Speaker 1: Agree with like if it's a package deal. So to me,
it's perfectly befitting that if she's the new Eve, she
would be like Eve, and instead of being a fallen
creature in the sense of actual sin, she would be
preserved from that, like Eve would have been had she
not sinned. So I think it's a consequence of her
as the mother of God that she was preserved from that,
so that she could be in that intimate, special role
of being the one that gave birth to the Son
of God and gave to him his human nature and
so forth. But if we think about sin as a
specific act and not as a state of being, as
most Calvinists and reform people do. They think of sin
as a state of being, it's not. It's defined as James,
excuse me by James, as an action of the will.
There's another reason why infants aren't quote sinners, because infants
don't commit actual sins. They don't commit sins of the will.
The only sense in which an infant is a quote
center is that they are deprived of the grace of
Eden and they are fallen, and so they feel the
effects of the sin. And sometimes Paul speaks of that
whole class of human beings under the descent of adam
as in sin. That does not equate to them being
actual sinners. It equates to them having the effects of sin.
So this is and literally no one believes this anymore,
that infants are damned except Calvinists. Roman Catholics don't believe
that infants are have inherited guilt. Maybe Lutherans do, I'm
not sure, but there's literally no one else that believes
this except for Calvinists. So you're not going to be
Orthodox or Catholic if you believe that infants have actual sin,
which is kind of stupid if you think about it. Yep,
go ahead, Africa, you've made all these videos about me.
Go ahead. I guess you can't get an internet connection
because he keeps dropping off Africa without borders. Go ahead.
I'm guessing your internet doesn't work, dude, I don't know, James.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I'd like to talk about fruits of the spirit
is defined in the Epistle of the Glicians, and why
you seem to think they're optional and deride them as
what was the term you use, like piety signaling, like.
Speaker 3: The I'd like you to explain that.
Speaker 1: So why what does that have to do with today's discussion?
Speaker 2: You defended mocking and demeaning people with a petty of
use and imitation.
Speaker 1: Right, How pious are you? Are you praying right now?
Speaker 3: Are you capable of?
Speaker 1: Are you? Are you? Are you on the internet to
talk about how much you pray?
Speaker 3: I just told you why I am on the internet
and asking.
Speaker 1: You these questions? Is that right? Is that right? Do
you have the fruits of the spirit right now?
Speaker 3: You have nothing to say?
Speaker 1: Yeah?
Speaker 4: I can't defend myself against point millers like yourself. You're
the most plious Orthodox person on the web right.
Speaker 2: Now, so pas they can like read the Bible. Well,
you know, but you're a malignant narcissist people.
Speaker 1: Is that right? Is that right?
Speaker 3: Yeah?
Speaker 1: It is right?
Speaker 4: Can you demonstrate that I'm a malignant narcissist?
Speaker 2: Oh?
Speaker 3: You do that for me actually by opening your mouth?
Speaker 1: Yeah, so you spew all this venom, but I'm a
malignant narcissist.
Speaker 2: Well, two things can be true simultaneously. I mean, perhaps
you can fund.
Speaker 1: You can spew a venom. You just admited the here's
being venom? Is that afraard of the spirit speing venom?
Silence only you are entitled.
Speaker 5: Well, I mean I.
Speaker 1: Don't think jugs are being venom.
Speaker 2: I mean you've refused to defend your position and you've
refuse to explain yourself.
Speaker 5: You just I don't even think you're a real person.
I think you're faired. I think you're a faired. I
think you're a faired. You just said that you can
spoil all, you can spere all the fenom.
Speaker 3: Well that this is what cry bullies do.
Speaker 1: It's like they don't I'm a cry bully. I mean
I'm letting you say all this stuff. How are you?
Are you getting bullied?
Speaker 3: Well, yeah, I think.
Speaker 1: Sir, Well, we all need to get underneath you so
that you can pray over us, so that we have
the fruits of the spirit. Go ahead, Hell yeah, Well hello, Jake, what.
Speaker 3: I on my own?
Speaker 6: I wanted to talk about soda scriptures.
Speaker 1: I'm sure you do after all your videos.
Speaker 6: Yeah, just to say that I've watched a lot of
your videos.
Speaker 1: I know you've made a lot of videos. What about it?
Speaker 6: And I found it helpful going to speak as corner
to use peace of positionism mm hmm yeah, solar scriptura.
My first point is when we look at Jesus. Did
Jesus use tradition in the way that you would envision
it in your definition of tradition?
Speaker 1: Yes?
Speaker 7: Could you show us.
Speaker 1: That well he specifically.
Speaker 6: Could you give us the Eastern Orthodox definition and then
show us.
Speaker 1: He specifically said that the Word of God was himself
and not the books to the Pharisees.
Speaker 6: No, you're not listening to me.
Speaker 3: Here we go.
Speaker 6: I'm asking you to give me the definition of Orthodox
field standing tradition.
Speaker 1: Yeah, it's the full revelation, whether containing the written text
or the oral preaching of the apostles.
Speaker 3: How's that okay?
Speaker 1: The faith once we're all committed to the saints.
Speaker 6: Yeah, no, I think you still don't give it a.
Speaker 1: Full definition, right, So you go make more YouTube videos?
Speaker 6: You're not You're not bringing in the more.
Speaker 1: Yeah, goodbye. This is a person who just wants content.
He makes endless live streams, talks about soul scriptural that's
all he wants to talk about. So I give him
very simple, clear definitions as to what the tradition is
the fullness of the divine revelation, written and textual. He
doesn't care. He just wants something to talk about in
his live stream. Does anybody who's a Protestant or disagrees
wants to come on anybody else. There's still fifteen people
or any of you Protestant. They might have an actual
argument today. There's something going on. It's it's a lot
of ferile people today.
Speaker 8: Really, you're remember your nerds is just there. Either fruits
are the spirit or an argument. The fruits are the spirit,
fear true, your.
Speaker 1: Spirit, leaguer, Ligair, Ligair, I'm you. The year of love
is being severely tested. All right? Moving on? Was raising
their hand? Lee, Oh my gosh, here we go. I'm mute,
and then we'll go to the tridentine Catholic Lee, I'm mute.
Speaker 9: Yo.
Speaker 1: Can you hear me barely? What's up?
Speaker 10: So I might have a disagreement. Maybe what's your position?
Because I was I watched some of your videos and
I was wondering. I heard you say that you don't
think that there's reproduction like giving birth in the Escaton?
Speaker 3: Is that? Did I get that right?
Speaker 1: Yeah? Are you a Mormon?
Speaker 8: No?
Speaker 11: No, I'm just I'm just agnosticconnessy which one fits best
for me? Okay, So if you don't think there's a
reproduction in the Escaton, if we go back to Genesis.
Speaker 3: It actually describes that, however, became painful as a punishment
of the fall.
Speaker 10: It seems like that there is birth, there is reproduction
in the Esketon, but it just became painful.
Speaker 1: Would you agree with that Eden is not the Esketon?
Speaker 10: Yeah, but it's a close that's the closest thing that
we can get, right.
Speaker 1: That doesn't mean that every feature of Eden carries over
into the Esketon. So it's a non sequitor.
Speaker 10: Well, we car we care, we can, we carry our
bodies with us.
Speaker 1: Yeah, but that doesn't mean that everything that our bodies
do in the fallen state translates into the same functions
in the eternal state.
Speaker 10: So then why do you not think that there's reproduction
specifically any eston.
Speaker 1: There's not any reason to think that there is. There's
no tradition or statements that I'm aware of about it.
And seems to speak as if we will be like
the angels and not being involved in biological quitas.
Speaker 3: Okay, is there.
Speaker 1: When he says that we will be like the angels,
not marrying or being given in marriage?
Speaker 3: Yep ollo, yep, Yeah.
Speaker 12: I just have a question. I'm not sure you're familiar
with like True Orthodoxy dot Org. I just have a
question why they like criticize the toll House, Like is
this like just like them being like unique, just criticizing
like personal belief saying it's like the lastmis and heretical,
Like how the dominies kind of do like for the
coredemtrics or is there like a historical basis behind like
the condemnation.
Speaker 3: For it that they make.
Speaker 1: I mean, there's a room for interpretation as to how
literal the toll hases out are versus a degree of
symbolic imagery in the iconography or the lives of the
saints and that kind of stuff. But I mean it's
not dogma in the sense of it being spoken of
at a council, but I think it is part of
the Orthodox liturgical mystical tradition.
Speaker 12: But do you know why that, like other groups like
True or than Us, Like, what's the reasoning for like
condemning it?
Speaker 3: Is it because because they look.
Speaker 1: For anything to try to bring people into their groups
and say that they've got everything wrong in their heretics,
so they just look for something.
Speaker 12: So it's kind of like the Diamond Brothers in a way,
like how they can them like the Curry dimtrics and
all that like that.
Speaker 1: In a sense, yeah, I think that the set of
a contests are perfect parallels to I mean, true Orthodoxy
is like not even a thing. It's like infinitely smaller
even than traditional Catholicism. It's like a few thousand people
on the internet.
Speaker 3: So yeah, all right, that was my question.
Speaker 1: Bro see them man, thank you? Well that didn't that.
He was a lot cooler than I expected. So when
I see tradcat, I'm like, oh, no, yep, hello.
Speaker 3: Can you hear me? Yep, yeah, Hi.
Speaker 13: I wanted to come in quite earlier just to address
I know there was someone in the beginning that was
asking about the veneration of the model of God, and
I wanted it to actually interject and to just add
just a quick, a quick quick on this on the scripture,
just because I'm not sure if you know, but Jesus
himself when he gets his feet, I think his feats.
Speaker 3: With by the woman, he.
Speaker 13: Actually says that that woman, because of what he did
it you will be commemorated. Yeah, poor generations. And so
that's that's basically, you know, that's basically what we do.
We we we we venerate her and we celebrate. We've
got our own feet day with her. If you know,
if if that's what Jesus is saying about how we
appreciate certain people you have done virtuous acts?
Speaker 1: Yes, what what?
Speaker 13: Why Why couldn't it be you know, the same thing
for the Virgin Mary, you know, the Mother of God,
who is you know, almost infinitely more blessed and virtuous.
Speaker 3: Than the.
Speaker 1: Woman. That's actually a great point. I appreciate that. Yeah,
and and and if you think about it too, it's
also kind of an indirect argument for liturgy and the
beauty of the worship of God. Right, Jesus rebukes the
other woman for fussing about the costly oil of spikenard.
So no, we should have honor and worship for God,
and there's nothing wrong with it being done in a beautiful,
esthetically pleasing way. Priest Haka, this is a black Eber Israelite.
Speaker 14: My main man, Jay, can you hear me? Yeah, I
was just trying to see because I did a video.
Speaker 3: Well, I did.
Speaker 14: A response video to your video when you were searching
us up and you were looking at Captain Saizari. I
gotta believe it was and a few other Israelites in
our community.
Speaker 1: Are you the one that threatened to whip me until
my flesh fell off?
Speaker 14: What I remember saying that?
Speaker 1: But I mean, are you the guy that did the video?
Speaker 3: Well much video?
Speaker 1: I don't know, the black keeper Israelite guy that did
a video call me out. I don't know. I don't
know which one you are.
Speaker 14: I may not be the only one who did a
video on you, Okay.
Speaker 3: So I was just.
Speaker 14: Trying to see if you are interested in any form
of the base with any leaders in the community.
Speaker 3: No, okay, don't worry. Thanks man, appreciate it.
Speaker 1: I mean, I'm not trying to be mean, but it's
you know, that's that's like one of the craziest insane
cults I've ever heard of.
