Debate Between An Orthodox & Barlaamite (R Catholic) - St. Gregory Palamas (Half) Jay Dyer

all right? Oh well, the link to the chat right there in the chat. Get yourself a signed copy of us The Turk Hollywood one and two. Let me make sure that my Mike's volume is up high enough in the computer settings. First, I'm fixing the volume. Ah, that's one. Apple has a tendency to automatically move the volume in the computer settings low, so that should be better. Hollywood Decoded too, No, no, there's not gonna be a Hollywood Decoded too. It never was ago. They never did. Okay that,

but you can come and enjoy movies with me. I just posted my alien analysis. Well, Aliens towerk for you to fulfill your licentious pleasures that all you webs have. We all know why you want to break into area fifty one because of your insatiable lusts, and so I made a video for you with Aliens twerking. I thought it was very funny. The first five minutes are very Samuel Heidstein, but welcome to jamesonnalysis. So the timing was perfect, wasn't it to cover the debate between an Orthodox and

a Barley mine? Now I read this book ten years ago. I read the debate ten years ago, and after all of what's transpired in the last few months, the various debates and whatnot, I thought, why not go back and reread this? So I did the last couple of days, and for those that don't know, it is now reprinted under snuy Sunni New York Press, so you don't have to buy the three hundred dollars version on Amazon, which actually I gave away to a dude, Jason Nelson's supporter

Ludwig on Twitter. I didn't realize that I was giving away three hundred dollars book. I hope he appreciates that. But actually the books twenty bucks that you can buy it at snuy Press on their website. You have to go to their website on Amazon. You know, it's like three hundred dollars on Amazon, So don't buy that one. It has a good scholarly introduction for what it is.

The scholars, of course don't really get orthodox theology, but they do their best, and if you read the thirty forty page introduction you get a decent overview of what the background is why this debate happened. Now, let's talk about that first. Because in the debate with our UNI eight person a couple of days ago, we heard many many times over that the Franciscans and the Scotis or what matter, And they prove that the Tomistic or in the vein of the Tomistic version of absolute devind simplicity

is not actually Roman Catholic dogma. Why because of John Scotus and he's an accepted theologian. That's not how Roman Catholic dogma works. You can't rewind in time to find somebody in the seventh century, the fourth century, the thirteenth century when dogmas later become defined in Roman dogma. So it literally does not matter what John duns Scotis said

about a matter that is later codified. Now he would have if we had gotten into the debate, he would have said, yeah, But John don Scotus is a acceptable theologian in Rome Catholicism, so therefore any opinion that he has is acceptable. Really, no, that's not how it works. Thomas Aquinas has theological opinions that were later not accepted in Rome Catholicism. Does that mean that because Aquinas isn't

accepted theologian, that any of his opinions are therefore acceptable. No, of course not, because that's not how the Roman system works. How often do the Roman Catholics tell us this constantly? They constantly tell us that the reason that we need the pope is because there's no way to discern the dogma from opinions. And what do many of the Roman Catholic theologians, especially those in the Uniate circles, wants us to believe. Oh, much of this, you see, is just

in the realm of opinion. But as I've always argued for many years now, at least not always always, but many years now, the doctrine of divine simplicity in the West is not just a doctrine that relates to propositions about the simplicity of the divine nature. It's the founding

presupposition that infects the totality of the Roman Catholic worldview. So, if my thesis is correct, it's not just a matter of finding the council of Rhymes saying that all of the attributes are equated to one another, which is what Denzinger says in that quote in my essay show. It's also a matter of looking at the other implications of

that doctrine. That's always been the argument. That's not some new thing I've tacked on, as our opponent said the other day, It's always been the argument, and all the essays that have been writing, there's dozens of these essays, dozens of papers, countless talks, and so therefore it's not just a matter of looking at what the propositions are in Denzinger about divine simplicity. Now we do do that.

We start there, We look at the different propositions about simplicity, and there's five or six that are explicit in Denzinger about that from the early on all the way up until Vatican one statement. But that's not all that we do, because that's not all the doctrine of simplicity in the Roman Catholic scheme relates to. You see, it also gives their christology a specific approach, a specific series of statements set of statements, because divine simplicity effects obviously necessarily how

one will view the incarnation. How is it possible that one hypostasis of the Trinity becomes incarnate and not the entire Trinity becoming incarnate. So we have to have a theology that allows for the possibility of one hypostasis, one person in the Trinity, the second person, the Logos, entering into a mode of being a tropos that the other

two persons, the Father and the Spirit, do not. Now, ultimately, Roman Catholic theology, in its doctrine and statements of simplicity, especially in Tunism, does not really coherently allow for the second person of the Trinity to become incarnate. Do they believe and confess that he did? Of course they do. Of course Aquinas says many true things. Course course of Quinas thought that the Logos became incarnate. That's not the argument. The argument is not what he thought. The argument is

not did he at times confess true things? The argument is that he confesses conflicting things. Two different arguments, very simple. So if we equate attributes and persons, if we say that the Son is the equivalent to the will of God, if we say that the Son is literally identical to the energies or the essence of God, which Roman Cathic theology does say, we can't also in another book of the Suma or in another place turn around and say, but he's also truly distinct, and he became incarnate and

not the Father, not the Spirit. Because if the distinctions are real, and they are then from the outset, we don't have a problem of assuming the distinction entails composition or division in this. When we go through these arguments with these people, that's consistently what they come back to. There cannot be a distinction between God's essence and his activities or his energies, because that would lead to composition in God. That wo mean God has accidents. Well, no,

he does not, and we don't say that. For John Damascus, when he argues for the uncreated energies being distinct from the essence, he does not think of them as accidents. In God right, God is not cut up into substance an accident. And if we read the philosophical investigations the excuse me, the fount of knowledge he explains this. He also states in defensive Orthodox faith that God does not have substance an accident, as if he was composed. However,

the uncreated energies are not accidents. They are uncreated energies. You see. So we constantly will see the clever word games and tricks that the Roman Catholics play to get around these facts. And what I wanted to bring up with Scotos was that John Donscotis dies when san Gregor Palomos as a child. San Gregor Palomos is a kid,

a young child, when John dons Scotis dies. And then after the controversies of the Middle Ages, particularly the debate between a Barleymite and Orthodox, we have the clear parting of ways. You see, there's a development to these things. This debate shows you the development and what path did the Roman Church take. There's no disputing this. Clearly they

took the Barleamite path. Any Roman galactyologian that you talked to today will argue the Barleamite positions even if he doesn't know who Barlem is, because it's eventually codified into their dogmas. It's not just codified in the statements about what simplicity is, you see, and that's why this debate is not just about what simplicity is. What does Saint

Gregory Palamas say towards the middle debate? He says, the real difference between you and I is that for us, Grace is uncreated and for you Grace is a supernatural creation. The Roman Catholic dogma is that Grace is a supernatural creation. It is not an uncreated grace. That's why in the debate with Luke, I listed the four statements directly from the first four statements in Ludwig Gott about what grace is.

Now we're a Roman Catholic at this point will typically say, yeah, but he Grace is cause and caused Okay, it's cause and effects, right. All that means is that the effects are created. God himself is uncreated, and you, as a creature, received the effects of grace, and therefore that's all it means. No, no, no, no, no, that's not all it means. You see, because in Trent, in the Anathemas of Trent under Justification, it says that the righteousness that you get is not the righteousness that

God has. If you read Lagrange's commentary on a Quinas, specifically, when he talks about grace, he says, it is a supernatural creation. It is not the essence of God. We are speaking of the grace itself. We're not talking about persons, the creatures who receive the effects. We're not talking about God himself. We're talking about the grace itself. What is it? This has been answered in Roman Catholic dogmatic theology. That's why Ludwig got lists four statements. There's many, but the

first four make this point very clearly. Grace is a supernatural created accident in the soul. Hence, this debate goes too many different areas. It's not just the debate about propositions about divine simplicity, it's a debate about Christology. It's a debate about the beatific vision. It's a debate about how the human nature in Christ is affected by the divine person assuming it. This debate literally goes to all the places that you hear me go. You think that

I make these things up. You think that I'm just saying this stuff. No, no, no, it's all right here and rereading this after ten years, just like a few months ago we reread Saint John Damascus defensely Orthodox Faith. We lectured all the way through it, and two or three years before that, we lectured through a fount of knowledge. Everything that I've been saying is correct. I'm not wrong.

So let's get into this work itself. Oh but so to sum up, in response to the chief objection to our debater last time, his chief argument was that you've changed your position because at one time you said that tumism is the Roman Caolic dogma simplicity. Yes and no. Okay. So, on the one hand, not everything that Thomas says is dogma. We all know this, we all admit this, and even in divine simplicity, Okay, you could argue that not every

statement that Thomas says is the dogmatic definitions in Denzinger. No, that's true. But if we want to understand the import and force of the argument, it has never been about just claims relating to what simplicity is. That's only one part of the argument. Because this is our starting point. This is two different order of theologis right, the West

has a different order theologi from the East. Now, the easiest way to disprove what the Uniate was saying was to simply point out that it cannot be the case that two rival theologies right here which anathematize each other, can for centuries be in opposition. And then after the ecumenical period of Vatican two, suddenly Gregory Palomos is a saint.

Now this is absurd. That alone shows you that Roman Catholicism cannot be correct, because they cannot say at one time, for many centuries Polemism is yoga or Hinduism or whatever nonsense they come up with, and then after Vatican two is suddenly because of ecumenical interests, oh you're acceptable, right, Oh well, for many centuries, Uniates just ignored Rome on purgatory, on how they viewed Palomos, how they viewed the energies, and now it's acceptable. There's no midway between grace being

a supernatural creation and grace being uncreated. They're two mutually exclusive positions, and in Orthodoxy it's condemned. It's sung in the liturgy that we anathematize the Latin view that came to dominate after this debate. So, in other words, it's never been just propositions that relate to divine simplicity. It's also been about the philioquay, because the Romancathoic position doesn't

understand what eternal manifestation is. The entire argument of the Palamite son odds after this that relate to Philioquay and uncreated energies centers around the statements and the fathers about eternal manifestation. The modern the Vatican clarification on the Philioquay from a few years ago still admits the tension between the East and the West on the point of eternal manifestation and on the point of Florence in the Double Procession.

It admits that Florence says that the son also participates in the father's hyposthetic role as cause the son participates in being a co cause he's not the principal cause principolitar, as it says, he's a co cause. The son does not participate in the Father's unique property that blends the persons. There's only one cause in the Godhead, as all the fathers in the East say, and that's the person of the Father. There's not a secondary cause in the Godhead.

There's not a property that the father and the son share. The spirit lacks. And if father and son are a co cause, which Florence clearly says, and Florence explicitly says that the Father and the son are a cause not just of the projection of the spirit, of the eternal manifestation of the spirit, of the hypostasis of the Spirit

explicitly says that, and the hints. Even the Ecumenical statement of the Vatican Clarification on the Philioque admits that the Eastern and the Western positions are still in tension on this point. I know what I'm talking about. Secondly, as I said many times, you cannot have a doction of eternal manifestation without a doction of uncreated energies, because the eternal manifestation is is the eternal manifestation of the energies. That's what the thing means. That's what the statement means.

It's impossible to believe in eternal manifestation without uncreated energies. This is precisely where the Roman Catholics confuse the doctrine. This is the whole root of the doctrine. And that's why I showed you in the second half of the debate the statement from the Papadacus book about eternal manifestation

in the Palomite Synods. Now, not just the question of the Roman Catholic doctrines of simplicity in Denzinger, not just the question of Christology and how one person could become incarnate an enter into emotive being that the other two do not. Which again, if if God is an absolutely simple essence in the way that the Roman Catholics almost always define it, how does one hypostasis enter into emotive

being that the other two do not. This would would require change and alteration in the absolute simple essence of Gotten and as a result, all of their talk of virtual conceptual, nominal logical distinctions would also therefore apply to the incarnation, and the incarnation would then be virtual, conceptual, logical, nominal and not real and therefore they would be here

six but they don't want to admit that. But if they were consistent with their view of God's energies and God's actions in this world being strictly created, that the theophanies are created, they would also deny the incarnation. But the point is that they're not consistent. Point is not do they say correct things at times? Yes, point is inconsistency. So not only is there a problem in the statements on simplicity itself by equating the attributes in the essence,

which Denzinger does explicitly. Not only is there a problem with Christology and the uncreated energies relating to his humanity, denying the uncreated energies which the efficce anity, which the sixth Council explicitly teaches and says. Not only is there a question of the philioque and the denial and confusion

and not knowing what eternal manifestation is. There's also the question of the created grace, as we said, which they say explicitly and dogmatically is a supernatural created accident, which we deny. There's also the question of the sacraments. You say, the same problems across the board. God God relating to coming into the world with the Theophanes, God relating to coming into the world in terms of the incarnation, and then God coming into the world through the Church in

our ecclesiology and our sacramentology. In the Realmanchaolic view, if you really believe in the real presence, then the Eucharist is the essence of God. That has retarded. Nobody believes that the Eucharist is the essence of God, except for roalman Catholics, who say that that is the body, blood, soul, and divinity. What is the divinity that's there? Is it a supernatural created accident or is it God himself? Now in their praxis, they believe that it is God himself.

