation,
and I tried to bring some you know, philosophical internal
critiques to the to the table. Uh.
Speaker 2: And I think it was a blowout because if you
go and I mean, it's had multiple millions of views
across the platform. So if you go to the fressire
Fit channel, you can see forty thousand ish comments, ninety
eight percent is Loam lost, So optics were pretty bad
for Muslim So, I mean, and that was last That
was I think the biggest debate of last year except
for West Side Billy Carson, Like, those are the two
biggest debates last year in terms of views, so it
was it was providentially great. And then you know, you've
got Sam moving continuing the last couple of years in
the direction of papism, and you know, my buddies and
I we obviously didn't want him to go in that direction.
So we we we're having this kind of backdoor DM
conversation for a long time.
Speaker 3: With him directly him a chatting directly behind the scenes.
Speaker 2: And the weird part was that we've been talking about
setting up a debate on his channel about orthodoxy papism,
right you and him one.
Speaker 3: On one or with a panel we had.
Speaker 2: We're discussing all possible options, like we were even talking
about doing presentations, just not even a debate like I
do it, because we've done that in the past. For example,
we had a dispute with VOCB Malone some years ago,
so Sam invited me and FDA to come on and
do a presentation and then separate VOKEB Malone.
Speaker 3: Do a presentation. That way, nobody's getting mad, you know,
and you can hear both sides.
Speaker 2: So we discussed that as a possibility. We discuss a
panel round table. But anyway, long story short, in the
context of this, I just sent him a DM saying, hey,
it was a very cordial do you want to set
up a debate on trinity in the essence sentnery distinction?
Because I think it's really important, contrasting to the Romancolic
position the worthodox to.
Speaker 3: Get the energies. And he just flipped out.
Speaker 2: It was like that was just a one How dare
you text me while I'm streaming because you're you're working
for the double It's like, what, totally cool for six
years and then it's like one tweet or one tag.
Speaker 3: There was nothing else behind that.
Speaker 1: No.
Speaker 2: In fact, they even said in the next message, like
hey man, it's no reason to get upset. Let's set
up a timed response that way nobody gets angry. And
it just flipped out, even like it went even crazier.
So at that point I was like, Okay, something something
else is going on, So I just remove myself from
that situation.
Speaker 3: Essence energy is distinction.
Speaker 1: I don't want to get super in the weeds on it,
but it seems like Catholics take a more God's simplistic
and that his parts are him. God's love is God,
God's power is God, and you guys have a fair
to say a bit of a distinction between God's essence
and his energies, and that's the foundational disagreement.
Speaker 3: So he had the reason that came up was that
like mocked the energy's thing a bit right.
Speaker 2: After the thing, but like he was presenting a differing
views of the Trinity from Protestant, Reman Catholic Orthodox people,
and that's what prompted me to message him and say,
in our view, there's not just a philly oquay and
non philioquate model. There's also the question of the inner
juices that we believe is directly connected to the Father
as the soul cause or the monarchia in the Godhead.
So monarchical trinitarianism, which doctor bo Branson is a really
good Yeah, I got a couple of monarchical and we
think that like that doesn't stand alone. It also kind
of necessarily connects to the doctor of the energies because
the energies have the same movement as the person's in
the triad. Interesting anyway, So yeah, I included in the
offer like why don't we discuss trinity, phil oquay and energies?
And I think because he doesn't really know about that,
at all. He's new to a lot of these topics.
It was easier for him to just sort of flip out,
poison the well, spoil the possibility of having that debate.
Speaker 1: Yeah, he he had. He had crashed out on me
the week before that. He had crashed down on somebody
else the week before that, And I was privately talking
to him, like trying to get him to walk off
certain ledges because it was like a consistent that's my
experience of like, hey man, like I'm not trying to
attack you.
Speaker 3: Like if my.
Speaker 1: Audience asks what do I think about this thing that happened, right,
I'm going to talk about it. If you don't want
me talking about it, I won't ever talk about you again.
I won't put you in a thumbnail, I won't do
any of that sort of stuff. And then he's like, no, no, no,
it's all good. It's all good, brother, thank you for
reaching out. And we had a really good conversation and
then it just it just completely went left, and it's
like bipolar, Like, yeah, there's something going on there. The
stuff that he said, though, seems to have crossed some
lines I've never seen him cross before, where he started
talking about your wife he started, I mean, he really
jumped out the window. And so that's some wild stuff
that I just had never I've never like there's certain
stuff this is just off limits, you know, And how
did you process that? And at that point where you
just kind of like, oh, this is something else. He's
having a mental health episode and I just need to
leave him alone. Was that kind of your temperament more
or less? Yeah, And I don't mean that in a
mocking way.
Speaker 2: I think actually there is some kind of like a
probably a bipolar thing going on. And I know he
said I had a tough time with his situation, which
I don't talk about people's personal drama usually.
Speaker 3: I don't know about what's going on with him.
Speaker 2: But I think that sometimes people have kind of like
what we talked about earlier with Alex, like there might
be something going on personally, and then that affects sort
of the internet optics and how they're operating on the internet.
So I mean that would be my guest, but I
don't know.
Speaker 1: Yeah, in that I defended you because Redeem Zoomer I
think responded to something I defended you, and I said, hey,
like Jay's been nothing but kind in our interactions privately
and publicly, and I think like Sam's crossed the line.
And then people started replying to me and are like, well,
Jay is not always the kindness and he's not always
the nicest. And there was a thing about something about
Coptic Christians and you were mocking Coptic Christians that were martyrd.
Speaker 2: I didn't mock anything. I questioned the legitimacy of the
video because mainstream news article's sad that the videos are questionable.
So all I did was repeat what was in the news,
and I didn't say for sure nobody had. I just said,
we don't know on the basis of just this piece
of evidence, got it. So I've always thought like there's
nothing wrong being skeptical about authoritative claims and sources. And
if you look at where those videos come out of,
there are dubious sources.
Speaker 3: But I don't know.
Speaker 2: So people assume that, oh, I'm saying for sure that
nobody's ever been martyred, nobody's ever been killed.
Speaker 3: No.
Speaker 2: I was just taking a skeptical attitude. And I still
take skeptical attitudes to when I see an immediate fluid
situation where something's developing just happening. I'm not going to
immediately buy into it. I'm going to wait and see.
And I've always had that attitude.
Speaker 3: Got it.
Speaker 1: So from our vantage point, for my vantage point, one
of the things that we hold I guess in pretty
high regard fruit of the spirit, right, kindness, gentleness.
Speaker 3: Jesus says that the world.
Speaker 1: Will know that you are my disciples about how you
love one another and treat one another right. And so
some of the critique about you is that you're not
always the most kind, You're not always the most gentle,
You're not always the most loving. I understand as a
constant creator, you're on stream eight hours a day. We've
talked about some of the stuff privately which we don't
need to get into in terms of like some weird
kind of death threats and that sort of stuff that
comes up for creators. And you've said, here, hey, man,
like I've had to go to confession for losing my temper.
Sure do you think that that's a that's a fair
critique of Jay Dyer. Jay Dyer isn't the most kind,
he's not the most gentle, And is that kind of
why you're like, hey, like, I'm not an Eastern Orthodox
poster child online, Like, I'm a guy who's in a
variety of things in Eastern Orthodoxy is one of them.
Speaker 2: I think in the realm of debate, you're going to
have situations that get heated and yeah, I've lost my temper.
Speaker 3: I don't know. Like, but if you think.
Speaker 2: About in terms of eight years of online debating, and
most of those are like three, four or five hour discussions,
and if you've got like a handful of instances out
of hundreds, maybe thousands of hours, I don't see that
as like.
Speaker 3: The end of the world.
Speaker 2: It's like you're you're ignoring the ninety five percent of
the time where we're having cortial conversations in our actions.
Speaker 3: Q and A.
Speaker 2: Another thing too is like if you've done debates for many,
many years, you can a lot of times pretty quickly
since when somebody's debating a good faith or whether they're trolling,
and if you open it up to the public for
hours a week, which is what we do, I mean,
you're going to have a lot of people who come
in bad faith trolling. They immediately start talking about your wife.
Mayby just start talking about your you know, would you
do ten years ago when you said this, you know,
it's like that's evidence is a bad faith. And so
usually I'm pretty heavy handed about just booting or moving on.
So a lot of people take that as old look
so mean, he just boots people if you're not a
serious debater for open forum, like it's just wasting everybody's time.
Speaker 3: So that's going on.
Speaker 2: You've got people who don't understand that even in classical
pedagogy of debate, rhetoric is part of it. So making jokes,
making jabs, that's part of rhetoric and debate. It doesn't
mean that your whole stick or debate is rhetoric. In
jabs or else, it will be evident that you don't
have any substance to the argument.
Speaker 3: Right.
Speaker 2: But if you can watch a classical debate like Hitchens
on the Oxford Union, you'll see him doing a presentation
and every four or five minutes throwing in a joke,
a jab my opponent. Of course, he's never studied this,
so you wouldn't know. But these are little jabs that
are just it's just rhetoric. That's part of debate. But
a lot of people don't know that, and so they
they'll latch onto something like that, or but I also
have a side of me that's not the debate world,
which is comedy, impressions, skits. We've been doing that for years,
and so I might make fun of somebody like Lofton
or something like that, and then that's scene as oh,
that's so mean, that's so mean, But then everybody else
makes jokes.
Speaker 3: It's like, what would you say the line is?
Speaker 1: Is the line at like calling somebody an idiot like
I've seen people.
Speaker 3: Send me closely. I don't even think that's like.
Speaker 2: I mean, if Proverbs says you can identify, well, I
don't see why it's it's not. Jesus says not to
call a person a fool without reason. But I mean,
how could I if Proverbs tell me to avoid the fool, how.
Speaker 3: Could I avoid the full? I don't identify the fool?
Speaker 2: But no, I think you know, if you look at
Jesus's like even the way Jesus approaches debates. He talks
about the Pharisees as vipers. He talks about Herod being
a fox, which is derogatory term, but it's not the majority, right,
So I would say, you know what is Paul said,
let your let your speech be grace, sprinkle with salt.
So yeah, if there's some times there's some salt, but
it's not that it doesn't dominate.
Speaker 1: Do you think it's because they're remote, that the conversations
are remote, that that's why it's hard, Like I avoid
anything remote virtual because I know myself and I know
I'm way more likely to get nasty or to get
combative online online than if like me and you are
having a steak and hanging out the night before and
then we're having a conversation.
Speaker 3: There's definitely a veil of.
Speaker 2: Nastiness that can't like because of the Internet, there's a veil,
and people can get nasty definitely in a way that
they wouldn't in person.
Speaker 3: For sure, that definitely happens.
Speaker 2: But also like that, when we did the live debate
in Nashville, we had that three way debate with me
Catholic and a Protestant. It was still heated and aggressive
and there was jabs. There was jokes on all sides.
So it doesn't necessarily mean that they won't be heated,
but it might not get out of hand in person.
Speaker 3: For sure.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I mean you're pretty buff, dude. You probably you
probably beat me up pretty pretty good. So I don't
know if I want to like, I.
Speaker 3: Don't know about that. Let me see.
Speaker 1: Yeah, so I think I think for me, some of
the debate stuff is interesting. It's definitely great entertainment. I
will say that.
Speaker 2: Let me add to that, Like in the formal debates, Yes,
I can only think of one or two of maybe
twenty five formal debates where I called somebody dumb or
an idiot.
Speaker 3: If you haven't call anyone's mother or whore, to your credit,
now you've never called anyone's mother who I mean.
Speaker 2: In the informal debates, like I take the attitude I
tell people like, yeah, you're you're not here as the
expert debater. You're here as the nube, but calling in sure,
and you're gonna be held to the standard that anyone
else to be held to because I've been debating for
twenty five years. You're not gonna like yeah. So it's
a different modus operanda than when it's a formal debate
with moderator and timed situation. And if you go watch
any of the Muslim debates except for maybe Sneako and
Muslim Lantern, I think I called him an idiot once
in that debate, but all the other ones are pretty
like they're heated.
Speaker 3: But I don't think there's any violations of yeah, now
that makes sense. I think I think the yeah.
Speaker 1: I just I've just made it a point to stay
away from anything remote, and anytime I break that rule.
Anytime I break that rule, I end up crashing out,
and I like stupid in my in my experience, I
just had Alex O'Connor calling remotely and I was not
pumped with how I you know, I.
Speaker 3: Just yeah versus like debate.
Speaker 1: It was about the Isaiah word for word debacle with
Wes Huff and he was really like, but it technically
wasn't word for word, And I'm like, Alex, but ninety
nine percent word for word, you know, nearly word for
word might as well be word for word. If a
compass ninety five percent full, it's full to me, like
we're arguing semantics. Since I just didn't like how I
how I represented myself and how I represented my faith.