Speaker 3: So I don't.
Speaker 1: I mean, these are the people who think that the
word Jewish means kind of jew That's what they think.
I'm not joking. That's like that's what they literally, that's
their theology, Like they can't do grammar. The cult is
based on not being able to do grammar. Uh huh?
Speaker 3: Hey how you doing?
Speaker 15: Jay?
Speaker 1: Hey?
Speaker 3: Everyone else?
Speaker 16: Hey Jae, I came here because I'm a Protestant. Well,
I guess you could say former Protestant, but because I've been,
you know, converting to Catholicism. But I kind of wanted
to ask a question about Easter because I see a
lot of difference and I don't want to know.
Speaker 3: Your thoughts of philioquey.
Speaker 16: Okay, go ahead, yeah, so yeah, so do you what's
the orthodox position?
Speaker 3: Do y'all?
Speaker 16: Do y'all deny that there's any procession of the Holy Spirit.
Speaker 3: Through the Sun.
Speaker 1: No, there is a procession through the Sun, but it
is not his existential hypostatic origin.
Speaker 16: Okay, But if it's the case that the Holy Spirit,
if it's the case that the Holy Spirit proceeds through
the Son, right, then then what really is any difference
between the ultodox position of PHILIOKOI.
Speaker 1: Are not Philly because that's not the position that's laid
out of the Council of Lions in Florence. That position
says that there's a double eternal hypothetic principle from the
Father and the Son, who function as a single principle
of the origin of the Holy Spirit. And that's something
that we could never accept because it gets to the son,
the unique hypostidic property that identifies the Father.
Speaker 16: Well, you would agree that there's going to be a
distinction between being begata and being preceded.
Speaker 1: Right, that has nothing to do with what I just said.
Speaker 16: Well, yes it does, because the Catholic, like like you said,
the Catholic position is going to be that the.
Speaker 3: Father and the Son is the one.
Speaker 16: Principle that the Holy Spirit inspire rates from.
Speaker 1: There's nothing that two persons in the Trinity share, as
the Cappadocians say that one lacks, and so you've created
a diad. So you reject you created that case because
the Father and the Son are a united principle of
power and causation that the Spirit does not have. So
that's an imbalance, that's a diad.
Speaker 16: That but that's that's what distinguishes being forgotten or the
Son being forgotten and the and the Spirit being preceded.
Speaker 3: Right, because of.
Speaker 16: The amount of people that takes uh that takes part,
are the amount of persons that take part.
Speaker 3: In preceding the Holy Spirit, right, at least.
Speaker 16: In the Catholic view, Right, we can make the case
that the Holy Spirit truly is preceded and not just
be gotten right from the Father.
Speaker 1: So you're repeating Roman Catholic apologetic pap apologetics. That doesn't
even address like the level of which we're talking about
this question. So can you repeat to me what my
argument was?
Speaker 17: Yeah?
Speaker 16: Yeah, Yeah, the argument was that, well, you pretty much
just laid out.
Speaker 3: Of our position.
Speaker 16: Then you said that, oh, I've created a diead because
it's going to be like the two persons is the
father and son being the one principle in which, right,
the Holy Spirit pretty much originates from or essence from that?
Speaker 1: Is that your position? And why is that a problem?
Speaker 18: Okay?
Speaker 3: I don't see the problem.
Speaker 1: Why did I say that's Why did I say that's
a problem?
Speaker 16: Well, you said you said it was a problems because
I created a diead, right.
Speaker 1: And why is that? I said specifically there's a reason why.
Speaker 16: Yeah, because the father and the son is the one principle?
Speaker 1: And why is that a problem?
Speaker 3: You tell me?
Speaker 1: Okay? I mean, I'm trying really hard to be patient
with you guys, but like I literally stated explicitly what
the problem is, and you've come with like level one
understanding and you want to debate it, which is fine.
I don't mind doing it. But did it never occur
to you? Did it ever occur to you to maybe
read some of the arguments on this before you want
to debate it?
Speaker 3: Yeah, yeah, I know, so I I what from?
Speaker 1: But you can't restate my argument? So you're not Are
you not listening to what I said? Or you just
didn't catch it. You want me stated again?
Speaker 16: Well, will your position on the matter would be that
the Father is the only principle?
Speaker 3: Right?
Speaker 1: And who said that? Anybody in church history?
Speaker 3: Well, I mean I'm asking you.
Speaker 1: Do you know of any famous church fathers that were
involved in any ecumenical councils that maybe said that, I.
Speaker 16: Know church fathers that believe in Philly open Do you yeah, Augustine,
mm hmm?
Speaker 3: Do you accept that or do you deny that?
Speaker 1: No? I mean I don't accept his teaching. No, it's wrong.
Speaker 3: Oh oh so he does, so he does accept fully absolutely,
But he's the same thing your church.
Speaker 1: Do you really think that these are owns that we
haven't addressed these arguments probably five hundred times? I mean.
Speaker 3: No, I mean that's I know the coopium that you
guys use.
Speaker 1: So let's let's get into that, all right, you want
to do this, let's do it. What council confirmed the
Doctor of the Trinity for the Universal Church the council.
Speaker 3: I see that.
Speaker 1: No, so you see, you don't even know the first
of this. You don't even know level one of this debate.
It's the second Econmoical Council. Who are the three fathers
that are the most important of the second Ecamoical Council?
Speaker 7: The second was.
Speaker 1: So you don't know anything, and you're trying to debate.
Speaker 16: Are you talking about the goal of Philio exactly?
Speaker 1: So you don't even know the Cappadocian doctrine of the
trinity that's outlined at constant double one.
Speaker 3: I don't know. I mean, I is it like monarch correct?
Speaker 1: Yes? Yeah, yeah, And that's not a filioquy doctrine because
tell me what the hypostatic property of the father is?
Speaker 3: The hypostatic property.
Speaker 1: So you don't even know the basic Cappadocian terms. You
don't even know our basic position, and you're trying to
argue with me and call it you call it code.
Speaker 16: To tell you, Yeah, the hyposthetic property of the father
is that he's the one that again he's he's the
one principal, right.
Speaker 1: Oh, he's the one principal. But you just said a
minute ago that you agree that the son is also
a co principal with him, so he's not the one principal.
How many principles are how many principles are there?
Speaker 3: We believe there's one principal.
Speaker 1: No you don't. You believe there's one. And you contradicted
by saying that the father and the son together are
a principal. That's two.
Speaker 3: Yeah, that's that's the one principle. It's not gonna be
two principles.
Speaker 1: You just said the father is the principal, and then
you said the father and the son are a principal.
That's two. Can you count the father?
Speaker 3: And what do you this dowel argument?
Speaker 1: Are you this dumb? You don't even know our position?
You said, you said the father is the principal, right.
Speaker 3: The father and the son are the one principal.
Speaker 1: At first you said the father is the principle. I
asked you his hyposthetic property. You said it was to
be the principal. That's just hype. Well yeah, you said that,
don't lie you said that, yeah, no.
Speaker 3: Yeah, yeah, I understand that the father is going to
be the principal.
Speaker 1: Oh, then there you go. Now you contradicted because the
father and the son together are now a principal. That's
the problem. So that's two principles.
Speaker 3: I never negated that the son is a principle.
Speaker 1: If the father is the principle and the son also
with him, is also a principle, that's two.
Speaker 3: Well, I don't know, they're both the same principle.
Speaker 1: Okay, now you're motal. Now you're a modalist because now
you've said the father and the son together are a principle.
That's modalism.
Speaker 3: How does that follow?
Speaker 1: Because that's the argument that the Cappadocians made against the Eunomians.
You're confusing hyposthetic properties with common powers and energies.
Speaker 3: Where are you getting this notion from?
Speaker 1: Have you read Basil on the Holy Spirit? Have you
read Basil against Eunomius?
Speaker 16: Oh, same Basil against sat basilik.
Speaker 1: As what you would be? I thought you knew all
this stuff. You're not familiar with those works Basil on
the Holy Spirit and Basil against Unamias. Have you read those?
I guess amousious don't even know the word what.
Speaker 16: Doesnious anonymious?
Speaker 1: So you're not even familiar with this. You're not familiar
with it? Is you're a clown that because it shows
that you're not familiar with the literature, and you're trying
to debate it.
Speaker 3: Why that's not true?
Speaker 1: True, you don't know the terms. You're demonstrating your ignorance
of the whole scope of this.
Speaker 3: Oh, because I pronounce wrong?
Speaker 1: No, it means that you're not familiar with the literature.
You couldn't even tell me two of the works.
Speaker 7: This is no.
Speaker 1: No, have you read this? Have you read this literature?
Have you read this literature?
Speaker 6: Uh?
Speaker 3: The literature?
Speaker 16: Onsous?
Speaker 3: Why does that matter? Can you show me where?
Speaker 1: Because it shows that you don't. It shows that you're
not familiar with the topic. You don't know to pronounce
the basic terms, right. No, No, you're about to cry, dude, Like, Look,
it would be whove you to go and understand this
stuff before you try to debate it. And you did
come here to debate.
Speaker 3: Can you please just show me where? Saint Basil against.
Speaker 1: Who's the who's the soul cause? Who do they argue
is the sole cause?
Speaker 3: The soul cause? What do you mean by soul cause?
Speaker 1: So you're not, again, not familiar with common terminology throughout
all the cappadotions. Soul cause, soul cause, Father is the
sole cause, the Cappidotion dictum. Shut up, shut up, all right,
you're gone.
Speaker 3: Running.
Speaker 1: No, you made it a fool of yourself. I'm not
running from you. You have no idea what you're talking about.
I'm trying to explain it to you. You won't shut up,
Shut up, and I'll tell you.
Speaker 3: That's fine.
Speaker 1: Sole cause their dictum is anything that is a hypostatic
property is unique to the person's and non communicable or shareable.
Anything that is not a hypostatic property is common to
all three. That's a cappadoc dictum. That's why the Philioko
is wrong, according to the Cappadocians, because the father's principle
what picks him out his hypostatic property is to be
soul s o l e cause rka fount principle. Yea,
all it does because it means that what he has
that marks him out cannot be shared. That's the Cappadocian dictum.
Speaker 3: Well, yeah, well, the thing that marks them.
Speaker 1: Out is no, it does not relation itself. Is a predicate,
not a subject. Persons are subjects, not relations. Yeah, but
that's so you would know that if you've read the Cappadocians,
So you have no knowledge of this topic, and you're
trying to debate what does persona at rola mean?
Speaker 3: Oh? Now he wants Now he wants to speak Greek.
Speaker 1: Persona at rolatio's Latin, you idiot. Oh and I don't
know Latin. I don't care about Latin. But this guy
just showed a. This is the arrogance of these people,
no knowledge of these topics. They want to debate it.
Persona at rolatio is aquinas is dictum, person is relation.
So the first person to say that is that I'm
aware of is perhaps Augustine, but at least for sure aquinas.
I'm looking for people who disagree. Dank, It's about to
get smoky up in here. The Greek dictum persona at rolatio.
Oh hell, Hellulu.
Speaker 3: Is too there?
Speaker 1: Can you yep?
Speaker 3: Hi about?
Speaker 7: How are you doing?
Speaker 1: I'm here? What's up?
Speaker 6: I just wanted to talk about you with the Exodus?
Speaker 19: Are you familiar with it?
Speaker 7: To the Old Testaments?
Speaker 1: I've never read at what's it about?
Speaker 7: Well?
Speaker 18: I only know a few quotes from it, and I
wanted to debate you about it.
Speaker 7: I personally I don't identify with any religion. I would
say maybe agnostic.