But if it's God himself, then it has to be the essence of God. Does it not? Does exactly? We would say that that is preposterous. The Eucharist is not the essence of God. It has not changed into the essence of God. If you believe in absolute divine simplicity, then it has to be the essence of God. The uncreated energies deify and change the elements. That's the Eastern view. Just like in Christology, the uncreated energies defy his humanity, as John Damascus says in Book three of Defense of

the Orthodox Faith. Secondly, thirdly, Sixthly, not just the sacramental issue, but the beatific vision. Luke ought to know that the beatific vision is one dogma in the Romechallic Church. There's no disputing that. Nobody disputes it. It's dogma. But no Orthodox theologian believes in the beatific vision. We believe that

that is heretical and nonsensical and stupid. Roman Catholic theologians across the world will say that the light of Mount Tabor in Matthew seventeen, the transfiguration is a created light. Because God's absolutely simple essence can't enter in through time and space. How can that be an uncreated light? Oh but wait a minute. Scripture actually says they saw the glory of God. Is the glory of God created? No,

it's not. Jesus says in John seventeen that the glory that he shared with the Father before the foundation of the world, obviously that's not created. Is what he gives to his saints. That's not created. It's uncreated. There's only two options. There's no mediating term. This is the absurdity of the positions that they call us a dial that we have a diad, that we believe in two gods, an uncreated and a created God. No, right, we don't believe that the essence of God is a different God

from the uncreated energies. There's only one God. God is Holy present in every one of his energies, as Saint Gregory says. And we don't think in dialectics in terms of God. If you start to think in dialectics in terms of God, you will be Amian. You will be an absolutely simple essence proponent in a Eunomian or Plutonian sense. And that's why they actually literally have the doctrine of Eunomius.

All right, so let's get into this. So oh, and they also don't have in their anthropology the doctrine of the noose, which is an outworking of divine simplicity, because if humanity is made in the image of an absolutely simple essence, where nature and person are confused in God, nature and person will be confused in humanity, and that's exactly what happens in Western anthropology. Therefore, they have the loss of the doctrine of the news. They don't believe

that man is a tripartite creation body soul, noose. They believe that man is a body and an intellect. They believe in a diad, a dialectical vision of man, especially after Augustine, a body and soul. And that's why none of them, none of them, No Catholic theologians teach the docrine of the News. Now, all of those doctrines is, including the recapitulation, which you could throw that in there as well, have been lost in the West totally. The

West does not believe any of those things. Those are all demonstrably the result and intimately tied to and connected to the doctrine of absolute divine simplicity. So when I say absolute divine simplicity, that is all the stuff that I mean. I don't just mean statements in Denzinger that only apply to the essence of God. And if you don't know, Denzinger is the sources of Catholic dogma. That

has always been the argument. If Luke had paid attention to the many, many, many talks that we've done, he would see that we're not just listing the only reason I have the essay that lists the dogmas about absolute divince simplicity is because that's what that essay is about. All of the other essays are about the outworkings of this theology theological error in all these other areas. Don't

you see? There you go now. The scholarly introduction to this work notes at the beginning that the argumentation from Saint Gregory against the barleymite is from Saint Maximus. Of course it is. You've heard me many times quote Saint Maximus on the uncreated energies. The apologetic, as the introduction notes, is one against platonism. Yes, thank you for the know nothings who think that palmism is platonism. The whole apologetic is against platonism. You have no idea what you're talking about.

How is this theosis achieved? Do we believe that this theosis, this deification is achieved, this knowledge of God, this seeing of God through rational inquiry and ratiocinations. No, the rational noetic faculties of man are a natural faculty. They are created. They're good. There's nothing wrong with human logic, human contemplation,

human reasoning. I mean, this book involves reasoning, contemplation, and logic. Obviously, this, by the way, is another reputation of the piodox the hyper pious who don't believe that you should debate or do theology in the sense of arguing with or defending the faith against the heretics, even though thousands of pages of church Father's works do this. Many hyper pious, super pious people. Oh, anyone who debates misses the spirit of Orthodoxy.

Palamism is not about debating. Here's a whole debate from san Gregory Palamas. Total idiocy, total lunacy, stupidity, and really it's just a cloak for spiritual pride. That's all that is. That people who say that just want you to think that they're super spiritual. And thus we have to see then that the achieving of the vision of God is not a rational exercise. It's not achieved through algorithms, achieved through mastering the church. For others, it's not achieved through

the logic of Aristotelian syllogisms. It's not achieved through mastering Thomas's Summa's it's not achieved through mastering apologetics. Now, all of those things can be good things, but those are all created things. There's no other You can't look to another created thing to achieve the uncreated. The uncreated transcends those created things, It uses created things. It deifies its energies,

the energies of God. I'm saying his energies, I should say, to be more precise, his energies, because they are in hypostatic. They're not abstract. They're always personal. Right, His energies interpenetrate all of creator reality. They are not blended with creative reality. Creator reality does not become the Us of God. We are not pantheists. We reject pantheism. We do not believe

that the energies are abstract, impersonal forces out there. No, they are personal, and hence they are in hypostatic, in hypostotized. But the point is that it is only through the correct prayer life, the correct approach to liturgy, through humbling oneself, through repentance, that one can approach and achieve the truth. That's the big difference here, right, You cannot attain to the truth through mere intellect. You have to repent to attain to the truth. And that's the first starting point.

Is that it begins by kind of rebuking the Barleyamites for this platonic rational approach. Again, don't think in dialectical terms. We're not setting reason against God or against faith. We're not saying that that would be feediism, that would be the evangelical error that many ameerdos have adopted, especially converts from evangelicalism, who think that you shouldn't do apologetical Oh well, so, John Damascu is one of the great theologis of the

church who wrote many, many books on apologetics. Is therefore wrong. This is to be absurd. It's just ignorance. And most of the time that again, the people who speak that way are actually just cloaking their own pride. They feel that they are superior to doing apologetics, or to defending the faith, or to any of these things, and so it gives them a feeling of superiority to you. It's

just a cloak for pride. It it's just a version of prelist But no, in fact, you cannot achieve these things through any created energy or created subject, substance, created form. The grace of God is uncreated and therefore must come to us through humility, through repentance. It can't be an intellectual vision of some essence or some abstract form, or some platonic maze. That you're you're navigating to get to

the monad. So we are not Platonists. The beginning point of this whole approach is the rejection of Platonism, the rejection of Hellenism consistently, and that's why in the Triads the very beginning, Sam Gregory says that Plato and the Greeks and Platonism are demonic, and some Catholic clown was trying to argue with me saying that he didn't say that, and after I showed him all the statements in the Triads at the beginning where he says that, he just says, well,

that's not what he means. No, that's what he says, and that's what he means, because even the scholars in this work tell you that you can't achieve God through mere reason. And again many people then make the opposite end mistake of thinking that, oh, well, then human reasoning is itself evil and bad. No, Jesus assumed human nature and then includes human will and reasoning. Right, So if Jesus assumed it and healed it, it's not inherently wrong.

He assumed all of the human faculties proper to human nature, and thereby deified them and healed them. So you can't then interject aspects into human nature that are somehow inherently evil. Oh, human reasoning is therefore evil. No, it's not. It has to be deified, has been transformed. The creations of God show his energies.

has is Eunomian. Exactly if you read in the Catholic Encyclopedia what the Eunomian doctrine of simplicity is, that's exactly what the Roman Catholics say. Saint Gregor Palma says, the root of all of these errors is the simplicity doctrine. And it's not a question of Aristotilian dialectics of substance and accident that will determine this ultimately. But in fact, what is revealed ultimately is a question of submitting our intellect and our human pride in our philosophy to what

Revelation says exactly so absolute divine simplicity. According to Saint Gregory, Palamas rehashes the errors of Arius, the Massallians who claim to see the essence of God, Utikeys, the Utaychian Utychians, and the Eunomians, all the stuff that you've heard me argue say. Gregory says that we are separate from Hellenism, and so there is a Jerusalem versus Athens that work here. Why do I say this because I've spent many, many years trying to look at this issue. I'm not saying

it's right because I spent many years. I'm just saying that I know what I'm talking about. The last ten years have been focused on this question of Hellenism, the Patristic era and the one in the Many, so I have a sense of what I'm talking about here. Now we can go, for example, to Dionysius sat Dinysius the Area Apiciite. He's the first to really take up this issue after the Apostles, and he says that God is both one and many, and he transcends one in many.

He says that that does not compromise the unity of God because we genuinely think that he's both one and many. Right, we can't predicate of God in any absolute sense, and so there is a via negativa or the apathetic way, apathetic theology, meaning that we predicate of God what he isn't right, But there's also a valid cataphatic approach.

personhood hypostasis. When we say that God is he, we are primarily and principally talking about the person of the Father. This is what Paul says. We read this every Sunday and the Thanksgiving and the liturgies for every good gift comes down from the Father of Lights. That's quoting Paul the Creed says, we believe in one God, the Father.

So the principle of unity, the source of unity, begins with the person of the Father, doesn't begin with abstractions about the essence of God, doesn't begin with abstractions that come from Hellenism. Now, at this point, when a lot of people get confused, and they'll kind of they will kind of veer off into other areas and they'll say, well, but John uses the term logos. Jay, so clearly right, think of a logloss. Right, that has to mean the

same thing that the pagan audience has in mind. Otherwise he couldn't do apologetics. So when John and John Want says logos, it's the same thing that Marcus Aurelius is talking about, except it's not You see what you will begin to see when you really, really, really study in depth. And I've read countless works on this topic. I'm not saying that makes me right. I mean I've read the entire Pelican series, right, all of the all five values

in Pelican, especially when he talks about this. I've read Jandy Kelly, I've read you name it, I've read the Patristic era treatments of these issues, and I've read most of these fathers themselves on these issues. And Jerusalem versus Athens is kind of at the root of this whole thing.

This is the problem. And this is where we depart from the Catholic view, the Roman Kelly view, because if we look at Marcian, Okay, let's start with the early early heretics, Marcian sees a dialectical tension contrast between the God of the Old Testament who's mean, and the love God of the New Testament, who's nice. Okay, this is very common today. Okay, Marcian has a presupposition about either or right. Either God is the mean God of the Old Testament or he's this nice God to love in

the New Testament, and those two things and conflict. So I'm going to go with the nice love God of the New Testament. Now, this is a stupid approach with theology, and it of course it ignores many, many clear proofs

of the continuity between the Old and New Testament. And so, for example, in against heresies, Santor Innaeus has a lengthy section where he refutes Marcian and he goes to many many things that prove the continuity of the Old and New Testament, explicitly refuting Martianism, explicitly refuting Martian's denial of the historicity of the Old Testament. But that's a beginning point where we start to see a departure between Jerusalem and Athens, right, and I'm using those terms loosely there.

That's kind of a shorthand for the long term battle between the Hellenic ideas. We're not talking about Greek culture, We're not talking about Greek food. We're talking about Hellenic philosophic assumptions. That's the key here. So don't misunderstand when I'm saying Hellenic errors. I'm not talking about Greeks, I'm not talking about people. I'm not talking about culture, talking

about the specific philosophic ideas. So and then when we move into these different gnostic groups, we see that many of the Gnostics, for example, that Aeronea stills with in the first three hundred pages of his Against Heresies, many of them were infected with these bizarre Platonic views, Platonic theory. Many of them, not all of them, but many of them.