And then in that, by the grace of God, he
came to our summit, a first summit, and I felt
like we hit it off, and I think it was hopefully,
you know, some redemptive qualities on my part in that.
And then when we made the last video response to
him conversation with Red, I just try to give gave
him a heads up and like, hey man, we're gonna
have some fun with this intro, Like there's gonna be
some jokes and that sort of stuff, you know. But yeah,
I've just never had a great consentious conversation virtually. That's
that's gone over, and I've just tried to avoid avoid
it like the plague, because the last thing I want
to do is may what I'm representing look bad, you know.
So one of the things I did appreciate you about
you is when we had our disagreement. The disagreement initially
was about I think I reacted to a Gavin Ortland
video about why I'm a Protestant. I think in there
I probably said some stuff wrong about the councils. You
made a response video, and then somewhere in there we
talked and we agree that we'll have you on, we'll
have an in person conversation. And then someone was feeding
you information that I kept talking about you, and then
I was like, no, Jay, like when we talked, I
haven't mentioned you since I haven't said anything about you. Actually,
any time we talked about you now it is usually
pretty funny because we're always referencing in the middle class
and feel, so whatever's talking about you, it's always positive.
And in that I sent you the time stamp and
I showed to you like, hey, this was such as
and to your credit, you were like very gracious and
you apologize publicly, and I was like, man like that.
I wasn't expecting you to do that, Like your lore
on the internet was not what it was. And the
way you carried yourself in our disagreement, in the way
you you you handle yourself, and I really appreciated that,
and I was like, I think Jay's is a good
faith guy. Like I think we can disagree, but he's
a good faith guy. And so our disagreement initially, you
know way more about church history than I do, and
you know way about way more about the creeds and
all that stuff than I do. I think the the
what I was trying to say in that initial video
and that was gosh, it's over a year ago, was
in that second Council and you could you could refresh
me is the word anathema? The second Icing council seems
to be cutting off anyone that doesn't what's what's the
word venerate icons right as anathema, not as in you're
just outside of the church, you are now outside of salvation,
that you're no longer saved.
Speaker 3: And I and.
Speaker 1: I think that that's a pretty harsh stance. And I
think that depending on which Orthodox person I'm talking to,
it's always is kind of getting different answers, right, So
Father Hairs were more or less kind of like, hey, like,
I don't know if you're in, Like I don't think
you're in, right, And then I talked to other guys
and they hit me with the we know where God's
spirit is.
Speaker 3: We don't know where God's spirit is, you know.
Speaker 1: And so from your vantage point that word anathema in
that second council about icons, which, by the way, I
love your guys as icons, I think you guys crush
it with art. Yeah, I got yeah, that's Jonathan Pego Like,
I love I love the art. I love the icons
like I love it. I've gone to Eastern Orthodox. Where's
the last thing I went to? It was one of
your guys's vespers. Is that what it's called? Yeah, the vesper.
So I love it all. I am just in a
spot where like I couldn't, I can't and probably couldn't
bring myself to bow or kiss icons. But I don't
mind if you're saying, hey, we're not buying it. It's
not idle worship. I get the arguments, this is transcendent,
this is windows in the heaven. But that line of
anathema sounds like like if you're not within orthodoxy, you're
you were not saved. Is that your position is that
the accurate position is at the historical position?
Speaker 2: I would agree with at least what I've not heard
the interview with other hearers, But the way that you
stated what his position was, I would probably agree with that.
Like we don't make judgments about individuals, and like I
don't know your destiny, I don't know the work of
God's spirit in your heart. I do believe that, like
the thief on the cross, God has the ability, through
extra normative means, to join anybody to the mystical body
in the ways that he sees fit. And you know,
Paul says that it's not our position to judge those
that are without, we judge those that are within. Yeah, yeah,
So we don't usually take the attitude of like individual.
And I think that if you look at the way
that the Icon Council speaks of it, and the way
that even Roman Catholics kind of have the same attitude,
where they'll say, for example, we condemn this proposition, like
the medieval people teaching had this tendency to say, if
you believe this, this is a condemned proposition. But also
in orthoxology, the idea of heresy, it's not just being wrong,
it's also a person that is obstinate and wilful. So
we don't really nearly call everyone a heretic. Like my
Baptist grandmother isn't necessarily a heretic because she's wrong. Heresy
has to do with wilful and knowing obstinacy against what
we believe is the true position.
Speaker 1: So is that why you guys may call a Gavin
Ortlund a herod? I would say, so you would say, so, okay,
in your framework, would you say your Baptist grandmother is
going to hell? No? I don't, but I'm saying I
don't know an individual level, you don't know. But in
a technical church, this person is like an obstinate, like
promoter and teacher. It's like that in that situation, yes,
they would be committing what we would say is a sin,
and that cuts a person off. And so is everyone
who's committing said sin condemned eternally. Or you're saying we
don't know on an individual level, but we will from
our theology our.
Speaker 2: Vantage like we can't judge that person because God's the
ultimate judge. But our position is more like it's a
warning of it's a it's a chastisement, right, And like
the anathema pronouncements themselves.
Speaker 3: Are you going to sing that anathema song? More?
Speaker 2: There are chastisements like warnings. So even the church can't
like damn a person. We can just say if you
follow and take that position, it can lead to shipwreck
and you're outside. But there's always but it's it's it's
it can lead to shipwreck. It's intended to be remedial,
is what I'm trying to say. Anathema is intended to
be remedial in the sense of it's a medicine.
Speaker 3: It's a chastisement to call you back. But what if
not like.
Speaker 1: Well, if I'm not in, like what if I am
not in what if I've never been Eastern Orthodox, I
grew up Oriental Orthodox, not but you know about my
back I yeah, so I've I've never been in So
am I anathema?
Speaker 3: Again? Like?
Speaker 2: Yeah, Like the position that you hold is anathema. But
I can't judge the state of your soul because I
don't know the state of your soul. I don't know
your destiny. I don't God's not given me that assessment.
Speaker 1: But if I perpetuate on in the trajectory that I'm
in right now, yes, and I don't become Eastern Orthodox
before the end of my life, or I think this
is a nuance and you can correct me if I'm wrong,
because I don't want to misrepresent your sing Or there
isn't some sort of mystical working that kind of grafts
me into being Orthodox without officially being Orthodox? Can I
be Orthodox without take being a catecumen?
Speaker 2: Again, like the thief on the Cross, he wasn't like
instructed in all the theology, but he had a genuine
repentance and a genuine joining to the body of Christ.
So it's not so much like that you have to
have this vast theological knowledge. It's rather an attitude of
humility and repentance that the thief on the cross had.
So so that and for us salvation, as I'm sure
you know, it's not like just a one point in
such thing. It's like there was salvation, it is ongoing,
and there's an eschatological salvation. So yeah, it's three senses
to that.
Speaker 3: Okay. So is this similar to like voice or reason,
your familiar voice of reason. It's just an impression. He
has the best voice voice of Reason made it.
Speaker 1: Never he said something along the lines of anyone who
rejects the dogmas of the church is rejecting Christ himself.
He says something like that, and then those Mary Mary
and dogmas would fall into that. And so I hit
him up and I said, hey, man, like I really
struggle with their later Marian document, Like I don't have
a problem with people calling Mary the Mother of God,
but like the later stuff, right, which was you you
probably know, it's better like a macalal conception and assumption assumption,
like the stuff that they made eighteen hundreds.
Speaker 3: Yeah, it wasn't later like nineteen fifty nineteen eighteen hundreds.
Speaker 2: Well, there is a second maculate conception, and then there
is I think you're right that.
Speaker 1: There's later Marian dogmas. I think someone will correct me
in the chat for that. Anyway, I just said, hey, man,
like I struggle to get behind these, are you saying
that I'm outside of the church and he gave me
the gosh? What is the language? It's like the wilful consent,
Like you have to willfully consent to rejecting dogmas you
know are truth.
Speaker 2: That's what I'm saying that that's what a heretic is.
It's a wilful obstinacy against knowing the truth.
Speaker 3: Okay, that's fair.
Speaker 1: But then if I'm a Protestant and I'm wilfully not
trying to reject God, I don't hate God. I love Jesus,
And with the information that I have, I'm doing my
very best to source through this stuff. I'm very in
my verstor to reason to look at the information that's
in front of me to come to reasonable conclusions with
what I see in scriptures. Wouldn't that categorically not put
me in someone that is wilfully rebelling against God.
Speaker 3: I don't know the state of it, That's what I'm saying.
We don't know. I don't know the state of your soul.
Speaker 1: Okay, that's fair, that's fair. I mean it's a similar
argument I get from the Catholic.
Speaker 3: Yeah, yeah, I think we would agree with that basic idea.
Speaker 2: And at that point, like all I can do is say,
you know, we would employ you to be Orthodox.
Speaker 1: And so so from your vantage point, you would you
would be willing to plant the flag firmly in that
salvation does not exist outside of the Eastern Orthodox Church.
Speaker 2: Correct, and that the only if anyone is saved, it's
not because they're a Protestant or a Catholic or whatever,
it's because.
Speaker 3: There's a mystical salvation in some way.
Speaker 2: United them, like the thief on lacross to the mystical body,
which is the Orthodox Church.
Speaker 1: What if all Protestants and all Catholics are secretly united
to the mystical Body of Christ and we just don't
know it.
Speaker 3: I don't. It doesn't make sense. It doesn't make sense.
I'm just throwing it out there. You know. I'm just listen, man.
Speaker 2: I because you're you're looking for like a categorical all
and I'm saying that on.
Speaker 3: A case by case basis. It's between possible individually, but
it's between that person and God and God and from
our vantage point, that's why anathema is just like in
the a macatholic pable position where they can them a
proposition like the anathema is against Like they didn't say,
like list every layman who's a part of like an
iconoclass church.
Speaker 1: They say, if you believe this anathema, what happened to
those iconic class churches? Did they all just die or
did they go on? Did they like so?
Speaker 3: After?
Speaker 2: And I see it too in sevent eighty seven, there
was about a almost one hundred year period where you
had the dominance of the iconoclass, and then there was
what's called triumph of Orthodoxy in eight forty three.
Speaker 3: It was at the second nineteen Council or okay, and
I see it two as seven eighty seven.
Speaker 2: Okay, So it says that the iconodual position is the
right position, Okay, But the iconic class and the conoclass
emperors kept going, kept going, and they like shut down
and got rid of the icons Okay in eight forty three,
almost one hundred year maybe seventy five years later, right
fifty seventy five years later that you have what's called
the triumph of Orthodoxy Council. It's a local Byzantine synod,
but that's the synod that's considered to be the reaffirmation
and the restoration of the Icons. That's where the Anathemas
service comes out of. And what's called the Sonata Kon
of Orthodoxy, which has this long it's a service that's
done in the Orthodox churches. That's the one I'll know
where you actually it actually sings out and it's a
liturgical celebration mentioning all these various heretics and the victory
of the Church over areas and the areas, and it
even mentions Platonism, it mentions Aristotle, it mentions Origin.
Speaker 3: They're covering all their basins with that one.
Speaker 1: So that kind of class church, those folks that were
against the Icons for that one hundred years.
Speaker 3: What happens to this, well it's even prior to that.
Speaker 1: Yeah, what happens to those folks? Like did they cease
being a church? Did they just kind of right off
into nothingness? Like what happens? I mean they ended up
dying out. It ended updying out.
Speaker 2: Okay, So to me, to my knowledge, I'm not aware
of like after eight forty three, like any. I mean,
there could have been some groups that.
Speaker 3: They were they like completely against any images.
Speaker 1: No.
Speaker 2: In fact, they believed that the only legitimate images were,
if I'm going from memory, the Cross and the Eucharist.
Speaker 1: They were pretty much against art, though generally speak it
sounds like they were against all forms of art and depictions.
Speaker 3: Uh.
Speaker 2: The basis for the arugmentation was Neoplatonism and the arguments
that origin made got it. So they were Originists and
neoplatonic got it. So in terms of by the way,
one interesting side note on that is that the majority
of the people promoting iconoclasm were the normative bishops, that
the some of the prominent patriarchs and the emperor, and
the restoration of icons came about from the laity and
the monastics.
Speaker 3: That is interesting that that it was was a lay movement.
Speaker 2: Interesting Okay, So it wasn't all bishops that were iconoclasts, right,
but it was large. The iconoclass was dominated by the
emperor and the iconic class bishops and patriarchs got it.
Speaker 3: Okay. That's interesting.
Speaker 1: So as someone that's looking from the outside end, right,
I grow up our Oriental orthodox, I become a Protestant later,
I love Jesus, I'm in a church, I leave my family,
all all those sorts of things, and someone's looking at
what is the one true church?