Speaker 1: How about we debate agnosticism.
Speaker 7: We can debate agnosticism. Sure, I just wanted to ask
you your stance on for example, Exodus twenty one seven.
Speaker 3: I don't know if you're familiar with it, let me
pull it up.
Speaker 7: Sure, sure, sure, sure, yeah sure. Also I'm really a
beginner to all of this.
Speaker 8: So I arse right, yeah, you know what.
Speaker 1: I don't even just the laugh is already that I
don't do, the condescending laugh.
Speaker 7: So whoa what do you mean?
Speaker 1: I can't do it? That's my number one pat peeve
is that condescending laugh? And if you repeat my name
over never never Ryan so Exous twenty one seven. If
a man sells his daughter to be a slave, she
shall not go out as the male slaves do so.
At a time when there were people as property, this
is putting stricters on what you can do with humans
that you have as property. And this is a unique
revolutionary principle in the ancient world to introduce the ideas
that slaves have rights, have dignity, and they cannot be abused.
And you'll find that all throughout mosaic law. So I
don't like, don't waste my time with this stupid Reddit
level stuff of how God's a evil, mean person or something. Ryan,
what's up, hey, J can you hear me? Yep?
Speaker 3: Cool.
Speaker 20: So I'm a relatively new Christian. I've been attending a
reform Baptist church. This was before I really knew anything
about reform theology, specifically Calvinism, and since I've actually been
turning away from Symtism in exploring Orthodoxy. But something that
within Calvinism that was appealing to me or something that
made sense, was this idea of God's total sovereignty. And
I'm wondering from an Orthodox perspective, how you would square
God's sovereignty with you know, with man's free will or
or you know, versus like Christ Timothy two four, where
God desires all people to be saved.
Speaker 1: Yeah. So I've done multiple talks critiquing Calvinism at great
lengths for multiple hours, so you can go watch those.
I'm not trying to be rude, but like, it's just
not like I can't enter into that whole repeat discussion again, Seth.
There's a two part series on my Cliff channel critique
and Calvinism. There's a whole thing on Sam Chimun's channel
critique and Calvinism. There's a whole thing on David Patrick
Carrey Cotel's channel critique and calvinism. So, guys, most of
these kinds of questions I don't mind them. I look
for people who disagree. I want a debate. But when
you ask me, what's your opinion on PSA, how do
you refute calvinism and predestination and sovereign grace? Like, dude,
there's a million live streams where we have addressed this
countless times. I just can't repeat the same argument for
the thousandth time and go through the whole shabang again. Matt,
what's up? People are saying, turn on super chouts on
your channel. Bro, use stream labs. I got demonetized in
twenty eighteen. There's no super chats on my channel. That's
why you use stream labs. Right here, go to stream
labs and feel free. Twitter tonight is like TikTok used
to be. TikTok used to be like just the most
just brain to just drive you insane level of debating.
What's up, Mankja. Yeah.
Speaker 21: So, one thing that I've heard from Orthodox as far
as veneration of icons is that the ability to venery
icons occurs through the incarnation of Christ. But at the
same time, I'm looking at some of the stuff around,
like Christ's existence before, So looking at like the hymn
of where it says like the that shall kiss the
feet of.
Speaker 3: Those who tried in Eden. So just trying to understand, like.
Speaker 21: Where is there what what's the reasoning behind that delineation.
Speaker 1: Hymn of what? I don't know what you're talking about?
Speaker 21: I'm sorry, what understanding is? It gets sung on on
Holy Wednesday?
Speaker 1: And what now?
Speaker 22: Uh?
Speaker 21: Just talking about the the presence of Christ's physical body
before his incarnation?
Speaker 1: How could he have a what? I don't know what
that means? The presence of his physical body before the incarnation? Sure,
so like what are you talking about?
Speaker 3: Yeah, I guess it would.
Speaker 21: It's hard, That's what Maybe where I'm trying to understand
of Like is this a theophany or it's talking about
like a as far as I understand, like the icon
of Christ, where it's uh him making Adam Adam has
the same body as as Christ does.
Speaker 1: Essentially, Yeah, Adam is created after the prototype, after the
pattern of Christ.
Speaker 21: Right, So I guess in that case, where is it
Like why would icons not be Okay? Then before the
incarnation or is it just based on the that the
incarnation happens.
Speaker 1: I mean, there are any of types of icons prior
to the incarnation, So I don't know what you mean.
I mean, when you read the Bible and it describes
through written texts and sentences theophanies, those are created symbols
that are referring to theophanies. And the Torah itself is
a holy book. The Temple had all kinds of images.
The arc is a kind of a icon.
Speaker 21: Yeah, I guess, I mean specifically of God versus of
holy things.
Speaker 3: And maybe there's not a good reason.
Speaker 1: To do well. The reason according to like when this
comes up at the time of the seventh that Cumunical Council,
the reasoning is that the incarnation hadn't happened yet.
Speaker 21: Yeah, it's so maybe that's where I'm trying to draw
the distinction of though the incarnation hadn't happened. Maybe this
is where I'm getting the confusion. Like, so we're saying
Theophanes before, even though it's the incarnation's the moment of
those that same body being recognized in the past.
Speaker 1: No, I'm not sure that that is the case, because
there's not just Theophanes that are quote body. I mean,
there's Theophanes that are the form of the cloud, the fire.
I mean, it's not just a you know, man like
image like the wrestling with the Jacob, russels with the Angel.
Speaker 19: Yeah.
Speaker 1: So in other words, we can't say that it's Christ's
human body back in time or something like that, at
least not in all of them.
Speaker 21: I've heard from a variety of sources that it's like that.
The concept is that it is Christ's human body, because
God exists outside of.
Speaker 8: Time, right.
Speaker 1: So I'm aware of this, and I think Bishop Irena
has the opinion that you could say that the prototype
is the deified, out of time, resurrected flesh of Christ.
I'm aware of all that. But I'm making a different point,
which is that that's not the only theophany that we
see in the Old Testament. We see the cloud, we
see the fire, we see all that kind of stuff
which is not a body. I mean, it's not a physical,
not a manlike body. So the theophonies are mysteries. We
don't know how God does that.
Speaker 3: No, I can understand that.
Speaker 21: It's more just trying to understand how the argumentation then
goes of of if the glorified body is recognized before
the incarnation.
Speaker 1: Well, I'm not. I don't. I've never I've never argued that.
Speaker 21: Okay, yeah, some so it's some argue. But maybe that's
not your line.
Speaker 1: That's not my line of reasoning because I don't think
it's it's intended to solve this question. And if you
if I bring in cloud and fire, it doesn't solve
a question.
Speaker 21: So Okay, No, that's helpful, thanks.
Speaker 1: Fair question. And I'm not trying to be dismissive. I
just I don't. I don't know. I mean, I think
there's when we get into these mysteries like that, I
think there's limitations of like what we do and don't
know you know, Oh my gosh, Okay.
Speaker 3: Hey, j Yeah, how's it going?
Speaker 22: Hey?
Speaker 23: I just want to ask, why do you think the
Holy Spirit is God?
Speaker 1: Because he's all throughout the Old Testament as a personal being,
and he's all throughout the New Testament John fourteen, fifteen, sixteen,
et cetera, and acts and the epistles as a personal being.
Speaker 23: Well, I think that he could be a being that
I don't think.
Speaker 3: That he's God.
Speaker 1: Well, I mean he's called God, and.
Speaker 3: Where would that be.
Speaker 22: See my position is that Jesus and the Father of God,
but the Holy Spirit cannot be goped.
Speaker 24: So there's about i'd say one, two, three, four, six, ten, eleven, twelve, thirteen, fourteen, fifteen, sixteen, seventeen,
eighteen twenty, it's.
Speaker 1: About twenty two three, about twenty five passages throughout the
Old Testament that refer to him as Yahweh and as God.
Speaker 25: Well, look whatever you and the Roman Catholic teach, I
don't accept.
Speaker 1: I don't care that. I mean, I just list you
wanted the passages you want to go through one by
one or what? Oh he ran away? So there you go,
Biblical benitarianism. So lunatic heretic who doesn't want to go
through twenty five passages I have right here in front
of me that refer to in the Old Testament the
deity of the Holy Spirit and that he is Yeahweh.
And so what do you do? He ran And for
those that would like those passages here, okay, do you're
right here? Almost all these are Old Testament references. So
here you go.
Speaker 26: If you want to, you can screenshot that. There is
at least twenty five references right there too. The full
deity in personhood of the Holy Spirit. And once you
have this ready to go, what a heretics do?
Speaker 1: They run? So we're looking tonight. I know a lot
of you guys want to bring Orthodox questions. I'm looking
for people who disagree. You know a lot of people
want to come get their FAQ questions answered. They don't
want to read the books. They want to be lazy guys.
Go to the church. Go get catechized in the church.
I'm not your catechizer. I'm an Internet clown. So don't
come to me for catechistis find an Orthodox church and
do that. And now this guy wants to come back,
so it's a waste of time. You'll notice that none
of the Protestants showed up. Interesting I message. I'll see one, two, three, four, five, six, seven,
eight Protestants today. That's d MS. I'm not I don't
know a lot about old believers. Man, that's not your
that's not my I'm sorry, man, it's just not I'm
not a historian on old believers, and that's not my domain.
In Schultz, go ahead, I'm you. If we're going keep
it budget, why won't you debate?
Speaker 8: Budge?
Speaker 1: So I've sent multiple dms to voice of reason. I
don't know if he just ignores dms, but why does it?
Speaker 7: Right?
Speaker 19: Yeah, go ahead, I'm sorry, Yeah, I have a question.
Speaker 27: I'm I'm currently considering orthodox I want to argue against
my friends.
Speaker 3: One of my friends has an argument for logic.
Speaker 27: He says that logic just is an abstraction of the
physical So what is the argument you would use to
kind of dismantle that?
Speaker 1: And well, that's an assertion, that's an assertion. Just saying
it just is an abstraction really doesn't tell us anything.
How does he know that? And what does it mean
to say that it's an abstract? Does it mean that
it has an actual ontological status? Does it is an
invariant over time? Does it change? I mean, like that
doesn't really tell us anything. That's an assertion, And how
does that work? Like how do you abstract something from
molecules that you're saying is somehow an invariant? Imaatey real law?
Is it law?
Speaker 7: Like?
Speaker 1: How is something law? Like if matter is always in motion?
Speaker 27: Well, I think the argument he would say is that
there's the laws of physics, except it derives from that,
Like it's just a.
Speaker 1: Yeah, But saying that it derives from. It is not
answering what the law is and how does he know
that it's a law? Is it universal on what basis?
So you can't when people are doing this kind of stuff,
and when you're debating with people, you can't let them
get away with assertions. Everybody wants to debate, and I'm
an experienced debater. I don't care if you hate me
or not. Like I am an experienced debater. I've been
debating since age nineteen and that was I don't know,
a long time ago. So people in debates they want
to assert positions and move and blow past it. But
you got to as a debater, be like, wait a minute,
that's an assertion. You're just saying that it is this
like you're some sort of dogmatic pronunciation from the papal
throne of logic or something. What is that mean? How
do we know that that's the case. What's your justification
for the desertion? Those are metaphysical claims. Logic just is
an abstraction from federal called objects. That doesn't tell us
how you got to that step, what that is, what
the justification for it is, how it is? It's just
an assertion, what just happened?
Speaker 3: Nice one?
Speaker 1: Hello, Yeah, man, I'm sorry. I'm not gonna repeat all that.
You can go back and rewind or something. Not repeating
all that.
Speaker 22: I love how atheists they just stay there like it's
just like we all know.