When we move into the period of the post Apostolic apologists, Okay, let's take tation tation was early on a student of Justin Martner sat Justin Marter, the philosopher as he's called, who was an apologist who did use philosophy. But what Tationan did was he got too involved by the Greeks. He fell into the dialectical philosophy of the Greeks, and

unfortunately Taitan went into heresy. And then as a result of tait some of his students became I believe they were the ancretites, right, many of his students became these not stick Marcianite vegans. Okay, that's listed in John Damascus's heresiology. It's also i think listed by Saint Apolitics of Rome. But the point being is that when this happens, that group gets into either or dialectics of the Greeks Greek philosophy. Let's look at as we move from these clowns into

people like Celsus or Origin. Okay, Now, Celsus was into Greek philosophy. Origin was a patristic writer, influential scholar, and church father. But He's not a saint and he's not Orthodox, but he was influential and he was very into Platonism. Neoplatonism. He did not have direct interaction with Plotinus. I'm not saying that, but I'm saying that there's a lot of similarities, Okay. And what eventually gets condemned by the Sixth Council explicitly

in Originism is his neoplatonic views, his platonic views. Doesn't matter what you call it. It's hellenic philosophy. It's denial of Eden. It's a denial of history, denial of the eternality of the Sun in terms of his being eternally begotten. It's a denial of genuine diversity in God at the expense of the unity. So in the question of the One and the many, Origin falls over on the side of the premissy of unity and essence in God. And so therefore whatever is not the essence of God according

to Origin has to be some lesser metaphysical status. Why, because of philosophic assumptions, distinction must entail composition or division if it's a real distinction. You see now again, many, many, many philosophers, theologians have written on this topic. What I'm saying is not my own ideas. I'm not making this up. It's not new to me. David Bradshaw, very famous, has books on this topic. If we move in then into the period of Arius Arius and the Eunomians, right, these

two radical groups. They were convinced that if God is one, anything that is predicated of God or said of God, this is distinct from Father or from one, has to be some lesser metaphysical status. The Son of God cannot be homousus of the same nature or essence, because that would imply that there's parts, there's two Gods, et cetera, et cetera. This is the stuff that you hear. Arians today still argue this is another dialectical Hellenistic idea. Now,

the Eunomians were more radical. They said, now we can actually know the essence of God, and we can make positive predications about the essence of God. And that's why the essence of God is the Father then, and that is defined. It's a definitional notion here. It is to find as ungenerate, unoriginate, is what Eunomias said. And so Saint Basil and Saint Gregor Nissa launched into gigantic refutations of Eunomius, and guess what they used to refute Eunomius.

Can you guess what distinction they used? They used the essence energy distinction they refuteus. If that distinction is not real, the entire argument against Eunomius collapses. This is so stupid that there is nothing more low iq than the people who think that this is the same doctrine as Rome Catholsis that that Palamas and Gregory and Basil they're not teaching anything different, then the whole argument against Eunomius would collapse. If we move into the period of Nestorius and Saint

Cyril okay ephesis, another Christological period. If you read mcguckin's book, if you read Saint Cyril's own writings, what you start to see is that Nestorius doesn't see how it's possible that there's not some tension between divinity and humanity. There's some tension. So there's a tunis here that is some kind of moral conjunction, moral union between the son of

God and a human person. In Jesus of Nazareth, they've got some kind of moral union here, but there's not one divine person, the subject of all the incarnate actions, is not the second person of the Godhead, as Saint Cyril said, it's at times there's this divine Jesus that's shining through, and at other times it's this man Jesus of Nazareth. You see, this is another version of arianism.

It's not exactly the same as arianism, but it's another version of arianism, and it's based on the same dialectics. There's an oppit there's some natural tension and opposition between divinity and humanity in Christ. This same problem will occupy the Church for the next several centuries, all the way up into the Fifth and Six Councils, which deal with

the two natures in Christ. The chief argumentation that Saint Maximus deals with is against the Monothelites, who are people who are essentially kind of a continuation of Monophysites, who said that, well, if there's only a unity in Christ, there's only basically this blended kind of thing in Christ. When he becomes incarnate, a divine human hybrid, then there

has to be one action or energy in Christ. And so what Saint Maximus does is that he goes to great lengths, especially in the disputation with Paris to prove that the Monothelites are wrong and that Christ has two wills and two energies because energy is a property. Are faculty of nature? Right? Say John Damascus covers this in book three very clearly as he launches into a rehearsing

of the Christological controversies. And what I'm saying is that, once again, right when he's arguing with Pearis, he accuses Pearis of setting up dialectical tensions between the will of man and the will of God, between Christ's human will and his divine will, between Christ's human energy and his

divine energy. He says he thinks these things are intention and the key is to understand going all the way back to Cyril and the way Cyril explains it against Nestorias, and the way that the Fifth and Six Councils explain it, which is that the humanity of Christ is deified by the uncreated energies of Christ legitimately raised, but it still retains its natural, created properties. Christ's humanity never loses its created status. It will always and forever be created. However,

it's not just created and mortal, it is raised. It defied, right, it participates in that uncreated energy yet still retains its creative property. That's only possible, it's only possible to believe that and accept that if you reject Hellenic either or dialectics. That's the key here. That is the overriding, consistent principle that we want to understand that we reject, and when we start to grasp that, that's when we start to see.

There's so many of these theological problems, controversies, and debates center around dialectical either or tensions. Now, sometimes there is an either or, right, there's not always a middle ground. This is a kind of fallacy, right, there's not always some middle term as if you know, well, for example theism and atheism, there's no middle ground there. So sometimes there is an either or. But in a lot of the theological controversies over the centuries Jerusalem versus Athens, there

is a transcending of either or dialectics. And Saint Gregor Palamas is kind of the culmination, you could say, because certainly there's disputes and arguments after Saint Gregory. But if you follow the logic from Niceea through Ephesis to the Sixth Council with the Monothy lites all the way up through to Saint Gregory's day. You will see a logical train of the development of this theology. And by development, I don't mean the Roman Catholic conception of development, where

it's evolving. In our review, the development is just a restatement or a redefining, an explication of what's already there. Right, So we quite literally say that we're teaching the exact same thing that that to St. Dionysia's there opic I said, we quite literally believe that Basil explicates the same faith as Saint Paul. And that's why it is correct, as Saint Maximus says, to understand that one thing that the Fall did right, I mean it did a lot of

different things right. The fall man introduced corruption, decay, metaphysically, morally right, there's all these problems the fault. But one thing that it did philosophically speaking, you could say it was introduced to these dialectics where people think that there's hardcore either ores intention at all times, and it's not

always the case. So the great irony, and this was a misunderstanding that I had for a long time about orthodoxy that I had to kind of finally come out of and the key piece of evidence for me in being convinced that Orthodoxy was not just Helenism and neoplatonism was the statement of Basil where he says, for us, the one is a he, not an it. That's when

it finally clicked for me that I understood. Now I see why the church fathers are consistently having to battle, whether it's Marcian or whether it's Arius, or whether it's the Massalians, or whether it's Eunomius, or whether it's Astorius, or whether it's Purists, the Monothelites, Diascorus. They're consistently having to battle with either or dialectics. And once you understand that,

it's very obvious. You see it. You see how Arius says that if God is simple and the Father is God, then if he eternally generates, that cause has to be a created cause, because it would compromise the simplicity of God, he says, and Athanasius refutes him by saying that the Son is an eternally generated son. He's not temporarily generated. He's not the first thing that God created. He's eternally generated, and therefore he is not a creature. He shares the

same essence of the Father. Is he the direct offspring of the Father's nature? Yes, he is right. And the romancatoss trying to say, oh, that means divine, absolutely vine simplicity. Then no, he's the direct generation of the Father's nature. You see, Athanasius is not setting the essence of gods some abstract, preeminent category that we start with. He starts with the Father. And that's why Hebrews says that he is the direct image and icon of the Father. Now,

so dialectics then is a consistent problem. And when you read through many of these Church fathers and many of the analyzes of the Church fathers, you will begin to see that as very clearly evident. The heretics will constantly think that there's only either ores right, either God is one or he's many. He can't be one in many. Either God is absolutely simple or he's composed of parts.

He can't have distinction without division. You see. Now, for us, as we said, there are multiple Palamite synods after these disputes up into the fourteenth century, and these are the Palamite synods. They're just Orthodox synods, and they're received as normative as I will show you in a moment we sent many churches still sing this, and therefore Palamism is nothing more than Orthodoxy. That's why the entire Orthodox world, except for certain ecumenists who we will show are incorrect,

believes in the essen synergy distinction. Right, This is normative in Orthodoxy. Will you find an Orthodox person at times who's confused on this? Sure, but everybody body knows what our liturgy says. Everybody knows what our catechisms say. Everybody knows that across the world, the Orthodox Church believes in a real essence energy distinction. Now, it doesn't matter how many Fordom acumenists funded by giant foundations, all proven one

hundred percent proven. Now tries to say that there's no distinction between essence and energy, and that Gregor Palamas doesn't believe in a real distinction. Of course he does. That's what this whole debate is predicated on. They're liars, they're lying because they're paid to lie. They're not really Orthodox, and it's all come out that they're paid by foundations to promote this stuff. The Jesuit University of Fordham. Everything that I said ten years ago about this kind of

stuff has all been proven true. The debate at times does center on the classical tradition, so that is treated of in the scholarly introduction, and they do note that the Saint Gregor Palamas is not completely opposed to classical education or the classical tradition. Right, So let's not mistake what I'm saying for like Baptist type views or like a independent landmark fundamentalist Baptist church like Jerusalem versus Aftertens.

That means everything that's Greek, and everything that's other church fathers, and all philosophy his other devil, No, no, no, no, he Saint Gregory Palamas was trained in Aristotilian logic. He was trained in Aristotle. Saint John Damascus was trained in Aristotle. Right, read David Bradshaw's Aristotle East and West. We don't have a problem with Aristotle. We have a problem with the Western usage of Aristotle. Indeed, throughout the Fount of Knowledge.

As I've said, like I lectured on the whole book four or five years ago, Mathema ignored all this. Of course, all of those Aristotlian categories are used in the proper way in Saint John Demascus, and they're used in a different way by quitnas. Now, when we come to the work itself, understand that this is after the period of the Tria, so he's already written the Triads. I believe I'm right about that. I go out from memory, and I did a talk on the Triads a year ago,

so you can go listen to that talk. This is complementary to that talk. And it begins by pointing out that Barleam is a heretic. Barley might views are heretical. That's how the book begins. Barlem begins his debate by saying, God's actions are identical to his essence. Did you hear me exactly what Aquinas says? Not identical in a figurative sense, identical in an identical literal sense, actus purist. He is his essence. He is identical to his essence. His actions are identical to he.