Speaker 3: Right?
Speaker 1: You believe the East Orthodox is the one true church?
Now are you Russian Orthodoxy a real court church?
Speaker 3: Okay? I was.
Speaker 2: I came in under antiochins and twenty seventeen, but they're
all unified as as one communion e and then I
became I went to start of going to roal Court
Church where I found Master as of father in twenty eighteen.
Speaker 3: Twenty eighteen.
Speaker 1: Okay, So is this some disagreement between the Russian Orthodox
and the others over the Ukraine thing?
Speaker 2: Or is that so the EP which is the patriarch
concept ANDOPLE is still in the status of not being
inconmunion with the MP and I forget which it kind
of fluctuates as to what the other patriarch it's status says,
because for example, Jerusalem at one point was pro MP
and then I think they switched due to US pressure
from the State Department to pro EP interest.
Speaker 3: So yeah, but a little side note, this has happened before.
Speaker 1: It's not like a yeah yeah, So so earlier you
were saying how you you would categorize a Gavin Ortland
as a heritage Yeah, James White, James White, pretty much
all Protestant teachers. It sounds like, so, then how do
you feel about Gavin being a father? Josiah's conference in October,
they're like a marriage conference.
Speaker 3: I don't.
Speaker 2: I mean, like, I'm not gonna judge, Like having a
conference is like, I mean, I'm here talking to you
and we disagree theologically. I mean, I don't know that
you're a heretic because I don't I have not heard
a lot of your opinions or views, or I don't
know whether you're obstinate or not. I think it because
it's a case by case basis. It takes time to
see and to know, like what that person's positions are.
Speaker 3: How much do they know? That's why I don't.
Speaker 2: We don't throw the term heretic out willie nilly, like, oh,
everyone's a heretic, because it's a case by case basis.
But there is a distinction between that and what's called
the public profession.
Speaker 3: So that's why.
Speaker 2: Again, just like the Remancatholices did this, the Orthodox Church
also says if you believe this position anathema, so it's
condemning the proposition because we don't know every individual person's
level of knowledge and status and culpability's right, So not
everybody's equally culpable, It's what I'm trying to say. But
from your vantage point, someone that's a heretic showing up
to an Eastern Orthodox conference is not a big deal.
I only ask because like in my circles in Protestant
and if you're doing anything with charismatics, like they're all
everyone's a heretic that that's flinched around all the time,
and so I end up having friends from these different pockets,
and then it's like the guilty by association fallacy, like, oh, well,
you're friends with this person, therefore you're endorsing every Yet
so maybe to answer that question very easily, So the
way that this is governed in the Orthodox world is
kind of someone in the Roman Caolic world, but we
have different canon law, okay, And so in the Orthodox world,
church law or canon law delineates the boundaries for what
you can do or how far you could go. With
somebody heterodox having conferences, writing a book, this kind of stuff,
presenting papers at an academic conference, nobody cares about that.
The canons define that I can't go to your church
service and worship.
Speaker 3: Could you just come to my church service if.
Speaker 2: I had permission from my spiritual father. For example, let's
say you had a creationist come and do a lecture,
and we believe in creationism, right, I could probably do that.
I just can't engage in public liturgical worship with you
or at your church, but you could come to our church.
You could come and worship at our church or participate
or visit or whatever. That happens all the time.
Speaker 3: And do you guys view canon law as infallible.
Speaker 2: No, it's just the normative governing principles of church law
that bishops apply to case by case. So it's called
economia right, the case by case basis.
Speaker 3: And can different bishops supply different canon law?
Speaker 2: Yes, because everybody's case is different, like for example, reception
of converts. Right, A person who for example, was say
baptized as a Armenian Orthodox or a Coptic or something
like that, Like many bishops would not do the baptism
because they had a Trinitarian baptism, and so they might
be received by christmation or just abjuration of air or whatever.
Speaker 1: I've heard that was a distinguishment between some folks that
were baptized as Protestants don't need to get rebaptized. Other
folks that do get baptized do need to givest. So
it's like a like a local regional bishop, I guess.
Speaker 3: Case by case, yes, and the church the highest authorities
a bishop, okay. And so how bishops are there in
the world, Yeah, like.
Speaker 1: Tens of thousands, okay, thousands of bishops and they're over
different regions.
Speaker 3: They have a jurisdiction theistic But I.
Speaker 1: Mean, is it like there's a bishop of California, so
he oversees all the priests in California.
Speaker 2: In the US is different because US is a unique
place where you have so many people coming from other
countries that you have overlapping jurisdictions, which has never really
happened because usually in church history you have, for example,
if Russia sends out missionaries, that becomes a jurisdictional territory
of the Russian WANs Rock Church. But in America you
have this melting pot and so many expatriates that you
can be in New York and you have like twenty
overlapping you know, groups and yeah, so it's very confusing
in America.
Speaker 3: But back to the question of canon law.
Speaker 2: For example, in the six Secondmentical Council, there's canons to
talk about certain Aryan groups. Their baptism was not even
considered a baptism because it was Unitarian, because they were Arians,
and like that, let the saddleback guy baptizing yourself, we
wouldn't recognize that as a baptism. So there has to
be delineations and like case by case stuff.
Speaker 3: Gotcha, that makes sense.
Speaker 1: We had Gavin at my summit and or Eastern Orthodox
friend of mine didn't want to attend because they couldn't
get clearance from their spiritual father. But then once Father
Josiah came and Deacon Christopher came. Decan Christopher's a legal
local Eastern Orthodox guy, and his father Josiah came down,
then it was almost like, well, if there's someone higher
than me that is willing to come to an event,
I probably could or I could come to the next one,
because there seems to be I guess an authority that could.
You know, I don't want say endorse as Gavin, but
is willing to collaborate with Gavin Ortland, who I know
within some Eastern Orthodox circles.
Speaker 2: You guys really don't like Gavin Orland. I don't personally
have an issue with him. The arguments I've heard of
not not pretty very convinced it.
Speaker 3: Have you no? Okay?
Speaker 1: Okay, So it sounds like you hold on, you hold
to like Salvation does not exist outside of Eastern Orthodox Church.
But it is possible that someone could have a mystical
God can join people to God can join the Cross.
So then if someone is looking at which church to join,
there's eight churches that all claim Apostolic succession and to
be the one true church. Right, I can't name them
all off the top, but I know Oriental Orthodox, right,
so on and so forth.
Speaker 3: So they all claim to be the one true church.
Speaker 1: They all have Apostolic succession, but they're not all in
communion with each other. How does someone decipher what is
the one and true church? If Salvation only exists in
one true church.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I mean this is a case where evidences and
history are necessary. It's not going to be something a
priori or self evident. You would have to get into the.
Speaker 3: History of the church. There's just really no other way
around it.
Speaker 2: So I think one thing that Roman Catholicism tries to
do is answer that question you just ask by putting
forward the idea of a pope as the easy solution.
Speaker 3: Yeah, we got it, we got a pope. We got
to put the guy problem solved. Right.
Speaker 2: But then if you're in the Romancolic world for a while,
as I was from many years, you begin to realize
that that wasn't as easily answered as I thought, because well,
I wait a minute, don't we have to also interpret
the pope's writings. And there's all these tiers of status
of well, this is magisterial and this is what you know,
ordinary magisterium, and this is ordinary but not magisterium. And
so there's all these tiers, and it becomes a very
laborious exercise when you have ten thousand pages of like
papal stuff and councils to sift through versus what the
car salesman approach to Roman Catholicism and the pop apologizes
world sells. So anyway, I lived at throughout my twenties,
and and that's a different issue. But I think the
easiest way to answer the question you're asking is to
look at the seven slash eight ecumenical councils of the
first millennium.
Speaker 3: Do you hold to seven or eight?
Speaker 2: Well, the reason I say seven slash eight is that
the first seven are strictly theological, and they're the ones
that most people the Roman Catholic and Protestant world will
talk about the ecumenical councils. But no, we believe in
nine if you count the Palomite Synods. And the reason
the Palmite Synods are they've been received through the whole
Orthodox canonical world as authoritative, even though they weren't ecumenical
in the sense of like all of the bishops and
all the provinces or whatever. It was just a there
were Byzantine Synods to discuss the theologies Saint Gregor Palomas
versus the Roman Catholic filioquis position. So for the for us,
those Palamite Synods just count as the ninth ecumenical council.
But we also have pan Orthodox Synods and things that
we also consider normative, even if they're not quote infallible.
Speaker 3: For us, it's like.
Speaker 2: It's like your local bishop isn't infallible, but he's a
normative authority right same way that probably a Protestant would
consider like a minister. Right, he has a normative authority,
but he's not necessarily infallible.
Speaker 3: Yeah.
Speaker 1: Yeah, you believe in authority outside of Scripture. We just
don't believe in any infaci which you know that because
you were Protestant.
Speaker 3: Yeah, but I mean uh.
Speaker 2: In terms of delineating between so Anglicans, Coptics, Assyrians, Roman Catholics,
some Lutherans in Eastern Orthodox would all claim Apostolic succession,
and we would admit that some of those groups, like
Roman Catholics and Coptics are ancient, but it's a question
of ecclesial authority in the history of the Church and
what the ecumenical councils actually contain in their normative theology
and process.
Speaker 1: So you would give Apostolic succession to Anglicans and Lutherans, No,
not you.
Speaker 3: I was just listening to the groups that claim it.
God is.
Speaker 2: The way to suss out between those would be to
go to the councils themselves and see what the canons
teach and what the process of the councils was. For example,
we believe in the North Shores. Really then appslite canons.
That's like the first collection of canon law. So that
lays down principles that were accepted throughout the East, including
the Duro Canon, and the way that the bishop is
elected is local, so there's nothing to do for example,
in napslite canons with the.
Speaker 1: Top top down, it's more bottom up. It sounds like yeah, yeah,
and it's episcopay that's decentralized. And that was the normative
church law in the East throughout.
Speaker 3: The whole three hundreds.
Speaker 2: Same time in the West, when we look at the
Western synods in church law, whether it's Council of Rome,
pop Damasists, Augustine, et cetera, Carthaginian councils, it reflects almost
the exact same attitude in the West for the normative
church law in terms of the Dudo canon being accepted
in terms of the election of bishops, even though the
West had the Patriarch of Rome the pope, like, we
don't see this attitude of Vatican one infallibility, So you
know there was when you start looking at absolute canons
and the canons of the ecumenical councils, I would argue
that's the easiest quickest way.
Speaker 3: To determine what is saule that question?
Speaker 1: What about I know some True Orthodox claim to be
more aligned to these councils than Eastern Orthodox. Have you
engaged with the True Orthodox? What is your thoughts on
the True Orthodox, because they kind of have a lot
of what you're describing, but they say, but we're even
more hardcore and we take these councils even more seriously.
Speaker 2: Yeah, the problem is my good buddy David Aarhon, He's
done a couple of good videos rebutting this. People could
go if they want a longer treatment, you could look
at David Aharhon's videos on his channel that addressed the
True Orthodox claims. This is a very very tiny I
mean it's almost no existent in the real world. I
mean I've seen one chapel in my travels across the country,
an actual uh one of these groups.
Speaker 3: So it's almos.
Speaker 2: I mean, even if you did want to go that
route like it would, you would basically not have a
church unless you were in Florida.
Speaker 3: I think they have one in Florida.
Speaker 2: But aside from that, it would mean essentially that all
the canonical churches have failed, and there's not. It's basically
a donatus type position. So I would argue, first of all,
donatism would mean an end of the episcopacy, and the
church is basically dead because it's because it's smaller, because
it's because it's almost non existent. The minuscule groups that
do exist, they're all out of commune with each other.
There's probably five groups that are all not in communion.
But beyond that, the attitude this is really nuanced and niche.
But the attitude is very similar to the Roman Catholic
mindset of set of a contests and the way they
view can in law that if one person, say, commits
a sin or an error, the idea is like it's
a light switch that everybody in commune with them, it's
all blacked out.
Speaker 3: So there's no grace.
Speaker 2: And that is a donatus position because what it's denying
is the authority of synods to make the affirmation or
the declaration of a heresy or aschism, So authority in
the or our churches, bishops in a synod, and you
can't erase all of that and say we don't accept
any synons or any bishops. We're going to create a
parallel episcopat or bishopric. That's classic Dunatism, classic schism.
Speaker 1: Okay, well, what about what if someone says, well, yeah,
but you know, Jay Matthew seven says, the wide is
the road that leads a destruction.
Speaker 3: Narrow go through the narrow gate.
Speaker 1: And you know, hey, so what, they don't have a
ton of congregations, So what they're not super prevalent. Maybe
that's the real remnant and maybe that you know, like, well, but.