Speaker 19: We all know this.
Speaker 1: Yeah, it's abundantly clear that this is the case. Even
though it's like the most highly debated thing ever.
Speaker 28: Its little abundantly clearer. All rational people believe in my position.
Go ahead, Well, I don't know. I thought there was
a dude here. Well you're you're free to go ahead
as well. Well if you want to.
Speaker 1: I'm free, yes, free to do what I wow any
old time.
Speaker 29: It's just so stupid because like most people see on here,
they're not even familiar with the literature that like, first
of all, you can't reduce.
Speaker 3: Suppose you weren't a platonic realist or something like.
Speaker 29: That, where or like like a position like ours that
they're actually transcendent laws of logic and stuff like let's
say you're oristitos conceptualist.
Speaker 22: It's still objective and you can't reduce. What's so funny
is that categorically it just doesn't even make sense.
Speaker 3: Universals are not particulars. So there's no way that you
can actually.
Speaker 30: Take particulars and make, you know, and reduce it, sorry,
take abstractions, diversals and just say, well, it's identical to
the opposite thing that.
Speaker 1: It is exactly. It's just like it's nonsensical just by
the meaning of the words, right. It's like that Roman
Catholic guy that was in here saying that created grace
is uncreated.
Speaker 3: Usurper the creature.
Speaker 1: Yeah, created Grace is a creature, but it's God. So
there's a created God.
Speaker 3: But by the way, check out.
Speaker 1: E Polamists are polytheists, but there's created God.
Speaker 3: It's a good argument against them.
Speaker 1: Actually, what's up?
Speaker 3: Herry?
Speaker 31: What was up?
Speaker 7: Jay?
Speaker 18: So so generally speaks not for so much a Protestant
question per se, but I just wanted to ask in terms.
Speaker 32: Of the the the liturgical tradition of the Orthodox Church,
if that's something you're into, uh.
Speaker 1: Uh yeah, I mean I am somewhat. I'm not a
liturgical scholar, but I'm interested in Orthodox liturgy right right.
Speaker 18: So it's just so it's just curious. I mean, if
you won't, well you say you know so much school,
but I wanted to know about how it's musical tradition
sort of developed distinctly through the sort of Gregorian Chian system,
which the.
Speaker 1: Music, Yeah that I don't know much about. You could. Uh,
there's a guy on here named Pano. Pano is a
chanter and knows a lot about Orthodox musical history. He
would know a lot more than me. Joe, God's forgive
me five dollars. You of low gain on your microphone. Well,
I'll try to turn it down because the last time
when we were traveling down here, it got jacked all
the way up in the last live stream, which was
a fun live stream, it got all all out of
whack and it sounded like crap. So I turned it
way down, but I tried to get it in the
mid zone. So it doesn't my Does the audio sound
better tonight? Is it right? Do I need to do
a little different? Verrilla? The second ten dollars give us
an impression of a MAGA influencer chick who's like, look
at my boobies. I love trumpling at my babies. How's that?
Is that what you wanted? Strange and bizarre at three dollars.
Don't call them Calvinists, just call them heretics jumble one
of four dollars. Manifest manifects your dreams. Dog. Hey, if
you got the one ring, you can manifest your dreams.
What's up, Joe, you want to talk? I'm you.
Speaker 3: I'm hey Jay. I'm kind of a new listener.
Speaker 33: So I just had a question for you, uh, in
terms of the Western Right Orthodox Church. I know this
isn't necessarily a Protestant or versus Catholic debate, but my
question for you is online the Western Right Church, I
think it's I wouldn't say demonized, but some people argue
that it's the bridge between the Catholic Church and the
fullness of the faith of the Eastern Orthodox Church. So
do you think the Western Right Church is the fullness
of the truth or do you think it is a
temporary bridge for converts.
Speaker 1: It's not a church, it's a right or a liturgical allowance,
so it's not like a jurisdiction, and it's either under
roc Or or it's under the Antiochians. And I'm not
a huge fan of it, not because of the liturgy itself,
just that so many of the times people want to
bring in Latin errors and Latin theological mistakes and they
don't get a good catechisas and it always ends up
being a problem. And usually when people quote leave Orthodoxy
for Rome. There are people who get into the Western right,
so huge fan of it. But that doesn't mean there
aren't good Western right pritorts and people there are. But
like father in Saint Louis, the Western right up there
was good because Father Hirschmier I think is his name,
he's really good about Catechists. So there are some exceptions,
but it just seems to constantly be an issue low quality.
What's up? What is the problem with predestination? Big dirp
ten dollars? In the Orthodox view, it's not a problem.
We would see it as something that we would interpret
through Christology. Go watch my multiple talks on Calvinism.
Speaker 3: Hey, I want to say something real quick. Sure, Uh
notice it's.
Speaker 29: Not predetermination, it's predestined difference.
Speaker 1: I mean I didn't know those things. I just thought
they meant the same thing.
Speaker 3: Well, I mean, to have a.
Speaker 29: God know your destiny doesn't equate to that you're determined
in the sense of overriding your free will.
Speaker 3: And so I find it interesting that.
Speaker 29: The word used, the phrase used is predestined, not predetermined,
because I think determination carries with I don't think it
has to.
Speaker 1: Oh, I say, we're saying, well, I think a Calvinists
will just say that.
Speaker 3: Of the ability to do otherwise or something like that.
Speaker 1: Well, Calvinists is going to say that the word predestination
means predeterminism. So I don't know the etymological history, so
I don't know how that would be sust out. Mar
Dario three dollars redeem Zoomor had a tantrum in the discord.
He called me autistic when I left it, and can orthodoxy. Well,
I'm about to re upload to X the redeem Zoomer debate,
so look forward to that later on this evening. What's up, Low, Hey?
Speaker 9: Uh, just a quick question for you. I think this
is something that you and I would disagree on. I
don't necessarily see kind of the more pop science origin
of the world as being conflicting with the creations were
within the Bible, if you understand the Bible to be
using more symbolic language and not necessarily like a literal
six rotations around the sun. I know that this is
something that people will hit you up on to try
and you know, make you say something that you know
pop science people will have soy face reactions to But
it's the year love. I'm not trying to trip you
up or anything, But where's the line in the creation
story in Genesis? Is it something to be taken so literally?
I mean, it's not really going to make or break
my faith or anything. But what's why is so much
weight put into the years or the calendar timeline? Like
what's what are the stakes to the conversation?
Speaker 3: Like?
Speaker 19: Am I missing something?
Speaker 1: So the seven day, the day, the week cycle that
we have, where do you think that comes from?
Speaker 9: I mean, ultimately it was made up by by somebody.
I know, there's been several calendar reforms. It's it's kind
of a just a human interpretation of movements based on
you know, crops, based on tradition, based on long.
Speaker 1: Way saying, do you think the seven day week is
based on crops?
Speaker 9: I mean calendars were used by different cultures to notate
different things.
Speaker 1: Well in the ancient world. In the ancient world, when
the Hebrews talked about a seven day calendar, what what's
it based on?
Speaker 19: I don't know.
Speaker 3: What's the Sabbath, the seventh day of rest?
Speaker 1: Where where does that? Where does that.
Speaker 19: Come from Yeah, the scriptures.
Speaker 1: Okay, So that's what I'm saying, is like, if the
seven day week that we have is a seven days,
why wouldn't we think that what's mentioned in Genesis is
intended to be seven days?
Speaker 6: Uh?
Speaker 9: Because it doesn't seem to be lining up with what
is being.
Speaker 19: Found out? I mean, I.
Speaker 1: Guess by who? What do you mean found out? Like
I just so, there's a paper out today that the
universe isn't real? Is that was that? The soayance man
that you're following. You're laughing, but that's literally what Forbes said.
Speaker 19: No, it's and I get your point. You know, people.
Speaker 9: Worship science, but it's a pro Thats not a not
a knowledge claim.
Speaker 1: Oh really, okay, how do you know? It's a process, it's.
Speaker 19: A hypothesis, it's Is.
Speaker 1: That not a knowledge claim? Wait a minute? Is that
not a knowledge claim?
Speaker 19: No, it's suggesting.
Speaker 1: Whoa wait a minute, So you made a big mistake.
You don't see that.
Speaker 19: I mean, I'm I'm not.
Speaker 7: I don't.
Speaker 1: Science is a process. That's not a knowledge claim.
Speaker 19: I mean, I'm taking.
Speaker 9: The air out of the validity of using science quote
unquote as a foundation for much of anything. Which I
suppose is kind of, you know, contradicting.
Speaker 1: I don't know, man, well, I mean again, I think
it's a question of where we put priorities and what
we think is certain and what we think is less certain.
So for me, and this is probably where I'm out
of a stet with most people in the modern world,
I don't put the syance world very high on my
category of authorities because I've watched it for many years,
and I've been in academia, and I see how driven
it is by fads, how many false papers there are,
how much peer review research is bullshit. So I'm not
saying at all is but a large large portion of
it is. So I don't put much stock in that.
And I'm a skeptic when it comes to most of
those things. So whenever I hear people positing these kinds
of positions, I'm always open to hearing it. I went
through college and grad school endlessly hearing all the Darwinian dogmas,
and I was debating my professors publicly on this topic
back in my freshman or some my sophomore year. I
debated my philosophy science professor at Philosophy Club publicly on
the question of the epistemic basis for the scientific method
when I was a sophomore. So I'm not bragging, but
I'm saying, like I've thought about this a lot, and
I'm not saying there's not some smart suoyance man that
could come in and give me a good basis for
a pistemology. But what I've already heard from what you're
positing is a fundamental contradiction in the claims. So to me,
I don't understand why I would even listen to the
rest of what you're saying. In terms of argumentation. I
don't mean it against you personally, but in terms of
the argumentation, you said that you're not making knowledge claims,
and then you said, but before that you said science progresses.
I forget how you worded it. That's a knowledge claim.
So it's like, have you do you know anything about
epistemology at all?
Speaker 19: Yeah, the basics.
Speaker 9: I mean, I'm not going to pretend to be I
did study philosophy.
Speaker 19: I was an economics guy, so it's.
Speaker 9: A different school than what I was putting time and
energy into in Fairness Solved. I'll happily admit that I've
got a lot.
Speaker 19: More to learn on it. However, I guess the question kind.
Speaker 9: Of boils down to whenever it comes to scripture and
whenever it comes to divine revelation, what is the delineation
for a literal interpretation for an exacting rather than something
that can be interpreted more loosely, or perhaps you know,
isn't revealed in such a black and white one.
Speaker 19: And zero way.
Speaker 1: Well, first of all, I never said that it's a
black and white fundamentalist interpretation of the Book of Genesis.
I didn't say anything about anything like that. I just
simply pointed out problem in the pistemology. But the strictures
would be the mind of the church over time. So,
for example, the six Secumentical Council points out that you
can't say that there's death before the fall, and you're
positing a position that would require AONs millions of years
of death before we even get the existence of Adam,
and even in fact, aon's of death is what produces
Adam and Eve. To me, that seems preposterous just on
the basis of Romans eight, because Romans eight makes it
clear that Adam's fall is what introduced all forms of death,
whether physical, spiritual, whatever. So I mean, you're free to
disagree with Christianity, but if we're going to be honest
about Roman's eight and the six Secum Medical Council, then
it's not It doesn't make sense for a Christian to
hold to theistic evolution all this stuff. I mean, there's
many that do, and I understand we're all kind of
brought up in this idea and it's the air that
we breathe. But I approach it as a skeptic and
from a philosophical perspective, I don't understand what the argument
is that's supposed to convince me of this, and I've
been hearing it since I was eighteen in college. Feel
free to present some new argument that addresses my philosophical
concerns with the system. Because most people who argue in
this way, I'm not talking about you specifically, but they
take the approach that you do. They take empirical scientific
data as a kind of a given and the most
certain type of knowledge. Now maybe you don't, but most
people operate that way, and they never do good in
debates because they've never thought about the philosophy of these things.