But here the debate begins by the barley might saying you better prove your view from the Church fathers and from tradition, and Saint Gregory responds by saying, okay, but let's keep in mind that every heretic believes his view is proven by the Church fathers. This is the everybody says, I am in, I am in the true succession of the of the Fathers and the great theologians of the ancient Church. But just claiming that is really meaningless. We

have to actually demonstrate that. So it begins by talking about foreknowledge. Okay, and bar excuse me. Pelama says, foreknowledge is an energy of God. And if we just stop for a moment and think about the stupidity of identifying the essence of God with foreknowledge and with the will of God, then we would come to see that there have to be real distinctions in God. Okay, God foreknowing event an event is obviously not identical to God's will obviously,

and what argument do you constantly hear me? Make right? What I usually say, I say, let's look at Christology, don't I what's the first thing he goes to Christology, he says, the clearest way to see that there's a distinction between the energies in God, his actions, and what he is in himself. His inner essence is in the person of Christ incarnate, because this is God in time and space, walking around right doing things. And Christology is key because it shows us that he possesses two wills

and two energies. And if we do believe that his actions within time and space are real, then clearly those actions are different. His walking on water is not the same thing as his creating the world. In fact, John Damascus says very clearly in book three that that's an action proper to his divine power. All the miracles are, of course they are. Walking on water is not proper to human nature. It's an action that shows that demonstrates

divine power. Is the action of walking on water the same as the action of creating the world, and also the same as the destruction of the world, all actions of God God. Admittedly, of course not that would be ridiculous. That's why Basil says in letter two thirty four, if you add up all these attributes and say they're identical, and that they're identical to the essence of God. You're a fool. He begins the debate with that. He begins the debate by saying that Saint John Damascus says that

the energies of God enter into history. He begins with book one of defensive Orthodoxist How many times have I begun with that? What's the next clearest argument? What does he move to? He moves to the uncreated light in Matthew seventeen, the glory of God shining within creation, the glory of God around Christ and the transfiguration, the light of God in the face of Saint Stephen, the light of God that shines upon Paul when he's converted. This is the same grace that the saints get. It's the

same grace that's uncreated. It does enter into time and space, just like the Theophanes did. And so when Joshua, when Gideon, when Abraham worship these Theophanes that manifest within time and space. Are they worshiping creatures? No, they're not worshiping holograms. They're not worshiping created phantasms. They're not worshiping created analogs, they're worshiping the preincarnate logos. So just as it's possible for

the logos to be incarnate, excuse me, preincarnate. When he manifests as the Angel of the Lord, and the Old Testament saints bow down and worship, and he's given the name Lord Yahweh. Just as he's able to enter into time and space, so also can he become incarnate, and so also can the uncreated light that is his divine glory manifest and the transfiguration. Now, all of Roman Catholicism says that the light that manifests in Matthew seventeen is created,

I have never heard. So I don't know where the uniates or any of that. Maybe they could come up with something. I've never heard it because I've never heard a Roman Catholic say that that is uncreated light, because that would deny the whole of the analogianis and the causal view of how God relates to the world. In everything I've ever seen in Romanism, I have never seen a Roman theologian say that Matthew seventeen is the actual uncreated light of God entering into time and space manifesting

for the apostles to see, and yet that's what happens. Now, maybe there's some uniate theologian out there in some university somewhere who thinks that it is that does not translate into the possibility of that existing in Roman Catholic dogma.

Let me make another point on that too, which is a little more practical, but I think is still a persuasive argument, which is that, let's say that it's true that ninety nine point nine percent of the Romancolic Church does not believe that, and zero point one percent of the Romancolic Church does hold that, and somehow that's legitimately true, and you can somehow hold that opinion within Roman Catholism, which you can. But let's say for them, you say

the argument that you can. What does it say for a church that has two mutually exclusive positions, and the supposedly true Church has for many, many, many centuries, ninety nine point nine percent of it held that that light is created, but point one percent has actually been correct, and nobody else in this church knows it. That's ridiculous, that's stupid. So you are the Apostolic Church and zero

point one percent actually knows this very basic doctrine. But the rest of the whole thing has bumbled on this for centuries. That's absurd. What's more likely the case, right, that that it's just two different doctrines, Right, That's what this whole debate is predicated on. Now, somebody them said, well, but Barleam isn't really representative of the Roman Catholic position.

Yes he is. He's perfectly representative of the of the Roman Catholic position because he became a Catholic bishop, Roman Catholic and eventually the views that he holds are one percent across the board what you find in any standard Roman Catholic dogmatic manual. Now he moves then to an argument that I've made many times, what Roman Catholic would

dare say the glory of God is created. In John seventeen, we have Jesus launching into an extensive discussion the high priestly prayer about the glory of God that he possessed with the Father before the foundation of the world, that he shared in common with the Father, and the spirit that he will give to the apostles. And he clearly between verses one to three and then to verse twenty says that it's the same glory. It's not a created analog that he's going to give us. It's not a

supernatural creature that he's going to give us. The same glory that he possessed with the Father before the foundation of the world, he says, will be given to us and to the apostles. Is that a creature? Of course, it isn't. No more than the light of the transfiguration

itself is a creature. It is the uncreated light that Paul talks about when he says God dwells an unapproachable light to Timothy, if grace is created and grace is Christ, Christ is, in other words, if we're getting what Christ had, If the grace that we're getting is created, it's a supernatural creation, and the glory that Christ has is a supernatural creation, then Christ is a creation exactly. And that's how the argument falls into arianism. Barleam says, well, look,

the Saints, though, reply to you. This is every Roman Catholic. Isn't this hilarious that every interaction that you have with Roman Catholics and Thomas on this point, and Protestants too.

Let's include the Protestants have the same view. Let's not make this just about Roman Catholics, because the Protestants, ninety nine point nine percent of all Protestants adhere to the Western doctrine of absolute devine simplicity across the board in all of their theologies, whether it's Charles Hodge or Burkhoff or BABVNC or Calvin or Luther, they all believe in absolute divine simplicity in this same way all the way

up into the Puritans. They say the same things. And what's the next reply that you get from every single tomust Ah? But you see, God is one and simple, and the Church fathers teach that God is one and simple, and therefore you making this distinction, you make God composed. Of course, we believe God is one and simple, but we don't believe that the simplicity and unity of God is compromised by there being a real distinction between the person's do we of course not right, Father, Son, and

Spirit are really and truly distinct from or another. They're not modes or masks that God has. Right, that would be modalism, that would be Sabellianism. We don't believe that that was rejected in the Church. Right, So, when, for example, Athanasius argues with the arians. He points out that the action of God generating the Son is eternal and natural. It's therefore divine. Right, It's not caused in the sense of temporal causes. It's an eternal cause, where the Father

eternally generates the son. There was no point at time in which the son was not it's an eternal generation. That eternal generation suggests a real distinction. Right. The Father is the unriginal cause, the son, the eternal generated son. That eternal action of generating, which Athanasius does say is an action, is distinct from any action of creating or contemplating the creation the logi the exemplars. Right, the son, the eternally generated son, is not identical to either of

those things. Right, But it is an eternal movement of the Father generating the son. Cause suggests movement, But it's not a movement. That's like the energy that goes into creating the world. Therefore, there's a natural movement, a natural, eternal begetting of the Father's nature, which is the son. And therefore, because it's eternal, because he's of the Father's nature, he's absolutely fully divine. He's not any lesser ontological metaphysical status.

Than the Father, But that eternal generation is an action that's distinct from the action of creating the world, right, because the world comes to be at a point in time. If you don't believe in a distinction between essence and energy, and you believe in divine simplicity, then the son is a creature. The action of creator, of generating the sun is like the action of creating the world. What distinguishes

eternally generating from creating in time and space? Now, if you'd have the base with Muslims, they will tell you that God is eternally a creator, and because he's eternally a creator, the Son is a creature. There's no eternal logos. I'm saying, there's no eternal logos. That's the second person of the God had In Islamic theology. Islama theology has this confusing thing about the Koran being an eternal word.

Whatever point being is that they don't believe in the trinity, right, And one of the reasons they don't is because they don't have a problem identifying God being creator, with God being Father and with the essence. Right, So it's the it's essential to God to be a creator, and if it's essential to God to be a creator, and God's essence is eternal, and God is eternally a creator. That's what the Aryans argued. And since fatherhood is essential, being

unoriginal is essential. Anything other is a work of God, and if anything else is a work of God, it's distinct from that one essence, that one fatherhood, that one creator. Therefore, the Son is the first creation of God. He's the first work of God. And then through that Son he created the world. That's the Aryan view. But you see, we have to make a distinction between the eternal generation of the son and that action and the action of

creating the world the essence in distinction. That's one example of that. You say, well, Jay, where is this? This is proven to be the argument that Athenatianus makes against the Arians. If you read the Father of Fluorovsky essay,

e cciited it many many times. The whole essay proves beyond any shadow of doubt that that's the whole context of the Aryan argument, And in fact, Saint Gregor Palamos will even cite that very debate and then cite Saint Cyril of Alexandria using the same arguments for the Essen Sentergy section. This is baffling to me that the goofy Roman Catholics come in here trying to use Athenasious and Saint Cyril to disprove the Essen senergy stinction when that's

a key lynch pin in their argumentation. Uh, let me add this, so again we have to stress this Athanasius whole argument against the Arians is what I was just telling you, and anybody who reads the famous Fluoroski essay will know that beyond any shadow without now point being is that this essay, we know that that this is not just something that uh Fluorofsky cooked up, because it's the same argument is made in here. It's not something

that Florofsky is made. Let me get clever here and try to prove that Athanasius believing the essence energy distinction to no, No, it's the same argument was made for centuries before in Saint Gregory. So as we moved through then the debate continues by saying, Barley, Barlem, there's the possibility, well, uh, maybe that these distinctions are just into uh oh wherever we heard this before? Oh, every Roman Catholic ninety nine point nine percent of right, Maybe the distinctions that we're

talking about are just intellectual. But the intellect can see these distinctions, but really in themselves are all the same, because if we thought these distinctions were real, it would mean that God's composed. How many times we have to respond to the same point. Distinction does not entail composition or division. And if you can admit that the Father is the cause of the son, does all the Eastern fathers say, then you already admit the distinction does not

entail division or composition. So there should be no problem in believing and a distinction between God's energies, actions and what he is at himself. And in fact, he says that if you believe in fact, this is Saint Gregory's argument. Now, he says, if you believe that God is absolutely simple, but that you participate in a created, supernatural grace that's

also divine, then you make two gods. You have a uncreated God and a created God that you participate in a created, supernatural grace, which is literally what they say is that the same as the uncreated. The Roman Catholic will tell you no, if that's not the same, then you have two gods. You have a created God you worship and you have an uncreated God you worship, so actually you are the Diaddic polytheis not the Orthodox because

we believe that the uncreated energies are fully God. The distinction between essence and energy is not a composite God. It's not two gods. Every energy is fully divine. They're not accidents in the aarriistic thing and sense. God is not substance an accident. Yes, correct, he's not composed, but that doesn't mean that differentiation in him is not real. It's not merely conceptual. Are the persons in the triad only conceptual notional distinctions virtual distinctions? No, they're real. The

Father really does eternally generate the Son. That's not a notional distinction. It's an actual, eternal begetting. And that's why the Father, as all the person of the Father, as all the fathers teach, is the soul, cause and monarchia of the Godhead. The next team moves to the beatific vision. He says that if you believe that you will see

the essence of God, you are a Eunomian exactly. And this disproves Luke and his madness from yesterday or two days ago, whatever it was, because Luke says that it's only about what the statements in the dogma are about divine simplicity. No, it's not. It immediately goes into beatific vision. The Roman doctrine of the beatific vision, where your intellect is finally satiated and you're made happy by seeing the

essence of God, is utterly absurd and Eunomian. It's the same heresy as Eunomius, and the same heresy as the Massallians who said that there's all the essence of God. And Saint Gregory then moves into saying, you are now in a presubositional trap. Did you hear me? A presubositional trap because you have hung yourself on an either or And the idiot Roman Catholics say that I make up

the presuppositional argument. No, no, this is the presubsistional argument, because he's putting Barleum into the either or traps that Barleum has created for himself. It's not. We are not in the either or trap because we deny the dialectical tension of either or right. There can be distinctions in God without composition or division. Barleum says, our intellect rises

up to see the essence of God. First we must move through this pathway of creatures, and then we through intellectual vision like Plato, we can see the essence of God. And then in the eternal state will be perfectly satiated and we won't want to change, will be perfectly fixated in a static vision of the essence of God. That is Platonism. That's what Plato said, That's what Origin says.

The typic vision is the heresy of Originism and Plato. Now, the only difference is that Origin thought that in order to retain free will, you have to be able to move your gaze away from that one essence of God. And that's what the fall is. The fall is your intellect moving away from the singular essence of God and falling then into creatureliness. Again, No, all that Plato crap, We've tossed all that out. That's once again Jerusalem versus Athens. We don't want any of that nonsense. It's not our

created intellect that sees the essence of God. Okay, body, soul, and noose are transformed by the uncreated energies. That's the key here. So when Saint Maximus discusses the vision that we have, Maximus says explicitly, we do not see the essence of God. What we see are the many logi, the many uncreated energies in the one logos, very different the exemplars. Now, he moves to the exemplar argument. How many times have you heard me make the exemplar argument?

