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