They don't think about what does the scientific method assume
for it? To be possible. And that's what philosophy does
that it gets us to ask these more fundamental questions
about our assumptions. And so when I start doing that,
that's usually where people duck out because people in the
sayance realm, people in the domain of scientism, they're just
not taught any of this. They don't know anything about
these things unless they happen to take a philosophy of
science class, which is very few of them.
Speaker 19: Yeah, no, I think you're right.
Speaker 9: I think a lot of people are trying to appeal
to the system that at a really fundamental level directly
contradicts the system that's being taught at the university, at
the you know, academic you know.
Speaker 1: But I would argue that those people contradict themselves too,
So I don't understand. I mean, the academic establishment now
says that men are women and can be women.
Speaker 9: Well that's and that's why, you know, I started off
by saying that science, quote unquote is better understood as
a process. I think a lot of people fall into
the trap of, you know, anytime a white paper is published,
they say, oh, my god, like capital t truth in
my hands, black and white.
Speaker 3: Here it is.
Speaker 9: But that's clearly not the case, because give it six
months and some other white paper will totally.
Speaker 19: You know, fundamentally change the world.
Speaker 3: Men.
Speaker 19: But I don't want to take your whole night. I
really appreciate your time, man a lot to think.
Speaker 1: Well, I even I even I could even agree to
you that. Yeah, in a mundane sense. Sciences, you know, theorization,
it's theory. It's a progressing in a in a very
strict niche way. And that's precisely why science and scientific
discoveries by the very nature cannot tell you grand narratives.
So how is it like, if I'm studying this rock
without the assumptions of AONs of time, it's not going
to get me to the gigantic metaphysical leap of AONs
of time to produce the raw.
Speaker 9: Yeah, And I think that's why a lot of people are,
you know, they can't get down.
Speaker 19: To that root level of cause you know.
Speaker 9: They're still unanswered questions, and you know they'll have a
panic attack when you're like, Okay, how did this thing
that cannot have a beginning?
Speaker 19: You know, how did it come to be?
Speaker 9: And if science can't prove it, there's no answer, and
that just you know, you'll you'll see them squirm, you'll
hear them just get really uncomfortable.
Speaker 1: But well, why should I mean if I begin with
the position of the scientific method, how do I know
the scientific can the scientific method tell me the scientific
method is true?
Speaker 3: It's not. No, it's true.
Speaker 19: It's not self justifying.
Speaker 15: What you can do say, well, it's it is, you know,
it just it just.
Speaker 19: Works, you know.
Speaker 15: There's yeah, you telling me, but there's I think that
it's you know, it's good for recording observations, and it's
it's good.
Speaker 19: It has a purpose.
Speaker 9: I'm not going to say, you know, throw out observation
and questioning totally out the window as its place. But
it can't find it can't.
Speaker 19: It's got linen.
Speaker 5: Sure.
Speaker 1: Yeah, it's a tool for understanding the natural world.
Speaker 8: Uh.
Speaker 1: And it does really well for you know, engineering and
inventing things and figuring out patterns, you know, for you know,
but it's not going to tell you what the monkey
was telling the snake eleven million years ago in the tree.
Speaker 34: Connor, Yes, sir, Hey, how's it going.
Speaker 3: I was reading some story the other day and he.
Speaker 31: Made a statement of God is a tool we've created.
Speaker 3: But out room and in that I kind of saw two.
Speaker 31: Preconceptions maybe like we were touching on it earlier, of
like God, you know, not being created, and of course
kind of being good. And I feel like if you
make both of those mistakes, you're usually falling in the
atheist camp, and if you make one or the other,
you're falling in a maybe Jordan Peterson style like Bostic
camp or a Gnostic you know, God exists.
Speaker 3: But nondod Just wondering how you approach that.
Speaker 31: If you approach the God's you know, God being not created,
that God is the creator, or if you'd approach that
God is good.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I think you can approach it either way and
just ask for the justification for the possibility of speaking
and in those ways at all? What is a meaningful
phrase when you call something the good? At all? What
is the good? And the great thing about bringing up
something like the good is that it immediately gets you
in the domain of both ethics and metaphysics at once,
because it's pretty clearly something that's both. It relates to
both areas the good as a moral ethical element, where
we contrast it with the lesser or the bad. There's
an assumption that we should prefer or we ought to
prefer the good versus but not good. And it also
relates to metaphysics, do you know in some sense talk
about being? What is the good? Where is the good?
How do we know the good? This kind of stuff
that so it also touches on epistemology. So the good
is a great thing to bring up with any of
these people who oftentimes make value judgments and talk as if, well,
we all have you know, the idea about the good.
But there's no metaphysics, there's no God, there's no ethics,
there's no you know, it's just a really quickly I
would say, a collapsing position if you really drill into it.
Connor Rachel Wilson fifty dollars. You're cracking me up today.
Thank you, Rachel. Appreciate that big fat super chat. I
think she left the chat, but appreciate you being so
generous tonight, meet Mento's morey three dollars trick question Yakoub
is a rabbi? Oh just blew my mind. Well, Emmanuel
five dollars unblock. Does he want a debate? Jason? I
don't know who that is, but you know what, I
appreciate your five dollars superchat. But tonight's track record of
me unblocking the people that I had blocked is not
a very good track record. I'm gonna stick with my
intuitive sense that I was right to block whoever you're
talking about. Honeybee double on hundre one hundred dollars, Thank
you so much. Always a big fat champion super chatter
with those big fat superchats to Connor, what's up, hey?
Speaker 22: Ja?
Speaker 33: Come from a Protestant background to a lot of evidentialism
and running into issues with people.
Speaker 10: I talked to, and I really get the pushback of
the brute fact objection.
Speaker 3: How do you counter that with the transmental lookument.
Speaker 1: Well, roote fact doesn't, in my mind, constitute an objection,
It constitutes an assertion. So just simply saying that there
are brute facts number one doesn't solve the criteria problem,
and it kind of begs the question because like, well,
how do we know that's a brute fact versus all
the things that are supposedly not brute facts. So that's
another element of a standard or criterion. It would need
to suss out the brute facts from the non brute facts.
So either criteria problem or sussing out the brute facts
from the non brute facts. What I would think would
be enough to refute the silly idea that there's quote
brute facts.
Speaker 3: Oh yes, I'm basically ask you, how do you determine
what is a brute factor? What do you require more
justification for?
Speaker 1: So, again, the criterion problem would be that in order
for me to have a knowledge claim, I need a
theory of knowledge. And if I have a theory of knowledge,
that also is a knowledge claim. So it's kind of
a box that people that have this sort of found
date classical found national self evidence ye view, can never
get out of. It's a trap that they can't solve.
And usually when they try to solve it, they just
ignore the problem and restate something about something just being
the case. Why are we supposed to just assume that
your assertion or your dogmatic pronouncement of these things being
the case is the case? How do we know that?
Why ought we believe that? So I don't think they
can ever really give a clear answer as to the
epistemic grounds for believing in that as a brute fact.
And then another element of that problem is to say, well,
to call this thing a brute fact assumes that there's
some class of things that are brute facts versus the
things that are not brute facts. And on what basis?
And how do you know what the brute facts are?
It's very ad hoc, you see, and you need another
standard to say, oh, here's the ten things that are
the brute fact. Okay, what's the basis? What's the standard
the presupposition that tells you the ten brute facts versus
all the non brute facts.
Speaker 3: And then it's John's.
Speaker 30: And if you appeal to if you have a criterion
that has to explain the brute fat, then they're not
brute facts exactly.
Speaker 3: Is one of the problems.
Speaker 23: I guess that people I speak to are a little
bit less sophisticated, and.
Speaker 3: Argument really comes down to from them.
Speaker 10: It's not really even an argument, but what they say
is essentially things are generally as they appear to be
until otherwise.
Speaker 1: That's again, that's that's exactly.
Speaker 30: So that's what we're asking is they have a criterion,
But what's their justification for their justification criterion? Well, it's
just because I made it up. Yeah, it just is
I made it up.
Speaker 3: Okay, I'll have to think about that, thank you.
Speaker 30: I just think about saying the opposite. Well, actually it's
the opposite. Well how do you know that, Well, the
same way that you do. If you're allowed to make
up is a criterion, then I can take the opposite
of your position to say the same thing.
Speaker 3: Thank you, guys, appreciated.
Speaker 1: Absolutely. You notice a lot of what goes on in
philosophy is a lot of just so, well it's just.
Speaker 3: So exactly in word games semantic. What if I made
up another word exactly?
Speaker 30: And like I was reading like some guy's critique of me,
and he was he said, well, it's not circular to
appeal to your cognitive faculties, you know, if you're wondering
if your cognitive faculties work, because we have a name
for them philosophy. It's called faculty circularity. And I see
that's allowed.
Speaker 35: Like, oh, okay, thanks, thanks really, I didn't know that
you thanks for making.
Speaker 1: Up a word problem, James.
Speaker 3: Yeah, a ja, thanks for having me on.
Speaker 36: So I am a Catholic labs Catholic, and I've been
looking into Orthodoxy, so that's kind of.
Speaker 3: Hang on that I'm coming from.
Speaker 36: I try I hold you to kind of highest standard
as far as consistency goes and so I was curious
about watching you kind of completely smash this Muslim cleric
and debate.
Speaker 3: At one point you asked him, it's an hour in.
Speaker 36: To be fair, I don't know if you'll be able
to recall this specifically, but to make the argument that
his line of reasoning relies on asserting that God has changed.
At some point, you ask him, does creation come about
because God willed it at.
Speaker 3: A certain point?
Speaker 1: Yeah, you're talking about Shabiro, I mean Azra Rashid. Yeah,
I remember those.
Speaker 36: Yeah, And I don't feel like he made a good
showing in general. But like, just if I were arguing
with you for arguing sake, I might say something like, well,
creation includes time. Time is a prerequisite to change. Therefore, God,
being uncreated, acts eternally and is unchanged.
Speaker 3: I just wondering how you would refute that.
Speaker 1: Well, the act in question was that he was supposedly perfect. Well,
let's go back to what I was trying to argue
in that debate. So Islam relies a lot on this
idea of Allah's perfections, and so Allah possesses all supreme
perfections in himself as he is. And my argument was that, well,
if he's perfectly eternally perfect, and then he wills to
do something different that he wasn't willing, such as creating.
And it doesn't matter if you say, okay, yeah, he
creates time. That's a difference, right, because there was a
Allah without creation and others Allah with creation. So now
Allah has actualized attributes that he didn't previously actualize, such
as being providential or exercising interaction with the world or whatever,
or revealing the Quran to Gabriel. Right. And you'll notice
in Islam they oftentimes go back and forth on this
problem when you bring it up, because you can see
this and the reflected in the debate over whether the
Quran is the eternal speech and thus an eternal Quran
that then the created one is a copy of, or
whether there's just a eternal Allah and then a created Quran.
Most Muslims hold that the Quran is also, alongside Allah,
an eternal thing. But now we're getting into multiple eternals,
multiple which would be polytheism, right. So I was doing
a different route of argumentation with him, where I was
saying that if Allah is perfect from all eternity and
holds all the perfections, and he's also creator, but then
he creates at a point where he wasn't previously creator,
Then that's some kind of change because Allah would no
longer be all would have exercise attributes that he had
not exercised previously to that.