Speaker 2: You could never have a situation because of the rest
of the teachings of the New Testament Book of Acts
x fifteen and what we believe are proofs of apslock succession,
you could never have a loss of the snodal reality
of the Church. So that position would require essentially they're
no longer being synods. They're no longer being authoritative declarations
from a synod because those positions are premised on all
the synods in world Orthodoxy being apostate. So there's no
longer snodal authority. There's just like a random dude in
a trailer park in Florida who says I'm the bishop.
Speaker 3: That's the true remaining bishop. So in other words, can
you appoint more bishops? Like what if there no That's
what I'm.
Speaker 2: Saying, Like, bishopric in the Canons is appointed by two
bishops are a metropolitan.
Speaker 3: That's the absolute canons. Kyle bishops come about, right.
Speaker 1: I'm saying, if this true Orthodox Church, which I don't
know much about them, to be to be transparent, but
if they were to hypothetically have an explosion of two
bishops coming together, making two more bishops, and all of
a sudden it grows and there's more congregations and it explodes.
Speaker 2: What I'm saying is that it's already negated because it's
they've negated the synodal reality of the church. So once
you've denied the synods, then it's you feel like they're
you feel like they're dead, just like Protestantism.
Speaker 3: Huh for us?
Speaker 1: So you would put him in the same category as
a protest well, I mean it would.
Speaker 3: It would depends on like this.
Speaker 2: I mean, to get really nuanced, like they wouldn't be
identical to Protestant because they don't hold all the Protestant idea,
ideologies and doctrines.
Speaker 3: But it would be equivalent.
Speaker 2: To the mindset of a Protestant that there's no synods
anymore and there's just this guy over here and this
guy over here.
Speaker 3: Does that make sense? In other words, the Orthodox Church
make analogy to the papacy, like a romancality would say,
the papacy could never go away, right, And if you're
a set of a contest, you've adopted a position where
you can never have a pope again outside of some
miraculous event, because all of the cardinals are also vaticant
to apostates. Does that makes sense? So the whole thing
is died away. Episcope is basically died.
Speaker 2: But even though you have a set of a concious bishop,
they can't elect the pope.
Speaker 3: So you would put the true Orthodox in a similar
They're in a similar situation in that, rather rather than
denying a pope, there's no longer synods. Okay, all of
the Orthodox synodal synods are invalidated and gone. Got it?
Speaker 2: So the church has fundamentally lost its elements and it's
constituent elements.
Speaker 1: Okay, I mean, I guess that makes sense. I think
that I'm sure they'll have a response for this. For
those of them that.
Speaker 2: They would probably say something like, will make a synod,
will will collect together, but they've never done that.
Speaker 1: Interesting, Okay. It seems that folks who come to faith
like the distinguishment you made. You mentioned it earlier between
our views of salvation right where you guys see salvation
as an ongoing process, and there's a in my circles,
there will be a distinguishment between the justification of the
binary are you justified in the side of God versus
A the sanctification, the the the continuing on of the
spirit transforming you so so so being justified before God
versus being you know, justified before the world, or positional
holiness versus practical holiness. Right, so, so Protestants generally, and
I want to say, I feel like some Catholics kind
of make this distinguishment, is that there's a justification that
happens because of what Jesus did, and the debt is paid,
it is taken care of, and so we're saved by
grace through faith.
Speaker 3: But then our position will be and we're saved two
good works.
Speaker 1: So we should obey Jesus command and get baptized, we
should go to church every Sunday. We should do these
things because of their commands.
Speaker 3: But are.
Speaker 1: We would we would separate justification and sanctification. You guys
use this as the language that I understand is you're
you are saved, you're justified you're being saved. We would
say you're being sanctified, and you will be saved in heaven. Yeah,
you're you're gonna be resurrected, You're gonna be glorified. You
guys would probably call this theosis stetification. Our language is
going to be a bit different there, but it's similar
to similar concepts. Do you reject that view of justification
that and is this because of like because of church
history and church councils, or because like when I read
Romans and I read Galatians, like there seems to be
this consistent Paul doubling and tripling down and that we're
justified being a thing that has happened because of the Cross,
Like we're justified because of what Jesus that you know,
you know all the verses, I mean I could pull
them up, but you know the verses of like Romans
A three and all are justified freely by His grace
through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus. So it
seems to be this binary of justification. And then we
get to work out our salvation. We work in what
Jesus has worked. We work out what Jesus worked in.
You would disagree with that on the basis of scripture,
or primarily scripture or church history.
Speaker 3: Well, scripture, philosophy, and church history all three.
Speaker 1: So give me the scriptural pitch on why justification by
grace through faith alone is bad.
Speaker 2: Well, the phrase is not bad, but what is meant
by the phrase and what we think the phrase means. So,
being formerly a Calvinist, you know, solo fida a proponent myself,
I understand where you guys are coming from and how
you would read the text. The first thing I would
say is that when you look through you say the
Gospel of John, and when Jesus talks about the way
that God's declaration works, it seems to be efficacious when
he speaks. So for example, when he speaks, he creates,
the world is created. There's no declaration that doesn't achieve
a metaphysical or ontological effect. So for us, the idea
that you could divorce the legal status from the ontological
or metaphysical status is not possible. And especially when you
go back to Luther. Luther's really the first to propose
this because he's influenced by two people, Gabriel Bile and
William of Baukham, and they're the most famous medieval nominalist.
I'm not saying that Luther was identical to nominalism, but
that he explicitly read them and said that their philosophy
helped him figure out how you could be in an
imputational legal status without ontologically having that status. So there's
a divorce between the term, the word nominalism, namism, and
the ontological status or the reality of that that you possess. Okay, okay,
So conclusion, then I'm gonna go back to the scripture.
But the point being I'm blending the scripture and the
philosophical point is that in the ancient and medieval world
there were no nominalists, and so nobody had yet divorced
the name or the term from the ontological reality. So
if God declares something so, it must actually in reality
and ray be so. So if God declares us righteous
and just and transformed and illumined and in Christ, et cetera,
we actually have to be that, and so there's no
such thing as a purely legal imputational righteousness.
Speaker 3: So that's the philosophical point.
Speaker 2: But back to scripture, I would argue that again, when
God speaks, it's efficacious and all those passages like in
Romans when he talks about being baptism in Christ or
Titus three when he talks about the washing of labor
of regeneration. We see those as actually referring to the
actual sacramental right, and there's no reason to divorce them.
So the Protestant presupposition is that to maintain the legal
invitational solofide position, we must divorce the celebration of the
right from the regeneration or the spiritual effects. And we
don't believe that. We think that they're united. Even luther
believe that. In Suda Augustine, yeah, because they talk aboutchasal regeneration.
Speaker 1: Right, right, right, So when I'm looking at like, I
think this glues what you just said together.
Speaker 3: Right.
Speaker 1: This is Philippians chapter two. I'm sure you know it.
Can you can you read that? I don't want to?
Speaker 3: Yeah?
Speaker 1: Okay, So yeah, work hard to show the results of
your salvation, obeying God with deep reverence and fear, right,
which we would all say yes and amen to that,
for God is working in you and giving you the
desire and the power to do what pleases him. Right,
So there's this death seems to be a bridging. I
don't know if the bridging is the right where, but
it seems like what you're saying, there is an ontological
shift that happens. Our heart of stone is replaced with
a heart of flesh. God give what writes his law
on our hearts. And so then when we're reading Romans right.
Speaker 2: By the way, and that past is that you just read, Yeah, yeah,
the Greek word is inner gaya.
Speaker 3: It's energies, which which it's the power. So that Paul
uses inner gaya and dunamus and for this word power,
that's uh if I re call us dunamus, but in
uh it's yea, he uses innergia and he uses dunamis,
and that's has to be. By the way, I'm just
pointing out that it teaches the essence entergy distinction. By
go ahead, okay, no, no, no, no, By the way, I
don't just look up in blue letter the Paul's usage
of innergeia.
Speaker 1: Yeah, this is this is innergaya in the logos Bible software.
So I don't have an issue with the distinction of energies.
I don't, I don't need.
Speaker 2: But what I'm saying is that that also by extension,
I'm not trying to deflect because you can go back
to the passages. But where I was going to go
next was that the essence entergy distinction isn't just an abstraction.
It's unique. Only Orthodox Church teaches the essence interesstinction, and
that has to be an ontological reality that we're participating in.
Protestantism teaches through the Covenant, if you mean classical Calvinist type.
So the Covenant of Works actually ends up making Jesus
into an historian Jesus who merits a status of grace,
and it's not an ontological position that he has as
the son of God. That's because if you're Colvinist, you
believe I'm not a Calvinist. Okay, Well, the Covenant works
in the Calvinist position of justification means that Jesus fulfills
the Covenant of Works to grant us the perfect legal
status that he kept the law right. So I mean, yeah,
I know, if there's not a Covenant works, Luther thinks
that Jesus perfectly keeps the law to give us that rightchousness.
Speaker 3: Got you, Yeah, it imputed righteousness, I understand.
Speaker 2: Okay, But Covenant of works, even if you don't. If
you're a Lutheran, you don't affirm covenant works. It's the
still the same principle that Jesus keeps the law right right,
and so the righteousness that we get is a legal status. Yes,
this is not a legal status. Primarily it's an ontological reality.
Thus the legal status reflects the ontological reality, not the
other way around.
Speaker 3: The legal status reflects the ontological reality. View. So it's
and both.
Speaker 2: What I'm saying is that it has to be the
two together. You could never have a situation where I'm
filthy rags, but God sees and declares me righteous. That
would make God a liar. That's our point.
Speaker 1: Well, it's because of the blood, the blood of Jesus
in a sacrifice in the atonement that happens.
Speaker 3: Then I have to ontologically be righteous.
Speaker 1: Well, I think you you have a heart shift and
a desire that's an inside out change. So one has
a ontological change of heart because of being justified before
the scriptures.
Speaker 3: Right, but the.
Speaker 2: Change in you has nothing to do with your justification.
That's an effect of justification in classical Protestantism. The change
in you, say that one more.
Speaker 3: Time, the new heart, the change that occurs in you, yes,
in classical Protestants, whether Calvin or Luther, is not anything
to do with your justification. It's an effect of the
justification that Christ wrow. Okay, and I'm saying, no, that's
not possible.
Speaker 2: You cannot divorce the legal status of being righteous or
just from the ontological reality. But the Protestant position requires
that to have imputator imputational righteousness, and the ancient medieval
world were not nominalists, so nobody believed in a purely
imputational legal status. It doesn't exist in the ancient world.
By you know, Alsterir McGrath is the famous Protestant. So
he wrote a book called Eustacia Day, and it's about
this point that through his research as an Anglican, he
came to the position that he could not find in
the ancient medieval world a position that justifies a purely
legal status, which is what is required for the Luther Calvin,
classical Protestant position, because they didn't believe in the ancient world.
You didn't have Bile and Okham yet, who proposed the
divorce between the ontological reality and the naming of a
thing that has to happen first before Lutheran Kellen.
Speaker 1: And so what you're saying is in the ontological reality
there has to be works to prove the justification.
Speaker 3: Is that what you're kind of getting at.
Speaker 2: For us, there's no difference between justification, scientification glorification. That's
why Paul and Stay three says that in this life
you can experience glorification. So it's not it's not a stage.
Is like the Protestant Orto Salutas sets up, well, I.
Speaker 1: Don't know if it's in stages, and it is in
the in the well. Again, I'm not I'm not trying
to be a Protestant position.
Speaker 3: I like the Classical Reformation. Sure, sure, I'm looking.
Speaker 1: I'm just trying to look at the scriptures, and I'm saying, man,
it sure does seem like there's a consistent declaration of
justification over the believer. And that let me in that
they don't they don't have to walk on eggshells. They
don't have to have the dread on if I'm going
to heaven or not, if I'm producing enough works or not,
that they are justified, and that anyone that's justified, anyone
that is now a child of God, should and will
act accordingly if my son is my son, he's my
son and acts accordingly. Even if he messes up, he
still remains my son, right, And so that's what I'm
getting at now. He's also obedient, and he also produces
good works, but the good works that he produces aren't
what make him ontologically my son.
Speaker 2: What makes him the son, or what makes a person
the son is baptism. We believe baptism is where we
were regenerated. It doesn't mean that if you die in
the way of your baptism that you're not saying Because
we've always seen catechumans that die or whatever, they're considered
part of the church. Some of them are martyrs and
saints in the Orthodox Church. So sonship is in the
scriptures connected to being baptized into Christ. So every time,
like in the Book of Romans, when you're baptized into Christ,
right that for us, there's no reason to divorce that
from the actual sacrament and ritual baptism. And that's what
the church fathers all teach. Likewise, the warnings about apostasy
are real warnings. So you can cease to be a son,
you can taste of the heavenly gift you can be enlightened.