I made it against classical theists, made it against other Thomas because it's absurd. The exemplars are identified in Tonism and in most of Aromatholicism, with the essence of God. Augustine says this, even but the exemplars of created things, the patterns, principles, and archetypes of all the created things are not identical to the essence of God. The essence

of God is absolutely simple and undifferentiated. It's a perfect unity, right, And so if created things are based in the essence of God for their patterns and archetypes, then all things are nothing but reflections and manifestations of the essence of God, which is impossible, and thus all if you're consistent with that, you would actually believe in Maya. You would believe that distinctions in the world are actually illusory, because there's no

such thing as chair fareness. Right, The chair doesn't have an archetype in the essence of God. The essence of God is not like any created thing. Moses says this, does he not right? Not only does Moses say this, Paul says this in Act seventeen when he goes and he talks to the philosophers battling Hellenic philosophy. Act seventeen is completely a refutation of Hellenic presuppositions. He says, the divine nature is not like anything created. It's not like

gold and silver and things in temples. That's idolatry. What does Rome Catholicism say creatures are analogs to the essence of God. You're an idolator, now, I know that they say that. Yeah, but it's not a perfect analogy to the essence of God. It's not an analogy the essence of God at all. There's no creatures that are like the essence of God. That's why we are in perfect continuity with Moses. When Moses sees God and experiences God,

he experiences the goodness of God. It's made explicit in Exodus. God says, I'm not gonna show you my face, it would kill you, but i will show you my goodness is the goodness of God created?

and the exemplars are not the essence of God. This is very key, and Maximus is unambiguous about that, Hence the Ambiguum number seven where he covers this issue. The logi right, Therefore, it is absurd and stupid to identify the exemplars with the essence of God, which classical theists still does. Then he was on to say that God may have done many other works beyond the works that we know. He has energies that we don't know, because Scripture says he has many, many, many infinite works. We

will never exhaust the works of God. And who does he cite for that, Saint Basil Saint Basil says, God has many, many works, and he has even more works that we don't even know. And I'm sure, oh, you're making up those quotes. Those are all made up. All this is referenced. So let's give you the citations. This is against Eunomius chapter two to cite Maximus, it is Ambiguum seven, and it is Maximus against Thalassios chapter thirteen. There you go go look these up. Write these down

and look them up. Liars, you're making those quotes of Next he moves to said Barlem moves on. He says, all right, look, maybe the grace itself isn't created. It's actually uncreated. So Barleum moves his position, and now he says that, no, we really do participate in theosis. We really do, and we're really getting divinity, but that divinity is uncreated. And this is what you will see the

Roman Catholics do. They get so confused. They will literally flip back and forth and say both things within the same debate. They'll say the same no, No, you're really getting a supernatural created grace. The grace itself was created. And then like five minutes later they'll be like, well you are participating in the divine nature. In duification, you're really being deified, and it's the divine nature. Is the

divine nature a supernatural creature? No, So Saint Gregory calls out barleym here and he says, you earlier you said that it was a creature, and now you're saying it's uncreated. And then he says that if you were consistent, you would adopt atheism because absolute divine simplicity actually cuts God off from being imminently present in this world. Exactly. It removes the imminent energies of God, and it makes God a cut off being who only interacts through created effects

in this world. That's what every Thomas will tell you. Yeah, okay, if that's the case, then that leads to atheism. We don't actually know. We never interact directly with that God. And in fact, all we have are created analogs which are supposed to tell us these different attributes. How do you know if you're experiencing mercy as opposed to foreknowledge, as opposed to justice, as opposed to love, as opposed

to punishment, as opposed to wrath. You don't, So you never know because this God is cut off from this world. If all we ever experience is creative effects, how is there an incarnation, a real incarnation, the second person that God had really became incarnate in time and space. He's not just a created effect. It's not just a notional virtual incarnation. It's not just a conceptual incarnation. That's why you're a heretic. God is wholly present in each energy,

and therefore there is not parts to God. Next, he moves on to dealing with the fact that sat Dinysius says the essence of God has no name. God is divinity, and that unity, that power is beyond our conception, and therefore it itself has no name. We do not know the essence of God. Even when we say God is super substantial, God is a super essential one, we are not naming that essence, he says. Those are just still

energetic titles for God. Even the name one, and even the name essence is an energy because what it signifies we don't know. We're not saying that they're confused. We're not saying that essence is energy. We're saying that we only know that God is one essence because He's revealed it. So if we say that the grace of God that we get is a created light. He says, that is an impiety. That would mean that we aren't really deified.

We're just given another creaturely substance, another creaturely accident. I don't care. It doesn't matter whether you say it's a created substance or a created accident, because the point is that it's a creature. This is the other bumble that Mathema tried to play gotcha on, and it actually functioned to get him, and that's why he crumbled this last week.

Saint Gregory goes on to say, if the Father is the soul caushi monarchia of the godhead, as Barlem admits, which by the way, some of the Thomas don't even admit this. If you go and listen to the doctor Fine Gold de Bait. He was lost when I said this, which is common parlance amongst all the fathers for the first eight centuries. Barleam admits that the Father is the

sole cause. Then Gregory moves on to say, then distinction does not entail division, because he's the cause of the son, and that implies a real distinction between father and son, and Barlem says, yes, it is a real distinction. But that doesn't mean that the essence of God is composed. And at this point Gregory Saint Gregory says, yeah, exactly right, And so he goes then to Saint Athanasius. He says, Saint Anthonasius teaches a distinction between essence and energy page

sixty one, and therefore there is no absolute simplicity. He says that God's actions are not his essence, and God's referring to God as he or to his existence is not identical to his essence, and he cites st Athosian Athanasius in multiple places there to prove.

Gregory says, if the judgments of God cannot be discerned in any way are searched out, and the promise of good things transcends all conjecture founded upon the queries, how much more is the divine nature higher than all the things that are set about it? And on account of it unnameable and unapproachable? Saint Basil says, when all of these activities, which are the activities of the Spirit, they are unnameable due to their greatness, and innumerable because of

their multitude. For how can we think that what is above the ages and which were His activities before the intelligible creation? Did you hear that? Which were his activities before the creation? How many of are those graces which flow from Him to creation? And what is the power of those in relationship to the coming age? Hence, even when you think something about above the ages, even that

is lower than the Spirit himself. So God's actions are not identical to who he is would then that the essence of God, which is above all names and unutterable, abound around which are the powers and energies which are also before all ages. Right. And he elsewhere he distinguishes the energies that are eternal from all time, such as the glory of God, the love of God, to the energies that relate only to space and time, right creating the world. And that's dealt with at length in the Triads.

And again this is all straight from Easter for Fathers. Then he moves on to talk about Grace itself. He says, if if we are deified, then it has to be supernatural, does it not? And Barlam says yeah, I would agree with that, right, And so if grace is supernatural, then it cannot be identified with natural and Barleum says, I agree. He says, are created things natural? He says, yes, in this sense they are. Well, then if it's supernatural, it has to be uncreated, and Barlium says, yes, I would

agree with that. Then therefore or Grace is uncreated and not a supernatural created substance exactly. He says that if we participate in the un in the glory of Christ. Again, he says that then that signifies a real participation in uncreated grace with the very life that God has. Yes, he says that that is uncreated. Next he moves to proving this again from Saint Basil, and not letter two thirty four, but actually from a different letter. This is

letter one eighty nine where Saint Bezos is. But either you call the nature of God divinity, and then the nature of the three is one, or you call the energies divinity and then the act the energy of the three persons is one. Correct. So there, once again is Basil make the distinction between essence, energy, nature, will person. They're all distinguished. But does that mean that distinction entails divisions? Are we saying that God is made up of these

ten parts? No, of course not. He's not made up of twenty parts. Not if he has infinite energies, he's not made up of a million different energies. Right, Doing different actions creating the world and on water doesn't mean that he has two different parts. There, there's two different actions. Next, he goes on to talk about the fact that the many energies are not abstract. They are in hypostatic, meaning

that they are personal. Right, and then he says, the fact that there's a distinction does not mean that they're divided. God is not composed, because there's a distinction between his actions and his essence. And he proves this by saying that look at the seven spirits of God. Right, we have this statement from scripture from Isaiah and then from the Apocalypse, the seven spirits of God sent out to the seven churches. He says, are those created or uncreated?

Barlam says, those are the spirit they're uncreated, And he says yes. And then what does he cite? He cites what I just cited last night or the other night from Saint Maximus. Sat Maximus says in that section that the seventh spirits are the uncreated energies that God transfers to the church. He says, when we say that the seven spirits of God are present, that they're real, differentiated actions of God, the works of the spirit. He says, does that mean that God has seven parts? Is God divided?

It's the Holy Spirit divided into seven because they're seven spirits. Of course not. And he says, do you think that they're really different? He says, does everybody have the same gifts in the church? No right. And in one Corinthians twelve, when Paul uses this term inner gaia in the Greek, he says that the spirit distributes many gifts, and he says, there's many workings of the spirit in that text, many innergayia of the spirit, and yet one spirit does that

negate the distinction? No right. So one person can have the gift of tongues, which is from the spirit, and another person can have the gift of ministry and the gift of mercy or whatever. Are they all the same no? Are they the same spirit? Yes? So then therefore you can have distinction that's real without division or composition. One Corinthians twelve is abundantly clear. The Greek word is entergaia, and the works of the spirit are really divine, They're

not created analogs. Next, I want to mention that Saint Gregory calls Barlem stupid and heretical. Now, a lot of people get mad, and they will be super pious and they will act like, don't ever say that somebody is stupid and heretical. Saint Gregory just calls Barlem stupid and heretical. There's nothing inherently wrong when it is in fact the case that a person is stupid. To call them stupid, now you should not be mean. It should not come

from a place of hatred or a pride. But if in fact a person is being stubborn and stupid and foolish, as the Bible many many times calls people foolish, which presupposes that you have the ability to recognize when people are foolish. There's nothing wrong with that, and there's nothing wrong with continuing and nowaday if we believe this religion to say that the people who still hold this view are stupid and heretical. Now, being a heretic, of course,

requires obstinacy, wilfulness. Right, You're not just accidentally a heretic. Right, heresy is a sin of will, not just a sin of ignorance. Now, a person can be wilfully ignorant, but that's a different issue. Heresy requires knowledge and obstinacy. In our moral theology and amongst the Church fathers. Right, you can be ignorant and wrong. Doesn't mean you're saved just because you're ignorant. I'm not saying that either, But I'm saying that a heretic in the parlance of the Church fathers,

in canon law, and so forth. There's a person who demonstrates obstinacy. That's why Paul says, reject a heretical man after the first and second admonition. Right, Paul doesn't say reject everybody because everybody's a heretic, Right, he says, reject it to Timothy, a heretical man after the first and second admonition. That's why what you see me typically do is when people are obstinate, obtuse, ridiculous, I don't interact with them anymore. That we will interact initially, we'll have

a time period. If you are obstinate, I move on and I don't interact with you anymore. And so Basil excuse me. Barleum, according to the Synod, according to Saint Gregor Palomas, is called stupid and heretical. David Bentley Hart is stupid and heretical because he's literally repeating what Barleam says. He says that there's no distinction. Pallemism is not different from Romantholicism, even though Roman Catholicism is literally what Barleam says.

And I can therefore say that David Bentley Heart is stupid and heretical. Saint Gregor Palamas moves on into emphatically stress again that the seven spirits of God in scripture do not necessitate the spirit is divided up into seven parts. It doesn't mean that the spirit has seven persons, He's not seven hypostases, but that there really are distinct differences.

There are differences in these seven spirits. Next, we have the allegation of act as purists that God is pure act He is his existence, he is his essence, and Barlem falls back on saying, well, again, if there's a distinction, then it must mean God has composed of parts. So he just kind of like just like a Roman collage. Repeat, it doesn't matter what you say. You say all this stuff and then just fall back into saying, yeah, but God doesn't have parts, Well, that would mean God's composed.

Distinction does not entail composition or Division's that's where the argument goes next. Distinction does not entail composition or division. While their son in spirit are distinct, that does not entail composition and division. Even Luke was admitting to me that a Quinas admits nature in person are distinct. Yes he does, but he contradicts himself. That's the point. So if nature and person are distinct. God's will is distinct from his essence and from the persons. These are real distinctions.