Speaker 3: Okay, So the.
Speaker 36: Sticking point for them, for the Muslim position is that
is this kind of line in the sand in terms
of God being perfect and having always been perfect, in
change being an implication of some point at which he
was imperfect.
Speaker 1: If there's change, it would imply imperfection. Yes, So but
my argument was, well, did he go from being a creator?
Did he go from not from not creating to creating?
And how would that not be some change? Yeah?
Speaker 36: Yeah, just curious what I'm still trying to grasp all
the presupp musicians that underpin all this in the first place.
Speaker 3: But what why is that not a conflict for us?
Speaker 36: And I've got another question about what's not a conflict
for us that is a conflict for them.
Speaker 1: Well, we believe in the essen center distinction. They don't
believe in the essence sentator distinction. So we have multiple
distinctions in God that they do not agree to. Okay,
So no, we have a much more elaborate sort ofitarian metaphysic.
Islam is not very elaborate in their metaphysics except.
Speaker 3: For its beautiful simplicity.
Speaker 1: Right right, well supposedly, but then when you get into
the attributes, they do get pretty crazy with trying to
figure out and debate the attributes.
Speaker 3: But yeah, that's that's that was pretty funny. The foot
that's not a foot.
Speaker 1: Well, what I'm saying though about yeah, specifically the act
of creation is that I was getting them to undertrying
to get them understand like, well, if Allah's action of
creating is eternal, then the effect would also be eternal.
You see, So there would be an eternal world, and
some of the Muslims, like I would assume Khalil holds
his position like he's in neoplatonists, and so he probably
wouldn't have a problem with that. Yeah, there's external worlds.
Allah has always generated worlds over which he's lore or something.
He's the lord of the world. So but that would
mean that, oh so there's these all these other eternal
things alongside a law that are not a lot. So
you're apologeist.
Speaker 3: Okay, gotcha, gotcha.
Speaker 36: At another point that debate, you said that you replied
something to him, like my model. He did it to
coke fallacy. He said, my model allows for circularity. That
came as kind of a surprise to me. I was
just wondering, is there a point is there in any
juncture where our model relies on circularity.
Speaker 1: Well, I believe that all authority claims or worldview claims,
at a certain level, they bought them out and they
rely on some form of recursion or self referencing. So
what I meant by circularity was not the fallacy of
circular reasoning, but that every position at some point becomes
self referencing. That's all I meant. And that's a part
of the point of presubpositional transcendal augmentation, is that if
there's not something that's self evident or just is, or
that everything is theory lighted, and if everything is stery lighted,
and then at a certain point you're going to reach
the ultimate authority in your worldview. For us, it would
be God, to which there could be no other thing
to appeal to. So, in other words, at that point
in our worldview, it's not the fallacy of authority if
God exists, because he's the ultimate funnel authority.
Speaker 3: Gotcha? Okay? Jae, that's all I had. Thank you so much.
Speaker 1: Yeah, great questions. I'm glad that somebody was going back
through that. The one of the other problems with that
debate with Osbar Rashid is that a lot of the
Muslims a lot of the metaphysical, theological, philosophical terms that
we use, and they don't translate into their system and so,
for example, they don't really have, as far as I'm aware,
like an actus purest conception of God or Allah's essence.
They would say He's perfect and so all that possesses
all the perfections. But I was trying to relay that
idea of the fact that if He's willing something now
that he didn't previously will, if Allah is his will
and so forth, then that would be a change in him.
And it was difficult to convey that because I only
had the toolkit of working with all his perfections but
not the notion of act as puris, And so I
was trying to translate a modal collapse argument into Islam.
And it kind of worked because he was kind of
saying at one point that well, he's eternally the creator,
but he creates in time. And my point was yeah,
I get that. I know you believe that. But if
the action of creating is an eternal action, then it
seems to follow that the effect of that action would
also be eternal, namely a world. So if there's a
doing of something new, then that would suggest a change
in a law according to their perfections model. That's what
I was.
Speaker 36: Trying to which would make that world uncreated, which would
make that world.
Speaker 1: God, yeah, we be polytheism. It would refute their position.
Speaker 3: Yeah, gotcha, thank you.
Speaker 1: But I don't know that I conveyed that argument to him,
because he doesn't. He didn't seem to have many of
those same philosophical kind of ideas. Ethics. You gotta unmute ethics.
I want to thank you guys for being so degenerate, generous,
not degenerous. So many degenerous men. Tonight and ladies, Allula
five dollars day, happy, happy lou Yer say this in
a Boston accent. I look forward to telling you, the
pumpous liberals that not one of the heroes can beat
you in a debate. You're my favorite philosophy gladiator. No homo,
that was a dude. I thought I was a girl.
My bad Alula I just got homo with you. Michael
generon five dollars greens from the gener Repelic Do you
consider promoting Holy Trinity Monastery? Everything I've seen coming out
of Jordanville is good, looks like going there for Somemary
eventually teaching there, Like, oh, you're asking me, No, I
don't think I would be fit to be a any
kind of a professor or anything like that. I'm a
comedian man, jmil thirty dollars. You have thoughts about the
validity of famous Catholic priests when they talk about exorcisms
on all these podcasts, I mean, it's entirely possible.
Speaker 5: I don't.
Speaker 1: I can't say, But I also know that even if
the exorcisms are authentic and happening and helping people, that's
because of the name of Christ. It's in spite of papism,
not because of papism. Radical.
Speaker 29: Yeah, professors and comedians are one of the same.
Speaker 1: So well, I think of you as a very funny person,
So yes, you're you're a comedian to me, You're a
comedian in my heart. Real Cali Prepper three dollars. Can
the church air in a canon? Canon is of a
saint I mean, there might be some localized mistake, but
I think over time the mind of the church would
know and wouldn't ultimately universally err in that way or
the dox. These canonizations are typically local or not, Like
we don't have the ghostbusters in Rome that do all
this la gear. What's up man?
Speaker 4: The gear?
Speaker 1: Ethics?
Speaker 3: Do you take it that God has propositional knowledge? Yes
or no?
Speaker 1: Not in a creature really sense?
Speaker 3: Sorry, should just be clear. Do you take it that
in order for God to know, XS be acquainted with
the proositional content.
Speaker 1: That as God's I don't think we should think, as
doctor Branson says, that God's knowledge is anything like our knowledge.
Speaker 3: So it's not going to be the case that God
has proposition knowledge. Breck.
Speaker 1: We just may not understand how he has knowledge. What's
your point, what's your argument? I'm not gonna know. I'm
not gonna agree, So you're not going to get an argument.
You just want to get on here to get First
of all, I don't accept the premise that it's a
yes or no because that involves a lot of metaphysical
theological issues. So you're poisoning the well from the outset
to force me into trying to argue as if it's
a yes or no, either or question, and I might
reject that from the outset, And the fact that you
just yap and you're not going to make an actual
argument is a waste server that's time.
Speaker 3: What isn't that already giving you like a false economy?
Speaker 1: From his own point, most likely it's just a but.
Speaker 30: You're just added Mesburg energy to and you can transform
to any fallacy into a legitimate argument.
Speaker 22: Yeah, but I didn't even understand what he said. He
said it like so spurring, and he didn't even make sense.
Speaker 1: What's on that? What's on your mouth?
Speaker 22: Look, first of all, thank you for bringing me on here,
But I wanted to just like ask a little bit
of questions about several quotes that I have here.
Speaker 3: It's from some type of transcript that.
Speaker 22: I got from debate that you know, you know who
made by Jim bob Is.
Speaker 1: Yeah.
Speaker 22: Yeah, So there was this you know, how fucking stupid
TikTok gets right, and how idiotic the philosophers right there are.
So there was this guy who really had a horrible
type of position. Because I'm just going to tell you
right now, what's his main arguments?
Speaker 3: So the guy didn't believe in absolute truth.
Speaker 22: He was a subjectivist of logic, and he didn't actually
have any type of view of truth. He said that
he had a deflationist view of truth. What do you
think about that.
Speaker 1: Deflationist? I have no idea what that means.
Speaker 22: Some type of manner that it classifies logic as no, No,
it classifies truth as being contextually within linguistic manners or
something like that. I don't know, something like it's based
on the context of a linguistic discussion.
Speaker 3: So let's say that as the.
Speaker 22: Snow is white, and that makes it truth for a
main context or or something.
Speaker 3: I guess it's very stupid.
Speaker 1: Well, I would just ask, how do we know that
the break the first premise is true, that all truth
is reduced to some form of linguistic discussion.
Speaker 22: Yeah, I mean the other thing is that. So just
to tell you the level of stupidity this guy, thus
made by Jimbub made an excellent question to this guy,
which is.
Speaker 3: To the night the law of identity.
Speaker 22: You need to use the law of identity to prove that.
Speaker 3: And it's just like a very much a what's the
name of this fallacy?
Speaker 22: It's a I don't exactly remember the name of the fallacy,
but it's show how inconsistent the position is.
Speaker 3: Because to deny logic you need to use logic, right.
Speaker 1: I mean, that's just called reetortion in Aristotle.
Speaker 22: Yeah, so this this guy's literally made up presupposition and
then beg the question because he then responded that you
can you can deny the law of non contradiction because
you're a.
Speaker 3: Because you could be a subjectivist about logic. You see
how stupid that is.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I mean that's I mean, that sounds like the
standard TikTok sphere for sure. I don't. I mean, there's
no subjectivist to count for logic that would be coherent.
Speaker 3: Noelan Hello, Yeah, Hey, what's going on, Jay?
Speaker 1: What's on your mind?
Speaker 10: So?
Speaker 35: I have a Russian buddy of mine who was talking
to me about some Russian Orthodox priests having multiple wives.
I was curious on what your take is on what
the Orthodox of you is on poligion.
Speaker 1: I've never heard of that. I mean, I know I'm
saying it's not possible, but no, I don't think that's
There's a lot of people who in the Orthodox Church
operate non canonically. Probably I would say a lot but
I'm saying the history of the church. I'm sure there
have been many priests bishops who have you know, not
lived according to their calling. So but I've never heard
of any Orthodox arguing for polygamy. Luke, thank you guys
for the super chest and I MKG ten dollars. Most
of the ex Muslims that our Iranians want some kind
of Jesus without the rules. Many of them convert because
they hate Islam. It's very common they think Christianity is
an American non denominational religion that they see in Hollywood movies.
I mean, unfortunately that's probably true. So that guy was
I I just I'm in the Year of Love. I'm
trying to learn to exit situations that are gonna be
not going anywhere. Luke, what's up, hey, j what's on
your mind?
Speaker 17: Well, I'm gonna sure if you've spoken to like crazy
Baptists like me.
Speaker 3: But I'm one of those of beliefs that the Baptists
like trace their origins back to the First Church.
Speaker 17: And honestly, there's like so many topics who you probably
talk about.
Speaker 3: I don't even really know where to start.
Speaker 1: But why would you want to trace your origin through
people like the all Virginsians and people that are heretics
and were anti trinitarian. That's crazy.
Speaker 17: Don't necessarily chase my origins through them.
Speaker 1: So like, well, hold on, are you are you trailed blood?
Speaker 19: Think?
Speaker 3: Well, I think like even as you said.
Speaker 1: Are you trail of blood?
Speaker 17: Not like like in the perfection of that book, like
not like saying that that book is perfect and it
has all historical accounts accurately. But I mean it's you
you can like basically you know, look at books like that,
just like I'm sure like there's orthodox historical books that
have airs.