We think that's an ancient term for Baptist right being washed.
Hebrew six right, the parable the soer new life can
spring up and it gets withered out and died. So
we think those those warnings are real warnings too, being
in the covenant and removing yourself from the Covenant, because
in every one of God's covenants, whether it's a Damic
or whether it's a Bramic, there's sanctions and penalty is
sure for leaving and defiling the covenant.
Speaker 1: Sure, but wouldn't that be going back to like content
and a desire to leave said covenant, not a hey,
I messed up, I fell short, I sinned in a
way I don't. I don't think you guys have the
same like grave sin, mortal sin, not mortal sin, but
like you can apostatize. Because Hebrew six is saying, if
you leave Christianity go back to Judaism, you are also.
Speaker 3: I don't really care to the apostasy thing. I don't.
That's a that's a whole separate conversation.
Speaker 2: No, it's not, though, because it shows that justification cannot
be purely legal or imputational. There has to be an
ontological reality connected to justification itself works.
Speaker 1: And you're in and that that looks like works and
well sacraments that I would categorize as works affair.
Speaker 2: Well Jesus as for example, that faith is a work.
This is the work of God that you believe in
him and me has sent. So faith is a work
in our view, okay, And so likewise, I think Calvinists
also believe faith is a work. That's interesting because they
believe regeneration precedes faith. You first have to be born
again to have faith.
Speaker 3: And they see faith, but they would say it's an
effect of regeneration. Huh.
Speaker 2: And that even the faith that you have isn't the
basis for the justification, it's an effective justification Calvinist game.
Speaker 1: Do you think this view where someone is only justified
if they're ontologically justified, meaning that it's all one long process,
do you think that it creates a I'm not sure.
I'm trying to say this in a way that is
not disparaging, A paranoia about one's eternal state, a walking
on eggshells, a dread of fear and uncertainty that according
I mean, you could correct me if we're wrong, but
according to your own soteriology. You can be Eastern Orthodox
and not go to heaven. Sure you could do all
the sacraments, and any people invited to the marriage face who
are throwing out right and so so what I'm getting
at Jay is that, like it seems like I have
more confidence in your salvation that you're going to go
to heaven. Then the position is than you do, Like
I believe you're justified because you believe in Jesus and
because of the penalty panel across, Like you're in a
right standing outside of all of our disagreements theologically, and
you're not thinking I'm truly saying or whatever, I have
more confidence in your salvation in the Eastern Orthodox folks
who follow me than they do. Is it doesn't that
create a despair? And maybe you will say, well, Rustlin,
you're just arguing pragmatically. Who cares the truth is the truth?
But can you see how that people can come to
that conclusion? Sure?
Speaker 2: I mean I had the same sort of thought process
when I was first moving from Calvinism to Catholicism.
Speaker 3: I was concerned.
Speaker 2: I'm just not trying to be disparaed, you're condescending, But
I understand the thought process and where you're coming from.
Speaker 3: And do you do you like is that a healthy
way to live spiritually?
Speaker 1: If I'm always walking on eggshows and I'm always uncertain
about if I'm going to go to heaven or not,
because I got to keep doing stuff, I gotta keep producing.
Speaker 2: Work, well, one thing I would is, I don't think
any of us actually escapes that question, because most I
don't know about you, but most Protestants that I've met,
and even Calvinists, and one most of those people still
admit the possibility of self deception and psychological tricker your delution.
You could fool yourself into thinking that you're regenerate or
that you have assurance of salvation, and it could be
a deception. So from an existential vantage point, I don't
think anybody escapes that possible concern or doubt or fear.
You could theoretically say, well, but I believe in the
doctrine of assurance of salvation all this kind of stuff,
and so I bypass that it's not a problem for me,
And I would just simply say, again, there's so many
warnings in the New Testament that I think we have
to take both of or for us, like we would
say that the purpose of the sacraments is to help
have that as surety and to have the knowledge that
we have grace. I don't know that I have, as
Augustine said, the gift of perseverance to the end. Jesus says,
he that perseveres to the end will be said. So
I have to persevere until the end. I don't know
whether I will, but I do trust that God will
give me the grace and the means to persevere. So,
if you want to think of it in Augustinian way,
I would say I could agree with his position that
God gives us the means too persevere to the end.
It is all gifts of grace. But I do have
a necessity to synergize and be faithful to the covenant.
Too persevere to the end, I get to get access
to the means of grace like the sacraments. Sure Jesus says,
you have to eat my flesh and blood, yes, to
be saved, and that means those who love me obey
my own always say in a general sense, we're going.
Speaker 3: To keep doing that.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I guess what I'm what I'm getting at. And
the some of the folks that I see that are
coming towards Eastern Orthodoxy, seem to have a crippling fear
and anxiety around their own salvation. And I think you're
probably a more seasoned person in the faith where you
maybe are I don't know, more educated, more nuanced to it.
Where I'm saying, on a very practical level, I believe
if someone's placed their faith in Jesus, that they're going
to heaven and that they're going to produce good works
because they get to and because God is that good, right,
like I am with you, continue on, maybe I'm self deceived,
continue on in the sacraments, continue on working out my salvation,
continue on producing. But it's not those works that are
saving me. It's that I get to do works that
I'm saved. And so it's not it's not a I'm
not advocating for someone saying that, you know, maybe someone
can and can anathemize. I'm saying I don't want to
find out. I don't want to know. God is so
good to me that I'm gonna keep going to church.
I'm gonna keep reading my Bible, I'm gonna keep in fellowship,
I'm gonna keep taking comunity. I'm gonna keep doing those
things because He's that good that the least thing I
could do is to offer up my bodies as a
living sacrifice back onto the.
Speaker 3: Right to Jesus.
Speaker 2: I would say, if you look at Romans four in
this I'm bringing this up because I noticed that James
White recently responded to what I'd said about this passage.
If you look at Romans four, when Paul talks about
the justification that Abraham underwent, he cites a very specific chapter.
It's Genesis fifteen. And the problem is that in the
classical Protestant view, or in the idea of the transition
from wrath to grace, this is a pretty common Lutheran
Calvinist idea that at one point we are under God's wrath,
children of wrath. Then we believe, and there's that transition
from wrath to grace, right where now we're a friend
of God. We're no longer under his wrath. He's our father,
not our judge. Right, Paul, in Romans four, this key
passage about solafide supposedly does not cite the first chapter
that's supposed to be and should be if the Calvinist
classical Protestant reading is correct, of solofide it should be
Genesis twelve, but he cites Genesis fifteen as where Abraham
has declared righteous. But Abraham, his son, he's already been
doing three chapters of good faithful works. Now, when James
White responded to this, he said, Okay, he bit the
bullet and was like, Abraham wasn't justified until Genesis fifteen,
but he's already doing good works that God clearly accepts.
To me, that's point. That is a clear proof that
you would have to say Paul made a mistake for
where he's citing in Genesis for Abraham's transition from rath
to grace. And if I'm correct, then it's not a
proof text for Solovietia. It's a proof text that the
righteousness of God is the actual uncreated energy in you.
Speaker 3: It's not a legal state.
Speaker 2: The uncreated energy that you possess if you're a son
of God and participating in the divine energies, the Dono
mess and the Innergeia. That's what leads to the legal state,
not the legal state. And then that makes you interesting.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I guess I just I see identity in terms
of who I am in Christ as neither an inside
or outside in. It's a top down thing, right, So
like society would tell us that your identity is what
you're good for from the utilitarian standpoint, right. So, if
you're in high school, you're an athlete, that's your identity
you're good for. The outside in contribution you have, right.
And then now with the crazy transformer stuff, identity is
subjective to whatever you think it is. It's inside out,
it's whatever I feel I am, right, Whereas if I'm
looking at the layout in your reference, you're corrected at
your raptized into Christ right.
Speaker 3: Right.
Speaker 1: So when we're looking at Romans four, right after this
he cites to your point Genesis fifteen, and then right
after that, verse five says, however, the one who, however,
the one who does not work but trust God, who
justifies on godly their faith, is credited as right to say.
Speaker 2: This is in the context of Jews in Roman in
the Church in Rome think that they can be justified
by also keeping the Mosaic law, and Paul is using
Abraham as the paradigm example of the first quote Jew.
Jews think that Abraham was the first Jew, and Abraham
doesn't have at this point even to Justice fifteen the
totality of the law or the Mosaic law. Right, So
Abraham is justified, he's not the it's justice fifteen. It's
after he was called out of the or of Caldas
in Genesis twelve. It's after three chapters of good works, right,
and so it's at this point that Paul says he
is called the friend of God or right, he's made righteous.
So there's three separate twelve fifteen, well four, twelve, fifteen, seventeen,
twenty two. And in all of those interactions between God
and Abraham, there's not any one place where he's quote saved.
He's saved in all of these actions, and he's working
in faith, not according to mosaic law or mosaic standards.
So Paul's whole point is that righteousness is not contingent
upon mosaic law. It's contingent upon actually having the uncreated
grace of God in.
Speaker 3: You, which we would all agree with. Well, I don't.
I've never heard of a protestably he's an uncreated grace.
But maybe you do. I don't know. Maybe you're well.
Speaker 1: I'm not being bad, I'm saying like, maybe you're one
of the first well on created grace. You're talking about
the dogma's energies, the energy's distinction. Is that would what
you're meaning.
Speaker 3: By which is an Orthodox reason? Yeah, I'm not.
Speaker 1: No, No, I'm not saying it's a historic Protestant season. You
keep you're kind of in your arguments here, you're referencing
a lot of Calvinistic teaching, which I don't really hold
to Calvinism or any any I'm not a Calvinist, right,
so I understand what you're saying. I'm so if you
say something that sounds true, J, I'm gonna say, oh,
that sounds true J. Whether it's Eastern Orthodox, Catholic, or Protestant.
Speaker 3: Okay, that's that's me cheating, that's fair. I'm typically in
my mind because I don't know all of your positions.
I'm just arguing against what's called classical Protestantism. That would
be like the confessional Lutherans, the Confessional you know Westminster Confession,
fair enough, you know sne of Dort, the classic Protestant confessions.
Uh huh.
Speaker 1: And so from your paradigm, when Paul is writing in
Romans and he's doubling down on this justified justified by grace,
justified by faith justified by grace, when it's happening in Galatians,
when it's happening in other parts of scripture. From your paradigm,
you would say that's exclusive to the Judaizers and him
trying to correct their back doing of the law.
Speaker 2: I would say not necessarily exclusive, because a lot of
the passages are dealing with that, but not all of them. Okay,
So are there are places where, you know, like in
Romans two, I think he's talking about gentiles, He's not
just talking about Jews.
Speaker 1: Sure, yeah, So then in your framework, you would reject
the idea of a top down identity where one is
declared righteous, made righteous because of Jesus on the cross,
because of the work the fulfillment of the law of
Jesus on across and then from that they then are
behaving and living differently. You would say that that's a
heresy or would you just say we're incorrect, Like, where
would you categorically put that?
Speaker 2: No, I do think that sola fide is a heresy.
Just in case of my faith, the one is a heresy,
I would say.
Speaker 3: So, So, so all of these scriptures are.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I guess I'm just having some understanding the presupposition
is that this is all legal status first and foremost,
and then anything after that is something else that's sanctification
or something.
Speaker 3: Like that, cooperating with the Holy Spirit.
Speaker 2: Correct, And what I'm saying is that there is no
such thing in ancient medieval world, as Alser McGrath admits
in Ustcia day, as a purely nominal legal standing that
is not directly connected to or necessitated by the act
actual ontological reality. So in classical Protestanism it is called
the ordo salutis the order of salvation. That's what you
were talking about. We tak about justification, sangication, glorifica. That's
the order of salvation, we would say. And I'm arguing
that that's premised on a late medieval philosophical development. That
this alone shows that Paul could not have taught the
legal status because nobody in the ancient medieval world was nominalist.
Speaker 3: And if that's true, then these assumptions as to what
Paul means are wrong.
Speaker 1: Is it possible that there was some drift in the
ancient medieval world and what Paul taught was closer to
the Protestant position, and there was drifted in the reformers
came back who were always reforming and trying to get
back to a Paul Ta. Could you see that from
our paradigm at least?
Speaker 3: Uh? Well, no, for various reasons. I wouldn't be able
to admit that.
Speaker 1: Because I say admit that, I said see it from
our paradigm. Understand you wouldn't be.
Speaker 3: But I think you could. I understand why you might
think that.
Speaker 2: Okay, But it would mean that the church didn't understand
the Gospel for fifteen hundred years, which is what Utia
Day meant.