Is the fact that they're distinct mean that God has divided up into parts? Nope, And that's where the word in hypostatized comes into to focus here. In hypostatize, all that means is that the mode in which nature always exists is in persons. Right. It's always instantiated in persons. There's no abstract human nature. Human nature always is in the mode of persons. Right. There is a universal human nature that you and I, we all share, but it always exists in the mode of some person. It's in me,

it's in you, right, and it's common. We all share it. And in the same way in God, there's a common unified nature. Right, but three persons. Now, the mode of being that God has is different from the mode of being that humans have. Right. So, even though we're saying that there's in hypostatized for both God and for humans, God doesn't exist separate human right, It's not like three

different beings. Right. We believe in the Father is the source of unity because he communicates that divinity to the son into the Spirit and also, each of these three persons dwell one another. So the Father fully imperfectly endwells the Son and the Spirit. The Spirit perfectly and fully dwells the Father and the Son et Sara Sarah. If you identify the existence, person an essence of God in a real sense, all as if they are perfectly simple.

Saint Gregory then moves on to say that you will be an atheist, and this position will end in atheism. And the fact that we call God one does not mean that he's undifferentiated. If you believe in actus purists, you should be a modalist. He says, how many times have you heard me say that?

up with a million different objections. He's not talking about inner God, He's just talking about energy in general. No, the section is about the energy is in Christ. What a bunch of liars. So Barleam pulls the trick that Aldo Thomas pull, which is that well, John Damascus says God's not composed and he doesn't have accidents, correct, and the energies are not accidents. Now let's look at another argument that doctor Taylor Marshall has used, and he's relied

on this. I refuted this argument in a comments debate ten years ago, and he still uses the same dumb argument. Point I refuted this in the lectures on John Damascus. Taylor Marshall says, yeah, but Basil says God's essence is one. Of course, it's his essence is one he says God say John Damascus says God's energy is one. Therefore, absolutely my simplicity, You dishonest person, read the book. The book

doesn't just say God's energy is one. It says God's energy is one and multip They love to do this. They quote Hunt and rip it out and ignore the entire context. They do it with Athenacius, where they ignore the fact that the entire context of the debate is about God's actions being distinct from his nature. They do it with Johnamascus where they pull out the quot where he says that God's energy is one, and then they leave out the part where he later says God's energy

is also multiple. They set up the dialectics all the time. By the way, we want to add a little adendum here which refutes the modernists and the Ecumenus, where the Saint Gregor Palomas in chapter thirty five launches into a lengthy discussion well one page, that the scriptures are an errant they do not contain errors, they are God inspired in every respect, they do not have theological errors. They're

not historically inaccurate, and you have to believe this. I have stressed this over and over and over, you can't believe that the scriptures are have errors. Next, Gregory Pelmus stresses again the person nature distinction is similar to the distinction between the cause the father being the cause of the son. Now he's not saying that the same, but he's saying that we believe in a real distinction between person and nature and God. If we didn't, we would

be modalists. We also believe in a real distinction between father as the sole cause and the son has caused. Right, that is a real distinction, That is a real eternal generation. That is a real distinction between father, son, and spirit. He says, therefore, distinction is not composition or division. He then goes on to cite Saint Athanasius and Saint John

Damascus at length in multiple places in this regard. Next, he re emphasizes Saint Basil's arguments from Letter one eighty nine about common energies signifying common nature, and then he goes on to make the argument that if you were consistent, you would be a modalist and a Eunomian, and that Eunomius was more consistent than the Roman Catholic because Eunomius believed in absolute to my simplicity and said that if there's any distinctions and the Son is really distinct, then

he is not the same essence, and he would compromise the perfect unity of God. That's Eunomius's argument. Eunomius is more consistent than the Roman Catholics. Eunomia says, I'm a modalist because if I admit that distinction entails division and composition, and if I admit that the Sun is distinct, then he's not of the same essence as the Father. He's

some other kind of being. Next, Saint Gregor Palamus cites Saint Basil in against Eunomius, Chapter one, section eight, where Saint Basil says that the simplicity doctrine where you unite all the energies and actions in God and I say that they are identical to the essence, is absurd. Once again, Taylor Marshall and all these people are dishonest or they're ignorant. Next, he says that you believe that in the resurrection you

will actually see the essence of God. He says that's called the heresy of the Massallians who believed that they saw the essence of God. Next, he says that when Paul saw the divine light in Acts nine three and Acts twenty two six, that was not a creature. Paul actually saw Christ. Next, he moves to the famous letter of Saint Basil Letter two thirty four, where Basil in one page are used for the essence introduce section very clearly saying that if you believe that all these are

identical to the essence of God, you are fool. And he says that Saint Basil can say this and still believe that God is perfectly holy, one and united. We all participate in God in different ways, showing that distinction is not division. Right, So he gets barleym to the Barley might to admit this, if God is pure essence and that we do really participate in God, then it

would lead to pantheism, correct Saint Gregory says. He then restresses the fact that on one Corinthians twelve says that there are different innergaya, different energies of the spirit one Corinthians twelve, and those energies are actually and truly different. Therefore, they're not identical, and they're not merely created effects. They are uncreated. God is then multiple in a unified way and unified in his multiplicity. Did you hear that God is unified in a multiple way and multiple in a

unified way. That's the Orthodox doctrine, because we don't believe in dialectics, and we don't believe in the stupid heresies of Barley. They are called stupid heresies. Now, if they're called stupid heresies by Saint Gregory Palamos, can we then unite with the Roman Catholic mister ecumenists, No, we can't. If they're called stupid heresies, then obviously they're different. Next, he quotes to Saint Maximus. Sat Maximus says that the Saints get the same uncreated energy that God has. And

that is let's see where that is. The Saints get the same energy as God. That is from Saint Maximus. It's in two places. It's in the letter to Marhinus ninety one and it's in on Problems, section ninety one. If you believe that you see God, you have the doctrine of the Messallians. We as Orthodox, believe in divine simplicity. We do not believe God is composed. He's not divided, he doesn't have parts. And he says that I will solve this dilemma for you. The divine is one. It

is simple. God has one essence. That one is is is that one is, in an appropriate way, a whole w h O l E. In relation to all things that we think about it. God is not divided, He's not split. He does not have parts. For it is then a whole goodness, a whole wisdom, a whole justice, a whole power, just as we as we experience him. He's saying, He says, we think about God this way, it is this. It is this in our thoughts, he says, but it is not. It does not become this because

of because of our thoughts. In other words, it really is this, not even when it is thought, but because it is such from all eternity. Did you hear that? What does the Thomas say? What do the Ecumenists say? They say that Sant Gregor Palmas says that it's a conceptual distinction. It's not real. It is not this because of our and even when it is thought, it is not this. But it is this from all eternity, because

these attributes manifest themselves through his works. So God is one in as many works, and he's also multiple in his many works, there is no dialectical tension between the one and the many and God. We don't set the essence of God over against the multiplicity in God. We don't set the multiplicity in God over against the essence of God. He's not more one than he is three. He's not more three than he is one. He's perfectly one,

but he's also genuinely three. Next, he quotes Saint John Christistom to the effect that the deifying grace that we get is an energy of God, and that energy, in order to deify us, is not created. We are not deified if we are only giving another, if we are given merely another creature. Salvation is not the giving of another creature to us, but the uncreated to us. That's how we become immortal. That's how we have eternal life. Eternal life is not just created life. It's eternal life,

you see. Next he talks about the angelic nature and how even that is created, makes some more distinctions between human nature and angelic nature, but then he talks about how the being of God is different. The book then ends with the Barleamite admitting that he was incorrect, especially after dozens of citations from the church fathers on the distinction being real, and he says that those who are haters of this and haters of Saint Gregor Palamas were

in fact actually envious and jealous. There you go. So that is the summation of the dispute with Barleum, the debate with Barleum. Clearly, the Ecumenists are incorrect. This is not reconcilable with Tomism. Clearly Barleum says all the same stuff as a quitas. Clearly, after this period the Roman Catholic Church adopted the Barleumite type position across the board. I don't just mean on propositions about what simplicity is. I mean about God's simplicity. I mean about Christology. I

mean about the philioque, I mean about creative grace. I mean about the sacraments, I mean about the Beetic vision. And I mean about no doction of the news. That's the critique. And by the way, the papacy itself is also an outworking of divine simplicity. The imbalance of the one and the many in the Trinity in the Roman Catholic conception has led to the doctrine of the imbalance

of the one and the many in the church. That's exactly why they have a supervision, because they have a super essence, a super essence that's absolute, simple, right, all right, So we see that the acumenists are wrong. We see that it's uh. He calls the heretics stupid and heretics and he and then the last point that we wanted to make was once again in the different essay of Father Fluorowsky, the essay called Saint Gregory Palamas in the tradition of the fathers.

but the energy of God. Right. The basic distinction was formally accepted and elaborated at the Great Councils of Constantinople thirteen forty one, thirteen fifty two, thirteen forty one, thirty fifty one. Those who would deny this distinction are anathematized and excommunicated. Did you hear that, Ecumenists, you cannot deny this? Did you hear that David Bentley heart fordom you are excommunicated.

The anathemas of the Council of six fifty one were included in the right for the Sunday of Orthodoxy in the Triodion Orthodoxy. Elogians are bound by this decision. Do you see that therefore we cannot unite with tumism. The essence of God absolutely is incommunicable. The source and power of human theosis is not the divine essence, but the grace of God, the inner gaia, the divinizing energy by participation of which one is devinized as a divine grace. It is no way the essence of God or grace

is not identical to the uzia of the essence. Right divine grace is an uncreated grace and energy. This distinction, however, does not imply or affect division or separation. Here is one of the greatest theologians of the twentieth century in the Orthodox Church, Father Florowski, saying what you've heard me say five hundred times. Nor is the uncreated grace an accident? Do you see this? Thomas. He's telling you what I've been telling you, but you don't listen. Energies proceed from

God and manifest his own being. The term proceed simply suggests a distinction. Right, We're not talking about eternal procession of the spirit here, is just using it in a general sense here of coming from, but not a division. The grace of the spirit is different from the substance and yet not separated from it. Now what Roman Catholic believes this? Maybe some of these uniates, but so what the rest of their church rejects this? And let's read this.

Saint Gregory quotes Saint Cyril of Alexandria. Can you see that? But Saint Cyril at this point was simply repeating Athanasius, what have you been telling? Hearing me say the essence s energy distinction is Athanasius's argument against the arians. If you don't get that, you're a fool, and his reputation of arianism. He formally stressed the ultimate difference between the essence of God or the effusus the nature substance on the one hand, and the will on the other, distinction

between will and counsel. If you read the other essay where he covers this right and the essence of God. This is why the Son is not a projection or a result of the Father's will or energy or work, but is in fact a direct offspring of the Father's nature. That's my quote. Indeed, not a necessity of compulsion, no faught to them, but a necessity of being itself. God simply is what he is. God's will is eminently free.

He is in no sense necessitated to do what he does. Therefore, creation is not identical to the act of creating, is therefore not identical to the essence of God. The essence of God is what it is by necessity if creation, if the act of creating is identical to the essence of God, then creating the world is just as necessary as the essence of God. It's stupid. That's why Basil calls it stupid.

Can you hear that? Can you hear that? Saint Gregory was fully aware of the crucial import importance of this distinction at this point. He is a true successor of Athenasius and the Cappadocians, and so are we and you are not all right? There we go very clear. Now I will be taking questions. The next half of this we will delve into the quotes that he uses from

Saint Maximus, will delve into the logi. Right, it's time to return to the logos logi distinction in Saint Maximus, the exemplars and how the Orthodox view believes them to be created. Excuse me, uncreated energies, uncreated thought wills we call them, and not exemplars in the essence of God like the Thomas say, because that would lead to a necessary creation. So there's that, and I'll take your super chats. If you want to subscribe, you can go to Jasonelsons

dot com. You'll see the members subscribe to become a member for all of the archives and the part two talks. So if you want, if you're interested in Saint Maximus and his statements on the logi, how the logo are also uncreated energies, how he cites say Maximus. That's what we'll talk about in part two. I've had many, many, many requests for more on this from Maximus, so that's

what we're going to do in part two. But because of the recent debates and controversies and events, this was very timely both against the Ecumenists and the Roman Catholics to show the distinction of the position. So I wanted to make that whole book public. In terms of the discussion, we'll get into the deeper stuff with Maximus and the low GI in the second part. For subscribers, I'm going to put the link into the chat right now. If you want to subscribe to Jason Elysis for that, you

can do that over at my website. There you can subscribe by paper or credit card. You can also get my book. There are two books on philosophy and film Start Hollywood one and two there for you and to subscribe. Here is the link at the top for the tab to subscribe to the website if you want to subscribe. So there's that. You can also do it through Patreon if you want to, and tutoring. Tutoring is available through patroon.