Speaker 1: In them that you know need to be Okay, So
it's all of the people in church history and the
Trail of Blood that are not anti trinitarian that you follow. Like, so,
who are the Baptists in those centuries when the Trail
of Blood cites the anti Trinitarians?
Speaker 17: Well, I think like just I mean, I mean the
argument I think that the Trailer Blood makes it it
does have a degree of accuracy, is that is that
those those that did believe the truths were slaughtered there.
Speaker 1: Okay, so name the Baptists in those centuries.
Speaker 17: Well, the way that I look at it is kind
of like a representative type group. So like one one.
I guess you could say powerful argument and I'd like
to hear what you thought, so are on it is
that like the Waldensis Uh.
Speaker 3: Basically when they came out of the out of hiding.
Speaker 17: So to speak, uh, in the Reformation period, they they
they declared like just straight up like we we we
were the original, we were founded by the apostles, like
we we did not start with Peter Waldo.
Speaker 1: And you believe that there were Waldensians in the first, second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth,
seventh century.
Speaker 17: The it's it's a possibility that the Vaudois in the
in the house of Italy, uh, that that they did
actually trace the roots by that time.
Speaker 1: Okay, and give me some examples of Waldensians in the
first seven centuries. I don't have anything because it doesn't exist.
Speaker 3: Well, I mean, I guess.
Speaker 1: Meta.
Speaker 3: Hello, yep, hey, so that was pretty abrupt. I just
have a quick question. So I heard this from an atheist,
and I honestly didn't really know how to answer it.
Speaker 25: So essentially what he told me was that he agrees
with Christianity's metaphysical claims to a certain extent, but he
wants to separate the derivatives of it from the divinity
of Christ.
Speaker 3: Is that possible?
Speaker 1: I think that's a unique, honest Muslim situation, I mean
atheist situation, like, yeah, I want all the Christian metaphysics
but not the Christian God. Well, the metaphysics are grounded
in the Christian God. So how would you get how
would you get that? I don't understand meretheism. What's up
anonymous one dollar? How do you respond the doorcs that
act like monks in the world, they act like their
Orthodox talk about all the time. They say to avoid
all non orthodox, we should only be praying at our
jobs and at our work. I mean everybody's going to have,
you know, temptations and flirtations with pre last I mean
usually what happens to those situations is that they eventually
burn out and then kind of don't become so annoying.
Hopefully storm the cat ten dollars, buy your cube. You
better behave yourself, okay, disciple X one dollar? Reach out
to Donnie or Marlin at Gospel Truth again. They people
can come debate here. I'm not going to chase down
every evangelical quack. Eugenia ten dollars. Thank you, Paul said,
there's different gifts. I'm glad you found yours. Don't change
your retorted fund. I won't God forgive me ten dollars lmao,
Big goon, ten dollars, Lucas dupam, three dollars. Jay from
Brazil shout out. I did the same trick. I was Protestant,
traditional Catholic and Orthodox, trying to find something Portuguese to
help my Pentecostal ex girlfriend. Yeah, hopefully something will come about.
Jordan Flora's ten dollars call into Andrew's debate, ask the
gay pastor about epistemic questions. I didn't even realize he
was doing a debate until we had already gotten a
few hours into those van five dollars. What's your opinion
on the kilshot argument against Protestants if you had to
choose one, I start Catechism this week over your content.
You helped me see God. I respect you word to Christ.
I mean, there's so many Protestants Protestant problems.
Speaker 23: I don't.
Speaker 1: I think the Canada Scripture is the strongest argument because
they're always just going to default to that, and if
you can remove that out from under them, the whole
thing collapses mirror what's.
Speaker 37: Up either, Jay, I'm a theist, and I'm also someone
who holds to biological evolution. I'm aware of some of
your broader philosophical critiques of evolution, and.
Speaker 7: I sympathize with those a lot.
Speaker 16: But have you.
Speaker 37: Addressed any of the specific empirical evidence scientifically for evolution?
Speaker 1: Just in that the empirical evidence requires some sort of
narrative paradigm interpretation. I don't think that the evidence is
self interpreting or brute fact or anything like that. So
they sort of attach, usually some sort of vast assumption
to the so called evidence, which in many cases is
I would argue, pretty minuscule.
Speaker 37: And see what you mean? How would you respond to
the notion that if we take different scientific fields, you know, astrology, biology, geology,
and then the sub fields of all of those different
lines of.
Speaker 3: Evidence astrology, and we take our.
Speaker 37: Working assumptions that we have for them presently astrology, and
stack all of the evidence together, it lines up.
Speaker 1: Bro Astrology is not a science, So I thought that
was going to be like a scientism man, and he's
over Henna talking about astrology, Mars monkey.
Speaker 23: I need an alien huh, I need an alien yo.
Top up long of the year right there. It would
overthrow any people's heads. People have to look up I
need an alien on YouTube.
Speaker 1: It's an overlooked cringe corp for sure.
Speaker 3: Question what do you.
Speaker 6: When?
Speaker 23: How do you use the argument or how do you
if I'm trying to bolster an argument using the church's.
Speaker 3: Age and how long we've.
Speaker 23: Been practicing the faith and consistently for all this time.
But if somebody just says if it's old, just because
it's oldest mean it's true.
Speaker 3: How do you frame it in.
Speaker 23: A way where it's still valid and you're not falling
into that fallacy?
Speaker 1: Well, again, it depends on the specific claim that you're refuting.
So if a Protestant said something like the Orthodox Church
isn't ancient, like, at that point it would be appropriate
to prove that it is ancient, that it is old.
But I do agree that just being old doesn't necessarily
prove anything because error is old and ancient. So so what.
Speaker 38: Yeah, Okay, one more I had for you was, I mean,
the way I would transform that argument would be to
say something like, it's not just a matter of being old,
but that you have to actually be in historical continuity
in every generation with the first century Church and.
Speaker 1: The Apostles, and that's what Apostolic succession is partly about.
So that's where I would take the argument. I wouldn't
try to argue that, well, we're old. I mean, so what.
Speaker 3: Got it?
Speaker 23: I remember this argument recently from my old Calvinis days,
and I remembered it.
Speaker 3: I wanted to hear how you.
Speaker 23: Would respond to someone who says, how do how can
you trust the writers of scripture if they didn't have
free will or if they yeah, if they didn't have
free will, Well.
Speaker 1: I don't understand how that relates to Calvin.
Speaker 23: Or rather, if they do have free will, how can
you trust that the scriptures weren't written in error or transcribed?
Speaker 1: Well, that assumes that that assumes that men aren't necessarily
going to sin or that they're going to, you know,
pervert the text. And we believe in synergy that the
human writers did use their mind and their will, but
they synergize and harmonize with the divine will. So there's
no it's not like God possessed them and that they
had no human interaction. I mean, the scripture is a
tribute the writings to the human beings that wrote them,
but also, as Peter says, under the direction and inspirational
Holy Spirit, we got the banana teen Emperor is here
to set us straight. What's up?
Speaker 3: Hello? Is this me? I just want to give you
the kings through the kingdom.
Speaker 39: I Protestant earlier was saying, because Banantheum was gone, there's
no orthodoxy right if you will be the king?
Speaker 1: Though, thank you, well again, it was just a weird argument,
So I may just changed the account. See that's what
I'm saying. Like people want me to unblock these people
for entertainment value, but like every time there's somebody that
I blocked, it was for good reason.
Speaker 3: Uh yeah. But seriously, I have a question about.
Speaker 39: Like the Vine liturgy, and you know, you were previously
a trad cat for a little while, and I was
wondering if there was anything around the change of the
Novus Ordo and like post Vatican two, like that went
against cannons that said you shouldn't change liturgy or anything
like that, because it just I've been to both masses
and the lack of reverence just makes me just like
unconvinced by.
Speaker 3: Walking in the doors.
Speaker 1: Well, I mean, every trad cat will immediately argue that
Pius the Fifth's uh dogmatic statement about the unalterable tridentine
mass was violated by Vatican two.
Speaker 22: Oh okay, interesting, what about other little things of liturgical practice,
like the what's the name for when they face ad orientum?
Speaker 3: Is that the term.
Speaker 1: To the east?
Speaker 3: No, when they face in Roman.
Speaker 1: Is to the east. You're talking about facing the people?
Speaker 3: Yeah, what is that term again?
Speaker 1: Add popular? I don't know, I don't know.
Speaker 39: Yeah, but they started facing it away or towards the people.
Speaker 1: I would say, yeah, that's that's a Protestant influence on
the liturgy. Okay, interesting, I was just you know, did
you know they brought in Protestant Lutheran liturgist to help
craft the Novasorto?
Speaker 3: How specifically? Did not? I know that? That's kind of hilarious.
Speaker 1: Yeah, no, it's his own record. It's not a conspiracy there,
it's really true. Let me, I'm gonna get you the
name of the trender. If it's a bull, Uh, it
is quote primum. Yeah, so that is Pius the fifth supposed.
Speaker 3: Uh.
Speaker 1: Every trade cat will say that, every true trade cat
will say that this was the papal bull that said
that you had to use in all Latin rites the
tridentine missile, and that it's not supposed to be altered.
It is quote in perpetuity. So that's what the trade
cats will appoint to.
Speaker 3: And what's the justification from that?
Speaker 39: And then I remember there was something I forget which
povid was but changed the direction of the cross.
Speaker 1: What's the destigation hold on? What's the dessication for what?
Speaker 39: What's the justification for the fact that one pope said
never change the direction, and then there was a future
one that changed the direction.
Speaker 1: That the popes can revise and change their predecessors pronouncements, but.
Speaker 3: They're infallible about safe and morals.
Speaker 1: Who knows. Maybe just just believe it, dude. It doesn't
have to make it doesn't have to make sense.
Speaker 39: You do have a question about the rosary in all seriousness,
because I do pray like the Jesus Prayer on a rope,
but I've heard that some Eastern Orthodox do pray obviously
the Hail Mary because it is biblical. I mean, the
whole goal is just not that to be imagined if correct.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I don't think the problem is the problem is
not the statements themselves. But I mean, it's kind of like,
what's the point of digging through all the Roman Catholic
specific things to try to find the things that are
somewhat Orthodox or amenable to Orthodox? Like, ohle mindset just
doesn't make sense, and it's almost all always used by
acuminous minded people. And the other thing is that using
the rosary and promoting the Rosary gives the impression and
suggests that Saint Dominic is a saint as well, and
because he was, Mary gave the Rosary to Saint Dominic.
It just suggests all these Roman Catholics things, the Catholic
things that we wouldn't affirm. I don't. I don't believe
that Mary gave the Rosary to Dominic, But if I
follow and do the Rosary, it implicitly suggests that, oh well,
we're all in the same page. We all believe, you know,
Saint Dominic was cool, and we don't believe that, gotcha.
Speaker 3: Yeah, that's fair, all right. I just wanted to give
you the keys.
Speaker 1: And thank you for you and thank you. That was
the banana Tine Emperor Augustine, Augustin Augustin, thank you guys,
hit like and share what's up man, I'm mute, all right,
he can't connect. Well, we're uh widowing it down, tim
whittling it down, Widow, not whittling it down, Timothy, Tim
or Timothy? What's up? I'm seventy five years old. For
those that are wondering, are you there, tim we can't
hear you trying to turn your mic on seth.
Speaker 19: Hey, how's it going?
Speaker 3: Can you hear me? Yes, sir, sweet I just had
a couple quick things. This is from a.
Speaker 40: I guess I've got a couple of questions from a
Protestant perspective. I've got some people who have questions for
me because I'm actually, I don't know if you remember,
I'm the Lutheran, but I'm actually going to my local
ro core right now and I'm becoming a cat Ofcuman.