Speaker 1: I don't know if they didn't understand the gospel. I
think perhaps there were some some doctrinal developments bit drift,
some things that they shift. I'm not one of those
great there was a great apostacy kind of guys.
Speaker 3: I'm not saying that.
Speaker 2: But it would mean that nobody That's the point of
Ustechia Day by McGrath is that no one taught Luther
or the Protestant solo fide until Luther and Calvin.
Speaker 1: Huh.
Speaker 3: But I mean Luther and Calvin are also pulling from Augustine,
or so they say. But Augustin believes in bachelor regeneration
and the necessity works. If you read on the Gift
of perseverance and on operative and cooperative grace, he doesn't believe.
Speaker 1: I guess what I'm getting at is like the we
believe in works, we just don't believe works or would
save us. Like I believe we should produce good works.
This is why I understand that the free Grace community
gets mad at me, because I'm sure you're familiar with
the free Grace section, right, So, like, yeah, like I
would say, no, that that's bad, Like that's scary stuff
where you could say, like someone can profess Jesus at
one point in time and then live like the devil
and even become an enemy of the Gospel and they're
still saved. I would say, I absolutely reject that. So
I believe in works, I just don't believe works are
the things that positionally make us holy. I think great
works are the things that practically.
Speaker 3: Make us holy. I understand.
Speaker 1: Yeah, So fair enough, Okay, before we wrap, you gotta
told me tell me about this, uh, toll houses and
and how does that work?
Speaker 3: You're going to talk about comedy that we're going to
talk about. We can talk about comedy. Tell me about
toll houses. And we'll talk about comedy.
Speaker 2: Yeah, so this is a more of a a liturgical, monastic,
and uh spiritual tradition within the Orthodox world.
Speaker 3: I wouldn't say it's quote dogma because it's not infallible.
It's not dogma.
Speaker 1: It's more of a lore, a lore.
Speaker 3: I mean, I'm not I'm genuinely like, how we where
do we category?
Speaker 2: I mean, there's all there are many things within Orthodox
theology that are not dogma but are part of the tradition.
For example, I don't know, like, how would you interpret
you know, Matthew twenty four. There's not a dogma on
the interpretation of Matthew twenty four. You have a lot
of theologians and people talking about it in church fathers
and Christistom, and you know, have sermons and homilies on
Matthew twenty four or whatever, or you know, how to
interpret every aspect of the Book of Revelation. Right, There's
going to be areas of mystical theology that are unclear
and probably only advanced very advanced people understand some of
these things. But so this is a part of the
Orthodox tradition. There's multiple books that have put out on this.
I think the Greek Orthodox Monastery has a whole book
about this, The name escapes me, but it's a really big,
thick book, but a more accessible book, as Father serfrom
Rose's book.
Speaker 3: Life of the Soul after Death.
Speaker 2: And it's part of our tradition that we think that
there is a kind of a journey that the soul
takes after death, that's it's not purgatory, but that there
is a return to God that does occur. And there
is substantial liturgical and mystical tradition evidence for this position.
Speaker 1: And so you're returning to God and there is it's
not purgatory. So so Protestants would hold to like to
be absent from the bodies to be present with the Lord.
Speaker 2: Yeah, but that doesn't necessarily mean it's instantaneous, because you have,
for example, in the Old Testament, when when people died,
they went to Hades. That's why Christ preached the Gospel to.
Speaker 3: Those in Hades.
Speaker 2: That's the descent into Hades, which, by the way, really
the Orthodox Church is the only church that continues to
teach the heroing of Hades, which is ancient tradition.
Speaker 1: But so the soul house is your your your body
is your body, or your spirit is going to God.
It's the return of the soul to God prior to
the resurrection, and so and then and then there's fighting
happening over your soul.
Speaker 2: Well, there's a sort of a judgment that occurs. It's
say it's the judgment. Even protest and some times talk
about this as the thing of the word the immediate judgment,
which is like prior to the final judgment, the great
White Throne. So, yeah, we think that probably most people
assume that when you die, the soul is judged. It's
just that in this tradition, the toll houses, it's more
of a flowery sort of you can say, lore, there's
more of a of an idea that it's not just
God sitting there and judging you. It's like you also
have to angels angelic judgments.
Speaker 1: Yeah, and so they're trying to judge you based on
your works and which works you did and.
Speaker 2: Direct you and that this is partly why we've always
prayed for the dead.
Speaker 3: Uh huh.
Speaker 1: Interesting, Jay, I'm gonna be honest man here, guys. Is
like when you describe salvation in that way and then
with the justification, it just sounds scary to me. Bro
Like this stuff is like not knowing if someone on
their deathbed, or not knowing God forbid one of our
grandparents who made a profession of faith is going to
be with Jesus because they weren't in the right church
or because they didn't have enough works.
Speaker 3: Scary view of the afterlife.
Speaker 2: Well, I mean it seems like there's a lot of
warnings in scripture about so.
Speaker 1: There's a lot of warnings about apostasy and a lot
of warnings about leaving the faith and that sort of stuff,
which which I agree with. Yeah, that that that's that's interesting.
So the toll houses and then you said lore but
not lore, but I was just I used one of
the words. So how do you how do you how
are you able to distinguish between which traditions are infallible
and which traditions are not infallible? Like how do you
make that distinguishment?
Speaker 2: I think every person at an individual existential level is
in the same boat with that. So like I'm not
going to give like a Roman Catholic type argument where
they would say, well the pope tells us, right, I
think you and me were all in the same boat.
So if I were to ask you about well, how
do you know what the infallible interpretation of the scriptures is?
If you ask me what the infallible interpretation of the
councils and the scriptures is or the Church fathers, Like,
we're all going to have to at the end of
the day rely on the testimony the Holy Spirit. So
where we differ though, would be the means that the
Holy Spirit uses. So I believe the Holy Spirit is
going to use not just the scriptures, but the liturgy.
It's going to use, you know, the tradition of the Church.
It's going to use the lives of the Saints, the
teaching the Church fathers. So it's a lot broader in
terms of like where I'm going to as in be
getting information as infallible information. Well, it's not all going
to be infallible, okay, So I'm going to say that
I have to rely on the tradition of the Church,
teachings of the councils, lives of the Saints, the the
liturgy itself. Those are all going to inform my sources
for where I get infallibility. And so the totality of
the Apostolic deposit for us all divine revelation, not just
the written text, but also what Paul and the Apostles
taught orally.
Speaker 1: Which which you guys believe has been passed down orally,
for example, how to worship God. There's no New Testament
pattern of worship. There's things that Paul warns about, but
you don't get an actual liturgical service.
Speaker 2: Well, thankfully, the Apostles actually did leave that. Many Protestants
admit that there's ancient liturgical apostologics like the Decay. No,
I'm talking about the actual apostolic like if you go
to the one of the oldest liturgies as the Lilergy
of Saint Mark. So if you go to Alexandria, that's
believed to be the ancient liturgy that Mark delivered. And
my point is that if you look at the Viticus eleven,
like native and Abaye who like worship is very important?
Speaker 3: Right?
Speaker 2: God kills people for not worshiping the right way. In Corinthians,
if you eat unworthily the Lord's supper, many are sick
and dead among you, right, So it would seem like
the pattern of worship itself is very important. The New
Testament doesn't give us a liturgy.
Speaker 1: Are you guys following Mark's liturgy. That's one example in
an Apostolic see, so what do you get these.
Speaker 3: Liturgy, these oral liturgies.
Speaker 2: They're saying, they're not world they're written down and say
by necessity they have to be extra canonical and Apostolic
in their origin. That's why I can go read if
Apostolic church fathers like Justin Martyr and they described the liturgy.
He describes the liturgy in his day. So there was
some Apostolic liturgical tradition that Protestant scholars like Hugh Weybrew
admit were handed down by the Apostles. So they're not
in the Bible because they're by definition liturgical texts that
are the context for the Bible. For us, the Bible
was not a private devotional book. Mainly it can be that,
but it's mainly meant to be heard and sung in
the liturgy. That's the context of the Bible. So for us,
that's why liturgy was important in determining the canon itself.
The electionaries had a huge role in the canonicity of
the scriptures. Okay, So liturgy is actually the context for
the scriptures, not the other way around.
Speaker 1: Interesting, okay, And so these things that are passed down
give you guidance on how to do his service, like
how to do the liturgy on a Sunday morning.
Speaker 2: You think the Apostles laid down the structure of liturgical services.
And that's why whether you go to Alexandria, or whether
you go to Rome the ancient Roman liturgy, or whether
you go to constantin Noble Byzantium, all of these in
their origin are Apostolic. It doesn't mean that I have
the copy of like when Paul went to Ephesus and
he said, here's how you do the liturgy on We don't.
Nobody has those texts, just like we don't have AUTOGRAPHA
of Paul's letters to Timothy. So we're trusting that the
Church preserved not just the text of scripture, the tradition,
but also the liturgical pattern of worship. And even the
Protestant scholars will admit that, Yeah, I'm not disagreeing with that.
Speaker 1: I'm asking, how does then one know if those are
what sources I guess are infallible versus not infallible.
Speaker 2: There is not an Protestant or a Roman Catholic list
of the things, and I'm arguing that no one has
the We're all in the same boat that I would
have to go to an Orthodox church, live it and
be imbibed in it to have a sense of what
the infallible versus the non infallible traditional there's no other.
There's not like just like if you ask a romancality,
for example, like what is the infallible lists of the
infallible dogmas?
Speaker 3: There is one?
Speaker 2: Right, So if you ask an Orthodox person, what is
the infallible list of Orthodox dogmas?
Speaker 3: There's not one? But fair enough, so no one has that, No, no,
I know, And thus I don't make that really a
key line of argumentation.
Speaker 1: Yeah, okay, I mean I think I think that the
tricky part with that then is it does seem that
that can also be a bit subjective to experience, right.
Speaker 2: It's but it's problem, But it's not, it's and I
would agree, like we have, there's no way to avoid
some degree.
Speaker 3: Some degree of being subjective to our experience.
Speaker 2: But well, something can be partly subjective and also objective.
It's not sure, it doesn't have to be either.
Speaker 1: Or let me bounce this off of you. How do
you feel about the wesley In quadrilateral? What the Wesleyan quadrilateral.
Speaker 3: I'm not familiar.
Speaker 1: Okay, So the western quadrilateral is how does one come
to conclusions of what is true?
Speaker 3: Right?
Speaker 1: What is reasonable? The West end quadrilateral is the idea
that we're filtering. And I'm not a wrestling for the record,
but I like this. I think, like when it comes
to pestemology, this just makes the most amount of sense
to me. Scripture, church, tradition, experience, and reasoning. So we
use all four sure scripture being the only infallible one,
right because in my circles charismatics, God told me this,
God gave me a word, God gave me a vision.
Well it's like, well, no, God's not going to give
you something that's going to contradict scripture. So your experience
has to submit to scripture. Scripture is the only infallible authority.
But we also believe that there's a lot of amazing
authorities in church history. There's amazing authorities within our local churches.
My pastor has authority, he's just not an infallible authority.
And then also reasoning and using your mind and logic
and all to all the things that I think God
also created. From your perspective, like what do you what
do you think of that the Western Quadrilateral as a
system of how I personally do my best to come
to truth.
Speaker 3: Right.
Speaker 1: This is my this is how my epistemology works, like
I think of those four categories.
Speaker 2: So I would argue that scripture itself, especially in Paul's
epistles or even when Peter's talking. Paul says that he
taught for three days and three nights or two me
three years, three three years, day and night in Ephesus,
and he tells Timothy and the epistles to Timothy that
everything that you heard from me, in the presence of
many witnesses, passed that on to men after you. He
only wrote Timothy two letters that we know of at Ephysis,
but he taught there early, so there's a three year
Pauline katechisis tradition that Timothy hears. Timothy is instructed to
lay hands on men after him who are of good testimony,
because the giving of the Holy Spirit is transferred in
the laying on of hands. Paul says, that's abslot succession.
And to my knowledge, there's no Protestant group or denomination
at all that believes that the Holy Spirit is transferred
in the laying on of hands. So for us, that's
a very important apostolic succession. Say that what we're saying,
there are no Protestant churches that teach that there's a
sacrament of apostolic succession through the laying out of hands.
Speaker 3: That's a historical succession. Okay, okay, I mean we believe
on laying on of the hands, and I will say
all is laying down a historical reality. Telling Timothy in Ephesis,
you are the appointed authority, not all these other people.
I lay hands on you. You lay hands on good men.
Be careful who you choose, because the Holy Spirit is
passed on in that laying out of hands. So when
you go to Ephesus, there are still today Orthodox churches
that have that same descent all the way back to
Timoth to Timothy.