All right, let's get to some of these subgests. Hunter twenty three ninety nine pounds as you ask, thank you for asking. Hunter, appreciate that Hollywood Decoded two is not going to happen. Unfortunately it was not. They did not want to purchase another season. And I don't think our other TV show is going to be purchased either. But that's okay. TV shows come and go. There will be more futures, I'm sure for all that kind of stuff. And Hunter again says, it's a shame. It is a shame.

It would have been nice to have Hollywood to Code season two or the other show that we were going to do, Pop a Culture would have been cool. Maybe we can maybe those will still get picked up. You know, you never know. Uh Shale eight four nine, Jay, I'm new to Orthodoxy and the only church nam he is Greek. I've been going to liturgies and was wondering what I should be wary of or asked the priests about. Well, I mean you don't have to ask him questions to

see if you're wary. I mean you should be able to get a feel for the church, for you know, going there for a while to see if it's if it's good or bad. But I mean, if you want a simple test question, you could just say, do you believe in higher critical approaches to the Bible?

like I know who this is. I would let me, you know, let me just get John Damascus out for you. And I actually went and read the sections to all the sections that I think you know who you are sent to me. The first thing I will say is that if you look at how in hypostatized is used in the Philosophical chapters, you will notice that in chapter twenty nine he talks about two different senses to the

way that this term is used. Sometimes it's used to just talk about the way that human beings are, and sometimes it's used to talk about the individual in itself, in itself. Did you hear that in itself? Now?

from two divine natures. Excuse me, from two natures, two diverse natures, he says, one human, one divine. You see, So I am not denying that he's composite, and I don't have a problem saying that hypostasis is the subject which is composite. But it's not the hypostasis itself, because, as both down Damascus and Saint Maximus say, he he is a reference to hypostasis personhood. He remained in himself what he was. He remained what he was when he

assumed human nature. There was no alteration in the hypostasis itself, in itself, because it's from all eternity. Now, when we move on to chapter forty three, he discusses person what is hypostasis? Right, and he talks about operations from the hypostasis, and he says that one should know that the Holy Fathers use the term hypostasis, person and individual in the same way. So, for example, Peter and Paul are hypostasis, right, but they have one common nature. Then he goes on

to discuss in hypostaton or in hyposthetized. He uses it in the damn same sense that I told you that. It means that the only mode or tropos in which nature exists is in the mode or tropos of person. What is called in hypostatized is that which has assumed another hypostasis, and in this it has its existence. Thus, the body of the Lord, since it never subsisted of itself, not even as an infant, is not a hypostasis. The

human nature is not a hypostasis. Right, That would be the stories, but it is in hypostatized because the divine person is the hypostasis. The body of Christ has as its personhood the divine person of the Logos, and this is because it was assumed by the Hope. Again here it is forty four. Why does Christ's humanity not have any hypostasis of itself? Because it was assumed by the hypostasis of God the Word, and this subsisted and does

have this for a hypostasis. So the hypostasis of the body of the Word is the eternal second person of the Godhead. The only person there, the only person that's present, is the second person of the Godhead. Now you said, and we can go over by the way in chapter sixty six where he expounds in hypostatona again the two natures are what becomes hypostatically united, but they are absolutely indivisible. I told you that I believe that we don't mix them.

And you're a heretic for calling me. You're bad willed for calling me a heretic saying that I'm a Monophysite. And by the way, I don't want your money. He goes on in chapter sixty six to say that the hypo stasis of Christ assumed an additional nature, and he talks about the controversies about Saint Cyril. He says that in Christ, because in him the divine and the human natures are united. Right, so he becomes composite because he has two natures. Right, the hypostasis itself remains what he

was it in terms of he remains. The hypostasis is subsistence in self. He says this in this section. This is section sixty six. In Christ, the divine and the human natures are united, while his animate body subsisted in the preexistent hypostasis of God the Word. His animate body subsisted and its mode of being, its existence is in the pre existent person of God the Word. He's not saying that the body of Christ existed from all eternity. He's saying that the body of Christ subsists in the

pre existent hypostasis of God the Word. This body has this logos for a hypostasis. It is, however, quite impossible for one compound nature to be made from two natures or from one, or for one hypostasis to be made from two. Did you hear me? It is quite impossible for one compound nature that would be a monophysite to be made from two natures, or for one hypostasis to be made from two. Therefore, it's not composite in itself. It is composite in the sense of having two natures.

The hypostasis of Christ possesses a divine nature from all eternity and united himself to a human nature, the humanity. The human nature has for its hypostasis the second person of the Godhead. It is quite impossible for one compound nature to be made from two, or for one hypostasis to be made from two, And then he goes on to say that the hypostasis is subsistent in itself. It must further be known that in the Holy Trinity, a hypostasis is the timeless mode of each eternal existence. Right,

so each person exists in an eternal hypostatic mode. That's not modalism. I know that you know that, but some people might mishear me and think that I'm talking about modalism. And then he also refused this in there's a section in I made a note about this, we shared it in the chat. There's a section in the defense where he talks about this as well, when he talks about who the hypostasis is from all eternity, And how the only sense in which it's composite is the two natures.

He suffered no alteration or change in who he was, except that he became composite in assuming nature human nature. And by the way, how stupid is it to call us monophysite when I sit here spending countless hours arguing about two energies in Christ. There's no way to be monophysite and hold to two energies in Christ, because energies are properties and faculties of nature. If I was monophysite, there would be one energy in Christ. I wouldn't be defending.

I wouldn't have giant stacks of books that deal with diothelitism. By the way, speaking of Christ's composite after the incarnation does not mean that we continue to view him as if he were separate. He is the god Man. There is only, and for all eternity one god Man. That's why Saint Justin Popovich's works are so good is because

he consistently emphasizes the god Man. But just like it's not wrong to talk about the theological controversies, and therefore to talk about Christ as pre existent and Christ as having two natures as this book does. Dummy, it's not wrong to speak that way. So let's see the section that is in the defense that deals with this is where he talks about Cyril and the energies. This would be section eleven of book three, where he talks about in what sense the incarnation and the union happened? How

to understand Cyril. Dude, I wouldn't be sitting here quoting look at this if my intention was to undermine Orthodoxy. I wouldn't be citing the guy who the Monophysites don't like. This is so stupid. So anyway, I may just write an essay on this, because multiple sections in the What you're not understanding is what it means to say that he's a divine person from all eternity, right, the pre existent eternal word.

So what you misunderstood was just simply the terminology. You misunderstood the fact that saying the hypostasis is composite does not mean the hypostasis itself is composite. He remains what

he was from all eternity. Both he and Saint Maximus say that when they explain it anyway, I'm not interacting with you anymore anyway, so themthrowpost is explained in book three to mean what I'm telling you it means justin stam ten dollars, Yo, dog, could you clarify Excess thirty three eleven, where it talks about distinct attributes glory and goodness seems to be different in translations. Well, of course, I mean, as you know, the septuagen is the normative

text for us. So let's see what expdus thirty three. I don't think that. I mean the point was to differentiate God's essence from his actions, and that the story of Moses tells us this. So let's see. Let's see what thirty three eleven says that Moses spoke face to face Okay, so you're saying that distinct attribute glory and goodness. Thirty three eleven. All the people saw the pillar of the Cloud and the tabernacle, and they worshiped each man at his tent door. The Lord spoke face to face

with Moses as a man speaks to his friend. Then he would return to the camp, but his servant, Joshua, the son of Nune, a young man, did not depart from the tabernacle. Okay, I mean, maybe I'm missing the I mean, I know he tells Moses that he will let his goodness pass before him. So let me look at what the Masoretic text would read there thirty three eleven. I don't I'm not seeing that. Maybe it's different between the two agent and the masoretic text is what they issued.

So the Mazarek text says, so God the Lord spoke to Moses face to face. Yeah, I don't see where you're talking about the difference between glory and goodness. It's it's you know, in the Moses story, it talks about Moses says, let me see her face, and God says, you can see my goodness. Sorry, justin I'm a little confused. Misty earnst one dollar. Thank you missing appreciate that oplaton o platon, the hypostasis itself is from all eternity. By the way, this is all we have to do is

to read this. The only sense in which is composite is because his hypostasis has appropriated and taken on a human nature. The human nature has for its subject the eternal divine person. Right, So in no sense is Christ a human person. His humanity does have for its subject a divine person, and Saint Maximus is very clear about that. But when you read this book, which is a refutation of monophysitism, it makes all of that very clear. By the way, I'm banning you because I know who you

are and I don't want your five dollars. Sauna Shauna Sawyer ten bucks. Bless Jay for explaining original Christianity, how and how the theology practice is devolved from the time the heresies of Franks, the great skills of the Reformation, Renaissance Vatic into New World Order. Yes, that's the key. It's it's it's a big picture, and that I think is the correct analysis. Steve Green five bucks, what is

meant by accident in this context? Well, in the risk Atilian conception, you have the notion of objects being composed of substance or an essence, and then they have accidental qualities, which are maybe secondary qualities. Right, So a chair has chairness, but then it has the secondary or accidental quality such as being read or being short, or being small or you know whatever. Those are qualities that aren't necessary to being a chair. But whatever chaerness is, that's the essence

of being a chair. Right. So in Roman Catholic theology they will adopt the substance accident approach of Aristotle and then try to kind of apply this across the board. And then when they apply it to the deity, they say, well, God cannot God has pure, perfect, simple substance, and therefore if he has distinctions that are real, then it must mean that he has accidents and accidental qualities, and that

can't be because that would mean he's composed. So that's a category mistake where we don't apply the risk to the categories to God himself. Now, when I say that, I don't mean that we can't speak of God as the cause. Right. If I say God is the first cause, that doesn't mean that I believe that he is the thought thinking itself of Aristotle. Right, if I say that God is logos, that doesn't mean that he is identified with Marcus Aurelius's principle that permeates the universe. It's not

the same thing. So we can't make category mistakes or word mistakes, word term mistakes, right, mistaking words for the concepts. But what happens in Roman Catholicism is that they assume, like with John Damascus, when John Damscus talks about distinction between God's energies and God's essence, they say that it can't mean what Orthodox say because John Damascus says that God has no accidents. Correct. But John Damascus, as you just saw Father Florofsky say, does not conceive of there

being accidents. That the accidents are uncreated energies. Uncreated energies are not accidents in God. Slaber Chops, Tim Bucks God, bless you day, Thank you, slabtops Lem just appreciate it. Bruce Bronson one dollar, Bruce Bronson, one dollar, thank you. So once again, Yes, the hypostasis of Christ is composite in the sense of now he exists and subsists with two natures. The hypostasis itself is from all eternity, and it is the pre eternal word of God. He's a person,

he's a hypostasis from all eternity. The only thing that he assumed was a human nature. He remained what he was. Both John Damascus and Saint Maximus say in assuming human nature, now he is the god man. Now those natures are not compounded, they are composite. Composite does not mean compounded and confused, You are confused. I'm talking about the psycho who keeps following me and gets banned. That's you. I'm not going to name him. He's done. We're not interacting

with him ever again. All right, So the only reason he asked that question was to try to trip me up so he can try to have some kind of dirt. But we've already subtled the matter with that guy. We've gone above his head. My work has been blessed now by the hierarchs, so it doesn't matter what he says. All right. I don't see any more super chats. Do we have anybody who wants to debate? Anybody want to come on and debate. Also, we covered that composite issue

again in my chat. It's just a category mistake. They're misunderstanding what's composite. Yes, the hypostasis is composite in the sense of assuming human nature. Two nature's is what makes it composite. Islami Janissary going debate. So we have a Muslim and wants to debate. Yeah, we have Muslims debating all week in the in the discord. By the way,

I will be debating Matt Dila Hunty August eighth. So if you've not, I'm sure most of you probably know who Matt Dila Hunty is, the now well known atheist. He did a debate with JBP a while back. It was very popular. People are saying, don't bother.