But there's some there's some stuff it's hard to I
guess addressed with certain people.
Speaker 19: So I guess I'm gonna argue from their perspective.
Speaker 1: Okay.
Speaker 40: So one of the one of the big things that
I've I haven't really brought this up specifically because I'm
not sure exactly how to defend it, but I've heard
you say and I've heard a lot of people say
that the Bible is specifically a liturgical text, and that
devotional reading is good and fine, but that's not the
primary usage, which seems good and.
Speaker 19: Can correct from what I can tell.
Speaker 40: But I guess, in what sense would it be like
just read in a liturgy like that's the that's the
main purpose of it.
Speaker 3: How would you defend that specific view.
Speaker 1: I don't think that it's controversial. If you read liturgical
scholars or historians of liturgy, I think you'll find them
being pretty candid about that. I mentioned a couple of
books earlier that were Protestant books that helped me, uh,
get out of the soul scripture and mindset. One is
Formation Formation of the Christian Biblical Canon by Lee McDonald.
The other one is F. F. Brus's Canada Scripture. So
two pretty well known famous Protestant evangelical scholars that really
point out that you can't divorce the scriptures from their
liturgical setting a milieu. So uh. I think also the
Hebrew tradition is part of this as well. I mean,
certainly you could meditate on God's Law Dan Knight, but
David psalms for example, are written to be sung in
the liturgical worship of God at the temple or the
Tabernacle or wherever. So you know, that's the purpose of them.
You would hear the hearing of the law. Faith comes
by hearing here by the word of God.
Speaker 18: Right.
Speaker 1: Uh, the hearing of the law would be done by
the priest. It would be interpreted by the priest the
synagogue system, right, that's a liturgical setting as well. And
so just the entire ethos of the Hebrew tradition is
not about your you know n IV study Bible in
the park next to the you know, to the oak
tree or whatever.
Speaker 40: Yeah, if I could, if I could just jump in
there really quick too.
Speaker 3: I think obviously when.
Speaker 40: Jesus says that to the Pharisees that you search the
text because you think it is in them that they
have eternal life, I think it actually applies really well
to the products mindset.
Speaker 1: Absolutely. I cite that all the time.
Speaker 40: Yeah, And so I guess that's like I've I've been
out of the soul in scriptori mindset for a while
and I've just been kind of wrestling with certain with
certain questions before.
Speaker 1: I Yeah, I would say, uh, you know, get a
book like the Williams and Anstall book on the Orthodox Littery,
and then get Hugh Weiber's book Byzantine Liturgy, because Weiber
is a Protestant, he's an Anglican and he wrote a
really good book on the history of that Byzantine Liturgy,
which you know, for example, the first few chapters refused
Gavin Ortland because he talks about imagery and the you know,
the structure of the church with an altar and all that.
I mean, well, that's if that's the early Church, then
I mean Protestantism is not true because they're having altars,
which are eucharistic altars. Altars are where you do sacrifice.
That's not a table Protestants.
Speaker 41: Spencer Coo uh huh, Hey yeah, Jay.
Speaker 3: So I was wanting to ask a question.
Speaker 41: I've been studying a lot of Greg Bonson and Cornelis
van Hill from a Protestant perspective. That's all I've really known,
and I understand that you are familiar with those works
as well. So I wanted to ask the question, what
do you think about the presuppositionalism of also Gordon Clark.
Speaker 3: Are you familiar with him?
Speaker 1: Yeah? I read a couple of Clark things back in
the day. But I always sided with Van Till over Clark,
especially when you get into this idea that the Logos
is a bunch of propositions, the Bible is a set
of propositions. I think that, oh, that's just completely stupid.
Speaker 41: Sure, yeah, I really think is empiricism. His critique on
empiricism quite well, and I think Van Till and everyone
like Bonsan would agree with him. But at the end
of the day, I think he ended up concluding that
you don't get knowledge by sense perception. The only thing
you could know is from scripture. Just kind of interesting.
Speaker 1: I think you would if I remember. That sounds like
what he would argue.
Speaker 41: Yeah, that is a that was I was just curious
if you heard anything from Gordon Clark. I asked Jim
Bob this while back, and he seemed like he didn't
know anything about Gordon.
Speaker 3: Uh.
Speaker 1: Now, Jim Bob didn't have like a Calvinist you know,
uh upbringing or or time. I was really into that
for a long time. But I remember reading this one thing,
Hammer of the Heretics by Gordon Clark or something like that.
I remember reading God's Word that's it, And I read
his critique event Hill. But the rest of it I
think is pretty silly, honestly, But thank you for your comment. Interference.
Speaker 3: What's up?
Speaker 1: We have an altar from which those who serve the
tabernacle no right to eat. Here's Paul calling the eucharistic
offering an altar that we eat from. And he's contrasting
the bodies of the animals with the body and blood
of Christ on our altar, and that we are sanctified
by Christ's eucharistic blood offering. What's up, man, interference? What's up?
Speaker 3: Oh? Hello, Jay? You believe that God can only know
all truths?
Speaker 19: Right?
Speaker 1: You're asking them? So you want to ask the same
guy's question earlier?
Speaker 3: Excuse me?
Speaker 1: Are you in here for the other guy that was
doing this earlier.
Speaker 3: I want to hear this.
Speaker 2: I want to hear what the argument is from.
Speaker 3: Yeah.
Speaker 25: I don't know what you're referencing, Jay, but I just
want to know if you take it that God only
knows all truths, you can't know falsehoods.
Speaker 1: Uh? Well, knowing falsehoods would be propositions that he would
potentially know.
Speaker 25: Sure, so would he know the proposition that this statement
is not true?
Speaker 3: Jay?
Speaker 1: Why are you repeating my name with that. Yes, if
we can know a proposition, God can know it. But
I don't think that God's mode of knowing is the
same as the human mode of knowing.
Speaker 3: God knows.
Speaker 36: If God knows all truths and falsehoods, then what about
the statement that this statement is not true?
Speaker 1: Yeah, God knows paradoxes as well. That's a paradox. What's
wrong with saying God knows paradoxes but his mode of
knowing is not ours?
Speaker 3: Well, the problem is would it be true or false
that he knows it.
Speaker 1: It's a false dichotomy because it's a paradox.
Speaker 9: Read.
Speaker 1: So he just repeats your name, that's what That's what
these people do. Say it again. Probably didn't go.
Speaker 3: And meta language like these aren't gods.
Speaker 1: Dude, Yes, thank you your ignorance. He just wanted to
repeat my name because they know that. That's and then
they repeat the name and then when I boot them,
they'll say, they'll go clip that put it on their
channel that I ran bald Man's opinion.
Speaker 3: Hello, O can you hear me?
Speaker 1: Yeah?
Speaker 3: Hey, how's it going. I've never been on one of
these before, so they're like an allotted time or something
or uh.
Speaker 1: No, what are you? You have an argument or what
do you? What's up? What's on your mind?
Speaker 3: Well?
Speaker 42: Uh, I don't know much about you, but I got
sent here by Rachel Wilson's saying Protestants or Baptist or whatever.
Speaker 3: Should come to you, should come to you if they
want to talk to somebody who's Orthodox. Cath Are you orthodox? Okay?
Speaker 42: So yeah, yeah, sorry, I had to run away, get the.
Speaker 3: Run away to a private room.
Speaker 42: So I have a contention about I think most Orthodox
or Catholics don't believe.
Speaker 3: That salvation is by grace through faith, and I make the.
Speaker 7: I'm gonna make the claim that it is.
Speaker 1: Based on Well, we believe that it is, but we
believe that those words mean different things from you. So
it's not that we reject the scriptures or don't believe
in salvation by faith or by grace, but we don't
believe that it's a legal standing that's imputational, which is
based on a heretical trinitarian theology, like.
Speaker 3: A legal standing. The word justified is a legal term,
is it not?
Speaker 1: Yeah, but it's not a purely fictional imputational legal standing.
That's what I'm saying is impossible because nobody in the
ancient medieval world were nominalists, and you need nominalism to
have that position.
Speaker 3: What do you mean by nominalists?
Speaker 5: Sorry?
Speaker 1: Right, So the reformers like Luther relied on medieval nominalists
like Akham and Bile to figure out how it was
possible for God to declare people to be a legal
state that they weren't ontologically that thing. So that's nominalism.
That it's a name only position, a legal standing position
that doesn't reflect an actual ontological change in the being.
And since nobody in the ancient image of the world
were nominalists until Aukham, that means Paul didn't teach your view.
Speaker 3: Doesn't it say? Everyone's four to five? That's let's see,
let me call it up here.
Speaker 1: So you're not gonna address what I said. You're gonna blow.
Speaker 2: Past you know.
Speaker 3: I'm trying. I'm trying to understand what you're saying. I'm
not trying to ignore it.
Speaker 1: Have you read Alistair McGrath? No, what is that funny?
I don't understand.
Speaker 3: No, I'm just I'm not laughing at you. I'm just saying, no,
I haven't.
Speaker 1: Well, but you laughed, so I don't understand why it's funny.
Speaker 3: I don't. I don't know it. Just chuckle, dude. Okay,
I'm a little I've never done one of these before,
so it's a bit new to me. Maybe more of
a nervous laughter.
Speaker 1: Okay. Well, McGrath is one of the most famous modern
Oxford Protestant scholars. He wrote a book called Eustacia Day
and in that book admits that nobody in the ancient
medieval world until about fifteen hundreds had the idea of
justification by faith alone.
Speaker 42: Okay, let me pull up some quotes here, then, didn't
let me fall some quotes with some church fathers.
Speaker 1: Okay, Yeah, church fathers who believe in appisodic succession and
the real presence. You think they taught justification faith. Pull on,
You're going to pull up a bunch of quote minds
that don't say what I'm saying. They say what you
think they're saying. So you're going to read into these
church fathers who also teach the necessity of works and
they use the real presence. You're going to try to
quote mind them to prove the Protestant doctrines. Okay, I
used to be a Protestant, dude, I did all this.
Don't you think I know what you're going to do?
Speaker 3: What do you you mean?
Speaker 23: I'm just trying to put out a position here and
I don't I don't.
Speaker 1: Know, like I'm not particularly the Romans for Let's go
to Romans for when Paul who does? Where does Paul
site in general? Assistant Romans for.
Speaker 42: Okay, let's just read it here, Romans for three four?
What say the scripture Abraham believed God and it was kind.
Speaker 3: Of him for righteous? Yes?
Speaker 1: Where is he citing a.
Speaker 3: Romans death Genesis chapter fifteen, verses three.
Speaker 1: Six, Right, Now, tell me this in the Protestant view
in terms of the transition from rath to grace, as
the Reformer spoke of, When was that in Abraham's.
Speaker 42: Life Genesis chapter fifteen when it says he believed God?
Speaker 1: Ah, thank you for refuting. Yes, thank you for reputing,
Thank you for refuting Protestantism, because it's just it's Genesis
twelve where Abraham first believes and does several chapters of
good works before Genesis fifteen. So you just refuted Protestantism
in Romans.
Speaker 3: For No, because you read you read the rest of
the chapter. It's talking about Genesis chapter fifteen or so.
Speaker 1: You literally heard nothing I said, and you're not addressing area.
You don't even understand the argument, You're you're blowing past
the argument.
Speaker 3: May maybe I'm just not quite getting with you right.
Speaker 1: You're not correct. Do you want me to state it again? Sure,
the transition from wrath to grace should be Genesis twelve,
not fifteen. So by Paul citing Genesis fifteen, you refute
the Protestant position.
Speaker 3: I'm sorry, I don't follow that because