Speaker 2: Correct, that's what we're we think it's a historical reality,
not a thing that died. Jesus says that in the
Book of John, we was talking about the promise the
Holy Spirit. He says, I'll be with you until the
end of days. I will not leave you. I will
the Spirit will lead you, and God you in all truth.
So for us, the idea that the collective church in
history could lose that, lose the Gospel, lose any of that.
On a collective sense, you can have individual churches or
nations fall away revelation to and the rewards of that.
I will take your lambstand sure, But the totality of
the church could never fall away. The gates fell can't prevail,
So for us, it would not be possible for that
succession to die or to fail. And that's why, whether
it's the pre Nicene fathers or all the fathers in
those councils, they're teaching the same doctions san theology. Each
council refers back to the previous councils.
Speaker 1: I get that, But is it in your view that
the Apostolic succession is it a part of the other
churches that claim to be the one and true Church?
Speaker 3: Well, you can stop. What do you mean? Catholics have
apostolic succession, so if you leave the church, you don't
have episoltic succession.
Speaker 2: In the Orthodox view, it's not a mechanical thing that
exists apart from having the faith. So for example, an
Athenasius he writes festal letters and he says, everyone who
celebrates the feast talking about pasca outside the yeah, he says,
it's not a feast.
Speaker 3: They don't have it.
Speaker 1: I guess I guess all I'm saying what I was
getting at is and this is you guys will well,
you guys sort this out much better than I can.
Is like, from their vantage point, they don't feel like
they left the church. The other seven churches.
Speaker 2: Don't everything to do with whether they did or didn't.
Like the fact that they feel that way. That's a fallacy, right,
so I could So that'd be like saying that, well,
a lot of people don't believe in the arguments for
God's existence are convincing, So.
Speaker 3: That's that's not what I mean. I mean.
Speaker 1: I'm saying, I'm sure if we sat down with the
leading Catholic apologists, the leading Oriental Wealth apologists, they would
have their own systematic theology and they would make their
own arguments for it, and those two would.
Speaker 3: Probably nothing to do with which positions correct or not.
Speaker 1: It doesn't, but but it does seem like there's there
seems to be a degree of subjectivity to concluding which
is the one true church.
Speaker 2: The fact that a person makes an argument that comes
from them does not mean that it's purely subjective.
Speaker 3: That's that's an epistemic mistake.
Speaker 2: So every one of us makes an argument and they
come from a subjective person, that doesn't mean that subjectivism
is the case.
Speaker 1: Right, I make that claim. I'm saying that if you
have great arguments, and they have great arguments, and they're
using the rules of logic, and they're using history, and
they could point to their sources, they can make the
same arguments, right, which I don't. I'm not trying to
just don't buy that. I mean, I understand why you
don't by that, because you know.
Speaker 2: I mean, you have the same type of position that
you have a take, and you don't agree with my take,
and so you have sources, and so that would just
be relativizing all argumentation, all positions.
Speaker 1: So again, Jay, and my take, I think there's a
capital C bigger church which you would disagree with, and
I think in that capital CE all believers everywhere from
all denominations are part of that capital.
Speaker 3: I know.
Speaker 2: I'm just pointing out that the argument that you're making
violates the very thing that you.
Speaker 3: Just said would relativize the positions. The argument that I'm
making right now, Your.
Speaker 2: Argument is no different than anyone else's argument you're citing.
You're saying I have this position, they have that position,
you have your position. Yeah, of course, but that has
nothing to do with which ones tru or false. Okay,
so what you were arguing doesn't pertain too whether or
not the Catholic Church or the Orthodour Church is correct.
You're just saying that, well, they have arguments.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I'm saying I've heard compelling arguments from all sides,
that's all I'm saying. And I'm saying, I've heard you
make great arguments that I've heard Catholics make. I've heard
the reason make good arguments. I've heard a lot of
that's foul.
Speaker 3: It's called a psychological report. That's a fallacy.
Speaker 1: Why is it a fallacy because I've heard good arguments
and I say, hey, you guys all got great arguments.
Speaker 2: Your cycle, it's called psychological reports, felas. I'm genuinely It's
still like when I debate Matt Delahuney and he says,
I've heard all your arguments, I don't find them convincing.
It's called psychological reporting, which is not relevant to the debate.
The fact that you don't find it convincing has nothing
to do with the topic at hand.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I don't think I said I don't find it convincing.
I think you're very convincing.
Speaker 3: Jay.
Speaker 1: No, you say no, I'm saying I've heard great arguments
from from all these streams, not all.
Speaker 3: That's the equivalent.
Speaker 2: It's just saying that they think their arguments are convincing.
You think this is convinced, saying I think my position
it's the same principle. It's a psychological report, and it's
just it's a fallacy.
Speaker 3: I'm not trying to be a douce. She just is
a fallacy.
Speaker 1: What I'm saying is I'm hearing truth claims made by
all of these different churches that are all making very
similar claims to you.
Speaker 3: But that's not an argument. It's a fallacy. Okay.
Speaker 1: So I'm not even trying to argue with you. I'm
just giving you my paradig I'm saying for my paradigm, Jay,
I'm looking around. I'm saying, man, there's a lot of
these churches that are all claiming the same thing you're claiming.
And it seems like I have the average person that's
trying to find a church that's apostolic and is the
one true Church, has a mountain of evidence to go
through and a lot of thinking to do. And when
I look at that, I go, man, it sure seems
like repent and believe in Jesus for the forgiveness of
your sins is a more simple and the sure pathway
to salvation.
Speaker 3: Heal to simplicity.
Speaker 2: So like when I debate the Muslims, they'll say, you
have all this trinitarian theologists complex, Islam is very simple,
just as they'll say you just you just just believe
in the four principles.
Speaker 3: As there. Daniel made that argument that Islam's true because
it's simple. Okay, that's another fallacy.
Speaker 1: Okay, So because certain Christian groups hold to a simple,
simple view of the Gospel, that then invalidates said position.
Speaker 2: It's just a yeah. I'm not saying it makes it correct.
It's just it's just an oversimplification. So it would be
the fallacy of oversimplication, or just appeal to simplicity.
Speaker 1: Sure, yeah, and appeal to simplicity. That's fair. I think
I think God is simple. I think salvation is simple.
I think people who come to Jesus and experience a
transformed heart, new heart's new desires. I would argue an
ontological change on the on the identity basis. I think
that's fairly simple.
Speaker 3: I mean I could, I would al sory. It's kind
of an equivocation fallacy.
Speaker 2: So because God is simple as a being, that has
nothing to do with whether the message of the Gospel
is equated to what you're saying is simplicity.
Speaker 3: So it's another non sequitor. So repent and believe it
doesn't articulate.
Speaker 2: I mean, is that the only passage or does he
also say an acts to repent and believe and be
baptized for the remission of sins.
Speaker 3: I think you should be. I think you should be.
Speaker 2: But it's baptism for the remission of sins. And then
they water baptize a few thousand people.
Speaker 3: Huh. So the baptism that's water baptism is the remission
of the sense.
Speaker 1: Sure, I believe in baptism. I think people should know
baptismal regeneration. You holds a baptismal regeneration Acts two thirty nine.
So but here's the thing, Jay, you holds a baptismal regeneration,
someone is not born again? Am I tracking correctly about
to unless they're baptized.
Speaker 2: Yes, uh, well again a catechumen who dies on the
way to the baptism.
Speaker 1: So there's a nuance to it, That's what I'm getting out.
But no, you're not born again until you're baptized, correct,
But you could still go to heaven in the case
of people who are not intentionally thwarting it. That's just
like the thief on the cross, right, right. I think
God is merciful and he makes ways.
Speaker 3: He's not. God is merciful, a miser. He's not there
to like try to cast people out.
Speaker 2: He wants and loves man, yes, say, and the leturgy
is the lover of mankind.
Speaker 3: Amen.
Speaker 1: But that doesn't so he's still creating pathways for people
that don't do all the right things.
Speaker 2: Here's the problem, though, this is this is called taking
the exception to be the rule. And this is what
Protestants often do. Or they take these exceptions and then
that becomes the theological paradigm that gets rid of the rule.
Speaker 3: The rule. Is for example, an Act two thirty eight
thirty nine, Peter says.
Speaker 2: Peter doesn't say repent and sola fide, you'll be justified
by it. He says, repent and be baptized for the
remission of sins, and then they water baptize people, so
we know that it's not a Calvinist you say, I'm
notssing your Calvinist. I'm using example of Invisible Church. He
doesn't say anything about being united. He just says he
doesn't baptism.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I'm saying, I understand your your point about exception
to the rule fallacy. I get that theink's up fair critique.
What I'm saying is there seems to always be the
exception to the rule, and I agree with the rule.
I think you should be baptized. I think you should
be in a local church. I think you should wage
war on your sin and become more.
Speaker 2: I'm just specifically saying the dominant New Testament differences to baptism.
From our paradigm, we would argue our baptism regeneration like
Titus three, but the way the Washington Labor regeneration.
Speaker 1: And if that doesn't happen, someone can be not born
again but still go to heaven.
Speaker 2: But that doesn't negate baptism. Regeneration is the point. That's fine, okay,
but it's not the rule. A most Protestant teaching is
not baptism regeneration. Unless you're listener. There's tons of Protestants
that hold a baptism regeneration. I just had the guy
from theos University on that helds the baptism. It is
not the classical normative Protestant position except for many Lutherans
believe it. Some Anglicans believe it. But it's not typical
evangelical Protestant teaching. That's that's fair.
Speaker 1: All I'm getting at is that there are Protestants that
hold to it, and there's still exceptions to the rule.
You guys create nuances, Catholics great nuances. Everyone has exceptions
to the rule of what a Christian ought to do
versus the reality of when it doesn't happen.
Speaker 2: But this is this is one doctrine right Baptism, sure right.
We've got the Eucharists, We've got children, particular the Eucharist.
We've got a host of things that were already settled.
And the main problem I would say about Protestant in
this regard is that each generation has to reinvent the
wheel and start it all over when we have already
settled these issues and in fact, in the case of
the ecclesial reality, the church is already declared and define
the extent of the body of Christ. Christ is not divided.
Paul says, he doesn't exist amongst thousands of different competing
claiming sects, and so if there's no boundaries and guidelines
as to what the visible Church is, and I would
argue formerly being a Protestant believing in the invisible Church doctrine,
it contradicts Christology that.
Speaker 1: Christ's body is divided. And okay, I got you. Tell
me about comedy in your.
Speaker 3: In your and your comedy. I want to make sure.
Speaker 1: I want to make sure we get to we're going
on four hours, which this is Why are you I'm
glad you like it. Are you willing to engage like
in person debates because I'd love to facility. Sure, maybe
Blescot Summit too. A couple of folks that me versus MADI.
I'm gonna be I'm gonna be Jim Jones, and I
want the MADI to be on this. I would love
to see I don't think this would happen, but I
would love to see you and Gavin Ortland go over
it in person. I don't think he would do it.
Cleave's antiquity would you do something with him in person.
If we facilitated it.
Speaker 3: We didn't have the best interaction, but uh maybe, but
could we not get a larger I don't mean to
be a douchebag. No, no, no, a larger.
Speaker 1: That's what I don't think. I don't think Gavin would
do it. I think Gavin is the largest name. That's
a Protestant apology. What about cosmic sceptic? Do you want
a debate cosmic sceptic on what atheism?
Speaker 3: Uh?
Speaker 1: I mean I would love to see that happen. I
don't know if he'd do it. I don't think he'd
do it. I think he really wanted to debate. Is
Jesus God who said? Again? Yeah, we got with the.
Speaker 3: Timing of that.
Speaker 1: Was was great with David would because they had already
had that set up. It fell through the Jihati stuff
and it was like, hey, let's remember that, you know
what I mean? And so we got him to do that.
But I mean I would I wouldn't mind asking for sure.
Speaker 3: Uh, he was supposed to debate who who'd you say
you were going to say?
Speaker 1: David Wood was supposed to debate cosmics cosa modern debate
that seven or whatever it was called.
Speaker 3: And then there was joh and then he.
Speaker 1: Dropped out, and then we were able to say, hey,
let's just do it at our event, and it worked
out because he was already come in.
Speaker 2: Why don't we, like we can game plan and figure
out like a do you do want it to be
a Protestant or like.
Speaker 3: A Muslim or just I don't want to do anything
with Muslims.
Speaker 1: I think atheists are pretty hard to come by nowadays
in terms of atheists that are willing to engage. I know, uh,
And there's not a lot of Protestant apologists that are
like even trying to wave the flag of like we're
defending because because we believe in the invisible chructure, because
we believe you guys are in those Are you guys
that believe Jesus died for your sins and place your
faith in him. There's not There's not a lot of them,
and so you tend to really discuss these things a lot, right,
And so that's why I, oh, well, Jay versus a cleaps.