But because he's a divine person. He is impassable, right, his divine nature is impassable. John Damascus covers us at length at the end of book three and at the beginning of book four. So at the end of book three he talks about the death and dissent of Christ into Hades, his human soul descending into Hades. And in the beginning of book four he ends that section and

he explains what we mean. So the only reason that you Islamic apologists are saying that is because you think that that Christ is just like kind of one entity. We say that Christ always possesses two natures, and that when he suffered and died, it was only his human nature that suffered and died. Now, the subject who underwent that actions is the second person of the godhead, right,

the only person present for all those actions. Now, I'm not dropping the discord link into the chat because there'll be a million retards that will pile in there and junk it up. Jay Paul says in Timothy that God is immortal, but he died a human death. So he yeah, this is called dialectics, right. God is immortal, but that's why we say he took on a human nature. He didn't become a human. He remained divine and he assumed human nature. And those natures interpenetrate one another, but they

never lose their properties. Right, So his humanity really did suffer die, but his divinity is impassable. Right, so he was never separated from his humanity. As John Davascus says, Look, just read the last look, all right, Actually be helpful because a lot of people make a mistake on this point. This will also help refute that moron. It was just in here, all right. So let's go to book three and I'm gonna put up the screenshot for you here,

so this will respond to your question. What we're saying here. Let's take the death of Christ as an example. Now, we never separate Christ as if we actually in reality are dividing him. Okay, he's always the god Man, even in his death. He is the god Man for all eternity. He will beat the god Man. Right, But there was a death that occurred. Now, John Demssus is going to make clear that when Christ died in this what he

calls the appropriation. This is right after this the section where he talks about my God, My God, why have you forsaken me. The Father did not forsake him in the sense of splitting the trendity, because he's a divine person. But Christ's death was real, It wasn't a phantasm, it wasn't imaginary. Well, how do we make sense of that? How can he die? Right? Well, because you're you're thinking of Christ as one compound thing, right, one, he's only divine,

he's not. He's divine and human. So let's read this. The Word of God then itself endured all in the flesh. Right, So the second person of the Godhead, right, the Word of God then endured in it in it's then itself. By the way he speaks of the second person of the Godhead itself, just like I told that retard, he says he doesn't. There it is right there he the

Word of God itself. Right, the second hypes the second person of Godhead, the eternal hypostasis, endured everything in the flesh, while his divine nature alone was passionless and remain void of passion. Christ has two natures. This is what you don't understand. So God didn't die in the sense of his divine nature changing. For since the one Christ, who is compound of divinity in humanity. Oh oh, by the way, did you see that retard? What's he compound of divinity

in humanity? Right? Two natures compound the very thing that you said was an off site. Get out of here, you retard, and exists in divinity in humanity. He truly suffers. He exists, in exists, his hypostasis exists in humanity and divinity. It truly suffered. What truly suffered he did in his humanity, in the part which was capable of passion. What part was capable of suffering his humanity. I'm not talking to

the Islamic guy as the retard. I'm talking about the guy who's been obsessively tweeting or not tweeting following me that I had to go to the hierarchs about.

he's the second person of Godhead from all eternity. He assumes human nature, and he does suffer, but he suffers in his humanity, in the part of him that could suffer. Right, So Christ himself does not have parts. But when he assumed human nature, he became composite, compound of divinity and humanity. Compound of divinity in humanity. That's not monophysite retard for the soul. Indeed, since it is capable of passion, shares in the pain of suffering of a bodily cut, though

it is not cut, but only the body. But the divine part, which is void of passion, does not share in the suffering of the body. Christ's divinity is impassable. His divinity was not changed, didn't suffer in alteration, It didn't die. Observe. Further, we say that when we say God suffered in the flesh, this is called communicastio idiomatum. This comes from Saint Cyril, and it just means that we can say one thing about one nature, but we can apply it to the whole Christ. That's what commune

castio ideomotum means. But we never say that his divinity suffered in the flesh, or that God suffered through the flesh. For if when the sun is shining upon a tree, the act should clean the tree, and nevertheless the sun remains uncleft and void of passion. Much more will the passionless divinity of the word united in subsistence to the flesh. Subsistence here just means person, the one, the divinity of the word, united in the subsistence, in his subsistence to

the flesh. Right, his divine person is united to the flesh. That is his human humanity is human nature. It remained void of passion when the body undergoes passion. And should any one poor water over flaming steel, it is that which naturally suffers by the water, I mean the fire that is quenched, But the steel remains untouched, for it is not the nature still to be destroyed by water.

Much more than when the flesh suffered, did his only passionless divinity escape all passion, although abiding inseparably from it. For one must not take the examples too absolutely and strictly. Indeed, in the examples one must consider both what it is like is unlike. So he's just saying these are analogies with the steel and water and fire, heat whatever, for if they weren't like in all respects, they would be identities,

not examples. Then he goes on to say concerning the divinity of the Lord, how it remained inseparable from the soul and the body at Christ's death, and that his subsistence continue to be one. This is also going to refute that retard even further our psychopath, not the Muslim guy, the other guy. So continuing, he says, since our Lord Jesus Christ was without sin, he committed no sin. A scripture says, right, he was not subject to death, since

death came into the world through sin. There had another so called true Orthodox clown trying to say I was a heretic because I said he assumed the nature that Adam had. That's what John Damascus says right here, he was not subject to death, right, But he willingly took on our mortal condition. But not because he inherited original or ancestral sin. He took on himself death on our behalf.

You see, he will too, and he made himself an offering to the Father for our sakes, for we sinned against him, and it was meet that he should receive the ransom for us, and that we should thus be delivered from the combination. God forbid that the blood of the Lord should have been offered to the tyrant. Right, So he's saying that it wasn't an offering to Satan. Wherefore death approaches and swallowing up the body, talking about

Christ's body as bait. Death is transfixed on the hook or excuse me, the Christ's body, he's saying, is debate. The bait is transfixed on the hook of divinity. Right. So the it's almost like the if you think about the matrix, when when Neo like goes into agent Smith or whatever and it destroys Agent Smith. I mean, that's

a dumb analogy, but I don't know. This is what pops in my head, Like when when when Satan took this into his realm, into the realm of death, so to speak, this sinless and life giving body, uh, is the bait, and then this is the means by which Satan is destroyed. He's saying, after tasting the sinless and lifegiving body, it perishes and brings up again all who died of old. He swallowed up speeding of death for

just as darkness disappears in the introduction of light. So death, so is death repulsed before the assault of life and brings life to all, but death to the destroyer. Wherefore, although he died as man and his holy spirit was severed from his immaculate body, yet his divinity remained inseparable from both. See there, I mean, from his soul and

his body. So even though his one hypostasis was not divided into two, you see, he remains to be one hypostasis when his death, when the death occurs, for the body and soul receives simultaneous in the beginning, there being the body and the soul, they have one hypostasis, the word eternal word. He's a divine person. And although they were separated from one another, the body and soul, that

is by death, you see. And wait, let's see, So the one hypostasis, that's what subsistence means here of the word alike is the subsistence of the word and of the soul and body. Right, So, in other words, there's only one person present, the divine person and the soul and body of the humanity. The only person that they have is the person of the word. For no time had either the soul or the body, a separate subsistence of their own. That would be Nestorianism, different from that

of the Word. And the subsistence of the Word is forever one, and at no time too, you see, so that the subsistence of Christ is always one. That means the subsistence the hypostasis of Christ is never composite. It is always one. It is composite in the sense of having two natures. It is not composite in the sense of undergoing an alteration and change. It is always one. Subsistence means person. For although the soul was separated from

the body topically, yet hypostatically, they were united through the Word. So, in other words, even when Christ died and his soul descended, the only person present as his soul descends into Hades is the divine person of the Word. They were always hypostatically united in the person of the Word. Now let's look at the death and destruction in the descent into Hades. This is a great question, by the way, because this

trips up all the Protestants. Protestants are all tripped up on this, and they fall into a bunch of a whole bunch of heresies on this one. So let's look at this last section. Where's my screenshot? Make sure I got the right screenshot here? Yeah, here we go. Concerning corruption and destruction, the corruption has two meanings. It signifies at times all human sufferings such as hunger, thirst, weakness, nail's death, that has separation soul and body, so forth.

In this sense, we may say that the Lord's body was subject to corruption, for he voluntarily accepted those things. In other words, he was not subject to those things naturally. He did not accept ancestral sin. He did not accept original sin. Whatever terms you want to use. We don't teach that. Maximus is very clear in at the lassium twenty one, and that's why he has no nomic will. But corruption means also the complete resolution of the body.

In other words, his body didn't decompose, is what we were saying. Body Lord did not experience this form of corruption. As David says, he will not leave my soul in hades hell, nor will you allow your holy one to see coruption. Wherefore he talks about two heretics, Julianus and Guyanas thought that Christ's body was incorruptible in the sense in the first sense, that he didn't experience hunger thirst before his resurrection, which is absurd, for if he were incorruptible,

it was not really the same essence as us. In other words, he didn't really have full humanity. The gospels tell us that this happened, that he was hungry, he was thirsty, nails, there was wound in his side. But if they only apparently happened, then the crucifixion wasn't real. It was a sham. Right, we don't believe that. So he's just talking about two errors that we don't accept.

The second maning of the word corruption, we confess that the Lord's body is incorrupt, that is indestructible, for such as the tradition of the church. Indeed, after the resurrection of the Savior from the dead, we know that our Lord's body is incryptible, even from the first sense of the word. For in other words, after the resurrection, he doesn't suffer hunger, thirst, weary, weariness, et cetera. For he bestowed those gifts upon his resurrected body. That's so he

deified it. Right, Descruption must put on incruption Concerning the descent into hades, the soul Christ soul when it was deified, descended into hades in order to that, just as the son of righteousness Malchi for two rose from those upon the earth, so likewise he might bring to light those who sit under the those in hades in darkness and the shadow of death as a nine two, in order that, just as he brought the message of peace to those upon the earth and release of those prisoners, he became

to those who believe the author of relazing salvation. So, in other words, the gospel was even preached to the dead, as Peter says, so that he might become the same lord to those in hades. Every need will bow to him, those in heaven, those in the earth, and those under the earth Philippians to ten. And thus, after he had freed those from who'd been bound for the ages hades, straightways, here rose again from the dead, showing us the way of resurrection. So we do not say that God in

his divinity suffered and died. That is a mistake in terms of the communicastio idiomatum. All right, Uh, let's see, I don't think there's anything else going on here. We've got one more super chat. John Kalikas ten bucks our graces divine help towards salvation for rational creatures. Sure, I mean they're not just helps, but they're salvation itself. If so, how do they exist before all creation, including creatures? They

are intended to help? Well, they're not just helps. I mean, that's kind of like the Roman Catholic idea of like God giving you little spankings and power boosts or something. That's not the Orthodox conception. The Orthodox conception is that grace is the uncreated life of God and glory of God himself. So I would say to you, John Kleikus,

just read John seventeen. That's one of the clearest passages because Jesus says that the same glory that he possessed with the Father and the Spirit before the foundation of the world, which is obviously an eternal, uncreated glory, is the very thing that he intends to give to the saints. So from John seventeen one all the way down to verse twenty in his high priestly prayer, he makes that very clear. So anyway, all right, good talk to you guys.

If you want to read more on this. Again, everything that I'm saying, it's all in defense of the Orthodox faith. Especially Book three. Okay. So Book three is where it really talks about Christology and where he really applies the uncreated energies to Christology. It's where he goes into what the new theadric energy is. It's what he goes where he goes into in what sense Christ is composite and in what sense he's not. Okay, it's all in book three. And this is the second time I've read it in

ten years. I just did an entire lecture series through the whole book. I know what I'm talking about. I'm not making this up. I'm not inventing heresies. To those who are so called Orthodox, and then to those who are Roman Catholics, we want to stress that we are in coherent consistence with the Counsels and the Fathers, and you were not, and that's why you have to become Orthodox. And so those who are interested in the website first part two with Saint Maximus, you can again, I'll put

the link again here for you. You can join the website or you can buy the book at the shop at the website. So let's do that real quick and again. August eighth, Matt Dilla Honey all to be debating Matt. That should be an interesting debate. There is to subscribe to the site and if you would like to buy the books, the sign copies, Philosophy and film all your favorite movies. You can purchase sign copies of the book here.

Cool beans, dude. All right, God bless you guys, have a good night, and I will talk to you next time in Part two with Saint Maximus and the Logi that will be up in the next day or two.