Speaker 3: To west half.
Speaker 1: We's how I could ask my he hees loosely confirmed
for night one of our debate Blesscot summit.
Speaker 3: So what would you want to debate him about I'm flexible, like.
Speaker 2: What whatever he thinks or you think I'm open?
Speaker 1: Okay, yeah, that's that's a great idea. Yeah, he'll be
I think we got a soft yes from Wes on
Canon scripture. Yeah, Canon scripture West half say Dire, that'll
be fire. I think you're You're way more pleasant in
person then you come off online, and I think I
think hopefully people who see this well, keep in mind
online you're also dealing with, like you know, bad faith actors.
Speaker 3: Many. I'll mention it to Wes anyway, and if not,
we'll keep it open to other people possibilities.
Speaker 1: Okay, comedy, tell me about the comedy direction. It seems
to be a disarming tool used in Bye Bye Bye
Brilliant Communicators. Is that your your use of comedy is
that you see it as like a, hey, this is
a great tool to disarm the impressions like all the
all the stuff that you incorporate in terms of the
broader thing you're building that is ja Dire, which is
not just a Catholic Protestant Orthodox stuff the broader community.
But I everyone thought about it is disarming, But I
guess it could be I mean, I think it's very disarming.
I think anyone that that can make somebody trouble. Yeah,
for sure, that's a good point. Now it's just really
just something that is just I'm just a naturally goofy dude,
Like I got superlatives, like in high school, Like I
was wittiest in my high school. I used to do
stand up. When I graduated, I went to New York
and did a bunch of comedy club like opened the
Mike Knights and stuff. And that was before getting serichs
about Christianity. And then I kind of, you know, just
didn't think about anything like that for a long time.
When you do an open mic scene in New York,
were you was it like a five minute set you
had or yeah, yeah.
Speaker 2: This is like nineteen ninety eight, so nice seven ninety eight.
And then when I came back from being in New
York for a while, I did like open mic in
Nashville for you for a year or so. It was
fun to do, but like I was very like I
just I w wasn't a Christian at the time.
Speaker 3: I was just kind of wild and being.
Speaker 2: Silly and it's kind of raunchyr routine. But then you know,
over the years, I would like, you know, jot down
ideas and write down skits and stuff. And probably the
big breakthrough that we had with with that was being
on The Tucker Show where I did the whole skit
where I was dressed up as klus Schwab and went
around New York.
Speaker 3: And going around Austin. And that was a great skit.
Speaker 2: And so I appreciate Tucker and Scooter for you know,
making that opportunity happen. And then that led to other,
you know doors that we did a lot of podcasts
with comedians over the last five years and networked with
those guys.
Speaker 1: And would you ever see yourself doing just straight up
stand up like you're writing such jokes. Maybe you have
writers with you and that's like the main thing of
your life event.
Speaker 2: I mean, I'm open to that, it's just I'm not Like.
The problem is, I don't live near a place you
need to practice stand up you know what I mean,
to be a stand up It's not really good venues
in the middle of nowhere, Tennessee. So I we'd have
to move and I mean maybe in the future, but
for the meantime, like doing I write for Sam Hyde
and he started a show a few months ago, sam
I'd show. First episode got twenty million views across like
most platforms, counting YouTube, counting acts. Huge huge thing went viral,
got clipped shared millions of times, and then.
Speaker 3: Episodes two, three, four did pretty good. So I'm really
enjoying doing that.
Speaker 2: And it's a way to do comedy without like just
pure stand up like writing for him. So but I'd
like to keep doing that. I'd like to expand that
kind of stuff because I really get a lot of
joy out of doing that.
Speaker 3: How often are you writing.
Speaker 2: We've been putting out a show every couple of weeks,
so we've done this is we're going on like I
think it's a six episode.
Speaker 1: I mean I just meant like, okay, So I'm asking
this purely out of selfish reasons, like as someone that
is interesting multiple things. I wrote my first book. Maybe
you take a look at that, you know, and have
me on for that. But I'm still passionate about music.
I do it four tonight, four days a week. We
do stream. Sometimes we do guests, like today, we probably
won't do a stream because I'll be cooked after this.
Your daily process in order to get your stuff done that, Like,
I'm asking, like, how does that work? Like Jay comes in,
you're streaming, it seems like a lot of hours a day.
When how do you structure out when you're writing for comedy,
when you're writing books, when you're writing for other comedians,
when you're writing for your own show, when a you're
writing your lectures, Like how does how does that work?
And how do you balance all that? I'm assuming you
don't have kids yet? No, Okay, probably that probably not
because of anything on our end. You're not avoiding that
or anything. It just hasn't happened.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I mean day to day structure is just like
I'm sure you're the same way. Like I work from
the time of wake up until midnight one in the morning,
so we work all the time. Like the whole drive here,
I read two books because we drove to. I don't
like to fly, so like, I I wait, did you
did you drive?
Speaker 3: Yeah? It's a gangster bro I hate flying so much.
Speaker 2: Like we had a really bad flight experience to coming
back from Italy.
Speaker 3: Huh how bad? Really bad? Really, like like you thought
you were going to crash back. Yeah, it was extreme,
extreme turbulence for for eight hours. The whole way back.
That's horrifying.
Speaker 2: Yeah, it was like some kind of weird torture. It
was like being in like a autonam O Bay or
something like. The whole thing was like that's for eight
hours straight. Yeah, and people were screaming. It was crazy crying.
So that was a traumatic experience. That'll make you repent.
Speaker 3: Uh. We did an Orthodox Italy pilgrimage November of last year.
Speaker 1: Yeah, that that they'll give you some some some repentance.
Speaker 3: Repentance and justification prayers.
Speaker 1: So when you're okay, So a lot of it is
like you're driving places, you're getting to read, and then
you're just kind of.
Speaker 3: I mean I read a lot. I've always been a reader.
Speaker 2: My mom was an editor of a library, so I
was raised with books, so I love to read.
Speaker 3: I'm always devouring a book.
Speaker 2: And then like comedic stuff is kind of random, Like
usually when you're having good conversations, you get funny ideas.
My wife and I are my friends, so I have
a comedy notebook. I write stuff down, so that but
that I mean that's only like probably once every week
or two where we hammer out a semite episode or whatever.
So far, live events like I said, A lot of
that's improv A lot of that's impressions. I have a roster,
like fifty impressions I can do.
Speaker 3: So your lecture.
Speaker 1: Lectures improv or is your lecture written out word for
word or's a bulletproce or is it just.
Speaker 2: Kind of so used to riffing off hand, I don't
have it written out. I just talk from the slide
and so you have a slide show, there's slides of
images got in a little bit of text. But like
you know, we if I think you know this like too,
Like when you've been talking and podcasting for over ten years,
you don't really have to have everything written out.
Speaker 3: Yeah you can, I'm with you. I would say I
have to read it.
Speaker 1: Writing a book, A does a roll index of stuff
that I've organized my thoughts, put them on paper, and
then I can always pull a top from different facets.
Speaker 3: It makes it easier for sure. Yeah.
Speaker 2: I mean sometimes, like if I do an electro, I
might have a couple of notes, but most of the
time I have a good recall.
Speaker 3: Yeah, bless me a good recall.
Speaker 1: So, yeah, I know you're super smart, dude, and your
your your freaking your ability to do so many different
things and retain so much information. Is super duper impressive.
Before before we get out of here, you got it.
You got to either give us an impression or you
got to kick kick a free style one of the two.
Speaker 3: How about I do a little Nick Cage? All right,
Nicholas Cage. So I have in my my code here
a piece of bone that I picked up and I
felt like it really gets me into a shamanic attitude.
How's that? That's great? That's an actual coat. He actually says.
He's I believe in a style of acting called neo shamanic. Well,
so that's what he says. Look up, that's crazy. Look up,
Nicholas Cage. Neo shaman in it. Yes, that's he pulls
up in his coat. He says, I have a piece
of bone here, and I feel like it makes me
into a shawman. That's the Who else? Who's your favorite impression? Whatever?
Billy D Williams, there's a bonch man. Yeah, there's Terrence McKenna.
Do you know who Terrence McKenna is. If you take
the mushroom, you will see the gods and they will
speak to you. I'm going to vote for the mushroom
in twenty twenty eight for president. You know who Terrence beginning. Yeah,
I see the picture, so again, yeah that's Terrence. Oh yeah,
that's Terence. That's exactly what it talks about. That's amazing.
There's like forty of them. How did you get into impressions?
Speaker 2: So in high school I did stand up at our
senior graduation, Okay, and all the stand up was was
me impersonating all the teachers.
Speaker 3: No, they killed it right now. The teachers got mad.
But yeah, that's awesome. So I just started, you know, like, boy.
Speaker 1: Oh, he does im There's a there's a there's a
thing to people who can do impressions, like I don't.
Speaker 3: I don't know what it is.
Speaker 1: I don't know if it's like attention to detail. It's
a weird telling ability they have where they can catch
the things that, like, I can do an impression in
review because like I'm just interacting with you, I'm present
in this moment, Like you could pick apart the inflections
and the two catch and yeah, certain things that like
I don't think some people can do.
Speaker 2: Sometimes the impressions are super easy, but then sometimes you
have to really work on it. I had to really
work on Trump it took me a long time. We
got to hear it's ok. I have to get into
let me think, let's see so glad to be here,
Thank you, thank you. Rouse Lana probably the best podcast.
Speaker 3: I don't know. Maybe probably, I don't know. We'll have
to ask Gamala is just the best podcast. Maybe we're
gonna we're gonna make it the best podcast because we're here,
we're at it right now. I didn't even catch that's
pretty good. I didn't even Okay, nice not I don't.
I don't impression.
Speaker 1: But he does impress but you do, no, you do impressions.
But Zach will do someone stream.
Speaker 3: In the moment, Oh yeah with the voice. Yeah, do
you want to get in trouble doing an RFK?
Speaker 2: I So when we did an l A event, I
thought it was gonna be funny if I rolled out,
uh my ark.
Speaker 3: Jokes, dude, I had. I had a killer r f
K joke. I was like, I'm gonna kill with the
stand up routine about r f K. And everybody got
mad at me, dude, because I made a joke about
his voice. He did a great impression, and what a
thing with RFK. His voice is coming back. If someone's
voice is coming back. The Lord might be healing him.
Who knows, Like, I think it's okay, I know what
my joke was.
Speaker 2: So before I did the impression, right, I was like, so, uh,
you know, remember the JFK assassination event and the magic bullet.
I'm pretty sure I know what happened to the magic bullet.
It went into r f K's throat and it was
just like dead silence.
Speaker 3: Dude. I was like, it's a joke. I don't hate RFK.
Speaker 1: That's that's the dark jo. That's a dark joke, sweet man,
which I thanks for doing this absolutely. This is one
of the longest we've had.
Speaker 2: Could I recommend if people do want to get Star
Hollywood three, which covers a plethora.
Speaker 1: Yes, please, I'm sorry. Cool well link of below. For
sure every a lot of really cool movies.
Speaker 2: One and two obviously have a lot, but three it's
got a lot of like Christopher Nolan, it's got all
the Marvel movies.
Speaker 3: It's pretty dope.
Speaker 1: But I didn't read the whole thing, but I definitely
looked through it and I was like, man, you you
you hit a lot of the stuff I'm personally into.
Speaker 2: Uh, you can go to Jaysonolsons dot com in the
shop and you can pre order the part three and
they're all signed.
Speaker 1: You can also get one into but j Analysis. Jay's
Jays Analysis dot com. We'll link that and it'll.
Speaker 2: Be a shop and then you can get part three
and it uh will come out in two.
Speaker 1: Months two months July, yes, mid July, mid July, so
it'll be out and they could check that out and yeah,
it looks dope. I mean, these these are great part
one in two, but when I looked at that one,
they just it just had more lot of stuff. It's
just the stuff that I'm into. You know, you're going
really deep in some of this stuff that like just
kind of older movies. But on the third one, it
was like, oh, like there's more Batman, like all this stuff,
all the marvel.
Speaker 3: Are you working on another book after this or is
this kind of I think what I If I do,
it'll be a it won't be Hollywood. It'll be like
Intelligence and Religion, Okay, because nobody's really there's like two
books on that. Okay, So dope.
Speaker 1: All right, we're out of here, guys, Jay Dyer, thanks
so much, brother, Hey, thank you so much for checking
out the video. Please be sure to comment below and
subscribe and all that good stuff, and check out this
other video that YouTube seems to be recommending just for you.
Let me know if they nailed it all right, I'll
see you over there, peace,